Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

TH

ART. IV.-PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH.

HAT Paul was not a sound man, physically, many expressions in his writings seem to indicate. Something ailed him, either a disease incurable, or a physical defect irremediable. He reminds the Galatians of his "infirmity of the flesh;" and of the temptation which was in the flesh, which so called forth their sympathy. He writes to the Corinthians, "I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." 1 Cor. ii. 3. "Yet of myself will I not glory, but in mine infirmities." 2 Cor. xii. 5, 9, 10.

We are aware that all these expressions may be explained in a moral and spiritual sense. That the "weakness" spoken of to the Corinthians, was Paul's weakness as a mere man, unbefriended and unprotected; that the "infirmity of the flesh" was a fit of sickness he had, while among the Galatians, or just before he came to them. But while the word translated weakness-ac0ɛvɛia—undoubtedly has a moral signification, it also must be borne in mind, that it is the word invariably employed throughout the Gospels for sickness, disease, and bodily maladies. And, therefore, while acoɛvɛía may mean only Paul's weakness as an unbefriended man, it may also refer to disease, or to physical defect of some kind. But in this same Epistle, which speaks of this weakness, are two passages, which may aid us in determining what import that word shall bear. Those disturbers of the peace of the church, who so obstinately opposed Paul, said, in derogation of his authority, "his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible." 2 Cor. x. 10. This, indeed, was a calumny; but may there not have been a semblance of truth in it, which, however, would not justify the exaggeration; wherein probably the slander consisted?-for calumny seldom fabricates, it mostly perverts facts. According to the criterion of these calumniators, Paul's speech, or style of discourse, was contemptible. It had none of the ornateness and rhetoric which would gratify the Greek scholar. Now this Paul seems to admit. Though I be in "speech contemptible," "rude in speech," 2 Cor. x. 10, and xi. 6. This, we think, refers to the discourse as to style and finish, and not to its delivery. For Paul, at Lystra, was called Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. His speeches before Agrippa, and at Athens, produced great effect, which could not be the case if there had been an impediment in his speech, as Doddridge and others assume. A stammering, or defective delivery, would have seriously interfered with his open-air addresses on Mars Hill, and from the steps at Jerusalem. Our idea of Paul, as a speaker, is derived from his written productions. We imagine that the same impetuousness of thought, which often gets disjointed in his Epistles, showed itself in a more marked manner in his speeches. So that, while from the vigour of thought,

and earnestness of delivery, a profound impression was produced, yet, judged by the rules of the schools, his style and delivery were very faulty. We know that in all ages critics have decried the eloquence which has enchained the multitude. This, to our mind, is the explanation of many of the expressions found in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where the terms speech and wisdom are used; for it was only in critical Corinth that Paul was thus found fault with.

Now as that portion of the slander which related to Paul's speech had this semblance of truth, may not a similar semblance be detected in the other part of the slander, that his bodily presence was weak? May there not have been something about Paul which rendered his personal appearance unattractive? Indeed, does he not admit as much himself, when he writes, "who in presence (outward appearance) am base or lowly?" 2 Cor. x. 1.

If also we examine the phrase," infirmity in the flesh," we can scarcely understand it of a moral weakness. It was in the flesh, not of it; not of the unrenewed nature. Moreover, it was a temptation or trial. Would a moral or mental weakness be regarded as a trial? But to assert that Paul had been sick, and was only partially recovered, is to leap at once into fancy.

That Paul was afflicted physically, finds further confirmation in tradition. This reports that he was bald, small of stature, and bent in form. Though this tradition is not without suspicion, yet it is not altogether unreliable. We incline to the opinion, that this tradition is at fault in fixing the nature of Paul's defect. Like the slander of the Corinthian agitators, it is based upon a misrepresentation.

It is further noticeable, that Paul speaks of his infirmity and weakness only to those churches which he had founded, and where they knew him personally. He writes nothing of this sort to the Romans, or in Hebrews.

Thinking it quite possible that his infirmity was bodily, let us approach that questio vexata-Paul's thorn in the flesh. This is his account of it: "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. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 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." 2 Cor. xii.

7-9.

If what we have already premised be true, we are prepared at once to lay aside that class of interpretations which gives also to this thorn a spiritual or moral sense. Indeed, we do not see how

it can be referred to the evil suggestions of Satan, as by Luther, Calvin, and a few others; or to a prominent adversary like Philetus or Hymeneus, as by Chrysostom and many of the ancients; or, as some of the Latin Fathers suppose, to an unruly and ungovernable passion. We cannot well understand how Paul could glory in such suggestions, or in such a trial; nor how he could take pleasure in such adversaries, as he does in this thorn.

Almost unanimously commentators agree, that this thorn in the flesh was a painful bodily affection. And they quite as generally differ as to the nature of that affection. Indeed, whatever disease the interpreter was afflicted with himself, that he attributed to Paul. Baxter supposes the thorn to have been the stone or gravel, from which disorder he was a sufferer. Jerome makes it headache; Tertullian, earache; Rosenmüller, gout in the head. But thus indulging in fancy, we might run through the long list of human ills. The judicious Doddridge ventures an explanation which has more semblance of probability than the diseases already enumerated. He supposes that the view Paul had of the heavenly glories, in his translation to Paradise, so affected his nerves as to produce a paralytic disorder-stammering in speech, and a distortion of his countenance. This has a show of support in those verses already quoted (2 Cor. x. 10, and xi. 6). This opinion has been adopted by Slade, Macknight, Bloomfield, and Benson. Assuming, then, that this thorn was a physical affection, it is evidently idle to indulge in mere conjecture. But, on the other hand, are there any facts concerning Paul, which may furnish a clue to a probable supposition? Do his Epistles, and his history, as partly recorded in Acts, give no hints which, like straws in a sluggish stream, may put us on the right course? Let us not set out with a foregone conclusion, but be perfectly willing to land wherever facts, fairly interpreted, may bring us.

And first, a few words about the term thorn. Paul uses it because it expresses what he wishes to convey. It is figurative, and yet significant. It was a thorn, not a deadly wound; not a viper with a venomous sting; not a cancer gnawing at his vitals. Has this distinction been sufficiently in mind by those who have attempted to explain this difficult point? Hardly would Paul denominate a lust, or impetuous temper, or mental frailty, as a thorn. He would rather call it a besetting sin, a weight, a body of death, a law or power in the members. These he does employ when wishing to express the sins and frailties of human nature. But a thorn conveys a different notion. And,

1. It was distressing, though not fatal. A thorn in the flesh is very painful, but it does not kill one. It may produce more pain than an organic disease. So with this physical disorder of Paul. As far as we know, it did not cause his death. Yet it was an

affliction he sorely felt. He prayed often and earnestly that it might be removed. It was of such a nature that special_grace was promised and furnished, that he might be sustained. It was something, too, so annoying or mortifying, that it kept him. humble, when he might have been elated at the extraordinary visions and revelations he enjoyed. "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." He was buffeted; struck in the face by it. Certainly that was humiliating. He calls it an infirmity.

2. It was a messenger of Satan. In Scripture the idea is common, that bodily diseases, at times, are produced by the direct agency of the devil; so that they may be regarded as his messengers. Now this agency of Satan, so far as we have discovered, is never attributed to ordinary disease, or to disease coming in anatural way. Job's disease is ascribed to the permission God gave Satan to afflict him. But that disease was violent and peculiar. Our Lord assigned many disorders, referred to him for cure, to Satanic influence; but the disorders were of a marked kind. The sufferers are mostly called demoniacs. A woman came to him who had been bowed together eighteen years, so that she could not lift herself up. Christ declared, that "Satan had bound her." But this, certainly, was not a common infirmity.

This language, being employed to denote Paul's disorder, intimates that his was not of an ordinary nature, like headache, or paralysis. Or it might be a defect or disorder, which, though not very unusual, still was of such a character, that public opinion did not regard it as ordinary ailments were regarded. Blindness would be a case in point. Many of the Jews had imbibed the sentiment from the heathen, that blindness, and a few other distressing ails, were to be attributed to special sins, or to the anger of the Deity. The disciples gave the current notion in their question: "Who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Therefore, we may presume, that Paul's disorder, being "the messenger of Satan," was of that class of disease.

3. While it was a distressing affection of the body, it did not interrupt him in his work. During all those years he was afflicted, fourteen of which had already passed when he wrote these words we are considering, he was Paul the indefatigable. What a vast amount of work he accomplished in various lands during these years 8! When we read the modest recital of his exposures, perils, and toils, in the 11th chap. of 2 Cor., so reluctantly drawn from him, and then only in self-defence, we are amazed that one man could have endured all. Also on him rested the care of the churches. How wide must have been his corres

K

pondence, and how many the difficult questions submitted to him from the churches he had planted! We admire the tireless activity of Calvin, but he was far outdone by Paul. And yet this infirmity, of whatever nature it was, never interposed itself across Paul's path, in such a way that he could not surmount it. Headache would have shut him up in his room. A half paralytic could not have travelled, as he did, among robbers, across mountain streams, and over seas. What would such an one do "a day and a night in the deep"? The exposures he constantly encountered would have hastened into a fatal termination any ordinary disease. But a man with a thorn in his flesh can work, though it be with pain.

Whatever, then, may be the bodily affection we select as Paul's thorn, it must meet these three conditions. (1.) It must be annoying, if not painful. (2.) It must be a disease out of the ordinary character, either in its violence, or in the manner in which it came; or a disease commonly referred to supernatural agency. (3.) And yet it must not be of such a nature as seriously to interfere with Paul's life-task-preaching to the Gentiles. These conditions reduce to a few, the list of possible physical defects or diseases.

In the further prosecution of this subject, two modes lie before us. First, to take the several disorders which are possible, according to the preceding conditions, and investigate how they agree with circumstances in Paul's life. This, however, would carry us through a tedious search. We, therefore, shall adopt the other mode, which is, to present the result of our own investigation, and leave to our readers to judge whether a better may be found.

Our conclusion is, that if Paul's infirmity was physical, it consisted in a defective eyesight.

This meets the conditions aforementioned. The nerves of the eye might be so affected as to be painful at times. Such an affection is not unknown among physicians. If this caused nearsightedness, certainly it would be very annoying. This would not be a common disease, like headache. Nor would it seriously retard Paul in his work. It would render painful, that which otherwise would be easily accomplished. But to remove this explanation of the thorn from the domain of fancy, we must corroborate it by facts in Paul's history.

1. Some affection of the eyes would be wholly natural, after that dazzling ray which he encountered near Damascus. He was struck stone-blind, and remained so three days. He received sight by miracle. We are not satisfied that the terms, describing the healing, signify that he was entirely restored. He "looked up," he "received sight." It would be in accordance with the operation

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »