In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul makes a brief reference to what he calls “a thorn in the flesh”—later called “a messenger of satan” and “my infirmities.” However, Paul seemingly doesn’t identify what this thorn is, which has led to a great deal of confusion concerning the identity (and source) of this supposed thorn.

In the following series of essays, I’d like to look to Paul’s other writings, the gospels and epistles, and the Hebrew Scriptures to provide a more complete understanding of what Paul meant when he spoke of this thorn in the flesh. Specifically, I’ll be addressing three questions:

1. What Paul’s thorn is not
2. What Paul’s thorn is
3. What God does about it

The Thorn’s Source

First and foremost, Paul’s thorn is not from God. This might seem like an obvious point to some, but certain Christians have built entire denominations around the idea that God plagued Paul (and others today) with burdensome thorns. In fact, the Living Bible translation refers to Paul’s thorn as “the gift of a handicap.” But if we look to the text, we immediately read that this thorn in the flesh was “a messenger of satan to buffet me” (2 Cor. 12:7). It was the devil, not God, who sent this infirmity.

The insidious doctrine that God plagues His people with thorns and infirmities is almost as old as mankind, so it’s no surprise that—despite Paul’s clear identification of the thorn’s source—people would continue to falsely insist that Paul’s thorn came from God. Going back to the opening chapters of Job (possibly the oldest book of the Bible), Job declares that God had taken away the lives of his children—even though the narrative indicates that satan had caused his family’s deaths. And thousands of years later, Christians are still making Job’s heretical mistake, misattributing satan’s attacks to God.

But the Scriptures are clear: Paul’s thorn (regardless of what it is) came from satan, not God.

Is the Thorn an Eye Disease?

A popular theory nowadays is that Paul’s thorn in the flesh was an eye disease. And while this theory has been picking up steam recently, it should be noted that this idea didn’t originate until the 1870s, from a man named J.W. McGarvey. That may seem like a long time ago, but remember that Paul wrote his epistle almost two thousand years ago. Over 1,800 years passed before someone suggested that this thorn could be an eye disease.

But just because this idea originated late doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong. We must examine the logic behind this theory to figure out its credence and determine whether it lines up with the whole of scripture.

Long Epistle, or Big Font?

Those who hold to the “eye disease” theory rely on two scriptures, both from Paul’s epistle to the Galatians. The first is Galatians 6:11, which reads, “See with what large letters I have written to you with my own hand!” The argument is that Paul wrote this epistle in a giant font because he had poor eyesight resulting from his eye disease.

Examining this passage, we find that there are a few problems with this eye disease interpretation. For one, it is unclear whether Paul is referring to the size of the font or the length of the document. The Greek word γράμμα (gramma, meaning “letter”) can refer to either a document or the characters of a word. About half the time it’s used in the New Testament, it’s referring to documents, not individual letters. As used in Galatians 6:11, it’s very likely that Paul is referring to the length of the epistle, not the size of the font: “See what a large letter I have written to you with my own hand!”

Galatians is one of the longest letters Paul wrote (the fourth longest of the thirteen ascribed to him), and this very well may be the longest letter that he wrote with his own hand (rather than dictated to a scribe, as several of his other letters are). Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Chrysostom all believe that Paul is referring to the length of the epistle rather than the size of the font.

But let’s assume that Paul is referring to the font size (and this is an assumption, as the Bible doesn’t give us any indication that Paul wrote with big letters): We still have no reason to think that the entire letter was written in big block letters.

Just picture important texts from your mom (or tweets from Donald Trump). Sometimes you write in all caps to drive a point home. Paul could have been doing this. The passage immediately before this verse concerns doing good to all as we have opportunity, and the next passage teaches the important doctrine circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. Far from writing the whole letter in all caps because of an eye disease, Paul could have written just this section in all caps to emphasize these important points. This is a view held by theologians John Lightfoot and John Stott.

But again, let’s assume that Paul wrote the entire epistle—all 3,084 words—in all caps (and again, this is quite a leap of an assumption and a view not supported by the scriptures nor held by a majority of the most influential pastors of history): that still wouldn’t necessitate that Paul had an eye disease. For instance, Saint Jerome—the theologian who first translated the Bible into Latin—suggested that Paul was accustomed to writing in Hebrew and unacquainted with writing in Greek, leading to large and clunky letters that both indicated Paul’s genuine authorship and demonstrated his willingness to labor on their account.

As you can see, nowhere in Galatians 6 is a doctrine of Paul’s supposed eye disease clearly established—or even hinted at. Rather, Paul is drawing attention to his labor for the Galatians (something he does in Galatians 4:19 and Philippians 1:24) and bringing direct attention to his closing remarks in the epistle.

Plucking Out Our Eyes

The other scripture used to establish the doctrine of Paul’s eye disease is Galatians 4:13-15, where Paul writes, “You know that because of physical infirmity I preached the gospel to you at the first. And my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. What then was the blessing you enjoyed? For I bear witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me.”

This passage has a few clear parallels to 2 Corinthians 12 (denoted with underlines above): The reference to Paul’s “physical infirmity” (ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) connects to Paul’s description of his thorn as both his “infirmities” (ἀσθενείαις) as well as being “in the flesh” (σαρκί); and whereas the thorn is called a “messenger/angel of satan” (ἄγγελος Σατᾶν), Paul here is received as a “messenger/angel of God” (ἄγγελον θεοῦ). The question is not whether Galatians 4 has a connection to Paul’s thorn in the flesh—the question is whether the Galatians’ willingness to pluck out their eyes indicates that Paul had an eye disease.

Now before we continue, imagine I showed up to church with a new car and told you that “it cost me an arm and a leg.” Would you be surprised to find me with both two arms and two legs intact? Of course not! As a native English speaker in the 21^st century, you’d surely recognize that the car salesman didn’t literally chop off my appendages in exchange for a new vehicle. You’d understand that this was an English idiom that signified a high price.

First century Greek also had its own set of idioms, and “giving away your eyes” was one of them. As Bible scholar Adam Clarke explains, “Dearer than one’s eyes, or to profess to give one’s eyes for the sake of a person, appears to have been a proverbial expression, intimating the highest tokens of the strongest affection.”

It even shows up in Roman plays at that time:

“May all the gods hate me, father, if I do not love you now more than my own eyes!” (Adelphi, Act 4, Scene 5)

What’s more, J.W. McGarvey—the eye disease theorist himself—concedes this point, admitting in his commentary, “This plucking out of the eyes for another was a proverbial expression, indicating extreme attachment.”

The Galatians weren’t actually offering to pluck out their own eyes in order to replace the hypothetically infirmed eyes of Paul. They were communicating their love and appreciation for Paul, claiming that they’d give an arm and a leg for him, give the shirt off their back, or even part with their eyes for him.

Is the Thorn A Disease at All?

Paul’s thorn was not an eye disease—but could it have been some other sort of disease? Based on the life and ministry of Paul, we’d have to conclude that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that Paul’s thorn was a sickness or disease.

Paul regularly healed the sick throughout his Christian life. In Acts 14, Paul preached “the gospel” (v. 7), which caused a crippled man to have “faith to be healed” (v. 9) and resulted in Paul’s miraculous healing of the man (v. 10). Acts 19 tells us that Paul regularly performed miracles (v. 11), to the point where handkerchiefs he had touched were brought to the sick and drove out their diseases (v. 12). A chapter later, Paul raised a man named Eutychus from the dead (Acts 20:9-12). And in the final chapter of Acts, Paul healed every sick person on the entire island of Malta (Acts 28:8-9).

Paul’s ministry of healing lines up with the ministry and teachings of Christ. Not only did Jesus heal the sick, He also taught that His followers would heal the sick as well (Mark 16:18), and that those who believed in Him would receive healing according to their faith (Matthew 9:22, Mark 5:34, Mark 10:52, Luke 8:48, Luke 18:42).

Given that Jesus always healed the diseases of those who followed Him in faith and that Paul regularly healed the sick during his preaching of faith in the gospel, it would be absurd to believe that God would refuse to heal Paul of a satanic attack of sickness.

But if Paul’s thorn wasn’t a disease—eye or other—what was it? We’ll address that in the next article.