What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Old_Scholar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Old_Scholar

Guest
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?
 
The NAB footnotes add this in addition to some you’ve mentioned.

But since Hebrew “thorn in the flesh,” like English “thorn in my side,” refers to persons ( Numbers 33:55 ; Ezekiel 28:24 ), Paul may be referring to some especially persistent and obnoxious opponent.
 
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?
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

2 Cor 12: 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 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. — Thrice I besought the Lord. That is, many times, to be freed from it, but received only this answer from God, that his grace was sufficient to preserve me from consenting to sin. And that power and strength in virtue should increase, and be perfected in weakness, and by temptations, when they are resisted. St. Augustine seems to favour this exposition, in Psalm lviii. Conc. 2. p. 573. St. Jerome, in his letters to Eustochium, to Demetrias, and to Rusticus, the monk. And it is the opinion of St. Gregory, lib. 23. moral. tom. 1. p. 747. and of many others. (Witham) — If there were any danger of pride from his revelations, the base and filthy suggestions of the enemy of souls must cause humiliations, and mke him blush. But these are to be borne with submission to the will of God, for his power is more evident in supporting man under the greatest trials, than in freeing him from the attacks. — Power is made perfect. The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts. (Challoner) — When I am weak. The more I suffer for Christ, the more I perceive the effects of his all-powerful grace, which sustains, enlightens, and strengthens me: the more also the glory and power of God appeareth in me. The pagans themselves were not ignorant that calamity was the soil in which virtue usually grows to perfection. Calamitas virtutis occasio est. (Seneca) — Optimos nos esse dum infirmi sumus. (Plin. vii. ep. 26.)
 
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?
I always thought it was his rather unimpressive appearance and speech impediment. He persevered and overcame them.👍
 
I have read a number of sites, Catholic and non-Catholic, opining the varying theories as well. At this time, it is uncertain what specific affliction, whether it was physical or emotional, was upon him.

I have not, however, researched any documents of antiquity from ECFs or apocryphal literature that may reference this affliction that may have been passed on via storytelling. Maybe that’s a route to study.
 
The NAB footnotes add this in addition to some you’ve mentioned.

But since Hebrew “thorn in the flesh,” like English “thorn in my side,” refers to persons ( Numbers 33:55 ; Ezekiel 28:24 ), Paul may be referring to some especially persistent and obnoxious opponent.
You may be correct, but this would also indicate that this person would have to follow Paul around all the time and always be with him and that doesn’t seem possible or likely.
 
D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

2 Cor 12: 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 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. — Thrice I besought the Lord. That is, many times, to be freed from it, but received only this answer from God, that his grace was sufficient to preserve me from consenting to sin. And that power and strength in virtue should increase, and be perfected in weakness, and by temptations, when they are resisted. St. Augustine seems to favour this exposition, in Psalm lviii. Conc. 2. p. 573. St. Jerome, in his letters to Eustochium, to Demetrias, and to Rusticus, the monk. And it is the opinion of St. Gregory, lib. 23. moral. tom. 1. p. 747. and of many others. (Witham) — If there were any danger of pride from his revelations, the base and filthy suggestions of the enemy of souls must cause humiliations, and mke him blush. But these are to be borne with submission to the will of God, for his power is more evident in supporting man under the greatest trials, than in freeing him from the attacks. — Power is made perfect. The strength and power of God more perfectly shines forth in our weakness and infirmity; as the more weak we are of ourselves, the more illustrious is his grace in supporting us, and giving us the victory under all trials and conflicts. (Challoner) — When I am weak. The more I suffer for Christ, the more I perceive the effects of his all-powerful grace, which sustains, enlightens, and strengthens me: the more also the glory and power of God appeareth in me. The pagans themselves were not ignorant that calamity was the soil in which virtue usually grows to perfection. Calamitas virtutis occasio est. (Seneca) — Optimos nos esse dum infirmi sumus. (Plin. vii. ep. 26.)
We all could look at commentaries, but I was wanting to know what people themselves thought about this…
 
I always thought it was his rather unimpressive appearance and speech impediment. He persevered and overcame them.👍
While this is one of the possibilities, I don’t think Paul ever overcame it because he kept asking God to remove it and God would not.
 
You may be correct, but this would also indicate that this person would have to follow Paul around all the time and always be with him and that doesn’t seem possible or likely.
Not necessarily - if it was someone in one of the early communities Paul founded who kept causing dissensions and causing them to stray. Didn’t Paul have to write back to Corinth several times for this reason? I guess opponents or troublemakers in that community would be all the more of a thorn in Paul’s flesh because, Paul not being with the Corinthians in person any more, an opponent stirring up trouble there would’ve been more difficult to deal with from a distance.
 
I have read a number of sites, Catholic and non-Catholic, opining the varying theories as well. At this time, it is uncertain what specific affliction, whether it was physical or emotional, was upon him.

I have not, however, researched any documents of antiquity from ECFs or apocryphal literature that may reference this affliction that may have been passed on via storytelling. Maybe that’s a route to study.
Studying is what I am suggesting—what better way to get people to read God’s word!

Personally, I tend to believe it had something to do with either his eyesight or the appearance of his eyes to the ordinary person. I think it was difficult to look at him because of this “thorn”. Just my opinion(and that’s subject to change as I study).
 
St Paul had epilepsy.
epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

Knowing I am in such good company helps me to accept the complications that occur when my brain has an epileptic storm…

(okay, so we don’t really know he was an epileptic but I personally like this definition of “a thorn in my side” 🙂 )

Go with Love, Go with God
 
While this is one of the possibilities, I don’t think Paul ever overcame it because he kept asking God to remove it and God would not.
You’re right. What I meant was that he surmounted them as obstacles to evangelization.🙂
 
I think it was a persistant physical pain, probably the result of the
“countless beatings” he suffered for the faith. 2 Cor 11:23
 
St Paul had epilepsy.
epilepsiemuseum.de/alt/paulusen.html

Knowing I am in such good company helps me to accept the complications that occur when my brain has an epileptic storm…

(okay, so we don’t really know he was an epileptic but I personally like this definition of “a thorn in my side” 🙂 )

Go with Love, Go with God
This explanation removes God from the mix, unfortunately!
 
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?
I heard it was Epilepsy and that makes sense to me…But I’m biased because I have Epilepsy as well. 👍
 
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?
 
I heard it could have been a mild form of Cerebral Palsy (CP), I have CP so when I heard that I was wowed.
 
Theodoret, who I happen to agree with most of the time, believed it was simply the insults and attacks that he had to face. Many of the great Church Fathers seemed to think it was various trials that we face when we try to spread the Gospel.

St. Thomas Aquinas seemed to think it was a demon. Tertullian also seemed to support it.
That thorn, I say, is a messenger of Satan, i.e., a wicked angel, for it was an angel sent by God or permitted, but it was Satan’s because Satan’s intention is to subvert, but God’s is to humble and to render approved. St. Thomas Aquinas Commentary on 2 Corinthians
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top