Paul's Thorn in the flesh........

[Dad Ernie]

I see nothing that would lead one to conclude that the thorn was anything but a PHYSICAL MALADY.

Greetings Larry T,

Consider:

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

These are only a few of the many verses relating to "the flesh". As used in these verses is referring to the "natural man", as opposed to the "spiritual man". For instance, Paul could have had a bad habit, one that was not conducive to his ministry. The bad habit would be "of the flesh", and every time Satan prodded this area of Paul's life, he would succumb to it.

Of course, I am just speculating, but my point is that the verses do NOT point only to a physical malady Paul might have had. My own opinion is that it is never said WHAT the thorn is, because God wanted us to know that "His grace is sufficient." even when in our own limited perception, it doesn't seem possible.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[apothanein kerdos]

The Holy Spirit guided you to an interpretation contrary to what the Greek says?

Now why do I just find that one hard to believe?

As for this not being a debate and just a "way to learn", it seems anyone who disagrees with you will be accused of debating and not listening to the Holy Spirit. Let me counter this; anyone that believes the thorn is spiritual has not taken the time to study the issue, ergo, is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

As for the Greek and the proper interpretation of the passage:

skolops te sarki is "thorn in the flesh. To be even more specific, skolops te sarki aggelos satan iva me kolaphize...

THe literan translation is, "....a pointed piece of wood shoved into my body by a messenger of Satan that has struck me below the eye..."

The skilops te sarki along with kolaphize are the essential parts of this. Both make this passage literal as both are refering to physical acts (specifically kolaphize.).

It is easily seen the entire reason there is speculation upon the thorn is because you have people attempting to interpret this passage without studying the history and usage behind the word kolaphizo. It was a boxing term used in the Greek language, to be struck under the eye. Paul's thorn is highly specific if people would simply take the time to look at it in the Greek.

Furthermore, when we say it was a spiritual problem and not a physical one, we make the absurd claim that God refused to heal Paul of a sin problem! Are we truly comfortable with that? I certainly am not. Instead, I believe that God refused to allow Paul to be healed of a physical infirmiry because God does not heal everyone in the way we would like Him to. Sometimes the best healing He offers is to let us endure the suffering but give us Grace to get through it.

And when we consult a commentary on this issue:

So that Paul would not forget this, God gave him a constant reminder of his weakness. Countless explanations concerning the nature of his thorn in the flesh have been offered. They range from incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (such as ophthalmia, malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a disability in speech. No one can say for sure what his was, but it probably was a physical affliction (for the work of Satan in this, cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 10:10). It is understandable that Paul would consider this thorn a hindrance to wider or more effective ministry (cf. Gal. 4:14-16) and that he would repeatedly petition God for its removal (2 Cor. 12:8). But he learned from this experience the lesson that pervades this letter: divine power (My power, v. 8; Christ’s power, v. 9) is best displayed against the backdrop of human weaknesses (cf. 4:7) so that God alone is praised (10:17). Rather than removing the problem God gave him grace in it. This grace is sufficient (arkei, i.e., adequate in the sense of providing contentment). (The Gr. words trans. to keep me from becoming conceited occur in 12:7 twice, at the beginning and end of the verse. The niv translates only the first one.)

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, IL

There is absolutely no justification to make it a "spiritual thorn". I challenge anyone to bring forth a justification other than "the Holy Spirit told me". If He did, then there is logic and a justification behind it, and it needs to be presented. Likewise, I am firm in my belief that the Holy Spirit taught me it was a physical thorn, and then gave me the evidence to prove it.

[Kabowd]

The Holy Spirit guided you to an interpretation contrary to what the Greek says?

Now why do I just find that one hard to believe?

As for this not being a debate and just a "way to learn", it seems anyone who disagrees with you will be accused of debating and not listening to the Holy Spirit. Let me counter this; anyone that believes the thorn is spiritual has not taken the time to study the issue, ergo, is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

As for the Greek and the proper interpretation of the passage:

skolops te sarki is "thorn in the flesh. To be even more specific, skolops te sarki aggelos satan iva me kolaphize...

THe literan translation is, "....a pointed piece of wood shoved into my body by a messenger of Satan that has struck me below the eye..."

The skilops te sarki along with kolaphize are the essential parts of this. Both make this passage literal as both are refering to physical acts (specifically kolaphize.).

It is easily seen the entire reason there is speculation upon the thorn is because you have people attempting to interpret this passage without studying the history and usage behind the word kolaphizo. It was a boxing term used in the Greek language, to be struck under the eye. Paul's thorn is highly specific if people would simply take the time to look at it in the Greek.

Furthermore, when we say it was a spiritual problem and not a physical one, we make the absurd claim that God refused to heal Paul of a sin problem! Are we truly comfortable with that? I certainly am not. Instead, I believe that God refused to allow Paul to be healed of a physical infirmiry because God does not heal everyone in the way we would like Him to. Sometimes the best healing He offers is to let us endure the suffering but give us Grace to get through it.

And when we consult a commentary on this issue:

So that Paul would not forget this, God gave him a constant reminder of his weakness. Countless explanations concerning the nature of his thorn in the flesh have been offered. They range from incessant temptation, dogged opponents, chronic maladies (such as ophthalmia, malaria, migraine headaches, and epilepsy), to a disability in speech. No one can say for sure what his was, but it probably was a physical affliction (for the work of Satan in this, cf. 1 Cor. 5:5; 10:10). It is understandable that Paul would consider this thorn a hindrance to wider or more effective ministry (cf. Gal. 4:14-16) and that he would repeatedly petition God for its removal (2 Cor. 12:8). But he learned from this experience the lesson that pervades this letter: divine power (My power, v. 8; Christ

[larryt]

I see nothing that would lead one to conclude that the thorn was anything but a PHYSICAL MALADY.

Greetings Larry T,

Consider:

Matthew 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

These are only a few of the many verses relating to "the flesh". As used in these verses is referring to the "natural man", as opposed to the "spiritual man". For instance, Paul could have had a bad habit, one that was not conducive to his ministry. The bad habit would be "of the flesh", and every time Satan prodded this area of Paul's life, he would succumb to it.

Of course, I am just speculating, but my point is that the verses do NOT point only to a physical malady Paul might have had. My own opinion is that it is never said WHAT the thorn is, because God wanted us to know that "His grace is sufficient." even when in our own limited perception, it doesn't seem possible.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Hi Dad Ernie,

I thought I had qualified my statements to include the "natural man" which is ruled by his flesh.

The main idea behind the term flesh refers to something physical. The only other reference that the flesh refers to is our living apart from the Spirit of God, which also has its roots in the physical body. Doing the works of the flesh.

Now what was the cause behind the physical malady, many mental maladies are thought to be just physical but the Word informs us that they are spiritual.

LT

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Super Jew,

Thank you for the quote from Walvoord et al. It serves to prove my point that NO ONE knows what that thorn was, but the emphasis of the thorn was the unmerited grace that would accompany it for God's own divine purposes, which in this case was to keep Paul humble. Such was the case with me also, when I found the need of that wonderful grace. I could have cut and run from God because Satan was holding me down and I became a recluse, hiding myself from God and His saints presence. I am a sinful creature, prone to sinful meanderings and God looked upon my confession of my own sinfulness and told me: "My grace is sufficient" (even for the sin I had committed). What He wanted was a humble heart, one that recognized its own lowlyness before such a Holy God. This is what He also asked of Adam, but did not get it. But when King David was asked, he immediately admitted his sin and confessed he needed God's grace to cover it. This is why King David was a man after God's own heart. God reigns supreme, but man continually wants to take the throne for himself. There is room on the throne for ONLY ONE, and it ain't us.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[Guest duane65]

There are so many Christians that know the Scriptures inside and out, but because of pride, being performance driven, or being stuck in religion, or being taught wrong, or even just plain arrogant, and having the inability to be a team player in the Body of Christ. They can become indoctrinated, and blinded by Satan, or the religious ideas of men.

This is a continuing study. Imput here, and there. Scripture is the final Word, and differences should be disscussed, and not debated. This is not a Theology lesson, or a means to point fingers.

SUBTLE DECEPTION:

In 2 Corinthians 11:3 Paul said:

But I fear, lest by any means, as the sepent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Notice that Paul didn't say, I am afraid, the devil is so great, he's going to defeat us in life. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Jesus said it this way: "You make the Word of God of none effect by the tradition of men." (Matt 15:6) Following the tradition of men will make the Word of God ineffective in your life.

In Second Corinthians chapter 12, we find Paul's account of his revelation, and the reason why the messenger of Satan was assigned to him.

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)

How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which is not lawful for a man to utter.

Of such a one will I glory:yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities (weaknesses).

For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: But now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.

And least 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. 2 Corinthians 12:3-7

The reason Paul's thorn in the flesh has stuck so many people is because they have assumed that God gave it to him. It is that assumption that has kept them from putting up any resistance to that which Satan has assigned to them.

I have heard that Paul's thorn was everything from sore eyeballs to ingrown toenails. But Paul identified it as a messenger of Satan to buffet, or beat against him.

It wasn't sickness, or sore eyeballs, or ingrown toenails. It certainly wasn't blindness, for he was healed of that when Ananias laid hands on him in Acts 9:18. Paul identified the thorn as a messenger of Satan. This messenger was dispatched to buffet Paul or stir up trouble everywhere he went and preached.

Some say, "We will never know what Paul's thorn was," as though it were hidden from us. Others say, "I don't know why God wouldn't heal Paul." But since Paul's thorn was not sickness or disease, it wasn't a matter of God healing Paul. It was a matter of Paul acting on the authority of God's Word to defeat the purpose of the messenger of Satan. James 4:7 says, Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. James didn't say that the devil would flee from God. It wasn't God's responsibility to resist him. But the devil will flee from us that are here on earth.

So if Paul didn't resist-by taking authority over this messenger of Satan-then God wouldn't. Lets say it another way, God couldn't if Paul didn't. Jesus couldn't do a thing about it, if Paul didn't act on the authority of God's Word.

The reason so many people don't understand what Paul's thorn was, is that they believe God gave it to him. And God does not dispatch the devils angels to anyone. Why would He tell us to resist the devil, just to have been the one to send the devil in the first place? God never sets us up to fail.

Did you notice, that the Scripture didn't say God gave Paul the thorn in the flesh? It was an angel of the devil who was dispatched to Paul.

Yet in some Bible commentaries it states that God gave Paul a thorn in the flesh and it was some sort of sickness or disease to keep Paul humble. And because of that mentality, they read what the Lord's answer to Paul, "My grace is sufficient for thee," was, and they assume that Jesus said, "No Paul, I won't heal you." 2 Corinth 12:9

But that wasn't what He said at all.

Notice verse 7 again, Lest I should be exalted above measure....there was given to me a thorn in the flesh...2 Corinth. 12:7. Some have thought that Paul had too much pride because of the revelation. So God gave him a thorn in the flesh to keep him humble.

I don't believe you can find in Scripture any evidence that God had anything to do with giving Paul a thorn in the flesh. God does not give His minister a revelation of His Word, and then hinder Him from preaching it. This is against God's nature, and character, and His Word.

The phrase lest I be exalted above measure, is reffering to the fact, that if it had not been for the messenger of Satan assigned against Paul to stir up trouble, everywhere he preached, Paul would have been exalted to the point that he would have influenced the known world with this revelation. But he was not able to preach it freely, for Satan hindered him on every hand.

Ask yourself this question: Why would God give Paul a revelation of the new birth, and then assign someone to cause trouble everywhere he went, so he couldn't preach that revelation? The answer is obvious, God didn't do it but Satan did.

Comments, thoughts, revelations? Next study later today. I have to help my wife clean house. LOLOL

[Kabowd]

There are so many Christians that know the Scriptures inside and out, but because of pride, being performance driven, or being stuck in religion, or being taught wrong, or even just plain arrogant, and having the inability to be a team player in the Body of Christ. They can become indoctrinated, and blinded by Satan, or the religious ideas of men.

Had you not prefaced your post with this veiled insult, I would've been more apt to receive what you had to say. You imply that you 'have arrived' at the truth and that all other differing opinions are the result of "pride" or "being performance driven" or being "blinded by Satan". Why did you feel the need to assess the hearts of others and presume to know how or why they have achieved their wisdom? It appears that you already had an article (whether you authored it or not is beside the point) and that your intention might've been to enlighten us on the "truth" that you've discovered. The above post seems to be a sermon or some previously written lesson that you had ready to unveil at some point in the discussion. Now, there's nothing wrong with doing this as long as you don't disguise the topic as being a "discussion" where you intend on listening to others and being humble enough to learn. When you introduce the topic in the manner that you did, and then proceed to discredit the input of others (ie, your quote above) and then copy and paste (or write) your thoughts which are very clearly already set..then it is disingenuous to present this as an open discussion where you are seeking input.

Please, I ask this sincerely, if you intend on teaching a lesson or have no intentions of listening to the views of others, please at least do us the favor of letting us know this upfront. It only proves to cause frustration and division when people are misled into thinking they are participating in an open discussion, only to find out they were baited into reading a sermon.

Thank you.

[AnotherTraveler]

"There are so many Christians that know the Scriptures inside and out, but because of pride, being performance driven, or being stuck in religion, or being taught wrong, or even just plain arrogant, and having the inability to be a team player in the Body of Christ. They can become indoctrinated, and blinded by Satan, or the religious ideas of men."

I agree with Tess, this is likely to be viewed as "or even just plain arrogant"

[Guest shiloh357]

And God does not dispatch the devils angels to anyone.

Well, God did send an evil spirit to vex King Saul...

[Kabowd]

And God does not dispatch the devils angels to anyone.

Well, God did send an evil spirit to vex King Saul...

...and there's that that fella Job.