Clay & Thorns
The earliest known interpretation comes from Tertullian (155/160–225/250). He explained Paul’s skolops as severe headaches, consistent with the verb kolaphizō (“to beat”). His view was accepted by Jerome (347–420). Chrysostom (344/354–407) identified the thorn as Paul’s named opponents (2 Tim 2:17; 4:14) and all opponents of the gospel. This view was accepted by other Greek fathers as well as by Augustine (354–430).
An interpretation current in the Middle Ages was suggested by the Vulgate translation stimulus carnis: “sting of the flesh.” Aquinas (1224/25–1274) adopted this view—that the thorn in the flesh referred to sexual temptation.
This approach was rejected by the Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin. They preferred to identify it with spiritual trials, such as the temptation to despair or to be lax in ministry (see Thrall 2004, 809–14). Calvin wrote, “this phrase is meant to sum up all the different kinds of trial with which Paul was exercised” (1964, 10:159).
Modern interpreters have only added to the array of suggestions as to the specific identification of Paul’s thorn. We cannot discuss them all in detail here. Space constraints allow us only to sketch the range of explanations from the least to the most likely.
First, it was some spiritual anxiety or psychological condition. Specific suggestions include pangs of conscience about his role as a persecutor of Christians or anguish over his inability to win the Jews.
Second, following Chrysostom, it may be identified with opposition to Paul. These, too, vary. Some posit opponents in general, such as a Judaizing anti-Paul movement. Others presume Paul referred to a single opponent or to the false apostles at Corinth. McCant identifies Paul’s thorn as the minority within the Corinthian church who rejected his apostleship (McCant 1988, 550–72; 1999, 144–53). This view has not won general acceptance, because Paul seems to date the “gift” of the thorn to fourteen years earlier.
Third, the most widely accepted view is that Paul’s thorn was some kind of physical malady. His letters indicate that his physical condition gave him difficulty at times. But, on the positive side, he reminded the Galatians that his preaching to them had been occasioned by “an illness [astheneian tēs sarkos]” or a “physical infirmity [en tēi sarki mou]” (NRSV, Gal 4:13–14).
Some interpreters leave the malady unspecified. Others suggest fever (malaria), headaches (migraine), or defective vision or an eye disease (speculating on Gal 4:15 and 6:11). Harris concludes that some kind of physical ailment best fits Paul’s description (2005, 857–59; see Hafemann 2000, 462; and Thrall 2004, 797–818).
At the end of the day we must admit that we do not and cannot know precisely what the apostle meant by his thorn in the flesh. This may be beneficial for those of us in ministry. We learn from Paul that, in spite of his heavenly rapture, God gave him “something to keep him weak, and that his weakness … becomes the ‘criterion of ministry’ ” (Martin 1986, 393). We all know our own particular thorn. Like Paul, we can trust God to grant us a perspective from which to handle whatever plagues our outward nature—whether physical or emotional affliction, the actions of others, or unrelieved circumstances that humiliate us.
