2 Corinthians 12:3

12:3-4 Paul wasn’t sure whether he was in a trance or actually taken to heaven. • But I do know that I was caught up: Literally But I know such a man, that he was caught up; see study note on 12:2.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

2Co 12:3. Καὶ, and) The particle here is expressive of a new movement in this transaction. Suppose, that the third heaven and paradise, were quite synonymous; the force of Paul’s language will be greatly diminished.—τὸν τοιοῦτον, such a one) τὸν ἐν Χριστῷ, him who was in Christ.—εἴτε, whether) This word is repeated, because, even if in the body he was caught up to the third heaven, nevertheless, rising to a higher degree, he might have been caught up to paradise without the body.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co_12:3-4. And I know such a man … that he, namely, was caught away, etc. The expression is here the well-known attraction οἰδά σε τίς εἶ. Most expositors consider the matter itself as not different from what is mentioned in 2Co_12:2, so that τρίτος οὐρανός and ὁ παράδεισος would be one and the same. But it is decisive against this view, that ὁ τρίτος οὐρανός cannot without arbitrariness be taken otherwise than of a region of heaven comparatively low (see on 2Co_12:2). Besides, the whole circumstantial repetition, only with a change in designating the place, would not be solemn language, but battology. This also in opposition to Hofmann, who imports the modification: The one time emphasis is laid only on the surroundings, into which he found himself transported away from the earth; the other time on the contrast of the fellowship of God, into which he was transported away from the church of God here below. Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius, and several Fathers and schoolmen (see Estius and Bengel on the passage), also Erasmus[362] and Bengel,[363] have rightly distinguished paradise from the third heaven. Comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 246; Osiander, Hilgenfeld, and others. Still we are not, with Bengel (comp. de Wette), to regard (see on 2Co_12:2) paradise as interius quiddam in coelo tertio, quam ipsum coelum tertium (comp. Cornelius a Lapide); but Paul relates first how he was caught up into the third heaven, and then adds, as a further point in the experience, that he was transported further, higher up into paradise, so that the ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ was a break, as it were, a resting-point of the raptus. Thus, too, the repetition of the same words, as well as the repetition of the parenthesis, obtains its solemn character; for the incident is reported step by step, i.e. in two stages.

The paradise is here not the lower, i.e. the place in Sheol, in which the spirits of the departed righteous are until the resurrection (see on Luk_16:23; Luk_23:43), nor as Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 489, substitutes in place of this historical conception the abstraction: the present communion of the blessed dead with God, as it is on this side of the end of things; but the upper, the paradise of God (Rev_2:7; Enoch 35:1) in heaven, where Gods dwelling is. This distinction is one given historically, and necessary for the understanding of the passage, and is rightly maintained also by Osiander, Hahn, and others. Comp. the Rabbinical passages in Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth. I. 296 ff., and generally, Thilo, ad Ev. Nic. 25, p. 748 ff.; Gfrörer, Jahrh. d. Heils, II. p. 42 ff. The idea, however, that Christ has carried the believing souls out of Hades with Him to heaven (Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 414) goes beyond Scripture, and is not presupposed even in this passag.

ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα] an oxymoron:[364] dicta nefanda dictu, speakings, which may not be spoken (Dem. 1369. 25, 1370. 14; Soph. O. R. 465; Eur. Hel. 1370; and Pflugk in loc.), i.e. which may not be made the subject of communication to others. The revelations which Paul received were so sublime and holy, that the further communication of them would have been at variance with their character; what was disclosed to him was to be for him alone, for his special enlightenment, strengthening, comforting, with a view to the fulfilment of his great task; to others it was to remain a mystery, in order to preclude fanatical or other misuse; comp. Calvin. That ἄῤῥητα here does not mean quae dici negueunt (Plato, Soph. p. 238 C), as Beza, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and many others, including Billroth and Olshausen, hold (Rückert is not decided), is shown by the solemn epexegetical ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι, in which ἐξόν means licet, fas est, and is notas Luther and many older and later commentators, including Billroth and Olshausen, wish to take it, quite at variance with the signification of the wordequivalent to δύνατον. The Vulgate aptly renders: et audivit arcana verba, quae non licet homini loqui, i.e. which a man may not utter aloud. Lucian, Epigr. 11 (Jacobs, Del epigr. VII. 66): ἀῤῥήτων ἐπέων γλώσσῃ σφρηγὶς ἐπικείσθω, Soph. El. 1000, Aj. 213. Comp. Rev_10:3 f.

ἀνθρώπῳ] for they are reserved only for divine communication; a man, to whom they are revealed, may not utter them.

As to what it was that Paul heard for himself, the Fathers and schoolmen made many conjectures after their fashion. See Cornelius a Lapide and Estius. Theodoret well says: αὐτὸς οἶδεν ὁ ταῦτα τεθεαμένος.[365] From whom as the organ of communication he heard it, remains veiled in apocalyptic indefiniteness. Revealing voices (comp. Rev. l.c.) he did hear.

[362] Raptus est in tertium usque coelum, hinc rursum in paradisum, Erasmus in his Paraphr. Comp. Clemens Alex.: ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ, κἀκεῖθεν εἰς παράδεισον (Strom. v. p. 427).

[363] Who as to the repetition of the same words judges very rightly: Non solum suaviter suspendunt acuuntque lectorem, et gloriationi consideratae pondus addunt, sed etiam plane duplex rei momentum exprimunt.

[364] See regarding similar juxtapositions in general, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 229 f. Comp. Plat. Conv. p. 189 B: ἄῤῥητα ἔστω τὰ εἰρημένα, Soph. Oed. Col. 1005: ῥητὸν ἄῤῥητον, Aj 213: λόγον ἄῤῥητον.

[365] It is most natural (comp. the Apocalypse) to think of disclosures regarding the end of the world, which, however, must have gone further than what occurs in the Epistles of the apostle (as 1 Thessalonians 4; 1 Corinthians 15; Rom_11:25 f.). More definite statements (see Ewald) must be left in abeyance.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2Co 12:3-4 . καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον κ . τ . λ .: and I know such a man (he speaks with such caution and reticence of this momentous event in his spiritual life that he will not even describe it in the first person) … how that he was caught up into Paradise (see previous note), and heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter ; such words are reserved for the Divine voice which speaks to man, although this restriction does not apply to all Divine words.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Translate, "I know."

out of--Most of the oldest manuscripts read "apart from."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(3) And I knew such a man.—Better, as before, I know.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of such an one will I glory,.... The apostle in great modesty seems to speak of some other person, and not himself, as caught up into the third heaven, when he yet means himself; and does as it were distinguish himself from himself; himself in paradise from himself on earth; his sense is, that though he might lawfully glory of such a person so highly exalted and favoured, yet since this was his own case, he chose to forbear, and say no more of it:

yet of myself I will not glory; though he could, and might, and did glory in the Lord, who had done such great things for him; as that he was in Christ, and knew himself to be so, had been rapt up into heaven, and heard things unutterable; yet he would not glory of these things as from himself, as owing to any merit or worthiness of his, but as instances of mere favour, grace, and goodness; if he gloried of anything of himself in his present state and condition, it should be of his weaknesses:

but in mine infirmities; not his sinful ones, for these he mourned over, and was humbled before God and man under a sense of; but his many pressing difficulties of life, heavy reproaches, very great afflictions, and violent persecutions he endured for Christ's sake; see Co2 12:10.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

Ver. 3. Whether in the body, &c.] So far did he forget and neglect his own body, which is so dear and near a thing, in comparison of that incomparable delight he then took in the Lord. "Oh that joy! O my God, when shall I be with thee!" These were the dying words of the last Lord Harrington, that was in heaven beforehand. "Oh the joys, the joys, the unspeakable joys that I feel in my soul!" said another that was even entering into heaven, and had a foretaste of eternal life. Peter in the transfiguration was so transported, that he never thought of a tabernacle for himself, Mat 17:4; he cared not to lie without doors, so he might longer enjoy that glimpse of heaven’s glory.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And I knew such a man - It is not uncommon to repeat a solemn affirmation in order that it may be made more emphatic. This is done here. Paul repeats the idea, that he was intimately acquainted with such a man, and that he did not know whether he was in the body or out of the body. All that was known to God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

How that he was caught up into paradise: some by

paradise understand a place distinct from

the third heaven before mentioned, and think the apostle here speaks of more visions than one; but they speak much more probably, who interpret it of the third heaven before mentioned, called paradise, in regard of the delight and pleasures of it. Thus the term is used by our Saviour to the thief upon the cross, Luk 23:43, and thus it is used, Rev 2:7.

And heard unspeakable words; what these unspeakable words, or things, were, which the apostle heard in this ecstasy, is vainly inquired; whenas the apostle hath told us twice, that he could not tell whether he was in or out of the body; and that the words or things were such as were unspeakable.

Which it is not lawful for a man to utter; such as were either impossible to be uttered, or at least which he was prohibited to utter; so they could be made known to none but only to him that heard them. If any inquireth, for what purpose God showed them to Paul, if he might not communicate them for the good of others? The answer is easy; that this vision might be for his own confirmation, as sent of God, and for his consolation under all those hazards and dangers which he was to undergo in the ministry of the gospel, to which God had called him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. And—It is a strange idea held by some commentators, endorsed by Alford, that St. Paul here twice states the same narrative. Less absurd, but quite unsupported, is the idea that the two are different parts of one vision. The formal beginning of both narratives, assigning both to the same year, obviously indicates that they were not at the same time. Nor were the two visits to the same region. To the question why Paul should visit paradise later than the third heaven, it might in answer be asked, Why should he see paradise first? To see the heaven of heavens—to stand in the body, for the moment glorified, by the side of Enoch, Elijah, Christ, and, perhaps, Moses—to know with them, by a divine intuition, all that the first two knew—to realize the realities of eternity, were the first and main thing. To visit paradise—the intermediate state, the place of departed, disembodied spirits—was the after-thought. The former was, perhaps, necessary as a qualification for Paul’s apostolicity; the latter only important. As to him was visibly disclosed the Son of God in his glorified person, so to him were revealed, in glimpse, the arcana of the highest heaven, and the lower mysteries of paradise.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Yea, I knew such a man - That at another time.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth) ;

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. I know such a man. Why does he not use the first person? Because it would seem more like he was glorying in his own exaltation.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

Paul continues to speak of himself as though he were speaking of someone else.

this man ... was caught up into paradise

This can be stated in active form. Possible meanings are 1) "God took this man ... into paradise" or 2) "an angel took this man ... into paradise." If possible, it would be best not to name the one who took the man: "someone took ... paradise" or "they took ... paradise."

caught up

suddenly and forcefully held and taken

paradise

Possible meanings are 1) heaven or 2) the third heaven or 3) a special place in heaven.

of such a person

"of that person"

I will not boast, except about my weaknesses

This can be stated in positive form. AT: "I will boast only of my weaknesses"

translationWords

body

God

holy

boast

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

3. χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος (BD) rather than ἐκτὸς τ. σώμ. (D2D3FGKLMP), which comes from 2Co 12:2. B omits οὐκ οἷδα, which might come from 2Co 12:2.

3. καὶ οἷδα κ.τ.λ. And I know such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth. The use made by Athanasius of S. Paul’s οὐκ οἷδα is a curiosity of exegesis: see con. Arian. III. 47. The change (see critical note) from ἐκτός (2Co 12:2; 1Co 6:18) to χωρίς (2Co 11:28; 1Co 11:11, &c.) should be marked in translation. The Vulgate has extra corpus in both verses, its usual rendering of χωρίς being sine. The fact that in both verses ἐν σώματι stands first is no indication that S. Paul himself regarded this alternative as the more probable: with εἴτε … εἴτε the alternatives are given as equal; comp. 2Co 5:9; 2Co 5:13. The expression ἐν σώματι (Heb 13:3), without article, is adverbial, ‘corporeally’: comp. ἐν οἴκῳ (1Co 11:34; 1Co 14:35; Mar 2:1), ‘indoors, at home.’ Irenaeus (V. 2Co 12:1) uses it of Enoch; Ἐνὼχ εὐαρεστήσας τῷ θεῷ ἐν σώματι μετετέθη. See Westcott on Heb 13:3. In the Testament of Abraham σωματικῶς and ἐν σώματι are used indifferently: Abraham says, σωματικῶς ἤθελον ἀναληφθῆναι. The Lord says to Michael, ἀναλαβοῦ ἐν σώματι τὸν Ἀβραάμ (Recension B. vii., viii.). The whole passage is interesting in connexion with these verses.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον. ‘I know also that the man of whom I speak.rs; We have to decide whether this is a repetion of v. 2 or the record of a second experience. That ἁρπάλομαι is used in both places is no sign that vv. 3, 4 simply repeat v. 2 with an additional fact; in each case, if two cases are meant, he was ‘caught up’ from the earth. The change from ‘third heaven’ to ‘paradise’ is no evidence either way; for ‘paradise’ may mean the ‘third heaven’ or some portion of it, and if it is a mere synonym, there may have been two occasions of rapture to the same region of heaven. Again, the plural in v. 1 is no evidence either way. It may mean more than one vision and revelation, or it may simply indicate a class of which one example is to be given. Moreover, even if vv. 3 and 4 are a repetition of v. 2, we still have two revelations, for the Divine communication in v. 9 is a revelation. See below on v. 7. But the καί at the beginning of v. 3 is rather strongly in favour of the view that we have two revelations without counting the Divine utterance in v. 9; for the καί is almost awkwardly superfluous if what follows simply repeats v. 2.

On the whole, patristic writers seem to be mostly in favour of either two raptures, or one rapture in two stages, first to the third heaven and thence to paradise. The language of some of them would fit either of these hypotheses (Irenaeus, 11. xxx. 7; Tertullian, De Praes. Haer. 24; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. xiv. 26); but Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 12, p. 693, ed. Potter) is plainly for the latter; “caught up even to the third heaven and thence into paradise.”* In this he is followed by few moderns, who for the most part adopt the view that St Paul is speaking throughout of only one experience, and that ‘paradise’ is equivalent to the ‘third heaven.’ Bengel, however, is confident that vv. 3, 4 duplex rei momentum exprimunt. So also Bousset with somewhat less confidence; so werden wir schwerlich verstehen sollen, dass Paradies und dritter Himmel dasselbe seien, dass er sich also in seiner Aussage nur wiederhole (p. 209). McFadyen finds it “hard to say, but perhaps the second statement is intended to suggest a second experience, similar but higher.” The Fathers are loose in their quotations of the passage. They sometimes say that the Apostle heard unutterable words in the third heaven, which is no proof that they identify paradise with the third heaven; and they sometimes say that he saw things of which it is not lawful to speak.

χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος. ‘Apart from the body.’ The change from ἐκτός to χωρίς should be marked in translation.

Many texts in this verse read ἐκτός, and Vulg. has extra corpus in both places, but χωρίς (B D * E *) is doubtless original.

3. It is over the third question that there has been most discussion, with as much disagreement about the answer as in the other two cases. But the attempt to answer this question raises a fourth, which can be decided with considerable probability, yet, as in the other cases, without certainty. The σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί is a metaphor for some kind of suffering. Is it the same as the ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρκός and the πειρασμὸς ὑμῶν ἐν τῆ σαρκί μου of Gal 4:13, Gal 4:14? It is commonly assumed that it is the same, and this view has much to commend it. But nothing approaching to proof is possible, and of the numerous conjectures as to what the form of this suffering was, one may be true of the σκόλοψ, while something quite different may be true of the ἀσθένεια. Unfortunately we have to confess that in neither case can we be at all certain as to what is true. Nevertheless, some negative results may be confidently maintained.

The Apostle is not referring to any individual, who was a ‘thorn in his side’ to him, whether Alexander the coppersmith (2Ti 4:14), as Ephraem Syrus thought, or anyone else, (11:15), as Chrysostom. That he is referring to sufferings caused by persecution is given by various Greek Fathers and one or two Latins as the explanation of the σκόλοψ. But it cannot be right. Others besides St Paul suffered greatly from persecution, and the σκόλοψ was something specially bestowed by God for his personal benefit, to counteract temptations that might be provoked by the special revelations. Moreover, he would not have prayed to be freed from persecutions. This theory continued to be held by a writer here and there, but it was at last driven from the field by an equally erroneous explanation.

When a knowledge of Greek became rare in the West, the N.T., was studied in the Vulgate, in which Jerome had left stimulus carnis uncorrected. He understood the σκόλοψ to mean bodily pain, but stimulus catnis suggested to others temptations to impurity. The explanation about persecutions may have been fostered by the fact that all Christendom had been suffering from the horrors of the Diocletian persecution; and it is evident that the theory about carnal desires having been the Apostle’s great trial spread widely at a time when monasticism accentuated the danger of temptations of the flesh. In each case men supposed that St Paul’s special affliction was akin to what was a special trouble to themselves. This view of the stimulus carnis became almost universal in the West, until Cornelius a Lapide (d. 1637) says that it is communis fidelium sensus. Luther’s passionate rejection of it is well known, and Calvin condemns it as ridiculous. St Paul tells us that the ἴδιον χάρισμα ἐκ Θεοῦ which he received was being able to do without marriage; see on 1Co 7:7-9. And if it had been otherwise, he would not have regarded sexual desire as a ‘weakness’ in which he could glory. No Greek Father adopts this view, and it is doubtful whether any Latin writer of the first six centuries does. The statement that Jerome, Augustine, and Salvian do so is erroneous. Jerome says bodily pain, Augustine persecution, and Salvian nothing; he nowhere quotes or explains the passage.

Since the Reformation, spiritual trials, such as temptations to unbelief or despair, have been a favourite hypothesis. But they fit this passage badly, and Gal 4:13, Gal 4:14 not at all. St Paul nowhere hints at such difficulties, nor would he have gloried in them from any point of view. It is those who have themselves been tormented by such things that have imagined them as the special trial of the Apostle.

Of these three lines of thought we may say that St Paul would not have prayed to be freed from persecutions, and that he would not have been told to cease to pray against evil concupiscence or unbelief.

Modern writers generally go back to the earliest tradition that the σκόλοψ was some acute malady, so painful and such a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel as to be regarded as the work of the devil. But it was sent by God at intervals as a disciplinary reminder, to preserve His Apostle from spiritual pride. It was in this aspect that Jerome compared it to the slave behind the victorious commander in his triumphal chariot, whispering at intervals, Hominem to esse memento (Ep. xxxix. 2). Thus much we learn from this passage about the σκόλοψ τῆ σαρκί. From Gal 4:13, Gal 4:14, we gather that the ἀσθενεία τὴς σαρκός which kept St Paul in Galatia was such as to tempt the Galatians to regard him with contempt and disgust, a temptation which they triumphantly overcame, treating him with the utmost consideration and affection. Any acute and recurrent malady will suit 2Co 12:7, but for Gal 4:13, Gal 4:14, we require something likely to inspire those who witness it with repulsion. The conjectures which fit Gal 4:13, Gal 4:14 well, and might also be true of 2Co 12:7, are epilepsy, acute ophthalmia, malarial fever, and some forms of hysteria.* Epilepsy has the support of Lightfoot, Schaff, Findlay, Bousset, Hofmann, Holsten, Klöpper, and others. Since Max Krenkel’s Essay in his Beiträge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte and der Briefe des Apostels Paulus, 1890, this conjecture of K. L. Ziegler in Theologische Abhandlungen, 1804, has become widespread. The objection that epilepsy commonly produces mental deterioration is not wholly disposed of by the cases of Julius Caesar, Mahomet, Cromwell, and Napoleon, for we are not certain that the attacks from which they occasionally suffered were epileptic. A more serious objection is that such attacks are not acutely painful. Ophthalmia is adopted by Farrar, Lewin, Plumptre; malarial fever by Ramsay and Emmet; hysteria by Lombard. When all the arguments for and against these and other guesses have been considered, the fact remains that we still do not know, for the evidence is insufficient. See Enc. Bib. iii. 3620; Zahn, Int. to N.T. i. p. 171; Lietzmann, ad loc.

ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ. ‘A messenger of Satan’ or ‘an angel of Satan.’ The σκόλοψ is here personified. Wiclif and the Rhemish have ‘angel,’ other English Versions, including AV and RV., have ‘messenger.’ That Stan has angels was a common belief among the Jews (Rev 12:7-9; cf. Mat 9:34, Mat 9:12: 24 = Luk 11:15), and it is not disturbed by Christ (Mat 25:41). In the Ep. of Barnabas (18:1) ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ are opposed by ἄγγελοι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. Cf. Enoch 3:3; Jubilees 10:2.

That what was the will of God for good purposes might be done by Satan for evil purposes is an idea that is also found among the Jews, as in Job 1:12, Job 2:6, and in 2Sa 24:1, when compared with 1Ch 21:1; also that Satan may be a cause of physical suffering, a belief which is not disturbed by Christ; see on Luk 13:11, Luk 13:16.*

With the reading Σατάν (see below), which is indeclinable and amy be nom. or gen., some would translate ‘the angel Satan,’ but that would require ὃ ἄγγελος Σ. Others would translate ‘a hostile angel,’ which is grammatically possible, but not probable, for in N.T. Satan is always a proper name. In LXX σατάν is sometimes ‘an adversary’; e.g. ἤγειρεν Κύριος σατὰν τῷ Σαλωμὼν τὸν Ἀδὲρ τὸν Ἰδυμαῖον (1Ki 11:14); but the reading σατάν here is to be rejected.

ἵνα με κολαφίζη. ‘In order that he (the messenger) may buffet me.’ The present tense, as Chrysostom and Theodoret point out, implies freq. attacks. The fact that ἄγγελος immediately precedes this clause saves us from mixture of metaphors; a stake or thorn cannot ‘strike with the first,’ but a messenger can. Κόλαφος is said to be the Doric equivalent of the Attic κόνδυλος. The verb is said to be the Doric equivalent of the Attic κόνδυλος. The verb is late Greek and perhaps colloquial; see on 1Co 4:11 and cf. Mar 14:65; Mat 26:67; 1Pe 2:20; also Index IV.†

ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι. Emphatic repetition of the purpose of the σκόλοψ, which must be remembered side by side with Satan’s share in the mater. In both cases we have pres. subjunct. of what was continually going on: there was ferq. buffeting to counteract freq. temptation. But this does not imply that the revelations were freq. One revelation might occasion many temptations. Contrast the aorists in Rev 18:4; ἵνα μή is specially freq. in 1 and 2 Cor.

Baljon proposes to omit καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν ἀποκαλύψεων as a gloss, but no witnesses omit the words. Nor can the perplexing διό be omitted, although D E K P L, Latt. Syrr., Iren. Aug. moit, for it is found in א A B F G 17. The omission is “a characteristic Werstern attempt to deal with a difficulty by excision” (WH.).There is more to be said for the excision of the second ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι, which א * A D E G 17, Latt. Aeth., Iren. Tert. Aug. omit; but the omission is probably another attempt at simplifying the text. Σατανᾶ (א* A * B D * F G 17, 67 * *, Latt. Copt., Orig.) rather than Σατάν (א3 A * * D2 and 3 E K L P), which is rare in LXX and is found nowhere in N.T.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.