2 Cor 12.6-10. A thorn was given me. Part 5

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

Snoqualmie Falls, Washington State

In Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and 2 Corinthians Paul spends a lot of time speaking against the Pillars, those who were supposed to be the acknowledged leaders, the circumcision faction, and the super-apostles. In Galatians it takes up all of chapters 1-4, half of ch 5, and part of ch 6: virtually the entire letter. In 1 Corinthians it takes up the first 4 chapters, part of ch 9, possibly ch 13, and part of ch 15. In 2 Corinthians it takes up parts of chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5, and all of chapters 10-12, and part of ch 13.

Two years after the second letter to Corinth, Paul sends a letter to the believers in Rome. In Romans he makes a passing remark for them to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, but it takes up little space in his letter. After he is arrested and sent to Rome, he writes Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. He warns them generally against divisions and false teachers, and to beware of those who mutilate the flesh, but he never again mentions the Pillars or super-apostles.

One reason for him not mentioning anything to the believers in Rome could be that the apostles had not reached them yet. But his letters to the churches in Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae would have warranted a warning if something was going on, for they were in the danger zone, but he says nothing. His later letters to Timothy and Titus do not warn them about such a threat either. Quite the opposite. He tells Timothy that even though none of them came to his defense, he asks for it not to be counted against them (though he did characterize it as an "evil attack".)

It seems that the matter has finally been put to rest. The things that upset the churches in that nine-year span between Galatians and 2 Corinthians apparently have not happened again. Even though Paul was out of the way, in prison in Rome, and his churches were open to anyone who wanted to preach a contrary word, it apparently didn't happen.

Why?

A possible reason is that Paul's telling of his vision and revelation had its effect. The apostles understood that at the same time they were leaving the path, God was preparing Paul to finish the course.

Or, they knew that exposing Paul to the mob in Jerusalem was a step too far. At the time they breathed a sigh of relief that their thorn was finally removed, but later they awoke to the enormity of their act. They considered themselves justified going to the churches to correct his teachings, but no one had the stomach for it now. They had committed a grievous sin against a brother. An apostle.

Or, third: there was no need to go into the Gentile areas now that Paul wasn't there. It turns out they weren't as concerned about the churches as much as they were with Paul. For lack of wood the fire goes out.

Whatever the reason, Paul now has new a new set of problems but this one has been put to rest. He never again takes on the Pillars. Six or seven years later, Peter commends Paul's writings, placing them on the level of Scripture. Problem solved.

Thorn removed?

The Lord refused to remove the thorn at the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians. That does not mean he didn't remove it later. Paul would not be martyred for 10 or 11 years. We should look for evidence in his later letters that the thorn still being there or not.

An important note on Romans:

We read Paul differently even though the language he uses in speaking about the Jews and Israel is the same. One reason is that what happened to Israel is now history: we know that the if's actually happened. But another is we know it could never happen to us.

Paul would not have agreed with that. He says "if" equally for Israel and the Church. He warned the Jews and the Church equally what could happen. The fact that it did happen to Israel and it hasn't happened to us convinces us that it can't. Israel was rejected and the Church became the people of God. In our definition of things, that's the end of story. Jews can come to Christ and become part of the Church, but Israel is no longer the people of God, and never will be, because we are the people upon whom the end of time will come.

Paul doesn't say that though. Yes, the time of his writing was fuzzy because Jerusalem was still there, the Temple was still standing, the Gentiles were not yet the people of God, unbelieving Jews knew they were still the people of God, believing Jews considered themselves a step above the Gentile believers, and Jewish believers knew that some of them standing there would not see death before Christ returned in glory to bring in his kingdom.

To the readers of Paul's day, the ifs were reversed. If they believed in Christ they considered themselves Christians and understood that the Jewish nonbelievers stood on the brink, but Israel as a whole did not consider themselves rejected by God. In ten years the Jews would take matters into their own hands and start a war against their Roman overlords, an uprising that would not just be from Jerusalem but would encompass Galilee and Samaria. The Jews were sick of Rome and were getting ready to do something about it. (But Rome was sick of them as well: within 3 or 4 years of that first uprising they would destroy Jerusalem with a vengeance.)

Paul couched his language in ifs because it was still not a settled thing. Their branch had not yet been cut off, at least visibly. When Paul says "branches were broken off" a reader could read it as individual Jews; they didn't have to read it as Israel's annihilation. They could still read it in a hopeful way, and they did.

They were wrong to do that.

We know that now, because we know what happened.

But that does not allow us to rewrite Paul. Paul did not say "if" because he was unsure and leaving room for him to be wrong. He said "if" because that's how God speaks. God never promises endless happiness or final annihilation. The ifs are to give hope. When we ready Israel's ifs as a 99% proof that they should have know they would be rejected (yes, a few were saved, but as a people they were rejected) and our ifs as a 99% proof that we can never be rejected (yes, there are a few false believers, but as a people we are safe), then we do violence to every other time that God has given a warning.

If God wants to tell us our future is assured, he has the ability do that. We think he has done that. We have the word of God, in unmistakable language, promising us that nothing will ever be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. But God used unmistakable language when speaking to Israel also, and we know how it turned out them. Jer 33.17-22:

Thus says the Lord: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time.

Thus says the Lord: If any of you could break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night would not come at their appointed time, only then could my covenant with my servant David be broken, so that he would not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with my ministers the Levites. Just as the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will increase the offspring of my servant David, and the Levites who minister to me.

and Isa 33.20:

Look on Zion, the city of our appointed festivals!

Your eyes will see Jerusalem,

a quiet habitation, an immovable tent,

whose stakes will never be pulled up,

and none of whose ropes will be broken.

and Isa 35.8-10:

A highway shall be there,

and it shall be called the Holy Way;

the unclean shall not travel on it,

but it shall be for God’s people;

no traveler, not even fools, shall go astray.

No lion shall be there,

nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it;

they shall not be found there,

but the redeemed shall walk there.

And the ransomed of the Lord shall return,

and come to Zion with singing;

everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;

they shall obtain joy and gladness,

and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Whatever certain promises the Church rests upon, Israel had more. We can say that they rejected Christ and therefore were rejected, but we cannot say how God could make such clear, stacked-up promises to them and have them brought down, but yet make the same promises to us without ever needed to worry that the same thing could happen.

The point is: certain hope does not motivate. Certain hope is, in fact, not hope at all, for the definition of hope is not being certain. Certain hope is not hope any more than empty hope is hope. We never know until we know.

If there is no if, there is no motivation. Remove the if on the warning and people give up. Remove the if on the promise and people give up. There is always an if.

The Jews could not be told in direct language there would come a day when they would no longer be the people of God because it would demoralize them from trying. Yes, there was hope for any individuals who paid attention, but a clear message that the nation was being cut off for all time would virtually guarantee an en masse rejection of God.

Likewise, the Church cannot be told in direct language there will be a day when they will no longer be the people of God. I'm not saying it will happen, but the language in Romans 11 is no different for Israel than it is for the Church. We cannot take what happened to them as the assurance that it cannot happen to us! Paul predicts this attitude and rejects it:

You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. 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, perhaps he will not spare you.

The NRSV has "perhaps he will not spare you" and "neither will he spare you" as an alternate reading, but almost every other English translation, including the RSV, uses "neither" as the preferred reading. The NRSV uses a translation that strengthens our hope. And why? Because the Church needs to be told nothing bad will ever happen?

No. The Church needs to see that it was grafted in because Israel's unbelief left a place for them, and that God has the power to graft Israel back in again. Paul says there is room for only one type of branch: Israel or the Church. One being cut off makes room for the other. If it happened that way once (and Paul warns that God has the power to graft the natural branch back in), then the clear message is that the Church would be cut off first.

Paul's language is designed to preserve hope and motivate people to pay attention. It is couched in ifs because that's the way it must be: there is always hope for the individual even if the people as a whole are destined to be cut off. The Church has no greater assurance than Israel. Paul says that, in fact, the Church has less assurance, because the Church is not the natural branch, and the Church stands by faith, not by promise (the promises of God are irrevocable).

Significantly, certain faith is not faith any more than certain hope is not hope, and empty faith is not faith any more than empty hope is not hope. When Paul says "you stand only through faith" we should take that a strong warning: the Church's foundation is weaker than Israel's. We consider faith as the guarantee that everything is signed, sealed, and delivered. Paul says no: you stand only by faith.

Our insistence on faith-alone is a fantasy. The Church was not created to bring the greatest number of people possible into heaven. The Church was not created to keep people out of hell. In fact, the Church was not created for us at all! It was created for God. To think that the Church was created to give people who "believe" assurance of heaven is absurd. What use is that to God? Why would he reject from one group of useless people and take on another? Because they "believe"? Nonsense. God needed salt. He didn't get it so he trampled them underfoot. Do we really believe that not getting a divorce and buying less expensive cars than unbelievers is salt? Name one person who is impressed by your faith. Other than you.

Paul says Israel was cut off for unbelief. Paul warns us that we stand only by faith. Those two must be opposite poles of the same thing. Israel was not under the thumb of Rome because they didn't believe in Christ. They were under the thumb of Rome because they were useless to God. Their reason for existing was to be the people of God. They defined that in the easiest possible for themselves: being born into the line of Abraham. If they had that, they were safe. Nothing else was required.

John and Jesus blasted that notion: I never want to hear that refrain again! Being a child of Abraham makes you a child of Abraham, not of God. But if you were a child of Abraham you would do what Abraham did!

God was fed up with their self-defined, self-serving, inflated view of themselves that made them useless for anything he needed. So he sent his Son, to warn them that if they didn't tend his vineyard, he would find someone who did. They didn't, and so the Church was born. After 2000 years the Church won't tend his vineyard either, because the Church is "special". More special than the Jews. And because the Church has a promise. And because the Church has faith. And because we are certain that faith-alone saves and work is a four-letter word.

Why would God reject the Jews for not tending his vineyard and replace them with a people who won't tend his vineyard either? That is pure nonsense. And dangerous.

God rejected Israel because of their unbelief. Not their unbelief in Christ, although that was the final nail, but because of their unbelief for a thousand years leading up to Christ. Christ was God's final warning to a nation mired in unbelief. Christ did not come to a nation that was on the path and now needed to change course. He came to a nation that was woefully off the path and needed to get back on.

For the Church to think they can replace Israel but continue their course, living as they please and doing the least amount possible to preserve their right to be called the people of God, is a serious miscalculation. A deadly serious one. Here is a simple principle: Whatever our faith means to us is the same as what it means to God. If it means almost nothing to us, it means almost nothing to him. If it means we don't have to do anything, it means he doesn't have to do anything either. When we define faith as the thinnest possible slice—a slice so thin it can't even be seen unless it is held up to the light at a certain angle—God regards it exactly the same. When our faith is punctured by the slightest pin prick and blows away at the merest puff of wind, it's useless. The issue is not faith+nothing or faith+works. The issue is that faith is our measure of God. Faith means we trust him. Faith means we give up something of value now because he promises it will be worth it. Our small faith is not a measure of us; it's our measure of him. He strongly dislikes being treated as someone who can't be trusted. He strongly dislikes people knocking the edges off his sharp word to live guilt-free lives. Faith+nothing is nothing+nothing if our faith is useless.

It is impossible that Christ would tell us that anyone who wishes to keep his life will lose it, and we say no: we can live as we like and have heaven too. Here's an interesting concept that we might want to keep in mind: Christ never lies.

We stand only by faith, which is nothing to God if it is nothing to us. If we are the true sons of Abraham, then we will have the faith of Abraham. Abraham understood that God was doing something through him, not something for him. If the Church is God's last word, then it is a pathetic faint whimper. If we think that faith-alone is a phrase that secures our future then we are in for a big disappointment, because faith-alone is not a rock. It's not even sand. It's nothing. What God thinks of our faith is the only thing that matters. Our estimation means nothing. Faith saves no one. God saves. If God has not saved you, you aren't.

The heroes of faith in Heb 11 were recognized for what they did for God, not what God did for them. The evidence of Scripture is that what matters is what the person does for God, not what God does for the person. When we focus on what God and Christ have done for us, we turn upside-down the entire record of Scripture. No one of faith ever thought that way! Only the faithless think that way.

How does this fit into our discussion of the thorn?

We read passages of Scripture like Romans 11 without the shock value they would have had to the first readers. Until Paul wrote it, no one knew anything about Israel and the Church being different branches of the same root. How long Paul knew, we don't know, but at this time in his work, to these people, and for whatever reason, he told them something he had never told anyone else, and something no one else would ever tell. This is unique, and terribly important. From v 11 on there is no way anyone could have known this by assembling statements from the Old Testament, or from anything else that would become the New Testament. It is only Paul who can say, with no confusion or ambiguity, that Israel is a branch, the Church is a branch, and the two will take turns occupying their place on the vine:

11 Have they stumbled so as to fall? By no means!

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

15 If their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead!

16 If the root is holy, then the branches also are holy.

17 It is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you.

20 They were broken off because of their unbelief

20 but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.

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

22 provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

23 Those of Israel, if they do not persist in unbelief, will be grafted in.

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

25 A hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

26 And so all Israel will be saved

28 As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake

28 but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors

29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

30 You were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience

31 By the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.

Take special note of v 23. Paul has been clear that the root can support only one type of branch at a time. It is understood that the individual Jew can come to Christ, but that is not what Paul is saying. Paul is saying that if Israel believes, their branch will be grafted back in: not as the branch of the Church, but as the branch of Israel.

A full look at these verses will require another study, but it is important to see that Paul is saying something that has never been heard by human ears or seen by human eyes before. Before Israel has even seen its rejection through the destruction of the nation and the Temple, Paul says they are cut off, but only for a time. Before the Church is really on its feet, Paul says it is only for a time. The Church says Israel is rejected because of its disobedience, and Paul says yes, but the mercy shown to the Gentile now becomes the basis for mercy being shown to the Jew. We don't know exactly what that means, but Paul has been talking about branches, so he likely is not referring to Jews returning to God through the branch of the Gentile.

Romans 11 is a monumental passage of Scripture. If the Church looks at it with the same clear eye for themselves that they use for the Jew, they will see incredible things. It is massively important. In it are things that explain our future. And the mind of God.

Paul could not have written Rom 11 unless he knew, and he could not have known unless he was told by God. When Paul uses “if” he is not saying it might not be true. He is using the language of God, which is designed to preserve hope and inspire faith in his people.

Paul's deepest wish was for his people to be saved. The best probability for the revelation is that Paul was told they would be saved. Paul's elation is not because of his visit to Paradise—as spectacular as that was—but the promise of God that his people will be saved. Paul can never say it with the strength that God told it to him, because God never speaks in ways that demotivate his people, but Paul can, and does, issue a warning. Not right then: to the church at Corinth and the super-apostles there, but two years later, to Jewish and Gentile believers in Rome that have never met him or the super-apostles. He can write to them because it must be said (if for other reason: for us), but in a way that helps the Gospel instead of igniting a fuse. The apostles will hear of it, but by that time they will have created their own thorn, to keep them from being too elated. They will leave him and his churches along from now on.

No one knows it yet, but by this time we are nearing the end of the time for revelation. When Paul writes 2 Corinthians, we are within ten years of his death, Peter's death, and the first Jewish-Roman war. That war will set off a time of trouble which will end with the destruction of Israel. Israel will be without a country until 1948: 1,878 years.

The only writings after Paul and Peter are those of John, and a good case can be made that John was not writing to the Gentiles. Regardless, we are getting very close to the end of New Testament revelation.

Everything the Church needs for its growth and survival must be written now. Israel's writings spanned 2000 years. The Church's writings spanned 20 years. It was the meagerest of time for everything to be written to nurture the Church until the end of days. Whatever was not said would never be said.

Paul was told he could not repeat what he had been told. What Paul was told was so exceptional that it excited him beyond his ability to contain it. He was given a thorn, not because he couldn't be trusted with the words of the revelation, but to bring his excitement down to a level where it could be contained. Whatever he heard was so electrifying that he was unable to calm himself.

Paul says he was given a revelation. Revelation is, by definition, God telling his people what he intends to do. We need to know where the path is, and the only way for us to know is for him to tell us. Importantly, there is no other record in Scripture of a revelation not being revealed. Daniel 12.4 is a possible exception, but v 9 seems to imply that Daniel himself might not have known what was being sealed.

A small point: Paul had the thorn at the time of the writing of 2 Corinthians, but we don't know how long after the revelation he received it or whether it stayed with him his whole life. Possibly not important, but understanding the thorn might be tied to an event other than the revelation.

The reason Rom 11 is likely the core of what Paul was told is that it fits with how God has dealt with his people. Paul's experience and revelation more closely matches that of Ezekiel than any other. Importantly, the Scriptures were not written by people running home and writing down their thoughts for the day. The fact that we have the writings of Ezekiel does not mean the people of his day did. Ezekiel is the record of what Ezekiel said to Israel. There is no evidence Ezekiel told them what God said to him in chapters 1-3. It is in 3.27 that Ezekiel is told to speak when God tells him to speak. Ezekiel wrote after all the warnings were given. There is no evidence Ezekiel told anyone about the vision before the events occurred.

Regardless, Ezekiel was told it was his duty to warn the people. He did that. He told them what they needed to know. He did not necessarily tell them everything God had told him.

Paul is Ezekiel, but to the Church, not to Israel. Paul is the Church's only warning that if they act as Israel did they will be cut off just as they were. Paul cannot, and will not, tell Israel or the Church they are destined for annihilation, but he can warn them (as Ezekiel was told to do) that God's patience is not forever.

Paul's warning to the Church is clear. The ifs are there because that is how God warns. The ifs are there to keep alive the possibility for people to respond. But the ifs do not mean God will not act. Paul warns the Church: If God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. That is a serious warning. We cannot presume to say the plan of God is finished in Christ and all we have to do is hunker down until we get to heaven. If our faith is for our welfare, it is useless to God. Again: If our faith is for our welfare, it is useless to God. God has no need for faith that keeps the person home. God has no need for faith denies Scripture. God has no need for faith that protects the person from every bad thing. That is not faith. God has no need for faith that claims the course is finished by starting. God, unlike us, works. But it is not the work of God to make his children happy and content. It is the work of his people to make God happy.

Our insistence on having the right (duty!) to do nothing because Christ has done it all is a death sentence. Our insistence that the Spirit is given for our enjoyment is moronic. Our belief that Scripture is for our reading and studying is self-inflicted laziness. Our confidence that we can know Christ by keeping as far away from his cross as possible is absurd.

Paul, in monumental message to the Church, says no: Do not become proud, but stand in awe. If God did it to them, he will do it to you. If God's kindness is abused, you will also be cut off. The branch of the Church will we replaced by the branch of Israel when God determines that the number of Gentiles he wants has been satisfied. The same mercy God has shown you will be shown to Israel, and they will be restored: in your place.

The revelation given to Paul could not be repeated in its full strength and at that time, but it needed to be told as a warning: that the Church's place on the vine is less secure that Israel's. He cannot say that directly, for that would give the wrong hope to Israel and wrongly diminish the Church's hope.

Paul's elation is not that he is special but that his deepest wish is granted: Israel is not broken off forever. He is the one God can entrust with the message because he is someone who loves Israel and the Church equally. "Note then the kindness and the severity of God." That kindness and severity was something Paul could handle because (1) he loved both and (2) he allowed God to be God: he would not question him, ever.

The thorn follows. The knowledge that Israel will be saved is a joy that cannot be contained in his puny human frame. It must burst out. Paul is beyond himself in visible joy that something remarkable has happened. And so, to push that joy back in where it cannot be seen, Paul is given a thorn.

The thorn is twofold. The thing that destroys his joy is the constant pressure from the super-apostles. It is impossible for him to appear elated when he is cast into the shadow of the Disciples and Brothers of Christ, with no recourse except to plead for the people to pay no attention to them: a plea that often does not convince. Why would it?

But the thing that truly stings him is his reaction to them. He has every right, humanly speaking, to be upset that they are upsetting his churches. He has every right to be angry that they wait until he is gone to come in and coax the people over to their side. He has every right to resent them for saying he should go to the Gentiles and they will stay in Jerusalem, and then they leave Jerusalem to tromp all over the territory that God—and they themselves—gave him. He has every right to be infuriated that James uses his physical relationship to Jesus as his claim to do whatever he wants. He has every right to be outraged that Peter, who was given message after message that he was the one to go to the Gentiles, gave up so quickly but now insists he is still in charge. He has every right to ask why John, who has done nothing for years, goes along with Peter and James, just for the ride. He has every right to resentful that he suffers the lingering ache of his beatings and stonings and floggings, and they called it quits after such a short time and still have their health. And sleep. And families. and houses. No, he doesn't envy them. He does not want what they have and he would never trade places with them. But he nevertheless does not like it at all that they parade their credentials as a substitute for doing it and their stature as a justification for doing whatever they please.

He has every right to resent them, and he does, but he knows it is wrong. He knows it is more than wrong: it is a denial of his own teachings and an act of disobedience to Christ. 1 Cor 13.1-8:

If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends.

and Matt 5.43-48

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Paul knows his resentment is humanly understandable, but he also knows that the demand of Christ is not based upon to what we can do humanly, but what we can't do humanly. He struggles with his resentment, every day. He knows it is wrong, and counterproductive, and harms him and his work, because it bothers him day and night, interferes with his sleep, and overwhelms his body and mind and spirit with dark thoughts. He knows all this, but he is helpless. Rom 7.15-24

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

The messenger from Satan that torments Paul is his dark, unremitting resentment. It is stronger than he is. He knows it is wrong. Desperately wrong. But he cannot force it away. Willing it away does not work because, humanly speaking, he wants to be angry. He hates it. He calls it evil. Twice. But he is helpless against it.

In 2 Cor 4 Paul says he carries in his body the death of Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in his mortal body. On the one hand, he carries around his body of death; on the other, he carries in his body the death of Christ.

1 Cor 13 is absolutely true and he believes it without qualification. Jesus said we must love our enemies and Paul absolutely believes it without qualification. But he cannot do it. He tells us he cannot do it and he puts a label on it to tell us it is absolutely wrong: evil. But he nevertheless does it, immediately regrets it, but watches it bubble to the surface again and again.

Paul's thorn is his helplessness in controlling the lingering thoughts inside him. The thorn is a stark reminder how far he is from his goal: to know Christ. Christ would not act like this. Paul's elation over the revelation is overwhelmed by the knowledge that something evil still resides in him. He desperately wants it to not be there. He prays for it to be taken away: not just a prayer of desire, but a prayer of desperation. Paul does not want to drag along this corpse of a dead, evil man.

Christ says no. You will not be relieved of your old self. You will stay the course, the super-apostles will continue to use their authority to correct your teaching, and you will do nothing except to put your people back on their feet. Time and again. And you will be left with your thoughts, because it is not the role of God to make you love or hate or remember or forget.

If you love Israel and the Church, you must love them too, for they are Israel. And the Church. You don't get to love only the ones who give you peace. Your resentment is more than a weakness: it's un-Christlike. So long as that carry that with you, you know that you are far from your goal. You have not found a way to get rid of it, but you can use the awareness of it to measure how far off the mark you are.

It stays. When you love perfectly, as God is perfect, it will be gone.

You say you want to know Christ? How? Without his cross? without his crown of thorns? without his prayer of desperation? without his friends? without his family? If you want Christ, you get it all.