Paul's Thorn in the Flesh

[TimothyH]

Remember that Paul highly advanced in his study and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Remember also that he was a Pharisee, a strict separationist who prior to his conversion would never have associated with Gentiles.

*But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55)

know assuredly that the LORD your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. (Joshua 23:13)
**
But godless men are all like thorns** that are thrown away;
for they cannot be taken with the hand;
(2 Samuel 23:6)*

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

-Tim-

 

[SonOfMan]

Remember that Paul highly advanced in his study and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Remember also that he was a Pharisee, a strict separationist who prior to his conversion would never have associated with Gentiles.

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55)

know assuredly that the LORD your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. (Joshua 23:13)
**
But godless men are all like thorns** that are thrown away;
for they cannot be taken with the hand;
(2 Samuel 23:6)

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

-Tim-

I think the thorn in Paul’s flesh was lust and sexual temptation. The use of the word “flesh” suggests so, as in “sins of the flesh.” There was mention of thorns in the eyes, which is how one visually sins by lust. Paul was also celibate, I can imagine that being a life-long struggle for him.

 

[TimothyH]

I think the thorn in Paul’s flesh was lust and sexual temptation. The ue of the word “flesh” suggests so, as in “sins of the flesh.” He also made mention of thorns in the eyes, which is how one visually sins by lust. Paul was also celibate, I can imagine that being a life-long struggle for him.

Do not the verses cited speak for themselves though?

I don’t recall Paul ever referencing thorns in the eye. Do you have a citation? I don’t think he ever said that but only “Thorn in the flesh.”

-Tim-

 

[SonOfMan]

Do not the verses cited speak for themselves though?

I don’t recall Paul ever referencing thorns in the eye. Do you have a citation? I don’t think he ever said that but only “Thorn in the flesh.”

-Tim-

I was relating the thorns in the eyes from that passage in Joshua to Paul’s thorn in his flesh.

 

[Todd977]

The commentary in the New American Bible, Revised Edition on 2 Cor 12:7 offers a number of possible interpretations:
A thorn in the flesh: variously interpreted as a sickness or physical disability, a temptation, or a handicap connected with his apostolic activity. But since Hebrew “thorn in the flesh,” like English “thorn in my side,” refers to persons (cf. Nm 33:55; Ez 28:24), Paul may be referring to some especially persistent and obnoxious opponent. The language of 2 Cor 12:7–8 permits this interpretation. If this is correct, the frequent appearance of singular pronouns in depicting the opposition may not be merely a stylistic variation; the singular may be provoked and accompanied by the image of one individual in whom criticism of Paul’s preaching, way of life, and apostolic consciousness is concentrated, and who embodies all the qualities Paul attributes to the group. An angel of Satan: a personal messenger from Satan; cf. the satanic language already applied to the opponents in 2 Cor 11:3, 13–15, 20. (source)

Haydock’s Commentary also offers a number of possible interpretations:
Ver. 7-10. A sting of my flesh,[1] an angel, or a messenger of Satan, to buffet me. The Latin word signifies any thing that pricks or stings, the Greek word a sharp stick or pale: he speaks by a metaphor, as also when he says to buffet me; that is, by causing great trouble or pain. Some understand by it a violent headache or pain, or distemper in the body. St. Augustine mentions this opinion, and does not reject it, in Psalm xcviii. tom. 4. p. 1069.; in Psalm cxxx. p. 1465. St. Jerome also speaks of it in chap. iv. ad Galatas, tom. 4. p. 274, Ed. Ben. But St. Chrysostom, by the sting, and the angel of Satan, understands that opposition which St. Paul met with from his enemies, and those of the gospel; as Satan signifies an adversary. Others understand troublesome temptations of the flesh, immodest thoughts, and representations, suggested by the devil, and permitted by Almighty God for his greater good. (source)

 

[Exiled_Child]

I’ve always believed he was speaking of a painful handicap of some kind, or a particularly horrible physical disorder he personally suffered from.

 

[Josie33]

I found it interesting that in my Magnificat it was stated this way: “…] a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.” In this sense it automatically made me think of Saint Padre Pio and his “thorn in his flesh” – the beatings he suffered at the hands of Satan and his demons.

Just a thought

Josie

 

[SonOfMan]

I found it interesting that in my Magnificat it was stated this way: “…] a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to beat me, to keep me from being too elated.” In this sense it automatically made me think of Saint Padre Pio and his “thorn in his flesh” – the beatings he suffered at the hands of Satan and his demons.

Just a thought

Josie

Ahh, i thought of the passage you quoted too. “Conceited” used instead of “elated”. All the more reason I believe it was sexual temptation, because falling to sexual sin is more shameful and humbling than physical beatings or physical ailments. That coupled with the fact that Paul had strong opinions about marriage and how one should be married to control their passions.

Speaking of Padre Pio, he was tempted sexually too If Im not mistaken. I recall reading about Satan appearing as dancing naked women in his room to tempt him.

 

[DaveBj]

snip

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

-Tim-

Actually, it’s more likely that the thorns were Judaizers, Jewish believers who insisted that Gentile believers had to be circumcised and taught to follow the Torah. His conflicts with them were documented in the Acts of the Apostles, and one entire letter (Galatians) was written to counter their doctrine.

Edit: The above should be prefixed with “If one believes that the thorns were human beings . . .” Obviously, if one believes that the thorn was an eye disease or sexual temptation, that’s a whole 'nother story.

 

[GEddie]

I always understood the thorn as being bodily in nature, and not associated with sexuality at all, but rather SP’s weak eyes, or other bodily infirmity.

The reference to Satan may suggest that demonic oppression was causing the bodily suffering.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TimothyH]

Lots of theories but little evidence to convince me that I’m wrong.

 

[ProVobis]

Remember that Paul highly advanced in his study and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Remember also that he was a Pharisee, a strict separationist who prior to his conversion would never have associated with Gentiles.

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55)

know assuredly that the LORD your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. (Joshua 23:13)

**
But godless men are all like thorns** that are thrown away;
for they cannot be taken with the hand;
(2 Samuel 23:6)

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

Just for fun, I looked up the Knox translations on these. None used the word thorn.

Numbers 33:55 If you refuse to root out the nations that now live there, those who are left will be eyesores to you, barbs in your side, to dispute with you the land that is yours;[2] (Lanceae in lateribus)

Joshua 23:13 I warn you here and now that the Lord will never dispossess them to make room for you. Evermore they will be at your side, ready to snare and entrap you and catch your feet unawares, eyesores to blind you; and at last he will dispossess you instead, banish you utterly from this fair land he has given you for your home. (sudes in oculis vestris)

2 Samuel 23:6 Sinful men he treats like briars, too sturdy to be plucked away with the hand, (spinae)

Seems like a common problem translating to English where many things translate to the same word but the sources say otherwise. Just sayin…

BTW, I showed the Latin but you’re welcome to use the Greek.

newadvent.org/bible/2sa023.htm

 

[TimothyH]

Barbs, briars, thorns… same thing.

Msgr Knox’s translation can be quirky. I have yet to get used to it and it doesn’t nullify every other translation out there.

-Tim-

 

[DanielJT]

Remember that Paul highly advanced in his study and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Remember also that he was a Pharisee, a strict separationist who prior to his conversion would never have associated with Gentiles.

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55)

know assuredly that the LORD your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. (Joshua 23:13)
**
But godless men are all like thorns** that are thrown away;
for they cannot be taken with the hand;
(2 Samuel 23:6)

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

-Tim-

What would the implications here concerning the rest of the passage? Could you expound on this.

I ask because this is interesting to me and I’ve never heard this interpretation.

 

[curtishouse30]

Remember that Paul highly advanced in his study and understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Remember also that he was a Pharisee, a strict separationist who prior to his conversion would never have associated with Gentiles.

But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then those of them whom you let remain shall be as pricks in your eyes and thorns in your sides, and they shall trouble you in the land where you dwell. (Numbers 33:55)

know assuredly that the LORD your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you. (Joshua 23:13)
**
But godless men are all like thorns** that are thrown away;
for they cannot be taken with the hand;
(2 Samuel 23:6)

Paul was sent to the godless Gentiles. The Gentiles were the thorns in Paul’s flesh. This is my opinion.

-Tim-

Since I have Epilepsy, I always wanted it to be Epilepsy myself. Anybody that has the proverbial thorn in their flesh but still makes you stronger spiritually, believe whatever you want when it comes to that!

 

[TimothyH]

Since I have Epilepsy, I always wanted it to be Epilepsy myself. Anybody that has the proverbial thorn in their flesh but still makes you stronger spiritually, believe whatever you want when it comes to that!

This is probably the best response yet.

What really matters is our thorn, not Paul’s.

Thanks.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

What would the implications here concerning the rest of the passage? Could you expound on this.

I ask because this is interesting to me and I’ve never heard this interpretation.

I don’t understand. Implications concerning the rest of which passage?

-Tim-

 

[friardchips]

I don’t understand. Implications concerning the rest of which passage?

-Tim-

A thorn in flesh, as I was given to understand, is a strong temptation for the flesh. And for that temptation to persistently arise, there has to have been a tempter. And this “thorn” being ‘temptation’, is supported by the passage in which he was empathising with people about their ill desires, by saying how he does the things he does not want to do - only to empathise, mind you - but then goes on to emphatically state that he has “kept the faith”; IOW, despite, his temptations, he has kept to the Commandments and not given in, as an example to those to whom he preached, who might have been prone to giving in or who felt like giving in to the sinful ways of the flesh.

 

[DaveBj]

Lots of theories but little evidence to convince me that I’m wrong.

No, and there won’t be enough evidence, because it all boils down to . . . dare I say it? . . . one’s personal interpretation of the passage in question. Paul didn’t think to tell us specifically what he was talking about, so we’re all just guessing, based on what we think he was talking about.

 

[JakeAugustine]

In accordance with several other posters, I have always believed that the thorn represented a physical aliment that plagued St. Paul. Maybe it was his poor vision? I think it is possible that St. Paul was the first stigmatist and the stigmatas were the source of his pain.