What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"?

[gcdonner]

What are the implications of the following passage?

Num 33:55  But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 

Does this give us a hint at what/who Paul was referring to?
I prefer interpreting scripture with scripture when at all possible.

I don't think so. I think a 'thorn in our side' is just an expression of an annoyance and could be used regarding any annoyance. I don't see any linkage with where it is used elsewhere other than referring to an annoyance.

Where do you think the idea of an annoyance comes from for us in our generations? Don't you think it is a result of the biblical implications for both Paul and the Children of Israel?
I believe that Paul, being familiar with the usage in the OT, is applying the same principle to his own circumstance, and therefore it may well have been someone or a group of someone's who were constantly "annoying" him.
Think about the group of people that he had to react against the most during his ministry. Is it possible that he is referring to the Judaisers in this sense.

[KingdomBuilder]

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy,[a] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these...

Galatians 5:19-21


I imagine that the nature of the affliction would relate to some thing(s) on this list.
When I think about a thorn stuck in the flesh, I don't think of a debilitating affliction, but more of a persistent, inescapable nagging.
If I had to take a guess (& that's surely what this is), I'd think that Paul was mentally afflicted with a recurring temptation of the flesh.

Now one could ask the question of whether or not Christians today could also be afflicted with a similar thorn in the flesh? That's to say, a recurring temptation towards desires of the flesh- one that is not to be taken away despite the desire for it to be.

[ohio jones]

What are the implications of the following passage?

Num 33:55  But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. 

Does this give us a hint at what/who Paul was referring to?
I prefer interpreting scripture with scripture when at all possible.

In Acts 9, when Jesus reprimanded him for "kicking against the pricks" (KJV), his eyes were temporarily blinded.

In the context of 2 Cor 12, the thorn-in-the-flesh was given "to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations" received during his (out-of-body?) experience in heaven/paradise. This may have happened at the time he was stoned at Lystra and assumed dead (Acts 14). I tend to think of it as an injury received during this stoning that was not allowed to heal properly and became a constant reminder of suffering.

[Sudsy]

What are the implications of the following passage?
Does this give us a hint at what/who Paul was referring to?
I prefer interpreting scripture with scripture when at all possible.

I don't think so. I think a 'thorn in our side' is just an expression of an annoyance and could be used regarding any annoyance. I don't see any linkage with where it is used elsewhere other than referring to an annoyance.

Where do you think the idea of an annoyance comes from for us in our generations? Don't you think it is a result of the biblical implications for both Paul and the Children of Israel?
I believe that Paul, being familiar with the usage in the OT, is applying the same principle to his own circumstance, and therefore it may well have been someone or a group of someone's who were constantly "annoying" him.
Think about the group of people that he had to react against the most during his ministry. Is it possible that he is referring to the Judaisers in this sense.

So, would Paul be asking that the annoying Judaisers be somehow stopped/removed/made silent ? God did shut the mouth of the lions for Daniel but I wonder if that is what Paul was asking to be taken away. Paul had all kinds of persecutions of sorts so was this a special one that bothered him the most ?

In our generation a primary annoyance is the constant pull of materialism and temporal fun for me. I think each of us has our own main areas of things that we war against the most and that are very annoying to spiritual growth.

[Bootstrap]

In the end of Galatians, Paul takes over from the scribe and writes in his own hand. When he did so, he commented on the large letters he uses when he writes for himself:

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

So if I had to guess, I would go with a problem with the eyes. But this is very much a guess. The text doesn't tell us the answer with any certainty.

[KingdomBuilder]

In the end of Galatians, Paul takes over from the scribe and writes in his own hand. When he did so, he commented on the large letters he uses when he writes for himself:

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

So if I had to guess, I would go with a problem with the eyes. But this is very much a guess. The text doesn't tell us the answer with any certainty.

Would make some sense considering the great flash/ blindness. But that wouldn't account for him describing it as being delivered by a messenger of Satan, as the flash was from the revelation of the Lord.

[Bootstrap]

In the end of Galatians, Paul takes over from the scribe and writes in his own hand. When he did so, he commented on the large letters he uses when he writes for himself:

See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

So if I had to guess, I would go with a problem with the eyes. But this is very much a guess. The text doesn't tell us the answer with any certainty.

Would make some sense considering the great flash/ blindness. But that wouldn't account for him describing it as being delivered by a messenger of Satan, as the flash was from the revelation of the Lord.

I'm not at all sure that I'm right, but you can certainly have eye problems for reasons not connected with the great flash.

Personally, I think that Paul had eye problems that were connected with a sickness, as mentioned in Galatians 4:

12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

So Paul had a bodily ailment of some kind, his condition was a trial to them, but they received him. What kind of ailment was it? Well, they would have been willing to gouge out their own eyes and give them to Paul - to me, that indicates an eye problem. Then Paul ends the letter by remarking on how large his handwriting is, which would also be consistent with an eye problem.

If you look at the way he describe this problem in Galatians 4, he seems to be describing it in ways that are consistent with the thorn in the flesh he describes in 2 Corinthians.

[KingdomBuilder]

Pretty good hypothesis, Boot.

[Sudsy]

In the end of Galatians, Paul takes over from the scribe and writes in his own hand. When he did so, he commented on the large letters he uses when he writes for himself:



So if I had to guess, I would go with a problem with the eyes. But this is very much a guess. The text doesn't tell us the answer with any certainty.

Would make some sense considering the great flash/ blindness. But that wouldn't account for him describing it as being delivered by a messenger of Satan, as the flash was from the revelation of the Lord.

I'm not at all sure that I'm right, but you can certainly have eye problems for reasons not connected with the great flash.

Personally, I think that Paul had eye problems that were connected with a sickness, as mentioned in Galatians 4:

12 Brothers, I entreat you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You did me no wrong. 13 You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, 14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. 15 What then has become of your blessedness? For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me. 16 Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?

So Paul had a bodily ailment of some kind, his condition was a trial to them, but they received him. What kind of ailment was it? Well, they would have been willing to gouge out their own eyes and give them to Paul - to me, that indicates an eye problem. Then Paul ends the letter by remarking on how large his handwriting is, which would also be consistent with an eye problem.

If you look at the way he describe this problem in Galatians 4, he seems to be describing it in ways that are consistent with the thorn in the flesh he describes in 2 Corinthians.

Some good arguments here for that possibility. Questions relating to it being his eyes -

I find it interesting that Paul had a gift of physical healing yet could not have himself healed. Although this was the case with Smith Wigglesworth. A great healing ministry yet could not heal his own ailments. In Acts 19:11-12 it says “Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.” And, also when he was shipwrecked on his way to Rome, after surviving a poisonous snakebite, Paul healed every sick person on the island (Acts 28: 8-9 ). Yet instead of healing Timothy, he tells Timothy to take some wine as a medicine.

I also wonder why Paul never did what James suggested - "If any one of you are sick ? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick. The Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven."

If it was his eyes why does Paul refer to it as coming by way of a messenger of satan that came to buffet him ? Does this mean some sicknesses that come upon a believer are ones sent from satan through one of satan's angels ? And if so, does this mean our guardian angel is on vacation or perhaps God tells His angel to let that sickness come ? We know God gave satan permission to prove Job's faithfulness.

And why not tell Timothy to just accept his stomach ailment as God's grace is enough to live with it ? Or perhaps Paul discerned Timothy's sickness was perhaps something Timothy had brought on himself through diet.

Any answers or suggestions on possible answers to these questions ?

[KingdomBuilder]

If his thorn was merely a sight problem, why would he be so, seemingly, evasive in talking about it?

I mean, why would he not just say "A messenger of Satan delivered me a sight problem"? Surely something so physical wouldn't be offensive or contrary to his mission so as to avoid writing it.

This is why I tend to think his thorn was something more internal... something that would warrant not explicitly saying it.
Am I making sense?