‘I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knows), such a one caught up even to the third heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knows), how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.'
Fourteen years ago he had had an experience that went beyond all experiences. It was the very basis of his unique Apostleship. He does not know whether it happened to him physically, or whether he was lifted out of his body spiritually. God is the only One Who knows that. But he knows that it happened, and that it happened ‘in Christ'. He was caught up into ‘the third heaven', into Paradise itself. Not just the heavens above, nor the heavens where spiritual activity is taking place, but the very presence of God Himself. And there he heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter (compare Revelation 10:4). He received revelations which he cannot mention or describe. He was given a unique insight into God and His ways. He was made uniquely aware of the glory of God. And they were things which were for him alone and of which he has no right to speak. If his opponents had had an experience such as that they too would have been unwilling to talk about it. For it was God-forbidden.
It is doubtful whether this refers to his experience on the Damascus Road. Indeed part of the reason for his previous mention of his escape from Damascus may have been to cancel out such an idea. For there the words he heard were made known. And then he was not ‘a man in Christ'. This was something so profound in this experience that it was the highpoint of his spiritual life. But he mentions it to keep his opponents' claims in perspective. They boast of visions and revelations. Then let them know that he has had such which were far more excessive than anything they had ever known.
But his refusal to say more not only brings out the awesomeness of his experience, but also illustrates the fact that he is not prepared to compare visions blow by blow. The fact is that if they had had a vision like his they would not talk about it. That puts all their boasts in perspective. In his presence let them keep quiet. Compared with his their experiences are paltry.
Paul certainly had other visions and revelations. See Acts 9:3-19; Acts 16:9; Acts 18:9-10; Acts 22:17-21. But compared with this one they were as nothing. He did not even release details of it to Luke. And even here, having established the fact, he leaves it there. He will not supply the detail of that particular experience to bolster his case. It was completely other-worldly.
‘A man in Christ.' This was important. His experience was as a result of his being ‘in Christ'. It was no pagan experience or connected with the mysteries. It was because of his closeness to the living Christ that he had had the experience. All that had happened to him then was ‘In Christ'.
‘Caught up.' Only used twice by Paul (compare 1 Thessalonians 4:17). It was to be taken out of the material world into a heavenly dimension to meet with God or with Christ. It was to be caught up to the realm beyond the known.
‘Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knows.' This is repeated twice which stresses its importance. He does not want this experience to be used theologically, or to be seen in the light of the experience of others. It must not be used to argue that such experiences can only happen outside the body, but nor must it be used to declare that a man cannot operate apart from his body. It must not be used to suggest that the body is somehow evil in itself. It must not be compared with the ascension of Jesus, or the taking up of Elijah.
But nor must it be interpreted as just some venture from the body, like Ezekiel's, or as an experience of dying and then returning to his body as described by many. It was not that kind of experience at all. It just happened and he does not know how it happened. And, he says, it must be left there. It cannot be used to deny a bodily resurrection, or indeed to teach it. He does not want to liken it to any other experience. It was wholly mysterious, unlike those of his opponents which they could explain without difficulty.
‘The third heaven.' Possibly to be seen as the result of his meditation on 1 Kings 8:27 where Solomon speaks of ‘heaven and the heaven of heavens', and based on Biblical uses of the term ‘heavens' for the skies which includes sun, moon and stars (part of creation - Genesis 1); for that which lies beyond the skies, where angels might be and God can be reached (1 Kings 8:13 and often); and for the private abode of God Himself, (he may have had in mind here the outer and inner sanctuary in the Temple, the latter limited to God in His unapproachable glory, with His attendant cherubim). And all this thought of vaguely in spacial terms, although not specifically stated to be so, without being too specific. To them it was the world which was the universe. All else was ‘outside'. What was outside it was what we would call another ‘dimension'. Even today most people find it difficult to think in solely philosophical terms of not here nor there, but ‘outside' space (we have not even the ready language for it), and it was no different then.
But we must ever remember that ‘three' conveyed the idea of completeness and totality. The ‘third' heaven would thus sum up the perfection of Heaven. In other literature this expands to five, seven and ten heavens, but that is more speculative. Paul is not being speculative (‘I cannot tell').
‘Paradise.' The word comes from the Persian meaning an enclosed park, such as the gardens of the Persian kings. In LXX it was used to translate ‘the fruitful plain of Eden'. But in the Old Testament it never refers to anything outside this world. In the New Testament it was used by Jesus, if we interpret strictly, of the place to which men go after death and where He would be prior to His resurrection (Luke 23:43). It is probably in mind in Luke 16:19-31, the place of the righteous dead. But it is doubtful whether we are to so limit it. The idea is probably mainly that such people are with God. It is used in Jewish literature of where God is. In Revelation 2:7 it is the reward for overcomers, and there they will eat of the tree of life. In Revelation 21:1-5 this clearly has in mind our eternal dwellingplace in the glorious presence of God, depicted in terms of a more wonderful, ‘heavenly' Eden of which God Himself is the light. Here in Paul it probably equates with the third Heaven, where God dwells in His indescribable glory.
‘And heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.' Words which cannot be spoken, and which commentators have been trying to fathom ever since. The idea is probably that they were awe-inspiring and beyond man's grasp and capability, so that if their ideas were conveyed man would be unable to bear the result. They are similar to His unapproachable light (1 Timothy 6:16). It is noteworthy that like Isaiah before him (Isaiah 6:1-4) he does not try to describe God. He is lost in the indescribable. He describes only ‘unutterable sayings' (compare the ‘voice from the throne' which issues in the end - Revelation 19:5), and that in terms of the unspeakable. All that is of God is too holy to be fathomed by man, or to be heard and seen.
What Paul is really saying is that he was caught up into the presence of God and for that brief time was caught up in such an indescribable heavenly experience in His presence that he could neither describe nor relate it, nor would want to, and that it would be blasphemy to make the attempt. He knew that what he had experienced was nothing to do with man while on this earth. But it had almost certainly affected the whole of his thinking from then on. It could hardly do otherwise. No longer for him the philosophical arguments about God, or the godly speculation. Even though he could not describe it, it affected all his thinking, all his doctrine and the whole of his ministry and life. And we must see such phrases as ‘the light of the knowledge of the glory of God' (2 Corinthians 4:6) in that context. We are probably to see ‘is not lawful' to mean not so much forbidden by God's edict as forbidden by its very nature.
Let these pseudo-apostles with their constant speculation think on that. And let the Corinthians themselves recognise that they must choose between one who has met God in full intimacy, and cannot speak of it because of its awesomeness and its holiness, and those who claim to be aware of God through whatever method of obtaining such knowledge they used, and constantly speak of it. If they had really met God as they had said they would remember the words of Ecclesiastes 5:2, ‘Do not be rash with your mouth, and do not let your heart be hasty to utter anything before God, for God is in heaven and you are on the earth, therefore let your words be few.' Such experience can only result in humility.