What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"

[Feedmysheep]

This, as are all suppositions, is just that and nothing more. It is controversial. Paul had a very eloquent writing style, almost flowery in some translations. At times, he loathed himself, and those things he did (and failed to do). During the stoning of Saint Stephen the martyr, he held the cloaks for the men who participated. This strikes me as a feminine, or at least subservient role. He was single and always remained so. Could he have suffered same sex attraction?

For some reason (and I can’t remember where I picked it up) I have the notion that the thorn was sexual in nature floating around in my head. And that the use of the image of a thorn was deliberate.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The Bible doesn’t tell us whether Paul was married or not. However, his comments in 1 Cor 9:5 would seem to indicate that he was, or at least once was. Perhaps widowed. Since he never mentions his wife, it is probable that she had passed away.

As a Pharisee, and as Paul said, “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers,”(Gal 1:14), it would seem that Paul would have been a member of the Sanhedrin and they were required to be married.

We will never know for sure, of course, but we do know the “thorn in my flesh” was put there by God and maybe it was because of the persecution he had shown toward the Christians. I doubt that however, because God doesn’t work that way, I believe it was in order to make Paul try harder and harder to accomplish the task God assigned him.

A scholarly study will show that it is difficult to imagine all Paul had to go through in his experience of bringing the word to the Gentiles. Wherever men would listen, Jew or Gentile, slave or free, he proclaimed the good news of what God had done in Christ for him and for all men. Suffering unbelievable hardship on account of this gospel, he was beaten, stoned, shipwrecked, lost, “Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings, often in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.”( 2 Cor chapter 11)

In spite of all that, Paul still took care of his churches and preached his gospel. Through it all he was driven relentlessly to share with all men the riches of Christ. If the word “apostle” means “one sent with a message,” no figure in history deserves the title more than Paul.

As Christians we should all be thankful God gave Paul to us—otherwise where would we be today?

 

[bbentrup]

Maybe the thorn was… a thorn?

If so, would that make him the first stigmatic?

I’m mostly kidding, but we can’t ignore the possibility either.

 

[po18guy]

In spite of all that, Paul still took care of his churches and preached his gospel. Through it all he was driven relentlessly to share with all men the riches of Christ. If the word “apostle” means “one sent with a message,” no figure in history deserves the title more than Paul.

Not even Moses? God made a covenant with Moses. And Father Abraham? You sound like all of your “scholarship” has lead you to worship Paul. Paul himself tells you not to believe so:

1 Corinthians 1:11-13 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?

As Christians we should all be thankful God gave Paul to us—otherwise where would we be today?

Yes! That’s why Christ’s church is in the year of Saint Paul. Join us, won’t you?

 

[Muzhik]

Many Scholars have studied this but seem to reach different conclusions. We know there was a thorn in Paul’s flesh and it hindered him but Christ refused to remove it.

What was it? Was it poor eyesight? Was it a pus kind of material that continually drained from his eyes, making him look abhorrent? Was it a neurotic situation?

What was it? Anyone care to comment?

Speaking from experience, I can tell you without a doubt, the thorn in Paul’s flesh…

… was his younger brother Biff. (“Are you going out with your friends? Ma said you had to bring me with you…”)

<><

 

[po18guy]

A scholarly study

Here’s one definition of “scholarly study”?

o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone’s good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven’t much of an opinion of him.

Of course, this is only my “scholarly study” of the whole matter. You are entitled to your own.

 

[Feedmysheep]

As Christians we should all be thankful God gave Paul to us—otherwise where would we be today?

Why do I suddenly feel dirty, as though I was tricked into participating in a bit of Protestant Paul-worship?

 

[patrick457]

Many Scholars have studied this but seem to reach different conclusions. We know there was a thorn in Paul’s flesh and it hindered him but Christ refused to remove it.

What was it? Was it poor eyesight? Was it a pus kind of material that continually drained from his eyes, making him look abhorrent? Was it a neurotic situation?

What was it? Anyone care to comment?

In my opinion (note that this is only my opinion), Paul refers both to a physical ailment (perhaps poor eyesight or some other condition which necessitated him to use a scribe for his letters, an anamneusis), to some opponent/s of his which continually attempted to undo his work amongst various local churches, and perhaps also to some personal problem tormenting him by the time he is writing the letter to the Corinthians (in the sense of perhaps he was being tempted or something like that). These trials and tribulations of his, then are referred to collectively as being a ‘thorn in the flesh’ by him.

 

[Old_Scholar]

In my opinion (note that this is only my opinion), Paul refers both to a physical ailment (perhaps poor eyesight or some other condition which necessitated him to use a scribe for his letters, an anamneusis), to some opponent/s of his which continually attempted to undo his work amongst various local churches, and perhaps also to some personal problem tormenting him by the time he is writing the letter to the Corinthians (in the sense of perhaps he was being tempted or something like that). These trials and tribulations of his, then are referred to collectively as being a ‘thorn in the flesh’ by him.

Many scholars believe that the eye problem was the reason Paul wrote the letter himself when he spoke of the large letters. They use that reason as to why it indicates an eye problem. They say that Paul had to write big since he was writing this letter himself and not dictating to a secretary. Others believe the large letter comment was done purposefully in order to show emphasis on what he was saying, because he was very angry with them.

 

[patrick457]

Let’s hear straight what Paul had to say for himself:

I must boast; not that it is profitable, but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knows), who was caught up to the third Heaven. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knows), how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable sayings, which is not lawful for a man to utter.

Of such a one will I boast; but of myself I will not boast, except in [my] weaknesses, for if I should desire to boast, I will not be foolish, for I will speak the truth; but I refrain, so that no man will think more of me above that which he sees in me, or hears from me; and that I not might be exalted above measure by the abundance of revelations, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me, that I might not be exalted above measure. Concerning this thing I called upon the Lord three times, that it might depart from me; and He said to me: “My grace is sufficient for you, for My power is made perfect in weakness.”

Most gladly therefore will I rather boast in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.

I have become a fool; you compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you, for in no way was I behind the “super-Apostles”, though I am nothing.

 

[patrick457]

Many scholars believe that the eye problem was the reason Paul wrote the letter himself when he spoke of the large letters. They use that reason as to why it indicates an eye problem. They say that Paul had to write big since he was writing this letter himself and not dictating to a secretary. Others believe the large letter comment was done purposefully in order to show emphasis on what he was saying, because he was very angry with them.

Paul writing a brief greeting of sorts has become a sort of trademark of his in some of his Epistles, hasn’t it?

In the Epistle to the Romans (16:22), Paul’s anamneusis at the time wrote a little comment:

Greek: Aspazomai ymas, egō Tertios, o graphas tēn epistolēn, en Kyrio.
English: I Tertius, who wrote the Epistle, salute you in the Lord.

In the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (16:21-22), Paul writes the following (brief) greeting himself:

Greek: O aspasmos tē emē cheiri Paulou. Ei tis ou philei ton Kyrion, ētō anathema, Marana tha [Maran atha]!
English: This greeting is by me, Paul, with my own hand. If any man does not love the Lord, let him be anathema, Maranâ’ thâ’! [Maran ‘athâ’]!

In Colossians 4:18, his greeting is:

Greek: O aspasmos tē emē cheiri Paulou; mnēmoneuete mou tōn desmōn. He charis meth’ ymōn.
English: This greeting is by me, Paul, with my own hand; remember my chains! Grace be with you.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:17:

Greek: O aspasmos tē emē cheiri Paulou; o estin sēmeion en pasē epistolē; outōs graphō.
English: This greeting is by me, Paul, with my own hand; which is a sign in every letter; thus I write.

It is in Galatians (6:10-11) that Paul makes the following comment:

Greek: …Ara oun ōs kairon echomen, ergazōmetha to agathon pros pantas, malista de pros tous oikeious tis pisteōs. Idete pēlikoia ymin grammasin egrapsa tē emē cheiri.
English: …So then, while we have the opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward those who are of the household of the Faith. See with how large letters I write to you with my own hand!

 

[annem]

Maybe the thorn was… a thorn?

If so, would that make him the first stigmatic?

I’ve heard this suggested a number of times and it always struck me as the most likely. Not that my opinion counts;’

God bless, Annem

 

[St_Aloysius]

This explanation removes God from the mix, unfortunately!

How so? That more than a few of the Prophets were afflicted with a psychological ailment in undoubtable. It is God who resides in our own psychic depths, speaking to us there with archetypal images and symbols powerful and moving. Who’s to say St. Paul wasn’t afflicted by epilepsy? It is the most satisfying explanation I have heard so far.

The idea that he had SSA was interesting too. No, he makes it clear he never married. And there St. Paul DID have quite the reputation in his own day as being… well, less than a fan of women on the whole.

Interesting, both.

I still think epilepsy just fits and makes so many things make sense.

 

[Old_Scholar]

How so? That more than a few of the Prophets were afflicted with a psychological ailment in undoubtable. It is God who resides in our own psychic depths, speaking to us there with archetypal images and symbols powerful and moving. Who’s to say St. Paul wasn’t afflicted by epilepsy? It is the most satisfying explanation I have heard so far.

The idea that he had SSA was interesting too. No, he makes it clear he never married. And there St. Paul DID have quite the reputation in his own day as being… well, less than a fan of women on the whole.

Interesting, both.

I still think epilepsy just fits and makes so many things make sense.

**Maybe it fits well, but Paul says Christ appeared to him, blinded him and he stayed blind until Christ sent His message to him through His messenger. If this had been something like an attack, it would have made no difference to anyone and God would not be mentioned. That’s what I meant.

If God didn’t appear to Paul and convert him on the road to Damascus, then all Paul taught was in vain and where did it come from? I don’t think any scholar or theologians has ever questioned whether it was an actual occurrence with God.**

 

[DarkNight]

… It is God who resides in our own psychic depths, speaking to us there with archetypal images and symbols powerful and moving.

Thank you so much for expressing my personal experiences in such a very eloquent manner.

Epileptic “attacks” can take on many forms, can leave impressions that last much longer than the physical attack and can change one’s outlook towards one’s fellow man.

Go with Love, Go with God

 

[edif_alos]

**Maybe it fits well, but Paul says Christ appeared to him, blinded him and he stayed blind until Christ sent His message to him through His messenger. If this had been something like an attack, it would have made no difference to anyone and God would not be mentioned. That’s what I meant.

If God didn’t appear to Paul and convert him on the road to Damascus, then all Paul taught was in vain and where did it come from? I don’t think any scholar or theologians has ever questioned whether it was an actual occurrence with God.**

Of course, Paul’s Thorn in the flesh" could be any of the wonderful answers given throughout this thread. We will know in due time and yes, in the Third heaven!

The end of 2nd Corinthians (Chapters 10-13) that this verse referenced, clearly was Pauls ‘Letter of Tears’. The later editors simply tacked on these chapters to a totallly different letter that is 2nd Corinthians, chapters 1-7, with chapters 8 & 9 being the collection letter (for the poor in Jerusalem that maybe Titus delivered this as a seperate and 3rd part)

2nd Corinthians is difficult to follow as a single Epistle. Dividing it into its 3 parts serves as a helpful study.
So 2nd Corinthians could actually be three seperate letters - in this order:

1. Chapters 10-13, the* letter of tears *
2. Chapters 1-7, the main body of 2nd Corintians
3. chapters 8 & 9. The collection for the poor in Jerusalem

The Letter of Tears contains the Thorn in my side (flesh), which is in Paul’s polemic defense of his apostleship. Apparently, others ‘super-apostles’ had followed Paul into Corinth and taugh another gospel (false) to the Corinthian church. The new christians were confused and apparently some sided with the false teaches. This is where Paul speaks about the thorn in his side. This is clearly painful for Paul to see his Gospel of Jesus Christ, clearly explained and delivered, so easily undone by the false teaches. These false teachers were also impressive speakers (worldly wisdom). The chapters 10-13 show the intense pain Paul felt and how much he loved the new church in Corinth.
So, the continued problem with these false apostles plagued Paul through his ministry for Christ. Clearly, our lord allowed this to push Paul and his special spiritual gifts. The thorn was possibly the false teachers. It fits best - in the context of its position- in this Epistle.

 

[brb2]

Without a doubt … Hemorrhoids

Probably, poor near vision. Since he dictated his letters.

 

[chirho2]

Since Paul was perfectly honest and forthcoming about his life before and after his conversion, but left us no clue what the thorn in his flesh was, I, for one, can only assume that it was something sinful and he was too ashamed to come right out and say what it was.

 

[Philwent]

Hi All

Despite much opinion to the contrary, we DO actually know what Paul’s ‘thorn’ was.
It is a phrase used several times in the Old Testament
(e.g. Numbers 33:55 / Joshua 23:13 / Judges 2:3) and it always means persecution.
He says it was the messenger of Satan to buffet him.
The Greek word that Paul uses for messenger is ‘aggelos’ which means
angel. This is exactly the same word which is used for the ‘aggelos’
Gabriel, who told Mary in Luke 2 that she would be the mother of the
Saviour, Jesus. The buffeting that Paul constantly had, was
persecution from a Satanic angel, which he lists as reproaches,
necessities, persecutions, distresses, which came and went like waves
hitting (buffeting) the seashore, on account of the message he was bringing.

God has redeemed us (and Paul) through Jesus, from sickness and
disease (although often we need to know how to tap into this
redemption!) but He has NOT redeemed us from persecution – in fact we
are promised persecution, if we are doing the Lord’s will. (2 Timothy
12). Paul was triumphant over everything that the devil sent against
him and the people could see that it had to be God working in his
life. Paul was not prideful, either. The phrase ‘lest I should BE
exalted’ means that he was not exalting himself! The devil gave him
these buffetings to keep him from being exalted by God in the eyes of
the people. Many more people would have received what Paul preached if
everything was easy for him. However, there was this demonic angel who
always buffeted Paul and scared away the faint-hearted from committing
themselves to Jesus, whom Paul preached.

I hope this helps

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is the footnote from the Aquinas Study Bible

4:13 infirmity of the flesh: Some modern commentators assume that Paul had a problem with his eye sight based upon other passages Gal 3:15 and 6:11. But this could very well have been the same thing that Paul mentions in 2 Cor. 12:7, calling it a thorn in the flesh. (John Litteral) Anselm, Bede, Sedulius, and Jerome think it was bodily illness, as constant headache (St. Jerome), or colic (St. Thomas), or costiveness, or gout (Nicetas, commenting on Orat. 30 of S. Gregory Nazianzen), or some internal disorder… Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Ambrose, Erasmus think that this thorn refers to the persecutions Paul endured from his adversaries… others, with more probability, think that this thorn in the flesh consisted in blows and beatings, often given to Paul by Satan, as to Antony and others, so that pain remained in his body, as a thorn, from the blows he had received. (Cornelius a Lapide Com 2 Cor 12:7)