Christ life & ministry glories in His strength & appointed...

This is good. And I'll have to allow you to determine whether the spirit has shown up here. All right, good. So the last few weeks have kind of been this overall theme of boasting. And that theme continues here today. But we've got really some doctrine here that we're going to be looking at that really relates, I think, to Paul's life and how it may apply to us. So Randy, please read verses 1 through 10 and 7-12. Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable.

But I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who 14 years ago, whether in the body I do not know or out of the body I do not know, God knows, such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man, whether in the body or apart from the body, I do not know, God knows, was caught up into paradise and heard inexpressible words which a man is not permitted to speak.

On behalf of such a man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except in regards to my weakness. For if I do wish to boast, I will not be foolish, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from this so that no one will credit me with more than he sees in me or hears from me.

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me, to keep me from exalting myself. Concerning this, I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me, and he has said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore, I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ's sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong. You got an easy pass. Not true. Remember this is Sunday school. Lots of time to interact here. If we don't get through it, well, who's teaching next week? I think Randy is. So Randy will pick up where I leave off here. Alright, first verse.

It's doubtless not profitable for me to boast, and I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. The theme of boasting, I think, continues here. Remember, what's been the boasting mostly about until the end of chapter 11? Weaknesses. Well, yes, but I think that's what's picked up in 1130. I think, Randy, did you teach last week? I looked at your notes. So I think that theme of weaknesses, Paul's own weaknesses, came up. But what's the boasting mostly been about that has reached where we were last week?

The boasting about the truth of the gospel, hasn't it been? Remember, he's in the midst of false teaching. And the boasting, he's, you know, boasting, we'll use that in quotations, this desire to boast, but not to boast. I mean, Paul continues to struggle over, you know, do I boast?

But what I've boasted, that's the truth here. And so this this really kind of environment of uncertainty and stress has been a continued theme over the last few chapters. I'm thinking that the way he emphasizes the way he's already stated that if you try to go on a direct line of attack, it's just going to fall flat. You have to let the people know that in spite of all this thing that's happening to me, and I'm not trying to turn it into a boo-hoo sob story, Lord works in spite of and surpassing in Paul's life.

Can you read 2 Corinthians 11.30, it's just back one chapter near the end, and you're correct there, but I just want to make sure we didn't ignore the theme of the boasting that preceded that.

If I have to boast, I will boast of what pertains to my weakness. Very good. Okay, so in a sense he is boasting of his weaknesses. We'll return to that. Now, better translated, I must boast, but there's nothing for me to gain by it. I like that translation. I'm basically a New King James fan, and I know Authorized and Revised, you're all using different versions, but I like this translation best. I must boast, but there's nothing for me to gain by boasting.

So is this a defeatist attitude you think Paul is displaying here? Or is it a statement that he, by God's grace, has done all that he can do? What's the thought here? Is Paul kind of down on himself here a little bit? Or is he just expressing the fact that the Lord has taken him this far and there's not much more he can accomplish? Winnie, what are your thoughts? He's not defeated in any way, shape, or form. He's just telling them the way it is.

But would it be okay for the flesh to show up here a little bit? Well, I suppose. I mean, how many times have we all gone through circumstances which we feel like we're standing on God's word and spirit-led, but yet we get just kind of frustrated with the inability to get a point across. I mean, I'll just use that as a crazy example.

That's true, but he was not sorry for himself. No, okay, sorry. The result of this is visions and revelations of the Lord. Wow. What's that all about? He here turns to how his position can affect his condition, I think. So he's saying, I may be a bit frustrated here. I've done everything I can, but what more is there to be gained? But let me think about something that could be revealing.

So we turn to verse 2, I knew a man in Christ who fourteen years ago, note the timing here, fourteen years ago, whether in the body I don't know, or whether out of the body I don't know, God knows, and ultimately such a one was caught up into the third heaven. Wow, this is kind of like you're reading a novel or something and suddenly everything changes dramatically. So, pay attention here. I knew a man in Christ 14 years ago.

Perfect, active, indicative. So what's, how's the verb tense important here? It's factual. Okay. Indicative. This is a fact, by the way. Yes, Tom? Perfect means something that happened in the past but has continuing effect. Alright, so perfect, it's a done deal. This was done one point in time but has continuing implications or applications going forward and active. Double underline the previous statement. Well, yeah, this is this was some man that he knew. OK. Now, is there any doubt that this was Paul? And he's now reflecting back on such revelation. I think most commentators and I feel strong. But this is Paul himself.

Is it not? I mean, Paul's not talking about some man he knew. Well, this is the exact opposite of a braggamony. So yeah, that's right. So how often I just have to reflect on yours truly. I mean, if I've been through something, I want to let somebody know this is what I've been through here. So Paul is kind of relating this to some man he knows not to really be in an atmosphere of boastful, you know, being boastful. I mean, this is kind of I knew a man. OK, so we all know this is Paul. Who else could this be? Right.

If this epistle was written in A.D. 58, which is what is claimed, then 14 years ago would have been several years after his conversion, if we look biblically at the dates. So some conjecture that this was about the time that Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus to Antioch. And I have verses we could turn to, which we don't need to. And an alternative view is when Paul returned to Jerusalem. And that occurred subsequent to this transition from Tarsus to Antioch.

Anyway, we don't need to be certain here. But 14 years ago, Paul is a saved man that presumably he went up into the third heaven. So whether in the body, I don't know. Whether out of the body, I don't know. But somebody does know, and that's God. And the verb here for Iaido is factual. This isn't genosis or epigenosis, some experience he's had. This is fact. But that fact, only God knows.

So why does scripture make this so clandestine? What does clandestine mean, kind of secret or hidden and not really open to interpretation? Why? Why is the Lord giving us this kind of mysterious view of what this experience is all about? Paul doesn't know. He can't really express it. But God knows what. I mean, I don't have an answer for this.

I just want the class to kind of think out loud. I just think he's letting us know that we've got something wonderful to look forward to. Well, OK, serious, but we certainly are looking forward to whatever he's got. All right. I think. Don't you think it was so that I'm sorry. No, go ahead.

Don't you think it was so that that there wouldn't be so much emphasis placed on Paul. I mean, on that experience. On his experience. As opposed to, you know, we don't need to worship Paul. We're worshiping Christ, the Lord. And so I think by it being not totally all the details we don't know, Paul's just a messenger. He doesn't want to be, you know, revered He wants people to look at Christ. That's why he's talking about a man he knew, right? Derek? Margaret took the words out of my mouth. She often does that with me too. Randy, any other thoughts?

I think it's interesting across the scriptures that we see there are times when God commands people not John says, I was about to write this down and the angel said, don't. And so there's a bit of wonder that comes with that. What's what is the thing that's inside those revelations that were given specifically to John? But he said, don't write it down or in this case, God said, don't don't share this.

Well, it makes you wonder if Paul If Paul actually, when this happened, does he actually, I mean, was there something that the Lord did to him so that he really doesn't know whether it was in the body or out of the body? I mean, was this a dream I had or did this really happen to me? I mean, you know, you can have a very vivid dream and you wake up and you go, wow, did that really, could, I mean, you saw him at, Wake up in its reality for a couple of seconds at least. It sort of has always made me wonder whether he didn't necessarily want Paul to know whether it was in the body.

I think that's true. And remember, what can we share in detail about Paul's experience that he relates to in Galatians 1? About him being taught by the Lord Jesus Christ in Arabia. What kind of details do we have about that? Nothing, so God withholds information for whatever reason. Such as one was caught up, and by the way, to be caught up is to be seized with force. I mean that's the literal interpretation of being caught up, seized with force, and I didn't provide the scriptural documentation for that, to the third heaven.

So what or where is this third heaven? Alright, there are three heavens described in scripture, and we're not going to go into great detail here. The first heaven is the atmosphere surrounding us. We breathe because there is a certain limitation of oxygenation in terms of trapping the oxygen for us to continue our earthly existence. The second heaven is the starry skies above. This is the moon, the stars, the sun, the solar system, the galaxies and all that, which is an amazing place.

Do you ever ponder, I'm doing, some of you know I do McGee on the way, Margaret's burned all the CDs for McGee, and I'm back in Genesis again, my third time through the Bible. Anyway, so I'm back in this space again. I can't conceive how all that occurred, but nevertheless, God is God. But God's dwelling place is this third heaven.

So we can talk about that all we want, but we'll come back to that in a second. So I've combined verses 3 and 4, and I know such a man, whether in the body or out of the body, I don't know, but God does, and how he was caught up into paradise and heard inexpressible words which is not lawful for a man to utter.

So why does Paul repeat himself in verse 3? Does verse 3 look a little bit like verse 2? Well, half of it is identical to verse 2. Why do you think he, and I don't have an answer here, but why is he repeating himself? Why does scripture record this being documented twice? Must be important. Maybe it sets the stage for him describing this third heaven more in terms of paradise, and he has to remind them. I have no idea. But anyway, it's repeated.

What about paradise? Well, in the Septuagint, which remembers the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, Paradise is translated as a garden. There are multiple Old Testament references that reflect garden from this same Jewish term translated again in Greek as the Septuagint. And in Greek and Roman culture, this was an elevated and cultivated land. All right, so that's kind of what this term means, paradise.

It's an elevated, so it's in a third heaven, presumably. And this land is cultivated, if we apply that scriptural truth. So Bengal thinks that this is an inner recess of the third heaven. So let's look at these two verses. Luke 23, 43. Let's have Roger take a look at that one. And Tom, could you look at Revelation 2, 7, please? And I often kind of put these verses in the handout, but there were so many pages already, I decided that we have to look these up.

Luke 23.43. And he said to him, truly I say to you, today you shall be with me in paradise. And to whom did he say this, Roger? Thief on the cross. Thief on the cross. So there's some place that's considered paradise in this third heaven, which again, in some view, may be an inner recess of this God's dwelling place.

Tom, Revelation 2.7 please. He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches. To him that overcomes will I give to eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Okay, so again, a promise of Christ to the church. Which church was 2-7? Ephesus. Okay, and Ephesus was one of the more lifted up churches, if you will, that the Lord had said.

So he heard inexpressible words which weren't lawful for any man to utter. Now does this mean that the words were unlawful to mention because they were moral or spiritual in nature? and not interpretable to others, or that they were impossible to communicate in the way the Lord had given them. What are your thoughts here?

The Holy Spirit is going to have to back up what the teacher is saying when he's going through these words. And so he's depending on the Holy Spirit to reveal it to them in their hearts because he can't do it himself. Alright, so you think the second, that there's nothing moral or spiritual about this, that he's concerned about communicating because he's afraid of the response. No, I think the second is true and Tom saluted to that in his answer. This communication was impossible for him to really, in his earthly body, be able to transmit accurately.

And weren't these words directed just to Paul anyway? This wasn't for the benefit of the entire body of believers at Corinth or to us today. This was selectively given to Paul. It was like a special insight that he was given because the other half you're going to cover is kind of what the Lord did intentionally to prevent Paul from, it was such a special thing, occurrence that he had to basically... Nothing for him to get cocky about here, right?

John 3.12 kind of reminds me of a text that represents this. And this is Christ himself. If I had told you earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? I mean, doesn't that relate a little bit? Paul is a different citizen here than the people to whom Christ was actually giving this message in the Gospel of John.

So this is an incredible and unique experience. A man taken up to heaven and returns to tell about it with no details to follow. of the Lord. That's the way we'll leave that. Alright, let's turn to verse 5 then. Of such a one I will boast, yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities.

That's kind of, isn't that kind of schizophrenic? What's schizophrenia? Roger and I have talked about this, I think Randy was part of this conversation. If we showed up in an emergency room and we were involved in some kind of activity which was deemed, you know, you're a Christian, well I have two personalities. I have this new man in Christ Jesus and I have this old man in the flesh. OK, could we get a psychiatrist to come down to see this gentleman, this young lady here in the emergency department? I mean, this looks schizophrenic to me. All right.

Of such one I will boast yet of myself I'll not boast. What irony, assuming Paul is the one in which he's going to be boasting about. I mean, it doesn't make sense, does it? But yet, I think Paul is positionally capable of allowing his condition now to reflect his position. I'm going to boast, but... Don't you think it's boasting about his position? Well, how's this for the new life in Christ Jesus, right? Beyond his condition, he can't boast. But his position is what he's boasting about. And that's what we should boast about, too. And that's my interpretation. How's this for the new life in Christ Jesus? How are we doing boasting about our infirmities, right? I've recently been in that position.

2 Corinthians 12.6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will speak the truth, but I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me. Wow, a lot of verbiage here. Does Paul really want to boast? I think it's going along to the next stage, and that is almost like a repetition of some post-modern idiot who came up with a cute song that he wanted to make in a different context.

It ain't me, babe. It ain't me. It ain't me, babe. Who did It Ain't Me, Babe? Sonny and Cher. Good. OK, back to the lesson now. Just a brief detail. Just making it not necessarily the message behind it, but the emphasis that it's just not all about me. Period. OK, good. But who was that comedian that did the same thing? Roger Dangerfield.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, Though is better translated, by the way, by the participle if.

Let's go back and look for if I might desire to boast. And though is probably not the best best participle here. It's for if I might the conditional if I might desire to boast. not be a fool. I will speak the truth. So in other words, put that conditional participle if in there rather than though and I think it makes more sense.

And if he did boast, would he really be foolish if he's speaking the truth? No. He wouldn't be a fool if he's speaking the truth. So if I did boast, the truth still reigns here. So I don't want to be a fool, but if I were speaking the truth, then I wouldn't be a fool, but I'm not going to go there because of the perception related to this. So what's the risk of this boasting from which he refrains?

What's the risk? It'll be just like the people that are opposing him. I can do one more than you can do. It's about that constant battle. He's fueling the fire, isn't he, to be criticized for being looking like he's better than somebody else. And I think that's what he wants to avoid. So if, by the way, I did do this, this is the risk that I'm going to avoid at this time. So is Paul concerned about his reputation in the world? Or his reputation within the body of Christ? What do you think? Gary?

Could it be the view from those outside the body too? I'm sure that any time those letters go out, it's not just somehow information that is sequestered and they say, somebody's ears only. Somebody's, just like what you might say, eyes only or ears only, but don't repeat it.

Yeah, I think Paul knew what the world experience was all about. I'm going to agree that this is the body that he's concerned about, but I think all of us live in a world system, don't we? And this could be perceived adversely by the tent makers of the world. I'm just throwing that out. Anyway, so good.

So clearly he wants to avoid being perceived as were the Pharisees. John 12, 43, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. So he wants to avoid being put into that position that he was once in as a Pharisee. Okay, verse 7, and to keep me from being too elated or exalted by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given to me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, notice, a messenger of Satan, to harass me and to keep me from being too elated. Wow. Now that sounds, anyway, we'll get to this, I don't want to jump ahead, because I have some sense that I never had in this text before, ever, until Roger gave me this text.

Do you think this thorn occurred before his visit to the third heaven, from whence the revelations came? Is this something Paul had experienced before the third heaven experience? What do you think, Tom? At the instant of his conversion, and he had his first vision of the heavenlies. It was kind of like God was giving him some sort of indication in the flesh.

He didn't go into detail. He was just to listen, don't tell, you're still in student mode. Did you answer the question? So you're saying that you think, yes, after he was converted that this thorn... No, he wasn't immediately told to go right ahead and evangelize. No, this was a learning curve that he was new to. He had to get acquainted with what the new deal was just when he was freshly converted. When he was freshly converted. So you think that this is the thorn that's talked about here in 2 Corinthians 12?

This may be a precursor to the full-blown one and he knew there may be more to follow. I would suspect that he knew that in some form or another God wants this kept quiet until he's saying now, ready to tell about it. My way, not your way. There's a hand in the back of the room. Let's see what Gary has.

Well, Chet McCullough's point on that was that Paul experienced pain every day of his life. Because the thorn in the flesh, that's present tense. So his point was that all the way through his life, he experienced pain. Thorn in the flesh was there consistently. It wasn't just at this time, it was before this. OK, that's one position I'd like to argue against that position. Yeah, Roger.

Well, actually, if you read the American Standard, if you read it, it seems like it would back up what you know. And because of the surpassing greatness of the revelation, it seems like it's directly connected to the revelation. I don't know. It's just reading verse seven.

OK, so let's keep our minds open here that this is something that occurred immediately after his conversion, that he had many lessons to learn and that this was something that was Paul. And what Gary, I think, is indicating that this is some physical issue. And I'm going to take question about that, too. So that's what we're all about here. Let's discuss this and see. We're looking for the truth of the word of God as to what this thorn really is. Good. I think I have the class poised to continue this on. OK.

Noticing the purpose that this messenger of Satan followed, OK? So what's the purpose? It was to harass him and to keep him from being too elated. Now what Roger just said is he became really potentially elated and exalted by the experience in the third heaven. So let's keep that in mind here. Notice the source of the messenger is to harass or to buffet Paul. Now harass could be physical, but it may not be.

And I want to just keep on... I've always thought this was physical. Was this vision? Was this, you know, a bad knee? Anyway, my right one's corrected, but my left one's... Anyway, never mind. So it suggests that the thorn is something that shames him. Now, would we be shamed? I mean I've had type 1 diabetes my whole life. Am I shamed by that? No. Praise the Lord, he's kept me alive this long. I mean, I'm really, you know, I'm uplifted and exalted by my infirmity to the extent that he's given me a life of 65 years with this disease. So, I should be dead now according to the statistics.

This isn't about me now, but I'm just using that as an example of something physical. Does something physical change you? It could. There are certain physical disabilities that are shameful in nature. By the way, not shameful to the Lord, but shameful to the perceptionist. Think of this. Just think of it out loud. What might be some of these physical disabilities that could be shameful? You are married and you are impotent. I wasn't going to go there, but that could be one thing.

How about cerebral palsy? Have you seen children with CP? Their brain is perfectly normal, but their ability, based on their motor disability, to carry out things. Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. I don't look, as a doctor maybe now, I don't look at these as shameful in any sense, but some people might. Other examples? I'm sorry, do you have a leg that's... Oh, an amputation, okay. You know, in a sense that hits home.

The recent vice-chancellor for research for the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, now this isn't just the School of Medicine, this is the entire campus, nursing, pharmacy, the graduate school, dentistry, he had type 1 diabetes much of his life.

And what I just learned just yesterday, was that his unwillingness to have an amputation may have been in fact what led him to his ultimate demise. He died a month ago because he went to China, I think as part of his extended job description, came back with an infected foot. Now his infected foot did not heal because he had poor blood supply to his leg and because he refused to be, now refused, I didn't witness this, this is second hand, but my understanding is refusal to have an amputation before which may have prevented an infection that became deadly because he didn't have enough blood supply to be healed. He had his amputation too late and died within a week of his amputation. So back to that, good point. I mean that just hits home to me personally in relationship to just physical illnesses.

To him maybe, and I can't put my mind in Dick Treisman's mind, but to some extent that might have been shameful to have an amputation. Of course it had its physical limitations. You know, to have an amputation really changes your life, doesn't it? So other thoughts about how a physical thorn could be shameful?

Some deformity with speech or looks or whatever, that can be shameful. And that could be related to psychiatric or mental illnesses too, couldn't it? To bring shame. Depression or schizophrenia or addictive disorders. These are shameful kinds of things. So the idea to think that physical ailments or thorns could be shameful is perfectly appropriate. But shaming Paul, I kind of maybe think that Paul might have been above this spiritually and not thought of a physical thorn to be shameful.

Keep that theme in mind as we go forward here. Although this thorn is perceived by most expositors as physical, and I would claim that most of us have been there, and I was until yesterday or the day before when I was working on the lesson. Could it have been spiritual? And I think it was, and I'll try to defend that. Tom? I'll use some of your evidence ahead of you, excuse me, but I'll be brief. Have you looked at the handout? No. Oh, okay. All right. Go ahead.

It's clear that the words, an angel of Satan will come up later. And that has been mentioned. We can set it aside, but there is an indication in it that this is more than just a physical infirmity and that God actually directed Satan to hinder him all in some unspecified way. Alright, and what's the Old Testament analogy of this?

Job. Job, and we'll go on there too. Alright, good. And by the way, the commentators here are all over the map. They really are. And you know, I just am not going to quote him and her and him. Anyway, they're all over the map of this. Whatever. This is the only New Testament use. And by the way, the term means something sharp and prickly, which would tend to be interpreted, wouldn't it be a physical issue, not something spiritual? All right.

Keep that in mind. But like Job, okay back to Job. Job 2, 6 and 7, we could go back to Job and read the whole book. But anyway, and the Lord said to Satan, behold, and Tom this is getting to the point you just made, behold, He is in your power. Only spare his life. He's talking to Satan now. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord and afflicted Job with loathsome sores from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head.

So a perfect kind of application of this thorn is something physical. But if it's something physical, what the heck is it? Has the Lord ever revealed to us what this thorn is? Let me contend that it may not have been physical. But doesn't being elated or exalted suggest something spiritual? And as Roger indicated, this was the timing of this. I think this thorn was not given until he had visions and revelations in the third heaven. So what would be the response?

Let's say, Jack, President Trump has called you to the White House and he'd like to inform you about something very special. You can't tell anybody about it now. But he's told you something very special. How are you going to leave the White House with this new information?

Are you going to be physically harmed by this? You could be, I guess. Never mind. I'm not going there about the world view of President Trump. But nevertheless, how would you feel if the president called you to the White House and had special information for you? Oh, just be quiet about it.

Well, that's the new man in Christ Jesus that Paul's reflecting here. No, I think, wouldn't we from an earthly experience be uplifted by this and elated? Puffed up. Yeah, puffed up. Okay, all right. Keep that in mind as we think of this thorn. Well, could Paul's spiritual thorn have been his pride? And don't you see that reflected repeatedly in Paul in terms of the last several chapters? He's been struggling with it all along. Thank you, Roger.

I really think that the thorn that was the messenger of Satan was Paul's pride and not something physical. Now that may be wrong because again if you interpret the term thorn we all think oh goodness how many people have worked in rose bushes before? Or in weeds that are filled with thorns. When Margaret and I walk around our property, particular areas, if we walk around there, you get thorns. And that's prickly. One thing that made Paul's ministry totally unique was he did not have the same kind of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord that the everyday Christian has. It was suddenly, boom, there it is, in full force almost. And he had to get past that because up to that point he was a dead ringer to become a braggamonist. A braggamonist? Would someone Google that in terms of Miriam Webster or Oxford here? A braggamonist? Let's continue here. Alright.

In verse 8 now, look at this now. Three times Paul besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me. How about, think about your own, I mean, I'm going to be personal. I mean, Lord, get anything that's vain or prideful out of my life. And I'm dealing with this now in one area. I mean, it's just, please take this away from me. this earthly kind of scenario that exists within me. Take it away.

Make me a new man in Christ Jesus. And in context, by the way, this is not God Almighty here. Paul's communicating with the Lord Jesus Christ here. That's somebody who's taught him and he's trying to make that life more manifest in himself. So whether physical or spiritual, whichever, can we, each one of us, relate to this? I think we can. Price has implications. This was kind of fun for me.

To the Jew, three was a sacred number. And let's all turn to all these verses now and look at these. No, we're not going to do that. So if you go back in Old Testament scripts, you're going to find multiple examples where three is kind of a sacred term to the Jewish community. And by the way, remember, Paul was a Jew of the utmost, wasn't he? All right. How about Christ in Gethsemane?

Let's do turn to Matthew 26, 39-44. Gary, I'm going to ask you to read that for me please. Matthew 26, 39-44. And he went and looked beyond him, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it is Also let this cup pass from me, yet not as I will, but as you will. And he came to the disciples, and he found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, so you men could not keep watch with me for one hour, keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation, the bird's willing, but the flesh is weak. How far?

44. He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, My father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, it will be done. And again, he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. And he left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. How about that? Isn't that neat to see Paul through three times asking the Lord to take this away, identifying himself with the Lord Jesus Christ. Three times Christ prayed that the cup would be taken away.

And was it? No. Did Paul's thorn get taken away? No, and whatever this thorn is, whether it be physical, and I believe it's spiritual, and it's his pride, that ultimately that was something he continued to struggle with until his ultimate death. Okay, just a hypothesis, but keep that in mind.

And how about the church in terms of three? God the Father? God the Son and God the Holy Spirit is really the gospel, is it not? I mean, in terms of everything that the gospel relates. So, think about that, too. And Christ and Paul received answers after the third request. No. The Lord said no to Christ. And the Lord has said no to Paul. Okay, verse 9.

And he said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness, therefore most gladly I would rather boast in my infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Think about the crucifixion. Think about the crucifixion in terms of the power of the Lord existing in that space at the time that Christ ultimately, God God's perfect nature within him, fully God, fully man, was taken away from him and all that power was removed.

So, that was for a purpose that is incredibly meaningful, isn't it, for us today. And he said it to me, perfect active indicative. God said, in the perfect tense, something that sustains, and God himself is saying this, is this is factual, that no, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. That's the reason. So stated factually, once by God or Christ, with sustaining applications, my grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Is made perfect is present passive indicative. That means that's made now, and it's passive. It's nothing you're gonna do here. It's something I'm factually gonna do in you.

So how do we respond to this? We respond by faith, don't we? Romans 5.2, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace, meaning Christ, in which we stand and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. So that's just one of many verses that this principle of grace is extended to all of us 24-7 until we're out of here. And how do we respond to that great grace?

By faith. So Paul was called on to boast in his infirmities, to really witness to the fact that the power of Christ is gonna be there and rest upon him as it does for us. Now again, this issue that I've been dealing with here is a verse that reminds me that we're all in this circumstance as I am now and we are each and every day. It's made complete by him now and for certain. So how often do we relate to this incredible statement? How about day in and day out?

But is our response, Paul's, therefore most gladly I will boast in our infirmities that the power of Christ may rest upon us? No. Why not? Why don't we boast in our infirmities? Why? Because we're thought to be some kind of a lesser person, aren't we? And the world system measures us by that, don't they? They don't measure us by any other issue. So describe our infirmities or weakness. By the way, these infirmities and weaknesses in the Greek mean strengthlessness. That's almost like the word you use. Tom, what was that word again you used? PRN as often as needed. No, the word you used five minutes ago, what word was that? Fragamonious? Fragamonious? It ended in a T. Fragamonious. Fragamonious.

OK, so this is strengthlessness. By the way, when I went to the by the way, strengthlessness, my computer didn't recognize as a word. So. So, Randy, you'll be proud of me. I added that to my dictionary on my computer's dictionaries. Thank you. Strengthlessness is now in my dictionary. That is, that will never be in my dictionary. Tom, I'm sorry. OK, so again, I'm just going to kind of relate back to a point I've made before.

Could this be, you know, corruptions or sins or sinfulness as this kind of thorn? I think it could be for sure. So even so, we can boast about the power of Christ within us. By the way, whether this is a thorn in the flesh, as something physical, or if it's something spiritual, that's something we can brag about. Why? Because it's the power of Christ that can rest within us. So that's it. We can brag about our weaknesses because of that. And God gets the glory, not us. may rest, subjunctive. That means it may or may not rest. Why is that a subjunctive tense? Because are we entering into that space? Well, we may not be. And when we're not, we're burdened by it, aren't we?

Final verse for this morning. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches and in needs, in persecutions and in distresses, for whose sake? For Christ's sake. for when I'm weak, meaning strengthlessness, then I'm strong. I take pleasure is in present active indicative. Now, it's up to us to take pleasure in it and it's factual. I'm doing this right now.

Infirmities partly from Satan and by the way partly from us, right? These infirmities come from us ourselves or from Satan whether they be well physical here yes some but I think more so in terms of spiritual thorns that each and all of us have and I think in context that's a better interpretation. So how you doing here? How am I doing it here? Not good at times.

Another life yes Christ Jesus when I'm weak present active subjunctive I can be weak because I rely on my flesh or I may not be weak because I'm really relying on the truth of who I am in Christ Jesus. B, that we have an option. It sounds like a choice, but I think it's a life. I've always argued we have a choice to be in Christ or we have a choice not to be. When I try to intellectualize the fact, gee, my brain's telling me I need to be in Christ. By the way, boy, it doesn't work. It's a life by faith. Sometimes I'm not weak, meaning without strength, and sometimes I am.

So, what do you make of, for Christ's sake? Well, why does it say in Christ, rather than for Christ? Are we trying to be for Christ, that everything we do is for Christ? I think that falls short. I tried to look at other translations and it's always for Christ's sakes.

Well, how do we interpret that and apply that? I think it's very simple. It means in Christ, but it's for the sake of His glory. Okay? I don't mean to change scripture. It says for Christ, but I think what it implies is for his glory and that's what we're all about, of how we're here, that's certainly something he would remind us of, that everything we do is for God's glory. Wow, Roger, what 10 verses you've given me this week. I'm going to stop there, thoughts about everyone here. It might have been hard for you. It was. I enjoyed it and I'm trying to learn from it, yes. Not I, but Christ.

Philippians 1.21 For me to live is Christ and to die is gain. Alright, great. David? Christ uses trials in our life to help us to grow and be more like Him. That would be something that He was working in Paul's life.

I know He's had a lot of training and stuff, but He's still not there. Yeah, and the problem with that for our earthly existence is sometimes this may be a rough road to go in terms of the perception of who we are, isn't it? I mean, that's really something that can be a hard lesson at times, to really relish in these infirmities that come to our day-to-day experience. All right, Tom, close us in prayer, please.

Thank you, Heavenly Father, for giving us all this information and making it clear to us through your service. Doctor, Michael, Lord, it would be as if we received it directly from you because that's the only way it's going to work out. And we'll give you the glory for incorporating this in our lives moment by moment. In your glory, in Jesus' name, Amen. Thanks, Tom. And I'll just leave the class with this thought. Remember, this was a messenger of Satan to harass Paul. could have been physical. I'm not saying it's not. It could well have been spiritual. Satan harasses our spirit.