2 Corinthians 12:7

7. WH. suspect some primitive error, but hold that the genuineness of διό (אABG) is above doubt, its omission (DKLP, Iren. Aug.) being “a characteristic Western attempt to deal with a difficulty by excision.” To cut out καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν� as a gloss (Baljon) is a similar attempt. No witnesses omit these words. The second ἵνα μἠ ὑπεραίρωμαι (א3BKLP, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Goth.) might be a gloss, for אADF 17, Latt. Aeth., Iren. Tert. Aug. omit. More probably this is another excision to make the text smoother.

ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ (אABDFG, Orig.) rather than ἄγγ. Σατάν (A2D2D3-KLP). The form Σατανᾶς prevails in the N.T. (2 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 11:14; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 7:5, &c.), and in the LXX. Σατάν is very rare (1 Kings 11:14, [23]).

7. Both text (see critical note) and punctuation are uncertain, and some primitive error may be suspected. But the general meaning is clear. In order to prevent him from being too much lifted up by the extraordinary revelations granted to him, some extraordinary bodily suffering of a very humiliating kind was laid upon him.

καὶ τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν�. The experiences just mentioned are primarily meant; but from Acts we learn that revelations were frequent. In Acts 16:6-10 we have three. WH. prefer to attach these words to 2 Corinthians 12:6 : but I forbear, lest any man …, and by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations; i.e. he has two reasons for abstaining, (1) fear of seeming to exaggerate, and (2) the greatness of the revelations. Lachmann would attach these words to 2 Corinthians 12:5, making 2 Corinthians 12:6 a parenthesis: I will not glory, save in my weaknesses (for if I choose to glory …) and in the exceeding greatness of the revelations. “Neither construction however justifies itself on close examination; and in all probability there is a corruption somewhere” (WH.). Faulty dictation might account for the best certified text. The Apostle, for emphasis, begins with the revelations, then breaks off with διό, and finishes with a different construction, repeating ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι in his impressiveness: And by reason of the exceeding greatness (2 Corinthians 4:7) of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch (2 Thessalonians 2:4), there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted over much (R.V.). This seems to be less awkward than either of the other arrangements: but in all three the meaning is much the same. Comp. Μενέλαος χείριστα τῶν ἄλλων ὑπερῄρετο τοῖς πολίταις (2Ma 5:23). In classical Greek ὑπεραίρειν is more often in trans. Irenaeus paraphrases, ἵνα μὴ ἐπαρθεὶς� (V. iii. 1).

ἐδόθη μοι. By whom? By God: neque enim diabolus agebat, ne magnitudine revelationum Paulus extolleretur et ut virtus ejus proflceretur, sed Deus (Augustine, de Nat. et Grat. 27). Augustine argues in a similar way in the Reply to Faustus (xxii. 20). The σκόλοψ was given by God through the instrumentality of Satan, who is regarded as always ready to inflict suffering for its own sake (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:5 with Ellicott’s note, and 1 Timothy 1:20); but the ἵνα μή forbids the making Satan the nom. to ἐδόθη. Comp. the use of ἐδόθη in Galatians 3:21; Ephesians 3:8; Ephesians 4:7; Ephesians 6:19; 1 Timothy 4:14; of δίδοται 1 Corinthians 12:7-8; and δέδοται 1 Corinthians 11:15.

σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί. A thorn for the flesh is more probable than a thorn in the flesh (A.V., R.V.): for the double dative, μοι … τῇ σαρκί, comp. ἐὰν μὴ πιστεύσωσίν σοι τοῖς δυσὶ σημείοις τούτοις (Exodus 4:9). And thorn (A.V., R.V.) is more probable than ‘stake’ (R.V. marg.). Nowhere else in the N.T. does σκόλοψ occur: in the LXX. it is found four times. Numbers 33:55, σκόλοπες ἐν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ βολίδες ἐν ταῖς πλευραῖς ὑμῶν. Ezekiel 28:24, οὐκ ἔσονται οὐκέτι ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ σκόλοψ πικρίας καὶ ἄκανθα ὀδύνης. Hosea 2:6, ἐγὼ φράσσω τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτῆς ἑν σκόλοψιν, καὶ�. Sir 43:19, καὶ πάχνην ὡς ἅλα ἐπὶ γῆς χέει, καὶ παγεῖσα γίνεται σκολόπων ἄκρα. In the first three passages it represents three different Hebrew words; sek, sillôn, sir, of which sillôn occurs Ezekiel 2:6, and sir Isaiah 34:13; Nahum 1:10; Ecclesiastes 7:6; and sillôn is connected with Aramaic and Syriac words which mean ‘thorn’ or ‘point.’ ‘Thorn’ or ‘splinter’ seems to be the meaning in all these passages, and ‘stake’ would not suit any of them, except Hosea 2:6. Wetstein and Fritzsche quote Artemidorus (Oneirocrit. III. 33), ἄκανθαι καὶ σκόλοπες ὀδύνας σημαίνουσι διὰ τὸ ὀξὺ, καὶ ἐμποδισμοὺς διὰ τὸ καθεκτικὸν, καὶ φροντίδας καὶ λύπας διὰ τὸ τραχύ, where ‘thorns and briars’ seems to be the meaning: comp. Dioscorides (xxvi. 24), ταύτης ὁ καρπὸς καὶ τὸ δάκρυον καταπλασσόμενα ἑπισπᾶται σκόλοπας, where ‘thorns’ or ‘splinters’ is evidently the meaning. But in classical Greek the common meaning is ‘stake,’ either for palisading or impaling; and a stake for impaling would be a suitable metaphor for great suffering, Moreover, σκόλοψ was sometimes used as equivalent to σταυρός (perhaps contemptuously in the first instance), and ἀνασκολοπίζω was used for crucifixion. Thus Celsus said of Christ, ὤφειλεν εἰς ἐπίδειξιν θεότητος� (Orig. con. Cels. II. 68), and Eusebius uses ἁνασκολοπισθῆναι of the crucifixion of S. Peter (H. E. II. xxv. 5). The translation ‘stake’ is therefore strongly advocated by some. Tertullian so understood it; he has sudes twice (de Fuga in Pers. 2; de Pudic. 13); but in neither place does he translate τῇ σαρκί. The translator of Irenaeus (V. iii. 1) and Cyprian (Test. iii. 6; de Mortal. 13) have the ambiguous stimulus carnis, which is adopted in the Vulgate. Luther has Pfahl ins Fleisch, Beza surculus infixus carni, Calvin stimulus carni, metaphora a bobus sumpta. “A stake driven through the flesh” is Lightfoot’s interpretation in his essay at the end of Galatians 4 Stanley (ad loc.) and Ramsay (St Paul, p. 97) agree with this. But Alford, Conybeare and Howson, Findlay, Heinrici, Krenkel, Meyer, F. W. Robertson, Schaff, and Schmiedel abide by the usual rendering ‘thorn.’ Field (Otium Norvicense, iii. p. 115) says that “there is no doubt that the Alexandrine use of σκόλοψ for ‘thorn’ is here intended, and that the ordinary meaning of ‘stake’ must be rejected.” He quotes Babrius (Fab. 122); ὄνος πατήσας σκόλοπα χωλὸς εἱστήκει. The ass asks a wolf to help him,—ἐκ τοῦ ποδός μου τὴν ἄκανθαν εἰρύσας. Farrar combines the two ideas, when he speaks of the “impalement of his health by this wounding splinter” (St Paul, I. p. 221). But, whichever translation be adopted, it is the idea of acuteness rather than of size that seems to be dominant; and it is not improbable that the Apostle has Numbers 33:55 in his mind, when he uses the expression.

‘Thorn for the flesh’ is plainly metaphorical. What does the metaphor mean? The answers to this question have varied greatly; and, on the whole, particular kinds of answers have prevailed at different periods or in different parts of the Church. But the earliest traditions and latest explanations are so far in agreement that they all take this grievous trial of the Apostle to be physical suffering of some kind. It is commonly assumed that, in attempting to determine the nature of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί, Galatians 4:13-14, which was written about the same time as this letter, must be combined with this passage as referring to the same ἀσθένεια. But it ought to be borne in mind that this is not certain; and that it is possible that the earliest traditions may be right about the σκόλοψ, while one of the modern hypotheses may be right about Galatians 4:13-14. From 2 Corinthians 12:7 we learn that the infliction was so acute as to be fitly called σκόλοψ, and so distressing and disabling to the Apostle’s work as to be clearly the work of Satan; also that it was recurrent, as the tense of κολαφίζῃ implies, and connected with the revelations granted to him, in that it was a humiliating antidote to spiritual pride. In this last connexion it may be compared with Jacob’s lameness after wrestling with (the angel of) Jehovah; and Jerome (Ep. xxxix. 2) compares it to the slave behind the triumphal car of the victorious general, whispering constantly, Hominem te esse memento. From Galatians 4:13-14 we learn that the weakness of the flesh there spoken of was so severe as to detain him in Galatia, and that its effects were such as to tempt the Galatians (τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν) to regard him with contempt (ἐξουθενήσατε) and disgust (ἐξεπτύσατε), a temptation which they triumphantly overcame. Beyond this all is uncertainty. The tradition that he was afflicted with agonizing pains in the head will fit 2 Corinthians 12:7, but not Galatians 4:13-14, for there is nothing in such suffering which would be likely to excite contempt or disgust. Three conjectures of modern commentators will fit both passages, but perhaps should be reserved for Galatians 4:13-14; these are epilepsy (Lightfoot, Schaff, Krenkel, Findlay), acute ophthalmia (Farrar, Lewin, Plumptre), and malarial fever (Ramsay). Of these three the first fulfils the conditions best. For details and for other views see Appendix C.

ἄγγελος Σατανᾶ. An angel of Satan (see on 2 Corinthians 2:16), or a messenger of Satan. Comp. Luke 13:16. This is in apposition to σκόλοψ, which is thus personified. With the reading Σατάν (see critical note), which may be nominative, some would render ‘the angel Satan’ or ‘a hostile angel.’ Against the former is the absence of the article; against the latter the fact that in the N.T. Σατανᾶς is always a proper name. Wiclif and the Rhemish, following the Vulgate, angelus satanae, have ‘angel of Satan’; other English Versions have ‘messenger.’ The idea of Satan having angels was familiar to the Jews (Matthew 12:24 = Luke 11:15). The Epistle of Barnabas (xviii. 1) in describing the Two Ways says, ἐφʼ ἦς εἰσιν τεταγμένοι φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐφʼ ἦς δὲ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Σατανᾶ: Enoch (liii. 3) says, ‘I have seen the angels of punishment preparing all the instruments of Satan’ (comp. xl. 7; lvi. 1): it is their special function ‘to bring judgment and destruction on all who dwell on the earth’ (lxvi. 1). In the Book of Jubilees, the date of which is B.C. 135–105, the demons under Mastêmâ (= ὁ Σατανᾶς in derivation and meaning), lead astray, blind, and kill the grandchildren of Noah (x. 2); Mastêmâ helps the Egyptian magicians, and stirs up the Egyptians to pursue Israel (xlviii. 9, 12). Whereas in Exodus 4:24 it is stated that the Lord sought to kill Moses for not circumcising his son, in Jubilees it is Mastêmâ who seeks to slay Moses and thus save the Egyptians from divine vengeance (xlviii. 2, 3). Comp. Satan moving David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1) with the Lord moving David to do this (2 Samuel 24:1). Here the σκόλοψ is given by God, but is at the same time an angel of Satan. The idea of Satan inflicting suffering is as old as the Book of Job (2 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 2:6) and appears in the N.T. in Luke 13:16; and his inflicting disciplinary suffering appears 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 (see Goudge ad loc.); 1 Timothy 1:20. Comp. 2 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 4:4; 1 Thessalonians 2:18; 1 Timothy 3:6-7; 2 Timothy 2:26. The doctrine, that Satan has angels, appears in Scripture (Revelation 12:7; Revelation 12:9) and is confirmed by Christ Himself (Matthew 25:41). Such beings inflict in malice the sufferings which God intends to be disciplinary. Est autem angelus a Deo missus seu permissus, sed Satanae, quia Satanae intentio est ut subvertat, Dei vero, ut humiliet et probatum reddat (Thomas Aquinas). Assuming that the malady in Galatia was the σκόλοψ, it is remarkable that, when the Apostle was being buffeted by the ἄγγελος Σαρανᾶ, the Galatians received him ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ (Galatians 4:14): but it is not clear that the Apostle means to mark any such contrast.

ἵνα με κολαφίξῃ. In order that he may buffet me. The nom. is ἅγγελος Σ. For κολαφίζῃ means ‘strike with the fist’ (1 Corinthians 4:11; 1 Peter 2:20; Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65), and this would not harmonize with σκόλοψ. If he had still been thinking of the σκόλοψ, he could have said περιπείρῃ (1 Timothy 6:10). The present tense, as Chrysostom points out, indicates a recurrence of the attacks; οὐχ ἵνα ἅπαξ με κολαφίσῃ (Theodoret), ἀλλὰ πολλάκις. The verb is late Greek and probably colloquial. It is perhaps chosen, rather than πυκτεύειν or ὑπωπιάζειν (1 Corinthians 9:26-27) or κονδυλίζειν (Amos 2:7; Malachi 3:5), in order to mark the treatment of a slave. In the last section of the Apocolocyntosis or Ludus de Morte Claudii of Seneca we find; Apparuit subito C. Caesar, et petere ilium in servitutem coepit: producit testes qui ilium viderent ab illo flagris, ferulis, colaphis vapulantem; adjudicatur C. Caesari.

ἵνα μὴ ὑπεραίρωμαι. The repetition (see critical note) is for emphasis, and to prevent a misunderstanding of ἵνα με κολαφίζῃ: comp. Revelation 2:5. We do not know whether the connexion was so close that after every special revelation there was an attack of the painful malady, but this may have been the case; and the excitement of the revelation might predispose him for such seizures. All that is certain is that there were revelations likely to produce spiritual pride, and painful attacks designed to counteract this. See Augustine’s letter to Paulinus and Therasia (Ep. xcv. 2).