Saturday, November 27, 2004
(9:27 AM) | Adam Kotsko:
The Thorn in My Flesh: Being the First Post of The Weblog's "St. Paul Week"
Here begins The Weblog's official St. Paul Week, which will conclude with the Friday Afternoon Confessional. That is to say, there will be a post about Paul every damn day for the next seven days.(This post is actually going to be pretty ground-breaking.)
There has been a lot of speculation about the "thorn in my flesh" from 2 Corinthians. Here is the relevant passage:
But if I wish to boast, I will not be a fool, for I will be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think better of me than what is seen in me or heard from me, even considering the exceptional character of the revelations. Therefore, to keep me from being too elated, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I appealed to the Lord about this, that it would leave me, but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.’ So, I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.I've heard several theories: Paul was going blind (because he writes so big in Galatians!), Paul is dealing with lust, Paul is a closeted homosexual, Paul is an ugly hunchback, etc., etc. But you know what theory that I've never heard before and that seems to be completely simple and plausible? Paul is grieved by the continuing rejection of Jesus as Messiah on the part of the majority of Israel.
My theory has the advantage of being supported by what Paul actually says. For instance, in the 2 Corinthians passage, we have Paul getting done with his highly entertaining "boasting" tirade -- and what is behind all that boasting? It's not some kind of "union with God." It's not his pristine sinlessness and detachment from the flesh. It's his mission to the Gentiles, which he takes to be highly successful -- in Romans, he says that he "glories" in it. He boasts about the sufferings he endures, not for the sake of spiritual cleansing or imitatio Christi, but for the sake of the mission to the Gentiles. But what is the point of the mission to the Gentiles in Paul's mind? To make Israel jealous so that all Israel may be saved (see Romans 9-11 on this). And apparently, that's not working out like Paul had planned, so his mission to the Gentiles, successful as it may be in establishing a Gentile advance guard for the coming Kingdom, is thus far failing in its final purpose, which is to bring all of Israel in.
Paul is not a patient man; I think any sensitive reader of his letters should see that. He is in a big hurry to get from one end of the world to the other, and one might even dare to say that he believes that his completion of his mission will actually trigger the return of Christ -- or at least that Christ is delaying to give Paul a chance to finish his mission. His only real delay along this path is that he has to do this collection for Jerusalem, a recurring theme in all his authentic letters. He is eager to do so, presumably because it will display to his Jewish brethren the faithfulness of the Gentile communities that Paul has founded and -- perhaps, hopefully -- make them jealous, or shame them into believing in Christ. His only delay, then, in accomplishing his mission to the Gentiles is his ministry to the poor in Jerusalem, to the Jews, among whom he emphatically counts himself. And he meets nothing but opposition -- in fact, in Romans, right when he's announcing that he's finally collected enough and will be going to Jerusalem before going to Rome, he asks his readers to pray that he may be delivered from the unbelievers. These are not the words of someone who expects to be received with open arms. Far from bringing his people to belief in the unexpected advent of their Messiah, he has made himself a pariah.
So that's the thorn in his flesh to keep him from getting proud. It's nothing very glamorous or psychologically deep or resonant with the concerns of Romanticism, but it does have some claim to be based in the texts which Paul has left to us -- an advantage shared by none of the competing theories I have heard.
Now, I am not a biblical scholar by any means and am unschooled in scholarly opinion beyond that reflected in popular preaching. If there is some biblical scholar who advances this opinion, or if it is now the official party line of the New Testament academy, then I'd be glad to hear it -- it's always good, as we say, to have one's opinions independently confirmed by others.
