<p>12:7 <i>That I should not be exalted overmuch</i>- The usage of words with the <i>huper</i> prefix is common in this section. The self proclaimed <i>huper</i> or super apostles could not be equalled by Paul because a true servant of Christ will be held back from being <i>huper</i> exalted. Paul repeats this phrase twice in this verse to emphasize the point.</p><p><i>A thorn in the flesh</i>- An impediment of some sort. Whatever or whoever the opposition, there could be no thorn in the Spirit; any retardation of Paul's work was only on a human level. The thorn was Satan's &quot;messenger&quot;, and I suggest below that this refers to an individual coordinating the Jewish campaign against Paul's missionary endeavours. But there are other quite feasible suggestions about the thorn in the flesh; and these are not to be excluded. It's quite possible that the repeated beatings Paul suffered from the Satan the Jews resulted in various health issues such as poor eyesight which meant that indeed, the human &quot;thorn&quot; resulted in 'thorns' in Paul's physical health. </p><p>Here, then, are some other alternatives concerning the thorn:<br /><b>Poor Eyesight</b><br />Gal. 4:10-13 speaks of an 'infirmity in the flesh' which would have led many to despise Paul's preaching; and yet the Galatians overlooked this when they first heard Paul's preaching. Speaking of the same period of time, Paul reminisces how they would have been willing to pluck out their own eyes and give them to him (Gal. 4:15). This would seem to make a fairly firm connection between the &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot; of 2 Cor. 12:7 and the &quot;infirmity in the flesh&quot; of poor eyesight. Thus he concludes the Galatian letter with a&nbsp;reference to the large letter he had written with his own hand (Gal. 6:11); not &quot; large&quot; in the sense of long, but perhaps referring to his physically large and unimpressive handwriting. Paul &quot;earnestly beholding the council&quot; employs a Greek medical term for squinting as a result of poor eyesight (Acts 23:1). <b>&nbsp; <br /></b><br /><b>Malaria</b><br />The description of Paul being with the Corinthians in &quot;weakness and... trembling&quot; (1 Cor. 2:3) uses a specific medical term describing the malaria shakes. &quot;Weakness&quot; is the same word as here in 2 Cor. 12:5, where the thorn in the flesh is a &quot;weakness&quot; given which actually qualifies Paul as an apostle. This would explain why he was &quot;in peril of waters&quot; (Gk. 'rivers'; 2 Cor. 11:26)- the breeding grounds of mosquitoes. Poor eyesight could be associated with malaria; although it us difficult to understand the malaria just beginning in mid-life as suddenly as the 'thorn in the flesh' passage seems to suggest. Paul may well have had malaria, as any such traveller was likely to- quite in addition to any physical 'thorn in the flesh'.&nbsp; </p><p><b>A Spiritual Struggle</b><br />However, there are reasons to think that whilst Paul may have had a physical ailment, the &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot; may have referred to a spiritual affliction. One would expect to read about a thorn in the <i>body</i> if Paul was only speaking of a physical weakness. But in Paul's thinking, &quot;the flesh&quot; so evidently refers to the more abstract things of human nature. The context of the &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot; passage would suggest that it was a spiritual weakness. Paul says that he will not boast of himself, &quot;except in my infirmities&quot; (2 Cor. 12:5). One of his &quot;infirmities&quot; was therefore his &quot;thorn in the flesh&quot;. He is saying that he will not boast of his physical sufferings (which might include his weak eyesight) and achievements, rather he will exult in the fact that he, a man riddled with spiritual infirmity, especially one particular thorn in the flesh, had been used by God, and God's grace was sufficient to overcome all his spiritual weakness. Now this would fit in with the quintessence of Paul's belief: that by grace alone, not human achievement, God works through human weakness to bring about His purpose. Paul isn't adding to his list of physical glorying by saying 'And you know, on top of all this, I've had to struggle all my life with physical weakness'. This would only be continuing his boasting of 2 Cor. 11. But now he changes, and says that he wants to glory in his spiritual weakness, and how God has worked with him despite that.&nbsp; </p><p>Paul asked for the thorn to be taken away; but the answer was that God's <i>grace</i> was sufficient. Grace tends to be associated with forgiveness and justification, rather than with the ability to keep on living with a physical ailment. Likewise Moses, Paul's hero and prototype, asked a similar three times for entry to the land, and was basically given the same answer: that God's gracious forgiveness was sufficient for him. &nbsp; </p><p><b>Women?</b><br />When Paul talks about being buffeted by a thorn in the flesh, he is in fact almost quoting passages from the LXX of Num. 33:55 and Josh. 23:13, where &quot;thorns&quot; which would buffet the <i>eyes</i> of Israel&nbsp;were the Canaanite tribes (cp. Ez. 28:24); and especially, in the context, their women. If they intermarried, those women and what they brought with them would be made by God as thorns in Israel's flesh. The implication could be that Paul had not driven out his Canaanites earlier, and therefore God gave them to Him as a thorn in the flesh, just as He had done to Israel earlier. There is fair reason to think that Paul had been married; he could not have been a member of the Sanhedrin and thus had the power to vote for the murder of the early martyrs unless he had been married and had children (Acts 26:10). His comment that he wished all men to be in his marital position (1 Cor. 7:8) has another slant in this case: he wished them to have had the marriage experience, but be in the single state. As a leading Pharisee, his wife would have been from an appropriate background. &quot; ...for whom I have suffered the loss of all things&quot; would then have been written with a sideways glance back at his wife, children he never saw... all that might have been. In gripping autobiography, Paul relates the innocent days when (as a child) he lived without the knowledge of law and therefore sin. But then, the concept of commandments registered with him; and this &quot;wrought in me all manner of concupiscence&quot; (Rom. 7:8). &quot;Concupiscence&quot; is a conveniently archaic word for lust; and in the thinking and writing of Paul, the Greek <i>epithumia</i> is invariably used in a sexual context.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>As an ardent Pharisee, with all the charisma of the unashamed extremist and evidently rising leader, it is almost certain that the inevitable interplay of sexuality and spirituality, of flesh and spirit, would have played itself out. And after conversion, the inevitable attraction of the committed missionary would have been evident; not least in the charismatic preaching of a new and ultimately true religion which was largely comprised of young / middle aged females (according to contemporary historians). No wonder Paul's slanderers made him out to be immoral; it was the easiest slur to cast. At Thessalonica he was even accused of preaching solely in order to get the praise and financial support of women (so 1 Thess. 2:3-12 implies). And as a man, with the commandments of God producing in him all manner of concupiscence, he would not have lightly shrugged off all these temptations. If this &quot; thorn in the flesh&quot; became particularly strong at a certain time, this could be seen as reference to the beginning of some illicit relationship.&nbsp; <br />And yet it cannot be overlooked that as outlined above, there does seem to be an evident link between the thorn in the flesh and literal blindness (Gal. 4:10-13 = 2 Cor. 12:7). The explanation may be that because of Paul's wandering eyes and mind, his sight was severely impaired. He likens his ailment to a man plucking out his eyes with his own hands (Gal. 4:15), using language unmistakably recalling the Lord's command to pluck out, with ones' own hands, the eyes that offend, that we might enter the Kingdom. The command of Mt. 5:28,29 is in the very context of lustful thinking and looking. In His desire to save us, God has His way. Paul saw that his weakness for women would have cost him the Kingdom, and that therefore the Lord had plucked out his eyes. He had been given a thorn in his flesh spiritually; and so the Lord had given him a thorn in the flesh physically, that he might conquer that spiritual weakness. The other reference to plucking out the offending eye is in Mt. 18:9, in a context regarding the paramount need not to offend the little ones. Could it be that Paul's limitation was to protect some of his converts from stumbling? And so with us, the offending eye or limb must be plucked out or cut off; and if we will not do it, the Lord will: either now, by grace, or in the final destruction of condemnation. We either fall on the stone of the Lord and are broken now, or that stone will fall upon us, and grind us to powder. We either chose the baptism of fire now, or we will be consumed anyway by the fire of judgment. The logic of devotion, self-control and self-sacrifice is powerfully appealing.&nbsp; </p><p>God <i>gave</i> Paul his thorn in the flesh. Whilst God tempts no man- for temptation is a process internal to human nature- He may still have a hand in controlling the situations which lead to temptation. Hence the Lord bid us pray that the Father lead us not into temptation. Each of us has his own specific human weaknesses. When the apostle wrote of shedding <i>the</i> sin which doth so easily beset us (Heb. 12:1), he may have been suggesting that we each have our own specific weakness to overcome. This is certainly a comfort to us in our spiritual struggles. We aren't alone in them. They were given to us. We aren't alone with our nature. The purpose and plan of God for us is articulated even through the darkest nooks of our very essential being. Understanding this should make us the more patient with our brethren, whose evident areas of weakness are not ours. </p><p><i>A messenger of Satan</i>- The Satan in view is the Jewish opposition to Paul's missionary work. An envoy / messenger / representative of that Satan had been allowed by God to operate in order to stop Paul being over exalted. And yet the work of this &quot;thorn&quot; was a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. It is quite possible that the Lord's work suffers because He has to work in such a way so as not to allow our pride to arise to such a point that we are turned out of the way to salvation. If we had developed to the point that we were not so prone to pride or other weaknesses, His work would prosper the more. There is the implication that one particular &ldquo;messenger&rdquo; of the Jewish Satan organized the persecution of Paul &ndash; Alexander (2 Tim. 4:14&ndash;15; 1 Tim. 1:20). The link between the messenger of Satan in 2 Corinthians 12:7 and those of 2 Corinthians 11:13&ndash;15 indicates that this person was a member of the ecclesia also. A primary application of the &quot;man of sin&quot; passage in 2 Thess. 2 may well be to this individual being in the temple (i.e. the church &ndash; 1 Tim. 3:15) of God, &ldquo;whose coming is after the working of (the Jewish) Satan&rdquo; (2 Thess. 2:9). This person could apparently do miracles &ndash; as could the Jewish Christians in the early church (Heb. 6:4&ndash;6). This man of sin is &ldquo;the son of perdition&rdquo; (2 Thess. 2:3), a phrase used to describe Judas (Jn. 17:12). This suggests an allusion back to Judas, and indicates that the man of sin might also be a Jew, who was within the ecclesia, as Judas was, but who betrayed Christ because he wanted the aims of Judaism to be fulfilled rather than those of Christ. The &ldquo;day of Christ&rdquo; referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:2&ndash;3, before which time the man of sin must be developed, was primarily the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 &ndash; which again indicates a primary Jewish fulfilment of the &ldquo;man of sin&rdquo;. Notice that organized Jewish opposition to Paul&rsquo;s preaching was very intense at Thessalonica &ndash; Acts 17:5&ndash;13. The Lord Jesus could have returned in AD70 and therefore passages like 2 Thess. 2 had a possible fulfilment in the first century. His coming was delayed because the various preconditions were not met- so that such prophecies will be fulfilled in spirit but perhaps not to the letter in our last days.</p><p>The work of this messenger of Satan resulted in Paul developing the spiritual characteristic of humility. The Satan stopped Paul from being proud. Pride is produced by the Devil &ndash; 1 Timothy 3:6,7. So we have the situation where Satan stops the work of Satan. Again, this does not make sense under the traditional interpretation of Satan. Mark 7:20&ndash;23 says that pride is a result of our evil heart. Thus the trial brought on Paul by a person acting as a Satan to him stopped his evil desires &ndash; another use of the word &ldquo;Satan&rdquo; &ndash; from leading him into the sin of pride. &ldquo;Satan&rdquo; can be used to describe a man (e.g. Mt. 16:23) and the Greek word for messenger / angel can also apply to men (e.g. Mt. 11:10; Lk. 7:24; James 2:25). &ldquo;Satan&rdquo; may also refer to the adversarial Jewish system, and thus the messenger of Satan is most likely a man acting on behalf of the Jews.</p><p>Everywhere in Paul&rsquo;s writings, as well as in Revelation, &lsquo;Satan&rsquo; always has the definite article &ndash; apart from here. Likewise, this is the only time Paul uses the form <i>Satan</i> rather than his usual <i>satanas</i>. One reason for that could be that Paul is alluding to or quoting from known Jewish literature or ideas which mentioned a &ldquo;messenger of Satan&rdquo;. Another possibility is that he refers here to an Angel&ndash;Satan &ndash; for the Greek word translated &ldquo;messenger&rdquo; is also that for Angel. In this case, he saw himself as Job, suffering affliction from an Angel&ndash;adversary, in order to bring about his spiritual perfection. I have noted the similarities between Job and Paul elsewhere (See my<i> Bible Lives</i> Section 3-3-8).</p><p><i>To harass me, that I should not be exalted too much</i>- Paul uses the same word in 1 Cor. 4:11 concerning how Paul right then was being harassed. The reference was to Jewish instigated opposition to his mission. &ldquo;The messenger of Satan&rdquo; is probably the same as the ministers of Satan referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:13&ndash;15, which we have interpreted as the Judaizers in the early church who were discrediting Paul and seeking to undermine Christianity. The buffeting done by this &ldquo;messenger of Satan&rdquo; is defined in v. 10: &ldquo;Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions...&rdquo; (i.e. in my thorn in the flesh which God will not take away). Note the parallel between the thorn and those things it caused. The reproaches refer to the Jewish ministers of Satan saying things like, &ldquo;his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible&rdquo; (2 Cor. 10:10), as previously explained. The necessities and persecutions quite clearly refer to the constant waves of persecutions he received by the Jews which the book of Acts describe. This would fit the language of &ldquo;buffeting&rdquo; &ndash; implying physical discomfort that he experienced periodically. The infirmities would refer to the ill health which his persecutions by the Jews no doubt resulted in &ndash; being beaten until he appeared dead (Acts 14:19) must have done permanent damage, as would receiving &ldquo;forty stripes save one&rdquo; five times and thrice being &ldquo;beaten with rods&rdquo; because of the Jews (2 Cor. 11:24&ndash;25). Thus the passage probably refers to an organized program of persecution of Paul by the Jews which began after the vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1&ndash;4, from which time he dates his experience of the thorn in the flesh. It was from this time that Paul&rsquo;s zealous preaching to the Gentiles no doubt stimulated the Jews to more violent opposition to him. Their complaint against him was often that he was adulterating the Jewish religion by allowing Gentiles the chance of salvation by what he preached.</p>