02 - Paul’s Thorn is a Metaphor

Chapter 2 Paul’s Thorn is a Metaphor

Paul’s usage of a thorn in the flesh is a metaphor taken from the Old Testament. A metaphor is; “the application of a word or phrase to an object or concept it does not literally denote, suggesting comparison to that object or concept”.

Paul was a scholar of the Old Testament. He described himself as "A Hebrew of the Hebrews" [Php 3:5]. Paul was a devoted student of the scriptures long before his conversion. Scholars claim that as a youth he surpassed most of his contemporaries, displaying an enthusiasm for the religious traditions and a zeal for the Jewish law. Born in Tarsus, Paul was raised in Jerusalem under the tutelage of a great Jewish teacher Gamaliel. Gamaliel was “the most illustrious rabbi of his day”. [Acts 5:34].

Accordingly, Paul was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament metaphors. As the chief writer of the New Testament epistles, he used such metaphors to establish his understanding of Jewish faith and how it agrees with this new message of Christ. For instance, he spoke of the “hardened heart” (Romans 9:18). That was in reference to the Egyptian Pharaoh who enslaved the Jews and resisted God’s command to “let my people go”. The comparison was a warning for us not to be stubborn and resist Gods will. Paul used salt as a metaphor in respect to our conversations. “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.” (Colossians 4:6)

Virtually, every in-depth commentary on Paul’s thorn in the flesh points out that a thorn, in scripture, is used as a metaphor. Jesus used “thorns” to illustrate annoying hindrances in the Parable of the Sower. Jesus also used “thorns” to illustrate how the “cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches and the lust of other things choke the Word” in our heart and thus reducing our fruitfulness.

Paul’s Thorn was an Adversary To understand what Paul meant when he referred to his calamities as a “thorn in the flesh”; we need to let the Bible interpret itself. He was a master of the Old Testament so I suggest the following text is what Paul was reflecting on when making reference to a thorn..

"But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell." (Numbers 33:55) This text reveals a challenge to Israel and warned of the consequence for compromise. God had given the Israelites assurance that the land was theirs, but as we see here, He also gave a charge for Israel to faithfully execute his will. They would need to take possession of the land with unconditional resolve. Possession of the land would mean warfare and a series of battles, both militarily and in conscience. Responsibility to deal brutally and fully with Israel’s enemies was Gods will. Israel, to a man, was commanded to dispossess the inhabitants and not let any remain. God conveying that any permitted to remain would be like a nagging “thorn in their sides”. This was a metaphor then and is a metaphor for us today. Every sin we tolerate or allow in our lives will hinder us in our path toward serving God.

“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us…” (Hebrews 12:1)

While it is known that sin will interrupt our life, evil adversaries are also illustrated as "thorns” that upset our spiritual pursuit. There are other Bible references that use the metaphor “thorn in your flesh". (Compare Ezekiel 2:6; Ezekiel 28:24; Micah 7:4). Here are two more Bible references that add further support to my point that the thorn dealing with .

"Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you." (Joshua 23:12-13)

"Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.” (Judges 2:3) The penetration of a thorn is called a sliver. It has a nagging, aching pain. Until we remove it, there remains an annoying pain. Using that thought, God warned Israel that the Canaanites would be a constant annoyance if they let them remain. The responsibility to remove the “thorns” was Israel’s, not Gods. Israel’s history shows that they failed at times to uproot their enemies. The consequence for tolerating the influence of evil is continual trouble, ongoing hindrances steady opposition. The Israelites often failed to fulfill God command. Letting their enemies remain was a real “pain”. In all these passages, God spoke to Israel metaphorically. God promised the land as their inheritance. Yet Israel still had the responsibility to possess it. Israel had constant trouble with other nations because they failed to obey God fully. God specifically informed the Israelites He would not do for them what He gave them the responsibility to do. God had given the Israelites a great revelation of His will - possess the land. The Context for Paul’s Use of this Metaphor

Read the whole context of 2 Corinthians, chapters 10-13. Paul lists a series of hardships and the opposition that troubled his ministry outreach. Using a familiar metaphor from the Old Testament he attempts to explain those constant troubles. Although Paul was masterful and courageous in his perseverance, the constant buffeting became so disheartening and annoying that it finally got his attention and upon reflection, he identified it as a Bible thorn. Not only that, but before he finally petitioned the Lord to remove it, he also identified it as “the messenger of Satan”. He did not say, did not think nor did he become confused in blaming God for causing these trouble. (James 1:13)

It is the Christians responsibility to apply ourselves to the Word of God in reflection and soul searching, not merely sit and wait until the spirit does something. Paul was a student of scripture and was diligent in developing his understanding of God. Christ’s blessings do not simply fall on us. We are not promised a life of ease with no trouble from the devil. We are told Satan is our adversary.

Let us not forget why God appeared to Paul. There was a very a specific purpose. I will go into this much further later but for now remember the specific mission God called Paul to.

“But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (Acts 26:16-18)

God worked with Paul continually. God inspired and empowered Paul by giving him visions and revelations. It was the Lords will that Paul witness to others what God revealed to him. Paul’s mission was to dispossess the darkness over people by bringing to them light. The Lord promised He would be with Paul. Paul learned that even in moments of human weakness, he had to continually engage, trusting that God would support him whenever necessary with supernatural strength. As the light of God’s comes to each individual, they are commanded to walk in that light. Paul had “visions and revelations” which enabled him. When it came to the messenger of Satan, at first Paul was still in the dark. Therefore, he asked God to do something about it. I suggest one of the reasons Jesus did not respond to Paul’s initial plea was that He was waiting on Paul to think through his request. Jesus finally pointed Paul to His grace, giving him a new revelation. He did not refuse Paul. He guided Paul to the light of His grace. Paul then understood that he was replenished with God’s strength when his weakness (or lack of ability) prevailed. The Thorn “In The Flesh”

“And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)

There is one thing everyone seems to agree on, the thorn was a message sent to Paul. After that, the interpretations run wild. Possibly the problem that leads so many into a diversity of interpretations begins with the phrase “in the flesh”. Those three words have convinced some people that regardless of what it was, it had to be a physical affliction. I would agree under the condition that Paul meant physical body when he used the word flesh. However, that is not the case. If it was a bodily ailment that Paul meant to convey, I suggest Paul would have used the word “so-mah” which is translated “body” rather than “sarx” which is translated ‘flesh”. When you read carefully Paul’s writings, he generally uses the word “so-mah - body” in reference to his physical body but uses the word - “flesh” in reference to the human being, the carnal or human nature. “Thayers Greek Dictionary” relates that the word “sarx” means “the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God”. No doubt there is a variety of Christian thoughts down through Church history. Several scholars, like Vincent’s Greek studies listed the different opinions.

“The explanations of the peculiar nature of this affliction are numerous. Opinions are divided, generally, between mental or spiritual and bodily trials. Under the former head are sensual desires, faint-heartedness, doubts, temptations to despair, and blasphemous suggestions from the devil. Under the latter, persecution, means personal appearance, headache, epilepsy, earache, stone, ophthalmia. It was probably a bodily malady, "in the flesh;" but its nature must remain a matter of conjecture.” (From Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament)

Vincent did not mention the metaphor and was inclined toward “the opinion” that it was a bodily sickness of some kind because of the phrase “in the flesh”. However, he was not dogmatic, and admits the uncertainty.

Another Greek source “Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament” also held an opinion that “in the flesh” implied a physical problem. While he too was not dogmatic, he lists the suggested illnesses and uses the word “malady” rather than a direct assertion to it being a sickness or disease. Robertson thought it probably was a physical affliction.

“What was it? Certainly, it was some physical malady that persisted. All sorts of theories are held (malaria, eye-trouble, epilepsy, insomnia, migraine or sick-headache, etc.). It is a blessing to the rest of us that we do not know the particular affliction that so beset Paul. Each of us has some such splinter or thorn in the flesh, perhaps several at once.” In his statement Robertson was merely citing the various opinions which gave support to his opinion. He was translating from Greek that the thorn was a bodily illness. Robertson was also careful to acknowledge that it was a “personified messenger of Satan”, as Paul had said. But I have a question! Why attempt to speculate a particular physical sickness and fail to consider the possibility that it was the variety of trials that literally torn into Paul’s flesh? If we consider the fact that Paul was whipped five times, beaten with rods three times and stoned once, along with many other physical hardships, we can be certain that Paul’s physical appearance was not representative of a “Greek God”. But does that mean the thorn was a sickness? Could he be relating to the various and many literal attacks that came upon his being? The fact that the text uses the word “flesh” does not grant license for a dogmatic conclusion that the thorn was a physical ailment. On the contrary. Again, Paul used it as a metaphor. Paul used the word “sarx” - “flesh” to describe carnal passions, impulses and behavior too. He used the word flesh as a metaphor in phrases such as: "to live in the flesh”, when comparing what it is "to live by faith". (Galatians 2:20) In another place, Paul spoke about “walking in the flesh” as opposed to “walking in the spirit”. [Romans 8:1-3]. No scholar has ever drawn a conclusion from these phrases that Paul meant we walk in sickness? Consider as well the phrases; "the lust of the flesh". That too implies the human nature. I often hear Christians kiddingly use the phrase “flesh out” when they joke about sitting in front of the TV watching a horror show and eating snacks to their fill. Certainly, the selection of the word “sarx” - ”flesh” instead of “so-ma” - body” leave some room for fair speculation rather than dogmatic interpretation.

Unger’s Bible Dictionary describes a thorn with the figurative meaning as obstacles:         

“Figurative“A painful thorn" <Ezekiel 28:24> should be rendered a smarting sting, figurative of the hurts of paganism. . . (Micah 7:4) refers to the corruption of the nation, . . . <Proverbs 15:19>, i.e., full of almost INSURMOUNTABLE OBSTACLES (cf. <22:5>). . . <Ecclesiastes 7:6> is that to which the laughter of fools is compared. THE WICKED are often compared to thorns.”(Numbers 33:55)

Let me point out further, that in scripture there is not one metaphorical use of “thorns” as an illness. Figuratively, a thorn in the flesh implied a personality, and that does fit with Paul’s interpretation of his situation as a “the messenger of Satan”. Among the last words of David we read, "The sons of Belial shall be all of them thorns". (2 Samuel 23:6)

Regardless if you do or do not reason that Paul was referring to the thorn in metaphor, clearly the Bible repeatedly uses the “thorn” as a metaphor. It associates with such behaviors as: foolishness, slothfulness and negligence in dealing with your enemies. However, the Bible goes even further. It makes direct assertions that they will be in the path of errant behavior and will result in trouble as you proceed in on your daily course.

“The way of the slothful man is as an hedge of thorns: but the way of the righteous is made plain.” (Proverbs 15:19) “As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools.” (Proverbs 26:9)

“Thorns and snares are in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them.” (Proverbs 22:5)

Slothfulness, forwardness, drunkenness are issues in all generations. I doubt Paul had any drinking problem and based upon the record of his life one could not make a convincing argument that he was lazy or lacked a diligent lifestyle. Intellectually Paul was aware of the wisdom of the Old Testament proverbs which repeatedly renounces slothfulness and drunkenness. However, could the thorn attacking Paul be the result of any forwardness in his ways and thus a fulfillment of what God said? No doubt many balk at this suggestion. No one can prove that Paul was perfect in all his ways. His broken relationship with Barnabas shows some flaws. So does his relentlessness to go to the Jews when God told him specifically to go rather to the Gentiles. Let us not allow anyone to venerate Paul to deity any more than we would the virgin Mary! Paul was still a man. He taught others, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” The word forward can be translated with these particular meanings; “twisted, distorted, crooked, perverse, perverted.” The very fact that we all have various opinion indicate that we are all a bit twisted or distorted in comparison to perfect understanding. Paul himself said “we see through a glass darkly.” He didn’t claim to know everything and was unmistakably on a quest to know God better.

There is something most striking with those who are offended with my suggestion that Paul might have been facing consequences from his own forwardness. They generally hold to the view that God sent, (or allowed), the thorn to teach him something, usually humility. In that they are directly implying that Paul was forward before God and needed correction. My perspective at least tries to apply all the scriptures in a meaningful, logical, biblical perspective on the issue of the thorn.