2 Corinthians - written about 56 ad. - Paul states in 12:2-5 his knowledge of Johns visions from the book of Revelation. This dates Revelation about 42 a.d. - is this plausible? And if not plausible, why not?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Question on source - Paul's testimony of heavenly visit
- Thread starter Genevanpreacher
- Start date
No, Paul was speaking about another man, not himself.
If you read the text closely you will notice that Paul starts out speaking about himself, but then compares himself to another man whom he knew. Then returns to himself as the subject.
I think this is a great internal source text for aging the book of Revelation and John's experience. He may not have written it down then, but he obviously had shared what he went through with some of those he knew.
Seems very obvious to me.
"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I know a man in Christ above fourteen years agone (whether he were in the body, I can not tell, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth) which was taken up to the third heaven.
And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth.) How that he was taken up to Paradise, and heard words which can not be spoken, which are not possible for man to utter.
Of such a man will I rejoice: of my self will I not rejoice, except it be of mine infirmities. For though I would rejoice, I should not be a fool: for I will say the truth, but I refrain, lest any man should think of me above that he seeth in me, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, because I should not be exalted out of measure."
I think this is a great internal source text for aging the book of Revelation and John's experience. He may not have written it down then, but he obviously had shared what he went through with some of those he knew.
Seems very obvious to me.
"It is not expedient for me no doubt to rejoice: for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
I know a man in Christ above fourteen years agone (whether he were in the body, I can not tell, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth) which was taken up to the third heaven.
And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I can not tell: God knoweth.) How that he was taken up to Paradise, and heard words which can not be spoken, which are not possible for man to utter.
Of such a man will I rejoice: of my self will I not rejoice, except it be of mine infirmities. For though I would rejoice, I should not be a fool: for I will say the truth, but I refrain, lest any man should think of me above that he seeth in me, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted out of measure through the abundance of revelations, there was given unto me a prick in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, because I should not be exalted out of measure."
Last edited:
Paul clearly says it was him and that so he would not be lifted up in pride, he received a thorn in the Flesh, a messenger of satan to buffet him.
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself!
No, Paul does not clearly say that the other man was him. He was referencing another man while comparing his 'revelations' with that mans 'revelations'.
How could Paul both rejoice and not rejoice about himself?
Hope you reread the text and see.
I've read it, reread it, and have read very trusted commentaries. I still say it was Paul. If i knew Greek i'd probably even be more confident as they say it's easier understood in the Greek it was Paul.
Thanks for your reply Jon.
I read English also, and I appreciate the clarity of the text alone without commentary. Although there is nothing wrong with commentary - it is just opinions - and I value mine more.
Anyone else see what I see?
No. It was Paul.
No. It was Paul.
You really see Paul calling himself one he could "rejoice in" but not "rejoice in" at the same time?
Why would he say it that way if he were just talking about himself?
"Of such a man will I rejoice: of my self will I not rejoice"
He is obviously speaking of another man I believe is John the Apostle.
Sorry, I am going with Paul's own words.
Even if it was "another man," you are not going with "Paul's Own words" as you impose John the Apostle into the Text.
Nobody else ever claimed that particular event.
Ok, later in this thread you assert that Paul cannot be speaking about himself - firstly can you explain why this cannot be Paul which is the widely accepted view of the Text?
Then having established that, would you pleas be kind enough to continue on and explain what leads you to believe Paul is speaking about John?
First off - Paul himself claims to be speaking of another man.
Second - I believe Paul.
As to who it was Paul was referencing - John the apostle is the only one ever spoken of in the NT as doing such.
I would have to view it as not being plausible, based on the text itself:
2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)
1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.
2 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.
3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
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.
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.
It seems more plausible that Paul is speaking of himself, seeing he receives the thorn in the flesh which seems, in his mind, to temper pride in the event.
If we took this to be the revelation provided John, it makes little sense for Paul to be "exalted above measure." The credit would go to John, would it not?
Ironically John does the same thing in his Gospel. He speaks of himself in the third person.
I would also just suggest that it was out of the body (in spirit) that Paul (as well as John) went to Heaven, for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, though we know God can accomplish anything He chooses, so we can't entirely rule out Paul and John went to Heaven in their physical bodies.
God bless.
If you view verse 1 as referring to Paul himself, and verses 2-5(a) as another person you can probably see what I am seeing - that Paul was not wanting himself to be "exalted" and not referring to himself as the one who was caught up to the third heaven.
Also verse one says he "will come" not 'has come' to visions and revelations - while verse 7 is the controlling factor for what visions and revelations Paul will experience. The man who went to the third heaven already experienced his 'revelation' - which is why I think it was John.
Last edited:
Sorry, hadn't read the responses already touching on this, so will address this argument.
2 Corinthians 12
King James Version (KJV)
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
5 Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.
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.
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.
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
The contrast being drawn is between Paul being caught up, a noteworthy event which might be a reason for one to listen to him, and Paul in his infirmities. So in other words, rather than try to use the miraculous as a platform, he appeals to the fact that he suffers in his ministry.
Another reason why we would not consider Revelation to precede Paul's writings would be due to the implications we see in Revelation which indicate it as being a final Word from God. That could be considered opinion in large part, and I don't have a problem with that. But ti's hard to read the end of Revelation and not see it as rightly placed as the last Book of the Bible.
God bless.
I view the entire passage to be speaking about himself. As I said, if John's visions/experience were in view then it makes little sense for Paul to be afflicted with a thorn in the side.
I don't see in the text "Paul was not wanting himself to be "exalted" and not referring to himself as the one who was caught up to the third heaven," but rather Paul saying he would glory in "such (an one)" but not himself. In other words, he would glory in such an event and results, but, it had nothing personally to do with himself that he himself should be glorified.
And apparently Paul was tempted (aren't we all? lol), hence the thorn in the flesh. Again, Paul, not John, received this thorn. It would make little sense for Paul to be prevented from glorying in himself because...he was privy to "that which was not lawfulo to be uttered (which would place John in a bad light, if, in fact...he uttered those things to Paul, lol).
God bless.
I added to my previous post.
And - I just cannot fathom that thoughtline - that Paul would refer to himself in two different ways in a single conversation in a book in the Bible.
As for the Revelation that John wrote not being in that timeline because it is a 'final word' - nothing says John experienced Revelation at the same time he wrote it.
Last edited:
Which one?
John does so:
John 21:7
King James Version (KJV)
7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
It makes it very clear that it occurs while he is on Patmos, and that the revelation follows:
Revelation 1
King James Version (KJV)
9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;
Only of "the things thou hast seen" could you argue that a previous revelation was in view, but it would do little good seeing that it is at this time that John is told to write. Secondly, we see in the following chapters that the revelation provided is being given after his meeting with the Lord.
The only reason one would benefit from an early date of Revelation would be if they held to an amillenniel or preterist view, and usually the reason one holds to those is either indoctrination (and I don't mean that as all bad, meaning some grow up in these groups and it is just what they are used to) or a dislike of a particular doctrine which cannot be held when Revelation is dated early. Usually that doctrine is The Rapture of the Church, or the Millennial Kingdom. But both of those views violate Prophecy and demand that the Prophecy of the Old Testament go unfulfilled, which would set a precedent, as no Prophecy of Scripture ever has, or ever will...go unfulfilled.
God bless.
Yes I am aware of John, and that could be the reason Paul didn't name the man he was referring to, and his anonymity in his NT book. Does not negate the fact that Paul mentioned another man in 2 Cor. 12.
I do not see your view that John wrote the book of Revelation while on Patmos. He COULD have, but there is no scriptural proof he DID.
Just because some 'bible scholars' say Paul was speaking of himself, there is no proof at all he was, but the wording of this section of scriptures clearly shows Paul referring to another man.
I just can't see the wording saying what almost every response here says.
Sorry.