Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 12:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
12:1-10. Glorying About Revelations to His Soul and a Thorn for His Flesh
I have received two sublime revelations, and also, to preserve me from vanity respecting this great favour, a humiliating infirmity.
1 This glorying is forced upon me. I have indeed nothing to gain by it, for myself or for the good of the Church; but I will pass on to a worthier subject, viz. visions and revelations granted to me by the Lord Jesus Christ. They have been called delusions or inventions, but they are sober fact. 2 I can tell you of a man who was in ecstasy with Christ fourteen years ago—it was Christ’s doing and no credit to the man: whether he was still in the body, I cannot tell, or whether he was in rapture away from the body. I cannot tell; that is known to God alone: he was caught up, this man of whom I speak, even to the third heaven. 3 I can tell you also that this man of whom I speak, either in the body or apart from the body (God knows which), 4 was caught up into the Paradise where God dwells, and there listened to utterances unutterable, such as no human being is allowed to repeat. 5 Of such a man as this, not knowing his own condition and yet so honoured, I am prepared to glory; but of myself personally, such as you know me, I am not prepared to glory, except as regards what I have called my weaknesses. 6 I am not bound to abstain in this way, for if I choose to glory about other things, I shall not be a fool in so doing, for I shall only be saying what is true; but I do abstain, because I do not want anyone to form a higher estimate of me than that which he can gather from what he sees me do or hears me say. 7 And then there is the exceeding greatness of the revelations. Therefore, in order that I should not be exalted overmuch about these, there was given to me a painful malady, like a stake driven into my flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch. 8 About this affliction I three times made supplication to the Lord, praying Him to remove it from me. 9 And this was His reply; “It is sufficient for thee that thou hast received grace to become My Apostle and to convert the nations; for it is when man’s strength fails that My power is brought to perfection.” Most gladly, therefore, I shall prefer glorying in all my weaknesses to asking the Lord to free me from them, so that the power of Christ may spread a sheltering cover over me. 10 That is why I am so well pleased with weaknesses, such as wanton injuries, dire hardships, persecutions, and desperate straits, when they are endured for Christ’s sake. For it is just when, in myself I am utterly weak that in Him I am truly strong.
1. κυᾶθιδῖο σμέο μν ἐεσμιδ κτλ Owing probably to accidental mistakes in copying and conjectural emendations by puzzled scribes, the text of this verse is so confused that it is impossible to disentangle the original text with certainty; but on the whole this wording is likely to be right, or nearly so; ‘I must needs glory: it is not indeed expedient, but I will come to visions, etc.’ It is however possible that κυᾶθιδ ο σμέο μν ἐεσμιδ κτλ may be what the Apostle dictated; ‘Now to glory is not indeed expedient, but I will come to visions, etc.’ The difference between these two is not very important. * What is clear is that, before passing from the great peril at Damascus to experiences of a very different kind, he cannot refrain from remarking once more that all this foolish glorying is forced upon him; he knows that it is not profitable, that it may lower his self-respect and the respect which others have for him, but he has no choice about it; ὑεςμ ἠακστ (v. 11). Σμέο is used in a wide sense; ‘likely to be edifying to other Christians or to myself’ (8:10; 1Co_6:12, 1Co_6:7:35, 1Co_6:10:23, 33, 1Co_6:12:7).
ὁτσα κὶἀοαύεςκρο. Seeing that κρο belongs to both substantives, the genitive is probably subjective; ‘visions and revelations which proceed from the Lord,’ rather than those in which the Lord is seen and revealed; cf. δʼἀοαύεςἸσῦΧιτῦ(Gal_1:12). But where either objective or subjective makes good sense, it is sometimes difficult to see on which side the balance of probability lies; e.g. in the phrase τ εαγλο τῦΘο or ἸσῦΧιτῦ ‘Vsions and revelations’ is a cross division, for some, but not all, visions reveal something, and some, but not all, revelations are made without anything being visible. † this case, however, all the ‘visions’ would reveal something, for they proceed from the Lord (κρο), who sends them for the very purpose of making something known. It is perhaps true to say that, except in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 43:2, 16; addition to Est_4:3), ὀτσαalways means a vision that reveals something (Luk_1:22, Luk_1:24:23; Act_26:19; Mal_3:2; Dan_9:23, Dan_9:10:1, Dan_9:10:7, Dan_9:8, Dan_9:16 [Theod.], where LXX has ὅαι or ὅαα The word was probably colloquial before it became Biblical.
The incidents to which this verse forms an introduction, like that of the flight from Damascus, had probably been used as a means of attacking St Paul. People may easily have said that these ecstatic experiences, which he claimed to have had, proved that he was a deluded enthusiast, if not actually crazy. If they were not deliberate inventions, they were the outcome of vivid and unrestrained imagination. He had thought about them till he believed that they had taken place. It is possible that this view survives here and there in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, the Judaizing writers of which now and again, under cover of Simon Magus, make an attack on St Paul. In particular they deride the ‘visions’ of Simon Magus.“Simon said, Visions and dreams, being God-sent, do not speak falsely in regard to those things which they have to tell. And Peter said, You were right in saying that being God-sent they do not speak falsely. But it is uncertain whether he who sees has seen a God-sent dream”(Clem. Hom. xvii. 15; cf. Hom. xi. 5, ii. 17, 18; Recog. ii. 55, iii. 49, iv. 35). See Hort, Clem. Recog. pp. 120 ff.; Hastings, DB. iv. p. 524; JTS., Oct. 1901, p. 53.
It is not likely that ε before κυᾶθι(א 39, f Vulg.) is original. κυᾶθιδῖ(B D 3 F G L P,; d f g Vulg. Syrr. Goth.) is probably to be preferred to κυᾶθιδ (אD* Copt.) or κυ. δ (K M, Aeth.). But in MSS. the confusion between ε and εis very freq., and δ may be original. The various readings in 1Co_6:20 illustrate the confusion between δῖ δ. ο σμέο (אB G 17, 67* *) rather than ο σμέε (D K L P); Gregory (preleg. p.75) shows that σμέο has better authority than σνέο. μνאB G P 17,67* * f Vulg. Copt.) rather than μι(D3 K L m,Syr-Hark., Chrys.); but D * Aeth. Goth have neither μνnor μι B 213 have ἐεσμιδ κί
The variations in the text of this verse do not justify its exclusion as an interpolation. See above on 11:32, 33.
2-5. In solemn and subdued but rhythmical language, which reads as if it were the outcome of much meditation, and which suggests a good deal more than it states, St Paul affirms the reality of his mysterious experiences. * Reluctantly, and only for a moment, he lifts the veil which usually covers the details of the most sacred moments of his life and allows the Corinthians to see enough to convince them that the revelations of which he has claimed to be the recipient were intensely and supremely real. He could doubt his own identity with the recipient rather than doubt the reality of the revelations, and he speaks of them as if they had been experienced by some one who during those mysterious times was other than himself. But, whatever these experiences were, they could not be classed as ‘weaknesses,’ and we must admit that for the moment he has ceased to think of τ τςἀθνίς for he cannot have regarded them as such, whatever his critics may have done. †
It has been suggested that these revelations are mentioned simply in order to explain the ‘weakness’ caused by the ‘stake for the flesh’ (v. 7), so that in reality there is no break in the catalogue of τ τςἀθνίςμν The context is against this view. The revelations are mentioned independently of their consequences; and it would be more true to say that the σόο is an appendix to the ἀοαύεςthan that the ἀοαύεςare a preface to the σόο. It is “because he is going to pass to another kind of glorying, which to the many seems to set him off in brighter colours” (Chrys.), that he writes what we have here.
Bousset shows that among the Jews the belief in the fact of translation to heaven was not confined to the cases of primitive saints and heroes, such as Enoch and Elijah. Historical persons of a much later date were believed to have had this experience. In the Babylonian Talmud, Chagiga, 14b (Goldschmidt, 3:834 ff.), we are told that four Rabbis had had this experience. Ben Azai beheld the glory and died. Ben Soma beheld and was stricken (went mad). Acher, who ranks as a heretic among famous teachers, cut up the young plants (ruined the garden of truth with his disastrous doctrine). Of R. Akiba alone is it said that in peace he ascended and in peace he came back. The Angels would have sent even him away, but the Holy One, who is blessed for ever, said to them, “Suffer this old man, for he is worthy, to enjoy My honour and glory.”
But we are going beyond what this evidence warrants, if we infer from it that a series of younger Rabbinical contemporaries of St Paul had had ecstatic experiences similar to his, and that he had brought this strange form of piety over from his Rabbinical past into Christianity. Granting that what is told us of these four Rabbis is historically true,-and that may be granting a great deal,—how can we tell that their experiences were similar to those of St Paul, or that he knew anything of such things before he met the Lord on the way to Damascus?
2. οδ ἄθωο ἐ Χιτ πὸἐῶ δκτσάω …ἁπγνα ‘I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up.’ Not, ‘I knew (AV) such a person fourteen years ago.’ St Paul knows him intimately at the time of writing, but not until v. 7 does he show that he is speaking of himself.
The meaning of ἐ Χιτ is not clear. It is not to be taken with δδ, as if he were speaking in Christ’s name; it belongs to ἄθωόἁπλνα and it is probably inserted in order to disclaim all credit for the glorious experience, in which he was not active but passive, being under Divine influence; it was ‘in the power of Christ’ that he was caught up. * The mention of the fourteen years is natural enough. In telling of a remarkable incident of one’s life it is natural to begin with the date, if one remembers it. The Prophets do so repeatedly with regard to thier spiritual experiences, and Amos (4:7) does so in a manner parallel to this, πὸτινμνντῦτυηο. Cf. Hos_1:1; Zec_1:1, Zec_1:7:1; Zec_6:1; Jer_1:2, 26:1, 42:7; Eze_1:1, Eze_3:16. The date in this case shows that it was after St Paul had been a Christian for about seven years that this event took place. But there is nothing to show that during these fourteen years he had never mentioned to any person the fact of these revelations until the Corinthians compelled him to break silence (Chrys., Thdrt., and some moderns). The context rather implies that the bare fact was known; i.e. it was known that he said that he had received communications direct from heaven.
There is nothing in Acts that can be identified with these experiences. The trance in 22:17 is very different; he is not caught up to the Lord, but the Lord comes to him, and he repeats what was said to him, as he does with regard to what was said to him on the road to Damascus. That he was caught up to heaven when he was lying apparently dead, after being stoned at Lystra (Act_14:19), is a surprising hypothesis. Even more surprising is the supposition that St Paul was one of the prophets who went down from Jerusalem to Antioch and foretold the great famine (Act_11:27, Act_11:28), and that it was when he was in the third heaven that the coming of the famine was revealed to him! With less improbability Zahn (Intr. to N.T iii. p. 462) connects this revelation with the momentous change of preaching to Gentiles, which was made at Antioch about a.d. 43 (Act_11:25, Act_11:26). But if that were correct, would not St Paul have declared that he had Divine authority for this step? Conjectural connexions of this kind are not of much value. For other visions cf. Act_16:9, Act_16:18:9, Act_16:23:11, Act_16:27:23; and for ἁπγναcf. Act_8:39; 1Th_4:17; 12:5. The use of ἀεήφηis similar (appendix to Mk. 26. v. 19; Act_1:2, Act_1:1:11, Act_1:22, 1Ti_3:16; 2Ki_2:11). Ἡπγνfor ἡπση is late Greek.
The psychological phenomenon of ecstasy is found in other religions and philosophies, notably in Buddhism and Neoplatonism. Porphyry (Vita Plotini, ii. 23) tells us that, while he was with him. Plotinus four times attained to that oneness (ἑωῆα) with God which was his τλςκὶσοό, and that he accomplished this Ἐεγί ἀρτ. This is very different from what the Apostle tells us about himself. In his case there is no ambitious struggle, often without success, for ecstatic union with the Deity. ‘In the power of Christ’ he is caught up into glory. There is another marked contrast when we compare the elaborate details given us about the experience of Enouch and others when translated to heaven with the brief and restrained statements made by the Apostle in these few verses. He does not tell us what he saw in the third heaven, still what he saw in the first and second, while on his way to the third.* He does not even tell us that he was conscious of passing through other celestial regions. The condensed intensity of the narrative leaves little room for the play of fancy or exaggeration.
ετ ἐ σμτ οκοδ, ετ ἐτςτῦσμτ͂ οκοδ. He is quite clear about what he knows and what he does not know. He knows that he was caught up even to the third heaven; about that there is no possibility of delusion. He was conscious of the transfer, and he vividly remembers that for a time he was in heaven. But he is not sure of the relation in which his spirit was to his body during this experience; about that his memory tells him nothing. His body may have been caught up to heaven, or it may have remained, bereft of consciousness, on earth. “That he was in the third heaven he was not ignorant, but the manner he knew not clearly” (Chrys.). This shows that he was alone at the time; if others had been with him, he would inevitably have solved this doubt by asking whether his body had disappeared.
Jewish beliefs respecting Enoch and Eliajah, Baruch and Ezra, and perhaps also Jeremiah (Mat_16:14; Mat_2 Esdr. 2:18; 2 Macc 15:13, 14) had made the notion of bodily translation to heaven a commonplace. Such a translation may be difficult to believe, but in imagination it is easily realized, whereas disembodied spirit cannot be represented in thought. This idea of bodily translation would be familiar to St Paul, and he thought it possible that it might have taken place in his own case. With ετ …ετ (see on 1:6) he places the two alternatives on an equality. In the apocryphal Revelation or Vision of Paul (Visio Pauli) it is assumed that he was caught up in the body. On the other hand, in the Assumption of Moses, the soul is carried away without the body, and Philo (De somn. i. p. 626, Mang.) says that there was a tradition that Moses was freed from the body while he listened to the Divine utterances on the mount, ὧ ἀραὴ Μϋῆ ἁώαο γνμννλλςἔε. But we are not told what became of his body during the forty days on Sinai.
We may suppose that in St Paul’s case the ecstasy was experienced in a form which was conditioned by his existing beliefs respecting such subjects. We do not make our dreams, and they come to us independently of our wills; but they are conditioned by the materials with which we are familiar, when we are awake (Bousset, p. 211).
Ἐ σμτ is a colloquial expression and is equivalent to an adverb. For this reason it has no art., like ἐ οκ, ‘indoors, at home’ (1Co_11:34, 1Co_11:14:35; Mar_2:1);* Where it is not thus we have ἐ τ ς(4:10, 5:6), just as here we have ἐτςτῦσμτς which is not a colloquial expression. The omission of the art. before τίο and other ordinals is also colloquial (Act_2:15, Act_2:23:23; Mat_26:44; Mar_14:72; ect.)
ἕςτίο ορνῦThe ἕςdoes not prove that St Paul regarded the third heaven as the highest of all, but certainly ‘even to the third heaven’ would be more naturally used if the third heaven were the highest, than if there were four other heavens above it. We know from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Lev_2. and 3.) and from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch that some Jews about the time of St Paul distinguished seven heavens, an idea in which they have been followed by the Valentinians and by the Mahometans. The Secrets of Enoch is not very clear in its account of the seven heavens, but in one place it would seem that paradise either is the third heaven or is in the third heaven (8:1-3, 42:3). In the Testaments the heavens and paradise seem to be different (Lev_18:5, Lev_18:6, Lev_18:10). It is by no means certain that St Paul was familiar with these ideas, and it is not probable that he is alluding to them here.†He is using language which was to be understood by the Corinthians, and it is not likely that he expected them to know about seven heavens; whereas ‘even to the third heaven’ might convey to any one the idea of the most sublime condition that is conceivable. Irenaeus (II. xxx. 7) has good sense on his side when, in arguing against the Valentinians, he rejects the notion that the Apostle was raised only to the third heaven in a series of seven, leaving the four highest heavens still beyond him. Bengel’s suggestion may be right, that St Paul’s three heavens are the heaven of the clouds, the heaven of the sun and stars, and the heaven in which God dwells; but that of Calvin seems to be preferable; numerus ternarius κτ ἐοή positus est prosummo et perfectissimo. Where seven heavens are counted, the third is a very inferiod region, with somewhat earthly characteristics.
3. κὶοδ τντιῦο ἄθωο. ‘I know also that the man of whom I speak.rs; We have to decide whether this is a repetion of v. 2 or the record of a second experience. That ἁπλμιis used in both places is no sign that vv. 3, 4 simply repeat v. 2 with an additional fact; in each case, if two cases are meant, he was ‘caught up’ from the earth. The change from ‘third heaven’ to ‘paradise’ is no evidence either way; for ‘paradise’ may mean the ‘third heaven’ or some portion of it, and if it is a mere synonym, there may have been two occasions of rapture to the same region of heaven. Again, the plural in v. 1 is no evidence either way. It may mean more than one vision and revelation, or it may simply indicate a class of which one example is to be given. Moreover, even if vv. 3 and 4 are a repetition of v. 2, we still have two revelations, for the Divine communication in v. 9 is a revelation. See below on v. 7. But the κίat the beginning of v. 3 is rather strongly in favour of the view that we have two revelations without counting the Divine utterance in v. 9; for the κίis almost awkwardly superfluous if what follows simply repeats v. 2.
On the whole, patristic writers seem to be mostly in favour of either two raptures, or one rapture in two stages, first to the third heaven and thence to paradise. The language of some of them would fit either of these hypotheses (Irenaeus, 11. xxx. 7; Tertullian, De Praes. Haer. 24; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. xiv. 26); but Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 12, p. 693, ed. Potter) is plainly for the latter; “caught up even to the third heaven and thence into paradise.”* In this he is followed by few moderns, who for the most part adopt the view that St Paul is speaking throughout of only one experience, and that ‘paradise’ is equivalent to the ‘third heaven.’ Bengel, however, is confident that vv. 3, 4 duplex rei momentum exprimunt. So also Bousset with somewhat less confidence; so werden wir schwerlich verstehen sollen, dass Paradies und dritter Himmel dasselbe seien, dass er sich also in seiner Aussage nur wiederhole (p. 209). McFadyen finds it “hard to say, but perhaps the second statement is intended to suggest a second experience, similar but higher.” The Fathers are loose in their quotations of the passage. They sometimes say that the Apostle heard unutterable words in the third heaven, which is no proof that they identify paradise with the third heaven; and they sometimes say that he saw things of which it is not lawful to speak.
χρςτῦσμτς ‘Apart from the body.’ The change from ἐτςto χρςshould be marked in translation.
Many texts in this verse read ἐτς and Vulg. has extra corpus in both places, but χρς(B D * E *) is doubtless original.
4. εςτνπρδιο. See on Luk_23:43 and Sewte on Rev_2:7, the only other passages in N.T. in which πρδιο occurs; also Hastings, DB. ii. pp. 668 f., DCG. ii. p. 318; Salmond, Christ. Doct. of Immortality, pp. 346 f. The word tells us little about the nature of the unseen world. In the O.T. it is used either of the Garden of Eden (Gen_2:9, Gen_2:2:10, Gen_2:15, etc.) or of a park or pleasure-ground (Son_4:13; Ecc_2:5; Joe_2:3; etc.); but it represents three or four different Hebrew words. We must leave open the question as to whether St Paul regards paradise and the third heaven as identical, or as quite different, or as one containing the other, for there is no clue to the answer. See Int. Journal of Apocrypha, July 1914, pp. 74 f.
ἤοσνἄρτ ῥμτ. ‘He heard unutterable utterances.’ The verbal contradiction may be accidental, but it is probably another instance of playing upon words of which St Paul is fond (1:13, 3:2, 4:8, 5:4, 6:10, 7:10, 10:5, 6, 12).* Neither ‘unspeakable words’ (AV, RV) nor arcana verba (Vulg.) exactly reproduces the Greek. The latter might be effata ineffabilia. Cf. ἀάοςλλῖ (Mar_7:37). Ἄρτςis used in class. Grk. of things which cannot be expressed in words (cf. σεαμῖ ἀαήος Rom_8:26); but more often of things which are either too sacred or too horrible to be mentioned, nefanda. What follows shows what is the meaning here, the only place in Bibl. Grk. in which the word occurs.
ἃοκἐὸ ἀθῴλλσι No doubt ἀθώῳis to be taken with ἐόrather than with λλσι ‘which it is not lawful (Mat_12:4; Act_2:29) for a man to speak,’ rather than ‘not lawful to say to a man’: non licet homini loqui (Vulg.) will fit either interpretation, but the difference between the two is not very great. That he heard the voices of the heavenly choir, and similar conjectures, are not very wise. The question, what was the use of the revelation, if the Apostle might not make known what was revealed? can be answered. It was a source of strength to the Apostle himself in his overwhelming trials, and thus a source of strength also to the millions whom he has encouraged. Cf. 10:4, where the seer is told not to write down what he heard. See Abbott, Johannine Grammar, p. 305.
5. ὑὲ τῦτιύο κυήοα. No doubt τῦτιύο is masc, as is shown by T.T. ἄθωο (v. 3) and by the contrast with ἐατῦ He speaks as if there were two Pauls, one about whom he could glory, and another about whom he would not do so. And in a sense there were two; for, as Origen remarks, “He who was caught up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words is a different Paul from him who said, Of such a one I will glory.” To a person who has been in ecstasy that experience may seem to belong to a person other than his everyday self. And it is only as having been bestowed upon a person different from his ordinary self that the Apostle will glory of the unspeakable favours bestowed in these raptures. They were not to his credit; for he was entirely passive throughout; all was ‘of the Lord’ and ‘in Christ.’ As to his own conduct, he returns to what was said in 11:30, he will glory, not of the things which he has achieved, but of the things which he has suffered, the things in which he has been weak and the Lord strong. He returns to these in v. 7.
After τῖ ἀθνίι אD 3 E G K L M P, f g Vulg. Aeth. Goth. add μυ B D * 17 67, d e Syrr. Copt. Arm. omit. Cf. 11:30. Such insertions for completeness are common; see vv. 9, 10; Eph_3:6, Eph_3:5:31; Php_4:23.
6. ἐνγρθλσ κυήαθι ‘For if I should desire to glory of revelations which I am allowed to disclose, or of things in which I was active and achieved something, I shall not be foolish in so doing (11:1, 16), for I shall be saying what is true’ (5:11). If θλσ is fut. indic., it may imply that he does desire to do so; but it is probably aor. subjunct. Blass, §65. 5, holds that in N.T. there is no certain example of ἐνwith fut. indic.; but Luk_19:40 and Act_8:31 are hardly doubtful, and ἐνε ἐπηώοσνoccurs in a papyrus of 2nd cent. b.c.. Winer, p. 369; Burton, §254; J. H. Moulton, p. 168. The timeless aor. infin. after such verbs as θλ, βύοα, δνμι ἐπζ is normal; 2:7, 5:4; 1Co_14:19, 1Co_14:16:7; etc. Burton, §113.
φίοα δ. We have this absolute use of φίοα again 13:2: cf. Isa_54:2. In N.T. it is elsewhere followed by a gen., in LXX by a prep., ἀό πρ, ὑέ, ἐί
μ τςεςἐὲλγστι ‘Lest any man should count of me, form an estimate of me.’ The constr. is unusual, but it probably does not mean ‘lay to my credit,’ which would almost require ἐο. In Hos_7:15 εςἐὲἐοίατ πνρ means ‘they imagined mischief against me.’
ὑὲ ὃβέε μ ἢἀοε ἐ ἐο. ‘Above that which he seeth in me or heareth from me.’ He wishes to be judged, not by what he tells them respecting his exceptional privileges, but by what their own experience of him tells them, by his conduct, preaching, and letters. ‘Of me’ for ἐ ἐο (AV) is misleading: he does not desire to be judged by what people say of him; it is the words that come from him that count. In 2Ti_1:13, 2Ti_2:2 we have πρ ἐο ἠοσς
After ἀοε א D * E * K L P, d e f Vulg. Goth. Syr-Hark. add τς א* B D3 F G 17 67, g Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit. It is probably an interpolation. Divergence of F from f
7. Text and punctuation of this verse are in dispute, and no certainty is attainable. There is probably some original error of dictation or of writing. But the meaning of the verse is certain and simple, however we reach it. The extraordinary revelations granted to him might have caused the Apostle to think too highly of himself; to prevent this, severe and humiliating bodily suffering was laid upon him.
κὶτ ὑεβλ τνἀοαύεν The plur. is some confirmation of the view that v. 2 and vv. 3, 4 give us two cases of rapture, for ‘the revelations’ naturally refers to those just mentioned; but Acts tells us of several others (16:6-10, 18:9, 23:11, 27:23), and he may be including some of these here. Lachmann’s proposal to take these words with the conclusion of v. 5 and make v. 6 a parenthesis, is barely possible; ‘I will not glory, save in my weaknesses (for if I should desire …hear from me) and in the exceeding greatness of the revelations.’ WH. propose to take these words with the conclusion of v. 6; ‘but I forbear, lest any man should … and by reason of the greatness of the revelation.’ This means that he has two reasons for forbearing, fear of being overrated and the greatness of the revelations. It is hard to believe that either arrangement was in the Apostle’s mind. The best attested text comes out thus, and it is possible that something like this was the result of incoherent dictation; ‘And by reason of the exceeding greatness (4:7) of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch (2Th_2:4) there was given to me a stake for the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch.’ St Paul begins with what is the basis of what follows,—the greatness of the revelations. Having mentioned this with emphasis, he begins a new constr. with δόand finishes with yet another constr., repeating ἵαμ ὑεαρμιeither through forgetfulness, or (more probably) because he wishes his readers not to forget the purpose of the σόο. For other possibilities see Meyer. To get rid of δόwould be a great help, but it is indefinitely more probable that it has been omitted from some texts because of its difficulty than that it has been inserted in such good texts without authority. See ὑεβλ, Index IV.
Ὑεαρμιis found in N.T. only here and in 2Th_2:4, where it occurs in the description of ὁἄθωο τςἀοίς St Paul is rather fond of such compounds; ὑεαξν, ὑεβίω ὑενυχν, ὑενκω ὑεετίω(10:14), ὑεπενζ, ὑευό, all of which are ἅα λγμν in N.T. See also on ὑελα(11:5), p. 299.
ἐόημι Of course by God, as ἵαμ ὑεαρμιshows. It was sent to preserve the Apostle from spiritual pride. See Aug. De. Nat. et Grat. 27; also the Reply to Faustus, xxii. 20 This, however, does not prevent Meyer from saying that the σόο was given by Satan. Satan is regarded as an instrument for effecting the Divine purpose, as Judas in the case of the Atonement. See on 1Co_5:5, also J. H. Bernard on 1Ti_1:20. Satan is ever ready to inflict suffering, and is sometimes made to be instrumental when suffering is needed for the discipline of souls. This idea prevails in the prologue to the Book of Job. But if St Paul had meant that it was Satan who was the agent in this case, he would have used a less gracious word than ἑόηwhich he often has of the bestowal of Divine favours; e.g. Gal_3:21; Eph_3:8, Eph_3:6:19; 1Ti_4:14; cf. 1:22, 5:5, 8:1, 16, 10:8, 13:10; etc. etc. Some such verb as ἐιίηι(Luk_10:30, Luk_10:23:26; Act_26:23), or Βλω(Rev_2:24), Or ἐιάλ (1Co_7:35), would have been more suitable. Gregory of Nazianzum in his Panegyric of Basil (Or. xliii. 82) speaks of a malady of his own as τνδδμννἡῖ πρ Θο σόοα
σόο τ σρί These three words raise three questions, two of translation and one of interpretation, which have elicited a very large amount of discussion; and, when all has been said, no certain answer to any one of the three can be given. What is the exact force of the dative? What is the right translation of σόο? What form of suffering is meant by the metaphor?
1. ‘For the flesh’ is on the whole more probable than ‘in the flesh’ (AV, RV). Why omit ἐ if ‘in the flesh’ is intended? Earlier English Versions differ. Wiclif and the Rhemish follow the ambiguous stimulus carnis adopted in the Vulgate from Cyprian (Test. iii. 6, De Mortal. 13) and the translator of Irenaeus (5:1. 3:1); they have ‘pricke of my flesh.’ Between these come Tyndale ‘unquyetnes of the flesshe,’ Coverdale ‘warnynge geven unto my flesh,’ Cranmer ‘unquyetnes thorow the flesshe,’ and the Genevan ‘pricke in the fleshe.’ No one now would adopt either ‘of’ or ‘through,’ but ‘unto’ is not very different from ‘for.’ See Winer, p. 276, and Waite, ad loc.
2. For the translation of σόο we are offered ‘stake,’ ‘spike,’ ‘splinter,’ and ‘thorn.’ The choice really lies between ‘stake’ and ‘thorn,’ i.e. between a very large and a comparatively small cause of bodily pain. In class. Grk. the common meaning of σόο is ‘stake,’ either for palisading or impaling, and a stake for impalement is a very vivid metaphor for intense physical suffering. Hence σόο was sometimes used of the cross (Orig. c. Cels. ii. 68) and ἀακλπζ of crucifixion (Eus. H.E. ii. 25). Tertullian twice has sudes as a translation (De Fuga in Pro_2; De Pudic. 13). Luther has Pfahl ins Fleish, Beza surculus infixus carni. In his essay at the end of Gal. 4., Lightfoot interprets the expression as “a stake driven through the flesh.” Stanley (ad loc.) and Ramsay (St Paul, p. 97) decide for ‘stake’ rather than ‘thorn’; and Beet, Emmet, Klö Massie, A. T. Robertson, Waite, Way, Weymouth adopt this rendering. But Alford, Bachmann, Bousset, Conybeare and Howson, Cornely, Field, Findlay, Heinrici, Krenkel, Lietzmann, McFadyen, Menzies, Meyer, F. W. Robertson, Schaff, and Schmiedel abide by the usual rendering, ‘thorn.’ Farrar (St Paul, i. p. 221) tries to keep both; “impalement …by this wounding splinter.”
In LXX σόο occurs four times, σόοε ἐ τῖ ὀθλοςὑῶ κὶβλδςἐ τῖ περῖ ὑῶ (Num_33:55). οκἔοτιοκτ ἐ ὄῳτῦἸρὴ σόο πκίςκὶἄαθ ὀύη (Eze_28:24). ἐὼφάσ τνὁὸ ατςἐ σόοι (Hos_2:6). κὶπχη ὡ ἅαἐὶγςχε, κὶπγῖαγντισοόω ἄρ (Ecclus. 43:19). ‘Thorn’ or ‘splinter’ seems to be the meaning in all four passages, but ‘stake’ might be the meaning in Hos_2:6. Yet we cannot be sure that one and the same rendering is right in all four places, for, in the first three, σόο represents three different Hebrew words. It is not impossible that Num_33:55 is the source of St Paul’s expression, and in that case we have an answer to the objection urged against ‘thorn,’ that it is not so suitable as ‘stake’ to represent intense pain.* But in all the renderings, it is the idea of acuteness that seems to be primary, and a thorn or a splinter or a spike may be sharper than a stake.
3. It is over the third question that there has been most discussion, with as much disagreement about the answer as in the other two cases. But the attempt to answer this question raises a fourth, which can be decided with considerable probability, yet, as in the other cases, without certainty. The σόο τ σρίis a metaphor for some kind of suffering. Is it the same as the ἀθνι τςσρό and the πιαμςὑῶ ἐ τ σρίμυof Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14? It is commonly assumed that it is the same, and this view has much to commend it. But nothing approaching to proof is possible, and of the numerous conjectures as to what the form of this suffering was, one may be true of the σόο, while something quite different may be true of the ἀθνι. Unfortunately we have to confess that in neither case can we be at all certain as to what is true. Nevertheless, some negative results may be confidently maintained.
The Apostle is not referring to any individual, who was a ‘thorn in his side’ to him, whether Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti_4:14), as Ephraem Syrus thought, or anyone else, (11:15), as Chrysostom. That he is referring to sufferings caused by persecution is given by various Greek Fathers and one or two Latins as the explanation of the σόο. But it cannot be right. Others besides St Paul suffered greatly from persecution, and the σόο was something specially bestowed by God for his personal benefit, to counteract temptations that might be provoked by the special revelations. Moreover, he would not have prayed to be freed from persecutions. This theory continued to be held by a writer here and there, but it was at last driven from the field by an equally erroneous explanation.
When a knowledge of Greek became rare in the West, the N.T., was studied in the Vulgate, in which Jerome had left stimulus carnis uncorrected. He understood the σόο to mean bodily pain, but stimulus catnis suggested to others temptations to impurity. The explanation about persecutions may have been fostered by the fact that all Christendom had been suffering from the horrors of the Diocletian persecution; and it is evident that the theory about carnal desires having been the Apostle’s great trial spread widely at a time when monasticism accentuated the danger of temptations of the flesh. In each case men supposed that St Paul’s special affliction was akin to what was a special trouble to themselves. This view of the stimulus carnis became almost universal in the West, until Cornelius a Lapide (d. 1637) says that it is communis fidelium sensus. Luther’s passionate rejection of it is well known, and Calvin condemns it as ridiculous. St Paul tells us that the ἴινχρσαἐ Θο which he received was being able to do without marriage; see on 1Co_7:7-9. And if it had been otherwise, he would not have regarded sexual desire as a ‘weakness’ in which he could glory. No Greek Father adopts this view, and it is doubtful whether any Latin writer of the first six centuries does. The statement that Jerome, Augustine, and Salvian do so is erroneous. Jerome says bodily pain, Augustine persecution, and Salvian nothing; he nowhere quotes or explains the passage.
Since the Reformation, spiritual trials, such as temptations to unbelief or despair, have been a favourite hypothesis. But they fit this passage badly, and Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14 not at all. St Paul nowhere hints at such difficulties, nor would he have gloried in them from any point of view. It is those who have themselves been tormented by such things that have imagined them as the special trial of the Apostle.
Of these three lines of thought we may say that St Paul would not have prayed to be freed from persecutions, and that he would not have been told to cease to pray against evil concupiscence or unbelief.
Modern writers generally go back to the earliest tradition that the σόο was some acute malady, so painful and such a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel as to be regarded as the work of the devil. But it was sent by God at intervals as a disciplinary reminder, to preserve His Apostle from spiritual pride. It was in this aspect that Jerome compared it to the slave behind the victorious commander in his triumphal chariot, whispering at intervals, Hominem to esse memento (Ep. xxxix. 2). Thus much we learn from this passage about the σόο τ σρί From Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14, we gather that the ἀθνί τςσρό which kept St Paul in Galatia was such as to tempt the Galatians to regard him with contempt and disgust, a temptation which they triumphantly overcame, treating him with the utmost consideration and affection. Any acute and recurrent malady will suit 2Co_12:7, but for Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14, we require something likely to inspire those who witness it with repulsion. The conjectures which fit Gal_4:13, Gal_4:14 well, and might also be true of 2Co_12:7, are epilepsy, acute ophthalmia, malarial fever, and some forms of hysteria.* Epilepsy has the support of Lightfoot, Schaff, Findlay, Bousset, Hofmann, Holsten, Klö and others. Since Max Krenkel’s Essay in his Beiträ zur Aufhellung der Geschichte and der Briefe des Apostels Paulus, 1890, this conjecture of K. L. Ziegler in Theologische Abhandlungen, 1804, has become widespread. The objection that epilepsy commonly produces mental deterioration is not wholly disposed of by the cases of Julius Caesar, Mahomet, Cromwell, and Napoleon, for we are not certain that the attacks from which they occasionally suffered were epileptic. A more serious objection is that such attacks are not acutely painful. Ophthalmia is adopted by Farrar, Lewin, Plumptre; malarial fever by Ramsay and Emmet; hysteria by Lombard. When all the arguments for and against these and other guesses have been considered, the fact remains that we still do not know, for the evidence is insufficient. See Enc. Bib. iii. 3620; Zahn, Int. to N.T. i. p. 171; Lietzmann, ad loc.
ἄγλςΣτν. ‘A messenger of Satan’ or ‘an angel of Satan.’ The σόο is here personified. Wiclif and the Rhemish have ‘angel,’ other English Versions, including AV and RV., have ‘messenger.’ That Stan has angels was a common belief among the Jews (Rev_12:7-9; cf. Mat_9:34, Mat_9:12: 24 = Luk_11:15), and it is not disturbed by Christ (Mat_25:41). In the Ep. of Barnabas (18:1) ἄγλιτῦΘο are opposed by ἄγλιτῦΣτν. Cf. Enoch 3:3; Jubilees 10:2.
That what was the will of God for good purposes might be done by Satan for evil purposes is an idea that is also found among the Jews, as in Job_1:12, Job_2:6, and in 2Sa_24:1, when compared with 1Ch_21:1; also that Satan may be a cause of physical suffering, a belief which is not disturbed by Christ; see on Luk_13:11, Luk_13:16.*
With the reading Στν(see below), which is indeclinable and amy be nom. or gen., some would translate ‘the angel Satan,’ but that would require ὃἄγλςΣ Others would translate ‘a hostile angel,’ which is grammatically possible, but not probable, for in N.T. Satan is always a proper name. In LXX στνis sometimes ‘an adversary’; e.g. ἤερνΚρο στντ ΣλμντνἈὲ τνἸυαο (1Ki_11:14); but the reading στνhere is to be rejected.
ἵαμ κλφζ. ‘In order that he (the messenger) may buffet me.’ The present tense, as Chrysostom and Theodoret point out, implies freq. attacks. The fact that ἄγλςimmediately precedes this clause saves us from mixture of metaphors; a stake or thorn cannot ‘strike with the first,’ but a messenger can. Κλφςis said to be the Doric equivalent of the Attic κνυο. The verb is said to be the Doric equivalent of the Attic κνυο. The verb is late Greek and perhaps colloquial; see on 1Co_4:11 and cf. Mar_14:65; Mat_26:67; 1Pe_2:20; also Index IV.†
ἵαμ ὑεαρμι Emphatic repetition of the purpose of the σόο, which must be remembered side by side with Satan’s share in the mater. In both cases we have pres. subjunct. of what was continually going on: there was ferq. buffeting to counteract freq. temptation. But this does not imply that the revelations were freq. One revelation might occasion many temptations. Contrast the aorists in Rev_18:4; ἵαμ is specially freq. in 1 and 2 Cor.
Baljon proposes to omit κὶτ ὑεβλ τνἀοαύενas a gloss, but no witnesses omit the words. Nor can the perplexing δόbe omitted, although D E K P L, Latt. Syrr., Iren. Aug. mo