In the last section of the letter (2 Cor. 10–13) Paul makes a frontal attack on his opponents to prepare the Corinthians for his third visit to Corinth. In chapter 10 he has already dealt with two of the opponents’ accusations against him. Now, in 11:1–12:13, the apostle condescends to boasting about himself at the provocation of the opponents and in the face of a lack of concrete support from the Corinthians. These opponents, who evidently bill themselves as “apostles,” had made a strong impression on the church at Corinth with their subversive teachings and robust appeal. Their boasting provoked Paul to engage in similar boasting, even though he recognized it to be utterly foolish. He had already resorted to self-commendation earlier in the letter (cf. 1:12–14; 6:3–10). Now, however, in this extended and, in part bitterly ironic “Fool’s Speech” (11:21b–12:13), Paul boasts in an attempt both to counter the accusations of his opponents and to expose the false apostles as frauds who pervert the gospel and lead the Corinthians astray. To a certain degree, the apostle thereby stoops to the methods of the opponents, for they too boast and try to discredit Paul as a fraud; however, Paul uses these methods self-consciously and openly, aware of their foolishness.
The section can be divided into two parts. In the first part (11:1–21a) Paul prepares the Corinthians for his foolish boasting about himself, requesting that they endure it. For the apostle, such boasting must have been insufferable. In the second part (11:21b–12:13) Paul delves into the boasting itself, concentrating on two main points: (1) his apostolic activities and sufferings (11:21b–33) and (2) his apostolic revelations (12:1–10).
11:1–4 In the first part of this section on Paul’s self-praise, he prepares the Corinthians for his foolish boasting about himself (11:1–21a). He begins the preparation in verses 1–4 with the request that the Corinthians put up with his foolishness.
11:1 Paul entreats the Corinthians to permit him the foolishness of boasting. Foolishness is another of the wisdom categories that Paul uses in 2 Corinthians. Based on what he has already said in 6:14–16, Paul would probably classify foolishness within the sphere of all things that stand opposed to Christ, who is the Wisdom of God (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24, 30). By calling his own boasting foolishness, Paul indirectly characterizes the opponents’ self-praise as foolishness as well. The apostle asks the Corinthians’ forbearance as he affects a foolish position for the heuristic purpose of exposing the ludicrous behavior of the opponents.
11:2 The reason (gar, untranslated NIV) that Paul asks the Corinthians’ forbearance is that he is jealous for them. The term jealousy, or rather “zeal,” is drawn from the character of Yahweh as the sole husband of Israel (cf. Hos. 1–3; Ezek. 16; Isa. 50:1–2; 54:1–8; 62:5), which is spoken of, correspondingly, as his bride (cf. Isa. 49:18).
Mark 2:19 refers to the Messiah as a bridegroom, and Ephesians 5:22–33 applies this image to the relationship between Christ and the church. Just as Phinehas, the OT prototypical zealot (Num. 25:1–13; cf. Ps. 106:28–31; Sir. 45:23–24; 1 Macc. 2:26, 54), was eager to keep Israel pure from foreign influences, especially intermarriage, which would subvert its devotion to the one true God, so also Paul was zealous to keep the church a pure virgin until the Parousia, when Christ will receive the church for himself.
11:3 The apostle fears that the Corinthians might be led astray by the false apostles. The bridal image that Paul introduces in verse 2 brings to mind the first human bride, Eve, and the intruder who beguiled her into disobedience (Gen. 3:1–7, 13). In Jewish tradition, the serpent is interpreted as Satan (cf. 1 En. 69:6; 2 En. 31:6; Apoc. Ab. 23; L.A.E. 9; Apoc. Mos. 17; b. Yebam. 103b; Pirqe R.El. 13:1; Wis. 2:23–24). Paul has already referred to “Satan” (2:11) and “Belial” (6:15), and in the subsequent context he refers again to “Satan” (11:14; 12:7) as an “angel of light” (11:14).
11:4 The reason (For, gar) for Paul’s fear is given in verse 4. Here, the apostle refers to an individual (someone; lit., “he who comes”), as if there were only one intruder. Perhaps Paul is thinking of the ringleader, for elsewhere he clearly refers to a plural number of opponents. These interlopers did not come on the scene, as some interpreters suppose, after Paul sent 2 Corinthians 1–9 to Corinth, for their presence is known in the earlier chapters of the letter as well (cf., e.g., 2:17; 3:1; 5:12; 6:14–7:1). The fact that Paul’s opponents come into his divinely allotted apostolic territory (cf. 10:13–17) is also a major factor in the conflict in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11–12). Interestingly enough, Sirach 45:18 refers to those who were involved in Korah’s rebellion as “outsiders” (allotrioi; cf. Num. 16:40). Of course, the problem is not just that the interlopers illicitly cross a territorial boundary line, but that they actually interfere with Paul’s mission by preaching a different gospel (cf. Gal. 1:6–9) and thus causing the church to defect from its founding apostle. In a similar way, Jewish tradition portrays Korah as denying the Torah that was revealed through Moses (cf. Ps.-Philo 16; Num. Rab. 18:12; b. Sanh. 110a). The way that Paul defends himself in 2:14–4:6 shows that the opponents were promoting a gospel very much like the different gospel that had brought the Galatian churches into confusion, that is, one that emphasized obedience to the Mosaic law. Paul scolds the Corinthians for so easily accepting the opponents and their message. Earlier in the letter he has exhorted them to dissociate completely from the intruders (cf. 5:12; 6:14–7:1). Paul is the primary and legitimate mediator of the Spirit to the Corinthians (3:3, 6). The others proffer only what Paul rhetorically calls a different spirit (cf. Rom. 8:15) and even “a different Jesus” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:16, which refers to Paul’s view of Jesus before his call/conversion). In Paul’s view, the true gospel and the true Spirit are so inextricably bound together that to preach a false gospel is to preach a different spirit. Hence, by accepting a different gospel the Corinthians invalidate their own life in Christ and the Spirit.
11:5–11 In this subsection Paul compares himself favorably with the rival preachers who have come to Corinth to usurp his authority. The transition from verse 4 to verse 5 is important for the identification of the opponents. According to some interpreters, the preachers in verse 4 are to be distinguished from the “super-apostles” in verse 5: the latter are the Jerusalem apostles and the former are their emissaries. However, there is nothing in the text to suggest a major shift in subject between these verses. In fact, the connector between verses 4 and 5 (gar, untranslated NIV) suggests that the term super-apostles in verse 5 elaborates on the preachers mentioned in verse 4. The NIV signals this relationship by translating the super-apostles as those super-apostles.
After stating his thesis (v. 5), Paul handles two accusations that the outsiders have lodged against him concerning his alleged inadequacies: (1) his lack of eloquence in public speaking (v. 6), and (2) his failure to accept support from the Corinthians (vv. 7–11).
11:5 Paul affirms his parity with the super-apostles. The sarcastic term super-apostles (tōn hyperlian apostolōn) shows that, from Paul’s perspective, the outsiders have come to Corinth in order both to subvert his own God-given apostolic authority and to usurp his God-given apostolic territory (cf. 10:13–18) by putting themselves above Paul. As we have seen throughout 2 Corinthians (1:24; 2:6–7, 15, 17; 3:1), Paul compares the opposition to Korah’s rebellion, in which Korah and his followers rebelled against Moses and Aaron in order to set themselves up as the authorities in the congregation (Num. 16–17). Despite his lack of rhetorical ability, which recalls Moses (see on 10:10; 11:6), Paul will not allow that he is inferior to his opponents who seek to arrogate to themselves apostolic power and prestige. The implicit reason for this is that Paul, like Moses, received his apostolic authority from God (cf. 3:5–6; 10:18; Num. 16:11, 28, 30). Ironically, Paul goes on to state later in the same passage that he is “not the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing” (2 Cor. 12:11; cf. 10:7; 11:21–22). From Paul’s perspective, therefore, the outsiders are less than nothing, despite their pretentious claims.
Very likely Paul refers to the opponents as super-apostles because they call themselves apostles(apostoloi). Perhaps they see themselves as envoys of the “pillar” apostles in Jerusalem (cf. Gal. 2:9), replete with letters of recommendation to attest their sending (cf. 2 Cor. 3:1). As we discussed on 8:23, which speaks of certain brothers who are “apostles of the churches,” there is evidence in Jewish sources of “apostles” who are sent out on specific missions by Jewish authorities. Churches, including the mother church in Jerusalem, probably appropriated this practice. It appears that the opponents, who consider themselves “apostles” in a derivative sense (i.e, by the authority of the sending church), dispute Paul’s apostleship, which allegedly relies on direct revelation of the resurrected Christ for its commission and authority (although 11:12 does refer to the “signs” of apostleship). From Paul’s perspective, this challenge to his authority compares with the situation Moses had to face with the wilderness generation, when he had to demonstrate that the Lord had sent him (cf. Num. 16:28).
11:6 Paul explains the first way in which he is not inferior to the “super-apostles.” He uses very compressed language here that cannot be translated unless it is unpacked. The singular subject of the first half of the verse (I) does not fit with the implied subject (perhaps we) of the plural participle in the second half. Literally, the first half reads as though the apodosis is missing: “Now if I am also an amateur in the speech, but not in the knowledge.…” Thereupon, the second half begins abruptly with the adversative conjunction alla: “but in every way [we] have revealed [the knowledge] in all things to you.” The general sense is relatively clear if these two halves are pieced together and the appropriate words are supplied. Paul acknowledges his deficiency in public speaking very much as Moses did (see on 10:10). But, also like Moses, Paul exults in revealed knowledge mediated to others, albeit in this case it is the knowledge of Christ that God reveals through him to others, including the Corinthians (see on 2:14).
11:7–11 Paul discusses a second way in which he is allegedly inferior to the outsiders, that is, in terms of accepting gifts from the Corinthians.
11:7 The apostle begins with a rhetorical question expecting a negative answer. Was it wrong for him not to accept financial support from the Corinthians, when his opponents evidently did (cf. 2:17; 11:20)? According to Acts 18:3, Paul supported himself while in Corinth by means of manual labor (cf. also 1 Thess. 2:9), although he later accepted contributions from the Macedonians (2 Cor. 11:9; cf. Phil. 2:25; 4:10–20). Already in 1 Corinthians 9:14, Paul defended his right as an apostle to receive support from the churches, even as he also explained why he voluntarily relinquished that right (1 Cor. 9:15–17). Earlier in 2 Corinthians, Paul has touched on the subject of peddling the word of God (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17), and he returns to this contentious issue in the subsequent context (cf. 12:13–18). Since Paul has divine authority for his apostleship, he is not concerned with demonstrating his authority by taking advantage of his privileged position. But he is distressed by accusations of graft and avarice. Hence, he preaches the gospel free of charge. When Moses was charged with lording it over the congregation (Num. 16:3; see on 2 Cor. 1:24) he countered that he had not taken tribute from anyone (Num. 16:15). Evidently Paul follows the same general principle in exercising his apostolic ministry. Seen in this light, Paul could not be accused of exalting himself. Quite the opposite, he was elevating the Corinthians, whom he refused to bilk.
By selflessly refusing support from the Corinthians Paul exemplified among the Corinthians the Lord Jesus Christ, who, though he was rich, yet for their sakes became poor, so that they might become rich through his poverty (cf. 2 Cor. 8:9). Nevertheless, the following verses tend to detract from Paul’s magnanimity.
11:8–9 Paul explains the means by which he was able to preach the gospel free of charge to the Corinthians. This is a remarkable statement in several ways. First, Paul acknowledges that he received support from other churches (see on v. 7). If Paul’s refusal to accept support from the Corinthians was a source of controversy in Corinth, then the fact that he accepted funds from other churches may have contributed to the problem in the first place, since it could have been construed as showing favoritism and a lack of love for the Corinthians (cf. v. 11; 12:13). To mention the receipt of support from other sources may also have exacerbated the situation, demonstrating once again how double-minded and inconsistent Paul really was (cf. 1:17). Second, Paul claims to have robbed (or “plundered”) these other churches, a highly provocative formulation for someone who defends himself against the charge of exploitation in the previous context (cf. 7:2). His manner of speaking is, of course, hyperbolic and ironic, but it would seem to play into the hands of the opponents. Perhaps this is just what Paul wants in this prelude to the “Fool’s Speech.” Third, the apostle states that it was the brothers from Macedonia who supplied his need—members of the very church that is described as destitute in 8:2. With heightening intensity, Paul declares that even when he was very needy in Corinth he was so intent on not being a burden to the Corinthians that he chose to “rob” a church that was in abject poverty rather than risk offending the Corinthians. All of this was ultimately for the Corinthians’ own benefit (so as to serve you).
11:10–11 Paul expresses his determination to continue his policy of declining support from the Corinthians. Here again, Paul uses an oath formula (as surely as the truth of Christ is in me) both to show his determination and to assert his claim (cf. 2 Cor. 1:18, 23; 11:31; Gal. 1:20; Rom. 9:1). The truth of Christ is in Paul in that Christ speaks through him (cf. 13:3). On the one hand, the apostle fears that, in the face of opposition in Corinth, to accept contributions from the Corinthians would deprive him of his boasting. As he states in 1 Corinthians 9:15, he would rather die than have anyone deprive him of the boast of voluntarily declining to exercise his apostolic rights. Like Moses, he wants to be able to declare, with all good conscience, that he has not accepted gifts from the congregation (cf. Num. 16:15). Paul’s boast will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia; he will continue his policy of not accepting support in the territory allotted to him by God (cf. 2 Cor. 10:12–18). It is a question of apostolic prerogative.
On the other hand, Paul fears that his refusal to accept gifts will be interpreted as a lack of love for the Corinthians. Hence, he resorts again to the witness of God (cf. 1:18, 23; also 11:31; 12:2) in order to affirm his love for them (cf. 6:11–12; 12:15). The plethora of oath formulas in this letter shows the defensive position in which Paul finds himself.
11:12–15 After denying that he is inferior to his opponents (vv. 5–11), Paul proceeds to expose them as frauds, indeed as servants of Satan (vv. 12–15). In this section Paul effectively turns the tables on the opponents, showing that they do not compare with him.
11:12 Paul solemnly declares that in the future he will continue to refuse contributions from the Corinthians. He has previously stated (cf. 2:17) that the opponents dishonestly peddle the word of God for money, whereas he himself is free of this blameworthy practice. Hence, by refusing to accept support from the Corinthians, Paul deprives his opponents the opportunity to be considered equal with him (lit., “just as also we [are]”). We may recall that Korah and his followers were jealous of Moses and therefore claimed to be equal with Moses and Aaron in terms of holiness, probably because they wanted the privileges of a special priesthood for themselves (Num. 16:3, 8–11). In the same context, Moses denied that he had accepted any gifts from the congregation (Num. 15:16). In our text, there is a possibility that the clause in order to cut the ground from under may recall that Korah’s followers were swallowed up by the ground as divine judgment on their impertinence (Num. 16:31–35; see on 2 Cor. 2:7), although here the expression is clearly metaphorical, for the word translated “ground” (aphormē) actually denotes “opportunity, pretext, occasion” (cf., e.g., Gal. 5:13; 2 Cor. 5:12).
11:13 Paul further explains (For, gar) why the opponents in Corinth are not equal to him. First, he describes the opponents as false apostles (pseudapostoloi). He thereby coins a term that recalls another neologism of his, i.e., “false brothers” (pseudadelphoi). The latter refers to a Jew who pretends to be a believer, but whose claim is belied by his attempt to thwart the true gospel (cf. Gal. 2:4; 2 Cor. 11:26). Likewise, a false apostle is one who pretends to be an apostle but whose claim is belied by his attempt to work against Paul and his gospel; they have “another gospel” (v. 4). Perhaps Paul coined the term false apostles by analogy to the term “false prophets” (pseudoprophētai) in the OT (cf. Jer. 33:8 LXX). It may be that this derogatory term implies that the opponents called themselves “apostles” (also “servants of Christ,” according to 2 Cor. 11:23). If so, this would not necessarily be a reference to the Jerusalem apostles, for the term “apostle” was used for others besides the Twelve (cf. 8:23; Phil. 2:25). Perhaps the opponents understood themselves as emissaries of the Jerusalem apostles (cf. C. K. Barrett). In any case, Paul’s characterization of his opponents as false apostles fits very well with the Korah typology that he develops in this letter, for Korah and his followers aspired to honor and authority equal with Moses, and, according to Jewish tradition, Korah and his followers were “false,” whereas Moses and Aaron were “true” (cf. b. Sanh. 110b; b. B. Bat. 74a; Num. Rab. 18:20).
Second, Paul goes on to describe the opponents as deceitful workmen. He uses a similar expression in Philippians 3:2 (“evil workers”) to refer to his Jewish-Christian opponents, whom he characterizes as “those who mutilate the flesh” (i.e., practice circumcision). While this does not necessarily imply that the same Judaizing opponents are in view, the similarity is suggestive, especially as they preach “a different gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4; cf. Gal. 1:6–9).
Third, Paul describes the opponents as masquerading as apostles of Christ. Usually, the term is taken metaphorically to mean that the interlopers behaved like apostles in some way, and that is probably correct (note that in v. 15, the same opponents are said to masquerade as “servants of righteousness”). Elsewhere, however, Paul uses the term of literal, physical transformation. In Philippians 3:21, the hope is expressed that believers’ lowly, earthly bodies will be transformed into the glorious, heavenly body of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 4 Macc. 9:22). The term metaschēmatizein means “to transform, to change the outward appearance of a person or thing, to disguise” (cf. T. Reu. 5:6; Philo, On the Eternity of the World 79; On the Embassy to Gaius 80, 346; Josephus, Ant. 7.257; 8.267). In that case, the physical appearance of the opponents may be particularly in view here, just as Paul’s frail physique has already come under discussion in the previous context (cf. 4:7–5:15; 10:10). Yet it is difficult to imagine how the opponents may have been disguised in a literal sense. Perhaps we may think of a glorified outward appearance either through ornamentation, (priestly?) vestment (cf. M. Himmelfarb), or even masking. As we have seen, the merkabah mystic was considered to have had an experience that altered his physical appearance. Hence, the verb in our passage may carry with it the literal sense of physical transformation, even if the primary sense is metaphorical.
11:14–15 The opponents’ masquerading is compared to that of Satan. The association of the opponents with Satan is based on the premise that there are only two opposing spheres—one of Christ and the other of Satan (see on 6:14b–16a). Those who align themselves against the apostle make common cause with the sphere of Satan. The prince of the darkness (cf. 6:14c) disguises himself as an angel of light, an idea based on Isaiah 14:12–15. Furthermore, according to L.A.E. 9:1, when Satan wanted to deceive Eve for a second time, he “transformed himself into the brightness of angels” (cf. Apoc. Mos. 17:2; on the deception of Eve, see further on 2 Cor. 11:3).
Paul strongly implies that his opponents are servants of Satan, although they disguise themselves as servants of righteousness(diakonoi dikaiosynēs). Rightfully, the term servant of righteousness applies to Paul, for he calls himself a “servant” (diakonos) several times in the letter (cf. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23), and his apostolic ministry (diakonia) is a “ministry of righteousness” (3:9), in contrast to the “ministry of condemnation” that leads to “death” (3:6–7). Hence, we see again that the main purpose of the opponents is to usurp Paul’s authority in Corinth, just as the angel of light tried to make himself like God and even to usurp his throne of glory (cf. Isa. 14:13–14). In the end, however, this angel of light is brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the pit (Isa. 14:12, 15; cf. L.A.E. 12–16; 2 En. 29:4–5). Those who try to usurp Paul’s apostolic authority and ministry will meet a similar fate, a fate that Korah and his followers met when they sought equality with Moses, the Lord’s servant, and tried to usurp his authority (Num. 16:31–33). Paul warns ominously that his opponents’ end will be what their actions deserve. In light of the allusions of the text, there can be little doubt that he means the opponents’ demise.
11:16–21a Paul prepares the Corinthians for the boasting in which he is about to engage by asking for their indulgence (cf. v. 1). Having mentioned that the opponents seek to boast in their equality with him (11:12), Paul does some boasting of his own. He knows it is foolish to vaunt his achievements, and perhaps even wrong (cf. 10:18; 12:1, 7), but he accepts the challenge (11:18) of some at Corinth who have forced him to assert his claims (12:11).
11:16 The apostle reiterates his appeal for indulgence from verse 1. Paul is no fool, and in reality he should not be taken as one. He knows that any boasting, except boasting in the Lord, is illegitimate (cf. 10:17–18). Nevertheless, he is willing to engage in boasting because he knows that the Corinthians regard him as a fool. They have forced him into boasting (12:11). Furthermore, Paul uses this technique as a heuristic tool to expose his opponents as frauds and to win the Corinthians back to his cause.
11:17 Paul stresses that the boasting in which he is about to engage is really illicit. He is affecting a role that is totally out of character for a true apostle of Jesus Christ, for he is not talking as the Lord would (lit., “according to the Lord”). In other words, Paul is not boasting in the Lord as he should (cf. 10:17).
11:18 In affecting the role of boastful man, Paul is responding to the challenge of his opponents. The many to which he refers includes the opponents (cf. v. 20). They are boasting in the way the world does (lit., “according to the flesh”); hence, Paul does so, too. He means by this vaunting one’s own achievements. There is a strong contrast in verses 17–18 between the prepositional phrases “according to the Lord” and “according to the flesh.” Paul has already been accused of making his travel plans “according to the flesh” (see on 1:17). Now he turns the accusation of behaving “according to the flesh” back onto the opponents. He performs a similar maneuver in verse 20.
11:19 Paul intensifies his critique by ironically calling the Corinthians wise in putting up with the opponents’ foolish boasting. He uses the same rhetorical strategy in 1 Corinthians 4:10: “We are fools for Christ, but you are so wise in Christ!” Yet, as Paul had already argued in his first canonical letter, the Corinthians had a defective understanding of “wisdom,” which led them to boast improperly in spiritual gifts and leaders according to Hellenistic standards of wisdom (1 Cor. 1:10–4:21). Here again, the Corinthians’ particular brand of “wisdom” distorts their vision, causing them to put up with people who are really fools, from the divine perspective that Paul claims to have.
11:20 Paul goes on to explain in five strong verbs how the opponents originally burst onto the scene in Corinth. From this description it seems obvious that the opponents moved into Corinth with the intent of taking over. Their actions were aggressive, and they began to assert their authority over the congregation, even to the point of enslaving the church (cf. Gal. 2:4) and extorting funds. Paul has already defended himself against the charges of lording it over the church (1:24) and exploiting the congregation (7:2; see also on 12:16–18). Now he turns the tables by reapplying similar charges to the opponents (cf. 2:17). With rhetorical acumen, Paul employs the very accusations that his rivals applied to him.
11:21a In summary of his point in verses 16–21a, Paul admits with mock shame that he did not come to the Corinthians like a conquering ruler as his opponents did. The opponents allege that Paul’s personal appearance is weak (10:10; cf. 1 Cor. 2:3). Picking up on that thought, Paul mockingly admits his weakness as a reason he did not come to Corinth to enslave and exploit the Corinthians. In actuality, of course, Paul considers his intentions with the Corinthians to have been forthright and honorable.
11:21b–12:13 In this section, which constitutes what is called the “Fool’s Speech,” Paul boasts in two areas: the labors and sufferings he has endured in the course of apostolic service (11:22–33) and his extraordinary revelations of the Lord that he has received as an apostle (12:1–10). The latter category spills over into a boast that even the opponents would acknowledge as enviable.
11:21b–33 The first area in which Paul boasts is that of the labors and sufferings that he has endured while engaged in apostolic service. These boasts prove doubly foolish, since boasting itself is foolish, and, by the opponents’ standards, suffering and weakness do not count as meritorious qualities. The intricate structure of this subsection is best observed with a diagram (cf. R. P. Martin).
11:21b Paul begins by taking up the challenge of his opponents to boast. He does not let us forget that he is affecting the role of a fool in order to make a rhetorical point about his opponents. Paul has been accused of being bold (cf. 10:1–2), so now he turns this accusation back on his opponents and then accepts it as applying to himself.
11:22 Paul compares himself with his opponents point for point in terms of their Jewish heritage. Do these assertions mean that Paul’s Judaism was called into question by the “super-apostles”? Or should we infer that Paul himself brings these points up in order to reinforce his connection with his Jewish heritage before proceeding further? First of all, Paul describes himself here, as in Philippians 3:5, as a Hebrew (Hebraios). Perhaps he puts this self-description first in the list in order to recall his connection with the historic people of Israel. This point is reinforced by the next self-description.
Second, Paul describes himself as a Israelite (Israelitēs). This tends to underscore and reinforce the archaicizing tendency of the first self-description. The apostle uses the same description of himself in Romans 11:1: “I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” He states this in order to deny that God has rejected his “people.” Because Paul stands in continuity with the historic people of Israel (cf. Rom. 9:4) he can serve as an example of the faithful remnant which preserves the continuity.
Third, Paul describes himself as Abraham’s descendant (lit., “seed of Abraham”). With this term, the apostle stresses the fact of his genealogical descent (cf. Rom. 11:1) as well as his participation in the salvation-historical privileges of the elect people of God. To Abraham and his seed belong the promises of God (cf. Gen. 12:1–3, 7; 13:15–17; 15:18; 17:7–10, 19). Paul traces his gospel back to the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:8), and he regards Christ as the seed of Abraham in the strict sense (Gal. 3:16). In Christ, believers participate in the seed of Abraham and and thus become heirs to the Abrahamic promise (Gal. 3:29).
11:23a After comparing himself favorably to the opponents in terms of membership in the historic Hebrew nation, Paul makes yet another comparison, this time directly in relation to the claim of apostleship. Whereas in the first three comparisons between himself and the opponents (v. 22) Paul was willing to acknowledge his adversaries’ place in the historic people of God, here, in the fourth comparison, he balks at the idea that the opponents are servants of Christ. The apostle has already described the intruders as “servants” of Satan who disguise themselves as “servants of righteousness” (v. 15) and as “apostles of Christ” (v. 13). Therefore, it is obvious that he cannot seriously entertain the notion of their being true servants of Christ. He does so only to introduce several ways in which he is superior to the opponents as a servant of Christ (I am more). It is possible that the opponents described themselves as “servants of Christ,” and that Paul uses their own honorific title in a similar way to his use of their own accusations in verse 20. By stating that it more properly applies to himself, Paul is asserting that he outstrips even the “super-apostles” (cf. 11:5).
11:23b–29 Paul substantiates his claim in verse 23a that he is a servant of Christ more than his opponents are by adducing a list of his apostolic labors and sufferings. The opponents would not be impressed by this litany of troubles; they criticized Paul’s suffering and weakness, and probably did not boast in such things themselves (cf. 5:12). The fact that Paul does so is part of the double “foolishness” of the section. With respect to literary form, this section constitutes a tribulation catalogue (see on 4:8–9). In 6:4–10 Paul uses a similar tribulation catalogue to show that “as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way.” Indeed, several of the items in the list are repeated from the earlier catalogue. Furthermore, many of the sufferings mentioned in the present tribulation catalogue can be illustrated by specific episodes in the book of Acts. Some of the persecutions listed here may even have been practiced by Saul/Paul the Pharisee against believers in Jesus. Now the persecutor becomes the persecuted. Also in Romans 5:3, Paul boasts in tribulations.
11:23b Paul lists the areas in which he is excels as a servant of Christ. The hyperbolic language in this list is unmistakable in the Greek text. Each noun in the series is modified by an adverb denoting superabundance: the first two nouns have perissoterōs (“far more, far greater”); the next one has hyperballontōs (“exceedingly, immeasurably”); and the last one has pollakis (“frequently”). Such hyperbolic language is characteristic of 2 Corinthians as a whole (cf. 1:5, 8, 12; 2:4, 7; 3:9, 10; 4:7, 15, 17; 7:4, 13, 15; 8:2, 7, 14; 9:8, 12, 14; 10:8, 15; 12:7, 15).
The catalogue begins with the boast that Paul has worked harder (lit., “with far greater labors”). Although this could refer to manual labor that he undertook in Corinth (and elsewhere) to support himself, here it probably refers specifically to apostolic labors as in 10:15, where boasting is also mentioned in connection with such labors. In 1 Corinthians 15:10 (cf. Gal. 1:14), Paul boasts that he has “worked harder” than any other apostle, although he quickly corrects his statement to acknowledge that it is actually the grace of God working through him (cf. 2 Cor. 10:17). If in our text, the apostle likewise boasts that he has worked harder than the “false apostles” (cf. 11:13), does that imply a connection between the Jerusalem apostles and the false apostles in Corinth? As we have seen, it is possible that the outsiders who infiltrated the Corinthian church regard themselves as having been sent by the Jerusalem church (cf. 3:1; see also on “false brothers” in v. 26b). However, there is an important difference between the two passages: Whereas in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul means the comparison between himself and the Jerusalem apostles positively, because he and they agree together on the essence of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–11), in 2 Corinthians 11:23b Paul can mean the comparison with the false apostles in Corinth only ironically, since the latter oppose Paul and proclaim a different gospel (cf. 11:4). For Paul, the “apostolic” labors of the false apostles cannot be seriously compared to his own genuinely apostolic labors. Here we have a good illustration of the doubly ridiculous nature of Paul’s boasts in the “Fool’s Speech.”
Paul’s second boast is that he has been in prison more frequently (lit., “with far more imprisonments”; cf. also 6:4–5). The book of Acts records only one imprisonment of Paul, in Philippi, before his arrest in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 16:23–30). It is possible, however, that he was incarcerated also in Ephesus. According to 1 Clement 5:6 Paul was in prison a total of seven times; however, this number may not preserve a reliable tradition, since along with “imprisonment,” two other persecutions (banishment and stoning) are listed as having occurred seven times. Paul often had company while in prison; hence, he sometimes refers to his coworkers as “fellow-prisoners” (cf. Rom. 16:7; Col. 4:10; Phlm. 23). In the present context, however, the apostle mentions only his own imprisonments because of the apologetic situation.
Finally, Paul boasts that he has been flogged more severely (lit., “with more abundant floggings”) and exposed to death again and again (lit., “with frequent deaths”). These tribulations are taken up in the following verses by the references to the “forty lashes minus one” (v. 24), to being beaten with rods (v. 25), and to stoning (v. 25). Previously (1:8–10), Paul has recounted a near-death experience he had in Asia.
11:24–26a Having listed the various ways in which he is more a servant of Christ than his opponents, Paul begins simply to enumerate his tribulations without directly comparing himself to the opponents. The first two tribulations in this list are corporal punishments, which elaborate on the flogging mentioned in verse 23b. The forty lashes minus one refers to a form of corporal punishment administered in the synagogue (cf. Deut. 25:1–3; S. Gallas) and possibly practiced by Paul himself on believers (Acts 22:19) before his conversion. Whenever he entered a new city, Paul used the synagogue as a basis for evangelism (cf. Acts 9:20; 13:5, 14; 14:1; 17:1–2, 10, 17; 18:4, 19, 26; 19:8), since his gospel was “to the Jew first” (Rom. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 9:20). The fact that the apostle received a synagogal punishment not only tends to corroborate the testimony of Acts at this point, but also shows that he was taken seriously as a Jew who operated within the parameters of Judaism, as an erring member rather than as an outsider or an apostate. Hence, in a backhanded way, the “forty lashes minus one” further underscores Paul’s claim to being an Israelite in verse 22. But what was it about Paul and his apostolic ministry to the nations that caused Jews in various localities to punish him by flogging? Perhaps Paul’s own connection of persecution with the requirement of circumcision provides at least a partial answer (cf. E. P. Sanders).
With the words beaten with rods (v. 25) Paul indicates that he also received corporal punishment at the hands of the Romans. According to Acts 16:22–23 the Roman magistrates in Philippi ordered Paul and Silas to be beaten with rods before throwing them into prison. Since this form of punishment was usually reserved for slaves and provincials, it has often been argued that Paul was not a Roman citizen as Acts reports (22:25). Even in Acts, however, Paul was beaten and scourged by the Romans unless he made his Roman citizenship known to the authorities in time (cf. Acts 16:37; 22:25–29). Furthermore, Roman officials sometimes ignored strict legality in their treatment of citizens. For example, before the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66 the procurator Gessius Florus had two Jews who were Roman citizens publicly flogged and crucified (cf. Josephus, War 2.308).
Paul mentions that he was stoned (or, more unequivocally, with the NRSV, “received a stoning”) once. Stoning is the most common form of execution in the Bible, being used in the case of apostasy (Lev. 20:2; Deut. 13:10–11; 17:2–7), blasphemy (Lev. 24:14, 16, 23; 1 Kgs. 21:10), sorcery (Lev. 20:27), Sabbath violation (Num. 15:35–36), misappropriation of devoted things (Josh. 7:25), a disobedient son (Deut. 21:21), and adultery of a bride (Deut. 22:21, 24). Interestingly enough, Korah’s rebellion incited the crowd to stone Moses (Josephus, Ant. 4.22), as they had almost done on other occasions (cf. Exod. 17:4; Num. 14:10). According to Acts 14:19, Jews from Antioch and Iconium came to Lystra and persuaded the people to stone Paul. Although Paul was left for dead outside the city, he miraculously walked away from the ordeal.
Three times Paul had been shipwrecked. This cannot refer to the shipwreck he experienced on the way to Rome (Acts 27:13–44), which came at a later time, but rather to earlier experiences not mentioned in the book of Acts.
11:26b Next Paul lists the various situations in which he has been in danger (lit., “in dangers”). From this description it seems that, at one time or another, Paul has been in danger from almost every group (bandits, countrymen, Gentiles, false brothers) and in almost every place (rivers, city, country, sea). The apostle has frequently suffered persecution at the hands of his own countrymen (genos; lit., “race, nation”), i.e., his own people Israel. Yet in verse 22 Paul boasts that he is a Hebrew and an Israelite (v. 22). It is ironic, therefore, that the very nation of which Paul boasts is also the source of grave danger for him. The book of Acts contains many examples of Paul’s persecution at the hands of his own people. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, Paul puts the Jewish persecution of himself in salvation-historical perspective: Drawing a line from the OT prophets, through Jesus, to himself, Paul shows, in effect, that his countrymen have always resisted those whom God has sent.
It is also ironic that Paul cites danger from false brothers as part of the evidence that he is more a servant of Christ than the “false apostles,” especially if, as is likely, both sets of opponents probably stem from the Jerusalem church and represent similar perspectives. In Galatians 2:4 Paul refers to “false brothers” who spied out the freedom that he and Titus had in Christ, so that they might enslave them. In 2 Corinthians 11:26b, the term false brothers may even include the aforementioned “false apostles” who tried to “enslave” the Corinthians (v. 20). In that case, Paul would be implying that he is more of a servant of Christ than his opponents in Corinth because he has been in danger by those very opponents. The seemingly ridiculous nature of such a proposition would not be out of character with the irony of the “Fool’s Speech.”
11:27 More tribulations follow, this time without the word “dangers.” These tribulations both reinforce the ones Paul has already listed (e.g., apostolic “labors” in v. 23b) and underscore the general impression of great suffering over an extended period of time. In particular, Paul may be detailing the kind of deprivations he experienced even in Corinth because he refused support from the Corinthians (see on 11:7–9).
11:28–29 In addition to the tribulations that come upon the apostle from the outside (vv. 23b–27) Paul mentions here personal suffering that arises from his care and empathetic concern for the churches. The Corinthian correspondence itself is an eloquent testimony to Paul’s pastoral care and concern for the churches. We may recall, for example, how much Paul fretted about the Corinthians and their reaction to his tearful letter before he heard back from Titus (cf. 2 Cor. 2:12–13; 7:5–7). In Paul’s own words, “We were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within” (7:5). Paul is evidently still quite concerned about the situation in Corinth, particularly as some members have been led into sin by the intruders.
11:30–33 Paul concludes the tribulation catalogue with a statement emphasizing his stance on boasting (v. 30), an oath formula (v. 31), and a concrete illustration of the persecution he endures (vv. 31–33).
11:30 The apostle emphasizes his stance on boasting carefully phrasing the sentence as conditional. He would rather not boast, since any kind of boasting, other than boasting in the Lord (cf. 10:17), is foolishness (cf. 11:1, 16–17). But if the apologetic situation in Corinth requires it (lit., “If it is necessary to boast”), then he will boast in such as way as to reveal his weakness. The long catalogue of Paul’s adversities in 11:23b–29 is meant to illustrate this weakness. As we shall see, Paul is setting his readers up for a surprising insight into the relationship between suffering, weakness, and Paul’s apostleship (see on 12:1–10).
11:31 Paul invokes God as a witness to the veracity of his claim that he boasts only in his weakness. This is not the first time in the present letter that he invokes God as witness (cf. 1:18, 23; 11:10). The polemical situation in Corinth requires Paul to assert his claim in an elaborate oath formula (cf. 1:17).
11:32–33 The generalized tribulation catalogue in 11:23b–29 illustrates the “weakness” of which Paul prefers to boast in verse 31. Likewise, in verses 32–33 Paul provides a concrete illustration of those tribulations (“dangers from nations,” “dangers in the city,” v. 26) in his dramatic escape from the clutches of “King Aretas.” The emphatic position of in Damascus at the very beginning of the sentence suggests that the location of the incident is of some importance to Paul. We can deduce from Galatians 1:17 that Paul was in Damascus twice—once at or near his call to apostleship (cf. Acts 9; 22; 26:12–23), and once on his return from Arabia. It is reasonable to assume that the episode recounted here took place on one of these visits, since there is no indication that Paul was operating in this area in later years. Although this incident might seem to provide a fixed point in Pauline chronology, especially since it is linked with the reign of Aretas IV, king of Nabatea from ca. 9 B.C. to A.D. 40, there are still many uncertainties in the historical reconstruction (cf. R. Riesner), including the thorny question of whether, and if so when, the Nabateans controlled Damascus during the late 30s A.D. (cf. G. W. Bowersock).
Here Paul recounts the escape from Damascus in order to illustrate the weakness and apostolic tribulations to which he has referred in the previous context. Perhaps the Corinthians would recall the apostle’s ignoble retreat from Corinth during his second, painful visit to the congregation. The staunch opposition to his gospel, no less than by his own people and by fellow believers in Christ, may have seemed to undermine his apostolic credibility.
Paul’s escape from Damascus was effected by lowering him in a basket from a window in the wall—the antithesis of the assault on a city described in 10:4. Similar language is used in the story of the Israelite spies whom Rahab lowered down the wall of Jericho (Josh. 2:15). In fact, the same verb ([kata]chalan) is used for lower in Joshua 2:15 LXX; Acts 9:25; and 2 Corinthians 11:33. Like the spies, Paul slipped through the enemies’ hands. Here we see again that Paul relates his own experiences to OT events.
12:1–10 Up to this point in the “Fool’s Speech” Paul boasts that, as a servant of Christ, he is superior to his opponents (the so-called super-apostles) mostly in terms of his far greater sufferings (11:21b–33). In 12:1–10 the apostle goes on to boast of his surpassing revelatory experience. In contrast to the disgraceful descent from the wall in Damascus (11:33), Paul here recounts a glorious ascent into heaven (cf. T. Jos. 1:4 for a similar contrast between descent as humiliation and ascent as exaltation). Although Paul realizes that such boasting is futile, he nevertheless engages in it, succumbing temporarily to the pressure from his opponents (v. 1). Yet, having very briefly and discretely mentioned an example of this revelatory experience (vv. 2–4), Paul immediately returns to boasting about his weaknesses (v. 5), explaining that a thorn in the flesh was given to him (passivum divinum) to keep him from being too elated or conceited because of the abundance (or surpassing character) of the revelations (v. 7). In other words, the formal cause of Paul’s weakness is none other than his extraordinary revelatory experience! With this tour de force, Paul is able to boast about his visions, at the same time explaining why he is so weak. All the while, he is boasting in the Lord (cf. 10:17), the fount of both his revelatory experience (12:1) and his strength in weakness (vv. 9–10).
We may surmise that the opponents deny Paul’s revelatory experience (Paul is a fraud [see on 5:16]) and/or depreciate it in view of their own experience (they have independent access to revelation). As we suggested above in 5, the opponents’ attack may well have concentrated on Paul’s miserable body, arguing that a merkabah mystic would have been transformed in the process of the encounter with the divine. In the present text, Paul turns this argument around by making his miserable body actually become a proof of his superior revelatory experience!
12:1 Paul makes the transition to his new topic of boasting with a disclaimer. Even though he fundamentally doubts the efficacy of such activity, Paul is being compelled to boast in order to counter the boasting of his opponents (cf. 11:22). In view of this “counter-boasting,” we may assume that the opponents also claim to have visions and revelations. It is uncertain whether Paul intends a distinction between “visions” and “revelations.” Perhaps he merely amplifies in order to impress his readers with the quantity of his revelatory experiences (compare the hyperbolic language in v. 7). If, as we argued, 2:14 refers to Paul’s encounter with the divine throne-chariot and the revelation that derives from that experience, it is interesting to note that God “always” leads the apostle in triumph in Christ, perhaps indicating the frequent occurrence of these audiences with God. In any case, what Paul sees in visions is integrally connected with the revelations he mediates. More importantly, we may ask whether these visions are from the Lord (so the NIV) or “of the Lord” (objective genitive), for the genitive kyriou can legitimately be translated either way. The latter is more probable, since elsewhere Paul bases his apostolic commission on his having actually seen the risen Lord (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8). That being the case, the opponents’ claim to similar visions and revelations threatened to undermine Paul’s apostolic authority unless he could point out a decisive difference between his own experience and that of his opponents.
12:2–4 After announcing his topic as that of “visions and revelations of the Lord” (v. 1), Paul goes on in verses 2–4 briefly to mention a concrete example of his heavenly experience. He recounts the experience twice, in slightly different terms. The purpose for recounting this event is not to describe the revelation itself (indeed, little of its actual content is mentioned) but to intimate the extraordinary quality of Paul’s revelatory experience.
12:2 Paul portrays his heavenly experience as a datable, historical event. If Paul’s point is to provide an example of his own “visions and revelations of the Lord” in order to counter his opponents’ similar claims, then it seems strange that he would recount his experience in the third person, as if he were reporting about an acquaintance (I know a man). But by verses 5–7a at the latest the reader realizes that verses 2–4 refer to Paul’s own experience, for the apostle boasts in the experience. The reason for this use of the third person remains unclear, although many explanations have been offered. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Jesus, whom Paul otherwise seeks to imitate (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; see below on 12:8), referred to himself in the third person as the “Son of Man” (cf. Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38, etc.). In any case, Paul’s evasiveness in 12:2–4 is not to be explained as shyness or humility; the apostle is being modestly decorous with his addressees when he says that he knows a man in Christ (cf. the similarly sensitive situation in 7:12), for, after the extensive discussion in 2:14–3:18, there can be little doubt that Paul regards his role as revelatory mediator (on par with, and even superior to, Moses) as being foundational to his whole apostolic ministry. Elsewhere in the Corinthian correspondence Paul adamantly claims that his apostleship is based on his vision(s) of Christ: “Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” (1 Cor. 9:1; cf. 15:1–8; Gal. 1:12, 16). Although his original christophany on the way to Damascus remains the pivotal encounter with the resurrected Christ, other revelations and visions should not be discounted (cf. Acts 16:9; 18:9; 22:17–18; 23:11; 27:23). The vision that Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 (and others like it) is crucial to Paul’s claim to apostolic authority, which he is defending in chapters 10–13.
Paul describes himself as a man in Christ (en Christō). Assuming the unity of the letter as it stands, in Christ recalls 2 Corinthians 2:14, 17, the only other place in the letter in which the apostle uses the phrase in Christ in reference to his own personal experience. In 2:14, where Paul describes his ongoing apostolic experience as one of God leading him in triumphal procession in Christ, he alludes, as we have seen, to the divine throne-chariot on which Christ is seated at the right hand of God. In 2:17 Paul has in mind the same merkabah experience when he refers to speaking before God in Christ (the same expression occurs in 12:19, which underscores that there is a relationship between 12:1ff. and 2:14–17). As we shall see, our passage is also otherwise linked with 2:14–4:6, where Paul argues that he is a revelatory mediator on par with Moses.
Even without the allusion to 2 Corinthians 2:14, 17, our passage has long been suspected of referring to Paul’s encounter with the divine throne-chariot (cf. G. Scholem), for the text recounts that Paul was caught up to the third heaven. The verb harpazein is used here as elsewhere in the sense of being taken up and carried away at another’s initiative. In regard to whether the experience was in the body or out of the body, the very fact that Paul’s affliction in this connection was physical (v. 7) may indicate the former. In several apocalypses the verb harpazein refers to heavenly ascent (cf. Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1:7; 5:7; Apoc. Mos. 37:3–5; 1 Thess. 4:17). The description of Paul’s being “caught up” to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2–4) and his being “led in triumphal procession” (2:14) may be mutually interpretive.
Paul reports that he was caught up to the third heaven. Although Jewish and Christian apocalypses often presuppose a cosmology of seven heavens (cf. A. Y. Collins), some texts do speak of three heavens, the third of which is the highest, the dwelling place of God himself (cf. 1 En. 14:8–25; T. Levi 3:4). Since Paul goes on to characterize his revelatory experience as exceptional (v. 7), he probably has in mind an ascent to the highest of three heavens, for otherwise his opponents could claim to have penetrated a higher heaven. The preposition used here (to, heōs) may also indicate that the apostle had reached the uppermost limit. The equation of the third heaven with “paradise” (v. 4) confirms this view.
12:3–4 Paul repeats the same account here in slightly different terms. Instead of stating, as in verse 2, that the man was caught up to the “third heaven,” Paul substitutes paradise. According to 2 Enoch 8:1–3 (cf. Apoc. Mos. 37:5; 40:1), Enoch was taken “up to the third heaven, and … looked downward, and … saw Paradise.… And in the midst … the tree of life, at that place where the Lord takes a rest when he goes into paradise” (OTP). The reference to paradise in our text has led many scholars to compare the account of the “Four Who Entered Pardes” (a Persian word meaning a walled garden, but also connected with the garden of Eden as the eschatological paradise in Jewish literature), which is found both in the Talmud and in the Hekhalot literature (cf. C. R. A. Morray-Jones). Of these four, only R. Aqiba was deemed worthy of beholding God’s glory behind the curtain (Schäfer, 346).
In our passage, we are struck by the fact that Paul’s description of his heavenly experience is so cryptic. He describes nothing of the vision itself and barely mentions the audition, if indeed a sharp distinction between prophetic visions and auditions can be maintained (cf. Amos 1:1 LXX: “The words [logoi] of Amos … which he saw [eiden] about Jerusalem”; also Mic. 1:1; Hab. 1:1). Part of the explanation for this vagueness can be found in verse 4, where the apostle states that he has heard ineffable things (inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell). Paul does not usually disclose the content of his visions and revelations. This corresponds to the general reluctance in Jewish mystical and apocalyptic literature to describe certain aspects of the heavenly journey. According to Hekhalot Zutarti, the merkabah mystic is to keep quiet about the mysteries he contemplates (Schäfer, 335). In rabbinic Judaism, all study and discussion of the divine throne-chariot in public was prohibited, unless the person was a scholar who understood of his own knowledge (m. Ḥag. 2:1). Those who ignored these injunctions did so at their own peril. The story is told, for example, of a certain Galilean who announced that he would publicly lecture on the merkabah, but who was stung by a wasp and died (b. Šabb. 80b). Of course, Paul’s revelatory experience is not completely ineffable; otherwise, he could not present himself as a revelatory mediator on par with Moses. Even in the present context, the apostle divulges the content of a personal revelation to him by the risen Lord (cf. v. 9), a revelation perhaps directly connected with Paul’s heavenly ascent (vv. 2–4).
12:5–6 In the following verses Paul at first continues the third person and only gradually reveals that the heavenly journey recounted in verses 2–4 is his own. Paul’s point here is simply this: Although he would be fully justified in boasting about his extraordinary revelatory experience, he refrains from doing so in favor of boasting in his physical weaknesses. If Paul’s weakness was one of the primary criteria the opponents were using to undermine his apostolic authority in Corinth, particularly with respect to Paul’s alleged revelatory experience, then it would seem foolhardy for him to give his opponents additional ammunition against him. Yet this is precisely Paul’s tactic in the so-called Fool’s Speech. (Paul’s strategy was never any different in Corinth [cf. 1 Cor. 2:3–4].) It is clear from 2 Corinthians 12:1–10 that Paul does not disparage the revelations as such; they are a reason for boasting (cf. vv. 5a, 6a) and elation (v. 7b, e). Nevertheless, he deftly chooses instead to stress the formal cause of his weaknesses as a means of indirectly reveling in his visions and heavenly journeys.
He refrains from boasting about ineffable revelatory experiences that the Corinthians could not see or hear for themselves. He relies instead on the outward manifestation of those experiences in what I do or say. In his first canonical letter to the Corinthians Paul reminded the church of how his manner among them “in weakness and in fear and in much trembling” served to emphasize that the persuasiveness of his message was not based on the latest wisdom of this world or rhetorical flair, but “in a demonstration of the Spirit and power” (1 Cor. 2:3–4). Paul had been sent to proclaim “Christ crucified” (1:23) and to live a correspondingly “cruciform apostolic” existence (2:1–4; 4:8–13), in order that their faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (2:5), for to those being saved, the suffering of Christ and the suffering of his apostle were not a stumbling block or foolishness, but the vehicle through which the very power and wisdom of God were being displayed and revealed in the world (cf. 1:23–24 compared to 2:4–5). Clearly, therefore, Paul had not changed his approach; the Corinthians had changed theirs.
12:7–10 In this section Paul makes a startling admission, one that would have been potentially damaging to him in the hands of his opponents. The apostle admits that God himself is ultimately responsible for his physical weakness! Just as God was responsible for his heavenly ascent (note the divine passives in vv. 2 and 4), so also God was responsible for his receiving a “thorn in the flesh” (note the divine passive in v. 7); however, the real crux of Paul’s admission consists in the reason for which he was given this physical malady, that is, to keep him from becoming conceited. If a glorious outer appearance is missing in Paul, it can be explained by his superlative inner experiences, which might normally make him proud. By this argument, Paul can justify his obvious physical weakness and yet underscore his apostolic authority.
12:7 In order to make his dramatic point, Paul refers back to his thesis in verse 1, that he has had a plurality of revelations. The phrase at the beginning of this verse (lit., “and/ also because of the extraordinary character of the revelations”) does not go well with the end of verse 6, and it does not fit the grammar of verse 7, unless one deletes the inferential conjunction dio (“therefore”), as some manuscripts do. Yet there is no apparent reason why a scribe would have added the conjunction, whereas there is a good grammatical reason why a scribe would have omitted it. The NIV has seen fit to connect the clause in question to verse 7, to ignore the inferential conjunction, and to translate the sentence as if it began with the immediately following subordinate conjunction hina (“in order that”). This maneuver yields a tolerably coherent translation that may approximate what was originally meant. Unfortunately, the NIV fails to represent the fact that the Greek text twice repeats the purpose clause (“in order that I might not become conceited”), once at the beginning of the sentence and once at the end. The repetition obviously serves to emphasize the purpose of the thorn in the flesh.
The apostle has had many revelations, of which the encounter described in verses 2–4 is merely one example. Paul uses hyperbole (surpassingly great) to express the extraordinary quantity and quality of the revelations he has experienced. This is the same kind of exaggeration as he used in the tribulation catalogue in 11:23b (and throughout 2 Corinthians, for that matter). The inherent danger in such an amazing revelatory experience is that one could become boastful and proud. Paul admits to becoming conceited because of the revelations he had received. He seems to warn the Colossians against this kind of pride in Colossians 2:18. Humility was to be one of the characteristics of the merkabah mystic (cf. Schäfer, 621, 683; but see 225, where the merkabah mystic is addressed as “son of the proud”). Warnings against self-exaltation with regard to visionary experience are common in the Hekhalot literature (cf. Morray-Jones). Perhaps Paul’s tendency to be conceited because of his merkabah experience can be compared to that of the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran community, who boasted of his ascent to heaven (cf. 4Q427 f7.1.8–17; 4Q471 f6.4; 4Q491 f 11.1.14, 18).
To keep Paul from becoming conceited because of his revelatory experience, a thorn in my flesh was given to him (i.e., by God). In other words, the formal cause of Paul’s weakness, which the opponents so vehemently decry, is none other than his extraordinary apostolic revelations! By this subtle and ingenious maneuver, Paul deconstructs his opponents’ most effective argument against his apostleship. In effect, Paul makes suffering and weakness—even the extreme sort that he constantly endures (cf. 11:23bff.)—a sign of genuine, and even exceptional, apostleship since the more often that an apostle ascends to the divine throne of glory, the more his pride will need to be held in check by earthly suffering.
It is difficult to ascertain whether the thorn (skolops) refers to a persecutor (cf. Num. 33:55; Ezek. 28:24) or to a physical ailment (cf. Ps. 32:4[LXX 31:4]). If the following clause (“a messenger of Satan to torment me”) is meant to be an appositional modifier of “thorn,” then the former interpretation is possible. On the other hand, the latter interpretation cannot be dismissed, especially if Paul is alluding to Psalm 32:4: “For day and night your [sc. the Lord’s] hand was heavy upon me; I was tormented with bodily suffering while a thorn (akanthan) was stuck in me.” Psalm 32, a thanksgiving for healing and forgiveness after confession of sin, concludes with an exhortation to boast: “And boast, all you who are upright in heart” (v. 11). The “thorn in the flesh” (not represented in the MT) is a metaphor for the psalmist’s unspecified physical ailment. The parallel to 2 Corinthians 12:7 is obvious (cf. Gal. 4:12–20), for our passage also makes a connection between the thorn in the flesh and boasting in weakness (cf. 2 Cor. 12:9). The fact that Paul knew this psalm is shown by the citation of Psalm 32:1–2 in Romans 4:7–8 (“Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man [anēr] against whom the Lord will not reckon sin”). If our passage alludes to this psalm, then it may imply that Paul received divine forgiveness for his conceit.
The text goes on to state that, in connection with this thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan (angelos Satana) was sent to torment Paul. Seeing that the thorn is connected to Paul’s revelatory experience (and particularly his encounter with the merkabah), we should think of an “angel of Satan” rather than of a human messenger. We may recall the role of Satan in the physical affliction of Job, which was sanctioned by God himself in the heavenly court (cf. Job 1:6–12; 2:1–8; also Zech. 3:1).
It is also possible that the satanic messenger tormented Paul during his heavenly ascent to the merkabah. Some texts speak of angelic opposition during the journey to reach the throne of God (J. Maier), especially to those travelers considered unworthy or impure (Schäfer, 1, 213–215, 224–228, 258–259, 407–410; also 346, 673). If such a situation can be inferred from the text, then the satanic opposition is susceptible of two interpretations. On the one hand, the satanic opposition to the apostle could be construed by the interlopers in Corinth as evidence that Paul was not worthy of ascending to the highest heaven. On the other hand, it could also be used to demonstrate that Paul is not on the side of Satan (cf. Mark 3:20–27, where Jesus uses a similar argument against the accusation of demon possession).
12:8–9a Not only did God allow Paul to be given the physical affliction through the angel of Satan, but when Paul petitioned the Lord for relief, he was refused. In the Hekhalot literature, prayer is frequently used in order to overcome or avert danger to the merkabah mystic, especially to make certain that the ministering angels do not destroy the traveler (cf. Schäfer, 1, 558, 586). The number three times helps to relate Paul’s prayers in the midst of chronic suffering to the previous tribulation catalogue, which likewise indicates the number of times some ordeals occurred (cf. 11:24–25). According to Psalm 55:17, the psalmist utters his complaint and moans three times a day—evening, morning, and noon—and the Lord hears his voice. Paul pleaded with the Lord “about this” (the phrase is omitted by the NIV), that is, about the aforementioned thorn in the flesh. If Lord refers here to Jesus Christ (cf. v. 9b), then we have evidence that the apostle practiced prayer to the resurrected Lord (cf. 1 Thess. 3:12–13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; Acts 7:59). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Jesus is reported to have pled with God three times that his “cup” be taken from him (cf. Mark 14:32–41 par.). In Romans 8:15, 17, Paul seems to allude to the Gethsemane experience when he cites Jesus’ Aramaic address to God as “Abba” in the context of suffering with Christ (cf. Mark 14:36).
In verse 9a Paul gives the answer of the resurrected Lord to his threefold request. Although the apostle’s repeated request is not directly denied, a negative answer is strongly implied by the words, “my grace is sufficient for you.” The verb be sufficient (arkein) recalls what Paul has already said in 2 Corinthians 2:16 and especially 3:4–6, namely, that his “sufficiency is from God.” In other words, just as Paul’s sufficiency for being the revelatory mediator is God (who has made him sufficient [3:6]), so also Paul’s sufficiency for coping with the thorn in the flesh (which God gave him) is also God (12:9). Hence, whether in strength or weakness, Paul’s sufficiency and boast are the Lord. As Paul states in Philippians 4:13, he can do all things (even live in adverse circumstances!) through the Lord who gives him strength. God’s/Christ’s grace (charis) made Paul an apostle in the first place, causes his ministry to flourish, and sustains him in the process (cf. Gal. 1:15; 2:9; 1 Cor. 3:10; 15:10; Rom. 1:5; 12:3; 15:15).
The risen Lord goes on to state the reason his grace is sufficient for Paul in his physical distress: Christ’s power is made perfect in Paul’s weakness. The contrast of terms is striking. Ultimately, the quality and character of the revelatory mediator is inconsequential, a lesson that is abundantly reinforced by the example of the OT prophets (cf., e.g., 1 Kgs. 18:4–18). Moses is the prime example of divine power being made perfect in weakness of the human revelatory mediator (cf., e.g., Exod. 3:1–15:21).
Citing a personal revelation from the risen Lord suits Paul’s apologetic purpose in context, for just as he mentions his thorn in the flesh in order to explain his weakness while reveling in his extraordinary revelatory experience (2 Cor. 12:7), so also here Paul cites this word from the risen Lord in order to do the same thing. Hence, in contrast to the opponents’ position, there is practically no stigma attached to Paul’s weakness. To the contrary, Christ’s power is made perfect in the apostle’s weakness (cf. 4:7).
12:9b–10 If Christ’s power is made perfect in Paul’s weakness (and thus indirectly attests to Paul’s revelatory experience and his apostolic authority), then the apostle’s positive response to the revelation of the Lord seems quite logical: he will boast in his weaknesses. This idea of strength in weakness must seem counterintuitive, especially to the opponents, who “take pride in what is seen” (2 Cor. 5:12). However, Paul now realizes that everything that he once regarded as a cause for boasting is nothing in comparison with knowing Christ and sharing in his sufferings, so that he may participate in Christ’s resurrection (cf. Phil. 3:5–11).
Paul boasts in his weakness so that (hina) Christ’s power might rest on him. The verb actually denotes “take up one’s abode, dwell” and may well recall that the presence of God dwelled in the tabernacle and the temple (cf. Exod. 25:8; Ezek. 37:27; 2 Cor. 6:16). If so, the verb ties our passage back to 2 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul refers to his mortal body as “our earthly house of the tent,” alluding to the tabernacle in 1 Chronicles 9:23 LXX. Even during his earthly pilgrimage in the body, the apostle is conscious of the presence of God in his life through the Spirit. He was also conscious that the same power of the resurrected Christ would one day transform his mortal body.
Because Paul is the dwelling-place of the power of Christ, he takes delight in his weaknesses (v. 10a). Rather than continue his prayer for relief from the thorn in the flesh (cf. v. 8), Paul has now come to accept his infirmity and even to delight in it for Christ’s sake. This sounds almost masochistic, as if Paul likes to be abused. Certainly it opens the door to later Christian ideas of asceticism and martyrdom. Yet the apostle has come to his understanding of suffering after realizing that the power of Christ manifests itself most fully and obviously when he is at his weakest. Paradoxically, when I am weak, then am I strong. His light and momentary troubles are achieving for him an eternal glory that far outweighs them all (4:17).
Paul’s weaknesses are explicated in verse 10b by a short tribulation catalogue that resembles similar catalogues in 4:8–12; 6:4–10; and especially 11:23–29. This shows that, in discussing his revelatory experience in 12:1–10, Paul has not really left his theme in 11:23, namely, that he is more a servant of Christ than his opponents because of his greater sufferings. Yet it has become apparent that boasting in weakness and suffering is not so foolish as it might seem at first, for the extremity of his weaknesses only reflects the magnitude of his extraordinary revelatory experience, which is the very foundation of his apostolic authority. Furthermore, his boasting in his weakness is ultimately consonant with his principle of boasting only in the Lord, who gave him both his apostolic prerogative and his weakness (cf. 10:17).
Additional Notes
11:1 Cf. E. J. Schnabel, “Wisdom,” DPL, pp. 967–73.
11:2 On jealousy in Paul, see David Rhoads, “Zealots,” ABD, vol. 6, pp. 1043–54.
11:3 Cf. D. G. Reid, “Satan, Devil,” DPL, pp. 862–67.
11:4 Cf. Fee, “Another Gospel Which You Did Not Embrace,’ ” pp. 111–33, arguing that the opponents’ different gospel is a triumphalistic message rather than the true Pauline gospel of Christ crucified.
11:5–11 On the identity of the super-apostles in 11:5 and 12:11, see Victor Paul Furnish, 2 Corinthians (AB 32A; New York: Doubleday, 1985), pp. 502–5.
11:8–9 Note that in 6:9 Paul describes himself as “poor” and as “having nothing” (cf. v. 27; 1 Cor. 4:11–12).
11:10 Most churches today would be more than happy to accept free service from a minister. Why, then, would the Corinthians be so annoyed by Paul’s refusal to accept their offers of financial assistance (2 Cor. 11:10; 1 Cor. 9:15)? The answer(s) to this question may be found in the Corinthians’ cultural context. Most considered manual labor degrading and unseemly for a philosopher (cf. R. F. Hock, The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980]). To make matters worse, Paul hints that his earnings hardly sufficed and that he was in need (2 Cor. 11:9; cf. Phil. 4:12; 1 Cor. 4:10–12). His poverty would hardly persuade others of the power of his gospel. A second irritant stems from Paul’s acceptance of aid from the much poorer Macedonians (2 Cor. 11:9; cf. 8:2). This must have struck the Corinthians as a sign of Paul’s inconsistency and as demeaning to them (2 Cor. 11:8–9a). The congregation’s status was involved. In Roman societal structure, refusal of a benefaction was tantamount to a refusal of friendship and would have been construed as an act of social enmity (cf. Peter Marshall, Enmity at Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul’s Relations with the Corinthians [WUNT 2/23; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987]).
11:13 Cf. C. K. Barrett, “PSEUDAPOSTOLOI (2 Cor. 11:13),” in Essays on Paul (London: SPCK, 1982), pp. 87–107.
Martha Himmelfarb argues that the transformation that takes place during heavenly ascent corresponds to priestly investiture (Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993]).
11:14–15 On Satan, see further on 2:11. In b.B. Bat. 16a Satan is called “the angel of death.” On Satan’s many disguises, see T.Job 6:4; 17:2; 23:1; b. Qidd. 81ab; b. Sanh. 95a, 107a.
Paul’s use of the term “minister” of himself (cf. 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23) may have been prompted by the opponents’ own self-understanding, for Paul elsewhere prefers the prophetic title “slave of Christ” (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10).
If we would doubt that Paul could refer to “apostles” with letters of recommendation from the Jerusalem authorities as “servants [of Satan],” we need recall only Paul’s severe condemnation of Peter in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11–14, with the anathema of Gal. 1:8–9).
11:21b–33 For a structural diagram of this passage, see Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 370.
11:22 In Hellenistic-Jewish literature, the term “Hebrew” occurs much less commonly than its synonyms Israēl and Ioudaios. It is used primarily in two senses: (1) as a term for the language and script (cf. Acts 6:1) and (2) as an archaic name and lofty expression for the Hebrew nation (cf. 2 Macc. 7:31), particularly with respect to ancestral lineage (cf. Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 7, 12, 35, 43, 107). In the OT, the people were known as Hebrews long before the exodus from Egypt. According to Acts 21:40–22:3 Paul spoke the language(s) of Palestine, even though he was a Diaspora Jew from Tarsus. In the present context, however, the term seems to have less to do with language than with Paul’s nationality, although these two aspects are, of course, closely related (cf. Gen. 10:5, 20, 31). Cf. Niels Peter Lemche, “Hebrew,” ABD, vol. 3, p. 95; K. G. Kuhn, “Israel,” TDNT, vol. 3, pp. 365–69, 372–75. A late inscription (possibly fourth-fifth century A.D.) attests to the existence of a “synagogue of the Hebrews” in Corinth.
11:23b–29 Cf. Scott B. Andrews, “Too Weak Not to Lead: The Form and Function of 2 Cor. 11:23b–33,” NTS 41 (1995), pp. 263–76.
Ben Witherington III argues that Paul’s boasts in his weakness are intended as a parody on the Res Gestae, the list of Augustus’s achievements as Roman emperor (Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], pp. 450–52). More to the point, however, Paul seems to describe himself here as someone who is in exile from his own country (and from his heavenly home [cf. 2 Cor. 5:6]) and who expresses his sufferings and endurance in that situation (cf., e.g., Ovid, Tristia 3–5; Epistulae ex Ponto). We may compare the teaching of Diogenes (ca. 400–325 B.C.), founder of the Cynic sect, who came to Corinth during the Isthmian games (cf. Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 8–9, esp. 8.13, 16; 9.12–13). In a list of other persecutions that Paul had to endure (i.e., imprisonment and stoning), 1 Clem. 5:6 explicitly refers to the apostle as one who has been “exiled” (phygadeutheis) from his own country.
It is worth noting that, according to Josephus, Moses boasted that he devoted himself to tribulations on behalf of the people (Ant. 4.42).
When Paul refers to having been flogged, we may also consider that the Romans used flogging as a form of interrogation (cf. Acts 22:24).
11:24 Cf. A. E. Harvey, “Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of Judaizing and Apostasy,” in Alternative Approaches to New Testament Study (ed. A. E. Harvey; London: SPCK, 1985), pp. 79–96.
On Jewish disciplinary methods and attitudes in the Greco-Roman period, see Torrey Seland, Establishment Violence in Philo and Luke: A Study of Non-Conformity to the Torah and Jewish Vigilante Reactions (Leiden: Brill, 1995). On rabbinic loanwords for whipping, see Daniel Sperber, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Legal Terms in Rabbinic Literature (Bar-Ilan University Institute for Lexicography: Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 1; Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1984), pp. 23–24, 181–82.
Cf. E. P. Sanders, “Paul on the Law, His Opponents, and the Jewish People in Philippians 3 and 2 Corinthians 11,” in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, Vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels (ed. Peter Richardson; Studies in Christianity and Judaism 2; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1986), pp. 75–90 (here pp. 85–87).
11:25 On the Roman citizenship of Paul, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 6–15. Hengel argues that Paul deliberately allowed such beatings in order to participate in the sufferings of Christ.
Stoning was not an exclusively Jewish form of execution (cf. Acts 14:5). As a spontaneous expression of rage by a mob, stoning was a very widespread form of lynch justice. The pre-Roman Corinthians are said to have practiced stoning (cf. Pausanias 2.3.6; see also Plutarch, Philopoemen 21.5).
11:26b On Paul’s persecution at the hands of Jews, see Ernst Baasland, “Persecution: A Neglected Feature in the Letter to the Galatians,” ST 38 (1984), pp. 135–50; Colin G. Kruse, “Afflictions, Trials, Hardships,” DPL, pp. 18–20. On 1 Thess. 2:14–16, see James M. Scott, “Paul’s Use of Deuteronomic Tradition,” pp. 645–65 (esp. pp. 651–57).
In the context of the mention of Israel as a “nation” (genos), the term ethnē (translated Gentiles in the NIV) should be rendered “nations.” This prepares the way for the account of the incident under King Aretas in 11:30–33 (see further below). Paul thinks primarily in terms of nations (cf. Scott, Paul and the Nations.)
11:29 The NIV translates the verb pyroumai as I inwardly burn. On the other hand, the verb can be understood figuratively as signifying “be inflamed with grief.” Cf. William Horbury and David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 64–69 (esp. p. 67). Note the other references to grief and sorrow in the letter (cf. 2 Cor. 2:1–5, 7; 6:10; 7:8–11).
11:32–33 Cf. Rainer Riesner, Die Frühzeit des Paulus. Studien zur Chronologie, Missionsstrategie und Theologie (WUNT 71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), pp. 29, 66–79; Justin Taylor, “The Ethnarch of King Aretas at Damascus: A Note on 2 Cor. 11, 32–33,” RB 99 (1992), pp. 719–28.
The story of Paul’s escape from Damascus is told in somewhat different terms in Acts 9:23–25. Cf. Mark Harding, “On the Historicity of Acts: Comparing Acts 9.23–5 with 2 Corinthians 11:32–3,” NTS 39 (1993), pp. 518–38.
Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Paul in Arabia,” CBQ 55 (1993), pp. 732–37.
Escaping through a city wall is a symbol of exile (cf. Ezek. 12:4–5, 7, 12). As we have seen, Paul portrays himself as an exile in this context (see on 11:23b–29).
If the reference to being lowered in a basket from a window in the wall is meant to contrast with the assault on a city described in 10:4 (citing Prov. 21:22), then the purpose for this contrast may be twofold: (1) to emphasize Paul’s weakness in contrast to the wise, and (2) to prepare the description of the ascent to the third heaven in 12:2–4. According to our interpretation, both 10:4 and 12:2–4 relate to Paul’s merkabah experience.
12:1–10 When Paul implies that his opponents’ boasting forces him to boast about his own superior revelatory experience, he may have in view Korah’s rebellion, which attempted to eliminate the mediators of divine revelation by usurping the authority of Moses and Aaron (Num. 16:3; cf. Exod. 19:6; 29:45; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9). After all, as a “holy nation,” the people had received a direct divine revelation at Sinai, without mediators (Exod. 19:1–20:21). If Korah and his followers can claim that Moses and Aaron are superfluous as mediators, how much more can Paul’s opponents claim in the new covenant situation that there is no need for mediators (cf. Jer. 31:34)?
12:1 When Paul speaks here of visions and revelations in the plural, we are reminded that in merkabah mysticism the ascent to heaven was made during the lifetime of the mystic (i.e., not just after death!) and could be repeated numerous times. Moses’ revelatory experience provides the prototype of repeated entrance into the presence of God. According to the book of Acts, Paul received a number of visions (cf. Acts 9:12; 16:9–10; 18:9–10; 22:17–21; 23:11; 27:23–24).
The genitive “of Christ” (from the Lord in the NIV) may be objective. In that case, just as merkabah mystics saw God enthroned at the climax of their heavenly ascents, so also Paul may have seen Christ enthroned.
12:2–4 For the interpretation of 2 Cor. 12:2–4 that is developed here see further my essay, “The Triumph of God in 2 Cor. 2:14: Another Example of merkabah Mysticism in Paul,” NTS 42 (1996), pp. 260–81. We may compare Paul’s heavenly ascent to that of Philo (cf. Peder Borgen, “Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages,” in The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation [ed. James H. Charlesworth and Craig A. Evans; JSPSup 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], pp. 246–68).
12:2 Of course, Jesus’ self-designation as the “Son of Man” is a huge problem in itself.
The Coptic Apocalypse of Paul from Nag Hammadi (NHC v, 2), whose Greek original may stem from the second century A.D., provides a gnostic interpretation of 2 Cor. 12:2–4 in which Paul is made to allude to Ps. 68:18. Cf. Douglas M. Parrott, “The Apocalypse of Paul (V, 2),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3d ed.; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), pp. 256–59 (here p. 259). This clear allusion to Ps. 68:18 provides evidence that Paul’s ascent to heaven in 2 Cor. 12:2–4 was interpreted in light of Ps. 68:18 from an early period, even though the Pauline tradition may have undergone significant modification in the gnostic text. Hence, we see that 2 Cor. 2:14 and 12:2–4 are linked by their common basis not only in merkabah mysticism generally but also in the Ps. 68:18 tradition particularly.
Unfortunately, many interpreters have misunderstood Paul’s rhetoric here to mean that he places no importance on his revelatory experience. Cf., e.g., Furnish, 2 Corinthians, p. 544.
The dating of Paul’s vision to a time fourteen years ago is difficult to ascertain, for much depends on when 2 Corinthians itself (or at least this section of the extant letter) is dated. Furthermore, to which experience does the apostle refer? There is no necessary connection between our text and the “fourteen years” reported in Gal. 2:1. In view of these uncertainties, Riesner uses 2 Cor. 12:2–4 for the relative chronology only after the date of 2 Corinthians (A.D. 55/56) has been established on other grounds (Die Frühzeit des Apostels Paulus, pp. 242, 285). The suggestion that 2 Cor. 12:1–4 refers to Paul’s conversion experience seems improbable, for if Paul’s conversion took place about A.D. 33, and the heavenly experience recounted here took place fourteen years before the writing 2 Corinthians (assuming the unity of the letter), then the experience occurred about A.D. 42. With so many assumptions and uncertainties, however, this reconstruction must remain conjectural. Indeed, any reconstruction is bound to beg the question at some point.
Prophetic oracles are frequently dated. For example, Isaiah’s encounter with the throne of God in the temple is dated to “the year that King Uzziah died” (Isa. 6:1). Perhaps the number fourteen has some traditional significance. We may note, for example, that Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple and land (Ezek. 40–48) took place “in the fourteenth year after the city [sc. Jerusalem] was struck down” (40:1). The text goes on to state that “on that very day, the hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me there.” Jewish tradition has it that the Israelites spend seven years in conquering the land and seven years in dividing it among the twelve tribes (Seder ʿolam Rabbah 11; b.Qidd. 37a, b; b. Zebaḥ. 118b; Gen. Rab. 35:3; 98:15; cf. Josephus, Ant. 5.68). Furthermore, Jacob spent fourteen years secluded in the land and studying under Eber (b. Meg. 16b, 17a; Gen. Rab. 68:5, 11; Exod. Rab. 2:6).
Cf. Gershom Scholem, “The Four Who Entered Paradise and Paul’s Ascension to Paradise,” in Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (2d ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), pp. 14–19. On the connection of 2 Cor. 12:2–4 to Jewish mysticism see also Alan F. Segal, “Paul and the Beginning of Jewish Mysticism,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys (ed. John J. Collins and Michael Fishbane; Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), pp. 95–122 (esp. pp. 108–9).
On the verb caught up (harpazein), see Martha Himmelfarb, “The Practice of Ascent in the Ancient Mediterranean World,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, pp. 123–37 (esp. pp. 128–33), who argues that “the dominant understanding of ascent in ancient Jewish and Christian literature is of a process initiated not by the visionary but by God” (p. 133). As John J. Collins observes, prophetic visions of the divine throne typically serve two functions: they establish the credentials of the visionary, thereby legitimating him as an intermediary between heaven and earth, and they provide revealed information (The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature [ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1995], p. 140).
The connection between 2 Cor. 12:1–10 and 2:14–3:18 is further substantiated, if, as several scholars have suggested, the Lord’s answer to Paul’s request in 2 Cor. 12:9 reflects a midrash on Deut. 3:26, where God responds to Moses’ request to enter the land (cf., e.g., Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity [WUNT 2/36; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990], p. 143; Furnish, 2 Corinthians, p. 530; but see Ulrich Heckel, Kraft in Schwachheit [WUNT 2/56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993], p. 89), for 2 Cor. 2:14–3:18 Compares Paul and Moses in several ways. Moreover, Paul argues in 2 Cor. 2:16b that the reason for his sufficiency is really the same as that of Moses (cf. 12:9).
On the concept of the third heaven, see Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Seven Heavens in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” in Death, Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys, pp. 59–93 (esp. pp. 66–68).
In the body or out of the body could reflect the ambivalence that some merkabah mystics felt as to whether their experience was physical or mental, for example, Merkabah Rabbah (Schäfer, 680) states: “Rabbi said: When my heart heard this great secret, the world above me was transformed to clearness, and my heart was as if I had come into a new world. Day after day, it seemed to my soul as if I stood before the Throne of Glory.” See also 1 En. 14:8: “And behold I saw the clouds: And they were calling me in a vision; … and in the vision, the winds were causing me to fly and rushing me high up into heaven” (OTP). Most of the descriptions, however, seem to portray the heavenly journey in concrete, physical terms. In our text, the fact that Paul received a thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7) may indicate that his heavenly journey was in the body, if he received this affliction during the journey. Perhaps the apostle uses the uncertainty about his revelatory experience as a way of partially explaining why his body was not transformed by the ascents, for an out-of-body experience may not have been expected to produce physical change in the visionary. In that case, we may ask what difference, if any, Paul may have thought there was between believers’ revelatory experience (cf. 3:18) and his own experience.
12:3–4 On paradise, see Sandra R. Shimoff, “Gardens: From Eden to Jerusalem,” JSJ 26 (1995), pp. 145–55; J. H. Charlesworth, “Paradise,” ABD, vol. 5, pp. 154–55.
Cf. C. R. A. Morray-Jones, “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate, Part 1: The Jewish Sources,” HTR 86 (1993), pp. 177–217; idem, “Paradise Revisited (2 Cor. 12:1–12): The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate, Part 2: Paul’s Heavenly Ascent and its Significance,” HTR 86 (1993), pp. 265–92. For a rebuttal of this position, see now Alon Goshen-Gottstein, “Four Entered Paradise Revisited,” HTR 88 (1995), pp. 69–133. For an answer to the objections of Goshen-Gottstein see James Davila, “The Hodayot Hymnist and the Four who Entered Paradise,” RevQ 17 (1996) 457–77.
On the reluctance of Jewish mystics to recount certain aspects of their heavenly journeys, see Morray-Jones, “The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate, Part 2,” pp. 271–72, 281, 283; Alan F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee (New Haven: Yale, 1990), p. 58; Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery, p. 175. Cf. Dan. 12:4; Apoc. Zeph. 5:6; 4 Ezra 14:4–6, 44–46. Perhaps one of the things that man is not permitted to tell is the name of YHWH himself, as often in Hekhalot literature (cf., e.g., Schäfer, 670, 961; also Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius 353). Obviously, the merkabah mystic was not prohibited from telling everything that was revealed to him; otherwise, he could never be a mediator of revelation. See also Jean-Pierre Ruiz, “Hearing and Seeing but Not Saying: A Look at Revelation 10:4 and 2 Corinthians 12:4,” Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers (ed. Eugene H. Lovering Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 182–202.
12:7 I am indebted to my colleague, Martin G. Abegg, for the parallel to the boasts of the Teacher of Righteousness. On the Hekhalot warnings against self-exaltation, see Morray-Jones, “The Jewish Mystical Background of Paul’s Apostolate, Part 2,” pp. 271–72. In Hekhalot Rabbati (Schäfer, 272), God is extolled as one who humbles the proud and exalts the humble.
Galen, the second-century medical writer, uses the expression thorn in the flesh several times in combination with participles (Desimplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus libri xi 696; In Hippocratis aphorismos commentarii vii 17b.630; also Photius Bibl. 175b). These examples show that Paul uses the dative sarki in a locative sense, and that his elliptical expression skolops tē sarki means “a thorn (stuck) in the flesh.” It is no use trying to specify what the precise nature of Paul’s physical ailment might have been, whether epilepsy, depression, headaches, malaria, leprosy, a speech impediment, or some other. Our text is as unspecific about the ailment as the psalm that evidently lies behind it (Ps. 32:4). We have already noted Paul’s use of psalmic form and context in 2 Cor. 1:3–11 and 4:13. Moreover, 2 Cor. 6:9 (“as disciplined and yet not put to death”) is widely acknowledged as an allusion to Ps. 117:18 LXX (“with discipline the Lord disciplined me and yet did not give me over to death”). This shows that Paul did indeed seem himself as under divine discipline at points.
Sometimes Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” is interpreted in light of Gal. 4:15 as an eye disease. Cf. T. J. Leary, “ ‘A Thorn in the Flesh’—2 Corinthians 12:7,” JTS 43 (1992), pp. 520–22. As with our passage, however, Paul’s statements in Gal. 4:12–20 can be interpreted as referring either to an illness or to persecution. Cf. A. J. Goddard and S. A. Cummins, “Ill or Ill-Treated? Conflict and Persecution as the Context of Paul’s Original Ministry in Galatia,” JSNT 52 (1993), pp. 93–126.
12:8 Cf. Michael D. Swartz, Mystical Prayer in Ancient Judaism: An Analysis of Ma’aseh Merkavah (TSAJ 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), who shows that in Ma’aseh Merkabah, a central text of Jewish merkabah mysticism, prayers are seen as the instruments by which the visionary ascends, experiences the vision of the merkabah and the heavenly realm, and protects himself from the terrifying dangers of that vision (pp. 5, 69, 128, 137, 141).
When Paul refers to the Lord here, he probably means the Lord Jesus Christ, for v. 9 interprets “the power” (NIV: my power) to mean “Christ’s power.”
It is interesting to note that Moses also made an entreaty to the Lord that was firmly denied (Deut. 3:23–26).
12:9 On the connection between power and weakness, see Timothy B. Savage, Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians (SNTSMS 86; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
The stative verb arkein (be sufficient) falls within the same semantic field as hikanos (“sufficient”), hikanotēs (“sufficiency”), and hikanoun (“make sufficient”) in 2 Cor. 2:16; 3:5, 6, and the two are often used synonymously (cf. Exod. 12:4, LXX; Plutarch, Phocion 30.1; Strabo, Geography 2.4.8). Hence, instead of hikanon estin in Luke 22:38, Codex Bezae has arkei.
If the “Lord” in v. 8 and the he in v. 9 refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, then this verse constitutes the earliest record of the words of Jesus in the NT, since Paul’s letters constitute the oldest literature in the NT.
