Paul writes that he knows a man in Christ who fourteen years before was "caught up to the third heaven" — whether in the body or out of the body he did not know, but God knew — and that this man was caught up into paradise "and heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter" (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 12:2–4).

Who is this man Paul has in mind, who was caught up to the third heaven? Tradition and just about every commentary I know say that Paul is speaking of himself, modestly, in the third person. Yet Paul refers to this "man" in the third person and draws a clear contrast with himself (2 Corinthians 12:5). Paul uses this man's experience alongside the revelations given to him, but I think it would be hasty simply to assume that Paul and the man in the illustration are the same person. I imagine commentators conclude this because they cannot assign such a remarkable experience to anyone else.

Now, while the traditional Pauline chronology may make this difficult, there was a man Paul knew who was caught up to the third heaven: Stephen. Paul was present at his stoning (Acts 7:58), and he heard Stephen speak of what he saw: "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing" at God's right hand (Acts 7:56).

Many have written about Paul's enduring remorse over his approval of Stephen's killing (Acts 8:1). He probably knew Stephen had been arrested on false charges (Acts 6:13–14), for although he was not yet a Christian, he was genuinely zealous for the Law. Like others who watched the trial, Paul would have seen that Stephen was innocent (Acts 6:15). Even so, he approved of his stoning.

Paul could boast about Stephen, but not about himself. In spite of being an apostle (2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Corinthians 15:8–9), to the end of his days he saw himself as the foremost of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15), for he had persecuted the church of God (1 Corinthians 15:9).

But Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5), full of grace and power (Acts 6:8). He saw the Lord. The Lord stood to receive him. Stephen pleaded for the Lord to forgive those who were killing him, including Paul (Acts 7:60), just as Jesus had done on the cross (Luke 23:34). Yet Paul had consented to his death.

No, Paul would not boast about anything except his weaknesses, for which he had received God's grace and forgiveness (2 Corinthians 12:5).

Friends, it is in awareness of the depth of our sins that we are kept from boasting. Even if we are given great privileges and blessings from the Lord, simply recalling the depravity from which we were saved should keep us humble and grateful. I do not know whether Paul had Stephen in mind or someone else, but in Paul I see a man humbly driven by a painful awareness of his sinfulness and an enduring gratitude for God's grace and forgiveness. Is this not all of us? Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ our Lord!

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment offers a creative proposal and marks it as speculation, which is the right way to handle it. Most interpreters understand the "man in Christ" to be Paul himself for several reasons: he introduces the account in the middle of a reluctant "boast" about his own credentials (11:16–12:1); he says, "so that I may not become conceited... a thorn was given me in the flesh" (12:7) — a statement that only makes sense if the revelations were his; and the fourteen-year interval fits his own timeline rather than Stephen's death. Stephen's vision in Acts 7 also differs in kind: he saw heaven opened while standing before the council, rather than being "caught up" into paradise.

Whatever the identity of the man, the comment's conclusion is Paul's own: he refused to boast in revelations and boasted instead in his weaknesses, "so that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (12:9). Paul's memory of his part in Stephen's death stayed with him — he recounts it in his own defense years later (Acts 22:20) — and it shaped his testimony that he was shown mercy "as an example to those who were to believe in him" (1 Timothy 1:16). The comment's point stands: awareness of what we have been forgiven is the surest cure for pride.

Paul says he will continue what he is doing in order to undermine the claim of those who want to be regarded as equal to him in what they boast about; "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ." So it is no surprise if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness; their end will correspond to their deeds (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 11:12–15).

Paul contrasts his ministry with that of the false "apostles." He had authenticated his ministry by apostolic signs, wonders, and mighty works (2 Corinthians 12:12). His character had been proven through all he suffered for the gospel (11:23–29). His motives were blameless, for he had received no compensation, financial or otherwise, from the Corinthian church for his ministry to them (11:7–11).

About two and a half years ago, I rebuked a pastor and some members for making, and allowing, confident predictions about a woman with stage-four lung cancer. They declared that God had told them she would be healed. At the time I told some friends that even if these prophecies proved false, people would forget they were ever made and move on as if nothing had happened. One friend said he would confront the leaders for their irresponsible claims if she died. I asked, "To what end? Will they apologize to the congregation?"

A couple of weeks ago I heard that this woman passed away. My heart goes out to her husband and children, who may have held on to the hope they were given that she would live for many more years. But as I suspected, no one seems to think anything of the predictions and assurances given two or three years ago. As far as I know, the pastor and leaders have not acknowledged anything.

Yet I feel that our Christian witness has been diminished a little by this event. This entry serves as a kind of record that these things happened.

Friends, since we are heralds of inerrant truth, the Word of God, let us not cling to false teaching or false prophecy. I do not presume that those who teach falsely or make such predictions have evil motives, for even Paul once attacked Christians because he sincerely believed he was serving God. Isaiah wrote that some would think the Servant was being punished by God for His own sins rather than for ours (Isaiah 53:4). Jesus foretold that some who killed His disciples would think they were offering service to God (John 16:2). People can do wrong things even with "good" motives. God will judge the motives of people's hearts (1 Corinthians 4:5).

But let us be wary of those who make false claims. Let us boldly correct, rebuke, and instruct. And let us also humble ourselves and welcome rebuke, correction, and instruction when we ourselves have spoken or acted wrongly. At least this much we ought to do, don't you think?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The account in this comment is painful, and it deserves to be read first with compassion for a family who lost a wife and mother. Grief is made heavier when it is accompanied by the disappointment of a promise that did not come true. Scripture's counsel for the bereaved does not depend on any prediction: "the Lord is near to the brokenhearted" (Psalm 34:18), and believers "do not grieve as others do who have no hope" (1 Thessalonians 4:13), because those who die in Christ will be raised.

The comment's concern about unfulfilled predictions reflects Scripture's own seriousness about speaking in God's name (Deuteronomy 18:20–22). Christians differ on whether prophetic gifts continue today (see #2002 and #2069), but across those views there is broad agreement that assuring a sick person of healing in God's name, when God has not promised it, can cause real harm, and that those who have spoken wrongly should acknowledge it. James 5:14–15 models a better pattern: elders pray for the sick with faith, and the outcome is left in God's hands. The comment's closing — that all of us, not only others, should welcome correction when we are wrong — is the right spirit in which to raise such concerns.

I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you; and when I was present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for when the brethren came from Macedonia they fully supplied my need, and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will continue to do so. As the truth of Christ is in me, this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia (2 Corinthians 11:8–10).

But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:12–13).

Paul contrasts his ministry with the ministry of false apostles that have come among the Corinthian believers. One of the things he highlights is that he has not taken any money from them. Instead, he relied on the wages given by other churches (i.e. perhaps the church in Philippi is in view, as these are the only ones Paul speaks of receiving any kind of material benefit).

It is fascinating that he uses such a harsh word, namely, "robbed". The Philippian church supported him voluntarily, but perhaps Paul says "robbed" because he took money from them to use in other ministries rather than for the Philippians. In other words, the Philippians got no immediate benefit from their gifts. The benefit went to the Corinthians.

Paul says that he did not want to burden the Corinthian church. What is more, he says that he will continue this practice of not seeking support from them. As he said in 1 Corinthians 9, this preaching of the gospel for free was his one boast that he would not let go (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:15; 2 Corinthians 11:10). The reason for this was to demonstrate the sincerity of his ministry over against the false apostles (cf. above in 2 Corinthians 11:12–13), who were simply taking advantage of the Corinthian church and deceiving them with a false gospel.

Friends, we live in a time when all sorts of people and groups make any number of claims to have the truth. They give themselves all kinds of authority to make extreme claims, asserting what they want to assert and denying what they want to deny without a shred of clear evidence. They conflate the truth of God's Word with myths, traditions and fables from other traditions, so that the absolute and authoritative truth of God's Word is lost in a mire of speculation, conjecture and sketchy histories and philosophies of men.

How can we stand against such a tide of deception, which is likely fueled by Satan? Thanks be to God for His elective grace and His sovereign providence, for we know that nothing can happen outside of God's perfect will. When we defend the truth and seek to persuade others, we do so without panic and simply to please Him, for we know that Christ has already won the victory for us, and we are secure in Him. If the Gospel that we preach is veiled, we know it is veiled to those who are perishing, because the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see the light of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Paul's method was to give the Gospel free of charge, so that he could never be charged with preaching the gospel for personal profit (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17; 1 Corinthians 9:12). In fact, he kept this same policy for his ministry to the Ephesians (cf. Acts 20:33–35) and the Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 3:7–9). By using this approach, he had a strong testimony against any number of "false apostles," using their spiritual platform for personal gain.

Friends, perhaps we ought to consider Paul's method, as well as his message. I wonder if the pure and unadulterated Gospel message we preach is not being tainted by the large sums of money being collected in our churches today. Am I being unrealistic to think that evangelical growth can happen without cathedral-like edifices, without state-of-the-art technology or without the most professionally-designed programs? Is the rapid progress of the gospel in certain Asian, African and Latin-American countries the result of these things or something else? It appears to me that church growth and genuine faith are being better fostered in the context of poverty than affluence. When people don't have shows to go to, don't they make more person-to-person connections? When they can't simply dump money into this or that production, aren't they more motivated to give their lives to one another?

I go to one of the most affluent churches in the world, and some people come forward to trust in Christ almost every week. Yet, this still translates to about 1% conversion growth in our congregation per year, and mainly through the messages of this one man. We just completed a $45 million giving campaign. This followed just a couple years after a $135 million giving campaign. And that was on the heels of a previous $10 million giving campaign. That seems to me a staggering amount of money. I suppose if you think of it on the priceless value of a soul, then spending a million dollars to gain one convert to Christ is cheap. I praise God for even this. But I feel that we can be better stewards.

My challenge to believers and ministers today is to consider Paul's method and the rationale he gives for his method. Is it possible for us to inspire outreach today without money? Could outreach be even greater and more genuine without it?

AI-Expanded Reflection

Paul’s refusal to receive support from Corinth belongs to a particular struggle over the credibility of his ministry (2 Corinthians 11:7–15). His opponents exploit appearances, and his decision removes one possible claim that he is using the Corinthians for gain. The startling language of robbing other churches is rhetorical: he receives support from elsewhere while serving Corinth. It should not be read as an admission of theft. His point is the asymmetry between those who give and those who presently benefit.

That asymmetry also displays the missionary character of generosity. A church’s gift need not return an immediate local benefit in order to be fruitful. Philippians 4:15–18 portrays support for Paul as partnership and an offering pleasing to God. The original’s observation that another community bore the cost can therefore become a positive account of shared mission, not merely an explanation of Paul’s dramatic vocabulary. Christian giving can extend care beyond the circle of those who directly fund it.

The example does not establish a universal rule against supporting gospel workers. First Corinthians 9 defends that right before explaining Paul’s voluntary renunciation of it in this setting. The distinction is crucial: surrendering a legitimate right for a particular purpose is not the same as declaring the right illegitimate for everyone. A paid minister may serve faithfully, and an unpaid minister may still seek status, influence, or control. Financial arrangements deserve scrutiny, but compensation alone cannot settle the moral character of a ministry.

The original’s questions about costly buildings and programs are nevertheless appropriate questions of stewardship. An institution can invest heavily in presentation while neglecting personal witness, care, or the formation of ordinary members. Yet conversion totals and campaign amounts are not sufficient by themselves to calculate a meaningful cost per saved soul. Expenditures may serve multiple purposes, reports may be incomplete, and spiritual outcomes cannot be reduced to a production ratio. The author’s dated figures should prompt examination rather than function as an audit or a conclusive judgment.

Likewise, poverty does not automatically produce authentic fellowship, nor does affluence make it impossible. Both circumstances bring temptations and opportunities. Communities with fewer resources may demonstrate remarkable mutual care; they may also need material assistance that wealthier believers can responsibly provide. The question is whether money serves the gospel and people or becomes the organizing purpose of the institution. Transparency, honest reporting, proportionate spending, and willingness to revise plans can make that question concrete.

Paul’s example finally asks what rights we might willingly set aside to remove an obstacle to another person hearing Christ. The answer may involve money, convenience, recognition, or the insistence that our preferred method must prevail. We should neither romanticize ministry without resources nor assume that greater spending guarantees greater faithfulness. The apostolic pattern joins a true message with a manner of service that refuses exploitation. Where that combination is present, financial decisions become part of the witness: they show that people are being loved and the gospel offered, rather than that religious interest has become another market from which a leader expects personal advantage.

Paul writes about his own weakness, and states that God's power is shown through it.

To keep him from becoming conceited he was given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment him. Three times he pleaded with the Lord to take it away. But the Lord told him that His grace was sufficient, for His power is made perfect in weakness. Therefore Paul says he will boast all the more gladly about his weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on him — and that for Christ's sake he delights in weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and difficulties, because when he is weak, then he is strong (a paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 12:7–10).

One of the comforts I have found in the Bible is that God often chose the weak and flawed to do His work — I was in good company. New Christians and unbelievers often focus on their limits, flaws, or past mistakes, which can keep them from serving God. It is similar to the unbeliever who refuses to come to church until he becomes a better person, not realizing that God is the catalyst for change. Our limits are no match for God's strength, and our sin is no match for His grace. One of the first steps to growth is to remain humble and depend on God's strength. If we are willing to say yes when God calls, He can use us.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The pastoral application is well aimed, and the observation about waiting to become better before approaching God identifies a real and common obstacle.

Worth noting what the passage does not do: it never says what the thorn was. Interpreters have proposed an eye condition, malaria, a speech impediment, persistent opposition, and more, and the text withholds the answer. That reticence is probably deliberate, and it is part of why the passage travels so well — a named affliction would have narrowed its application.

Note also that the prayer was not granted. Paul asked three times for removal and received an answer instead of a result. The passage is often read as an encouragement about strength in weakness, which it is, but it is first an account of an unanswered request from an apostle, which is worth remembering when the same thing happens to anyone else.

Friends, as we come to the close of Corinthians, do you sense as I do that Paul has given the Corinthians, even in this second letter, a lashing of sorts, with threats of more to come when he visits them again? That is certainly the sense I get in these final chapters of 2 Corinthians. Perhaps he has such boldness because he is the founder of the church at Corinth. Nevertheless, he is unafraid to bring strong rebuke to a generally "carnal" and factious church. It is wise to keep this in mind if anyone has an inkling to follow any of the practices uniquely associated with this church.

A few points from a couple of passages. First, we read in 2 Corinthians 11:18–21,

Seeing that many boast according to the flesh, I also will boast. For you put up with fools gladly, since you yourselves are wise! For you put up with it if one brings you into bondage, if one devours you, if one takes from you, if one exalts himself, if one strikes you on the face. To our shame I say that we were too weak for that! But in whatever anyone is bold—I speak foolishly—I am bold also.

One literary device that I dislike the most is sarcasm. It is defined as "the use of irony to mock or convey contempt" (Google Dictionary). I try my best never to be sarcastic with anyone, especially because I know how sensitive I am to it when it is used against me. I imagine Paul is pretty upset here to be speaking sarcastically to the Corinthian believers.

When he writes, "since you yourselves are wise," he is clearly using sarcasm. He is not commending their wisdom, by which they are gladly putting up with fools. Paul has found it necessary in these final chapters to defend himself against so-called "super apostles" (2 Corinthians 11:5 in the NIV). Unlike Paul and his group, these teachers have taken advantage of the Corinthians in taking money from them, treating them like their slaves, and even abusing them with harsh treatment. He writes, "To our shame I say that we were too weak for that!" (i.e. We're too "weak" to treat you harshly). Again, more sarcasm.

But Paul warns, these self-exalting apostles are "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul compares their deception to that of Satan: "And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14). Paul is warning them not to judge by false appearances.

In 2 Corinthians 12:11–13 Paul continues his defense:

I have become a fool in boasting; you have compelled me. For I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!

Paul writes something interesting here. He refers to "the signs of an apostle." Were these just simply miracles and healings, or wonders unique to the apostles. In the Book of Acts, there were other Christians that performed miracles apart from the apostles (e.g. Philip and Stephen in Acts 8:6–7 and 6:8, although these had direct contact and were conferred with authority by an apostle); however, an apostle was directly required for the baptism of the Holy Spirit and tongues-speaking (see Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19). Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:4–5,

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

It was this kind of power that Simon the converted magician tried to buy from Peter, and he received a scathing rebuke from Peter:

When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit. Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! " (Acts 8:18–20).

As far as the Book of Acts is concerned, only the apostles, and Paul, who was also called to be an apostle (1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 15:7–9, where Paul said that he is the least of the apostles, but was made so by God's will as one "abnormally born" to it.) could exercise this power. Now, I have argued elsewhere that this original baptism of the Holy Spirit by the apostles had a unique purpose that was fulfilled in the first century, namely, of bringing several disparate groups (Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, "disciples of John the Baptist") into one body.

For what purpose do I mention these things? First, to argue against those that think they can confer the "baptism by the Holy Spirit" today as the apostles did in Acts. If anyone could be an apostle, even in Paul's day, he would not have much of a defense. If anyone could be an apostle, then people like Philip were left out in the cold. No, dear friends, the apostles were a unique group given by God in the founding of the church (Ephesians 2:19–20). There are no more "apostles" today. Those that claim it would then need to be seen as false apostles, for they are conferring upon themselves something that God has not given.

Furthermore, the baptism of the Spirit has been accomplished by God, and we are all partakers of it when we are saved (1 Corinthians 12:13). And while I am still studying this point, I think the water baptism, which was practiced even alongside the Spirit baptism conferred by the apostles, may have been just the physical reflection of what was accomplished in the baptism by the Spirit (i.e. the incorporation of different groups into the Body of Christ), namely, the incorporation of the individual into the Body of Christ. Therefore, when we get baptized in water, we are giving testimony not only to our faith but to our inclusion into the one body of Christ.

Just as an aside, did you notice another of Paul's sarcastic remarks in 2 Corinthians 12:13?

For what is it in which you were inferior to other churches, except that I myself was not burdensome to you? Forgive me this wrong!

Ouch! Not only was Paul not inferior to the so-called "super-apostles," the Corinthian church was not an inferior church because he ministered to them, except perhaps he chose not to burden them -- "Forgive me this wrong!" Can you see the dripping sarcasm? Forgive me for not taking your money. Forgive me for not making you serve me hand and foot. Forgive me for not putting you in your place. Forgive me for treating you well.

Dear friends, as I mentioned before, if you close your eyes to Paul's irony and sarcasm, which are everywhere in these letters, then you will be just as "ignorant" as the Corinthians and fail to understand Paul's point. I believe 500 million people, who claim the Name of Christ today, are blind or have been blinded to this truth.

Sadly, I was one of them for a good part of my Christian walk. Sometimes, when I pray, I ask the Lord, why does a person have to read the Bible for so long and study so hard before they can see this? Or should I have been able to see this from the start? Why were the majority of Jews, especially their leaders, who were so zealous for God, so blind to the truth of faith throughout the generations of their existence? Oh Lord, open blind eyes, and help us to see the truth in Your Word by your Holy Spirit.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Paul’s sarcasm in 2 Corinthians 11–12 exposes a distorted judgment about strength. The Corinthians tolerate people who exploit and dominate them, yet question the apostle who has refused to burden them. His ironic apology for that refusal makes their standards visible. The argument is not that contempt is a normal pastoral tone. It is a painful intervention aimed at a community apparently impressed by the very conduct that harms it.

The original rightly notices that authority cannot be evaluated by appearances alone. In the surrounding chapters, Paul identifies suffering, endurance, weakness, and concern for the churches as marks of his service. The signs mentioned in 12:12 belong within that larger account. Miracles are not presented as a replacement for character or the truth of the message. Nor does the verse specify one exclusive miracle that no non-apostle could perform. Stephen and Philip also performed signs, as Acts 6:8 and 8:6–7 show. The precise relationship between apostolic recognition and particular manifestations therefore requires a broader argument.

The account of the Spirit’s reception in Acts likewise should not be turned into a mechanism under human control. In Cornelius’s house the Spirit falls while Peter is speaking, without a recorded laying on of hands. Apostolic presence serves an important witnessing role in the narrative, but God remains the giver. The foundational character of the apostles in Ephesians 2:20 supports distinguishing their role from ordinary later ministry. The New Testament also uses the underlying word for commissioned messengers in a broader sense, so a contemporary use of the title should be examined for the authority claimed rather than judged only by the English label.

The discussion of water baptism offers a fruitful insight: it publicly concerns belonging to Christ and his people, not merely an isolated private experience. But traditions differ over its precise relation to incorporation, confession, and the Spirit’s work. The author appropriately presents part of his conclusion as still under study. That openness is preferable to building a complete sacramental account from an analogy alone.

The pastoral test remains concrete. Does a leader welcome examination, refuse manipulation, and use authority to build others up? Or does spiritual language mask domination and financial advantage? Paul’s vulnerability and patient service are indispensable to the answer. His severe rhetoric should never become an excuse for a modern leader to humiliate dissenters. Indeed, the passage equips believers to question leaders whose demand for recognition bears little resemblance to the costly care that Paul’s irony is defending.

Consider the sobering command in 2 Corinthians 13:5 — test yourselves to see if you're in the faith, examine yourselves, and recognize that Christ is in you, unless you actually fail the test (a paraphrase). Are you trusting Christ alone for your salvation? Does your life's focus reflect Him as Lord? Have you repented of your sins, and are you diligently pursuing the fruit of the Spirit (cf. 2 Peter 1:5–9; Galatians 5:22–25)? Just as Paul urges here, Peter similarly urges believers to make every effort to confirm their calling and election (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:10).

Do you realize God has already given you everything you need to do what He desires? His divine power has provided everything necessary for a godly life through knowing Him, who called us by His own glory and goodness — giving us, through these, His great and precious promises, so that through them we might share in His divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:3–4).

What has He given us that's most sufficient and most reliable of all? Scripture itself (cf. 2 Peter 1:12–21) — most reliable because no prophecy of Scripture ever originated from a prophet's own private interpretation (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:20). As Paul also writes, all Scripture is God-breathed, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, thoroughly equipping God's people for every good work (a paraphrase of 2 Timothy 3:16–17).

So you don't need to chase miracles, "spiritual" experiences, prophecies, or revivals. Simply immerse yourself in God's Word, and the Holy Spirit living within you will use it to transform you, from glory to glory, into Christ's own image (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The self-examination this passage calls for isn't presented anywhere in Scripture as a one-time checklist to complete and file away — Paul frames it as an ongoing practice ("examine yourselves," present tense), and the very fact that Christians throughout history have continued returning to this exact verse for self-assessment suggests it was never meant to produce a permanent, settled verdict on a single occasion. That fits naturally with this comment's own emphasis on Scripture as the lifelong tool for that examination — not a test taken once, but a mirror meant to be looked into repeatedly, for as long as the growth "from glory to glory" it describes continues.