2 Cor 12.6-10. A thorn was given me. Part 4

My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.

Grenoble, France

This is part 3. It will not make sense unless you should read parts 1 and 2 first.

• If it was only for Paul, what advantage does that give God? No revelation is for show. Moses asked to see God and he was denied, but his request was partly agreed to.

• Moses put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. Is the thorn like this? Paul's ministry is first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Moses' veil was to prevent those who were being hardened from seeing the glory. But the veil is set aside when one turns to the Lord. If Paul's thorn is to prevent the exceptional character of the revelation from being exposed to those who were being hardened, then it makes sense that God was hiding his glory from those who had no right to view it.

• Why was the thorn necessary? What is wrong with being "too elated" about something God has said? The opposite is understandable (a thorn to get someone moving) but a thorn to deaden the effects of the revelation is a strange thing.

• Did Paul tell it later?

• Was the thorn removed later?

• Christ told his Disciples to never repeat what Peter had said about him being the Son of God, but he certainly did not mean "ever". There would come a time when what was secret was the very thing that was to be announced loudly.

• Christ put mud on the blind man's eyes to keep him from seeing. He told another blind man out of the village so the healing would not be seen. But when he raised Lazarus, he did it in public, intentionally, because he was in his last week and it was necessary to put fuel on the fire that until now was only smoldering. In his last week, he intended to inflame the Jews. Prior to that, he intended to not inflame the Jews.

• Paul's command to never repeat it might have been the same as when Jesus "sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." He didn't say "until I am crucified" because that was another part of the mystery. After the crucifixion and resurrection, then they were told the opposite: tell everyone, everywhere. And write it down for future generations too.

• Paul going to Jerusalem was his exposure. Prior to this he needed to keep a low profile, because there was work to do and he could not do that work with the world exploding around him. But going to Jerusalem was a different chapter in the work. He could inflame things then, because he would be arrested and put in prison and then exported to Rome, far away from the Jews. Problem solved. But, how could he get them angry enough to do this? So far the super-apostles were only following him around. After Paul confronted Peter in Galatians, they stay out of his way: they would go in after he had left. Now he comes to them. The face-to-face is inescapable. The result is Paul being imprisoned and the apostles being relieved of their thorn. They were finally free.

• If Jesus could pray three times for the cross to be removed, it is understandable that Paul could have too. It was an intolerable weight. Their reasons were different, but the desperation is the same. Knowing what is about to happen is too much. Jesus can say, "nevertheless, but my will be done but Thine," and we understand (or at least we think we do), so there is no reason we should not also understand Paul's prayer for it to be removed.

• Jesus set his face toward Jerusalem.

2 Cor 12.1-2

It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven.

Saul left Jerusalem after this first meeting with Peter and spent maybe three years Tarsus, Syria, and Cilicia, then went to Antioch in response to the request of Barnabas. Now Paul reminds the super-apostles to another important date, 14 years ago, when Peter was rescued from prison. The significance of that date (and Peter knows it) is that Peter left Jerusalem after being rescued and stayed out of harm's way for years—which meant he also took himself out of the work of God, for it was impossible to preach the gospel without being persecuted.

At this same time, unbeknownst to any of them, Saul was caught up into the third heaven. He is telling them now, because it is necessary for them to know that things not within their eyesight were happening. Yes, he was a nobody to them in those early years, but now he tells them a long-held secret: God was developing and teaching him, and they knew nothing of it.

Paul refers to himself as "a person in Christ" that he knew: a possible hint at his change in name some 5 years after the revelation. The Saul of 14 years ago was nothing like the Paul of today. Paul is using the language to distance himself from the foolishness of boasting, but it is also an evaluation of who he was then compared to who he is now. He is a different man. And not necessarily for the better: humanly speaking. Back then he had not been beaten once, never spent a day in prison, never stoned or shipwrecked or without food... only one escape in a basket.

Now he was a wreck of a man. Beaten down, hobbling more than walking the path, and being given up to death. His estimation of all this is a "slight momentary affliction". But the least of his surpasses the greatest of their afflictions. He has been doing it for 14 years and has no intention of slowing down or quitting. They did it for half that and said ¡no mas!

2 Cor 12.3-4

I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught up into Paradise.

Paul is telling the truth as precisely as possible. He does not how whether the experience was in the body (how could the body take a leap into Paradise?) or out of the body, but he does know it happened. This was not Paul's first vision or revelation, nor his last, but apparently it was the most significant.

In Gen 15 Abram was told what would happen to him and his people:

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and a deep and terrifying darkness descended upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know this for certain, that your offspring shall be aliens in a land that is not theirs, and shall be slaves there, and they shall be oppressed for four hundred years; but I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.

God had something momentous to tell Abram and used a deep sleep, a terrifying darkness, a smoking fire pot, and a flaming torch to let Abram know that this was the most important thing that would ever happen in his life.

Now, for whatever reason, Saul is caught up into Paradise. It was not terrifying like Abram's sleep, but it was an extraordinary experience nevertheless.

Interestingly, both happened before their names were changed.

2 Cor 12.4

and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.

Why? Abram's experience was just as dramatic and he was was allowed to tell what was going to happen. Why not Paul? Paul did know things about the future that he was allowed to tell (1 Thess 4-5, 2 Thess 1-2, Rom 11, 1 Cor 15), and John wrote 22 chapters on future things, so the future was not something "no mortal is not permitted to repeat".

There is, however, a future that cannot be revealed: the future of annihilation. Every revelation of future things has dealt with hope. Even if it threatened judgement, it also promised restoration. We now know that the northern ten tribes were lost forever, but they weren't told that. We now know that Israel was cut off and the Church was grafted in, but they weren't told that. There were certainly clear warnings that if the people didn't wake up they would pay the price, but no revelation removed all hope. The "if" was always accompanied by hope.

Abram explained that his people they would be rescued from slavery and brought back to the land. Daniel wrote of nations being built and brought down. John wrote of this earth coming to an end and a new earth taking its place. But Israel was not told they would be replaced as the people of God. Only after it happened did anyone see the enormity of it all, but even today most Jews don't agree it happened.

People can tolerate a bright future but they cannot tolerate annihilation. It is difficult enough to get people to pay attention. If they are told they will be cut off, who would try? Why put in the effort if it will make no difference?

The Israelites were told many times that they would be judged for their offenses, but they were never told in the midst of the good times that they would be cut off. God told the Israelites in the wilderness that they would not see the Promised Land, but he told them their children would. The times of the Judges were a series of ups and downs, but God never told them on the hilltop that they were facing judgment. The time of David and of Solomon were the high points of Jewish history. They were allowed to enjoy their prosperity. It was only after Solomon died and the evil kings came in that God warned of judgment. But even then he promised they would be released after they served their time. Never did Israel face the prospect, until Jesus came, that they stood on the brink of the abyss.

No one, not even the apostles, considered that Israel was in its final days. They all believed Christ would return and establish his kingdom. It is, in fact, this strong belief that makes the super-apostles unable to deal with Paul. Even the hint that the Gentiles were equal to the Jews was too much. If Paul had said that his revelation was the end of Israel as the people of God, the Jews would have been satisfied with him being imprisoned.

But. it is this very thing that Paul writes a couple years later to the believers in Rome. His language to them (and the majority are Jews) is stark and clear:

“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation; with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”

Their rejection is the reconciliation of the world.

God did not spare the natural branches.

As regards the gospel they are enemies of God.

Still, Paul never says it is complete and he doesn't say it is forever:

Not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.”

A remnant of them will be saved.

Has God rejected his people? By no means!

If their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

God has the power to graft them in again.

The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

Paul had never taught (that we know of) so clearly of the fate of the Jews until he wrote Romans. One reason is that Romans is the only letter he ever wrote to Jewish believers. But also, he writes maybe two years after 2 Corinthians. He is leaving for Jerusalem and he knows it will be a life-changing visit: he tells the elders of Ephesus he will never see them again.

It has been 20 or more years since he was thrown to the ground on the road to Damascus. At this late date in his work he is able to speak more plainly about the contest between the Jew and the Gentile for the title "people of God". He tells the believers in Rome a version of the Gospel that he has never spelled out before. It is risky. The Jews will not take to it kindly, especially the Jews who deny Christ.

Paul went to Jerusalem, was exposed to the mob through the machinations of James, and was put in prison. There was no meeting of the church to pray for his release like they did for Peter 16 years earlier. They left him to the mob; left him in prison: no one came to his defense.

Back to the point: why the revelation could not be repeated and why Saul was given a thorn:

Something Saul might not be allowed to repeat was that he was being given the lead and the apostles were being moved into the shadows. It was at the same time as the revelation, 14 years earlier, that Peter was imprisoned and rescued by the angel of the Lord. This was the last time Peter would be rescued because it would be the last time he would step into danger. This was God's final attempt to turn Peter back onto the path. Peter didn't take it.

Saul did. From that point on we would continually pick up speed.

Paul reminding Peter that 14 years earlier he had been rescued from prison by the angel of the Lord would hopefully move him to consider what he has been doing. Peter would know that in the last 14 years he had done nothing of consequence. He would know that 14 years ago was his turning point. He should think about that. Strongly.

This possibility goes well with Saul's elation. God telling him that he was now the apostle to the Gentiles would be something that might need to be throttled back a bit. And it might be something God would not want Paul to tell anyone. But it does not explain why his revelation was something no mortal was ever allowed to repeat. It had to be more momentous.

A second possibility: Like the first, but added to it is the message that the apostles would not reconsider their situation and would get only worse. Yes, Saul would be given the lead, but the apostles and brothers of the Lord would not be restrained. They would continue in their belief that God would never consider a Gentile equal to a Jew, which meant Saul would never be released from their weight. He would drag this weight along his entire life.

Saul would never tell them this, if for no other reason that he wouldn't want them to have any more leverage against him. This possibility explains both the elation and the thorn: both were the consequence of the same secret. It doesn't necessarily explain why he could never tell anyone though. Could he not have trusted Timothy or Titus with his secret?

A third possibility: The fact that the Church would take the place of the branch of Israel is likely a big part of the secret that Saul was told that he could not repeat. He could not repeat it because it would have enraged the Jews against him so passionately that he certainly could not have have withstood it. Christ had already told them they faced judgement, but they didn't believe it. For Saul to take it to the next level—that the Jews were broken off and the Gentiles were taking their place—would not just incite the Jews against the Gentiles (and Saul): it would lead to war.

The problem with this explanation is that it doesn't explain why Paul would be elated. The destruction of his people was a disaster. Even if it was the plan of God and Paul could rejoice in the mercy of God to the Gentiles, the destruction of Israel was not something that required a thorn.

Unless, there was more to it.

A fourth possibility (and you're not going to like it!) is that Saul was told that Israel would be rejected and the Church established as the new people of God, but later the Church would be rejected and Israel reestablished as the people of God. We know this from Rom 11.20-26, but no one else did:

They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And even those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved.

We like to blunt these words by emphasizing the "if". We are certain that Paul is speaking sympathetically: something that could happen (but never will) if the Church makes the same mistake as Israel (it won't) because the righteous live by faith (but Paul says that is not a protection; it is less a foundation than Israel was given). It is not a hypothetical. Paul says clearly, emphatically:

— If God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.

— How much more will these natural branches be grafted back into their own olive tree.

— I want you to understand this mystery.

— A hardening has come upon Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

— And so all Israel will be saved.

We discount this warning to our peril. Israel also convinced themselves it could not happen. But there are parts of this that make everything fit perfectly: everything except our expectations that is:

— If Israel is saved, it makes right everything God promised Abraham.

— If Israel is saved, it fulfills the deepest desire of Christ.

— If Israel is saved, it fulfills the deepest desire of Paul.

— Paul says he is telling us a mystery: something we could not know unless God revealed it.

Paul cannot say it plainly, but he is required to at least give a warning because otherwise he is complicit. Exe 3.20:

If the righteous turn from their righteousness and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before them, they shall die; because you have not warned them, they shall die for their sin, and their righteous deeds that they have done shall not be remembered; but their blood I will require at your hand.

Paul cannot give a detailed explanation, but he can (and must) give a warning. Christ warned Israel and they thought themselves unable to fall. They fell. Paul has warned the Church that the hardening of Israel is only until the full number of Gentiles have come in, and then all Israel will be saved.

It must be given as a warning instead of a detailed revelation because God never does that. He knows the beginning for the end and requires us to pay attention regardless. He knows what will happen. He knows what he will do. But he never tells his people, because they would be demoralized beyond recovery.

Except: Paul has one wish: that his people would be saved. God doesn't need to tell him that: he will be forever in Paradise in a few years and then we will know everything. But the path God has laid out for him is a path so desperately difficult that no one could be expected to finish the course. He will be beaten, flogged, abandoned, and killed. Twice. At least. He will have to keep going even though the apostles work against him. That load will wear him down, force his sleep away, leave him angry and resentful and bitter: that the one who denied Christ out of fear now lives by fear again, that the one whom Jesus loved thinks love is enough, that the brother who has no business even being in Jerusalem has taken the headship.

Paul cannot start a war and he cannot destroy the Church before it has even stood up, but God can give him the reason to keep taking the next step, even when he is certain he is too tired to go another day. God can show him how much he must suffer, but he can also show him why it is worth it.

This explanation explains why Paul would be elated, not that the Gentiles would be replaced but that (1) the full number of the Gentiles would come in and then (2) Israel would be restored. If Paul would be cut off from Christ and go to hell if it meant the salvation of his people, then he certainly can follow Christ through hell knowing that his people will be saved. It also explains the thorn. We will discuss that in a few verses.

2 Cor 12.5-6

On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses. 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.

Paul is able to boast that this nothing-of-a-man Saul was shown the third heaven and told things no mortal is allowed to repeat, but for himself he will not boast, except in his weaknesses. Paul is not speaking about the words he is not allowed to repeat: he is talking about the unique honor of being taken into Paradise. When he says "I refrain for it", he is not saying he refrains to repeat what he was told, but that he refrains from making himself something special because of what God has done. He does not expect people to think better of him, but he does want them to know who they're working against: not him, God.

Paul has kept the secret these 14 years. He tells them now because they need to fully understand what they're doing: the apostles, not the church in Corinth. The apostles need to know that Paul is (1) not lying (2) about being taken up into Paradise and (3) so it is to their benefit that they go back to Jerusalem and (4) stay there. There is no risk of them toying with Paul, but this is not that: they are toying with the things of God.

2 Cor 12.7

even considering the exceptional character of the revelations.

The important part of the event is the revelation. It is spectacular that he was taken into Paradise, but that is not the important thing. A revelation is a word from God to his people, telling them something they could not have known otherwise. Paul was given other revelations: to go somewhere or to not go somewhere, but this was different. This told him things no one was ever to know.

But even then, Paul is not saying he should be thought better for it. Yes, it was exceptional, but the revelations to Abram, Jacob, Joseph, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel were no less exceptional. Regardless, God is not in the business of creating spectacles. He never speaks for nothing; he never acts for show. It is all deadly serious stuff. It's spectacular because heaven and earth have connected, which inevitably results in something earth-shattering. Still, heaven and earth connected in Christ, and few were impressed. It is not always spectacular, but it is always the most important thing.

2 Cor 12.7-8

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.

There were many other visions and revelations, but Paul's is the only one that he is told not to repeat, and then given a thorn to seal the matter. Daniel (Dan 8.26) was told to seal up the vision, but it is unclear what that means since he did tell the vision, and he was not given a thorn to seal it, only the instruction to seal it.

We don't know how the thorn kept Paul from being too elated, whether it accompanied the revelation or was given at a later time in response to something else, what it was, whether it was intended to keep Paul from revealing the secret or to prevent him from using it as leverage against his opponents, why it was necessary for Paul but apparently no on else, or how it worked. We can say with some assurance that the thorn was not because Paul was careless with the things of God.

We need to recall that Paul was taught the bulk of his message by the Lord, on apparently multiple occasions. He is insistent in Gal 1.12 that he was not taught by the apostles or any other human. It is possible (anything's possible!) that this one revelation is what Paul is referring to in Gal 1, but since Paul spent three years in Arabia it seems more likely that those three years were a time of learning, and he did not receive a single message that he later organized into the parts he was expected to repeat and the parts he was to keep secret.

Not terribly important, but Jesus spent three-ish years with the Twelve. It is not unreasonable that he spent time with Paul also. The human mind can accept only so much information before it needs a rest. The spectacular character of the revelation is likely not supposed to tell us that Paul was given the ability to take in a massive amount of information in one go.

Paul says that even though the revelation was exceptional, that no one should think better of him because of it. We have to ask: then why should Paul think better of himself for it? Is Paul saying that being "elated" is not the same thing as people thinking better of him? Is he saying that the thorn was not to keep him from thinking of himself more highly than he should, but something else? If being "elated" is not thinking too highly, then what is it?

Let's assume, as a beginning point, that being elated and being proud are not the same thing. Paul could have been elated about the revelation without being elated that he was the one to receive it, and not the other apostles. It upset Paul that the Pillars and super-apostles used their stature as weight against him, to coax people away from him, but he was upset because they were working contrary to the Gospel, not that they were working contrary to him. If they, for instance, harassed him in a way that did not divide the sheep, it would have been a different matter. He would not be writing letters to Galatia and Corinth over personal differences with Peter, John, and James.

The evidence seems to be that the thorn was not something that made him think he was superior to them. He tells about it to warn them, not to settle a score.

What the thorn was. A popular suggestion is that it relates to Gal 4.13-15:

You know that it was because of a physical illness that I originally preached the gospel to you, and you did not show disdain or contempt because of the trial caused you by my physical condition, but rather you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Where now is that blessedness of yours? Indeed, I can testify to you that, if it had been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.

On one trip when my daughter came to Romania she got an eye infection that was misery. It felt like there were crystals under her eyelids, scratching her eyes. She could not open her eyes because every blink was a shock of pain. She got treatment for it and it went away in a few days.

Significantly, Paul lived in a day when the main treatment was time. If Paul had a painful eye condition it is completely understandable that it would have sidelined him. It is not so certain, however, that it would have kept him from being elated. Also, Gal 4.13 seems to say that Paul went to Galatia because of this illness, to get off the path for a while and recover. This trip to Galatia was therefore not an expected stop. He did not preach to them about the illness (that is: I am content with weaknesses; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong), but because it had landed him in their midst and Paul preached wherever he was, even in prison.

Also, Paul says the Galatians did not show disdain or contempt for him because of the trial brought into their midst by his illness. That can mean nothing except that such an illness normally would have created a trial for other people and the expected response would have been disdain or contempt. A strong possibility is that the trial they suffered for him was in caring for him during the illness, even though it put them in danger, and even though there was no reason to do something like that, but that they so excelled in their trial that Paul says they would have torn out their eyes and given them to him. That hints at contagion. If he brought into their community an illness that could have infected them all, but they took care of him regardless, that explains why he was so impressed and grateful for their help. Anyone else might have told his to stay away and put guards on the road to make sure he didn't come close. Malaria is a possibility, not because it affects the eyes but because the symptoms are repelling: vomiting, diarrhea, jaundice, and even seizures. It is not contagious, but they would not have known that. What they would have known as a man expelling bodily fluids all over himself, asking for help. For them so say yes would have been truly a gesture of goodness, above and beyond the call of duty.

Malaria does not explain Paul's statement about them being willing to tear out their eyes for him, so it is not a sure thing, but an illness like it that also affected the eyes seems probable. Regardless, we can say with certainty that he came to them in the midst of this illness, for help. They took him in and took care of him until he was able to continue. It therefore seems more like an isolated incident than a malady that plagued him for years.

If this stay in Galatia hints at the nature of the thorn, it doesn't explain why Paul asked for it to be removed but was told no, for it seems the answer was yes. It could have been a condition that flared up from time to time, but he does not mention it again, so the evidence is not so strong.

In addition, pain did not seem to be something that deterred Paul. 2 Cor 11 is rife with examples of how pain did not stop him. Certainly a lingering painful eye problem would weigh down anyone, but if it was such a weight, why would he have not included it in the list of things that he went though that they didn't? If he had a serious eye condition, would that not have lent weight to his list of things he suffered for Christ? Especially if it is was the one thing that burdened him most? It is not so certain that any physical condition would have been interpreted by Paul as a thorn if he regarded all these other physical things he suffered as not being a thorn.

No, the more probably explanation is that his thorn is found in his list. Paul says the message was a secret; he doesn't say the thorn was.

Why should we care what the thorn was? Possibly we shouldn't. If Paul wanted us to know he could have said so. But, we are probably correct to assume he was not talking to us, but to the super-apostles. He wanted them to know he had a thorn, and he apparently didn't want them to know what it was. Not wanting them to know would be either because it would give them an advantage or would reveal a deep secret that Paul could not allow to be made public.

One reason that he would not have told us is because it would not have made a difference. Paul also said he had learned the secret of being content in an and all circumstances. We would like to know! What is this secret? We would like to be content as well. The reason Paul doesn't say what the secret is is because it's not really a secret. A person who gets to the point where they are content in any an all circumstances will understand. A person who simply wants to be content will not be helped, because they want to be content without doing what Paul did to get there.

Here also, a reason why Paul might not have told us what the thorn was is that it would not have changed anyone's decision to go. It was not for idle curiosity. A person who was sitting at home would not get into the race just because Paul explained what the thorn was.

Was the thorn the difference between the man 14 years ago and the man now? Was the thorn the thing that changed him from a bright, enthusiastic young man into what he is now: a man who more crawls and walks the path?

Paul's deepest wish was for this people to be saved.

Paul's greatest weight was the Pillars and super-apostles. His path would have been almost weightless if it were not for them.

a basic timeline:

33/34 Christ meets Saul on the road to Damascus

36/37 Saul escapes Damascus in a basket

36/36 Saul first introduced to Peter and the others 3 years after Saul meets Christ

41/42 Saul's revelation 14 years before 2 Cor 12

41/42 Peter is rescued from prison by an angel

48 the Jerusalem Council

48 Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch

48 Paul writes Galatians

49 Paul writes 1 and 2 Thessalonians (from Corinth)

53/54 Paul writes 1 Corinthians (from Ephesus) Peter has likely been to Corinth by then

55/56 Paul writes 2 Corinthians (from Macedonia) Peter is in Corinth then?

57/58 Paul writes Romans (from Corinth) Peter is not in Corinth, or Rome

57/58 Paul is arrested and imprisoned for two years

62 Paul arrives in Rome and is put under house arrest

62/63 Paul writes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (from Rome)

62/63 Luke writes his Gospel and Acts (from Rome)

Why was a thorn necessary to keep Paul's feet on the ground?

Because he has learned something over these 14 years?

Why was John not given a thorn?