12:7 So that I would not become arrogant, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to trouble me—so that I would not become arrogant. 12:8 I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me. 12:9 But he said to me, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Murray Harris (Navigating Tough Texts) identifies the following characteristics of Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’:

1. It was given to Paul as a direct consequence of the revelations he received in paradise (v. 7).
2. It caused him acute pain, either physically or psychologically, which prompted him to seek its removal (vv. 7–8). In Classical Greek, the word skolops commonly meant “stake,” but in the LXX, as also in the papyri, it means “splinter” or “thorn.” “In the flesh” (en sarki) has the sense “embedded in/driven into my body.”
3. He regarded it, paradoxically, as simultaneously given by God (“was given” is a “theological passive”) and yet a “messenger” or instrument of Satan (see part 1, ch. 2).
4. It was a permanent condition, as implied by the two present tenses, “to keep me from being too elated” and “to pummel.” Yet its exacerbations were intermittent, as implied by the “three times (I implored the Lord)” in verse 9.
5. It was humbling, for it was designed to curb or prevent spiritual arrogance (note the repeated “to keep me from being too elated”) over the “extraordinary nature” (or “stupendous grandeur,” Weymouth) of the revelations received.
6. It was humiliating, comparable to receiving vicious blows about the face. The colorful verb kolaphizō means “strike with the fist,” or, more generally, “maltreat violently,” “batter,” “knock about.”
7. It caused Paul to feel weak (vv. 9–10), yet the weakness it caused became an object of boasting (v. 9; cf. v. 5) and a source of pleasure (v. 10).

Most commentators are wisely guarded about the identification of Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’.

Kruse mentions the following possibilities:

‘(i) some form of spiritual harassment, for example, the limitations of a nature corrupted by sin, the torments of temptation, or oppression by a demon;

(ii) persecution, for example, that instigated by Jewish opposition or by Paul’s Christian opponents;

(iii) some physical or mental ailment, for example, eye trouble, attacks of malarial fever, stammering speech, epilepsy, headaches or a neurological disturbance;

(iv) the Corinthian church’s rejection of his apostleship.’

We can cluster suggestions around:

(a) extrinsic impediments, such as harrassment from one or more opponents.

(b) intrinsic impediments, such as some kind of physical disability;

(a) An extrinsic impediment?

Linda Belleville, while noting that various solutions have been offered – ‘epilepsy, a speech impediment, malaria, an ophthalmic malady, leprosy, attacks of migraine’, suggests that one option would be to identify the ‘thorn in the flesh’ with troublesome Jews (perhaps alluded to in v10).  The meaning would then be akin to us referring to someone as ‘a pain in the neck’.

The idea that Paul’s ‘thorn’ was an opponent or persecutor was first mooted by Chrysostom, who noted that ‘satana‘ can simply mean ‘adversary’.  He thought that Paul might have Alexander the Coppersmith particularly in mind.

Paul might plausibly have picked up his turn of phrase from texts such as:

Num 33:55 – “If you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, then those whom you allow to remain will be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your side, and will cause you trouble in the land where you will be living.”

Eze 28:24 – ‘No longer will Israel suffer from the sharp briers or painful thorns of all who surround and scorn them.’

Against this interpretation, Hafemann notes that

(i) ‘In 11:14–15, Satan appears as an angel of light whose servants, Paul’s opponents, must be opposed (cf. 10:4–6; 11:4);

(ii) ‘In chapter 11, Paul therefore fights against his opponents as part of the eschatological battle between Satan and Christ, while in 12:7–10 Paul accepts Satan’s messenger as the demonic angel who does God’s bidding’;

(iii) ‘This is confirmed by the contrast between 12:7–10 and 1 Thessalonians 2:18, where persecution leads to a hindering of Paul’s work, not to an education in dependence and humility’;

(iv) ‘in 2 Corinthians 10–11, Paul faces many opponents (see 10:12–16; 11:5, 12–15, 18, 22–23; the use of the singular to refer to the opponents in 10:7, 11, 18; 11:4, 20 is collective), whereas in 12:7–10 he faces a single messenger.’

Gundry observes that if Paul was referring to opponents, we would expect to read a plural – rather than a singular – ‘a thorn…a messenger’.

(b) An intrinsic impediment?

This is favoured by the majority of commentators.

Harper’s Bible Commentary:

‘Paul nowhere specifies the nature of this satanic impediment, but it was probably some kind of physical ailment, not seriously disabling, but certainly bothersome enough to prompt him to pray for divine healing.’

The phrase ‘in the flesh’ suggests that the ailment was physical.  We then have to weigh up how Paul could have endured all that he lists in 2 Cor 11:24-27 if he suffered from a debilitating disability.  But the present passage does not say how debilitating the condition was (although it certainly ‘tormented’ him).  And, in any case history is replete with examples of men and women who have achieved much while suffering from serious illnesses and disabilities.

John Calvin is one such example.  Garland quotes Storms:

‘[Calvin’s] afflictions read like a medical journal. He suffered from painful stomach cramps, intestinal influenza, and recurring migraine headaches. He was subject to a persistent onslaught of fevers that would often lay him up for weeks at a time. He experienced problems with his trachea, in addition to pleurisy, gout, and colic. He was especially susceptible to hemorrhoids, which were aggravated by an internal abscess that would not heal. He suffered from severe arthritis and acute pain in his knees, calves, and feet. Other maladies included nephritis (acute, chronic inflammation of the kidney caused by infection), gallstones, and kidney stones. He once passed a kidney stone so large that it tore the urinary canal and led to excessive bleeding. He contracted pulmonary tuberculosis at fifty-one, which led ultimately to his death.’

Some have conjectured that Paul’s ‘thorn’ was some kind of psychological problem, such as depression, a tendency to doubt, or even some kind of sexual temptation.

Concerning this latter suggestion, I mention the theory of John Shelby Spong, who in Re-Claiming The Bible For A Non-Religious World, claims that Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ was his repressed homosexuality:

‘Paul was a zealot who tried with all his might to worship God properly. He bound the desires that he found natural within himself, but nonetheless deeply troubling and intensely negative, so tightly inside the laws of the Jews that he was able, at least partially, to suppress those desires. This was the internal pressure that caused Paul to view his body quite negatively. The promise of death, said the Torah, was the end result of the sin that Paul appears to have felt sure lived in his uncontrollable “member.” … Was his thorn in the flesh his deeply repressed homosexuality? Other theories have been offered: malaria, epilepsy, a chronic eye disease, diabetes, perhaps even an abusive and distorting childhood sexual experience. None, however, fits the details we know of Paul’s life so totally as the suggestion that he was a gay man.’

In support of his argument, Spong cites Paul’s deep agony of spirit (Rom 7) and his ‘fear within’ (2 Cor 7:5).  Paul’s reference in Rom 7:23 to the ‘war’ taking place in his ‘members’ (Gk. ‘melos‘) which suggests, to Spong, that what disturbs him is some aspect of his sexuality.  Paul’s sense of shame is also reflected in Rom 6:21.  He regards himself as an imposter who longs to be true (2 Cor 6:8-10).

Even though Paul recommends marriage to others (1 Cor 7:9), for some reason he does not follow his own advice.  Indeed, he seems not to have liked women (and many women today do not like Paul).

(Source of these quotations from Spong)

I think that Spong’s view has little to commend it.

Harris thinks that Paul’s ailment was probably physical.  He notes:

‘In 1 Corinthians 5:5 (cf. 1 Cor 11:30; 1 Tim 1:20), Satan appears as God’s agent for the infliction of disciplinary illness (cf. Job 2:1–10). Certainly a recurrent and tormenting illness could be considered “a messenger of Satan,” for it might bring Paul within the shadow of death (cf. 2 Cor 1:8–9) or hinder the advance of the gospel either by arousing the contempt of the hearers (cf. Gal 4:13–14) or by frustrating his travel plans (cf. 1 Thess 2:18).’

Belleville thinks that some kind of persistent physical malady is a possibility.  Gal 4:14f; 6:11 may even hint at some kind of ophthalmic disability.  Ben Witherington III is of a similar opinion.

Seifrid concludes:

‘But in the end, only God knows the affliction that was given to Paul. Indeed, it may well have been a variety of afflictions: Paul identifies the “thorn” with a messenger of Satan. The numerous beatings that this one delivers may encompass all of the sufferings that the apostle names and more (2 Cor 11:23–33).’

Noting that most interpreters understand it probably to have been some kind of physical ailment (due to Paul’s use of the word ‘flesh’, Kruse comments:

‘the plain fact is that there is insufficient data to decide the matter.’