Ralph P. Martin - professor of New Testament at Manchester University
Paul confesses that he is not the agent responsible for this thorn. He reports that the thorn ἐδόθη μοι, “was given to me.” It is doubtful that Satan is the giver, even if σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, “thorn in the flesh,” is the grammatical subject of ἐδόθη, “was given.” If Paul had intended to convey such information, he most likely would have chosen a word other than δίδωμι, “give.” This word was usually employed to denote that God’s favor had been bestowed (cf. Gal 3:21; Eph 3:8; 5:19; 1 Tim 4:14). Plummer suggests that if Satan was the agent, ἐπιτίθημι, “lay upon” (Luke 10:30; 23:26; Acts 16:23), or βάλλω, “cast” (Rev 2:24), or ἐπιβάλλω, “put on” (1 Cor 7:35), would have been more appropriate. As mentioned earlier, we have an example of the passivum divinum, “divine passive.” This “divine passive,” speaking of God as the hidden agent behind events and experiences in human lives, fits well into Paul’s thinking. He sees both the revelation and the thorn as from God. Hence Zmijewski is correct when he writes that though “thorn” can be assumed to be the grammatical subject of “was given,” in reality “the evidence points to God being the essential acting subject.”
There is uncertainty in identifying Paul’s use of σάρξ, “flesh,” in the expression “in the flesh.” The question centers on whether to render this phrase “in the flesh” or “for the flesh.” It is a question of whether to take τῇ σαρκί as locative dative (“in”) or dative of disadvantage (“for”). If it is the former, then most likely Paul is speaking of a physical malady or ailment, for we should understand σάρξ, “flesh,” in the neutral sense, namely, the physical body. The argument against taking the dative as locative is that if Paul intended it this way, he would have included the preposition ἐν, “in.” On the contrary, it has been proposed that this is the dative of disadvantage (“for the flesh”). If this position is adopted, then σάρξ, “flesh,” takes on the Pauline sense of man’s lower nature. Opponents of this position argue that if Paul had wanted to convey this meaning of σάρξ, “flesh,” he most likely would have contrasted it with some reference to the Spirit. On the basis of Hughes’s thinking, we understand “flesh” to be of the non-theological category.
John Chrysostom (Hom. 2 Cor. 26) understood σατανᾶς, “Satan,” in the general sense of adversary, and he concluded that Paul’s thorn was his opponents (specifically, Alexander the coppersmith). Recently this argument has been revived. The support of this position is well worth noting, and there are four basic points that endorse the position that the thorn refers to Paul’s opponents.
...
However, there is much support for the view of the thorn as referring to something other than the opponents of Paul. The medieval thinkers (from Gregory the Great to Aquinas) understood the Vulgate rendering of stimulus carnis, “goad of the flesh,” to imply sexual temptation.
The Reformers (such as Calvin and Luther) viewed Paul’s thorn in the flesh as spiritual temptation. Few modern commentators adopt this view.
Rather, the majority opt for some form of physical ailment. One common ailment suggested was a severe form of ophthalmia. This is inferred from the colorful language of Galatians. In Gal 4:13 Paul speaks of a weakness of the flesh (σάρξ) and proceeds to acknowledge the willingness of the Galatians to pluck out their eyes and give them to him (4:15). Also, Paul is seen as closing the Galatian epistle by noting that the handwriting is his own, for this writing is in large letters (6:11). Also, appeal is made to the (hypothetical) case of Acts 23:5, where Paul fails to recognize the high priest. This defective eyesight may stem from, as the theory goes, the scales that fell from Paul’s eyes after his conversion experience (Acts 9:9, 18). This theory, though interesting, has received little support in recent times.
Another ailment suggested is epilepsy, possibly as a result of the experience Paul had at his conversion. That is, the fact that Paul fell down on the road to Damascus has been seen as evidence that Paul was epileptic; but this is doubtful.
One of the more attractive hypotheses is that of Ramsay. Paul, it is said, suffered from a form of recurring malarial fever. It has been suggested that he contracted this disease in Pamphylia. For Ramsay, this theory covers all the symptoms Paul seems to exhibit. Accordingly, Paul was incapacitated by the attacks of this fever. If the fever seared the head, one can appreciate how Paul felt battered about.
Other forms of suffering have been suggested. The thorn, e.g., may have been the agony that Paul experienced at the Jewish rejection of the gospel. We know this was a problem for Paul as recorded in Romans, chaps. 9–11, especially 9:1–3. Menoud does make the point that Paul never mentions sickness in his tribulation lists. Akin to this suggestion is the idea that Paul’s apostleship was refused.
Clavier believes that Paul suffered disorders to his nervous system as a result of the hardships he endured and the shock his psyche received from his visions and revelations.
Yet, with all these physical ailments suggested, one wonders with Binder whether a person who was so often on the “battlefield” could have been so physically weak and still have withstood the rigors of Paul’s life.
But this is not to say that the supposition that Paul’s suffering was physical cannot also be defended. It is worth noting that Satan is associated with physical illness in the biblical tradition. We see this in Job 2:5, where Satan is allowed (by God’s permission) to inflict sickness. Also in Luke 13:16 Satan is credited as the one responsible for the woman being bent over for eighteen years. There is nothing to suggest that a “literal” messenger (ἄγγελος) was the agent for these respective illnesses. In addition, the term “angel of Satan” was not necessarily a common phrase. Contrary to those who see ἄγγελος, “messenger,” as signifying a “person” (specifically, adversaries), Paul may have simply been attributing his ailment to satanic origin, but always with the conviction that God was in control. Probably the most telling argument against the position that Paul was referring to human opponents as the thorn in the flesh (and by now it should be apparent that the possibilities offered concerning the thorn roughly fall into two categories, namely, human opponents and physical ailment) is found in 12:8. This verse relates that Paul prayed that God would remove the thorn. Would the apostle pray to be spared persecution? This is doubtful, since persecution was the fuel on which Paul seemed to thrive. The more he was persecuted the more he seemed determined to press the claims of his apostolate. Moreover, if this thorn was given to Paul near the time of his revelation of 12:2–4, then it is doubtful that Paul was speaking of the opponents in 11:13–15, for he had yet to confront them. Yet we must honestly recognize that a chronically ill Paul does not fit well with the picture of Paul found in the NT. Rather, Paul is one who must be seen as in robust health and with a strong constitution. On the other side, at Corinth where his apostolic role was under fire, any physical weakness would have seemed a liability; then Paul could not deny that the estimate of his person in 10:10, 11:21, and 12:10 is valid, however much it was exploited by his traducers.
Something in the nature of defective speech has also been suggested as Paul’s thorn. This could account for his making a bad first impression at Corinth (1 Cor 2:1–5; 2 Cor 10:10). Moreover, it may supply the reason why he was impressive in his letters, but “deficient” in his speech (10:1, 9–11; 11:6). Such an ailment would not prove incapacitating nor drain one’s strength, yet it would be humiliating, evoking ridicule and scorn. But again this is only a guess.
We simply do not know the meaning behind “the thorn in the flesh.” At best we can say with Bruce that the thorn attacked Paul some time after the ecstatic experience. From the present tense of κολαφίζῃ, “batter,” it appears that this was a continual problem. It seems also likely that Paul suffered a kind of physical disorder, but even that is uncertain. In all probability, the Corinthians knew of what Paul spoke. We, however, are left on the outside listening to one side of a two-sided conversation. We will probably never know the truth (or, at least, never know for sure we have the truth).
David E. Garland - Professor of Christian Scriptures at Baylor University
Over elation from the incredible experience of being allowed entry into paradise could easily lead to an over inflation of one’s ego so that one feels superior to others less blessed by supernal visions. To prevent such spiritual pride from welling up in Paul, he was given a thorn in the flesh. The passive voice implies that God gave it to him. Paul’s “thorn” was an effective cure for any mistaken euphoria that visions might evoke. God wanted Paul to remain humble and fully aware of his own weakness. The thorn punctured any pride that might surge within him because of his grand entry into heaven, and the result was that he dealt with others with the meekness and gentleness of Christ (10:1) rather than with the arrogant puffery of Satan.
Most interpreters through the years have assumed that Paul alludes to some bodily ailment. This view is reinforced by Paul’s mention of a physical illness that detained him in Galatia and led to his preaching the gospel to them. He writes that his physical condition was a trial to them (Gal 4:13– 14). Assuming that this affliction was something that persisted, the suggestions range from a pain in the ear or head, to malarial fever, epilepsy, and solar retinitus. ...
Since Paul prays so fervently to have the stake removed, it was probably something that he felt interfered with his ministry. Marshall identifies it as a “socially debilitating disease or disfigurement which was made the subject of ridicule and invidious comparison.”⁴²² Paul’s speech has been the subject of the Corinthians’ criticism (10:10), and the stake could have been something that led to some kind of a speech handicap. The “angel of Satan” could allude to the story of Balaam (Num 22:22–34) where the angel of the Lord gets in his way three times to prevent him from speaking and cursing the nation of Israel, against God’s will. In the end we must accept the fact that we will never know for certain what Paul’s stake in the flesh was. We can only be certain that initially it caused him considerable annoyance.
The phrase “angel of Satan” is in apposition to the stake. Satan comes to bedevil him as an agent of testing. The verb “to torment” (kolaphizein, “abuse,” “batter”) implies humiliating violence—being slapped around; and the present tense suggests that it was persistent—something that happens over and over again. The same word is used for the abuse of Jesus in his passion (Mark 15:65; Matt 26:67), and by choosing this word Paul might connect his sufferings as an apostle with those of Christ.
Satan comes as God’s adversary to lure people away from God’s rule, or he comes as God’s proxy to implement trials God authorizes. The story of Job provides the foremost example of the latter. Does this Satanic angel try to hinder the advance of the gospel in some way (see 1 Thess 2:18)? If so, Satan’s purposes are thwarted (see 2:11). What is sent to torment Paul is transformed by God into a means of proclaiming Christ’s power and grace. This surprising twist reflects the paradoxical way God defeats Satan. God permits Satan to strike the apostle, but God turns the stricken Paul into an even greater instrument of his power. A proud, arrogant Paul would have only hindered the gospel’s advance. A humiliated, frail Paul, lead as a captive in God’s triumph, has accelerated the gospel’s progress so that the fragrance of knowing God spreads everywhere (see 2:14).
Raymond F.Collins - professor of the New at The Catholic University of America
In fact, despite having given Paul an overwhelming ecstatic experience, Godtook the initiative in keeping Paul humble. Therefore, because of the abundance of revelations, lest I exalt myself, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan, to torment me so that I might not exalt myself (12:7). Lest Paul be carried away because of the overwhelming revelatory experience (tē hyperbolē tōn apokalypseōn), God gave him “a thorn in the flesh.” This was to keep Paul from having any undue pride (hyperairōmai, used by Paul only in 12:7) because of what he had experienced. “Was given,” a divine passive, corresponds to the divine passive “was snatched up” (ēpargē) of verse 4 (cf. v. 2). Both experiences are the result of God’s action. It is likely that both occurred in the same time frame.
Various physical ailments and disabilities as well as all sorts of psychological difficulties—enough to fill a dictionary of pathology!—have also been proposed as the referent of Paul’s metaphor. Difficulties with speech or sight are most commonly proposed (cf. Gal. 4:13–15; 6:11). If Paul suffered from some sort of obvious physical disability, he may have been mocked by the interlopers, who accused him of being weak in physical appearance (see 10:10). In the end, it is impossible to know what Paul meant by this intriguing image. The Corinthians themselves may not have known the real meaning of the metaphor.
Paul personifies the image by describing it as a messenger of Satan (angelos satana; see 11:14). The thorn was given to torment Paul (hina mē kolaphizē). That “torment” really means “beat” adds to the personification. Satan’s messenger was sent to Paul to flog him. Whatever Paul suffered was comparable to a beating that he might receive (cf. 11:24–25a).
