Part 5: Proof Texts (x) 2nd Corinthians 12:1-4

It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2nd Corinthians 12:1-4)

This passage is not referenced as a proof-text as commonly as the others that are in this essay, but occasionally it is used to point out that someone ‘went to Heaven’, namely Paul. However, the considerations of how, where and when are important before coming to the conclusion that this serves as evidence for humanity going to Heaven at death. 

How did Paul get to ‘the third heaven’/‘Paradise’? Evidently it was by means of ‘visions and revelations of the Lord’ (v1). Paul says twice that he ‘was caught up’ to this place. Putting these words together (‘caught up’ and ‘the third heaven’) it is natural to assume an upward movement. Indeed the Greek verb for ‘caught up’ (harpazó) is definitely employed within such a context on two occasions:

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1^st Thessalonians 4:17)

She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. (Revelation 12:5)

Should we therefore add Paul’s experience as another example of harpazó meaning ‘an upward movement’? After all, it is presumed that he went to Heaven. Actually, it is not at all clear that Paul was carried or transported in an upward manner. This particular Greek verb is not only used twice to refer to upward motion, it is used on ten other occasions to describe motions that are evidently not upwards. 

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. (Matthew 11:12)

Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. (Matthew 12:29)

When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. (Matthew 13:19)

Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone. (John 6:15)

But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. (John 10:12)

And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. (John 10:28-29)

Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus... (Acts 8:39-40a)

Now when there arose a great dissension, the commander, fearing lest Paul might be pulled to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them, and bring him into the barracks. (Acts 23:10)

And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh. (Jude 22-23)

Therefore, to determine whether or not Paul was caught in an upward motion towards Heaven, one must determine where he went (a point we will come to next). There is no proof in the Greek verb itself that he went upwards. He could simply have been ‘seized’, ‘taken’, or ‘snatched away’. 

So, where did Paul go? Did he actually go up into ‘the third heaven’/‘Paradise’? Consider the whereabouts of the apostle John in Revelation. Sometimes he was on earth, sometimes he was in Heaven, sometimes he was before the very throne of God, sometimes he was viewing the four corners of the earth at the same time. Was he actually in all these places? No, he was on the Island of Patmos (1:9) the whole time. His ‘journeys’, if they can be called that, were by means of visions. Likewise with Paul: he did not have to change location from the moment before he received his ‘visions and revelations’. God brought the visions to him, He did not bring Paul to the visions. 

That said, if this is accepted, it can still be argued from a figurative standpoint, that it is nonetheless permissible to say that Paul was ‘caught up’ to Heaven. However, the text does not say ‘Heaven’. It says ‘the third heaven’. One automatically assumes these terms to be synonymous.

Surprisingly, this is the only time in the Scriptures that the term ‘third heaven’ appears. How many times do the terms ‘first heaven’ and ‘second heaven’ appear? Collectively, zero.

The ‘third heaven’ is explained by the majority of Bible teachers as God’s abode, based upon the following presumption: the sky is the ‘first heaven’ and outer space is the ‘second heaven’. Effectively then, God must live in the ‘third heaven’. Though logical (the first two spheres are biblically referred to as the ‘heavens’) it is not a conclusion drawn from inductive Bible study – it simply hails from human deductive logic. 

How do we know that ‘third’ is to be understood in terms of geography or reach? It could be chronological. There are biblical grounds for saying that the heavens go through stages of transition: (i) the heavens as we see them today; (ii) the heavens when affected by the return of Christ with His holy angels, and throughout His rule with the saints in their spiritual bodies; (iii) the ‘new heaven and new earth’ as described at the end of Revelation. 

This is a theory. It is not intended as a conclusive counter-argument to the general understanding of ‘third heaven’ but it is intended to show that, using biblical data, we can at least come up with a more viable alternative. I repeat: the Bible does not refer to the sky or space as the ‘first and second heavens’. So perhaps Paul’s visionary experiences were not of God’s abode at all. Perhaps he was experiencing the ‘new heaven’. 

The apparent (though not definite) synonymousness between ‘third heaven’ and ‘Paradise’ ought also to be considered. In the section dealing with the thief on the cross (Part 5 (vii)) I have argued that it is impossible for Paradise to mean Heaven. The term ‘Paradise’ is never categorically presented as a synonym for Heaven, and it is very difficult to see how they are the same, except through the easily misunderstood verses under discussion.  

The possibility of ‘third heaven’ being a chronological term brings us, finally, to the when question regarding Paul’s visions. I think there may be a significant relevance of Paul’s vision to ‘the holy city, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God’ in which ‘the tree of life’ resides (Revelation 21:10; 22:2). Paul’s account of his visions is the only place where I’m aware of something relating to ‘Paradise’ (‘the tree of life’) and something relating to ‘the third heaven’ (‘the holy city, Jerusalem’) being potentially combined in the same context. If so, this would most definitely set the events of Paul’s visions into the far distant future. 

Paul’s choice of words, ‘whether in the body...or...out of the body’, ought to be addressed here also. As tempting as they may be to interpret within a material-immaterial context, they must be understood within the context of 2^nd Corinthians. I have already emphasised what I believe Paul meant in chapter five when he talked about being ‘absent from the body’ (Part 5 (vi)). This expression was to be equated to being ‘present with the Lord’ in his resurrected body. So now that Paul is wondering if his visions and revelations were ‘in or out-of-body experiences’, we have a helpful context in which to appreciate what he meant. As with chapter five (where he says ‘absent from the body’) ‘out of the body’ does not refer to an ethereal experience but to experience that was not in his present body.