Paul's Thorn in the Flesh is Simply Just a Servant of Satan

According to 2 Corinthians 12:7 Paul was given a thorn in his flesh to keep him humble. The views that have emerged regarding the thorn in Paul's flesh are those of great speculation. For example one view is that Paul had unholy thoughts about God, another view is that the thorn in Paul's flesh led to a disbelief in God's word, another view is that a physical ailment represented the thorn, another view was that the thorn was representative of a person that Paul had to associate with that annoyed him, another view is that the thorn represented a wound that Paul fell regarding the message of the Gospel going forth, and yet another view is that Paul had sexually immoral thoughts that represent the thorn. Regardless of the various views that people hold regarding the thorn in the flesh, the purpose of this paper is to prove that the thorn in Paul's flesh was actually just a servant of Satan.

Theories Regarding Paul's Torn in the Flesh

The problem with the view that Paul had unholy thoughts about God that represented the thorn is that it may have disqualified him as an apostle. Although Spurgeon indicates that the thorn in the flesh of Paul signifies Paul's status as a sinner (Spurgeon, 1), the reception of Paul as an apostle would have been at stake in his time if this was the case. For Paul to indicate that he had been truly changed from killing Christians into a holy and righteous person he had to have some evidence to back this claim, and the problem with living in a unholy lifestyle is that it contradicts the work that God had done in the act of salvation as this would be true for Paul that was transformed by the power of the cross. Overall, although the view may have a popular appeal it would contradict and discredit Paul from being able to competently minister because his interest would be divided.

The Problem with the theory that the thorn was representative of a disbelief in the Word of God is that it raises the question of how changed Paul would have been from his former self when he did not believe in Jesus Christ and murdered Christians. For some scholars such as Ladd however this is not a problem; moreover, consider what Ladd has to say about the subject, "...the evils of this age, while messengers of Satan, are also instruments of God's grace for Christian growth and for a richer experience of divine blessing. Paul's thorn in the flesh was not removed but was given to him, probably by God ..., to be a means by which he might better learn the sufficiency of God's grace in weakness. Evils, then, for the Christian do not point to the aloofness and the unconcern of God; rather they are the very experiences by which he learns most intimately the deeper meaning of fellowship with God." (Ladd, 84) Although Ladd points out that the thorn in the flesh was a instrument of God's grace, the point to be made from Ladd is that if Ladd is correct, then Paul would not have received everything needed from scripture and the gospel to bring about the fullness of a fellowship with God.

With the idea thus that Paul was so unfaithful to scripture that God had to use evil spirits to teach Paul a lesson, the question of his quality to bring other people into his same faith should have become an issue. If then we are to believe that the reason why Paul killed Christians is because he falsely did not acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, then for Paul to be found to have a disbelief in the Word of God after his conversion would have been disastrous to his credibility. Overall, Jews against Christian freedom would have for example won the case that Christians do not believe in the message of the scripture, and the problem is that the Jews would have been correct.

Among those that indicate that the thorn of Paul represented a physical ailment, a person would have to wonder why Paul would even have wasted the time in mentioning the point in scripture. According to Mullins however the view of the thorn in the flesh of Paul representing a physical handicap, was the popular view of Mullins's day and the view was so popular that some scholars like Goodspeed even translated the Greek text of 2 Corinthians 12:7 to refer to a physical condition instead of a thorn (Mullins, 299). 2 Corinthians 6:8-10 for example would give some evidence to back the claim by showing Paul talking about how serious his physical challenges had been as well as how wonderful the results had been. For Paul to complain about one particular physical ailment would be like saying that almost dying, being beaten, and having nothing would be far less of a problem than his physical ailment, and the truth is that if Paul did have such a physical ailment then he would likely not even talk about it because people in that day may have disassociated themselves with such people.

The problem with the view that Paul was tormented by someone that he knew that would have caused him problems on a regular bases that he had to associate with is that if this was the case, then Paul would not be practicing the same virtue as Jesus practiced when he was tortured prior to his crucifixion. Young thus entertains the idea that the thorn in Paul's flesh represented the persecution and difficulties that Paul suffered (Young, 81), and in this way he gives room for the possibility that Paul's thorn was a very personal one that embodied a specific persecutor. What however is worst of all about this hypothesis is that if Paul was praying for his enemies to be eliminated (the thorn thus being removed), then he would not be living the crucifixion of Christ out in his body. The idea that Paul would have someone that would bother him that he was trying to get rid of, like pulling out a thorn from the flesh, indicates that Paul would not have had the personal qualities necessary for the type of ministry that he was doing.

If Paul had a thorn in his side that represented all the sorrow for the damage that the gospel would do in sending people to hell, then how would heaven not also be filled with morning? Moses was first to plead to God that if God did not forgive the Israelites, then Moses wanted God to blot him out of his book according to Exodus 32:32. Paul follows with this expression of emotion of Moses by indicating that he would rather be accursed and cut off from Christ than to have his brothers the Jews damned according to Romans 9:3.

The problem is that if Paul had to suffer for people being sent to hell, then how is that any better than him being sent to hell himself. Although Paul may have suffered emotional loss as a result of people being dammed because of his message, the question to ask is, "wouldn't that just give the demons a vast upper hand in knowing that they could constantly work on Paul with their new Jewish recruits?" Worst of all regarding this view is that if such a view was correct then the church itself would be full of morning over the damned that have gone to hell as a result of the gospel message not being received by those people properly.

The problem with the view that Paul's thorn represented evil sexual thoughts is that Paul would be tormented by his very fleshly nature in a way that would give him impure thoughts about the very people that he was serving. Oaks supports the view that many different types of thorns may exist, and he upholds the idea that they can take the form of sexual inclinations to sin (Oaks, 4-5). These impure thoughts would divide Paul between the desires to serve God and the desires to serve evil.

Although Paul may have had divided desires, the idea of this taking a sexual form would be somewhat hideous to many of the people that he was serving while it may be a vast subject of interest to others. If Paul was announcing to his people that he was having problems with sexual desires, then it would only make things worse instead of better. By people knowing that Paul had problems with sexual desires, it would only cause more reason to approach him on the issue; moreover, it would be like a young man asking a beautify single woman for forgiveness because he fantasizes about her. Overall, the point is that obviously Paul likely did not have problems with sexual desires that he was making known to the church.

As can be seen, all six cases for what Paul's thorn in the flesh means fail to show themselves to be correct views. If any of the views had been correct, then Paul would talk about his problems as being stumbling blocks to his ministry instead of introducing the subject as just a problem that existed simply because Paul was being taught a lesson. The point is that the New Testament introduces the subject as Paul's main concern as if he is just being put under discomfort in order to keep being humble, and no evidence exists that he is having a problem that causes him to not have a successful ministry as a result of the thorn.

Solution to the Thorn in the Flesh

The most basic solution is that the thorn in the flesh represents an evil spirit, and this evil spirit would not be inside of Paul because Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost. The evil spirit would instead be given to Paul as a 'messenger of Satan' under the authority of God just like in the example of Satan tormenting Job. Overall, the idea with this view is that the evil spirit functioned for God's purpose to teach Paul a lesson, and what is clear, in the scripture, is that Paul was truly being taught a lesson about humility.

If the evil spirit tormented Paul, then it might be likely that it would get unbelievers rallied together against Paul, or the evil spirit may even give Paul anxiety attacks, paranoid thoughts, and even other such problems of perception. The evil spirit may have actually caused a wide range of annoyances. Overall, the reason why this view of a evil spirit causing a wide range of annoyances is more preferred to the other views is because if Paul had a specific problem with one thing that happened in his ministry, then it would cause him to be less effective (God would not cause Paul to be less effective as a punishment or even as a teaching aid).

Paul likely would have dealt with the evil spirit by praying to God for the spirit to be taken away, and according to the scripture, that the torn of the flesh is mentioned in, Paul prayed to God three times for the evil spirit to be taken away (2 Corinthians 12:8). The reason why the scripture talks about Paul praying to God while neglecting to mention Paul opening dialog with the demon is because if Paul had opened dialog with the demon, then it would only cause more problems with demonic annoyance as the demon would be getting attention that would encourage him. Overall, if Paul was given the message to leave the demon alone after praying three times because it was put in place for a purpose, then Paul would be unfaithful to God to pray anymore about the issue and he would be indicating to the demon that Paul is really giving in.

God would have kept the evil spirit tormenting Paul because as Job would be able to attest that is just how God does things. What is thus clear is that God uses both good spirits and evil spirits to accomplish his plans, and thus a grander lesson to be learned from the thorn in the flesh of Paul is that God has a purpose for evil while it exists. God's purpose for evil is in order to accomplish good, and this is clear with the thorn in the flesh of Paul because the good that the evil accomplishes is that it teaches Paul to be more humble. Overall, God thus could have eliminated the thorn in Paul's flesh, but instead he chose not to for a purpose.

What the Thorn in Paul's Flesh Would Teach About Reading the Scripture

The most basic idea that the thorn in Paul's flesh communicates about reading the scripture is that the scripture describes the purposes of both good and evil. If the thorn in the flesh had not been mentioned in the scripture, then people would get the idea that God had no purpose for evil existing. If God had no purpose for evil existing, then it would not exist on its own purely for its own purposes.

The danger in believing that evil only exists for its own purposes without it being used by God is that it would teach that God is either not in control of evil or that God wars against evil in such a way as to indicate that God has serious problems trying to keep control over things. With the view that evil does not fit under a plan of God, the danger is that people would believe that God is perhaps not in control of everything in the universe. Overall, God being in control of everything in the universe at once eliminates the possibility for Satan to posses the same qualities of God.

If Satan had the same qualities as what God has, then Christianity would be teaching a two god system with the trinity representing the axis of good and Satan representing the axis of evil. Just by evaluating the thorn in the flesh of Paul, a person could conclude that Christianity teaches that God is in complete control of the evil spirits, but we would learn that God does not always handle the evil spirits as people would want him to. God positions evil spirits in such a way that they serve his own purposes.

The thorn in the flesh of Paul demonstrates that God has a plan for even the most rebellious spirits that exist only for the reason of tormenting people. God uses his plan to cover both how good and evil will workout together. The point is that if passages like those that describe the thorn in Paul's flesh did not exist, then people would think that God does not plan for evil. People would actually think that God only has a plan for good and that if those saved do not measure up to the plan that God has for good, then they are falling short of God's plan. Overall, Paul's thorn in his flesh teaches that people cannot fall short of God's plan no matter how evil because God has a plan for even demons.

The point to be made is that what Paul's thorn in the flesh teaches us is that even Satan could gain more knowledge about God's plan for him by the scripture itself. Not only that but also Paul's thorn shows some evil spirits as being inside of the confines of the church. If evil spirits had not been inside of the confines of the church, then Paul would have no reason to edify the church about his particular problem with a particular evil spirit. If Satan could not gain knowledge about God's plan for himself through the scripture, then why would so much of the scripture address evil for the sake of explaining its purpose? Overall, the thorn in Paul's flesh in highly important for explaining the fact that God has a plan for evil.

Understanding the Confusion

The Christian popular belief is that God has a plan for only his own that are saved, and the popular Christian belief is that God does not have control over everything in the universe but that instead he is just simply in control of most things. Paul's thorn in the flesh brings out many theories about what Paul meant because most people would want to believe that God only orchestrates the good and not also the evil. Instead of people reading the scripture and learning the plain and simple truth about what Paul obviously says about the thorn in his flesh on face value people instead make up many different theories to explain away how God would only have limited control of evil that he wins in something like a war against Satan.

The major views of Paul's thorn are generally stated in such a way as to exemplify the struggles of Paul against evil, and what is actually being portrayed often is something like a glory story about how Paul triumphed over evil as a fighter of demons. The truth however is much less attractive in that it does not glory Paul as something like a supper hero for righteousness that batted demons first hand, but instead what is taught is that God is in control of everything and that he just simply does as he pleases. Overall, a major lesson to be learned about the major theories regarding the thorn in Paul's flesh is that they focus upon an underlying fantasy that people can fight their way into holiness through their own efforts.

Paul's methods in dealing with the thorn in his flesh are just simply to draw closer to God instead of stooping down to fight the demons. Even when Paul tried to draw closer to God in prayer, God did not grant Paul's request but instead taught Paul that his grace was sufficient. The point is that God's grace being sufficient teaches that God confirmed assurance on Paul that God would not let evil overcome Paul. The point is that God's grace came to Paul with a promise that Paul did not have to worry about the eternal consequences of the thorn in his side, and thus Paul only had to be concerned about the matter when he needed to get relief through an application of God's grace.

God's grace being sufficient would have been like a retail worker constantly tormented by customers that are hard to deal with, and God in this cause would represent the manager that would realize that the customers are hard to deal with and that the problem is not all the fault of the worker. If the worker would come to the employer and explain the problems three different times as the worker would indicate that he or she did not want to deal with such people, then the employer could reassure his or her worker that his grace is sufficient. The employer would thus be granting the promise to not take action on the employee for wrong doing in dealing with the hard cases, and the employer would be assuring the employee that things just had to be that way for a reason. Overall, the example of the employee and employer relationship could be used to parallel exactly what scripture means by indicating that God's grace is sufficient for Paul.

In the example of the employer and employee the employer could tell the bad customers to never come back to the store, but he or she does not do this because the employer has a plan for the customers. The employer could treat his employee harshly for messing up with the customers, but the employer knows better. The employer could remove the employee from the situation, but what is likely is that in order to accomplish the employer's goals the employee is critical in that position. Although the employer has full control over exactly what happens in his or her business, the employer chooses not to eliminate evil. The point is that God like the employer does not endorse the thorn in Paul's side, but on the other hand the employee like Paul has problems with the evil occurring and cannot understand at first why he or she has to deal with the problems of the problem people.

Hopefully by addressing the situation of the thorn in the side of Paul from the perspective of a similar situation that may occur in a work place, the point could be made very clear what scripture is communicating regarding the thorn in Paul's side. Paul like the example of the employee and the employer drew closer to God when the demon brought torment just like the good employee would draw closer to the employer when trouble strikes. Overall, the most fundamental problem with investigating the views that people have regarding the thorn in the side of Paul is that unfortunately one of the major arias that people make problems is over how good and evil relate to each other as both God and demons interact, so really the message of the thorn in the side of Paul can be very obvious to people that are willing to objectively consider how God works among evil.

Conclusion

Despite all the theories and discussion regarding the thorn in Paul's flesh, what can be determined is that the subject could be considered a biblical mystery for serious people to uncover. According to Evens, the Bible contains biblical mysteries that are only shown through Christ, and for Evens the true minister of the scripture would be able to show the meaning of the mysteries such as the thorn in Paul's side through Christ's work (Evens, unnumbered Introduction). Overall, the point is that for Christ to be the logos in John 1 or Word of God that projects the very thoughts of God the Father onto the earth what must take place is that some shrouding of this 'light' must exit in order to make the scripture more than just common knowledge, and the thorn in Paul's side is one example of this very truth.

What is thus important to note is that although the thorn in the side of Paul is a mystery that only Christ can show, the scripture is obvious. The point thus is that because of the fall people have a perception of reality that is so completely corrupted that the only way that they can see what is obvious is through Christ showing it to them. The thorn in the side of Paul is an obvious truth, but when people bring their own wrong conceptions about God to the scripture, then lots of confusion results.

If the scripture says that the thorn in the flesh of Paul was a servant of Satan, then why believe in anything else? Unfortunately the reason why people do believe in other things is because God would not take Paul's thorn away, and the fear of thinking about God as someone that would not free a saint from demonic torment is to horrifying for most to believe. Overall, through trusting God to show mysteries in their clarity, a person could have the psychological ability to firmly believe in the Christian God while reasoning through how he interacts with demons, and this is especially the point with the thorn in Paul's side that would otherwise cause unbelievers and new Christians to either believe a softer message or become to terrified in order to worship God properly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Evens, Roderick. The Mystery of the Thorn: A Study of Paul's Thorn in the Flesh. Camden, North Carolina: Kingdom Builders International Ministries, 2009.

Ladd, George. "The Place of Apocalyptic in Biblical Religion" in The Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 2. London, England: Paternoster, 1958.

Mullins, Terence Y. "Paul's Thorn in the Flesh" in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 76, No. 4. Atlanta, Georgia: The Society of Biblical Literature, 1957.

Oaks, Dallin. Same-Gender Attraction. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2005.

Spurgeon, C. H. The Thorn is the Flesh, No, 1084. London, England: The Metropolitan Tabernacle, 1872.

Young, Brad. "The Ascension Motif of 2 Corinthians 12 in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Tests" in Grace Theological Journal. Winona Lake, Indiana: Grace Theological Seminary, 1988.