College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

2 Corinthians 12 - Introduction

Butler's Commentary

Chapter Twelve

THE PROBLEM OF WEAKNESSES

(2 Corinthians 12:1-21)

IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:

Why does Paul hesitate to say he is the man who was caught up into Paradise?

What is Paradise? Where is it? Why couldn-'t Paul tell about it?

Why, after all he had to suffer, was Paul given a thorn in the flesh?

Why did Paul refuse to burden the Corinthian church to support him?

Was there still impurity, immorality and licentiousness going on in the Corinthian church? What would Paul do about it?

APPREHENSIONS:

Why was Paul so adamantly opposed to boasting (comparing ministries)?

How many visions and revelations did Paul have?

Why does he speak of himself in the third person (I know a man)?

What is the third heaven? What is the first heaven and the second heaven?

Just what does the Bible say about Paradise?

Why is Paul unable to speak about his trip to Paradise?

What is the meaning of the Greek word skolopsi translated, thorn?

Was Paul's thorn in the flesh really some physical problem? How do you know?

What is the theological problem about Paul's thorn in the flesh?

10.

What does Paul say was the purpose of his thorn in the flesh?

11.

How is God's power brought to its goal or aim in human weakness?

12.

How did God answer Paul's prayer for the thorn to be taken away?

13.

What did God teach Paul about the proper attitude toward weaknesses?

14.

Why did those opposing Paul accuse him of being weak? What did they see in him which they considered weakness?

15.

How did Paul refute their accusations of weakness?

APPLICATIONS:

Is it wrong for preachers to glorify God for what they have sacrificed in the cause of Christ? Always wrong? Sometimes right? When? Why?

Do you know religious leaders today who boast about the revelations and visions they have had? What does Paul's reluctance to do so say about their eagerness to do so?

If you had been caught up to Paradise and had seen it, could you keep from telling about it even if God told you to keep silent?

What do you know about Paradise? What does it do for your spiritual life? Are you anxious to go there?

Do you have a thorn in the flesh? Have you ever had one? Do you expect to have one?

What have your weaknesses taught you?

Is God's grace sufficient for you? If that was all you had in this world, right now, would you be well-pleased? Why?

Do you find yourself having your spiritual powers increased when your physical powers are decreased? Which do you prefer?

What does it take to make you content?

10.

Would you consider yourself wronged if you could not contribute financial support to the work of the gospel? Deeply wrong?

11.

Are you willing to spend and be spent (exhausted in resources and strength) for the church (Christians)? Is it necessary? What would happen if you did?

12.

Can speaking build up the church? Speaking as Paul spoke?

13.

Is such speaking being done? If not, why not?

14.

Do you mourn over people's spiritual weaknesses as much as you mourn their physical weaknesses? Should you?

15.

Is there impurity, immorality and licentiousness in the modern church of Christ? What should be done about it? How do we bring that about?

Special Study
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Condensed from Introduction to PhilosophyA Christian Perspective, by Norman L. Geisler and Paul D, Feinberg, pub. by Baker book House.

Three basic ways of relating God and evil.

One may affirm the reality of evil and deny God (atheism)

One may affirm God and deny the reality of evil (pantheism)

One may attempt to show the compatibility of God and evil

Atheism: Denying the reality of God
If God exists, He is not essentially good.

Either (A) morality is right because God willed it or else (B) he willed it because it is right.

But if (A), then God is arbitrary about what is right, and He is not essentially good.

And if (B), then God is not ultimate, since He is subject to some standard beyond Himself.

But in either caseif God is not essentially good or not ultimateGod is not what theists claim Him to be

Therefore, no theistic God exists.

Answers:

Good is based on God's will but God is sovereign and not arbitrary.

God's nature is the ultimate norm in accordance with which His will cooperates. God wills what is essentially good without there being some ultimate standard beyond Himself. The ultimate norm for all good flows from the will of God but only in accordance with the nature of God. God is neither arbitrary nor less than ultimate.

Atheism: God should destroy all evil.

If God is all-good, He will destroy evil.

If God is all-powerful, He can destroy evil.

But evil is not destroyed.

Therefore, there is no all-good, all-powerful God.

Answers:

Premise No. 3 implies a time limit on God. God may yet destroy evil.

It is possible that there is no way to destroy evil without also destroying the good of permitting free creatures.

The syllogism may be turned around thus:

If God is all-good, He will one day defeat evil.

If God is all-powerful, He can one day defeat evil.

Evil is not yet defeated.

Therefore evil will one day be defeated.

Atheism: God and evil are logically incompatible.

God and evil are opposites.

Opposites cannot exist simultaneously.

But evil exists.

Hence, God cannot exist.

Answers:

The atheist fails to prove that God and evil are actually contradictory. They may be only contrary and not contradictory.

Let us restate the atheistic argument here:

God exists. (1)

Evil exists. (2)

(3) there is no good purpose for evil.

Therefore, both (1) and (2) cannot be true.

But we know (2) is true.

Therefore, God cannot exist. (1)

The difficulty with this atheistic argument is in proving premise (3) to be true. The only way one can be sure God could not possibly have any good purpose for evil is (1) either to already know God is not all good, which begs the question, or (2) to know the mind of God, which is presumptuous for any finite being.
If there is an all-good God, it follows automatically that He does have some good purpose for allowing evil, even if no human being knows what that good purpose is.

An important point for the theist to remember. since the point disputed here is logical or conceptual, all the theist needs to do is show some possible explanation for evil to defeat the non-theist's claim. Theists are not obligated to show in fact that this is the case.

THEISM'S ANSWER TO EVIL

God permits evil in order to produce a greater good.

God freely created the world, not because He had to, but because He wanted to do so.

God created creatures like Himself who could freely love Him. But such creatures could also hate Him.

God desires all men to love Him, but will not force any against their will to love Him. Forced love is not love. It is rape.

God will persuade as many to love Him as He can (2 Peter 3:9). God will grant those who will not love Him their free choiceforever (hell).

God's love is magnified when we return His love (since He first loved us) as well as when we do not. It shows how great He is that He will love even those who hate Him.

Thus, in the end the greatest good will be achieved in several ways:

God will have shared His love with all men.

God will have saved as many as He could without violating their free choice (1 Timothy 2:1; 2 Peter 3:9).

Those not saved will be given their own freely-chosen destiny; thus the good of their freedom will be respected.

Throughout all God will be glorified in that (a) His sovereign will has prevailed: (b) His love is magnified whether it is accepted or rejected (c) He has defeated evil by forgiving sin (through the cross) and by separating good from evil forever (through the final judgment). And (3) He has produced the best world achievable (where the most men possible are saved and secured from evil forever).

There are two very important aspects of this theodicy that should be stressed:

It is a best-way (versus a best-world) theodicy. That is, this present evil world is not the best world possible, but it is the best way to achieve the best world. Permitting evil is a precondition of producing the best world (Romans 5:20; Genesis 50:20).

This solution is not a soul-making but a soul-deciding theodicy. God is not conceived as a cosmic behavioral manipulator who is programming people into heaven against their will. God operates with men only with their informed consent.

God never goes beyond freedom and dignity to save men at any costnot at the cost of their freedom or dignity.

Whosoever will may come, but whoever won-'t will not be forced to come. In a truly free world, God cannot make souls act against their will. He can only lovingly persuade them and then respect their decisionwhatever it may be.

Special Study
IS THERE DEMON POSSESSION TODAY AS THERE WAS DURING THE TIME OF CHRIST'S INCARNATE MINISTRY?

It is my opinion that there is no demon possession of human beings today in the precise manner such as manifested in the phenomenal way it was during Christ's incarnate ministry (and perhaps as it was during the remainder of the ascendancy of the Roman empire).

It is my opinion that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:1-6 was initiated and resulted from the redemptive work of Christ in His Incarnation. It was completed when the beast of the 4th universal empire (as Daniel predicted), Rome, fell. At that time, it is my opinion, demon possession, as manifested in the Gospels and Acts apparently was to cease. All binding of Satan is relative. He has always been bound to some degree or other due to the fact that God is Almighty. God is the only being who is Almighty. It is my opinion a part of Satan's binding has to do with the restriction imposed by God so that Satan's demons are no longer able to possess human bodies as they were during the time of Christ's incarnation.

To have this opinion does not mean I deny the power of Satan to deceive the minds of people today who deliberately choose to believe falsehood perpetrated by lying signs and wonders. If the definition of demon possession means simply that Satan has captured the minds of men by unbelief, I would agree.

Satan entered into Judas. (Luke 22:3 and John 13:27) but he was not what other scriptures describe as demon possessed.

Do the alleged demons possessing people today ever enter into animals? (See Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-36; Mark 5:1-16.)

Do the alleged demons possessing people today ever testify to the identity and deity of Christ or the messengers of Christ and what their work is? (See Acts 16:17; Acts 19:15; Matthew 8:29; Mark 1:24 and above references.)

Do the alleged demons possessing people today ever speak out as recognizable separate individualsdefinitively separate from the human whose body they possess?

How may demons (alleged) today be exorcised? Is the exorcism always miraculous and always instantaneous? If not, is it simply a matter of conversion by the power of the gospel regenerating the mind through preaching and teaching? When there is an unsuccessful exorcism, or casting out, are those possessed by alleged demons doomed to suffer such possession until they die?

Only Jesus could give power to exorcise demons. That was a direct gift and a supernatural power. It apparently did not require being a born again believer to receive this powerJudas apparently was given this powerhe was one of the twelve (cf. Matthew 10:1; Matthew 10:8).

On the other hand, many pseudo-faith-healers today, and ministers from all differing theological and doctrinal positions, claim they have cast out or exorcised demons. Whom are we to believe? Who has that power today among all who claim it? What are we to conclude from their claims? Who is to decide which are real demons and real exorcists? By what criteria?

Demons in the scripture were not ecto-plasmthey were (and still are, in the abyss) real persons!

The psychic powers of the human mind over matter have been well documented. What some think is demon possession could very well be such psycho-somatic phenomena. Voodooism may be classified under this heading.

10.

The most destructive power of the devil is not possession of a human body but a mind or soul (cf. Matthew 10:28). It appears that while demons possessed bodies of some humans during Christ's incarnationthe mind or soul of that person was not possessed. Demons merely troubled humans (Luke 6:18); they drove people to do, physically, what they did (Luke 8:29).

11.

Of all the miraculous gifts the Corinthian Christians were given, exorcism of the demon-possessed was not among them (I Cor. ch. 12-14).

12.

How do we know when someone is demon possessed? What is the criteria by which distinction is made between demon possession and epilepsy, mental illness, perverted maliciousness and crazed murderousness (e.g. Hitler, de Sade, etc.)?

13.

Is it not possible that all the mania for the occult and the practice of it is being used by the devil to get people to think he has powers which he does not really have (Revelation 13:13-15)?

14.

If demon possession could only come to those who were willing was the little daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman a willing victim? In other words, demon possession had nothing to do with the willingness of the possessed. Therefore, exorcism was not done by conversion but by the exercise of divine authority in a miraculous way.

15.

It seems apparent that only Jesus and the apostles, or specially endowed disciples (Luke 10:1-42) could exorcise demons. This they did, not by conversion but by miracle. There is no evidence from the scriptures that this miraculous power could be given by any other than Christ Himself and that while He was in His incarnate ministry.

16.

If miracles of healing, speaking in foreign languages, prophecy, including discernment of spirits (1 Corinthians 12:10), etc., ceased with the end of the New Testament era and the death of the apostles (or the ones to whom the apostles imparted these gifts), so that we can only be certain of the documented miracles of Scripture, then the same principle ought to be applied, for the same reason, to demon possession and exorcism. Otherwise, we are in a quandary to decide about modern claims of demon possession and exorcism among religious groups from one end of the doctrinal spectrum to the other. There are also pagan exorcists making claims.

17.

There really is not any documentation of demon possession in the Old Testament such as occurred during the Incarnation (with an exception or two, e.g. King Saul).

18.

It appears, then, that demon possession in the precise manner in which it occurred during Christ's incarnate ministry was uniquely for the purpose of affording historical evidence that Christ (and His apostles) possessed the Sovereign Spirit of Godthat their message was one of victory and power over Satan and all of hell.

19.

A recent case in point, excerpts from article in Joplin, Mo., Globe, 3-8-81:

Catholic priests were attempting to rid an 11 year old boy in Brookfield, Conn. of demons. (The boy's name is unknown.)

A 19 year old friend was watching these sessions, challenged the demons to take me on. Control me. Leave this boy alone, acc. to tape recordings of the sessions. (Arne Johnson) was the friend.
Johnson allegedly stabbed to death a co-worker (Alan Bono) after Bono had quarreled at Bono's apartment.
Johnson is now pleading that he is not responsible for his acts because of demonic possession.
Ed and Lorraine Warren, who worked on the Amityville Horror case were asked to help the boy who appeared to be possessed (the 11 year old boy). Warrens said they found movement of objects and frightening manifestations in the house. The Warrens said the boy was indeed possessed, and he seemed to be possessed off and on, 24 hours a day, said one family member. Tape recordings the Warrens made of some of the sessions have the boy making guttural and hissing sounds, cursing his mother, and threatening to stab and kill those present in the room.
Photographs of the sessions show family members attempting to restrain the boy, who the Warrens said seemed to have superhuman strength.
A priest named Virgulak was called to investigate the case; he has made several reports to the bishop of the diocese, but no public reports. He has declined to discuss the reports but said no formal exorcism has ever been requested or performed on the boy.
There were prayer sessions called a deliverance which is supposed to be a lesser form of exorcism that does not require approval of the bishop.
The Warrens say Johnson's attempts to help the boy were amateurish because the only way to order demons out of a person is by using the name of Jesus Christ.
Mrs. Warren said, ... (Johnson) he challenged what was within the child to take him onand none of us ever do that, not even priests.

Problems with this account:

Based on a number of begging the question statements such as, appeared to be., seemed to be., seemed to have., no public reports., supposed to be., approval of the bishop..

In the name of Jesus means in the Bible, by the authority of Jesus. Does Roman Catholicism have the authority of Jesus to exorcise? The name of Jesus is to be used in exorcism by only those authorized to use it (cf. Acts 19:13-16). Whom are we to believe now has that authorization? What credentials do they present for it? Do such exorcists agree doctrinally with the Word of the Holy Spirit in the Bible? If not, are we to believe they have the power of the Spirit?

20.

There are two Old Testament prophecies, clearly Messianic, which predict the cessation of sorceries and soothsayers (Micah 5:12-13), and unclean spirits or demon-possession (Zechariah 13:2). Homer Hailey, in his book, A Commentary on the Minor Prophets, pub. Baker, sums up Zechariah 13:1-6 in these words, A fountain for sin and uncleanness will be opened for all the people. At that time the falsehood of idols will cease, prophesying will be discontinued, and the unclean spirits will pass out of the land. Mr. Hailey contends that Zechariah 13:1-9 is entirely Messianic and says, Once the foundation was laid and the new revelation was complete, the need for prophets would cease. Daniel indicates the same in a strong Messianic prophecy, when he said of the anointed one, the prince, that He would bring in everlasting righteousness, and seal up vision and prophecy. Likewise, unclean spirits, the antithesis of the prophets, would cease. In the conquest of Christ over Satan and his forces, unclean spirits have ceased to control men as they did in the time of the ministry of Christ and the apostles.

Of course, these prophecies from Micah and Zechariah do not preclude the attempts of human beings and Satan to try to deceive the world that demon possession and sorceries are still supernaturally viable. We believe the Bible clearly indicates what is alleged today to be supernatural demon possession is no longer a possibility. Lying wonders and deceiving signs remain very much a possibility so long as men and women refuse to believe and love the truth and prefer to believe what is false (see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12; 2 Timothy 4:3-4, etc.).

21.

The crucial and ultimate question about modern (alleged) demon possession is: Whose testimony is reliable? Whose testimony is in-errantly, infallibly reliable besides the testimony of the Scriptures? None! Any man today, without the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Spirit to verify his experience and accredit his testimony may be either deceived or a deceiver.

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER THE DEVIL CAN ACTUALLY PERFORM SUPERNATURAL DEEDS OR NOT

There is only one Creator. No one else ever creates anything.

God is said to have given the devil permission to take away Job's property. Job said, The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. The devil did not have that power of his own. He probably tried to get Job to think he did, but Job was not persuaded. Is Job right or wrong? Did God take away, or did the devil?

Can Satan give an order that fire should come down out of heaven or make an image breathe (Revelation 13:11-17). Who is in charge of ordering things in heaven (or on earth)? Satan or God? While men were convinced the beast was invincible (Revelation 13:18), God revealed through John that the beast was human (Revelation 13:18), not supernatural, not divine, not to be worshiped!

Only God is Almighty. How does one distinguish what or who is almighty from that which is not?

If the distinguishing criteria of almightiness appears in two persons or realms, can both be almighty? If only one can be real, what is the other?partly real?
It is a law or logic that two contradictory propositions cannot both be true!

If one says we distinguish what we are to believe as actual or real by whether the attending message or doctrine is true and good or not, how does one substantiate which message is good? If we say the message of God does not lie, how do we determine it does not lie? If the devil has supernatural power how are we to determine that his message is not substantiated as good and those who claim to speak for the Lord as bad?

The ethical value of what God says is good cannot be substantiated on the basis of pragmatism (it works) because that makes every person able to say what works for you doesn-'t work for me. The absolute ethical value of God's statement of good depends on authority. Authority depends on demonstration of faithfulness and sovereignty in the absolute degree. How could that allow for real supernaturalism to be arrogated to someone else?

Did the devil have the real power to produce what he promised in the Garden of Eden? 2 Corinthians 11:3 says he deceived Eve by his cunning to lead her thoughts astray.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 says the devil, through the lawless one, is to do pretended (Gr. pseudo, false, fake) signs and wonders, with all wicked deception (Gr. apate, cheating, beguiling, false impressions, unscrupulous) for those who refuse to love the truth. God will send to them a working (Gr. energeian) of error (Gr. planes, astray, wandering, planet) to believe the lie (Gr. pseudei) for those having not believed the truth, but are having pleasure in unrighteousness.

Does that sound like actual miracles are going to be given to lead people astray?

The supernatural things done by God (and his representatives) are said to be moral facts in themselves which in turn delineate in man's experience the existence and nature of God (cf. Romans 1:18 ff; Acts 14:15-18; Acts 17:22-31, et al). If there are other supernatural facts being done which are capable of competing on the same level, in the realm of the factual, what do they delineatethat there are two Gods? If these two supernatural facts are both facts, how are we to decide to which one we surrender? The one who seems to have the most workable doctrine?

Is Satan's power to deceive in the reality of a supernatural event actually done or is it in the interpretation he wishes us to make of the event which appears to be a supernatural event? If it really is a supernatural event accomplished by the devil (or a human being today), what interpretation are we to make?

Paul writes that we should not let the devil defraud us (Gr. pleonektethomen) by being agnostic about his devices (Gr. noemata, mentalitynot miracles) 2 Corinthians 2:11.

The mind is powerful, Ideas and thoughts have tremendous capabilities. Mental, psychological trauma has caused amazing effects over personalities and even over physical functions.

Jesus stated that it was a logical impossibility that Satan would cast out demons for Satan would be defeating himself. Therefore, when demons are really, actually cast out, only the Lord could be doing it. If alleged modern exorcisms are actual, then Jesus is working through Catholicism, through witch-doctors, etc. The Jews of Jesus time did not really cast out demons or they would have had the evidence to really accuse Jesus of blasphemy.

Two passages in Deuteronomy appear to conflict. Deuteronomy 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

Perhaps Deuteronomy 13:1-5 means, If what a prophet gives as a sign or wonder appears to come to pass, and if he says, Let us go after other gods. do not follow him. his signs are really false.

One should not go after other gods because one knows what has appeared to come to pass, and if he says, Let us go after other gods. do not follow him. his signs are really false.
One should not go after other gods because one knows what has appeared to come to pass has only appeared to do so. Only true prophet's signs and predictions factually come to pass.

10.

Those who did not repent of their sorceries, Revelation 9:21, repented not of pharmakeionthe Greek word for sorceries is the word from which we get English, pharmacy. Is it possible that the sorcerers worked their alleged signs and wonders by chemicals and pharmaceutical properties.

The word translated magic (RSV) in Acts 19:19 is Gr. periergos and means curiosity, inquisitive, or literally, Things that are appearing to worksuperfluous. Things not reality, but things in the realm of question or doubtful.

Elijah's challenge to the prophets of Baal is instructive. Elijah said, How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him. And during the contest the prophets of Baal could not call down fire from heaven! Even though they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances until the blood gushed out of them. Here is the time for the devil to do a miracle, if he can!

11.

Let us consider again the text in Job.

God said to Satan, Behold all that he has is in your power.. The Hebrew word is yadeka from yod, literally, Hand. This word is used metonymically for power in Deuteronomy 32:36; 2 Kings 19:26; Job 5:20; Psalms 22:20; Psalms 49:15; Isaiah 37:27; Isaiah 47:14; Daniel 6:27; Hosea 13:14; and Micah 2:1, but never of any supernatural power.

Job's first disaster was perpetrated by the Sabeans falling upon his servants and slaying animals and servants. The devil could have put it into the minds of men by the vehicle of falsehood (communicated in language) to do this.

Job's second disaster is said specifically to be the fire of God falling from heaven.

Job's third disaster was the Chaldeans raiding and slaying with the swordnothing supernatural here.
Job's fourth disaster is the death of his children while they were drinking wine, during a windstorm, Perhaps they were deceived by Satan into getting drunk and could have escaped the windstorm had they not been drunk. This does not necessarily have to be a supernatural, occult, windstorm which the devil workedit could be God's windstorm.

Job, chapter 2:

God says to the devil, ... you moved me against him (2 Corinthians 2:3) to destroy him.. The devil moved God to destroy Job!

The devil says to God, ... put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. (2 Corinthians 2:5). The devil knows that only God has the supernatural power to touch Job's flesh.

In 2 Corinthians 2:7 the Hebrew text literally reads, So went out Satan from the face of Jehovah. And he struck Job with burning ulcers, bad, from the sole of his foot to the top of his head.

Who is the antecedent of heGod or Satan? The nearest is God.

If it is God really exercising His supernatural power in all this what does God give into the hand of Satan?

I think it is simply the permission for Satan to try to deceive Job (and the world) into thinking he (Satan) is exercising this power. Satan has permission from God to pretend this or these powers belong to him.

How does Satan pull off this pretense? By lying to men and letting men use all human craftiness at their disposal to make it appear what is being done is supernatural.
The devil, by lying, tempted Job (through his friends) to think what had befallen him was evil. It really was chastening. All that we think about physical discomfort or loss is that there is some supernatural evil doing evil to us. Actually it is all chastening. What is evil about it is the lie that it is not in the sovereign control and will of God. It is the power of fear (of death) by which Satan enslaves men (Hebrews 2:14-15). Satan has no power to supernaturally kill (or even naturally), or make alive. He has the power only to lie to people that he has such power.

12.

Judas had power to do miracles (Matthew 10:1 ff). He also allowed the devil to come into him. Who gave him power to do miracles?

Simon the Sorcerer wanted to buy Holy Spirit power to do miracles but Peter said, You have neither part nor lot in this matter (Acts 8:18-24).

It is possible, therefore, that those who would prophesy and exorcise demons in Matthew 7:21 did so through power given by God and then later became those working lawlessness (Gr. ergazomenoi ten anomian) (Matthew 7:23), just like Judas.

13.

Or, do we propose that everything which appears to be miracle isbut that only some are from God and some are from the devil?

How do we decide which are which? Do we have to decide? We are told we should not permit ourselves to be deceivedif we do not decide which are from God, we are in danger of being deceived.
If it is to be decided on the basis of which doctrine or works are good or evilhow do we decide that? From the Bible? How do we decide the Bible is speaking the truth? And does the Bible really say the devil has authority and power to do a real miracle?
How was it decided at the very first (in the garden of Eden)? How did God expect Eve to be able to decide whether the devil could produce what he promised so she could make the decision of faith?
OR IS FAITH, A LEAP IN THE DARK AFTER ALL?

This is not an attempt to deny the Scripturesit is an attempt to understand them.

Applebury's Comments

CHAPTER TWELVE

Analysis

Paul continued boasting in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:1-13).

He reminded the Corinthians of the visions and revelation of the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:1-10).

He was compelled to boast because it was forced upon him by the claims of the false apostles, although nothing was gained by it (2 Corinthians 12:1 a).

He came to the matter of visions and revelations of the Lord, that is, given to him by the Lord (2 Corinthians 12:1 b).

In an impersonal manner he told of the experience in which he was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

(1)

He said I know a man in Christ. This happened to such a oneit was, of course, Paul himself.

(2)

This happened some fourteen years before his writing Second Corinthians.

(3)

He said, Whether in the body I know not; God knows. He had no way of knowing whether he was taken up bodily or just in spirit.

(4)

Such a one was caught up to the third heaven.

(5)

He was caught up to Paradise.

(6)

He heard words not lawful for man to utter.

Boasting about this experience emphasized his own weakness (2 Corinthians 12:5-10).

(1)

On behalf of one who had such an exalted experience, he boasted; but as to himself he boasted in his weakness (2 Corinthians 12:5).

(2)

This actually happened to Paul, so it was not foolish to boast about it, except that some might tend to overrate him because of it (2 Corinthians 12:6).

(3)

To keep him from self-exaltation, Paul was given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger from Satan to buffet him (2 Corinthians 12:7).

(4)

He asked the Lord three times to remove it, but the answer was: My grace is sufficient for thee (2 Corinthians 12:8-9 a). God's favor had already granted him strength to endure it. Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:13.

(5)

Paul gladly, therefore, boasted in his weakness that the power of Christ might rest upon him or cover him (2 Corinthians 12:9 b).

(6)

It was for that reason that he took pleasure in weakness, injury, necessity, persecution, and distress for Christ's sake for while he was weak in in himself, he was strong in Christ (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Paul concluded the defense of his boasting by admitting that he had become foolish (2 Corinthians 12:11-13).

He had become foolish, but they had compelled him to do so by their attitude toward the super-apostles (2 Corinthians 12:11).

(1)

He should have been commended by the Corinthians.

(2)

Even though he was nothing in himself, he was in no way inferior to these false apostles.

He reminded them that he had performed the signs of a true apostle before them (2 Corinthians 12:12).

(1)

These signs were done in all patience.

(2)

They were signs and wonders, and mighty works.

Since the Corinthians had received all these benefits, Paul asked, In what sense were you inferior to the other churches? The implied answer was: In no way.

Then he referred to the only possible thing in which they were not on the same footing at the other churches: He had not been a burden to them. Ironically, he added,

Forgive me this wrong.

As Paul neared the end of the epistle, he turned again to the matter of his intended visit (2 Corinthians 12:14-21).

He reaffirmed his intention not to be a burden to them (2 Corinthians 12:14-18).

He explained his reasons for this position (2 Corinthians 12:14-15).

(1)

He did so because of his impending third visit.

(2)

He laid down his basic principle in dealing with them: I seek not yours but you.

(3)

He explained the issue involved: Children ought not to lay up for the parents but the parents for the children.

(4)

As their father in the gospel, he said, I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls.

(5)

Then he asked, Since I love you more, am I to be loved less?

He answered a possible charge of crafty dealing (2 Corinthians 12:16-18).

(1)

He stated the issue involved in the charge (2 Corinthians 12:16).

(2)

Then he asked, Did I or any of those whom I sent (Titus and the brother) take advantage of you? (2 Corinthians 12:17-18 a).

(3)

Didn-'t these co-workers act exactly as he had done? (2 Corinthians 12:18 b) These questions would force the Corinthians to admit that he had dealt with them in a thoroughly Christian manner.

He reminded them of his reason for the delay in making this third visit (2 Corinthians 12:19-21).

It was for their own good (2 Corinthians 12:19).

(1)

Did they think that he was making excuses for himself?

(2)

He solemnly declared as an apostle of Christ that it was for their upbuilding.

Then he explained his fears that he might find them acting as he would not want and as they might not want him to find them (2 Corinthians 12:10-21).

(1)

He again named the conditions that he feared might exist: Strife, jealousy, wraths, factions, back-bitings, whisperings, swellings, and tumults. These were the very things about which he had written in his first epistle.

(2)

He had delayed lest God should humble him before them in mourning over their sins and failure to repent.

(3)

He listed these sins: Uncleanness, fornication, and lasciviousness. He had spoken of them in detail in his first epistle.

Questions

Why had it become necessary for Paul to boast in his weakness?

Why did he say that nothing was to be gained by it?

What are some of the visions and revelations in which the Lord had appeared to Paul?

Why is this one different?

Why did he write about it in an impersonal manner?

What evidence is there that he was the man who had actually experienced this thing?

What is the point in his having mentioned the fourteen years that had elapsed since this happened?

Why did he say that he did not know whether it had been in the body or just in spirit?

What is the third heaven?

10.

What is Paradise? What are some of the things said about it in the Scriptures?

11.

Why was Paul permitted to hear things which man was not permitted to speak?

12.

What are some of the things which Paul and other New Testament writers were permitted to reveal about heaven?

13.

Why could Paul boast about such a one while refusing to boast about himself?

14.

Why did he indicate that he was not foolish in boasting about this one?

15.

Why was he given a thorn in the flesh?

16.

What is meant by the messenger of Satan?

17.

How may the story of Job help to explain this?

18.

What is shown by the fact that Paul asked the Lord three times to remove this thing?

19.

What was the answer to his prayer?

20.

In what way had the grace of God been with Paul?

21.

What was it to do for him under these circumstances?

22.

How is the Lord's power made perfect in human weakness?

23.

What special power had the Lord given to the apostles?

24.

In what way had He providentially watched over Paul?

25.

Why did Paul take pleasure in his weakness?

26.

Why did Paul finally say, I am become foolish?

27.

Although Paul said he was nothing, how did he compare with the super-apostles?

28.

What were the apostolic credentials which Paul presented to the Corinthians?

29.

What credentials could the super-apostles present?

30.

How had Paul shown that the Corinthians were in no way inferior to the other churches?

31.

What difference had he made between them and others?

32.

Why did he say, Forgive me this wrong?

33.

What are some of the views by which attempts have been made to explain the number of times Paul visited Corinth?

34.

Why are such matter, while interesting, unimportant?

35.

Why did Paul insist on continuing his policy of not being a burden to the churches in Achaia?

36.

What was his real interest in them?

37.

How did he use the relationship of parents to children to illustrate his meaning?

38.

In what way was Paul following the example of the Lord in thus dealing with the brethren at Corinth?

39.

Why did he ask, Am I loved the less?

40.

Why did he say that he had been crafty?

41.

Why did he ask if he or Titus had taken advantage of them?

42.

What point was Paul making when he said, You are thinking that we are excusing ourselves.

43.

What grounds did Paul have to fear that the Corinthians might be found in sinful practices upon his arrival?

44.

What sins did he think he might find?

45.

How would God humble him before them?

For Discussion

The providence of God as seen in His gracious dealing with His people.

How can the church prevent backsliding such as Paul feared might occur at Corinth?