Paul's Thorn In The Flesh=Not a Sickness but a Messenger of Satan to buffet me.

[oldhermit]

I understand, but my question to Enoch on this was that if the word is used 176 times in the NT and translated "Angel" all but 2 of those times, certainly some weight should be carried in considering this the proper translation, particularly when the extended phrase is an "angel of Satan," who himself is the leader of fallen angels.

Ok, now here is why I was asking. So long as we agree this "messenger" was sent by Satan as the text states it was, then most certainly Satan had to have some objective in sending it. So again, what do you believe his objective was in doing so?

I think you misunderstand the use of ἄγγελον. The primary meaning is messenger. It does not matter whether the messenger is a man or a supernatural being. The word does not define the nature of the being, it defines function. This is the designation scripture gives to the second position of the triadic unity - "Angel of Jehovah". The word is used numerous times to refer to men, more than just twice as you suggest. For example, Paul uses ἄγγελον in Gal. 4:14 to refer to himself. James uses it to describe the spies received by Rahab in James 2:25. Jesus uses ἄγγελόν in Matthew 11:10 to describe the function of John the Baptist, ect, ect, ect. You see the same thing in the OT with the use of the word mal-’āḵ. The word is translated as both angel and messenger but, in the OT it is used to refer to a human messenger as much as to an angelic being.

The purpose of such tactics by Satan is always the same, to destroy the message of the gospel and to overwhelm the psychology of the persecuted. Paul even explains how he was able to endure such an onslaught without being psychologically overwhelmed. If you want to see how this was done, I will be happy to show you.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think you misunderstand the use of ἄγγελον. The primary meaning is messenger.

Essential meaning is messenger. Primary translation is angel.

The word does not define the nature of the being, it defines function.

But the question at hand is not about what it defines. It's about how it should be translated.

The word is used numerous times to refer to men, more than just twice as you suggest. For example, Paul uses ἄγγελον in Gal. 4:14 to refer to himself. James uses it to describe the spies received by Rahab in James 2:25. Jesus uses ἄγγελόν in Matthew 11:10 to describe the function of John the Baptist, ect, ect, ect.

I stand corrected. It is indeed actually translated "messenger" 6 times in the NT, not 2 (been a while since I discussed this issue). But 6 out of 176 is not really a strong case that "messenger" should be considered the dominant translation in the NT.

You see the same thing in the OT with the use of the word mal-’āḵ. The word is translated as both angel and messenger but, in the OT it is used to refer to a human messenger as much as to an angelic being.

Yes, but we're not dealing with a Hebrew word here, Hermit. We're dealing with a Greek one. :) But I would consider it valuable if you were to list comparative translation of ἄγγελοs in the LXX. That would be useful.

The purpose of such tactics by Satan is always the same, to destroy the message of the gospel and to overwhelm the psychology of the persecuted. Paul even explains how he was able to endure such an onslaught without being psychologically overwhelmed.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Now, let me clarify your position then. Do you interpret, "that I not be exalted" to be Satan's purpose in sending it, or simply God's purpose in allowing it?

 

[oldhermit]

Essential meaning is messenger. Primary translation is angel.


But the question at hand is not about what it defines. It's about how it should be translated.


I stand corrected. It is indeed actually translated "messenger" 6 times in the NT, not 2 (been a while since I discussed this issue). But 6 out of 176 is not really a strong case that "messenger" should be considered the dominant translation in the NT.


Yes, but we're not dealing with a Hebrew word here, Hermit. We're dealing with a Greek one. :) But I would consider it valuable if you were to list comparative translation of ἄγγελοs in the LXX. That would be useful.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Now, let me clarify your position then. Do you interpret, "that I not be exalted" to be Satan's purpose in sending it, or simply God's purpose in allowing it?

Depending upon which translation you use, ἄγγελοs has been translated in many instances as angel when it should have been translated as messenger. It is always context that determines which. In this particular instance, the vast majority of the body of Greek scholarship translate it here as messenger, and I agree with their decision. From your arguments you do not seem to have a very strong background in Greek so I am not going to try to debate this particular point with you any further.

Clearly, this was of God's doing. The purpose was so that Paul would not be self-exalting because of the measure of grace given to him. This does not work in Satan's favor. Satan does not profit anything is Paul is humbled. Paul's persecutions were a matter of divine edict - "I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." This was God's idea, not Satan's. Satan was just a tool.

 

[Enoch111]

God never sends sickness as a "humbling agent". NEVER.

Really? Did you fail to read about Hezekiah, and some of the other kings of Israel and Judah?

 

[Enoch111]

Enoch, the Greek word άγγελος is used 176 times in scripture. Since you believe in "fundamental principles of interpreting Scripture": 1. How many of those 176 times is it translated using the word "angel"?

άγγελος can be translated as either angel or messenger, since God used angels as messenger to communicate with men.

But the issue is easily resolved. In Luke we read about "a spirit of infirmity", and angels are also spirits. So how should we interpret this "thorn in the flesh"?

Satan sent an evil angel -- a spirit of infirmity -- to afflict Paul either directly, or more likely, through the physical assaults of Paul's enemies. And that renders him infirm (physically weak) in some manner, and God tells him that His grace is made perfect in weakness. Therefore he speaks of his infirmities, not a demon sitting on his shoulder.

3. How does scripture state plainly that Paul was working day and night to support himself, Silas and Timothy if he had been "rendered infirm" by serious injuries?

What we do know is this from the context:...Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

So the connection is quite clear. Messenger of Satan---> attacks Paul directly or indirectly---->renders him infirm--->causes physical weakness.

4. Since he wrote half the NT, don't you think someone somewhere in church history would have known what they were and mentioned them specifically?

They would only know what was revealed in Scripture. And nowhere in the NT is Paul seen to be traveling around with a demon on his back.

 

[oldhermit]

About sickness...God never sends sickness as a "humbling agent". NEVER.
This would be complete confusion. Many denominations teach this error. With His stripes we are healed must be our confession.

Have you not read what God did to the Egyptians, to Miriam, to Ussiah, to Gehazi, and to Herod? There are in fact many biblical examples of God using sickness as a humbling agent.

 

[Hidden In Him]

From your arguments you do not seem to have a very strong background in Greek so I am not going to try to debate this particular point with you any further.

LoL. Why are you assuming this just because I disagree with the vast majority of scholarship? I was honestly asking you, not debating you: How many times is it translated "messenger" verses "angel" in the LXX? That would be relevant information, would it not? I can go find out for myself if it is not something you wished to cover.

In this particular instance, the vast majority of the body of Greek scholarship translate it here as messenger, and I agree with their decision.

I see this a lot - the "It must be right because the majority says it is" argument. But their translation is based on nothing more than their interpretation. I has no strength whatsoever aside from their own interpretational bias.

This does not work in Satan's favor. Satan does not profit anything is Paul is humbled. Paul's persecutions were a matter of divine edict - "I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." This was God's idea, not Satan's. Satan was just a tool.

Ok, back to the line of questioning I was interested in. If Satan was not profiting from it at all, and it was not working in his favor, then why was he sending it? Was he aware that it was not working in his favor to do so?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Therefore he speaks of his infirmities, not a demon sitting on his shoulder.

Enoch, no one said anything about "a demon sitting on his shoulder" but you, LoL. I'm not talking about something out of the cartoons!

What we do know is this from the context:...Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

So the connection is quite clear. Messenger of Satan---> attacks Paul directly or indirectly---->renders him infirm--->causes physical weakness.

No offense there, bud, and I'm not saying this maliciously at all, but given you absolutely refuse to answer my responses to this line of argument, why do you keep sending them to me. It's as if you think whoever repeats their argument the most wins. Why do you want to keep talking to me when you won't address my questions?

They would only know what was revealed in Scripture. And nowhere in the NT is Paul seen to be traveling around with a demon on his back.

"Demon on his back, demon on his back." Look, again, no offense, but if you are continually presenting my interpretation of this passage in an insulting and childish light as if it is not worthy of serious consideration, how is this manifesting the Spirit of Love and the Spirit of Christ? I would ask for Chapter and verse, but you're not going to find it, LoL.

Let's call this one quits and try it again sometime on a different issue. I normally only discuss things with others when it can be done in a Spirit of Peace and Love.

Blessings in Christ Jesus,
Hidden

 

[oldhermit]

LoL. Why are you assuming this just because I disagree with the vast majority of scholarship? I was honestly asking you, not debating you: How many times is it translated "messenger" verses "angel" in the LXX? That would be relevant information, would it not? I can go find out for myself if it is not something you wished to cover.


I see this a lot - the "It must be right because the majority says it is" argument. But their translation is based on nothing more than their interpretation. I has no strength whatsoever aside from their own interpretational bias.


Ok, back to the line of questioning I was interested in. If Satan was not profiting from it at all, and it was not working in his favor, then why was he sending it? Was he aware that it was not working in his favor to do so?

I am really not going to get drawn into your obsession with the word άγγελος. Your argument are not even worthy of a first year Greek student. If you want to believe Satan sent some kind of a lessor demon to torment Paul, be my guest. I really do not care.

The bottom line is this, Paul was given a thorn in the flesh in order that he might not exalt himself. We know from Acts 9 that this was the Lord's doing. Satan was merely the tool which God used to accomplish his ends in Paul's experiences. Paul even goes to great length to discuss these experiences, how he was able to deal with them, and what he had learned from dealing with the things.​

 

[Hidden In Him]

I am really not going to get drawn into your obsession with the word άγγελος. Your argument are not even worthy of a first year Greek student.

Well, it would appear I have another friend in Christ, LoL. Didn't mean to offend you, and apparently I have because you have now insulted me twice.

Satan was merely the tool which God used to accomplish his ends in Paul's experiences.

Ok, now if you are going to stay in this discussion with me, stay on point. I've been going somewhere this entire time and you know it.

Now, if Satan was merely a tool as you say, then did he know he was a tool or not? If your interpretation holds weight then you should be able to answer these questions, and your answers should hold up to logic. Did he know he was a tool or not?

 

[oldhermit]

Well, it would appear I have another friend in Christ, LoL. Didn't mean to offend you, and apparently I have because you have now insulted me twice.


Ok, now if you are going to stay in this discussion with me, stay on point. I've been going somewhere this entire time and you know it.

Now, if Satan was merely a tool as you say, then did he know he was a tool or not? If your interpretation holds weight then you should be able to answer these questions, and your answers should hold up to logic. Did he know he was a tool or not?

I have not insulted you at all. I was merely making an observation based on the nature of your arguments. This is getting benign. What difference does it make whether Satan knew it or not. Do you think Nebuchadnezzar knew he was a tool of God used to destroy Judah? Do you think Sennacherib knew he was being use as a tool by God to destroy Israel. Your questions seem pointless.

 

[Hidden In Him]

have not insulted you at all. I was merely making an observation based on the nature of your arguments.

Your "observation" was based on the fact that I don't agree with you and traditional scholarship, LoL. But it's fine. I'm over it. :)

What difference does it make whether Satan knew it or not.

If you will answer it I will show you.

Do you think Nebuchadnezzar knew he was a tool of God used to destroy Judah? Do you think Sennacherib knew he was being use as a tool by God to destroy Israel. Your questions seem pointless.

They may seem pointless to you at the moment but they are not. I'm asking you kindly: Answer it, and we will see.

 

[oldhermit]

Your "observation" was based on the fact that I don't agree with you and traditional scholarship, LoL. But it's fine. I'm over it. :)


If you will answer it I will show you.


They may seem pointless to you at the moment but they are not. I'm asking you kindly: Answer it, and we will see.

I think I have gone as far with this as I am willing to go. Either get to the point or forget it.

 

[Triumph1300]

by Frank:
About sickness...
God never sends sickness as a "humbling agent". NEVER.

Exo 15:26 He said, "If you will carefully obey the LORD your God, do what is right in his eyes, listen to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, then I won't inflict on you all the diseases that I inflicted on the Egyptians, because I am the LORD your healer."


Only satan comes to steal and destroy.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think I have gone as far with this as I am willing to go. Either get to the point or forget it.

Ha Ha! I think we've gotten as far as we're going to get too. But no harm, no foul, Old Hermit. And it was a pleasure discussing it for a little while anyway. Maybe the next one we have will be on something we agree on a little more.

Blessings in Christ.
Your friend,
HiH

 

[oldhermit]

Remember John who had no classical education.

1 John 2:27 KJVS
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Defending your position by pointing out that others have inferior education is made null and void by the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

This is the same weapon that catholic priests used against believers - that they weren't qualified to determine spiritual matters. The anointing of the Holy Spirit is the great equalizer. The same anointing that placed the ignorant fishermen in front of the council in Acts.

The Holy Spirit will teach you all you know. If you know Greek, Latin and Hebrew then fine. But it's a poor substitute for the anointing of the Holy Spirit and depends upon the wisdom of man not to be God.

I have never understood why it is that people assume that because someone has had the benefit of higher education that this somehow means they have no guidance from the Holy Spirit. It does really annoy me though when people attempt to make arguments from the Greek when they have never studied the language and have no earthly idea what they are talking about.

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul's Thorn In The Flesh=Not a Sickness but a Messenger of Satan to buffet me.

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. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.”
(2 Cor. 12:7-10
In vers

eaching...s/pauls_thorn/​

e 7, right after the thorn in the flesh is mentioned, there is a phrase set off by commas which says, “The messenger of Satan to buffet me.” This is an explanation of what the thorn was. It was not a thing but rather a demonic messenger. The word used as “messenger” here is always translated as angel or messenger and refers to a created being. So, Paul’s thorn was literally a demon sent from Satan to buffet him.
http://www.awmi.net/reading/t

The great apostle Paul, who:

1. like no other had come to visions and revelations from God -
2. who was caught up to the third heaven in an experience so real he couldn't tell if it was a vision or not -
3. who was so consumed with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ that 3 continents weren't big enough and if the Americas were then known, he'd most assuredly been over there preaching Jesus to the Native Americans -
4. who was so filled with inspiration that he wrote a vast majority of the New Testament -
5. who was a man before whom demons were helpless to resist when commanded by him to depart in the name of Jesus -
6. who received such an "abundance of the revelations" from God that he was given a thorn in his flesh just to keep him humble -

is supposedly victimized by a literal demon that would literally "buffet", or literally "strike repeatedly and violently" him?

Paul, like all Hebrews, employed "Hebrew Chiastic Structure" - a type of poetry where not words, but ideas are rhymed. The clue to understanding what this "messenger" was is found in the same verse: the "thorn" he speaks of.

Are we to understand it was a literal thorn, or a figurative thorn? Of course, it was figurative. Following the Chiasm, we should expect ANOTHER POETIC, FIGURATIVE expression to follow if the Chiasm is to remain intact: the "messenger of Satan". The "messenger" is figurative and was likely impaired vision.

 

[brakelite]

The great apostle Paul, who:

1. like no other had come to visions and revelations from God -
2. who was caught up to the third heaven in an experience so real he couldn't tell if it was a vision or not -
3. who was so consumed with preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ that 3 continents weren't big enough and if the Americas were then known, he'd most assuredly been over there preaching Jesus to the Native Americans -
4. who was so filled with inspiration that he wrote a vast majority of the New Testament -
5. who was a man before whom demons were helpless to resist when commanded by him to depart in the name of Jesus -
6. who received such an "abundance of the revelations" from God that he was given a thorn in his flesh just to keep him humble -

is supposedly victimized by a literal demon that would literally "buffet", or literally "strike repeatedly and violently" him?

Paul, like all Hebrews, employed "Hebrew Chiastic Structure" - a type of poetry where not words, but ideas are rhymed. The clue to understanding what this "messenger" was is found in the same verse: the "thorn" he speaks of.

Are we to understand it was a literal thorn, or a figurative thorn? Of course, it was figurative. Following the Chiasm, we should expect ANOTHER POETIC, FIGURATIVE expression to follow if the Chiasm is to remain intact: the "messenger of Satan". The "messenger" is figurative and was likely impaired vision.

And there is much evidence in the scriptures to support the vision impairment concept. Certainly more so than any literal demonic oppression.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I have never understood why it is that people assume that because someone has had the benefit of higher education that this somehow means they have no guidance from the Holy Spirit.

I agree.

 

[Hidden In Him]

is supposedly victimized by a literal demon that would literally "buffet", or literally "strike repeatedly and violently" him?

Phoneman, we've never had a discussion before, so hopefully it goes well. But like what Enoch does often, the above is a misrepresentation of what I present. Since you do appear to be addressing my argument indirectly, let me know what your responses are to the points and questions I present in Posts #9 and #12.

Blessings.