Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Библията Тв | PentecostalTheology.com
WHAT was Paul’s THORN in the FLESH?
John Kissinger [12/04/2015 3:37 PM]
The identity of that thorn in the flesh has been much debated. Paul did not describe it in detail, indicating that the Corinthians knew what it was. Most commentators assume it was a physical ailment, such as migraines, ophthalmia, malaria, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, rheumatism, an intestinal disorder, or even a speech impediment. That such a wide range of possibilities has been put forth indicates a lack of specific support in Scripture for any of them. (Even if Paul’s words in Gal. 6:11, “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand,” indicate an eye problem, there is nothing in that verse that connects it with the apostle’s thorn in the flesh.) Skolops (thorn) could be better translated “stake,” graphically indicating the intensity of the suffering it caused Paul; it was not a small thorn but a large stake.
Glynn Brown [12/04/2015 7:18 PM]
Some have offered the suggestion that it could have been the many marks left on his body by the beatings he received.
John Kissinger [12/04/2015 8:44 PM]
MacArthur: It is best to understand Paul’s thorn as a demonic messenger of Satan sent to torment him http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/BQ052013/what-was-pauls-thorn-in-the-flesh
John Kissinger [12/04/2015 8:46 PM]
Viola: Paul’s thorn appears to be a man (inspired by Satan) who was obsessed with discrediting Paul and his ministry. This man followed Paul wherever he traveled, beginning in South Galatia (Acts 14ff.). He sought to undermine Paul’s work. http://frankviola.org/2012/04/24/paulsthornintheflesh/
John Kissinger [12/04/2015 8:50 PM]
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible elaborates: “It would seem … there was a party which was jealous of the influence of Paul, and which supposed that this was a good opportunity to diminish his influence, and to strengthen their own cause…”
John Kissinger [12/04/2015 8:50 PM]
The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agrees, stating: “Some indeed [were] preaching Christ even for envy, that is, to carry out the envy which they felt towards Paul … they wished through envy to transfer the credit of its progress from him to themselves.” Does the above sound familiar?
John Conger [12/04/2015 11:11 PM]
People.preaching he couldn’t eat pork? 😉
John Ruffle [12/05/2015 12:29 AM]
A messenger of satan sent to buffet him.
John Kissinger [12/05/2015 6:05 AM]
The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown agrees, stating: “Some indeed [were] preaching Christ even for envy, that is, to carry out the envy which they felt towards Paul … they wished through envy to transfer the credit of its progress from him to themselves.” Does the above sound familiar?
John Ruffle [12/05/2015 7:53 AM]
No need for a commentary: allow the Sacred text speak for itself.
John Kissinger [12/05/2015 7:55 AM]
well, a TORMENTING THORN in FLESH – a messenger from Satan is not exactly a self explanatory terminology (except if you are a DAKE reader Ricky Grimsley Charles Page John Conger )
John Ruffle [12/05/2015 8:00 AM]
Depends on if you are willing to place faith in the text and proclaim it as it is. I’ve preached it the way I just said it and it cuts right through a lot of needless doctrinal bickering. Does it really matter? He had a messenger from the evil one. Period.
John Kissinger [12/05/2015 8:03 AM]
but was it spiritual only or physical in the flesh – it matters
John Conger [12/05/2015 8:04 AM]
No way to know. All speculation is just speculation. Think the most common belief is bad eye sight since his comment about his eyes but many believe it was a person.
John Ruffle [12/05/2015 8:09 AM]
It matters to whom? If anyone wished to shut themselves in a holy mountain for 50 years they’ll probably get St Paul telling them directly. But even then, what’s the point?
Ricky Grimsley [12/05/2015 8:10 AM]
Maybe he was previously married and had an ex mother-inlaw that kept coming around.
John Kissinger [12/05/2015 8:12 AM]
Ricky Grimsley now you are contextualizing the text to your personal experience; thou we all know how such can hinder one’s research Rick Wadholm Jr
Rick Wadholm Jr [12/05/2015 8:32 AM]
Maybe I should ask him since he just started following me on Twitter yesterday. ?
John Kissinger [12/05/2015 8:32 AM]
so following you was his thorn in the flesh?
Rick Wadholm Jr [12/05/2015 8:33 AM]
It shall be…
Glynn Brown [12/05/2015 9:56 AM]
David M. Hinsen
From the commentaries I’ve read it was an eye problem. Of course, that’s debatable according to the author.
Mary Ellen Nissley
We aren’t told. So why is it important to us, if it wasn’t important enough to God to tell us? It’s enough to know it was a messenger of Satan. God didn’t give it to him.
Bob Buckland
I tend to think that when Paul was answered by God that “My grace is enough.” it provides a clue. God’s grace, in my opinion, is for the forgiveness of sin. I believe Paul was praying to take this “sin” away from him. Everyone has a sinful leaning in an area that is always there and you have to deal with it. Hopefully with God’s help (Grace). This way, we (all of us) will be dependent on God not ourselves. None of us are sin-less. I know what my struggle is and I bet you know what yours is! God’s grace IS enough!
Mary Ellen Nissley
Heb 12:1 “… let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us…”
I doubt that was it. Paul said he kept his body under complete control, lest when he had preached to others, he himself would be a castaway.
Mary Ellen Nissley
I like this explanation:
http://www.salinechurchofchrist.org/articles/view/2010/07/Pauls_Thorn_In_The_Flesh_Judaizers
Mary Ellen Nissley
this is good too:
http://www.northforest.org/BibleTopics/thorninflesh.html#preachatfirst
David M. Hinsen
What if it was literally a thorn?!
Mary Ellen Nissley
LOL. I think Paul would have had the sense not to ask God to do for him what he could have done for himself– just dig that thing out!