And I knew such a man – <\/B>It is not uncommon to repeat a solemn affirmation in order that it may be made more emphatic. This is done here. Paul repeats the idea, that he was intimately acquainted with such a man, and that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. All that was known to God.<\/P><\/p>\nFuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
How that he was caught up into paradise:<\/B> some by <\/P>
paradise<\/B> understand a place distinct from <\/P>
the third heaven<\/B> before mentioned, and think the apostle here speaks of more visions than one; but they speak much more probably, who interpret it of the third heaven<\/I> before mentioned, called paradise, <\/I>in regard of the delight and pleasures of it. Thus the term is used by our Saviour to the thief upon the cross, Luk 23:43<\/span>, and thus it is used, Rev 2:7<\/span>. <\/P> And heard unspeakable words; <\/B>what these unspeakable words, <\/I>or things, were, which the apostle heard in this ecstasy, is vainly inquired; whenas the apostle hath told us twice, that he could not tell whether<\/I> he was in or out of the body; <\/I>and that the words or things were such as were unspeakable.<\/I> <\/P> Which it is not lawful for a man to utter; <\/B>such as were either impossible to be uttered, or at least which he was prohibited to utter; so they could be made known to none but only to him that heard them. If any inquireth, for what purpose God showed them to Paul, if he might not communicate them for the good of others? The answer is easy; that this vision might be for his own confirmation, as sent of God, and for his consolation under all those hazards and dangers which he was to undergo in the ministry of the gospel, to which God had called him. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3.<\/B> Translate, “I know.<\/I>“<\/P> out of<\/B>Most of theoldest manuscripts read “apart from.”<\/P><\/p>\n And I knew such a man<\/strong>,…. The same man, namely himself, is here designed, and the same rapture spoken of, and the condition he was in expressed in the same words: which repetition is made for the more strong affirmation of what he delivered, and to signify the marvellousness of this vision, and how surprising and unaccountable it was.<\/p>\n I do not know <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Paul declines to pass on his precise condition in this trance. We had best leave it as he has told it. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “I knew such a man,”<\/strong> (kai oida ton toiouton anthropon) “I know also such a man;” He speaks with caution and reticence of this momentous event or experience, not even describing it in first person.<\/p>\n 2) “(Whether in the body or out of the body,”)<\/strong> (eite en somati eite choris tou somatos) “Whether in the body or apart from the body;” affirming that it was possible for one to exist consciously, his soul or personality, apart from the body, as recounted, Luk 19:22-23<\/span>; 2Co 5:8-9<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “I cannot tell,”<\/strong> (ouk oida) “I know not,” or I perceive not — It is not clearly disclosed to me, 1Co 13:9<\/span>; 1Co 8:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “God knoweth,”<\/strong> (ho theos oiden) “the true God knows,” because he “knoweth all things,” Mat 6:8<\/span>; 1Jn 3:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n (3) And I knew such a man.<\/strong>Better, as before, I know. 3<\/strong>. <\/strong> And<\/strong> It is a strange idea held by some commentators, endorsed by Alford, that St. Paul here twice states the same narrative. Less absurd, but quite unsupported, is the idea that the two are different parts of one vision. The formal beginning of both narratives, assigning both to the same year, obviously indicates that they were not at the same time. Nor were the two visits to the same region. To the question why Paul should visit paradise <\/strong> later than the third heaven<\/strong>, it might in answer be asked, Why should he see paradise <\/strong> first? To see the heaven of heavens to stand in the body, <\/strong> for the moment glorified, by the side of Enoch, Elijah, Christ, and, perhaps, Moses to know with them, by a divine intuition, all that the first two knew to realize the realities of eternity, were the first and main thing. To visit paradise<\/strong> the intermediate state, the place of departed, disembodied spirits was the after-thought. The former was, perhaps, necessary <\/em> as a qualification for Paul’s apostolicity; the latter only important. <\/em> As to him was visibly disclosed the Son of God in his glorified person, so to him were revealed, in glimpse, the arcana of the highest heaven, and the lower mysteries of paradise.<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3-4<\/span> . And I know such a man that he<\/em> , namely, was caught away<\/em> , etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction . Most expositors consider the matter itself<\/em> as not different from what is mentioned in 2Co 12:2<\/span> , so that and would be one and the same. But it is decisive against this view, that cannot without arbitrariness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven comparatively low (see on 2Co 12:2<\/span> ). Besides, the whole circumstantial repetition, only with a change in designating the place, would not be solemn language, but battology. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who imports the modification: “The one time emphasis is laid only on the surroundings<\/em> , into which he found himself transported away from the earth<\/em> ; the other time on the contrast of the fellowship of God<\/em> , into which he was transported away from the church of God here below<\/em> .” Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen (see Estius and Bengel on the passage), also Erasmus [362] and Bengel, [363] have rightly distinguished<\/em> paradise from the third heaven. Comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T.<\/em> I. p. 246; Osiander, Hilgenfeld, and others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp. de Wette), to regard (see on 2Co 12:2<\/span> ) paradise as interius quiddam in coelo tertio, quam ipsum coelum tertium<\/em> (comp. Cornelius a Lapide); but Paul relates first how he was caught up into the third heaven, and then adds, as a further point in the experience, that he was transported further, higher up into paradise, so that the was a break, as it were, a resting-point of the raptus<\/em> . Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well as the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character; for the incident is reported step by step, i.e.<\/em> in two stages.<\/p>\n The paradise<\/em> is here not the lower, i.e.<\/em> the place in Sheol<\/em> , in which the spirits of the departed righteous are until the resurrection (see on Luk 16:23<\/span> ; Luk 23:43<\/span> ), nor as Hofmann, Schriftbew.<\/em> II. 1, p. 489, substitutes in place of this historical conception the abstraction: “the present communion of the blessed dead with God, as it is on this side of the end of things;” but the upper<\/em> , the paradise of God (Rev 2:7<\/span> ; Enoch 35:1) in heaven, where God’s dwelling is. This distinction is one given historically, and necessary for the understanding of the passage, and is rightly maintained also by Osiander, Hahn, and others. Comp. the Rabbinical passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth.<\/em> I. 296 ff., and generally, Thilo, ad Ev. Nic.<\/em> 25, p. 748 ff.; Gfrrer, Jahrh. d. Heils<\/em> , II. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the believing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol.<\/em> p. 414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in this passag.<\/p>\n ] an oxymoron: [364] dicta nefanda dictu, speakings, which may not be spoken<\/em> (Dem. 1369. 25, 1370. 14; Soph. O. R.<\/em> 465; Eur. Hel.<\/em> 1370; and Pflugk in loc.<\/em> ), i.e.<\/em> which may not be made the subject of communication to others. The revelations which Paul received were so sublime and holy, that the further communication of them would have been at variance with their character; what was disclosed to him was to be for him alone, for his special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, with a view to the fulfilment of his great task; to others it was to remain a mystery, in order to preclude fanatical or other misuse; comp. Calvin. That here does not mean quae dici negueunt<\/em> (Plato, Soph<\/em> . p. 238 C), as Beza, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Rckert is not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical , in which means licet, fas est<\/em> , and is not as Luther and many older and later commentators, including Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it, quite at variance with the signification of the word equivalent to . The Vulgate aptly renders: “et audivit arcana<\/em> verba, quae non licet<\/em> homini loqui,” i.e. which a man may not utter aloud<\/em> . Lucian, Epigr.<\/em> 11 (Jacobs, Del epigr.<\/em> VII. 66): , Soph. El.<\/em> 1000, Aj.<\/em> 213. Comp. Rev 10:3<\/span> f.<\/p>\n ] for they are reserved only for divine<\/em> communication; a man<\/em> , to whom they are revealed, may not utter them.<\/p>\n As to what it was<\/em> that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cornelius a Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says: . [365] From whom<\/em> as the organ of communication he heard it, remains veiled in apocalyptic indefiniteness. Revealing voices<\/em> (comp. Rev. l.c.<\/em> ) he did hear.<\/p>\n [362] “Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, hinc rursum<\/em> in paradisum,” Erasmus in his Paraphr<\/em> . Comp. Clemens Alex.: , ( Strom<\/em> . v. p. 427).<\/p>\n [363] Who as to the repetition of the same words judges very rightly: “Non solum suaviter suspendunt acuuntque lectorem, et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt, sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum exprimunt<\/em> .”<\/p>\n [364] See regarding similar juxtapositions in general, Lobeck, Paralip<\/em> . p. 229 f. Comp. Plat. Conv<\/em> . p. 189 B: , Soph. Oed. Col<\/em> . 1005: , Aj<\/em> 213: .<\/p>\n [365] It is most natural (comp. the Apocalypse) to think of disclosures regarding the end of the world<\/em> , which, however, must have gone further than what occurs in the Epistles of the apostle (as 1Th 4<\/span> ; 1Co 15<\/span> ; Rom 11:25<\/span> f.). More definite statements (see Ewald) must be left in abeyance.<\/p>\n 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 3. Whether in the body, &c.<\/strong> ] So far did he forget and neglect his own body, which is so dear and near a thing, in comparison of that incomparable delight he then took in the Lord. “Oh that joy! O my God, when shall I be with thee!” These were the dying words of the last Lord Harrington, that was in heaven beforehand. “Oh the joys, the joys, the unspeakable joys that I feel in my soul!” said another that was even entering into heaven, and had a foretaste of eternal life. Peter in the transfiguration was so transported, that he never thought of a tabernacle for himself, Mat 17:4<\/span> ; he cared not to lie without doors, so he might longer enjoy that glimpse of heaven’s glory. <\/p>\n 3, 4.<\/strong> ] A solemn repetition of the foregoing, with the additional particular of his having had unspeakable revelations made to him<\/em> . Some, as Clem [20] Strom. 2Co 12:12<\/span> (80), p. 693 P., Iren [21] ii. 30.7, p. 162, Athan. Rev 20<\/span> , vol. i. p. 263, Orig [22] (or his interpreter) on Rom. xvi. lib. x. 43, vol. iv. p. 688, cum., al., think that this was a fresh assumption<\/em> , , and with these Meyer agrees: but surely had this been intended, some intimation would have been given of it, either by , or by placing (as the stress would be then no longer on the fact as before, but on the new place to which<\/em> ) in the place of emphasis before ; or, by both combined, . As it is, with the verb preceding<\/em> in both clauses, and therefore no prominence given to the places as distinguished from one another, I must hold . to be at least so far equivalent to , as to be a general local description of the situation in which is found. The repetition<\/em> of is equally accountable on either explanation, being made for solemnity and emphasis.<\/p>\n [20] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194<\/p>\n [21] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)<\/p>\n [22] Origen, b. 185, d. 254<\/p>\n The <\/strong> cannot here be the Jewish Paradise, the blissful division or side of Hades (Scheol), where the spirits of the just awaited the resurrection, see note on Luk 16:22<\/span> , but the Paradise of which our Lord spoke on the Cross, the place of happiness into which He at His Death introduced the spirits of the just: see on ref. Luke.<\/p>\n <\/strong> , i.e. as explained below, words which it is not lawful to utter<\/strong> : as Vulg., “ arcana verba, qu non licet homini loqui<\/em> .” The interpretation, “ qu dici nequeunt<\/em> ,” as Beza, Estius, Calov., Olsh., al., is hardly consistent with the narrative; for in that case, as Bengel remarks, ‘Paulus non potuisset audire.’ The passages adduced by Wetst. mostly refer to the mysteries<\/em> , or some secret rites: e.g. Demosth. contra Neram, p.1369, , , .<\/p>\n <\/strong> ] which it is not lawful for a<\/strong> MAN to utter<\/strong> (see above): imparted by God, but not to be divulged to others: and therefore, in this case, intended, we may presume, for the Apostle’s own consolation and encouragement. Of what kind<\/em> they were, on by whom<\/em> uttered, we have no hint given, and it were worse than trifling to conjecture. “Sublimitatis certe magn fuere: nam non omnia clestia sunt ineffabilia, v. gr. Exo 34:6<\/span> , Isa 6:3<\/span> , qu tamen valde sublimia.” Bengel.<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3-4<\/span> . . . .: and I know such a man<\/em> (he speaks with such caution and reticence of this momentous event in his spiritual life that he will not even describe it in the first person) how that he was caught up into Paradise<\/em> (see previous note), and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter<\/em> ; such words are reserved for the Divine voice which speaks to man, although this restriction does not apply to all<\/em> Divine words.<\/p>\n 3, 4.] A solemn repetition of the foregoing, with the additional particular of his having had unspeakable revelations made to him. Some, as Clem[20] Strom. 2Co 12:12 (80), p. 693 P., Iren[21] ii. 30.7, p. 162, Athan. Apol. 20, vol. i. p. 263, Orig[22] (or his interpreter) on Rom. xvi. lib. x. 43, vol. iv. p. 688, cum., al., think that this was a fresh assumption, , and with these Meyer agrees: but surely had this been intended, some intimation would have been given of it, either by , or by placing (as the stress would be then no longer on the fact as before, but on the new place to which ) in the place of emphasis before ;-or, by both combined,- . As it is, with the verb preceding in both clauses, and therefore no prominence given to the places as distinguished from one another, I must hold . to be at least so far equivalent to , as to be a general local description of the situation in which is found. The repetition of is equally accountable on either explanation, being made for solemnity and emphasis.<\/p>\n [20] Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194<\/p>\n [21] Irenus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 (Iren-int as represented by his interpreter; Iren-gr, when his own words are preserved)<\/p>\n [22] Origen, b. 185, d. 254<\/p>\n The cannot here be the Jewish Paradise, the blissful division or side of Hades (Scheol), where the spirits of the just awaited the resurrection, see note on Luk 16:22,-but the Paradise of which our Lord spoke on the Cross,-the place of happiness into which He at His Death introduced the spirits of the just: see on ref. Luke.<\/p>\n , i.e. as explained below, words which it is not lawful to utter:-as Vulg., arcana verba, qu non licet homini loqui. The interpretation, qu dici nequeunt, as Beza, Estius, Calov., Olsh., al., is hardly consistent with the narrative; for in that case, as Bengel remarks, Paulus non potuisset audire. The passages adduced by Wetst. mostly refer to the mysteries, or some secret rites: e.g. Demosth. contra Neram, p.1369, , , .<\/p>\n ] which it is not lawful for a MAN to utter (see above):-imparted by God, but not to be divulged to others: and therefore, in this case, intended, we may presume, for the Apostles own consolation and encouragement. Of what kind they were, on by whom uttered, we have no hint given, and it were worse than trifling to conjecture. Sublimitatis certe magn fuere: nam non omnia clestia sunt ineffabilia, v. gr. Exo 34:6, Isa 6:3, qu tamen valde sublimia. Bengel.<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3. , and) The particle here is expressive of a new movement in this transaction. Suppose, that the third heaven and paradise, were quite synonymous; the force of Pauls language will be greatly diminished.- , such a one) , him who was in Christ.-, whether) This word is repeated, because, even if in the body he was caught up to the third heaven, nevertheless, rising to a higher degree, he might have been caught up to paradise without the body.<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3 <\/p>\n And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth),-This seems to be a repetition to give emphasis to the statement. <\/p>\n Reciprocal: 1Ki 18:12 – the Spirit of the Lord 2Ki 2:16 – the Spirit Eze 11:24 – the spirit Dan 10:8 – I was 2Co 5:8 – and willing 2Co 11:11 – God 2Co 12:2 – knew<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3. This is the same as verse 2.<\/p>\n 2Co 12:3-4. And I know such a man (whether in the body or out of the body,[1] I know not; God knoweth), how that he was caught up into Paradise. Are we to take this as expressive of a further transition, raising him to a still loftier region than the third heaven called Paradise? So thought several of the fathers, and so some of the best modern critics. But besides that this is not what we think would naturally be gathered from the words, the fatal objection to it is that in this case the apostle tells us only what passed in the higher sphere of Paradise, and nothing at all of what he experienced in the third heaven. Is this conceivable? Was anything in the mere translation to make the mention of it worth while? Why should he not have passed at once to the Paradise scene? To us (and we are far from being alone) it appears pretty clear that the rapture of the first statement is merely a preface to what is to be afterwards stated about it, and that what follows merely takes up again what was said before, with a slight diversity in the name of the region into which he was caught up; in other words, that Paradise and the third heaven are but two names for the same thing. The word Paradise is an oriental word signifying a garden or open park, and as such it is employed by the Septuagint in Gen 2:8 to express the garden of Eden. It is here used in the same sense in which our Lord used it to the penitent malefactor (Luk 23:43), Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise. Into this blessed dwelling-place of the Lord was the apostle caught uphow he knows not, and so we need not. In its final condition it is held forth in promise to him that overcometh as Paradise restored (Rev 2:7),<\/p>\n [1] The Revised Version, following another reading; says here apart from the body, but the authority for it is not so decisive as to require a change.<\/p>\n and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utterparadoxical language, speakings which may not be spoken. Things not in themselves unutterable (for how then, as Bengel says, could the apostle have heard them?), but so sublime and heavenly as to be unsuitable to this earthly state, and therefore not proper to be reported to Christians here. What, then, was the object of them? No doubt, first of all, to cheer himself under the bitter disappointment in his first experience as a convert at Jerusalemso contrary to all his expectations as it doubtless was; and next, to brace him up for the whole heroic career of unparalleled self-sacrifice and unequalled success which lay before him as a missionary of the cross.<\/p>\n And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth); <\/p>\n And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) And I knew such a man – It is not uncommon to repeat a solemn affirmation in order that it may be made more emphatic. This is done here. Paul repeats the idea, that he … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 12:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/em><\/p>\nFuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"