Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 12:18

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 2 Corinthians 12:1 - 12:18


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

Xv.—his Revelations As A Ground For Boasting (2Co_12:1 ff.). How He Had Been Kept From Self-exaltation, And Been Led To Glory In His Infirmities (2Co_12:7 ff.). How He Ought To Have Been Saved The Necessity Of Such Self-commendation By The Corinthians Themselves (2Co_12:11 ff.)

2Co_12:1-18

1It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory, [I must needs boast: it is not expedient 2for me, for] I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew [know, ïἶäá ] a man in Christ above [om. above] fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell [know not, ïἷäá ], or whether out of the body, I cannot tell [know not]; God knoweth): such an one caught up to [even unto, ἔùò ] the third heaven. 3And I knew [know] such a man, (whether in the body, or out of [apart from, ÷ùñὶò ] 4the body, I cannot tell [know not]; God knoweth: How [om. how] that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a5[om. a, ἀíèñþðῳ )] man to utter. Of such a one will I glory: yet of myself I will notglory, but in mine infirmities. 6For though I would [should] desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now [om. now] I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of [from,7 ἐî ] me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger [an angel,8 ἄããåëïò ] of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For [concerning, ὑðὲñ ] this thing [angel] I besought the Lord thrice, that it [he] might depart9 from me. And He [hath, åἴñçêἐí ] said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my [om. my] strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest [abide] upon me.10Therefore I take pleasure [am well contented, åὐäïêῶ ] in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. 11I am become a fool in glorying [om. in glorying]; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am [was, ὑóôÝñçóá I behind the very chiefest [these overmuch, ὑðåñëßáí ] apostles, though I be nothing.12Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in [by] signs and wonders and mighty deeds. 13For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this14 wrong. Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you [om. to you]: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children. 15And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you [your souls, ôῶí øõ÷ῶí ]; though [if, ἐé ] the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved. 16But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. 17Did I make a gain of you by any18 of them whom I sent unto you? I desired [besought, ðáñåêÜëåóá ]Titus [to go to you] and with him I sent a [the] brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

2Co_12:1-6.—It is necessary to boast; it is not for my advantage, for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.—Although we should not regard the Apostle as precisely breaking off from a special history commenced in the last two verses (Meyer), he certainly passes now to a new subject of boasting ( êáý÷çóéò ). In a preface composed of short sentences grammatically unconnected (asyndeton) but logically arranged, he declares that under the circumstances he could not avoid self-commendation, but that in a moral respect it was not expedient, inasmuch, as it exposed him to the temptation to exalt himself (comp. 2Co_12:7 ff.). Áåῖ must be taken in an absolute sense, equivalent to, it must be so. It is not necessary to connect ìïé with it. The ãÜñ introduces the reason why he once more speaks in self-commendation. It is that he was about to relate something which might incline him to an unprofitable self-exaltation (comp. 2Co_12:7). With less simplicity, Meyer thinks that because boasting was unprofitable, Paul was anxious to pass on to something in which there was no self-commendation (2Co_12:5), and he thinks that ïὐ óõìöÝñåé ìïé is thus accounted for and justified, although he himself notices what the Apostle says in 2Co_12:7 of self-exaltation on account of the abundance of the revelations. If we adopt the reading of the Receptus, the idea of the Apostle would be: Truly it is not expedient for me to glory (comp. 2Co_11:1; 2Co_11:17; 2Co_11:30). The reason for this he would assign by pointing to the elevating character of his subsequent glorying, for it is implied that the danger would be more imminent, the more exalted the boast and its object was. Thus Osiander, who adheres to the Receptus, explains it, but essentially concedes that the original clause with äåῖ would have seemed so very abrupt, and the asyndeton so unusually harsh, that a plausible reason was presented for a change. It will not do to lay the emphasis upon ìïὶ , as if Paul had meant that it was not for his own, but for their good that he boasted himself (i.e., to correct their judgment respecting himself, Reiche), for this would have required ïὐê ἐìïὶ , or ἐìáõôῷ at least ἐìïß , instead of ìïé . The things of which he now begins to speak are visions and revelations of the Lord ( ὀðôáóßáé êáὶ ἀðïêáëýøåéò êõñßïõ ). Êõñßïõ is the genitive, not of the object, but of the subject [i.e., not respecting, but from, the Lord]. Nothing is said in the context which implies that the transaction here spoken of was a vision of Christ, in which the Lord was revealed to him (the way of speaking is different in 1Co_11:1; Gal_1:16). Christ had given him disclosures and revelations of himself (1Co_14:6). The visions ( ὀðôáóßáé ), however, describe the form in which he had received them. No further nor profounder disclosures are intended by the revelations ( ἀðïêÜëõøåéò ) than by the visions ( ὀðôáóßáé ). Osiander thinks that the words describe two ways in which supersensual objects are presented: one by a figurative apparition for the eye, and the other by means of sound for the ear. The Berlenb. Bible makes visions refer to those representations of heavenly forms which the Holy Ghost makes to the inward spirit of man, in a Divine light and in a spiritual manner; and revelations (the higher manifestation) to that thorough enlightenment of the mind and heart by the Holy Ghost in which we learn the true mind of the Spirit. W. F. Besser: From the very commencement of his Christian experience, the Lord had allowed Paul to see in visions and to hear in revelations those mysteries which belonged to a world invisible and imperceptible to the external sense. By Christ’s own appearance to him at first (Act_22:15; Act_26:16), his want of outward evidence through the eye and ear had been made up to him in an extraordinary manner, and his authority had been made equal to that of the twelve Apostles. The visions ( ὀðôáóßáé ) may designate the general form in which the revelation was made, but in addition to them an explanation of the visible objects was given by words addressed to the ear (as in the prophetical visions). We feel obliged, with Meyer, to maintain that we have no evidence that Paul had in view here some pretensions of his opponents with respect to which he wishes to show that he had the advantage of them, for nothing in the context seems to imply that his object was to show that an external acquaintance with Christ was unnecessary to the Apostolical character (Baur), nor to show that he was quite equal to the Christ-party who boasted largely of visions. I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body I know not, or whether out of the body I know not, God knows), such a one was rapt as far as the third heaven (2Co_12:2). The Apostle here affords a specimen of what he had just given only an intimation. It is certainly inconsistent with the context and with the general aim of the writer to maintain that he was here giving an account of some other person than himself. It was perfectly accordant with the nature of the occurrence for him to speak of such an occurrence in the third person, inasmuch as the individual spoken of was in a passive state, and might seem in his normal state of activity as another person (Meyer). Osiander suggests that his own proper person had become estranged to him in his ecstatic state, and was here conceived of as still remaining with the Lord. [ Ïἶäá should be translated, not: I knew, but: I know]. It may be doubted whether the word has any special emphasis, as if the Apostle intended to give prominence to his complete, certainty about a fact which might be questioned by many on account of its extraordinary character (Osiander). A man in Christ signifies a Christian, and not a minister of Christ. He is not, indeed, expressly speaking of himself. Neander: “It is an expression in which Paul distinguishes between that which he had become by the grace of God and that which was merely human in himself.” There is, however, no very obvious contrast between the humble ‘man’ and the exalted character of the revelation. In Christ indicates that the man was in the great general fellowship of the common faith. The words imply nothing connected with the ecstasy, and still less do they have a special bearing against the suspicion of a demoniac ecstasy. The precise statement of the time belongs to ἁñðáãÝíôá (from which it is separated only by a parenthesis: ἔéôå ïἶäåí ), and not to ἄíèñ . ἐí ÷ñéóôῷ as if he had intended to say, a man who has been serving Christ fourteen years. The reason he so accurately specifies it was, that the occurrence was particularly important to him, and peculiarly appropriate to his representation of what pertained to a third person. There can be no reference here to events attending his conversion, which must have taken place from seventeen to eighteen or oven twenty years before the composition of this Epistle. Even if chronology were not against supposing that he here referred to the appearance in the Temple mentioned in Act_22:17-21, the facts related in the two visions are essentially so different that we cannot suppose them the same. The only way to meet this is (with Osiander) to suppose that there were different elements in this ecstasy, and that what is here mentioned was only the culminating point. With this view it would be chronologically connected with 2Co_11:32-33. [Alford: “The date probably refers back to the time when he was at Tarsus waiting for God to point out his work, between Act_9:30; Act_11:25.” Wordsworth says: “Fourteen years, reckoned inclusively, carry us back to the time of St. Paul’s ordination to the Apostleship of the Gentiles, which must not be confounded with the time of his conversion to Christianity.” “Probably this vision and revelation were vouchsafed to him then, because he was going forth for the first time to incur shame and suffering,” and they were not communicated to the world until fourteen years afterwards, and even then only as facts and not in detail, because they were designed only for him, and for such a purpose. On this use of ðñὸ , Webster says: “The primary idea of ðñü is, in sight, and it is applied to what is before one, in some place opposite, in view. From this meaning it passes on to denote priority in time, and so with a trajection in its use it signifies here, before, in time.” Syntax and Synn. p. 150]. We have no other account of what is here related. With respect to the manner in which it took place, the Apostle was entirely uncertain, he was not sure that the soul retained any connection with the body. The latter may have been raised by the Spirit’s power along with Paul’s spirit into heavenly regions, or this connection may have been for the time dissolved, and his spirit rapt away from its earthly tenement. In a word, the whole person, composed of his soul and his body together, or his soul alone, separate from his body (or at least without any of its external functions) was lifted up into a celestial world, ἉñðáãÝíôá signifies much more than the different varieties of subjective mental vision, whether accompanied by bodily mental perceptions or not. The uncertainty here expressed does not refer to the question, whether this was a mere vision ( ἐí ), or an actual trance of the spirit ( ἐêôüò ). Any doubt on such a point would have seriously impaired the importance of the occurrence itself (comp. Meyer, Osiander). We have no means of determining to which of these suppositions, the ἐí or the ἐêôüò ) the Apostle was most inclined. But the whole representation which he gives makes it probable that the ascent was real and in actual space, and not merely ideal. Åἴôå , åἴôå have here the sense of: whether, or whether. ̔ Áñðáãῆíáé , is spoken of sudden, involuntary removals from one place to another (comp. Act_8:39; Rev_12:5; 1Th_4:17), [and it hero implies great celerity and the power of some external force].—And I know such a man (whether in the body or out of the body I know not, God knows); that he was caught up into Paradise (2Co_12:3-4 a.).—In the words, such a man ( ôὸí ôïéïῦôïí ) the Apostle recurs to the subject of the ecstasy, the one he had before described as the man in Christ. Osiander, thinks that the phrase, such a man, contains an allusion to the fact, that he is now endowed with qualities which fitted him for such an exaltation. The point reached in the course of his ecstasy under the influence of the higher power (the Spirit of God) which had taken possession of him, he calls the third heaven ( ôñßôïò ïὐñáíüò ). This is not to be interpreted spiritually of the utmost degree of Divine knowledge, etc. (the number three being taken simply as a symbol of perfection), for the Apostle had unquestionably in his mind a higher sphere of the heavenly world. A plurality of heavens is not inconsistent with Scriptural doctrine, for something

f the kind is implied even in the plural (heavens, ïὐñáíïß ) here used, and in the description (Heb_4:14) of Christ’s ascension, in which He is said to have passed into the heavens äéåëçëõèÝíáé ôïὺò ïýñáíïýò ), the termination of which is described (Heb_9:24) as an entrance into heaven itself ( åἰóåëèåῖí åἰò áὐôὸí ôὸí ïὐñἀíüí ), i.e., into the dwelling place of the Divine Majesty, to which the heavens he had passed through were related, just as the sanctuary in the tabernacle was related to the holy of holies. Jewish tradition generally speaks of seven heavens (Rabbi Judah alone speaks of two). To such common views and forms of speech the Apostle doubtless had some reference, but the original idea must be distinguished from the arbitrary and monstrous details of the Rabbinical writers. As neither here nor elsewhere (except in some later ecclesiastical writers, who probably derived their views from the passage before us) is it necessarily implied that there were no more than three heavens, this third need not, of course, be regarded as the highest heaven. Neither here nor in Heb_4:14 must we suppose the allusion to be to some region of the visible heavens (the clouds, etc.), but to some supersensous space between the stellar and the highest heaven, the true holy of holies (comp. Riem, d. Lehrbegr. des Hebr. Br. p. 512). And yet we must unquestionably make a distinction between this higher region called the third heaven, and the place called Paradise although it does not follow that the former must of course be a lower region than the latter). It does not seem probable that what is said in 2Co_12:3-4, should be a mere repetition of what had been said in 2Co_12:2. On the other hand the Apostle probably speaks in 2Co_12:3-4 of a higher degree of ecstasy than that which he had mentioned in the other. And yet the Paradise was not exactly some interior department of the third heaven, but some higher region, that which is called in Rev_2:7 the Paradise of God (the lower department in Sheol, Luk_23:43, comp. Luk_16:23). Osiander: “The abode in which the highest peace and joy are enjoyed, where fellowship with God and the God-man is most intimate, and where the world of spirits has its most delightful and most perfect development.” Neander: “Paul here describes a higher degree of life in God, a foretaste of that which the soul will reach at a later period, no illusion of the imagination or product of Jewish superstition, but a certain and actual exaltation of the soul. And yet we may here distinguish between the supernatural and the divine on the one hand and the human on the other, and we may concede that the representation here given to the Apostle was in that form which was most familiar to him in his actual state of mind at the time.”—And heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for man to utter (2Co_12:4 b).—It is evident from the use of the word ἤêïõóåí that ῥῆìá cannot here be equivalent to things, but that it must mean a word. But ἄῤῥçôïí signifies, not what cannot be expressed, for then the words could not have been perceived, but as the relative sentence immediately following shows, words of such mysterious import as ought not to be uttered or to be generally known. In this sense the word is used in Herod, and other writers. Ἐîüí is equivalent not to äõíáôüí but to fas est.—The substance of the communication was so exalted that it would have been a profanation to give it in human language. W. F. Besser: “It is likely that the substance of the heavenly words was taken up by the Apostle as he heard them, but he felt that no man after receiving such a communication in successive details, could find language adequately and worthily to express what he had heard in that sacred presence. And even if God had given him power to express on earth what he had heard in heaven, there were no earthly ears which could intelligently receive the communication.” We cannot accept of Ewald’s explanation, that the reason Paul determined to keep these revelations to himself (revelations, as he thinks likely, of the final victory of Christ over Rome and heathenism, and also over Jerusalem and the Jews), was because he saw that other men might easily be led to pervert them in many ways and then to obtain credit on his authority. [These words were “unspeakable,” (not only to him but to man) perhaps on account of their nature, but as Paul tells us that it was not “lawful to utter” them, we must suppose that he was restrained from uttering them principally by a moral reason. The whole vision appears to have been intended for the Apostle alone, to prepare him personally for his work, and for this reason alone he had no occasion to speak of it for fourteen years, and never to speak of its contents. The apocryphal literature of subsequent times, shows what follies the minds of men are inclined to, on such mysteries. (See the ἀíáâÜôéêïí Ðáýëïõ used by the sect of Caïani, mentioned by Epiphanius, Haeres: 18, 38). But nothing in this passage implies that the Apostle possessed any arcana or mysteries on the general subject of salvation, which are to be withheld as dangerous matters, from common inspection, and yet capable of investigation to more philosophical and learned persons.] Ἀíèñþðῳ is not the object of ëáëåῖí but is governed by ἐîüí . There are no means of determining whether Paul was brought to this conclusion by an express command with regard to it, or whether he saw its propriety without such a command. The speaker, however, must have been the Lord, comp. 2Co_12:1, ἀðïê . êõñßïõ . What was said must have been very significant and eminently strengthening to the Apostle’s mind (comp. Osiander).—Instead of proceeding to say now: ἐíôïýôù (of such a thing) êáõ÷Þóïìáé , as must have been in his mind, he says, in accordance with the mode of representation commenced in 2Co_12:2. Of such a one will I glory (2Co_12:5).— Ôïῦ ôïéïýôïõ is not neuter but masculine. This is proved not only by ὑðÝñ which has relation to a person in whose behalf the boasting must take place (2Co_7:14; 2Co_5:12; 2Co_8:24), but by the contrasted ἐìáõôïῦ , and the unmistakable reference to ôὸí ôïéïῦôïí in 2Co_12:2-3.—The principle which lies at the basis of the whole passage is, that he was not to boast of such revelations, as though they argued anything in his own favor, but only as an incident connected with a man in Christ, who had been at this period completely lifted out of his own individuality and had been thought worthy of such grace merely on account of his being in Christ. His only object in condescending to this boasting of such a one, was that he might bear witness that such glorious things had been granted to such a one.—But of myself I will not boast, save in my infirmities (2Co_12:5 b).—In behalf of himself, (regarded simply as himself), ho would boast only with reference to his infirmities (comp. 2Co_11:30). He alluded here to those many manifestations of human weakness, which had occasioned so much humiliation to him, which had completely extirpated all vanity from his bosom, and which had finally compelled him to boast only of that divine power which evinced its greatness through his infirmities, (comp. vv.9, 10.).—For if I shall desire to boast, I shall not be foolish, for I will speak the truth (2Co_12:6 a).—There is some difficulty here in determining the connection which the ãáñ implies with 2Co_12:5. To make it refer back to the first half of that verse, and thus to make the Apostle begin to reveal his identity with the man in Christ (Osiander) does not seem after all very probable. And yet to supply something to ïὐêáõ÷çóïìáé (2Co_12:5) by which it shall mean: I will not boast of these great revelations, and to make åἱ ìÞ signify but only, and then in this 2Co_12:6 to make if I should desire to boast refer to the same things with the additional thought: although I could thus boast (De Wette), seems very harsh. We would prefer, without any such completion of the sense, to understand before the words ïὐ êáõ÷ . åἰ ìÞ , etc., in 2Co_12:5, simply: I could thus boast concerning myself if I wished to do so (i.e., of my worth and merits), and to suppose that when he continues, if I should desire, etc., he is giving the reason for this thought which had sprung from what is obviously implied in the sentence itself (Meyer). But, perhaps after all it would be simpler to make the ãÜñ refer to the whole of 2Co_12:6, so that the writer would have already in view the subsequent öåßäïìáé and the sentence connected with it: I will not boast of myself except of my infirmities; for although I should not be a fool even if I were to boast myself, inasmuch as I should tell the truth, yet I forbear, lest, etc. Or: not because I should be a fool, if I were inclined to boast myself, etc., but because I would guard against, etc. In this case there would be no need of adding anything to the thought expressed.—The boasting ( êáõ÷Þóáóèáé ) has reference to something the reverse of weakness, and hence to deeds (comp. 1Co_15:10) in which power was exhibited. In ἄöñùí (senseless, without reason) he alludes probably to the empty boasting of his opponents, in which there was no basis of truth like that in his self-commendations—but I forbear, lest any one should reckon of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me (2Co_12:6 b).—There is no need here of supplying ὐìῶí to öåßäïìáé ; along with ìÞ (or in the infinitive) this verb has the sense of: to shrink back or to act with reserve, i.e. to deal sparingly with his self-commendation. In ìÞ we have certainly the idea of mental care (Meyer: of guarding against something). This anxiety, however, was well founded, so far as it referred to the inclination to boast in men then so strong among the Corinthians, and the Apostle did not wish to encourage in any way a disposition against which he had so earnestly contended. Ôéò has reference to no particular individual, for we have no reason to suppose that he is hero aiming at some Pauline party at Corinth. The over-valuation of his person which ho here deprecates, he expresses in the words beyond what he sees me, or hears something from me ( ὑðὲñ ï ͂ âëÝðåé ìå ἤ ἀêïýåé ôé ἐî ἐìïῦ ) i.e., beyond the immediate impression which my personal presence would make. There is no necessity of supplying either åἶíáé or ðïéåῖí , after ä âëÝðåé ìå , which has reference to his whole appearance, his bearing and behavior. ̓ Áêïýåé refers to his performances in oral discourse. Ἐî ἐìïῦ (ex me) from myself, in contrast with that which might be heard of him through others. Ôé is a brachyological or concise form of expression equivalent to ἐß ôé ἀêïýåé . Notwithstanding the unfriendly opinions which had been expressed of him (2Co_10:1; 2Co_10:10), he desired to have no other standard laid down for judging of him than a strict conformity to what all might perceive in him.

2Co_12:7-10. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations (2Co_12:7 a).—[Stanley, adopting Lachmann’s reading of äéὸ before ἴíá , is obliged also with him, to connect êáὶ ôῇ ὐðåñâ . ôῶí Üðïê . with ἀóèåíåßáéò in 2Co_12:5, and to make the whole of 2Co_12:6 a parenthesis. Even Alford concedes that, if äéὸ forms a part of the text, it must be the commencement of a sentence, and that we must adopt Lachmann’s punctuation. But he thinks that “a very strange sense would thus be given,” for then the Apostle would refuse to glory in himself, except in his infirmities and in the exceeding abundance of his revelations; thus making his glorying in his revelations a part of his glorying in himself. But rejecting äéὸ , for which we have hardly sufficient authority, the sentence reads smoothly. Osiander remarks that everything in K. ôῇ ὑðåñâ . ôῶí ἀðïê is remarkable: the expression itself, the way in which the words are joined together, and the position of the words in the sentence. For emphasis the words are placed first (comp. 2Co_2:4), the revelations are represented as multifarious, and for additional force a substantive is used with an adjectival signification.] Having said (2Co_12:5-6) that he now abstained from further boasting, not because he lacked in good grounds for it, but from a regard to them, that they might not overvalue his person, he now returns to the revelations he had spoken of in 2Co_12:1, etc., and shows how he had been kept from a possible self-exaltation on account of these revelations, by means of a peculiarly severe affliction. K áß here signifies not: even, but: and, merely connecting with the former sentence.— ÕðåñâïëÞ occurs also in 2Co_4:7. It is difficult to decide whether the dative is that of the instrument (: by means of), or of the cause (on account of) like ἑðáßñåóèáé ôéíé . The meaning is much the same in either case. We have ὑðåñáßñåóèáé in 2Th_2:4, in the sense of to exalt himself.—There was given to me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet me—There can be no doubt that a Divine intention or design is implied [by ß ́ íá ], whether God or Satan is looked upon as the giver in ἐäüèç . It is possible to interpret it of either, but it seems rather more appropriate to refer it to God, inasmuch as the object to be accomplished by it was under the Divine direction. We must not, however, conclude from thence that ἐäüèç implies merely a Divine permission, for it includes the idea of disposing, and ordaining. God gives even what is afflictive for the attainment of some higher and benevolent end; i.e, as the means of trial and humiliation. Óêüëïø is a sharpened piece of wood, a stake, or a thorn (as in Num_33:55). The first of these meanings is not altogether inappropriate. [Stanley adheres to this, and contends that óêüëïø is not a thorn (from which he finds it sometimes distinguished, esp. Hos_2:6; Sept. Artemid. 3:33) but generally a pointed stake or palisade (Numb. 30:55; Eze_28:24). It must be conceded that this is the usual meaning. Hence Luther and many understand by it a stake, for the execution of criminals. Stanley finds ἀíáóêïëïðßæù in the Sept. of Est_7:10 explained by Phavorinus and Hesychius as equivalent to ἀíáóôáõñßæù , and he thence infers that óêüëïø was equivalent to óôáõñüò , the cross, or the stake. In Lucian, too (De morte Per. 11), ἀíáóêïëïðßæù is used for the crucifixion of Christ. As in describing his state of constant torture the Apostle draws his image from crucifixion. so here he draws it from impalement. The angel of Satan like Death in 1Co_15:55, is armed with the impaling stake; or the Apostle was himself already impaled or crucified. The phrase ôῇ óáñêὶ is certainly unsuitable to this interpretation]. In the flesh ( ôῇ óáñêὶ ) is not in apposition with to me ( ìïé ) and dependent upon was given ( ἐäüèç ), but it is to be connected with óêüëïø (a thorn) as a dative of appropriation. But óÜñî is not human nature in general, unregenerate and sinful, but man’s corporeal nature with the sinful disposition connected with it. In this place it has reference especially to the sensitive horror which that nature feels at pain, or its recoil from the suffering which God had decreed for it. Óêüëïø is undoubtedly the subject of Ýäüèç , and ἄããåëïò óáôᾶí is in apposition to óêüëïø , though the converse of this may not be true (as if óêüëïø were an ἄããåëïò ). These words in apposition, however, are the subject of ἵíá êïëáößæç , which involves a metaphor no longer quite suitable to óêüëïø . But such an apparent irregularity of construction may be found in other places. And yet there is no inversion of the words, as if he would say: that the angel of Satan might buffet me. Êïëáößæῃ expresses continued action and it is therefore in the subj. præs, not in the aorist. Ἄããåëïò óáôᾶí does not signify merely a hostile angel, for óáôᾶí never is to be found precisely as an adjective, and in the New Testament it never has the sense of adversarius (an angel, an adversary). Nor can it mean Satan himself [the angel Satan] who is never designated an ἄããåëïò ; but an angel of Satan like ἄããåëïé ôïῦí äéáâüëïõ in Mat_25:41, Óáôᾶí therefore is in the genitive (the var. óáôáíᾶ . has less authority for it, is a correction of the indeclinable noun, which is a ἄðáî ëåãüìåíïí ). An exceedingly painful suffering is indicated by óêüëïø , and is described by the phrase an angel of Satan. It is not merely a Suffering sent upon the Apostle by Satan, (for Satan’s angel in the estimation of the Apostle was a real malignant power) by means of which God had ordained for him a humiliating torment (comp. 1Co_5:5, Job_2:6), with the exalted purpose which he afterwards brings forward in an emphatic manner when he says:—lest I should be exalted above measure (2Co_12:7).—The idea conveyed therefore is, that in accordance with the divine decree the Apostle was abased in a humiliating manner by an angel of Satan, and that in consequence of this tormenting influence sent on him from the kingdom of darkness, he was kept from unduly exalting himself on account of the glorious revelations vouchsafed him from the kingdom of light. But of what nature were these sufferings? Of course we are not to think of literal and real blows or buffetings. The idea of an internal assault of Satan by means of blasphemous thoughts, or by remorse of conscience on account of his earlier persecution of the followers of Christ, or by means of temptation’s to lust, must be regarded (irrespective of the last mentioned suggestion, which was an improbable product of the ascetic exegesis of the monks, comp. Osiander p. 473 and 2Co_4:7), as directly in opposition to ôῇ óáñêß (according to Meyer also in opposition to óêüëïø and êïëáößæç in which are described an acute and continuous pain). Still more improbable is the idea of external assaults on the part of hostile opponents, called here ministers of Satan (2Co_11:15), and designated collectively an angel of Satan, inasmuch as one of them (sing.) may have distinguished himself above the rest; or the idea of a great pressure of apostolic duties in general. The context leads us to think of a definite and special form of suffering (Meyer) in contrast with the abundance of the revelations, and of something for whose cessation he could properly and earnestly pray (2Co_12:8), as he could hardly do with respect to his official duties.—The most probable supposition is that he had in view some very severe and painful bodily suffering, which however did not prevent his undergoing exhausting labors and his persisting in numerous hardships. But it is utterly out of our power to determine precisely what this suffering consisted in (hemorrhoids, hypocondria and melancholy, epilepsy, stone, violent head-ache, etc.). Ewald: “When this disease came upon him, it was like a terrific blow upon the head ( êïëáößæῇ ) without a previous warning.” It was something personal, not affecting him simply as a minister of Christ, and an ἀóèÝíåéá (2Co_12:9), although of a peculiar kind, reminding him of his human frailty and hence having a tendency to keep him from undue self-exaltation on account of his remarkable experiences of divine favor. We are very naturally reminded of Luther’s disease of the stone which in like manner was ascribed to the devil.—Osiander unites together the ideas of bodily and spiritual assaults, and his explanation is favored by the fact that there is usually a reciprocal action between the two, but the general impression of our passage is rather in favor of a long-continued evil rather than of a temporary darkening and .disturbance of mind.—In 2Co_12:8-9, he tells us how he prayed that this evil and its consequences might be removed from him.—Concerning this, I besought the Lord thrice, that he might depart from me (2Co_12:8).— ὙðÝñ , since Demosthenes, has frequently had the sense of ðåñß : in consideration of, in respect to. Ôïýôïõ is not neuter but masculine, as is shown by ἀðïóôῇ (might depart). Ho had in his mind the angel of Satan. Ôñßò is not equivalent to ðïëëÜêéò , nor is it a number for perfection. There may have been long intervals of time between each prayer, and perhaps he only prayed when under extreme paroxysms of suffering. That he was under this affliction when he wrote however, is not necessarily implied. He received no answer from the Lord until the third petition, when, of course, he ceased. The Lord ( êýñéïò ) is Christ who has obtained the victory over every kind of Satanic power. Ðáñáêáëåῖí is a word which in the New Testament is never used with reference to God and only with reference to Christ. It has the sense of, to call for help, and in the classic writers is used to designate a call on the gods. ̓ Áðïóôῆíáé ( to depart) as in Luk_4:13 is used with regard to Satan, but in Act_5:38; Act_22:29, it is applied to human assailants.—And he has said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee, for power is made perfect in weakness (2Co_12:9).—In this place åἵñçêå express a continued action [the perfect of a continued past action], but we have no means of determining how it was said, whether in a vision, or merely by some internal encouragement. (Osiander: “probably a testimony of the Holy Spirit in the exercise of the highest spiritual functions, by means of which the Apostle’s heart was thoroughly tranquilized, assured of his gracious state and enlightened with respect to this special case. It was thus a distinct revelation of the mind of Christ, by special inspiration, and confirmed, perhaps, by the application of some passage of Scripture.” The answer was an apparent refusal, with such a promise as was a virtual granting of his request. The ἀñêåῖ , which stands for emphasis at the head of the sentence, is not equivalent to: will protect (a poetical usage), or will assist (Xenophon and others), but it means simply, will be sufficient for, will satisfy; it will be enough that I am gracious to thee, and that I love thee, and will take pleasure in thee. There is no reference to miraculous gifts. To show that he would need nothing else, the Lord adds: for my strength, etc. The ìïõ has only a few authorities in its favor, but they are of the highest importance; and even if it is not supplied in the text, it must be understood. The fact that ἐí ἀóèåíåßᾳ has no óïõ after it may have had some influence in inducing transcribers to leave it out. The meaning is: with one who is in this weak state, my power comes into more perfect activity (comp. 2Co_4:7; 1Co_2:3-4). But this power of the Lord dwells only in those who share also in His grace; .i.e., it is put forth in its full strength and activity only where there is nothing but helplessness and painful weakness; for where a consciousness of power is, it is rather impeded in its action. ( Ôåëåῖôáé has not the sense of: proves itself to be perfect).—Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in my infirmities, that Christ’s power may abide upon me—(2Co_12:9).—The Apostle here describes the effect of this promise. He gave up all expectation of being freed from his trouble, and he was satisfied with the prospect (of enjoying the grace whose work was to be completed in his weakness. Grammatical usage will not permit us to refer ìᾶëëïí to ἤäéóôá . Nor should we supply after it: than before, when I prayed thus (2Co_12:8), or: than any thing, or: than in my own power, or: than in the revelations which I had. It belongs rather, as its position necessarily shows, to êáõ÷Þóïìáé . Instead of complaining and praying that the suffering might cease, I will rather glory in my infirmities. This, however, would lead to the accomplishment and experience of the promise given him when the Lord visited him, i.e., that Christ’s power might dwell (permanently abide) upon him. The word ἐðéóêçíïῦí signifies to enter, to turn into, a tent or dwelling. Ἐð ̓ ἐìÝ , in other places, has reference to the direction generally; and here, where the Apostle is speaking of the power of Christ, who was then in heaven, it means, to come down upon me and to abide with me (the figure is that of a permanent connection). Whether any thing of unusual solemnity attaches to the expression, as if it had reference to the Shekinah, as if the power of Christ were as a pavilion extended over him for his protection, or as if he himself were the space in which it was to be manifested, is uncertain.—Wherefore I am well contented in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake (2Co_12:10). From what he had just described as the object of all this proceeding, and of course from the promise of Christ which had been accomplished by his glorying in his infirmities (2Co_12:9), the Apostle now makes a practical inference, viz.: inasmuch as this glorying in my infirmities has brought Christ’s power to take possession of me, I take pleasure in infirmities, etc. Ἐõäïêåῖí ἐí signifies here a voluntary endurance, a patient satisfaction with these sufferings [Our English A. V.: take pleasure in, is too strong; the Greek is: I am well contented in (Fausset)]. The ἀóèÝíåéáé , the suffering condition in which these infirmities become perceptible, are particularized in ὔâñåóéí , insulting abuses, ἀíÜãêáéò , etc., comp. 2Co_6:4 (external afflictions proceeding from those around him). ̓ Õðὲñ ÷ñéóôïῦ , which belongs to and qualifies all these preceding nouns, signifies here: for the sake (or, in behalf) of Christ.—For when I am weak, then am I strong (2Co_12:10 b.). The reason for his good courage while enduring these sufferings for Christ’s sake, was that he had felt strengthened under all his infirmities by the power of Christ dwelling continually in him (comp. Php_4:13). In these words we have the fulfilment of the promise in 2Co_12:9. Ôüôå is emphatic, and shows how triumphant were the Apostle’s feelings, comp. 1Co_15:54; Col_3:4.

[Stanley: “The long burst of passionate self-vindication, has now, at last expended itself, and the Apostle returns to the point from whence he diverged at 2Co_10:7, where he was asserting his intention to repress the disobedience of those who still resisted his authority at Corinth. Before, however, he enters again upon this, he looks back over the long digression, and resumes here and there a thought which needed explanation or expansion. Hence, although this concluding section stands apart from the interruption of 2Co_10:10 to 2Co_12:10, and is truly the winding up of the main argument begun in 2Co_10:1-7, it is filled with traces of the torrent which has passed through his mind in the interval. His ‘folly,’ 2Co_11:1-10; the ‘commendatory epistles’ (2Co_3:1; 2Co_5:12); the ‘apostolical’ pretensions of his opponents (2Co_11:12-13) are resumed in 2Co_12:11; his miracles and sufferings (2Co_11:23-28), in 2Co_12:12; the question of self-support (2Co_11:12) in vv.13–18; the strength and weakness united in Christ (2Co_12:19), in 2Co_13:3-4; 2Co_13:9”].

2Co_12:11-15.—I am become a fool; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind these overmuch apostles, although I am nothing (2Co_12:11).—He here makes an ironical concession (for the words should not be regarded as a question) with reference to the many things he had said in commendation of himself in the course of the last two chapters: I am become a fool. [The verb ãÝãïíá indicates that he had become what he was not originally]. And yet he follows this immediately with a justification of himself; for he throws upon them the responsibility of all: ye have forced me thus foolishly to boast myself, for I ought to have been commended by you, instead of being obliged to commend myself. [The ironical nature of the passage explains the concession without taking this verse interrogatively, as Wordsworth, after some Greek scholiasts, suggests]. In emphatic correspondence with one another are arranged the words: ὑìåῖò , ἐãþ , ὑö ̓ ὑìῶí . By ἑãù he does not put himself in special contrast with those opponents who were so highly commended by the Corinthians. He merely censures here the want of attention which these Corinthians had shown to his claims. Their positive injustice toward him he exposes when he comes to say, that he had been in no respect behind those much-lauded apostles (comp. 2Co_11:5). ὙáôÝñçóá limits the time of the comparison to the period of his residence at Corinth. With humility, however, he adds (comp. 1Co_15:8, etc.), that he was after all nothing, i.e., I am absolutely powerless in myself (1Co_1:28). This is a sincere assertion, though it contains a severe allusion to the pride of his opponents (Osiander). He shows that he was in no respect behind these supereminent apostles, by referring to those proofs of his Apostleship which he had given among them.—Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience by signs and wonders and miracles (2Co_12:12). The signs of an Apostle here signify those things by means of which the Apostles showed that they were Apostles, and were recognized as such among their fellow men. The article makes the idea of an Apostle especially prominent (Bengel: ejus, qui sit apostolus); the reality and not merely the ideal of one. The first óçìåßá is here to be taken in the more comprehensive sense [of general evidences], whereas the second should be explained in the narrower signification [of special tokens of a Divine power]. Neander: “Our faith in the reality of the Apostle’s performance of miracles need not therefore be founded solely upon tradition, for Paul here asserts that he wrought them, and he thus comes in direct opposition to all mythical views of the narratives of New Testament miracles.” The passive êáôçñãÜóèç