2 Cor 12.6-10. A thorn was given me. Part 6

My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.

somewhere in the Dolomites, Italy

This is an overview and analysis of what commentators say about the passage.

Important: the text in red is what the commentators say. Sometimes that is a summary and sometimes it is a quote. The summaries are fair and accurate, but you should refer to the commentary to fully understand the author's explanation.

Colin G. Kruse

New Bible Commentary, IVP, pages 1203-1204.

2 Cor 11.30-33

Paul tells of his flight from Damascus as a contrast to his trials listed in vs 23b-29, which could be construed as triumphalist ("all the difficulties I have overcome in order to fulfill my commission"). The ignominious flight from Damascus contains little of which Paul can be proud.

An interesting take on why Paul listed the escape from Damascus as a separate thing, but, (1) to call it an ignominious flight is a bit too much (was it a flight?), and (2) if was not in contrast to the difficulties he overcame to fulfill his commission, but was also one of those difficulties.

The more important contrast is between Paul's escape from Damascus in a basket and Peter's escape from prison by the angel of the Lord. Peter's was miraculous, but he then left the work. Paul's was ignominious, but it was the next step in the work.

Paul likely uses it to date his first meeting with Peter. They had no precise dating system so they used "landmarks" instead. If something happened to you the same year as the Indonesian tsunami, other people might not know the exact year but they can connect that time with something in their experience. Paul uses his escape from Damascus to remind Peter of the occasion of their first meeting.

2 Cor 12.1

Paul talks about his revelation because apparently his opponents had criticized his claim to apostleship, saying he had no visions or revelations.

Possible. The listing of his sufferings and troubles is designed to show that their feeble attempt to promote themselves as ministers of Christ falls flat in comparison. But Paul does not mention their revelations as a point of pride, and he has already written about his revelations in Galatians (Kruse mentions this in the next paragraph of his commentary), so there is no need to think they would criticize him on that point.

The more likely reason is fitted to the dating: 14 years earlier. That date was significant to the super-apostles and now he reveals a secret: it was significant for him too.

2 Cor 12.2-4

Paul's experience would have been awe-inspiring, which at the same time would explain his reluctance to mention it and also place him on a level with the great heroes of faith, thereby outflanking his opponents.

Not likely. Paul mentioning the experience and the revelation but then refusing to say what he heard is unusual. The purpose of a revelation is reveal, not hide. A mystery hides, but a mystery is not announced as a mystery until it is revealed. There is no example of a vision or revelation that was not revealed except part of Daniel's vision, but it is not clear whether he was not allowed to repeat it or didn't understand what he saw.

Paul says he wants no one to think better of him for it: a statement what we probably should not take ironically. He is not comparing revelations: he is informing them (likely the super-apostles through the letter to Corinth) that something happened 14 years ago they need to know about, even though he is not allowed to tell them. Apparently the very fact that he had the revelation is sufficient information for them to reconsider their actions.

2 Cor 12.7

The messenger of Satan was used by God to keep Paul from becoming conceited, clearly not what Satan had in mind.

Nope. Satan inflicting Job with sores is the typical example of Satan using suffering to test a person's metal, but this is not that. God stopped the trial once he decided it was enough, and Job was restored. Here, there is no insinuation that Paul was complaining about his sufferings or that he needs to learn something about God's sovereignty in dealing with people. This is not a copy of Job. There will not come a day when Paul has a eureka moment.

Second, Satan is not so foolish as to continue something that is having the opposite effect of what he intends. If it has no chance of succeeding he will try something else.

Third, it is likely that "a messenger of Satan" is not Satan himself. We need not be so precise if Paul was not so precise.

Fourth, the NIV has "conceited", but most other translations do not. "Conceited" has a negative connotation that does not fit the text so well. Other translations use "not too elated" or "not overly elated". In Acts 26.14, Paul tells Agrippa that when he first encountered Christ he was asked, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.’ A goad is a spiked stick used to drive animals a certain direction. Christ, apparently, was that spiked stick, and Saul was the ox. There is no insinuation that the ox is conceited: the ox needs to be kept on the path and at speed. The veil Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 3 was not because Moses was conceited, but to keep the people from noticing that the glory of the Lord was fading.

"Conceited" is too strong and the wrong color. It is understandable that Paul would be told something that caused him to be excited beyond his ability to hold in. It is not understandable that God would give such an important revelation to someone who was conceited. "Conceited" implies self-importance, narcissism, vanity, superiority. No. There is no hint of a such a surface-level character flaw in Paul, nor would someone with such a simple weakness be the obvious person for such a revelation.

The question has to be asked, why weren't the other apostles given the revelation? Why was Paul not allowed to tell them anything except it had happened? If he was given a thorn to keep him humble, how much more did they need to be pulled down from their height? They were the Pillars. He was nothing.

2 Cor 12.8-10

Paul was promised that in the midst of the weakness and frustration which this thorn produced, he would find God's power all the more present.

Nope. Paul does not say the thorn produced a weakness in him. He said he was tormented. That is not the same thing. Not at all. If Paul's other sufferings did not produce a weakness, then the thorn did not either.

Paul can boast of his weaknesses because he knows the power of Christ rests upon him in his weaknesses.

No help. This is nothing more that a restatement of the text. We need to know what it means.