What Was Paul's Thorn in the Flesh?

[Ed Walsh]

I am aware that there is no definitive answer to this question, but I searched the forum for the past three years and found little on this mystery. So I am asking for some ideas about Paul's thorn.

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.​

We read that Paul was favored beyond perhaps anyone else in the Bible with great and many 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (2 Cor. 12:1). So rich was at least one experience that he never knew whether or not he was actually transported to the 'third heaven' or 'paradise,' (vs 2) where he 'heard unspeakable words.' (vs 4) So, to keep him from 'becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given' him to keep him humble. We are also told that this 'thorn' was 'a messenger of Satan.'

Any ideas what this thorn may have been? And how Satan could have been involved?

Thanks.

 

[scottmaciver]

I suppose any answer on this is going to be speculative, rather than definitive as you say. However, one suggestion is that he had a visual impairment, based upon the following texts.

"For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me." (Galatians 4:15)

"See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand." (Galatians 6:11)

 

[Pergamum]

I think he had an eye condition, maybe starting during his experience at the Damascus Road and subsequent temporary blindness.

 

[earl40]

I have heard the eye problem many times also in the past. A follow up question from me would be....Could this thorn be some type of besetting sin that remained in his flesh? Personally I tend to think this may well be the possible probable answer.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Personally I tend to think this may well be the possible probable answer.

A friend of mine thinks it was the Jews constant harassment of him.

 

[py3ak]

I once heard it suggested that it was Paul's wife, but I no longer recall who made that suggestion. Of all the possibilities, that one seems among the least likely.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Many years ago (so I don't know if he still thinks this) I heard JMA give his view--and it is still the one I like best--

That "flesh" here is more of the metaphorical sense, not a physical problem but a matter or issue that tempts Paul to a "fleshy" response or reaction; and so he must battle it constantly in the spirit, or with the Spirit.

And that matter is seeing the Corinthian church--with all its gifts and promise--riven with major problems and defections. It is seeing many congregations planted by Paul (oh him, the "great" Apostle to the Gentiles!) struggling, suffering, weakly progressing, withering, subverted by the Judaizers, led astray, etc.

Name one church we know he planted, or one that he wrote to, that was "successful" by major earthly metrics. I don't think you will find one, or I can find some significant problem there wherever you name.

Why would God let the church in Corinth--his church--be attacked and filled with so many problems? Did he want them to fail? Did he want Paul to fail, and spectacularly? Were the Judaizers right? Was the mission to the Gentiles a huge distraction, and was the real focus and energy of Christianity supposed to be in Jerusalem, winning back Judaism and the Temple to Christ?

Would God permit, even ordain suffering for someone, for many someones, even a whole church for some greater good? How about the fact that Paul wrote two tremendous letters to Corinth. And a whole packet of letters now collected to many churches from Galatia to Rome. Paul's grand missionary enterprise is no shining success story, precisely because the church in the 21st century (and all the time in between) needs his letters.

So yes, God appoints suffering and failure, not only of the body but the spirit as well, in order to obtain higher goods. And he will not let that suffering be for nothing, but will make the end worth every drop of blood or tears.

 

[ZackF]

Many years ago (so I don't know if he still thinks this) I heard JMA give his view--and it is still the one I like best--

That "flesh" here is more of the metaphorical sense, not a physical problem but a matter or issue that tempts Paul to a "fleshy" response or reaction; and so he must battle it constantly in the spirit, or with the Spirit.

And that matter is seeing the Corinthian church--with all its gifts and promise--riven with major problems and defections. It is seeing many congregations planted by Paul (oh him, the "great" Apostle to the Gentiles!) struggling, suffering, weakly progressing, withering, subverted by the Judaizers, led astray, etc.

Name one church we know he planted, or one that he wrote to, that was "successful" by major earthly metrics. I don't think you will find one, or I can find some significant problem there wherever you name.

Why would God let the church in Corinth--his church--be attacked and filled with so many problems? Did he want them to fail? Did he want Paul to fail, and spectacularly? Were the Judaizers right? Was the mission to the Gentiles a huge distraction, and was the real focus and energy of Christianity supposed to be in Jerusalem, winning back Judaism and the Temple to Christ?

Would God permit, even ordain suffering for someone, for many someones, even a whole church for some greater good? How about the fact that Paul wrote two tremendous letters to Corinth. And a whole packet of letters now collected to many churches from Galatia to Rome. Paul's grand missionary enterprise is no shining success story, precisely because the church in the 21st century (and all the time in between) needs his letters.

So yes, God appoints suffering and failure, not only of the body but the spirit as well, in order to obtain higher goods. And he will mot let that suffering be for nothing, but will make the end worth every drop of blood or tears.

That description more applies to thorns rather than a thorn.

I figure it is pharasaical baggage that he has to continue to deal with in his ‘body of death.’

 

[Dachaser]

I am aware that there is no definitive answer to this question, but I searched the forum for the past three years and found little on this mystery. So I am asking for some ideas about Paul's thorn.

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.​

We read that Paul was favored beyond perhaps anyone else in the Bible with great and many 'visions and revelations of the Lord' (2 Cor. 12:1). So rich was at least one experience that he never knew whether or not he was actually transported to the 'third heaven' or 'paradise,' (vs 2) where he 'heard unspeakable words.' (vs 4) So, to keep him from 'becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, a thorn was given' him to keep him humble. We are also told that this 'thorn' was 'a messenger of Satan.'

Any ideas what this thorn may have been? And how Satan could have been involved?

Thanks.

There have been 2 main viewpoints. One would be that Paul suffered from some kind of severe eye disease, or that His thorn were those judaizers that keep following him around and saying that he was not a real Apostle, and that His Gospel was not the true one.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

I have seen fairly persuasive arguments put forward for both malarial complications, and eye disease.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

In a sense, I almost have a greater comfort in not knowing. If known, I wouldn't want to be tempted to compare my thorns in the flesh to a greater degree. I think us not knowing is a blessing, as we find God's sufficient grace through any and all thorns we must bear.

 

[ZackF]

In a sense, I almost have a greater comfort in not knowing. If known, I wouldn't want to be tempted to compare my thorns in the flesh to a greater degree. I think us not knowing is a blessing, as we find God's sufficient grace through any and all thorns we must bear.

Yep. I don’t think we are supposed to know. Each Christian has his own thorns and crosses.

 

[Von]

I would throw my weight behind a spiritual thorn. Both sin and the problems with the gentile churches (as mentioned by Rev Buchanan above) seem to fit the part. I mean, would there really have been a physical thorn that would've kept Paul from not becoming proud? Look at his CV that he mentions just before this:
"...far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death...forty lashes less one...beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea..."
(2 Corinthians 11:23-25)

And he boasts about this. He continues boasting about the revelations he received. Now when he boasts about revelations and physical pain/persecution, I find it hard to believe that a physical condition was his thorn.

 

[scottmaciver]

Many years ago (so I don't know if he still thinks this) I heard JMA give his view--and it is still the one I like best--

That "flesh" here is more of the metaphorical sense, not a physical problem but a matter or issue that tempts Paul to a "fleshy" response or reaction; and so he must battle it constantly in the spirit, or with the Spirit.

And that matter is seeing the Corinthian church--with all its gifts and promise--riven with major problems and defections. It is seeing many congregations planted by Paul (oh him, the "great" Apostle to the Gentiles!) struggling, suffering, weakly progressing, withering, subverted by the Judaizers, led astray, etc.

Name one church we know he planted, or one that he wrote to, that was "successful" by major earthly metrics. I don't think you will find one, or I can find some significant problem there wherever you name.

Why would God let the church in Corinth--his church--be attacked and filled with so many problems? Did he want them to fail? Did he want Paul to fail, and spectacularly? Were the Judaizers right? Was the mission to the Gentiles a huge distraction, and was the real focus and energy of Christianity supposed to be in Jerusalem, winning back Judaism and the Temple to Christ?

Would God permit, even ordain suffering for someone, for many someones, even a whole church for some greater good? How about the fact that Paul wrote two tremendous letters to Corinth. And a whole packet of letters now collected to many churches from Galatia to Rome. Paul's grand missionary enterprise is no shining success story, precisely because the church in the 21st century (and all the time in between) needs his letters.

So yes, God appoints suffering and failure, not only of the body but the spirit as well, in order to obtain higher goods. And he will mot let that suffering be for nothing, but will make the end worth every drop of blood or tears.

Apologies for my ignorance, but who is JMA? I'm guessing I should know this!

 

[Berean]

who is JMA?

John MacArthur.

 

[lynnie]

If it was a messenger of Satan, and good angels are messengers from God. I would think it was a fallen angel. Direct buffetings by an evil spirit. Not sure how that would look like physically or mentally, but an all out war against him personally that kept him very humbly dependent on God's grace.

 

[TylerRay]

The full section sheds some light, and at least rules out certain possibilities:

7And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

The principle regarding his thorn is expanded to include all infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses. He "glories" in these, and "takes pleasure" in them. That being the case, I think we can definitely rule out the idea that it's a besetting sin. Paul doesn't glory or take delight in his besetting sin, or his inclination to sin. He mourns over it.

It's impossible to know just what thorn Paul had in mind in verses 7-9a; however, we know that the same principle applies to all trials, which are discussed in 9b-10. So, even though we don't know just what Paul's thorn is, we do know that it can be compared to all of our afflictions. It may be that that is the reason we aren't told what his thorn is. If he mentioned his eyesight, or a demon, someone might say, "well, I don't have an affliction like that..." but since he uses a general term for his specific trial, and then applies his principles to trials in general, we can take comfort and say, "I have a thorn in the flesh like Paul's, and God's grace is sufficient for me. I will therefore glory in my afflictions, that the power of Christ may rest upon me!"

 

[Dachaser]

If it was a messenger of Satan, and good angels are messengers from God. I would think it was a fallen angel. Direct buffetings by an evil spirit. Not sure how that would look like physically or mentally, but an all out war against him personally that kept him very humbly dependent on God's grace.

Some see the messenger of Satan as a literal demon attacking Paul, or else Satan stirring up all of the time those Judaizers to fight against Paul and His teaching.

 

[earl40]

Some see the messenger of Satan as a literal demon attacking Paul, or else Satan stirring up all of the time those Judaizers to fight against Paul and His teaching.

Alexander the coppersmith.