"Thorn in the flesh". What was it?

[praise_yeshua]

2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Co 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Before I give my "penny" on what Paul is referencing, I'd like to hear some opinions. I know most of opinions concerning this but it just hasn't ever "sat right" with me and my spirit. I've long thought there is "more than meets the eye" to be found in this.

Anyone want to share?

 

[jeremiah1five]

2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Co 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Before I give my "penny" on what Paul is referencing, I'd like to hear some opinions. I know most of opinions concerning this but it just hasn't ever "sat right" with me and my spirit. I've long thought there is "more than meets the eye" to be found in this.

Anyone want to share?

I believe you mean "THORN" in the flesh.

I would prefer to say he had an eye condition due to his losing his sight in white light.
Normal blindness see darkness. Saul didn't.

The cause:
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Acts 9:3.

The result:
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Acts 9:8–9.

The cure:
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Acts 9:17–18.

scales: Strong's [#3013] lepis from lepo (to peel); a flake.
13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Galatians 4:13–15.

As Scripture says, "no flesh shall glory in His Presence." Eyes are of the body, of the flesh. They see the physical world. But the light that "knocked" him off his horse caused him to lose his sight in [white] light. His appearance was possibly altered and may have been seen by others as "disturbing", such as someone who was cross-eyed, but to a different and greater degree. I can only think of aged dogs whose eyes become cloudy, white, eyeballs. That is my edumacated guesstimate.
I'm curious to know your thoughts.

(Maybe the Administrator can edit "torn" if you really meant "thorn."?)

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe you mean "THORN" in the flesh.

I would prefer to say he had an eye condition due to his losing his sight in white light.
Normal blindness see darkness. Saul didn't.

The cause:
3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
Acts 9:3.

The result:
8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
Acts 9:8–9.

The cure:
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Acts 9:17–18.

scales: Strong's [#3013] lepis from lepo (to peel); a flake.
13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Galatians 4:13–15.

As Scripture says, "no flesh shall glory in His Presence." Eyes are of the body, of the flesh. They see the physical world. But the light that "knocked" him off his horse caused him to lose his sight in [white] light. His appearance was possibly altered and may have been seen by others as "disturbing", such as someone who was cross-eyed, but to a different and greater degree. I can only think of aged dogs whose eyes become cloudy, white, eyeballs. That is my edumacated guesstimate.
I'm curious to know your thoughts.

(Maybe the Administrator can edit "torn" if you really meant "thorn."?)

Both thorn and torn are relative in meaning. A Thorn tears and pierces. They both come from German into Old English. I didn't intend to make the mistake but I'm fine with it staying there. It might draw attention.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and correcting me.

I'll wait a couple of days and see if anyone else shares their thoughts. I'll then make the case for my position....

 

[civic]

I edited it so you won’t get a bunch of comments

 

[Tothalordbeallglory]

2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Co 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Before I give my "penny" on what Paul is referencing, I'd like to hear some opinions. I know most of opinions concerning this but it just hasn't ever "sat right" with me and my spirit. I've long thought there is "more than meets the eye" to be found in this.

Anyone want to share?

Whatever it was it was to keep paul humble .
Not to be exalted above measure .

 

[jeremiah1five]

Whatever it was it was to keep paul humble .
Not to be exalted above measure .

It may have kept Saul humble so that he does not exalt himself above 'measure' but too bad many today exalt Saul/Paul ABOVE what is his measure.

But tell me, exactly what was his "measure"?

 

[praise_yeshua]

It may have kept Saul humble so that he does not exalt himself above 'measure' but too bad many today exalt Saul/Paul ABOVE what is his measure.

But tell me, exactly what was his "measure"?

A better man than any of us. He was a principled Jew that wasn't a racist like Peter.

I'd love to compare Paul and Peter with you.

I'm nothing. I don't claim to be anything but a son. I'll wait till my Lord speaks of me. However, this is a losing battle for you. You hate Paul because he was right in what he said.

As far as the "thorn in the flesh"......

It is very real possibly that Paul was married. It is unlikely that Paul would have risen to the level he did among his peers without being married.

The separation and pain he felt in the "thorn in the flesh" could possibly have been the separation that came about between Paul and his wife in the work of Satan against his wife.

That is what Satan seeks to do. Satan seeks to separate those who love one another. It is why Satan targeted Eve. It is the appeal of the "Bride" of Christ and the great "mystery" of Christ and His Bride in everlasting love and union.

Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

 

[Tothalordbeallglory]

A better man than any of us. He was a principled Jew that wasn't a racist like Peter.

I'd love to compare Paul and Peter with you.

I'm nothing. I don't claim to be anything but a son. I'll wait till my Lord speaks of me. However, this is a losing battle for you. You hate Paul because he was right in what he said.

As far as the "thorn in the flesh"......

It is very real possibly that Paul was married. It is unlikely that Paul would have risen to the level he did among his peers without being married.

The separation and pain he felt in the "thorn in the flesh" could possibly have been the separation that came about between Paul and his wife in the work of Satan against his wife.

That is what Satan seeks to do. Satan seeks to separate those who love one another. It is why Satan targeted Eve. It is the appeal of the "Bride" of Christ and the great "mystery" of Christ and His Bride in everlasting love and union.

Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

Peter was not racist at all . peter nor paul preached or taught contrary to Christ or one another .
This people have sat under men way too long

 

[Tothalordbeallglory]

It may have kept Saul humble so that he does not exalt himself above 'measure' but too bad many today exalt Saul/Paul ABOVE what is his measure.

But tell me, exactly what was his "measure"?

as i have long told this generation , people have sat under men way too long .
As if peter or paul contradicted each other or CHRIST .

 

[Selah]

2Co 12:6 For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me.
2Co 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Co 12:8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Co 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Before I give my "penny" on what Paul is referencing, I'd like to hear some opinions. I know most of opinions concerning this but it just hasn't ever "sat right" with me and my spirit. I've long thought there is "more than meets the eye" to be found in this.

Anyone want to share?

I believe Paul was concerned that his listeners would begin to worship him instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. Or perhaps Paul might’ve even worried of getting the “big head” a little bit. It could be that the thorn that was given him was the bad eyesight that may have resulted from that extremely bright light (God’s Shechinah glory?) on the road to Damascus. The most important thing to pay attention to here, though, are Jesus Christ's words of "My grace is sufficient for thee" because these words are so applicable to our everyday lives. We can rest assured that we can rely on the LORD’s perfect strength and guidance when facing the tough times that come to us all. It is His strength that keeps us going when we don’t even feel we can take one more step. Thank You, Jesus.

s e l a h

 

[jeremiah1five]

A better man than any of us. He was a principled Jew that wasn't a racist like Peter.

They were ALL racist against non-Hebrews. They knew what God promised Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and they knew their history. They knew God made no covenant with non-Hebrews, that Israel was commanded to not mingle with the "Goyim" and learn their ways. They were commanded by God to make no covenants with the Goyim,

32 Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods.
33 They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. Exodus 23:32–33.

God commanded Joshua to enter Canaan and utterly destroy the inhabitants, to destroy all the men, women, and children, infant, and babies in the womb.

Tell me, how can Gentiles claim Jesus, the Son of God, knowing that God commanded their extinction and eradication? How can they (Gentiles) claim "Jesus loves me" with that kind of history? On whose side was God on when God commanded the Israelites to enter Canaan and utterly destroy the Goyim in the land??
There's some amiss in the belief that non-Hebrews are among the saved of the world. God has such a hatred for these uncircumcised, non-covenant, idol-worshiping Gentiles that God commanded the Israelites destroy Gentiles living in Canaan and TAKE THE LAND BY FORCE! And Gentiles are supposed to be OK with this, to later claim "God loves Gentiles" and the "Jesus died for Gentiles"? There is something wrong with that picture. Hos can God love Gentiles when God commanded their destruction by Joshua?

I'd love to compare Paul and Peter with you.

I'm nothing. I don't claim to be anything but a son. I'll wait till my Lord speaks of me. However, this is a losing battle for you. You hate Paul because he was right in what he said.

As far as the "thorn in the flesh"......

It is very real possibly that Paul was married. It is unlikely that Paul would have risen to the level he did among his peers without being married.

Marriage was not a factor in Saul's rise among the priesthood. Most elders were married. Saul surpassed most rabbi's and Pharisee's because he studied at the feet of Gamaliel, one of their foremost teachers in Judaism. The idea that Saul was married is obscure at best. There is nothing that says Saul was married. It is an extrapolation from the Text.

The separation and pain he felt in the "thorn in the flesh" could possibly have been the separation that came about between Paul and his wife in the work of Satan against his wife.

That is what Satan seeks to do. Satan seeks to separate those who love one another. It is why Satan targeted Eve. It is the appeal of the "Bride" of Christ and the great "mystery" of Christ and His Bride in everlasting love and union.

Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

It can also be extrapolated that Saul was a widow, especially in light of the instruction he gives single and marrieds in 1 Corinthians 7.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:8.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 1 Corinthians 7:11–12.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 1 Corinthians 7:25.

Saul speaks as one who has personal experience. It is more probable that Saul was widowed, not single except that his widowhood is his singleness.

 

[jeremiah1five]

as i have long told this generation , people have sat under men way too long .
As if peter or paul contradicted each other or CHRIST .

It is through men that many things are learned.
It's not that Peter or Saul contradicted each other, it's the fact that each did not have the same calling or the same spiritual gifts to accomplish that call, or even the same commandment of the Lord.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Peter was not racist at all . peter nor paul preached or taught contrary to Christ or one another .
This people have sat under men way too long

Peter was definitely a racist. The Scriptures prove it.

Peter told God NO when God told him to embrace Gentiles.

Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

That is the very essence of racism. Jonah was a racist. Peter and the church at Jerusalem ignored the Gentiles for decades. How many people do you believe died without the Gospel because of their actions?

These men you worship are not just men. Better men than me but by no means your Lord.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I believe Paul was concerned that his listeners would begin to worship him instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. Or perhaps Paul might’ve even worried of getting the “big head” a little bit. It could be that the thorn that was given him was the bad eyesight that may have resulted from that extremely bright light (God’s Shechinah glory?) on the road to Damascus. The most important thing to pay attention to here, though, are Jesus Christ's words of "My grace is sufficient for thee" because these words are so applicable to our everyday lives. We can rest assured that we can rely on the LORD’s perfect strength and guidance when facing the tough times that come to us all. It is His strength that keeps us going when we don’t even feel we can take one more step. Thank You, Jesus.

s e l a h

He wasn't concerned at all. In fact, he made it abundantly clear.

1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
1Co 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

Many people blame "eyesight" but it was nothing but a distraction.

Give you another reason for Paul being married.....

He gave the requirement for overseer to manage the "Church of God"....

1Ti 3:2 A overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

He would have never set that requirement without having experience himself. It most like true that Paul lost his family in embracing Jesus Christ.

 

[praise_yeshua]

They were ALL racist against non-Hebrews. They knew what God promised Abram the Hebrew (Gen. 14:13) and they knew their history. They knew God made no covenant with non-Hebrews, that Israel was commanded to not mingle with the "Goyim" and learn their ways. They were commanded by God to make no covenants with the Goyim,

Saul was but he changed. You're still a racist.

Peter eventually changed

God commanded Joshua to enter Canaan and utterly destroy the inhabitants, to destroy all the men, women, and children, infant, and babies in the womb.

God told Abraham to kill his own son.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Tell me, how can Gentiles claim Jesus, the Son of God, knowing that God commanded their extinction and eradication? How can they (Gentiles) claim "Jesus loves me" with that kind of history? On whose side was God on when God commanded the Israelites to enter Canaan and utterly destroy the Goyim in the land??
There's some amiss in the belief that non-Hebrews are among the saved of the world. God has such a hatred for these uncircumcised, non-covenant, idol-worshiping Gentiles that God commanded the Israelites destroy Gentiles living in Canaan and TAKE THE LAND BY FORCE! And Gentiles are supposed to be OK with this, to later claim "God loves Gentiles" and the "Jesus died for Gentiles"? There is something wrong with that picture. Hos can God love Gentiles when God commanded their destruction by Joshua?

Pay attention to what Jesus did.

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Ask this descendent of Canaan how Jesus blessed her.... There were many "Israelites" that didn't get their prayers answered. This women did.

How do you treat your dogs? There is a unique relationship that exits between human beings and animals. I bet you treat your animals like crap. Your attitude is horrible toward your fellowmen in Adam. It must be worse with this "dogs" you see around you.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Marriage was not a factor in Saul's rise among the priesthood.

Paul gave his lineage. It was not of the priestly order of Aaron.

Most elders were married. Saul surpassed most rabbi's and Pharisee's because he studied at the feet of Gamaliel, one of their foremost teachers in Judaism. The idea that Saul was married is obscure at best. There is nothing that says Saul was married. It is an extrapolation from the Text.

He well understood the relationship of a man and wife. He showed his experience throughout his commentary. He knew his wife better than you know a women. You can't believe the things you believe and not be failing your mate.

It can also be extrapolated that Saul was a widow, especially in light of the instruction he gives single and marrieds in 1 Corinthians 7

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:8.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 1 Corinthians 7:11–12.

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. 1 Corinthians 7:25.

Saul speaks as one who has personal experience. It is more probable that Saul was widowed, not single except that his widowhood is his singleness..

You're double minded in all things. You claim Saul wasn't married and then you claim he was widowed. You can't have both.

It is very unlikely that Paul would have been widowed and he wouldn't talk about such things openly to edify the hearer. What would keep him from mention his family and estolling Timothy as "his own son in the faith" would come from losing his family to the efforts of Satan. It would be "too painful/thorn" to properly express and self serving.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Peter was definitely a racist. The Scriptures prove it.

Peter told God NO when God told him to embrace Gentiles.

Act 11:8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

That is the very essence of racism. Jonah was a racist. Peter and the church at Jerusalem ignored the Gentiles for decades. How many people do you believe died without the Gospel because of their actions?

These men you worship are not just men. Better men than me but by no means your Lord.

Peter was pro-Jew. He told God "No" not because God was speaking about Gentiles, but that God was speaking about unclean animals. Peter did not understand until Cornelius appeared and opened his mouth.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Saul was but he changed. You're still a racist.

Peter eventually changed



God told Abraham to kill his own son.

Abraham knew it was a false flag.

Saul remained a rabbi and Pharisee obedient to the Law even after he became a born-again Jew and met Jesus. Jesus didn't come to cause His people to reject the Law. It was only after one becomes born-again that their relationship changes under the Law. The Law has been put in their inward parts and they were justified "Not Guilty!" of violating the Law and now when they sin the Holy Spirit within them deals with them from within.
ALL ISRAEL was justified which allowed God to forgive them (Jer. 31:34) and "remember their sin no more."

 

[jeremiah1five]

Pay attention to what Jesus did.

Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

Ask this descendent of Canaan how Jesus blessed her.... There were many "Israelites" that didn't get their prayers answered. This women did.

How do you treat your dogs? There is a unique relationship that exits between human beings and animals. I bet you treat your animals like crap. Your attitude is horrible toward your fellowmen in Adam. It must be worse with this "dogs" you see around you.

The woman was mixed-race (Jew-Gentile.)

If she was non-Hebrew Jesus would give her nothing.

By calling Jesus "son of David" only a Hebrew/Jew would care to know the prophecies and that Jesus fulfilled it to her satisfaction.

God gives NOTHING to Gentiles:

17 All nations before him are as nothing;
And they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isaiah 40:17.

Obey the Scripture.