The Narrow Path Ministries

This is a response to Steve's lecture concerning Paul's thorn in the flesh, that it was a sickness.

2 Cor 12:7-10 (NASV)
7Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! 8Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

In the lecture, Steve quoted this verse from the King James - which translates astheneia as infirmities instead of weaknesses. I wonder if Steve quoted from the KJV because it supports his theology or because he thinks it is the most accurate translation. I seem to recall him preferring the NASV.

I'll give my reasons why I don't think "infirmities" is the correct translation.

For one, astheneia can refer to a lack of soul strength, or limitations as much as it can refer to physical ailments. For example, one chapter earlier in 11:29, the root word is translated as "weak," even in the KJV. Paul says "Who is weak (astheneō) without my being weak?" There's good reason why it isn't translated "who is sick without my being sick?" That doesn't make any sense. Why would Paul get sick when he hears about someone else being sick?

Now as to Paul's thorn, it is called a messenger of Satan to buffet him. There is a sense that it was a prolonged experience. If it was a sickness, why does Satan need to continue to buffet him? Couldn't Satan have infected his body and left him to be sick? Especially if God was denying Paul healing?

The word for buffet is kolaphizō. It is used to describe the physical blows Jesus received in Matt. 26:27 - and to describe the rough treatment Paul experienced in I Cor 4:11. It is never used to portray infliction of disease.

When God responds to Paul's request, even the KJV translates astheneia as weakness when God says "for power is perfected in weakness." But then the KJV reverts to "infirmities" for some reason in the next verse.

What is Paul's response to this - he is glad because "when I am weak (astheneō), then I am strong." Why not be consistent and translate this as "when I am sick, then I am strong"? A good reason is because strength is not the opposite of sickness - health is the opposite of sickness. The idea is that when Paul's abilities are taxed, God's abilities are able to be expressed in Paul's life all the more. The idea is that grace comes to assist the point of weakness. If the weakness were actually sickness, and God is saying that his ability overrules Paul's inability, the consistent idea would be that when Paul is sick, then he is made well - but that is not at all what happens if God refuses to heal Paul. Being weak isn't a limitation because it leads to God's strength. However, being sick is a limitation - expressed in other places as bondage of the devil.

If this thorn was given to keep Paul humble, I don't see how sickness accomplishes that. Paul already seems to have little regard for his physical condition. He experienced beatings and imprisonment and it didn't seem to slow him one bit. Would a sickness really cause Paul to stop and think - "wow I need to rely on God more." Even if Paul was sick, it must not have been something too serious since he continued to minister despite it.

On the other hand, we get the sense from Paul's epistles that he is quite bothered by people who distort the gospel and stand in the way of the message being preached. As verse 10 lays out - insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties would have been a far more effective roadblock and frustration agent to Paul then a physical sickness. I can imagine Paul being frustrated by his limitations when dealing with opposition from backbiters, slanderers, and hinderers much quicker then he would be frustrated with a lingering mild sickness.

Paul's continual battle with persecution and torture seems to inform Galatians 4:13 -
"but you know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time." (NASV)
"You know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first." (KJV)

I'll have to side with the KJV a little here. Does it really make sense to say that Paul preached the gospel for the first time to the Galatians because he was sick? Why would sickness provide a way to preach to the Galatians?

The idea is that Paul is preaching in the midst of enduring physical pain and frailty. The question is whether this pain was from a virus or from beatings.

Acts 14:19, 20 sheds light on this. It says Jews "stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead." Paul arose from this nearly dead state and traveled the next day to Derbe - which is in Galatia. This seems to fit Paul's description in Galatians 4:13. He preached the gospel to them for the first time shortly after being nearly beaten to death - and probably under the threat of further reproach. The Galatians would have plucked their eyes out to give to Paul. Maybe this is because his face was badly swollen from the stoning and he couldn't see well.

I'm not going to say that a Christian will never suffer. We are partakers of the suffering of Christ. But, Jesus never suffered sickness. Persecution and imprisonment is the result of the free will of fallen man that comes against us. Sickness began as a consequence to sin. Jesus' plan was to undo the consequences of sin in us. We can be saved from the consequences of our own sinfulness, but oftentimes we still feel the negative effects of other people's sinfulness.

Aaron wrote:In the lecture, Steve quoted this verse from the King James - which translates astheneia as infirmities instead of weaknesses. I wonder if Steve quoted from the KJV because it supports his theology or because he thinks it is the most accurate translation. I seem to recall him preferring the NASV

(emphasis mine)

I'm surprised at this statement. I have been listening to Steve's lectures & radio program for several years, & don't recall him ever saying that. My understanding is that he mostly uses the NKJV (and really likes the KJV), though he does think the NASB is also a good translation, particularly for those who wish to follow the Alexandrian text.
Perhaps my memory is at fault?

Suzana-

I believe you are correct. I have never heard Steve express a preference for the NASB.

Aaron--

I was wondering if you listen to Andrew Wommack? He makes the same points you are making, but of course other teachers may as well. By the way, I really like AW.

TK

Hi Aaron,

I agree with you that Paul's thorn was not a sickness. I like some of your reasoning here. I do not agree, however, that the messenger of Satan was merely a combination of all the sufferings and frustrations Paul experienced from persecution.

Aaron wrote: If this thorn was given to keep Paul humble, I don't see how sickness accomplishes that. Paul already seems to have little regard for his physical condition. He experienced beatings and imprisonment and it didn't seem to slow him one bit. Would a sickness really cause Paul to stop and think - "wow I need to rely on God more." Even if Paul was sick, it must not have been something too serious since he continued to minister despite it.

On the other hand, we get the sense from Paul's epistles that he is quite bothered by people who distort the gospel and stand in the way of the message being preached. As verse 10 lays out - insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties would have been a far more effective roadblock and frustration agent to Paul then a physical sickness. I can imagine Paul being frustrated by his limitations when dealing with opposition from backbiters, slanderers, and hinderers much quicker then he would be frustrated with a lingering mild sickness.

I agree with this first paragraph. However, could we not use the same logic for your second paragraph as well? Even if "insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties" were a frustration to Paul, would those make him weak? I don't think so. Consider Acts 20:22-24 (and notice that the default translation for quoting passages on this forum is NKJV... )


Now I suppose you can interpret this passage with your opinion as well. I think, though, that Paul would not even be moved by "insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties", just as he would not have been moved by sickness.

So what is Paul's thorn in the flesh?

I don't know if anyone else holds my opinion... but I tend to hold it because of a very simple interpretation of his terminology and also because of my own subjective sufferings.

Paul calls it a 'messenger of Satan'. Now we know 'angelos' can be translated a messenger or an 'angel'. Can it not be a demon Paul is speaking of? This seems to be the simplest interpretation if 'angel' is the correct translation. If Paul was trying to say that the thorn in the flesh was a sum total of all the stress he endured from a variety of sources, wouldn't he say "angeloi" instead of "angelos"? In other words, he could have said "messengers of Satan", not merely a 'messenger'. It sounds like there is a single source of his humbling. Perhaps God gave permission for Paul to be buffeted like Job was. I think getting beat up, cursed at, hindered, or arrested didn't really bother Paul at all. Like the other apostles, I'm sure he rejoiced exceedingly to suffer for Jesus' name (Acts 5:41). This surely seems to be his attitude in the letters he wrote while he was in prison.

I think if Paul was constantly being harassed by demons, it would be much more humbling. I know what this is like because I have suffered from a lot of things that I believe are demonic in nature. Supposedly I have what is called, "bipolar disorder", but I am not convinced that it is a sickness at all. I don't know exactly why I suffer from it. There have been times where I have experienced some of the most horrible and soul-crushing fears, hallucinations, temptations, and thought processes which I believe were from a demonic source. I don't know why many of these things happened to me. There were times in my Christian life where I was consistently faithful and all of the sudden God would allow me to be severely humbled to the point where I was absolutely destitute. I honestly just felt like it would be better to die than experience the torments which were in my mind (although I did not want to commit suicide or anything... the suffering was just that intense). And the bizarre thing is that I would go through these battles with demons in times when I was doing nothing wrong. I wasn't living in some secret sin or anything. There have been other times in my walk where I have fallen short though... and lo and behold, I would not suffer from these kinds of torments. It seems that when I am more faithful, obedient, or zealous in serving Christ, the sufferings get more intense. I do not know why this is unless it is a spiritual attack.

I would think that Paul may have had boxing matches with demons because of the dreams, visions, and revelations he had. God permitted him to suffer those things because He knew Paul would persevere just like Job did.

-Rich

Aaron--

I was wondering if you listen to Andrew Wommack? He makes the same points you are making, but of course other teachers may as well. By the way, I really like AW.





I like AW too , and he does teach this. BTW Steve has said the NKJV is his fav.

Aaron,

You wrote:

But, Jesus never suffered sickness.

Can you provide a scripture reference for this?

Aaron wrote: Persecution and imprisonment is the result of the free will of fallen man that comes against us. Sickness began as a consequence to sin. Jesus' plan was to undo the consequences of sin in us. We can be saved from the consequences of our own sinfulness, but oftentimes we still feel the negative effects of other people's sinfulness.

This distinction between persecution and physical sickness is too easy. It's not even logically consistent. If we can still feel the negative effects of other people's sinfulness... why not Adam's sinfulness which brought sickness into the world? What's more, I doubt food poisoning feels distinctly different just because in one case you had a bad burger and in another case an enemy purposefully put something in your drink.

The cross/atonement DOES cover physical sicknesses, but there is no promise that its affects in that area are immediate. Indeed, there is every reason to believe they are not. The resurrection is our physical hope. The cross is our spiritual hope.

steve7150 wrote:Aaron--

I was wondering if you listen to Andrew Wommack? He makes the same points you are making, but of course other teachers may as well. By the way, I really like AW.


I like AW too , and he does teach this. BTW Steve has said the NKJV is his fav.

I do listen to Andrew from time to time. There are a few things I may not agree with him on, but overall, I like his approach. I hadn't heard him talk on this particular subject, but I did come across an article he wrote while I was doing a little research for my post.

I do recall now Steve's NKJV preference. I heard him discussing versions on the radio one time. I mainly remember that he wasn't a die hard KJV guy.

RICHinCHRIST wrote: However, could we not use the same logic for your second paragraph as well? Even if "insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties" were a frustration to Paul, would those make him weak? I don't think so. Consider Acts 20:22-24 (and notice that the default translation for quoting passages on this forum is NKJV... )


Now I suppose you can interpret this passage with your opinion as well. I think, though, that Paul would not even be moved by "insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties", just as he would not have been moved by sickness.

So what is Paul's thorn in the flesh?

I don't know if anyone else holds my opinion... but I tend to hold it because of a very simple interpretation of his terminology and also because of my own subjective sufferings.

Paul calls it a 'messenger of Satan'. Now we know 'angelos' can be translated a messenger or an 'angel'. Can it not be a demon Paul is speaking of? This seems to be the simplest interpretation if 'angel' is the correct translation. If Paul was trying to say that the thorn in the flesh was a sum total of all the stress he endured from a variety of sources, wouldn't he say "angeloi" instead of "angelos"? In other words, he could have said "messengers of Satan", not merely a 'messenger'. It sounds like there is a single source of his humbling. Perhaps God gave permission for Paul to be buffeted like Job was. I think getting beat up, cursed at, hindered, or arrested didn't really bother Paul at all.

I think if Paul was constantly being harassed by demons, it would be much more humbling.

I agree that I don't think Paul was disheartened by the physical pain he endured - but I can see him being frustrated if the beatings and imprisonments hindered Paul's progress in preaching the gospel. I'm sure he would much rather be out amongst the Christians then chained up.

I don't want this to sound like an oversimplistic solution to some of the demonic suffering you endured - but I think Paul would be humbled/frustrated by the persecutions of men (inspired by a demon) then by a personal demonic attack. For one, as a believer, Paul had authority over demons in Christ. He had the power to resist demonic attacks and send them fleeing. On the other hand, we don't have the same authority over people. We can't command persecutions to cease and send our persecutor fleeing. People are not spiritually subject to us.

Homer wrote:Aaron,

You wrote:

But, Jesus never suffered sickness.

Can you provide a scripture reference for this?

Very good question, and admittedly, I'm primarily relying on the consensus understanding of Jesus' life. Do you know anyone who would suggest that Jesus was ever sick? I don't think it would be consistent with someone who was in perfect harmony with God and who lived a life of healing.

When Hebrews 2:17 talks about Jesus being made like us in all things, the outcome is that Jesus suffered temptation. There is no indication that being made like us included genetic frailties.

We know that Jesus was not completely like us in that God was his father. He did not share the fallen nature of Adam - therefore he likely didn't suffer from the physical affects of the fall.

Also, Jesus said "He who has seen me has seen the father."

Can you imagine Jesus rasping those words out in the middle a hacking cough?