Collateral Bloggage

Sunday, Barb Feil taught from 2 Corinthians, and she showed us one of the more enigmatic passages from Paul’s writings.

Barb didn’t dwell on the “Third Heaven.” In fact, she specifically told us she wouldn’t go into it. So, I’ve taken it upon myself to provide some input on it. I don’t have any particular authority here; I’ll just share what I’ve come to understand about it. It’s not much.

First, I have to say I’m a bit perturbed that Paul would even bring this up. It’s like someone saying to a single person who desperately wants to find a mate, “I found the perfect person for you!” and then walking away and never elaborating. Don’t you want to know what Paul saw and heard? I feel the same way when John experiences the Seven Thunders in Revelation 10, but is told not to write about what he learned.

Anyhow, Paul obviously expected his readers to understand what he was talking about, and since there’s no apparent mention of Three Heavens elsewhere in Scripture (although the Rabbis found no shortage of different Heavens, as I’ll mention later), I figure it’s a Greek concept, or at least something that was generally accepted in the time and culture.

First, let’s examine a nice clue we have in the passage itself. Paul uses very similar phrasing in verses 2 and 4, speaking of a man who was “caught up” into “the third heaven” and “paradise,” respectively. Given the tendency in Hebrew writing to use parallelism, isn’t it likely the two phrases are just different ways of saying the same thing? That’s what I’m inclined to believe. NETBible seems to agree, given their footnote:

The reference here in 2 Cor 12:4 is probably to be translated as parallel to the mention of the “third heaven” in v. 2.

The footnote goes on to show the punchline of what all this about multiple heavens is about:

Assuming that the “first heaven” would be atmospheric heaven (the sky) and “second heaven” the more distant stars and planets, “third heaven” would refer to the place where God dwells.

This is what I’ve read and heard, and it makes sense to me. Interestingly, as I mentioned before, the Rabbis seemed to feel the need to define a different “heaven” every time it seemed like one was implied. To that end, they distilled this list (stopping at seven probably less because they ran out of need for definitions, but more because seven is just a really cool number </cynicism>):

Vilon - the dark, night sky (removed at daybreak like a curtain)
Rakia - where the sun, moon, and stars are set
Shechakim - the source of manna (seriously)
Zebul - where the Heavenly Jerusalem sits
Maon - the angels sing from here in the night (but are silent during the day to give us a chance to sing)
Machon - the storehouse of snow, hail, and harmful weather
Araboth - the conventional conception of heaven (God, angels, the righteous dead)

BTW, I got this information from a terrific book, Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages by Abraham Cohen. If you’ve ever been curious about what the Talmud is or what it contains, but don’t really think you’re interested in reading tens of thousands of pages, this book is a terrific resource. It distills the essential teachings down into a fairly readable format. I say fairly because it’s not exactly popcorn. I’ve been working my way through the 350+ pages for the past two years.

One last note.  In the same passage (but further down), Paul speaks of his “thorn.”  As Barb also noted, there’s a lot of speculation about what exactly the thorn was.  I’ve read and heard some interesting theories, and I think maybe next week I’ll bust them out and write about the one I think is correct.  It’s always nice to have a topic lined up a week early…