What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh"?

"And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure..."
(2 Corinthians 12:7)
If all I had to go on were those few words, I would simply say Paul's 'thorn' was "a messenger of Satan" sent to beat up on the apostle Paul. But as to how Satan's messenger actually manifested himself, I would be unable to say--that is, if that one verse were all I had to go on...
Amazingly, there are those who seem to draw from those few words, the idea that the 'thorn' was some type of disease; most likely because it was described as a thorn 'in the flesh'. But 'thorn in the flesh' was a figure of speech in Bible times, just as it is now. A similar phrase was used several other places in Scripture (Numbers 33:55, Joshua 23:13, Judges 2:3), but it never had anything to do with disease. In those particular situations it referred to ungodly nations. God warned Israel that the pagan inhabitants of the promised land would become 'thorns in your sides' or 'thorns in your eyes' if they were not driven out.
Some have thought Paul's 'thorn' was an eye disease. That idea was apparently derived from two scriptures in Galatians. In Chapter 6, verse 11 (KJV), Paul wrote, "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."
This has been somehow interpreted to mean that Paul's vision was so bad, he had to write in LARGE LETTERS. Even in several modern paraphrases, the word "letter" is changed to "letters". The original New Testament Greek, however, does not bear out the change. The word 'gramma', according to Strong's Greek Dictionary, means "a writing, i.e., a letter, note, epistle, book, etc." It does not mean "letters" as in 'letters' of the alphabet.
The other scripture in Galatians used by some to 'prove' Paul's eye disease is in Chapter 4, beginning in verse 13...
"Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.."
(Galatians 4:13-15 KJV)
Two phrases from this scripture are used as a basis for the 'eye disease' theory. One--"infirmity of the flesh", and two--"ye would have plucked out your own eyes and given them to me". Again, the latter phrase was a figure of speech. When someone says today, "I would give my right arm for my friend"; it does not mean the friend must have a disease in his arm.
The "infirmity of the flesh", Paul was referring to, was his state of mental humility when he ('at the first') approached the Galatians with the gospel. He made a similar statement about his first encounter with the Corinthians (the best commentary on the Bible is the Bible itself)... "And I, brethren, when I came to you... was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. (1 Cor. 2:1-3).
The Greek word, 'astheneia', translated "weakness" is the exact same word which is translated "infirmity". It is defined as 'feebleness or weakness of body or mind'. Whether or not, the implication is a mental state or a physical malady, depends entirely on the context. Though the word 'infirmity', usually refers to a 'weakness' in the body, the phrase 'infirmity of the flesh' is used only twice in the New Testament--both times by the apostle Paul--and in both places it refers to a mental, rather than physical state.
In Paul's letter to the Romans, he explains his method of teaching by saying... "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh" (Romans 6:19). Obviously, the entire Roman community to whom Paul was writing, did not have an eye disease, or any other kind of disease. Other translations more clearly interpret "the infirmity of the flesh" in modern terminology, i.e., "the weakness of your understanding".
Paul clearly defined his thorn in the flesh as a "messenger of Satan". Contrary to what many have taught, God was NOT the source. This was a messenger sent by Satan. And this messenger's purpose was not to train, teach, humble, or in any way bless the apostle. His clearly defined purpose was to "buffet", or as one translation says, "deal blow after blow"--to consistently 'beat up' on him and hinder his work in the ministry. One need only to back up a few verses to see exactly how the 'thorn' manifested. Paul wrote out a long list of troubles, hindrances to the ministry, which he had suffered up to that point...
"From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and toil, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness...
Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is made to stumble, and I do not burn with indignation? If I must boast, I will boast in the things which concern my infirmity.
(2 Cor. 11:24-30)
Notice, in this list of troubles which Paul refers to as his "infirmity", there is no mention of any kind of 'disease'. He goes on, in the next chapter, discussing the wisdom in boasting not in visions or revelations, but in those things which concern his suffering for the gospel's sake--his "infirmities"...
"Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Theerefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake..."
(2 Cor. 12:9-10)
Again, there is no mention of sickness or disease in this second, summary list of "infirmities". The 'thorn in the flesh' was a Satanic messenger (an evil spirit) whose sole purpose was to destroy Paul's ministry--to stir up 'perils' and persecution in an attempt to silence the apostle. How many times could this 'thorn', if he were an actual person, have been tried and convicted of attempted murder?
Did God give Paul the 'thorn'? No. Satan did... Did God allow it? Absolutely. The question now, is "Why?"
I wondeer how many times Paul asked that question, before going to the Lord in earnest prayer, asking God to simply remove the thorn from his life. And when he prayed this way--three times--God was silent. Contrary to what some have taught, the Lord did NOT say "No" to Paul's request. He said nothing. And I am of the opinion, I suppose, from lessons I have learned in my own experience, that God did not answer Paul the first two or three times he prayed because Paul's mind was too noisy--too much in a panic to be able to hear. God was silent until Paul got silent--silent enough to listen.
When Jesus answered, He needed only to say a few powerful words, for Paul to arrive at a tremendous awakening. Jesus said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor. 12:9)
Perhaps as Jesus spoke those words to his heart, Paul was reminded of previous words the Lord had spoken, such as... "A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:20)
Maybe the memory of the prophet Ananias who brought a message from Jesus, three days after Paul's conversion, suddenly arose in his consciousness. Included in that message were these words, "For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:16)
somehow in the process of seeking god for intervention concerning the constant bombardment of the enemy, Paul fully awoke to the fact that this 'thorn' is part of the package... Along with the marvelous revelations and wisdom... Along with the holy unction and the ability to preach such a powerful gospel, that it breaks Satan's bondage over humanity; would come exposure to the same type of peresecution Jesus Himself endured. And lest Paul be 'exalted above measure, due to the abundance of revelation' this 'thorn in the flesh' would be allowed... 'The servant is not greater than his Lord'. Paul later confirmed that this 'gift' of the opportunity to suffer for Christ would be part of the package, not only for himself, but for you and me as well...
"For unto you it is 'given' in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me."
(Philippians 1:29-30 KJV)
So the same 'thorn' which was 'given' (allowed to operate) in Paul's life, is also 'given' to us who believe in Jesus. It's obviously not an 'eye disease', it is an opposing spirit. And in direct proportion to the depth of revelation, and the extent of our ministry of that revelation to others, we will face that same opposing spirit. The good news is this... Jesus' message to Paul is the same to you and me. His "Grace is sufficient". If you do but a cursory study of the Book of Acts, you will note the many occasions of the 'thorn' in the life of Paul. You will also see, however, how on each of those occasions, the "grace" of God brought deliverance.
When Paul was stoned to death, God's grace raised him from the dead (Acts 14:19-20)
When he was incarcerated for preaching the gospel, God's grace shook the place, broke the chains and set him free.
(Acts 16:26)
When the apostle was shipwrecked, God's grace brought him safely to shore on the island of Malta.
When on the shore, he was bitten by a deadly snake, but God's grace caused him to feel no harm, and thus, opened a door to the evangelism of the entire island. And the resulting favor from the people of the island led to a huge financial gift to Paul--enough to get him to his destination (Rome) and pay for his rented house for the next two years, in which he preached the Word to all who would come and hear (Acts 27, 28).
Grace is not merely 'unmerited favor' as some have defined it... Grace (charis) is defined by Strong's Dictionary as "the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life". The grace of God is what brings you from point 'A' to point 'B'... It's what takes you from despair to triumph, from defeat to victory. Grace is the enabler... It's the reason you can truthfully say, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me". And God's grace is sufficient.
It will not keep the devil out of your life... It will not eliminate the challenges you face for the gospel's sake... But it is sufficient to lift you out of the mire of failure and set you above the circumstances, giving you glorious victory over trials.
This revelation sunk in, ever so deeply, as Paul heard Jesus say those powerful words, that he suddenly knew how to respond to the 'thorn'. He would laugh in his face. He would become 'a fool in glorying' whenever persecution came his way--in order, he said, "...that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Cor. 12:9).
From that point on, though the 'thorn' remained constant, deliverance from that 'thorn' by God's grace and the 'power of Christ' was also constant, as Paul continued to rejoice in his union with Christ in both sufferings and resurrection power. In his last letter, written to Timothy, we find testimony to this fact...
"But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, persecutions, afflictions, which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me."
(2 Timothy 3:10-11)
"Out of them ALL", he said... "The Lord delivered me". Paul got his deliverance from the 'thorn' alright... But it was manifest in a way that would bring glory to God over and over again. And it seems he just couldn't wait for that next opportunity to see the Lord glorified... I so want to be there--don't you?

Israel and the Church?

"In that He says, 'A new covenant', He has made the first obsolete..." --Hebrews 8:13

The 'Dispensational Theologian' would say his main opponent is the 'Replacement Theologian'. That is because the dispensationalist's number one mark of identification is the belief in a clear distinction between Biblical Israel and the church of the Lord Jesus. The so-called 'Replacement Theologian' supposedly teaches that the church replaced Israel, as God's 'covenant people'. As one who would be thus labeled, I can honestly say, I do not teach that... I do, however, teach that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant. Thus, the reason for the descriptive terms "Old" and "New".
Contrary to what dispensationalists as well as many nondispensationalists teach, the church did not have its beginning on the Day of Pentecost. The church received new life on that day... The church was spiritually born (from above) on Pentecost... But just as the individual who receives new life (eternal life) when he or she is is born again, does not mean that individual came into existence at that moment--neither did the church come into existence at the moment she received new life and became the body of Christ. The church actually had its beginning in Egypt as the first 'called out assembly' of God's people convened. The church not only existed, but was referred to as such, even in NT Scripture, prior to the resurrection of Jesus and the Day of Pentecost.
The word 'church' in the New Testament was translated, in every case, from the Greek word, 'ekklesia'. 'Ekklesia' is simply defined as 'a called out assembly'. The implied meaning, or connotation, is not provided in the word itself, but only in the context in which it may be used. The scriptures which equate 'the church' with the 'body of Christ' are very obviously referring to the post-Calvary, Christian assembly of believers. But there were times when Jesus Himself referred to the church in an obvious pre-Calvary context (i.e., Matthew 18:17), and thus, could not have been referring to the post-Calvary 'body of Christ'.
'Ekklesia' is also the word used three times for the 'assembly' of the cult who worshipped the mythological god Zeus, and the goddess Diana (Acts 19:32,39,41). It was the English translators who chose to translate the word using "assembly" instead of "church", but 'ekklesia' equals 'church' regardless.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. And in both cases, the words written were inspired of the Holy Spirit.
Whether the Hebrew word 'qahal', which means a 'called out assembly', was used; or the Greek word 'ekklesia' which has the identical meaning--those who by inspiration of the Holy Spirit penned the Scripture, apparently knew they were one and the same by definition. For example... Psalm 22:22 (KJV) reads, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation ['qahal'] will I praise thee".
When the same is quoted in the New Testament, it reads, "...I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church ['ekklesia'] will I sing praise unto thee" (Hebrews 2:12 KJV).
It was the Holy Ghost who inspired the Hebrew writer of Psalm 22 to use the word 'qahal', and the same Holy Ghost also inspired the writer of the Book of Hebrews, to use the Greek word 'ekklesia' to say the same thing. On the other hand, it was the decision of the English translators, and not the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to translate the Hebrew word 'qahal' with the word 'assembly' or 'congregation'; and to translate the Greek word 'ekklesia', using the word 'church'. Nevertheless, 'the church' had its beginning upon Israel's deliverance from Egypt, and is first mentioned in Exodus 12:6. That same 'church in the wilderness' was referred to as such, in the New Testament (Acts 7:38)... It was also mentioned by Jesus, prior to Calvary (Matt. 18:17), (and the disciples apparently understood what He was saying)... And it was 'the church', the remnant of true Israel, who had come to believe in Jesus Christ, their Messiah--who received new life on the Day of Pentecost and became "His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all".