2 Corinthians 12:7

And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch.

THE THORN IN THE FLESH

Like the visions themselves, the thorn in the flesh is little more than a hint, revealed in terms of tantalizing brevity, and described by enigmatical allusions which have puzzled people for centuries. The thorn has been speculatively identified as follows:

Tertullian thought it was a headache.[16]

Klausner believed it was epilepsy.[17]

Ramsay identified it as recurrent malarial fever.[18]

Chrysostom said it was "all the adversaries of the Word.[19]

John Calvin made it "fleshly temptation."[20]

Martin Luther considered it "spiritual temptation."[21]

John Knox decided it was "infirmities of the mind."[22]

Catholic commentators generally say "lustful thoughts."[23]

McGarvey: "acute, disfiguring ophthalmia."[24]

Macknight spoke of some who believed it was "the false teachers."[25]

Lightfoot suggested "blasphemous thoughts of the devil."[26]

Alexander was sure it was "Malta fever."[27] Etc., etc.

It would seem rash to some to venture an opinion in the face of such a mountain of scholarly disagreement; but this writer would like to get in his two cents worth also. The thorn in the flesh is believed to be the malignant opposition of secular Israel, a view contained but not specified in Chrysostom's identification. The reasons for this opinion are as follows:

(1) Any crippling or disabling bodily ailment simply does not conform to the amazing strength and endurance of the matchless apostle. "He is revealed in the New Testament as a man of exceptionally strong constitution and remarkable powers of physical endurance."[28]

(2)"In the flesh" as used in this verse would almost surely indicate a bodily infirmity; but Hughes declares the word to be "for the flesh,"[29] thus leaving the question open. Paul thus avoided words which would have implied bodily sickness. The meaning appears to be "a thorn in the flesh for the duration of Paul's fleshly life."

(3) Paul described the thorn as "a messenger of Satan," which can be nothing but personal in its import; and because the Canaanites were called "thorns in the sides" of the Israelites (Numbers 33:55), there is strong evidence here that Paul referred to bitter and relentless enemies of the gospel, doing the work of Satan; and that is a perfect description of the hardened secular Israelites who engaged in every device that hell could suggest in their godless and persistent opposition to Paul throughout every moment of his apostleship.

(4) In Thessalonians there is a probable reference to the thorn in the flesh, wherein Paul said, "Satan hindered me" (2 Corinthians 2:18); and a reference to the occasion of that remark (Acts 17:9) indicates that the Jewish opposition had contrived (through Paul's friends) an agreement that prevented his return. Again, the thorn had impaled him; and what was it? The hardened countrymen of the apostle himself. See my Commentary on Acts, pp. 332,333.

(5) Understanding the thorn in the flesh as the savage animosity of hardened Israel explains a number of things which otherwise would have no explanation: (a) the humiliating effect of this upon Paul himself. He had even dared dispute with the Lord in his protestations that the Jews would believe him (Acts 22:19); but their stubborn refusal was a continual humiliation to Paul throughout his life. (b) No bodily infirmity could have had the counteractive effect upon Paul's pride that was implicit in the rejection by Israel of the gospel he preached. Every town he ever entered, he went to them first, only to be despised, rejected, hated, persecuted, stoned and prosecuted by every means at Satan's disposal. Furthermore, this was directed against him who loved Israel so much that he would have given his life if they could have been saved, declaring:

I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9:3,4).

Yes, the thorn in the flesh was the rejection of Christ on the part of the chosen people; and therein lies the explanation of (c) why the Lord did not remove it. It was simply not within the purpose of God to overrule the freedom of the will of those who elected to hate the Saviour. It was with Paul, as it was with Samuel when the Lord asked, "How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him?" (1 Samuel 16:1). At the end of Paul's third prayerful entreaty for the Lord to remove the thorn, the Saviour assured him that it was enough that he had personally received the grace of Jesus. The old and persistent dream of winning glorious Israel to Christ was most reluctantly, and yet obediently, forsaken by the apostle, as indicated by the magnificent eleventh chapter of Romans, written subsequently to this epistle.

[16] Tertullian, De Pudis, 13:16.

[17] Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1943), pp. 325-330.

[18] Sir William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1903), p. 97.

[19] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 176.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] R. A. Knox, The Epistles and Gospels, p. 79.

[23] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 444.

[24] J. W. McGarvey, Second Corinthians (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1916): p. 236.

[25] James Macknight, op. cit., p. 455.

[26] J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 189.

[27] W. M. Alexander, St. Paul's Infirmity (London: The Expository Times, 1904), Vol. X.

[28] R. V. G. Tasker, op. cit., p. 175.

[29] Philip E. Hughes, op. cit., p. 447.