# Paul's "Thorn in the Flesh"



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 13, 2009)

The majority of interpreters look at this as referring to Paul's eyesight.

What do you think?


----------



## PresbyDane (Jan 13, 2009)

I think the Idea in the fact that Paul did not tell us himself was that we should not use time thinking about it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 13, 2009)




----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jan 13, 2009)

This has been addressed before:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/what-elusive-thorn-flesh-13882/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/pauls-thorn-flesh-37656/


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 13, 2009)

'I didn't know Paul picked blackberries!'

Quote from a six year old in a Bible study last year.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 13, 2009)

This crossed my mind today. So, is poor eyesight a "messenger of Satan"? If so, what does that imply about all physical disabilities and ailments? Is my elderly christian friend suffering debilitation at the hands of a messenger of Satan? What about my kid's cold?

I don't know, just seeking clarification. If we weren't supposed to use time thinking about it, why did the Holy Spirit cause Paul to mention it?


----------



## historyb (Jan 13, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The majority of interpreters look at this as referring to Paul's eyesight.
> 
> What do you think?



I heard once it was a disability of some sort


----------



## jambo (Jan 13, 2009)

It is mere speculation. Paul does not mention what the thorn was although scholars I have heard eyesight, epilepsy and even his wife! (Probably more tongue in cheek than serious theory). The important thing is not what it was but the purpose of the thorn which demonmstrated that God's grace was sufficient for Paul, for God's power was made perfect in weakness.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 14, 2009)

Well, I'm sure there are plenty of times where I am a thorn in my wife's side. I hope that doesn't make me a messenger of Satan....


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 14, 2009)

Personally, since the Scripture doesn't tell us I think any attempt to ID it is speculative. Many say Eyesight, a few say a battle with Lust, others have even proposed Malaria as a possibility.

I think it's left "ambiguous" purposely. It's not really important what his affliction was. It's important that God's grace was sufficient for it and God's strength was made perfect in Paul's weakness. Such a comfort to us all to know that the same grace and strength are sufficient and perfect for us.


----------



## kalawine (Jan 14, 2009)

I am in agreement with those who say it doesn't matter what it was. But if we're going to speculate, doesn't it stand to reason that because it was sent to keep him from being conceited, it must have been something that afflicted him in some way that was connected with his pride? I wouldn't argue over something that none of us really knows about. But his eye sight or his health seem unlikely to me.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 14, 2009)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Personally, since the Scripture doesn't tell us I think any attempt to ID it is speculative. Many say Eyesight, a few say a battle with Lust, others have even proposed Malaria as a possibility.
> 
> I think it's left "ambiguous" purposely. It's not really important what his affliction was. It's important that God's grace was sufficient for it and God's strength was made perfect in Paul's weakness. Such a comfort to us all to know that the same grace and strength are sufficient and perfect for us.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jan 15, 2009)

I heard it was homosexuality. Wish I was kidding.


----------



## Hippo (Jan 15, 2009)

SemperEruditio said:


> I heard it was homosexuality. Wish I was kidding.



That is the problem with speculating. It could have been anything (even that) but what we do know is that he battled against it, recognised his own sinful nature and longed to be free of it.


----------



## VictorBravo (Jan 15, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> 'I didn't know Paul picked blackberries!'
> 
> Quote from a six year old in a Bible study last year.



I was thinking the same thing, or maybe sandspurs.


----------



## Theognome (Jan 15, 2009)

This shouldn't be a controversy- HIPAA regulations demand that the attending physician retain full records, and since Luke was the doctor of the group, there should be a record somewhere.

Of course, privacy issues come about as well, so Luke made sure they were properly hidden from public view. Thus the only way to know what ailed Paul is to read Acts backwards.

Theognome


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jan 16, 2009)

Theognome said:


> This shouldn't be a controversy- HIPAA regulations demand that the attending physician retain full records, and since Luke was the doctor of the group, there should be a record somewhere.
> 
> Of course, privacy issues come about as well, so Luke made sure they were properly hidden from public view. Thus the only way to know what ailed Paul is to read Acts backwards.
> 
> Theognome


----------

