2 Corinthians 12 - Paul's friend is Jesus, not himself

[Benway]

12 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. 6 Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations,[a] a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

It seems that everybody ever to write anything about this chapter ever has been convinced (against what is actually written) that Paul is talking about himself being caught up to the third heaven. So Paul is actually saying, "On behalf of myself I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast"? Really? How is that even possible? Is it supposed to be zen?
Surely the man in Christ is Jesus! Paul will boast in Jesus, not in himself. Who else does Paul know who went up to heaven and then spoke to him? Immediately before the story Paul (or 'Paul') introduces it by saying "I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord." Then he describes a vision he had of the Lord (Jesus) being caught up to the heavens.
It's referring back to the end of the Gospel of the Lord (the previous book in the Marcionite Bible. It can't be GLuke because that begins with an explanation of how it was written which has nothing about visions or the Lord. I'd say GLord was written before the 'genuine' Pauline epistles.

[Joseph D. L.]

Read it again.

I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.

Paul even opens this by saying he talk about visions and revelations of the Lord. Jesus didn't have visions or revelations. And how can he know if Jesus was assumed into Heaven, whether in the body or out of the body? This implies familiarity, and Paul never met Jesus.

And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

How can Jesus hear anything after the ascension and Paul know about it? Indeed, wouldn't Jesus already know about these untold things?

On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

Why would Paul be so humble when speaking about Jesus when his entire strategy is to be as boastful as he can be? Paul only shows this faux humbleness when speaking about himself.

So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations,[a] a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited.

Why would Paul be given a "thorn in his flesh" for a revelation that Jesus received? Again, how can Jesus receive a revelation and Paul know about it?

Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

See the above questions.

For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

So the sequence of events goes: Paul is assumed up into the third Heaven, whether in the body or out he doesn't know; is revealed things from Christ that no one has ever heard before; is given a mark to remind himself of his former shame and ignorance.

The entire passage assumes that the man who was caught up into Heaven, also came back down. Otherwise, how wold Paul be speaking about it in the first place?

And if you need further confirmation, Apocalypse of Paul says that it was Paul, not Jesus, who was assumed up into Heaven to receive the revelation of Christ.

[Benway]

A lack of clarity on my part, I think. (I've read Apocalypse of Paul and it's a fine testimony to the text being read that way from a relatively early point, but I'm taking the text as it's own thing.)
I've not been clear though. Sorry. The author writing as Paul claims that Paul had visions of the Lord. The Lord is Jesus. I'm not saying that Jesus had such visions. My bad. Lack of clarity. 'Paul' is indeed boasting while pretending not to be boasting, but in this case it's about his relationship with JC (or CJ). Paul (according to the text) saw a vision of Jesus ascending to the third heaven. That Paul (in these epistles) saw visions of Jesus is confirmed in Galatians. Paul is boasting and bigging himself up (or somebody else doing so in his name) but for his vision of the ascension and being the originator of the Gospel and Jesus (according to somebody or other) and not for being caught up to heaven himself. It's a double experience. Paul saw Jesus seeing ineffable things. Paul (in the context of this fable) sees Jesus seeing those things and implies that he got to talk to him later. It's still 'Paul's' nauseating faux modesty, but his aggravating showing off in this case is about having visions of CJ from which he wrote his gospel and being personal BFFs with the man.
Paul is given a thorn is his flesh for his insufferable endless bragging and attention seeking about his being friends with CJ and starting Christianity. It's a weirdly self aware moment, but not one which suggests that Paul went to Heaven ever. He was the chosen one and could talk to Jesus! What need this man of such trifles?
Also who says that the authors of this stuff didn't think Jesus came back already? The text fairly screams it. Jesus came once and will only return once in the future is later theology. Right here, if you look at it says that Jesus went up... then came down and was besties with Paul for a while.

[Joseph D. L.]

Don't take this the wrong way, but that's a load of bollocks.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sn ... frontcover

If Paul saw visions of Jesus ascending into heaven and receiving messages that are unutterable, then how is it that Paul knows of these things? Nowhere does Paul say that Jesus descended, and in fact Paul is never clear whether he believed Jesus to have actually been an earthly figure, especially in the Marcionite recension of the texts.

Also who says that the authors of this stuff didn't think Jesus came back already? The text fairly screams it. Jesus came once and will only return once in the future is later theology. Right here, if you look at it says that Jesus went up... then came down and was besties with Paul for a while.

That doesn't make any sense. It doesn't say that Jesus came down and talked to Paul, a la Acts of the Apostles. It says succinctly that Paul went up into heaven, was told things, then came back down, whether in the body or out of the body, he doesn't know.

It's fairly uncomplicated.

[GakuseiDon]

I have my own ideas on what is going on there, based on nothing else than my reading of the English translation. So take the following with a huge heap of salt: to me, it sounds like Paul is being sarcastic, and is having a dig at either James or Peter, probably Peter. The key passages in 2 Cor:

12 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.

In English, we say "Who knows? God knows!", meaning "no-one knows". I wonder if the same sense comes through in the Greek. If it does, then Paul is having a go at someone who previously claimed to have had visions and revelations from the Risen Jesus. The candidates listed in 1 Cor are:

1 Cor 15:3 For I passed on to you the most important points that I received: The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures—and is still alive!—
5 and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve.
6 After that, he was seen by more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.
7 Next he was seen by James, then by all the apostles,
8 and finally he was seen by me, as though I were born abnormally late.

My guess is that Paul is being sarcastic about some claim being made by Peter, around something Peter was claiming was revealed to him by the Risen Jesus or God. Speculating further about what that something might be: Peter was saying that Jesus told him that Jewish Christians had to stick to the law around circumcision and eating. This was changed by later Christians into the story of Peter having a change of mind after being told in a vision that it was okay to NOT stick to kosher foods.

I'll repeat that all the above is entirely speculation.

[Ken Olson]

12 I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. 6 Though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me. 7 So to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations,[a] a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to harass me, to keep me from becoming conceited. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

It seems that everybody ever to write anything about this chapter ever has been convinced (against what is actually written) that Paul is talking about himself being caught up to the third heaven. So Paul is actually saying, "On behalf of myself I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast"? Really? How is that even possible? Is it supposed to be zen?

There's certainly a vocal minority who dissent from the majority opinion that Paul is talking about himself when he refers the man in Christ. One of them was Michael Goulder, whose work has had a profound influence on me. Nonetheless, while I don't think this issue can be settled for sure, the majority opinion seems the stronger.

It's not zen - it's rhetoric. Paul is well trained in Greek rhetoric and frequently uses non-literal language and is particularly fond of irony ands says things that appear to be self-contradictory. Boasting in weakness? What's that about?

Paul likes to differentiate between what we might call Paul-the-natural-man and Paul-who-is-in-Christ/Paul-who-has-received-grace.

Gal. 2.19 I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in/of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself, the natural man for me.

In this passage Paul is claiming that he died. Even if we accepted that the old Paul died and it's now Christ that's living in him, how can he then use the first person in the present to describe the person who is now dead? Meh. Apparently Paul feels this to be appropriate.

1 Cor. 15.9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

This passage is probably a closer parallel because it involves boasting. Paul is quite modest and calls himself the least of the apostles, but then turns around and says he has worked harder than any of them. How is that possible? Because while the man Paul is the least of the apostles and has not outperformed the other apostles, the grace of God that is with Paul (which to outside observers might appear to be identical with Paul) has worked harder than any of them.

The man is a master of the humblebrag. It's not difficult to see him as boasting on behalf of the man who is in Christ (who is, in fact, Paul), while claiming he is not boasting on his own behalf.

[MrMacSon]

2 Cor 12:1

I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord ...

Look at the preceding chapter.

2 Cor 11 starts

I hope you will put up with me in a little foolishness. Yes, please put up with me!

2 Cor 11:5-6 has

I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6 I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge (γνώσει, gnōsei]

>

10 As surely as the truth of Christ is in me, nobody in the regions of Achaia will stop this boasting of mine. 11 Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about

>

16 I repeat: Let no one take me for a fool. But if you do, then tolerate me just as you would a fool, so that I may do a little boasting. 17 In this self-confident boasting I am not talking as the Lord would, but as a fool. 18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.

19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. 21 To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!

Whatever anyone else dares to boast about—I am speaking as a fool—I also dare to boast about

2 Cor 11 finishes

30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness. 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying. 32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

It's all very rhetorical. Even facetious.

[Baley]

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven

I don't see how "a man in Christ" could refer to Jesus. It would be - to say the least - quite an awkward way of expressing "Jesus". I think that Paul is referring to himself here in his typical humble (boastful) way.