"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. 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." (RSV-CE)
If you start from the passage's face value from the eyes of a 21st century schlub like me, it's just... odd. Shouldn't St. Paul know that there's only one heaven, not three? Why is his phrasing less than direct? And this revelation is private? We can't know what it was?
Complicating this verse in my mind was a Mormon coworker from years ago. Together with 1 Cor 15:40-42, Mormons assert that there are three levels of heaven:
"There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory." (RSV-CE)
Rather than get into an apologetic discussion--for that, I'd refer you to Isaiah Bennett's books on Mormonism--this little endeavor illustrated a few important points to me.
1) Context
If taken out of its proper place in the epistle, 2 Cor 12:2-4 can be confusing. Reading the context of it, however, sheds much of the confusion. Paul's indirect language 'I knew this guy...' is cleared up in 12:7, where he notes that "to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh." This guy that had revelations was HIM. And, going back to chapter 10 in that letter, Paul is defending his ministry to the Corinthians. Citing his visions is part of that defense.
Similarly, 1 Cor 15:40-42 is a small part of a chapter that Paul devotes to the resurrection. He covers the resurrection of Jesus, that we share in that resurrection, and that our bodies will gain a new form on the last day. Paul used an allegory to compare the difference between earthly things and eternal things. No Christian believes that Paul was referring to three separate levels of heaven in that passage.
2) Background
The commentaries I read regarding 2 Cor 12 were very helpful in providing background. The Jewish mind at the time saw three levels of heaven, but not all meant the same thing. The first heaven was the realm of the birds and clouds; the second was the sun, moon, and stars; the third was the dwelling of God. Not being a 1st Century Jew, I never might've known this without the commentaries' help. Also helpful was Isaiah Bennett, who gave examples of "heaven" being used in Scripture in all three levels/meanings.
In my mind, St. Paul was using a phrase similar to "cloud nine" or "seventh heaven" today. The phrases are used in an abstract sense--extreme happiness--rather than a literal, numeric value. St. Paul used "third heaven" to refer to a specific place, not to say that there were three levels of the afterlife. In the sentence immediately following, he says "this man was caught up into Paradise."
All in all, commentaries can be a great tool for sifting through difficulties. Seeking the wisdom of those wiser than us is very prudent. The only catch is finding a good commentary...
3) Marinating
Yeah, I don't know what else to call it. Reflection, lectio, praying with the Scriptures... I can't say I spent a fortnight deep in contemplation. I started reading on this last night and read more again this morning. All I can really claim is that the more I read, the more I thought about it, the Holy Spirit provided new insights.
St. Paul saying that "this man" heard things which cannot be told. My instinctual response was one of indignance. (classic American) What, I can't know? You're too holy to tell me, a sinner? But I really want to know, I want to hear what it was like!
Upon further marinating, two thoughts arrived. First, St. Paul didn't exactly keep the message of his revelation to himself. To suggest that he would deliberately withhold something essential from his preaching is ridiculous and not consistent with Paul's character. Sure, the experience of the revelation was just for him, but it leads to the second thought. I imagined 2 Cor 12 read in the following manner: 'I can't even begin to tell you how wonderful it was. Things inexpressible; fulfillment beyond all telling. How can I convey to you what I felt? I can't... it was that amazing.'
4) Accentuate the positive
I was also blessed with a reminder: don't let apologetic pursuits remain in the negative realm. I'm not slamming apologetics, quite the contrary! Every Catholic should know their faith and be able to defend it (1 Peter 3:15). Apologetics aren't about me being right and them being wrong. The Truth is the focus; it's something we affirm (positive), devote ourselves to (positive), believe in (positive), and draw our life from (positive).
Well done, John! You explained that confusing scripture passage very well.
ReplyDelete