Who was caught up to the third heaven?

[tonychanyt]

2 Corinthians 12:2

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

Barnes thought Paul was talking about himself:

The reason why Paul did not speak of this directly as a vision which he had himself seen was probably that he was accused of boasting, and he had admitted that it did not become him to glory. But though it did not become him to boast directly, yet he could tell them of a man concerning whom there would be no impropriety evidently in boasting. It is not uncommon, moreover, for a man to speak of himself in the third person. Thus, Caesar in his Commentaries uniformly speaks of himself. And so John in his Gospel speaks of himself, John 13:23-24; John 19:26; John 21:20. John did it on account of his modesty, because he would not appear to put himself forward, and because the mention of his own name as connected with the friendship of the Saviour in the remarkable manner in which he enjoyed it, might have savored of pride. For a similar reason Paul may have been unwilling to mention his own name here; and he may have abstained from referring to this occurrence elsewhere, because it might savor of pride, and might also excite the envy or ill-will of others.

Similarly Ellicott:

The term “a man in Christ,” as a way of speaking of himself, is probably connected with the thought that “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature” (2Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15).

Meyer:

I know a man … who was snatched away. Paul speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce something in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper. And how suitable in reality was the nature of such an event to the modest mode of representation, excluding all self-glory!

Benson:

I knew a man in Christ — That is, a Christian. He must undoubtedly have meant himself, or the whole article had been quite foreign to his purpose. Indeed, that he meant himself is plain from 2 Corinthians 12:6-7.

Matthew Henry':

There can be no doubt the apostle speaks of himself.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:

a man—meaning himself. But he purposely thus distinguishes between the rapt and glorified person of 2Co 12:2, 4, and himself the infirmity-laden victim of the "thorn in the flesh" (2Co 12:7). Such glory belonged not to him, but the weakness did.

Matthew Poole:

man he speaketh of was, doubtless, himself, otherwise it had been to him no cause or ground of glorying at all. Thus several times in Scripture, the penmen thereof speaking in commendation of themselves, they speak in the third person instead of the first. In his saying, it was

Gill:

I knew a man in Christ about fourteen years ago,.... Which is to be understood of himself, as appears from 2 Corinthians 12:7, where he speaks in the first person; and the reason why he here speaks in the third, is to show his modesty and humility, and how much he declined vain glory and popular applause;

Pulpit Commentary

I know. A man. St. Paul speaks in this indirect way of himself (see vers. 5, 7).

Who was caught up to the third heaven?

The scholarship is rather strong that Paul was talking about himself.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I have read what other people have said concerning this but I have honestly never been convinced of their consensus.

 

[tonychanyt]

I have read what other people have said concerning this but I have honestly never been convinced of their consensus.

I also put some weight on what you said

 

[Fireinfolding]

I also put some weight on what you said

They do not come off as being too convinced in themselves, there are some "probably's" laced in a few of those commentaries. Not that I care so much, its such a small thing and sometimes people will just tote a line of reasoning no one ever pushes back on when they dont know themselves, you know, if it "sounds good".

This has been bothering me since 2006 for whatever reason, and you get to the point where you look for some confirmation (just out of curiosity) but I didnt find any among the experts. So every once and awhile I might toss that out there asking if its not reasonable (considering how I am reasoning with it). Like, give me another reason to be for it or against it.

2 Cr 12:5 Of such an one will I glory:
yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.

I just stand in doubt of what appears as a guess at best, he even tells of such a one he would glory but not of himself. So I cant see how he is talking about himself there knowing a man above 14 years ago. Just sounds off to believe that.

 

[Clare73]

2 Corinthians 12:2
Barnes thought Paul was talking about himself:
Similarly Ellicott:
Meyer:
Benson
Matthew Henry':
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown:
Matthew Poole:
Gill:
Pulpit Commentary
Who was caught up to the third heaven?The scholarship is rather strong that Paul was talking about himself.

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations" (2 Co 12:7) pretty much settles the question.

 

[Fireinfolding]

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations" (2 Co 12:7) pretty much settles the question.

He starts out in verse one saying

2 Cr 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory
. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

So he is acknowledging that he is in fact coming to these revelations of the Lord

Then talks about knowing a man a certain amount of years ago and goes onto what he specifically experienced and then states

2 Cr 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory,
but in mine infirmities.

So of such a one he would glory (though of his own self he would not) even though he would desire to do so (next verse)

2 Cr 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

Then goes into the thorn given him in the flesh

2 Cr 12:7 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 of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Seems more like he is both talking about himself and another, John just seems to fit right there given what he mentions there.

Know what I mean?

 

[Clare73]

He starts out in verse one saying
2 Cr 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory
. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
So he is acknowledging that he is in fact coming to these revelations of the Lord
Then talks about knowing a man a certain amount of years ago and goes onto what he specifically experienced and then states
2 Cr 12:5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory,
but in mine infirmities.
So of such a one he would glory (though of his own self he would not) even though he would desire to do so (next verse)
2 Cr 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
Then goes into the thorn given him in the flesh
2 Cr 12:7 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 of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Seems more like he is both talking about himself and another, John just seems to fit right there given what he mentions there.

Know what I mean?

I do, but I see 2 Co 12:1-9 in conjunction with Gal 1:11-12; i.e., Jesus' personal revelation to Paul.

1) I see Paul as acknowledging he is speaking of himself in "I will not boast about myself. . .Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so that no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say."
2) I don't see Paul as given a thorn in the flesh for someone else's revelations which they were not even permitted to tell Paul (12:6).

Likewise, John's revelation consisted of prophetic visions, while Paul' revelation consisted of the doctrine of Christ, of salvation apart from works, of justification by faith, of imputation of Adam's sin/guilt and imputation of Christ's obedience/righteousness, etc., etc., etc.,
of the doctrine of the church as the inclusion of the Gentiles in the one people of God, as the spouse and body of Christ in the two-in-on enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32), of the new/renewal of creation, of Christ in us the hope of glory, etc., etc., etc.

So good to hear from you.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I do, but I see 2 Co 12:1-9 in conjunction with Gal 1:11-12; i.e., Jesus' personal revelation to Paul.

1) I see Paul as acknowledging he is speaking of himself in "I will not boast about myself. . .Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so that no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say."
2) I don't see Paul as given a thorn in the flesh for someone else's revelations which they were not even permitted to tell Paul (12:6).

Likewise, John's revelation consisted of prophetic visions, while Paul' revelation consisted of the doctrine of Christ, of salvation apart from works, of justification by faith, of imputation of Adam's sin/guilt and imputation of Christ's obedience/righteousness, etc., etc., etc.,
of the doctrine of the church as the inclusion of the Gentiles in the one people of God, as the spouse and body of Christ in the two-in-on enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32), of the new/renewal of creation, of Christ in us the hope of glory, etc., etc., etc.

So good to hear from you.

Its so good to hear from you as well Clare73! I am glad you come back and replied because I have always appreciated your insight on things, especially your eye for details.

And just so you are aware, I do not believe that Paul's thorn in his flesh for someone elses revelations (just to clarify) to me he is both speaking of himself, when he starts speaking in verse 1 saying, I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Tonychanyt split the topic and I had posted on his other thread when this was the second one I responded to. I don't know if you read the other thread but just in case (and for easier reference) I will copy paste it below.

Can you better see my reasoning with this thing here?

Isn't this who Paul is referring to when he said, he knew a man was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (as shown in John)

Rev 10:4 when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
Seal up those things which the Seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Since he also said,

2 Cr 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter

Couldn't John be the one Paul was depicting as the man he knew above fourteen years ago who was that man caught up to the third heaven
and who was "in the Spirit in the Lords day" so Paul could not say (as far as it pertained to him) whether that was in the body or out of it 2 Cr 12:2 & Rev 1:10 & Rev 4:1 (since it doesn't say there either).

Since the Scripture shows it was John who had come up hither being the man which wrote of the things he saw and heard but when he had heard what the Seven thunders uttered (and was about to write) he was also the one commanded to seal those things uttered up and not write them down. And since that command was issued to John specifically, is it unreasonable to believe Paul understood this man who he wrote about was not himself but John rather? Wouldn't that be to whom Paul was referring to when speaking of the one who heard unspeakable words which is not lawful for a man to utter.

2 Cr 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell:
God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. Rev 1:10, Rev 4:1-2 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth Rev 1:10, & Rev 4:1-2

And so my question was, is there any good reason that it "could not" be John? Like can you give me a reason it couldnt be is what I am asking for.

Its not something worth a debate since its such a small thing but I had also thought, this could be something used in a comfirming way such as to link Paul with John's revelation (as a second witness of sorts) Paul acknowledging the fact that John was caught and thats where we see him (and in his revelation) being instructed to seal up something (what the seven thunders uttered). Looking at it as an acknowledgement of one apostle by another apostle. Sort of like how Peter acknowledges the things Paul says which are hard to understand but it serves as one apostle validating another in their writing. Which comes in handy when debating stupid things such as Paul was not an apostle heresies many years later (as we have seen these kinds of debates at various times).

So for me (as I was thinking about this) I was looking for a pattern between them in these things (since both of them received of the same). And in the one we see John was "in the Spirit" on the Lords day, and he was told "come up hither" and so maybe the question might remain for us, "what does even that mean?" As it pertains to John, we might ask ourselves, Was that in the body (or out of the body) even there? Can we even tell? Could Paul tell? Paul says, "I cannot tell" (that would apply whether he is refering to himself or John). These things seem demonstrated for us in the revelation of John (who was shown us as being in the Spirit) and he was being shown what he wrote us describing the things around the tree of life Rev 22:2 (which is noted to be in the midst of the paradise of God). In this way it just makes more sense that Paul could even be validating Johns revelation, how he (John) was caught up into paradise, touching on the various things shown us there. John's being caught up to Paradise where he describes where the tree of life is located, caught up in the Spirit (whether in the body or out of the body) it does not say and Paul cannot tell and John being instructed to seal up what the seven thunders uttered just becomes (when we read) he that heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter . And maybe I am overthinking this, but It just seems to wrap up in John. Not at all saying Paul is not speaking of himself also, it just appears (at least to me) he is speaking both of his own revelations and of this other man (which details a little of what we can gather in John's)

And Clare73 this not me arguing with you or even wanting to debate about it, because who cares if its one apostle or the other, it truly affects nothing at all. But it sincerely bugs me

This has bugged me for nearly 2 decades, and in this particular case I would love someone to put an axe to it so that it won't bug me anymore. I will very gladly be dead wrong in the direction I am going with this so I can finally set this aside for good in my own mind (and not think of it ever again) lol

If anyone can do that I know I can often count on you for such help in those matters

 

[Clare73]

Its so good to hear from you as well Clare73! I am glad you come back and replied because I have always appreciated your insight on things, especially your eye for details.

And just so you are aware, I do not believe that Paul's thorn in his flesh for someone elses revelations (just to clarify) to me he is both speaking of himself, when he starts speaking in verse 1 saying, I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Tonychanyt split the topic and I had posted on his other thread when this was the second one I responded to. I don't know if you read the other thread but just in case (and for easier reference) I will copy paste it below.

Can you better see my reasoning with this thing here?

Isn't this who Paul is referring to when he said, he knew a man was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter (as shown in John)

Rev 10:4 when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
Seal up those things which the Seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

Since he also said,

2 Cr 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter

Couldn't John be the one Paul was depicting as the man he knew above fourteen years ago who was that man caught up to the third heaven
and who was "in the Spirit in the Lords day" so Paul could not say (as far as it pertained to him) whether that was in the body or out of it 2 Cr 12:2 & Rev 1:10 & Rev 4:1 (since it doesn't say there either).

Since the Scripture shows it was John who had come up hither being the man which wrote of the things he saw and heard but when he had heard what the Seven thunders uttered (and was about to write) he was also the one commanded to seal those things uttered up and not write them down. And since that command was issued to John specifically, is it unreasonable to believe Paul understood this man who he wrote about was not himself but John rather? Wouldn't that be to whom Paul was referring to when speaking of the one who heard unspeakable words which is not lawful for a man to utter.

2 Cr 12:2-3 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell:
God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. Rev 1:10, Rev 4:1-2 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth Rev 1:10, & Rev 4:1-2

And so my question was, is there any good reason that it "could not" be John? Like can you give me a reason it couldnt be is what I am asking for.

Its not something worth a debate since its such a small thing but I had also thought, this could be something used in a comfirming way such as to link Paul with John's revelation (as a second witness of sorts) Paul acknowledging the fact that John was caught and thats where we see him (and in his revelation) being instructed to seal up something (what the seven thunders uttered). Looking at it as an acknowledgement of one apostle by another apostle. Sort of like how Peter acknowledges the things Paul says which are hard to understand but it serves as one apostle validating another in their writing. Which comes in handy when debating stupid things such as Paul was not an apostle heresies many years later (as we have seen these kinds of debates at various times).

So for me (as I was thinking about this) I was looking for a pattern between them in these things (since both of them received of the same). And in the one we see John was "in the Spirit" on the Lords day, and he was told "come up hither" and so maybe the question might remain for us, "what does even that mean?" As it pertains to John, we might ask ourselves, Was that in the body (or out of the body) even there? Can we even tell? Could Paul tell? Paul says, "I cannot tell" (that would apply whether he is refering to himself or John). These things seem demonstrated for us in the revelation of John (who was shown us as being in the Spirit) and he was being shown what he wrote us describing the things around the tree of life Rev 22:2 (which is noted to be in the midst of the paradise of God). In this way it just makes more sense that Paul could even be validating Johns revelation, how he (John) was caught up into paradise, touching on the various things shown us there. John's being caught up to Paradise where he describes where the tree of life is located, caught up in the Spirit (whether in the body or out of the body) it does not say and Paul cannot tell and John being instructed to seal up what the seven thunders uttered just becomes (when we read) he that heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter . And maybe I am overthinking this, but It just seems to wrap up in John. Not at all saying Paul is not speaking of himself also, it just appears (at least to me) he is speaking both of his own revelations and of this other man (which details a little of what we can gather in John's)

And Clare73 this not me arguing with you or even wanting to debate about it, because who cares if its one apostle or the other, it truly affects nothing at all. But it sincerely bugs me

The parallels are most interesting. Another thorough job by you. And I can see why you view it as you do.

I guess what settles it for me is the logic.
The thorn in his flesh is for the surpassingly great revelations received in the event of 2 Co 5:1-9.
The source of the boasting in which Paul will not engage is those very revelations. If those revelations to someone else could not be spoken to anyone, then Paul would not even have known them, would have no reason to boast, and would need no thorn in his flesh to keep him from doing so.

And I guess we should not be too surprised by the similarities of occurrence in the two men's revelations. After all, both revelations are from the ascended Christ.
But it appears that John was allowed to speak all his revelations, for he states nothing otherwise, while Paul speaks of his being forbidden to speak at least some of his.

This has bugged me for nearly 2 decades, and in this particular case I would love someone to put an axe to it so that it won't bug me anymore. I will very gladly be dead wrong in the direction I am going with this so I can finally set this aside for good in my own mind (and not think of it ever again) lol

If anyone can do that I know I can often count on you for such help in those matters

So good to hear from you. Don't make yourself scarce.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The parallels are most interesting. Another thorough job by you. And I can see why you view it as you do.

I guess what settles it for me is the logic.
The thorn in his flesh is for the surpassingly great revelations received in the event of 2 Co 5:1-9.
The source of the boasting in which Paul will not engage is those very revelations. If those revelations to someone else could not be spoken to anyone, then Paul would not even have known them, would have no reason to boast, and would need no thorn in his flesh to keep him from doing so.

And I guess we should not be too surprised by the similarities of occurrence in the two men's revelations. After all, both revelations are from the ascended Christ.
But it appears that John was allowed to speak all his revelations, for he states nothing otherwise, while Paul speaks of his being forbidden to speak at least some of his.

So good to hear from you. Don't make yourself scarce.

Thank you for your response Clare73, I do understand what you are saying, and you make a good point especially if he is speaking of everything seen and heard was unlawful to utter. Whereas where such a one was caught up (and that acknowledgment) doesnt seem to come under "unlawful" to mention (even with Paul) And where I am focusing on is the whole "how can this be so"? Or is there another example of such a thing in scripture and there is, in the "seven thunders" and so I took a hold of that and ran with it, that perhaps this is John he is speaking about. Could very well be too much of a stretch on my part. Thanks Clare, I will leave it there

I always wondered if John had been given thorn as Paul did. Afterall seeing what John saw is sort of a mind blower.

Unless maybe some apostles can handle a revelation better than some of the others in the same way some men can handle a drink better than others (couldnt resist the comparison)

God bless Sis, thanks for your imput here much appreciated

 

[Diamond72]

Barnes thought Paul was talking about himself:

I would be very surprised if Paul was not taken to Heaven. If it is my imagination or not, I have been there three times in dreams and visions.

 

[tonychanyt]

I would be very surprised if Paul was not taken to Heaven. If it is my imagination or not, I have been there three times in dreams and visions.

What did you see in Heaven?

 

[Diamond72]

What did you see in Heaven?

In the dream I saw my daughter. Because of an IUD she never made it to the womb. I saw her two angels and even talked to one of them. He was reading a book and I later found out that was my daughters book of life for the plan and purpose God has for her. Later, when she found out I was her father, she was very excited and shared with all of her friends. She knew I was related, but a lot of the children in Heaven will never know their parents.

She had like 50 or 60 gifts from relatives and I did not give her a gift. So she did not understand and was asking her angel why I did not bring her something. That was when she found out I was her father. My first son is in Heaven now so he can tell her about me.