A Question I Was Asked:
What Was Paul's 'Thorn in the Flesh' (2 Cor. 12:7-10)?
Was it a Moral Weakness? If So, Where Does That Leave 'Positive Confession'?
Here is the actual question:
“I do agree with some of the ideas in the article (Can Our 'Positive Confession' FORCE God to Change Course?), positive confession can go too far. One can claim God's promises but not everything he/she wants. However, there was one comment made about Paul's thorn in the flesh. It was said that there is little doubt that the thorn was physical. On the contrary, there is HUGE debate in Christian circles about this thorn. If you are going to use Paul's thorn as evidence against positive confession of healing, I think you need to analyze ALL scriptures relating to it and PROVE that it is a physical problem. I think that you will find that there is actually more evidence that it is NOT physical if you look at how 'thorn' is used in other contexts in the Bible. Furthermore, Paul WAS healed many times - especially when he was left for dead after being stoned.”
My Reply:
About five points I want to make here:
The problem is not that 'Positive Confession' can go "too far" but, rather, that it is wholly unbiblical!
Secondly, the vast majority of Bible commentators over the centuries have thought that the problem was probably a physical problem; an eyesight problem is top of the list of possibilities because of comments which Paul makes elsewhere in the NT strongly suggesting an eyesight problem (Galatians 6:11). I am aware that some say that this was a recurring moral problem but I must disagree that there is much evidence from elsewhere about this. Certainly the word 'thorn' is always used negatively in the Scriptures sometimes being equated with sin but this does not tell us very much. The truth is that Paul never tells us enough for us to be clear about his 'thorn in the flesh' and it is not wise to argue about it because the real point here is that the Lord chose not to heal him or to deliver him from this handicap (whatever it was) during this life and we can learn much of real value from this.
Thirdly, it is not for me to “PROVE” that the problem was physical since (as already stated) we are not told enough about this, so we are looking at evidence - not proof (which is a little different), but since you are somewhat aggressively asserting that a view held by a majority of New Testament scholars for at least four hundred years is wrong maybe it is you who should find 'proof' (I shouldn't bother: your view is not 'provable').
Fourthly, yes, of course Paul was healed on other occasions - although with no evidence of "positive confession." There is no doubt that he was healed on other occasions but he himself says that he begged for healing/deliverance from this 'thorn in the flesh' during three specific periods of his life but that the Lord witheld healing from him. In this manner, Paul understood (and so can we learn) that physical healing from illness or handicap or weakness during this life is not any sort of promise, the promises given to Christians are entirely spiritual. Meanwhile God's grace is sufficient for those in Christ at all times; in other words, if you or I are not healed of some illness or recurring weakness it does not mean that God has withdrawn His grace from us, neither does it mean that we have insufficient faith.
Finally, if – at the end of time – we all learn that Paul's problem was indeed a moral weakness which the Lord allowed a 'messenger from satan' to buffet him with (rather than a physical illness/handicap), that might indeed mean that this Scripture (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) could not be properly used to overturn 'positive confession' - but 'positive confession' can in any case be refuted by a better understanding of biblical faith and by many other biblical examples including those quoted in my article; In other words: Refutation of the practise of positive confession is not dependent upon Paul's 'thorn in the flesh' Scripture, but if (as the vast majority of Bible commentators have agreed for a very long time) Paul is indeed referring to a physical, recurring illness/handicap then Paul's example is very significant. But other sick people in the Bible are sometimes not healed including the godly prophet Elishah (2 Kings 13:14).
Finally, since I have noted that the 'health, wealth and prosperity' guys have caused quite widespread ignorance/confusion about the biblical doctrine of faith, may I strongly suggest that you read the article WHAT IS FAITH?
My positive confession article is Here.