(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

Paul's thorn is a popular subject! There are many internet sermons on it but comparatively few on Paul's vision and revelations. Yet both are interconnected. The main reason for Paul's thorn was his vision!

The passage is by no means an easy one to understand. It raises many questions - some of which cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. We would like to question Paul further.

(B) Paul's vision and revelation.

(1) Its origin.

This is one of the few things we can be sure about. Paul's remarkable vision occurred 14 years before his second epistle was written. So it probably occurred toward the end of the 8 years he was stuck in Tarsus. See exposition on Acts9v19to31.

Paul was not at this time engaged on his hectic, itinerant, evangelical ministry. He probably spent a lot of time praying, reading the Scriptures, meditating and cobbling. It is during such periods that revelations are most likely. Jesus prepared for his public ministry during the 16 or so years he spent as a carpenter.

(2) Its nature.

(a) It was one of many such experiences. A vision occurs when a person sees someone or something that appears supernaturally whilst the person is either awake or asleep. A revelation is a message from God that is communicated supernaturally.

Paul had such experiences at conversion (Acts22v6to11), when he received the Macedonian call (Acts16v9to10) and at the outset of his ministry at Corinth (Acts18v9to11).

(b) It was unique among such experiences in 2 ways:

• Paul was caught up to the third heaven ..... caught up to paradise. v2and4. Whether he was in the body or out of it Paul couldn't tell!

  Commentators suggest the third heaven was neither the blue sky - the first heaven - nor starry space - the second heaven. Instead Paul was taken out of time and space as God is out of time and space. If this was the case why didn't Paul just say he was caught up to heaven? Similarly if paradise is synonymous with heaven why not just say heaven. Third heaven and paradise are not common terms in the New Testament.

  Jesus did not say to the dying thief, "Today you will be with me in heaven." Jesus did not go bodily into the presence of his father until his ascension. John states that: No-one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man. John3v13. See exposition on the Afterlife for more details.

  I believe Jesus words to the thief had more to do with experience than Geography. It wasn't so much to do with where he would be as what he would feel.

  My view is that Paul used 'the third heaven' and 'paradise' to describe an ecstatic experience in the same way as we might use terms like, 'out of this world' or 'heavenly'.

  It is surely significant that Paul did not describe anything or anyone he saw.

• Paul heard inexpressible things that man is not permitted to tell ..... surpassingly great revelations. vs4and7.

  Paul had revelations he recounted or used in his evangelism. For example he wrote to the Galatians: I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

  John, too, described his amazing visions and revelations in the last book of the Bible.

  Paul's statement is intensely irritating! Why did he think that the revelations he received were for his ears only. Was he of all the men on earth the only one fit to hear them?

  I can remember passing on some information about Z, imparted by my friend John, to my friend Tom. Tom's reaction was, "What did he want to tell you for. He shouldn't have told you." My friend Tom already had the information. He was fit to possess it but he implied I wasn't! This was very insulting.

  Paul's words could also be construed as insulting. He knows - but no one else is fit to know - certainly not you, dear reader.

  The only justification Paul had for keeping silent is if the revelations were intensely personal. For instance, God told Ananias in a vision that he would show Paul how much he must suffer in my name. Acts9v16. Paul never revealed what God told him because it was personal to him.

  So maybe God reassured Paul during his eight years in Tarsus about the work he had to do. Perhaps he was given a sight of the fruit of his labour - of his abiding influence through the centuries - of the blessings attached to his name - of the intense gratitude of the saints for his letters. These might well be inexpressible things and surpassing great revelations that it was inappropriate to share with others.

It is easy to see the point of most of Paul's visions and revelations. They were given to: direct him, encourage him, inform him or equip him. So what was the purpose of the vision and revelations at Tarsus which Paul mentions without elaboration? They might well have been given to sustain him during a ministry to the Gentiles fraught with danger, difficulties and disappointments. Paul was called to an incredibly important but equally demanding work. His vision doubtless remained with him - a treasured experience that guaranteed thousands of years of blessing.

(4) Its danger.

There are grave dangers whenever the church hungers for and values intensely visions and revelations. There is the danger of:

(a) Invention. It is very easy to invent visions and revelations. Equally it is very hard to verify their genuineness.

It is highly likely that the "super-apostles" were doing that. This would explain why Paul writes: I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. v1. He had to deal with what in Corinth was one of the burning issues of the day.

Cult leaders have visions and revelations as do disruptive, attention seeking members of some extreme 'charismatic' churches. These 'experiences' rarely edify the church in any way whatsoever.

The content of a person's visions and revelations has to be judged by Scripture, scholarship, experience and common sense.

(b) Going it alone. Very often when a person claims some special revelation it is to justify going it alone such as, for example, starting up a new church. Surely it is important to listen to other Christians who haven't had your revelation. It is folly not to test a revelation against Christ's revealed will in Scripture. There is always the possibility that a vivid dream owes more to a large supper of cold pork and pickled onions than to the purposes of God.

I am uneasy about what Paul wrote to the Galatians namely that he received his gospel by direct revelation from Jesus. His gospel owed nothing to the teaching of the 11 apostles. It is a fact that Paul was more likely to quote from the Old Testament than to quote Jesus. There are exceptions like 1Cor11v23to36. I find it strange that Paul does not often justify his doctrine with reference to the words of Jesus.

Paul's teaching has stood the test of time and so we have to conclude he was a special case. Paul had to show the relevance of Jesus' death and resurrection to the Gentiles. That is what the gospel he received by revelation did. However, it is dangerous to rely on direct revelation today. People who claim visions and revelations tend to lead the gullible into error and excess. We should be content to rely for guidance on Scripture, God's spirit and God's people.

(c) Conceit. This was a danger that Paul, himself, recognised. He wrote: To keep me from being conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations ... v7.

If God did indeed reveal to Paul his legacy, the vast number who through the years would be blessed by him and the church's indebtedness to him, then there was a very real danger that he would be puffed up and become conceited and proud.

So, I don't think we should long for visions and revelations over much because of the likelihood of an accompanying thorn in the flesh.

(5) Its relevance.

If the vision Paul had was for him only and could not be revealed to the saints why did he mention it at all? We all know how irritating it is for someone to say, "I could tell you something about X .... but I'd better not." If that is the case why say anything at all?

Paul does seem very uncertain about mentioning his vision and revelation. What he writes is almost incoherent. He is going to boast but admits there is nothing to be gained by it. He is not going to boast about himself but about this man who heard inexpressible things - who actually is himself. It is foolish to boast but if he, Paul, should boast it wouldn't be foolish because it would all be true. What can we make of this?

We can say in Paul's favour:

(a) He showed restraint. In this he was unlike the "super-apostles" who doubtless described their visions and revelations in sensational detail to impress the gullible Corinthians. Paul is reticent about what he saw and heard.

People still describe their visions in dramatic terms and I feel often do so to make themselves look privileged and special. Some people, especially from a muslim background, are converted through visions. There is a danger of making too much of the vision and not enough of the saving work of Jesus and the regenerating ministry of the Holy Spirit.

(b) He was constrained. Paul brought up the matter of visions because in all likelihood the Corinthians had judged him as deficient in this respect compared to the "super-apostles". So Paul indicated that he could have impressed the Corinthians with visions and revelations if he had wanted to. But what he really wants is to be assessed on what he does and says. (What I do and say. v6.)

(6) Lessons.

We should be wary of those who speak a lot about visions, dreams and revelations and describe them in great detail in order to impress. Paul made relatively little of his surpassingly great revelations.

The apostle considered that what counted was his teaching and conduct based as it was on Scripture and inspired by the Spirit. These should be the criteria on which we judge and are judged.

(C) Paul's thorn in the flesh.

(1) Its properties.

No one knows what Paul's thorn was. Innumerable suggestions falling into 3 main categories have been made. It could have been:

(a) Carnal temptation such as sexual desire. This is not exactly painful. Paul was so active and got so tired that this was scarcely a problem most of the time. Anyway there is a ready solution to sexual desire according to Paul, namely, marriage. He would not expect God to solve a problem he could do something about himself.

(b) Persecution - especially by militant Jews. Once again this seems unlikely. Jesus warned that persecution would accompany belief and that there was a blessing in it. Persecution allowed Paul to identify with his churches.

(c) Physical or mental affliction. What evidence we have suggests this is the correct alternative.

We do have some clues to the nature of Paul's thorn:

(a) In the passage.

• A thorn is something sharp like a spike, splinter or even stake. In so far as it is in the flesh, the Greek word probably refers to a natural thorn or a splinter. Anyone with a large wayside thorn in their flesh knows that it is a painful experience especially if it is deep seated.

• Paul calls it a messenger of Satan, to torment me or, as the Rev Tom Wright put it, 'to keep stabbing away at me.' This description suggests the apostle suffered from intermittent, throbbing pain. Up to this point we might conclude that Paul suffered from something like a periodic outbreak of boils. These are very like the festering, inflamed, gatherings produced by a thorn in the flesh.

(b) In Galatians.

The references in Galatians - Gal4v13to15 and Gal6v11 - provide strong evidence that Paul had problems with his eyes.

So putting all the evidence together Paul had an intermittent condition associated with throbbing pain and impaired vision. These symptoms can be produced by a virulent form of malaria or by frequent severe migraines.

(2) Its permanence.

Paul prayed three times for the condition to be taken away. It hindered his work. An episode of virulent malaria or a severe migraine would have incapacitated him. These conditions could both occur at any time and strike without warning and as such would have thrown Paul's plans into disarray. Paul's thorn was extremely debilitating making it impossible for him to travel, ply his trade, preach or teach. It forced the apostle to rest, to depend on others and was one of the reasons Dr Luke travelled extensively with him.

We may have conditions that hamper our witness and that we would like to be removed in order to be more effective. This has been true of many prominent Christians. C.H. Spurgeon, David Watson and William Booth all suffered from depression. Rev Dick Shepphard, Vicar of St Martin in the Fields had chronic asthma. Dr Samuel Johnson's life was blighted by Tourette syndrome which produced a grotesque array of tics, jerks and writhings. It is natural to pray for the removal of such thorns.

(3) Its purpose.

Paul's thorn in the flesh served three purposes:

(a) To keep him from becoming conceited. There is nothing like physical pain to remind us of our mortality and absolute dependence on God for life, health and strength. If Paul had chronic and repeated migraines they would do little for his self-esteem or sense of well being. Bad migraines are chastening and humiliating.

Sometimes we need humbling experiences - illness, frustrated hopes and failure to turn us to God.

(b) To keep him dependent on grace. We have to ask what does God's answer to Paul's prayer mean? "My grace is sufficient for you." v9. Surely God would show grace by removing his thorn all together. So how in the circumstances of a thorn that persisted did God's grace work? In at least 3 ways:

• God would help him to live with his thorn. I have seen God's grace in the way my aged Christian friends have coped with chronic arthritis, blindness, cancer and osteoporosis.

• God made Paul effective in service in spite of his disability. This has also been true of so many of God's saints.

• God used Paul's thorn to bless others. It has been a great comfort through the centuries to many sufferers that a great saint like Paul was not spared his thorn. They are able to identify with him. They can rest assured that a thorn in the flesh is not a sign that God is dissatisfied with them but, rather, provides an opportunity for God's grace to be sufficient.

  We also need to remember that our weakness does provide others with an opportunity for service.

(c) To qualify for God's power. The Lord told Paul: My power is made perfect in weakness. v9.

This is true for:

• The church. When it is strong in the earthly sense - powerful, wealthy and a political force in the land - there is often very little sign of spiritual blessing. There are few real converts. No one wants the sort of carnal worldly church that existed in the late middle ages.

  When the church is weak, as it was in the first and second century after Christ, or as it was during the cultural revolution in China during the twentieth century, then it is strong. During persecution God's power produces conversions and church growth.

• Individuals. Three of the best sermons I ever heard - from Pastor Marjoram, Mr Robin Williams and Mr Cackett were all preached after these men had suffered harrowing, chastening and humbling experiences. God made them strong and effective in their weakness.

(D) Conclusion.

The Old Testament hero Gideon had no chance of defeating the invading Midianites with an army of 32, 000 men - or 10, 000 brave soldiers - but with 300 and TRUSTING IN GOD'S STRENGTH victory was assured. When we are weak then we are strong.