Paul's "Thorn in the Flesh" . . .

[VerticalReality]

Here's an interesting commentary on Paul's thorn . . .

I find it makes sense, but I'm not sure if there is any way to know for sure.

"And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong." (2 Cor. 12:7-10)

This thorn in the flesh that Paul mentioned has been used and misused by Christians to justify submitting to nearly any problem that comes along. Satan has twisted this passage of Scripture to deceive many, many people into believing that God would not heal Paul, so how can they expect to be healed? Let us examine this closely and find out exactly what Paul's thorn in the flesh was.

First of all, this "thorn" came because of the abundance of revelations Paul had received. Until a person has an abundance of revelations, similar to what Paul had, he is not going to have a "thorn." That would disqualify just about all of those who have been hiding behind Paul's thorn.

Then, verse 7 says it came lest Paul should be exalted above measure. Traditionally, that has been interpreted to say the thorn was to keep Paul humble. Therefore, God had to be the author of it, because only God would want Paul to be humble. But there is a godly way of being exalted. First Peter 5:6 says, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time." Those who submit (humble) themselves to God will be exalted by God. Paul was not speaking of exalting himself above measure through pride, but rather, the thorn came from Satan to keep Paul from being exalted by God in the eyes of the people. Many more people would have received what Paul preached if everything was always "rosy" for him. But there was this messenger of Satan who always buffeted Paul and scared away the faint-hearted from committing themselves to Jesus, whom Paul preached.

God magnified, or exalted, Joshua in the sight of his people (Josh. 3:7). He continued to do that with the people He used on into the new covenant (Acts 5:13). So, we see that the exalting spoken of is not a negative kind but a godly kind. That just further strengthens the fact that the thorn was not God's doing.

In verse 7, right after the thorn in the flesh is mentioned, there is a phrase set off by commas which says, "The messenger of Satan to buffet me." This is an explanation of what the thorn was. It was not a thing but rather a demonic messenger. The word used as "messenger" here is always translated as angel or messenger and refers to a created being. So, Paul's thorn was literally a demon sent from Satan to buffet him. The word "buffet" means to strike repeatedly as waves would buffet the shore.

How did this demonic force continually strike Paul? Traditionally it has been taught that it was with sickness, and the thing that made many accept that is the use of the words "weakness" and "infirmity" in verses 9 and 10. Infirmity definitely does mean sickness and is used that way in 1 Timothy 5:23, but that is not the only meaning of the word. The number two definition is any lack or inadequacy. For instance, Romans 8:26 says, "the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities." In this case, the context makes it clear that it is not speaking of sicknesses but rather not knowing what to pray for. Our finite minds are an infirmity, or an inadequacy.

If we look at the context of Paul's thorn in the flesh, we find that infirmity does not mean sickness in 2 Corinthians 12:9 and 10. In 2 Corinthians 11:30, Paul uses the exact terminology of "glorying in infirmities" that is used just a few verses later in speaking about this thorn. In the eleventh chapter he had just finished listing what those infirmities were. In verses 23-29, he lists such things as imprisonment, stripes, shipwrecks, and stonings; none of these speak of sickness. Verse 27 mentions weakness and painfulness, which some have tried to make mean sickness, but it is just as possible he could have been weary and suffered painfulness from such things as being stoned and left for dead (Acts 14:19). All these things listed in 2 Corinthians 11 refer to persecutions as infirmities. So, in context, Paul's thorn was a demonic angel or messenger sent by Satan which continually stirred up persecution against him. This is also verified by three Old Testament references (Num. 33:55; Josh. 23:13 and Judg. 2:3), where people are spoken of as being "thorns in your sides" and "thorns in your eyes."

Paul asked the Lord to remove persecution from him, not sickness, and the Lord told him His grace was sufficient. We are not redeemed from persecution, and Paul later stated that when he said in 2 Timothy 3:12, "All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." Most gladly, therefore, he gloried in persecutions, reproaches, necessities, and distresses that the power of Christ might rest upon him (2 Cor. 12:9). The word "glory" is an old English word which means to have dominion over or command. It is used in Exodus 8:9 where Moses told Pharaoh to glory over him, or command him, when to destroy the frogs. So when Paul spoke of glorying in these infirmities or persecutions, he was speaking of victory even in the midst of continual harassment.

In Acts 14:19, Paul was stoned and left for dead, but God raised him up, and the next day he walked at least twenty miles into the next town and started preaching again. The Lord did not stop the persecution, but God's strength was certainly made perfect in Paul's weakness (verse 9). Can you imagine what those that stoned him must have thought? They could see Paul's humanity in the cuts and bruises, but they could also see the supernatural strength of God flowing through him. "For when I am weak, then am I strong" (verse 10).

There are two other passages of Scripture that those who believe Paul's thorn in the flesh was sickness have tried to use to verify that. One is Galatians 4:13-15. Here Paul says that he preached the Gospel to these Galatians through an infirmity of the flesh, and in verse 15, he makes reference to these people being willing to poke out their own eyes and give them to him. From this, I have heard ministers preach that Paul's thorn was a rare, ancient disease which was characterized by runny, puffy eyes. But let us look at whom Paul was speaking to when he said this. He was writing to the people who lived in the region known as Galatia, which had as its major cities, Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. The instance we mentioned earlier, where Paul was stoned and left for dead, happened in Lystra, a city of Galatia. The next day Paul walked to Derbe, another city of Galatia, and began preaching unto them. I'm sure he had runny, puffy eyes, along with multiple cuts and bruises, but they were not the result of some disease. They were the result of having just been stoned. He also says in verse 13 that his infirmity was "at the first," which leaves the impression it was only a temporary thing that he recovered from.

The next scripture used to say Paul's thorn was bad eyes is also in Galatians, chapter 6, verse 11. It says, "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand." People have said Paul's eyes were so bad that he had to write in large letters, and this is what he was making reference to. That is only a supposition and not a very good one at that. It is a lot more credible to believe that he was simply referring to the long letter he had written to the Galatians.

The reason it is so important to realize that the thorn in the flesh was not something which Jesus died to redeem us from, such as sickness, is so that we won't submit ourselves to these things. James 4:7 says, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." We have to resist, or actively fight against, the devil and the things he brings, to see them flee. Satan has used traditional teaching about Paul's thorn to bring many Christians to a place of submitting to him. But, praise God, you shall know the truth and the truth, shall set you free.

Comments or opinions?

Edit: This article was written by Andrew Wommack. I would link it for you all, but it is from a site that I don't recommend due to some content in other areas. Many folks use this site for ministering purposes, but there is some inappropriate content in other areas of the site.

[karenoka27]

Wow! And to think I pondered the thought that the thorn was that he was partially blind from the day on the road to Damascus...(I say that because of how he ended some of his writings/letters).
I have heard what you shared before but not in such detail..thank you, I found it very interesting.
When you said, the thorn came because of the abundance of revelations Paul had received...it made me think of Daniel..in Daniel 7:15-"I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me."

[ShirleyFord]

Paul's thorn in the flesh couldn't have been some dibilatating disease that would hinder him in any way from doing what God called him to do. Nothing slowed him down from preaching the gospel wherever and to whomever God sent him. They could lock him up and chain him to prison guards but that didn't hinder him from preaching the gospel and writing letters to the different Churches.

Plus he worked with his own hands to support himself and his co-laborers with him. If there had been very much wrong with him physically, he wouldn't have been able to do much work, especially in his craft of making tents.

Shirley

[humbled]

That's a good article. The first time I heard that position was from MacArthur. Who wrote this one? Do you have a link?

nm I found it ... Andrew Wommack

[Walstib]

I think the article focuses on disproving sickness but does not give a conclusion to what the weakness would be. I thought the tone I found off in places. Like Paul would not have been sick as part of a “everyone should be free from sickness” message.

Some thoughts I am still working out on this.

As I see it having a evil messenger poke a Christian’s flesh to tempt them into sin is nothing new. Why would that kind of event have been special enough to mention. And the new birth has given the faithful victory over the enemy, there is always a way out from the temptation.

So what was the weakness?

Is this Paul admitting there was a sin in his life he was not avoiding? A weakness through his flesh he struggled with personally.

Or is the context that it was only this one demon who made any attempt to temp Paul. This itself to me sounds strange. But then why would that be a weakness if he knew the victory he had over the enemy.

So then could it not be a physical infirmity of the flesh and not about sin. As I see it we are more freed from sin than from sickness.

I have yet to break this logic circle with conviction.

Peace,
Joe

[VerticalReality]

I think the article focuses on disproving sickness but does not give a conclusion to what the weakness would be. I thought the tone I found off in places. Like Paul would not have been sick as part of a “everyone should be free from sickness” message.

Some thoughts I am still working out on this.

As I see it having a evil messenger poke a Christian’s flesh to tempt them into sin is nothing new. Why would that kind of event have been special enough to mention. And the new birth has given the faithful victory over the enemy, there is always a way out from the temptation.

So what was the weakness?

Is this Paul admitting there was a sin in his life he was not avoiding? A weakness through his flesh he struggled with personally.

Or is the context that it was only this one demon who made any attempt to temp Paul. This itself to me sounds strange. But then why would that be a weakness if he knew the victory he had over the enemy.

So then could it not be a physical infirmity of the flesh and not about sin. As I see it we are more freed from sin than from sickness.

I have yet to break this logic circle with conviction.

Peace,
Joe

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but are you saying that Wommack's stance here is that Paul had a sin that he couldn't overcome? I don't see that anywhere in the article. Am I offbase on what you're saying?

Wommack makes it clear on a number of occasions in this article that the thorn sent against Paul was persecution.

[Toolman]

The reason it is so important to realize that the thorn in the flesh was not something which Jesus died to redeem us from, such as sickness, is so that we won't submit ourselves to these things. James 4:7 says, "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." We have to resist, or actively fight against, the devil and the things he brings, to see them flee. Satan has used traditional teaching about Paul's thorn to bring many Christians to a place of submitting to him. But, praise God, you shall know the truth and the truth, shall set you free.

This article's purpose is to prove that sickness is something that should not effect the Christian because "Jesus redeemed us from sickness".

The flaw in this theology is easy to see. Christ also redeemed us from death and yet believers will physically die and their body will be as dead as a door nail.

If Christ redeemed our bodies from death (which He did) then why does it die? For the same reason it can get sick which is because the fullness of the redemption of our bodies has not been made manifest yet. We wait for it with hope as Paul points out in Romans 8.

Our spirits have been redeemed (justication), our souls are being redeemed (sanctification) and our bodies will be redeemed (glorification).

Just as our bodies die, our bodies have the potential for sickness and it is not a lack of faith or an issue of sin if a believer becomes sick. It is part of the present suffering of this world.

Romans 8:18-25 - For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

[Walstib]

Maybe I'm not understanding you, but are you saying that Wommack's stance here is that Paul had a sin that he couldn't overcome? I don't see that anywhere in the article. Am I offbase on what you're saying?

Wommack makes it clear on a number of occasions in this article that the thorn sent against Paul was persecution.

I see his conclusion in the article where I did not the first couple times reading it. Thanks.

I still wonder with that then. Why was it then a thorn in Paul’s flesh? As I see it that is personal and intimate rather that Wommack's conclusion which is external.

Know what I mean?
Joe

[karenoka27]

Amen Toolman! If I read you correctly I'd like to add to that.
I have an illness in my body. I have prayed and prayed for it to go away and the Lord has seen fit that it stays. It has been active since I was 34 years old...I am now 47. Can I just say I would not be who I am today without it?
I have grown so much through the physical pain and suffering. I have been able to have compassion on those who suffer and know how to pray for them.
But healing? Ah yes! I have been healed from so many pains from my past, that I might be an overcomer and praise Him for all He is able to do!
This body is not meant to be here forever, so a healing in my body may only cause me to have the desire to do so. But because of it, I desire to be free of this body to be in the presence of my Lord where there is no more suffering, or sorrow...Praise Him!

[VerticalReality]

This article's purpose is to prove that sickness is something that should not effect the Christian because "Jesus redeemed us from sickness".

The flaw in this theology is easy to see. Christ also redeemed us from death and yet believers will physically die and their body will be as dead as a door nail.

If Christ redeemed our bodies from death (which He did) then why does it die? For the same reason it can get sick which is because the fullness of the redemption of our bodies has not been made manifest yet. We wait for it with hope as Paul points out in Romans 8.

Our spirits have been redeemed (justication), our souls are being redeemed (sanctification) and our bodies will be redeemed (glorification).

Just as our bodies die, our bodies have the potential for sickness and it is not a lack of faith or an issue of sin if a believer becomes sick. It is part of the present suffering of this world.

Romans 8:18-25 - For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

With all due respect, Toolman, this topic really isn't intended to get into a debate about whether or not healing of sickness is covered under the work of the cross. This topic is about the nature of Paul's thorn and why it was sent.

Most Christians today want to assume that Paul's thorn was given because Paul would have become conceited without it. I think Wommack brings up an interesting point that it is not the pride of Paul that brings about the thorn, but rather the fact that the people Paul was preaching the gospel to would have exalted him beyond measure. I also believe that Wommack gives a pretty solid argument based upon the meaning of infirmity, along with several Scriptures, that the thorn is persecution rather that some form of sickness or disease.

Now, we can have another healing debate in another topic, but I'm afraid it would just take this one off course. I certainly disagree with your stance that sickness is apart of this body simply because this body eventually will die. If that were truly the case, then there would be no way that God could promise the Old Testament saints health, but He indeed did, and He followed through with that promise if they remained under His covenant. Now if the covenant we are now under is supposed to be better than the old one, I would say health could just as easily be promised to us as well. However, like I said, that is a different thread all together. This is about the thorn in Paul's flesh.

[VerticalReality]

I see his conclusion in the article where I did not the first couple times reading it. Thanks.

I still wonder with that then. Why was it then a thorn in Paul’s flesh? As I see it that is personal and intimate rather that Wommack's conclusion which is external.

Know what I mean?
Joe

I see what you're saying. However, I would think that if a thorn was in my flesh that would be external. A thorn sticks in your flesh from the outside, no? This passage makes it clear that it is obviously a demonic presence coming against Paul's flesh. That is external, and demonic spirits influence people to commit certain actions. I think this is what Wommack is insinuating. He states that this demonic spirit stirred the people up to persecute Paul. Wommack states that this may be the reason Paul was stoned in Lystra.

[Toolman]

With all due respect, Toolman, this topic really isn't intended to get into a debate about whether or not healing of sickness is covered under the work of the cross. This topic is about the nature of Paul's thorn and why it was sent.

I agree but part of Womack's position is that we are redeemed from sickness, which is a faulty position, so it must be pointed out so that is clear. He uses that as part of his argument so it must be shown to be false so as to weigh all options as to what the thorn may have been.

If that were truly the case, then there would be no way that God could promise the Old Testament saints health, but He indeed did, and He followed through with that promise if they remained under His covenant. Now if the covenant we are now under is supposed to be better than the old one, I would say health could just as easily be promised to us as well. However, like I said, that is a different thread all together. This is about the thorn in Paul's flesh.

Well, may not want to bring up a counter point unless you want to discuss it

Christ promised that those who believe in Him would never die (John 11:26, John 8:51), yet we will physically die. How can this be?

Because the promise of the full redemption of our body comes in the resurrection where pain, death and sickness are forever done away with.

Our spirits, once saved and redeemed, never die, never get sick... our bodies do until the time they are redeemed in the resurrection.

[VerticalReality]

I agree but part of Womack's position is that we are redeemed from sickness, which is a faulty position, so it must be pointed out so that is clear. He uses that as part of his argument so it must be shown to be false so as to weigh all options as to what the thorn may have been.

It's faulty according to you. I happen to agree with him, but as I said, this isn't really the purpose of this thread.

Christ promised that those who believe in Him would never die (John 11:26, John 8:51), yet we will physically die. How can this be?

Because the promise of the full redemption of our body comes in the resurrection where pain, death and sickness are forever done away with.

Our spirits, once saved and redeemed, never die, never get sick... our bodies do until the time they are redeemed in the resurrection.

People died under the old covenant as well, Toolman. However, God was still able to promise them health if they remained under His covenant. Is this covenant not better than the previous?

However, you see the can of worms this is opening. Regardless of your view on healing, I'm sure we can discuss the main purpose of the article without the need for a cover to cover dissertation on biblical instruction involving healing.

[humbled]

This article's purpose is to prove that sickness is something that should not effect the Christian because "Jesus redeemed us from sickness".

Hmmm ... I must've skimmed over that part. The message I got from it was that the thorn was persecution and not sickness.

And with that, I agree. As for us being freed from sickness, I also agree ... as long as we're talking SPIRITUAL sickness.

[karenoka27]

I am so sorry. I misunderstood. I thought the thread was allowing us to discuss our thoughts on what the thorn was or wasn't not telling us what it was. I followed suit from my own experience. Not that I am like Paul or anything.
I just wanted to stop in and apologize...