Bible Questions and Answers

What was the Apostle Paul's "thorn in the flesh"?

2 Corinthians 12:7-9 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness."

As you can see from the account, we are not told the nature of Paul’s ailment, so we are left in the dark. Speculation leaves us none the wiser.

Barnes Notes: A thorn in the flesh. The word here used (σκολοψ) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means, properly, anything pointed or sharp, e.g., a stake or palisade, (Xen. Anab. 5,2,5;) or the point of a hook. The word is used in the Septuagint to denote a thorn or prickle, as a translation of (HEBREW), (sir) in #Ho 2:6, “I will hedge up thy way with thorns;” to denote a pricking briar in #Eze 28:24, as a translation of (HEBREW), (sillon,) meaning a thorn or prickle, such as is found in the shoots and twigs of the palm-tree; and to denote “pricks in the eyes,” #Nu 33:55, as a translation of (HEBREW), (sikkim,) thorns or prickles. So far as the word here used is concerned, it means a sharp thorn or prickle; and the idea is, that the trial to which he refers was as troublesome and painful as such a thorn would be in the flesh. But whether he refers to some infirmity or pain in the flesh or the body is another question, and a question in which interpreters have been greatly divided in opinion. Every one who has become familiar with commentaries knows that almost every expositor has had his own opinion about this, and also that no one has been able to give any good reason for his own. Most of them have been fanciful; and many of them eminently ridiculous. Even Baxter, who was subject himself to some such disorder, supposes that it might be the stone or gravel; and the usually very judicious Doddridge supposes that the view which he had of the glories of heavenly objects so affected his nerves as to produce a paralytic disorder, and particularly a stammering in his speech, and perhaps also a ridiculous distortion of the countenance. This opinion was suggested by Whitby, and has been adopted also by Benson, Macknight, Slade, and Bloomfield. But though sustained by most respectable names, it would be easy to show that it is mere conjecture, and perhaps quite as improbable as any of the numerous opinions which have been maintained on the subject. If Paul’s speech had been affected, and his face distorted, and his nerves shattered by such a sight, how could he doubt whether he was in the body or out of it when this occurred? Many of the Latin Fathers supposed that some unruly and ungovernable lust was intended. Chrysostom and Jerome suppose that he meant the headache; Tertullian, an earache; and Rosenmuller supposes that it was the gout in the head, (kopfgicht,) and that it was a periodical disorder such as affected him when he was with the Galatians, #Ga 4:13. But all conjecture here is vain; and the numerous strange and ridiculous opinions of commentators is a melancholy attestation of their inclination to fanciful conjecture, where it is impossible, in the nature of the case, to ascertain the truth. All that can be known of this is, that it was some infirmity of the flesh, some bodily affliction or calamity, that was like the continual piercing of the flesh with a thorn, #Ga 4:13; and that it was something that was designed to prevent spiritual pride. It is not indeed an improbable supposition that it was something that could be seen by others, and that thus tended to humble him when with them.

I hope you find this helpful.

God bless,
Glenn