Paul's thorn wasn't sickness.

[Aaron]

One thing you have not demonstrated to be correct is your apparent belief that Paul did not suffer sickness. I do not know why Paul would not suffer sickness, when so many of his companions in the ministry did suffer from it. When Paul mentioned his friends' sicknesses, he never did so with any explanation of why they were not healed. He seemed to think sickness was common enough among Christians so as to require him to offer no disclaimers or excuses for its presence in his companions. If you are going to insist that Paul was not sick, are you asking us to believe that he possessed special immunities that other faithful Christians did not enjoy?

Since I think it can be argued that the Bible never says Paul WAS sick, there is nothing for me to demonstrate. I can't argue against facts the Bible doesn't discuss. Do I think he could contract sickness? Sure - but if he believed it was God's will to heal him - he likely expected a miracle if ever he did get sick. There is only one clear cut case where we don't know if one of Paul's companions got healed. Paul wrote that he left Miletus sick. We don't know how long Miletus was sick. We don't know if he was healed shortly thereafter. If Miletus was ever healed, it was God's will to heal him - and we don't know the end of the story, so we can't use this one example as a proof that it may not always be God's will to heal. The only thing you could argue is that God's healing may not always be instantaneous. And this isn't so difficult to understand - not all God's promises are realized in one day. Sometimes faith is required for several years to acquire the promises (aka. Abraham).

Epaphroditus was healed from whatever ailed him - be it sickness or a beating. You can't gather from that story that it is not always God's will to heal.

Timothy frequently got sick (I don't deny that can happen to a believer) - but apparently he also frequently got well - otherwise it wouldn't be a "frequent" infirmity, it would be a "constant" infirmity. There isn't enough information here about whether or not it is always God's will to heal. Timothy may have gotten supernaturally healed each and every time he got sick. The only thing this proves is that Christians can still be susceptible to contagions. Paul's instructions also display that we shouldn't blindly let ourselves get sick - but we should use wisdom and take precautions from getting sick in the first place - ie: drink some wine. I might get heart disease because I eat poorly - and then I would pray for healing. Or, I could eat properly and avoid heart disease. In which case are we using wisdom and honoring God with how we use our body? Paul doesn't mention anything about Timothy's condition in 2 Timothy - which may indicate that the problem didn't come back when Timothy used wisdom in his dietary habits. Who would claim that a Christian can eat whatever he wants and not reap consequences from bad food choices? Even if it is God's will to heal all the time - it doesn't mean we can abuse our bodies and not be affected. However, God does show that he can save us even from the consequences of our own dumb behavior.

I do not know that Adam was immune to sickness before the fall (though I am willing to believe he was). I don't believe that Adam would have made a distinction between swelling from a cracked skull and swelling from infection or tumor. While recovering, I think he would have described himself as sick. I believe your argument assumes and artificial distinction (which is not found in scripture) between what you will call "sickness" and other physical disorders.

The distinction seems so self evident to me that I find it hard to believe you are arguing against it. Sure "infirmity" can refer to any condition where you are not healthy and whole - but to argue that sickness and injury are identical is to argue against simple medical logic. Even if we don't have the perfect English words to distinctly categorize the two - it should be evident that an injury sustained from your own clumsiness or the brutality of another is different from a breakdown from within your body where contagions overtake your immune system. You betray the English language if you think it makes sense to tell your friend you are recovering from a sickness when you are recovering from a broken leg.

There is also a spiritual difference too. I think it can be logically argued that sickness was a result of the fall. I can't see Adam's body malfunctioning and growing tumors - he had uncorrupted DNA. He also had authority over the earth and over living things. If Adam's body became infected with a bacteria or a virus, those agents would be expressing authority over Adam's body. Even if it could happen - I'm sure Adam would have taken authority over the infection.

However, personal injury does not depend on Adam's first sin. He had the capability of hurting himself if he accidentally fell or slipped with a knife before he sinned.

I do not see how anyone could say with conviction that Jesus never experienced sickness. He did not sin, but being sick is not a sin. He did suffer humanity's general weaknesses and afflictions—hunger, thirst, weariness, pain, death. I still don't see why you would place sickness in a different category.

Because God made the distinction in the very beginning. Hunger, thirst, and pain were sensory indicators built into the original good creation. Sickness is in another category. It was not built into the original creation. It is an outside agent bringing needless "death" to your cells - or it is indicative of glitches in genetic programming. Neither of these could be considered "good."

It seems pretty obvious to me that Jesus could heal any disease or infirmity. Why would he not exercise that on himself if he was ever infected? I wouldn't argue that Jesus had supernatural immunity - but even if he did get infected - he had supernatural authority over every sickness. He gave his disciples authority to heal EVERY disease and sickness (no exceptions). He needed to have the authority to give it away. If he had the authority to heal every sickness, why would he not use that authority over himself? Especially if sickness would hinder his mobility and ability to fulfill his purpose? And if he didn't use that authority, how does that reflect on Jesus? That's not humility - that's living below his earthly anointing. The Bible is very explicit in what Jesus specifically needed to endure. His suffering was all about being obedient to God. He battled the temptation to bow out of the fight. He battled the consequences of his obedience. Is sickness a consequence of obedience?

It's late and I have some more thinking to do before I finish my thoughts.

[steve]

I have to say I am becoming more and more amazed at your reasoning.

On the one hand, you say that recovering from an injury is so obviously in a different category from recovering from sickness that you are surprised I could not see the difference. Then you mention Epaphroditus' condition as possibly the result of a beating, when Paul specifically calls it "sickness" (Phil.2:26). You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth, when convenient. This is the evidence I mentioned in my previous post that you are letting your theology lead your exegesis.

Your treatment of Adam's pre-fall condition is not compelling. You say that, since he had authority over wild animals, he also had authority over microbes. This may be true (who knows?), but it is not obvious that the control over animals and the control over bacteria would fall into the same category. After all, you believe that we now have authority over germs, but I doubt if you would claim to have authority over great white sharks. The categories do not seem to be the same.

There is no evidence that Timothy got well. If his problem was an amoebic disorder (as seems likely from the measures Paul recommends for relief), then it was a constant condition (amoebas don't go away). His "frequent" bouts would simply be the occasional recurrences of diarrhea, and other symptoms, which typically come and go with this kind of problem. Paul's language does not imply frequent "healings" and reinfestations.

To say that, if Paul got sick, he would just heal himself is very naive. Healings (and other miracles) worked by Paul were "signs" of his apostleship (2 Cor.12:12). They were not magical powers that he had control over. God was "working with [him] and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). God did miraculous things in order to prove the apostolic message to be of divine origin—not simply to relieve the apostles from ordinary inconveniences of life, like sickness. Miracles were not simply at the beck and call of the apostles, which is why Paul couldn't heal Trophimus.

You say that Paul may have prayed for Trophimus and left the next day, before he was healed. But praying for healing (which anyone can do) is an entirely different matter from working miraculous healings (which the apostles, and a very few others, did). This miraculous power to heal apparently did not operate through Paul toward his friend Trophimus, though I am sure that Paul would have liked for it to. The miraculous healings wrought through Jesus and the apostles did not occur through their prayers, but through their authoritative command, in the name of Jesus—directed, not toward God, but toward a sickness, a fever, a demon, a storm, a dead body, etc.

If Paul were to get sick, he could (of course) pray for his own healing, as could any other Christian, and (as with any other Christian) God might, or might not, grant his request, according to His will. But to suggest that Paul could just "heal himself" (as in, "miraculously relieve his own illness") at will is to misunderstand the nature of biblical miracles. Any miraculous healing of Paul's own illness, as with any other miracle, would only occur if God intended to use this healing as a sign in a particular situation. God heals when He wishes, and that is not always—obviously, since He has declined to heal millions of trusting Christians throughout history, who were looking to Him for healing. What, in their circumstances, could possibly have prevented Him from healing, if He had wished to do so?

If you answer that it is always a matter of faith or lack thereof, I will have to say, "Wait till you have been around longer before making such absurd and uncharitable judgments against suffering people." I have watched more than one friend die of cancer while faithfully confessing, to their last breath, "by His stripes I am healed!" They never wavered in their faith that God would heal them. If their faith was not good enough, what hope can any of us have of having "the right amount" of faith?

I also watched a friend, who had inoperable, terminal cancer throughout her whole body, healed completely, at the very time that she was affirming that the Lord had told her she would die, and she was rejoicing in her impending entrance into heaven. Faith had nothing to do with these cases, nor with many more like them. Hobart Freeman pastored a church where over 90 members died unnecessarily while confessing their healings, instead of going to doctors for treatable conditions. Their faith was great. Their healings proved to be illusory.

Your theology has neither scripture nor human experience in its support. You ought to reconsider.

You seem to misunderstand the nature of biblical miracles with reference to Jesus' miraculous abilities also. The fact that God may heal many sicknesses for others through His chosen vessel does not mean that the person who serves as such an instrument cannot himself someday succumb to sickness. Elisha is a notable case. He worked more miracles than did his mentor Elijah, even raising the dead after his own death! Yet, he died sick, like most people do (2 Kings 13:14).

When you speak of Jesus having authority over sicknesses, I am assuming you are referring to His healing ministry. Jesus Himself said repeatedly that He did no miracles on His own authority, but that the Father was working through Him. The same would be true of others who worked miracles, like Moses, Elijah, Peter or Paul.

We have no evidence that Jesus exercised any supernatural control over natural forces prior to his being baptized, at age 30. Are you suggesting, in the first thirty years of Jesus' life, when no miracles were attributed to Him, that He miraculously made Himself immune to (or healed Himself from) all childhood illness? Do you picture the baby Jesus having authority over colic, jaundice, or diaper-rash? If so, then you have a more magical view of the incarnation than I can accept. You may be suffering from an overly-romanticized view of the incarnation.

You have continued to dodge the key question in this discussion, which you should answer before any more flights of fanciful exegesis can be entertained. I will ask it again. Please do not avoid it, since its answer qualifies or disqualifies all of your exegesis. Here it is in plain words (again):

Where does the Bible teach that Christ acquired physical healing for all believers?

[Aaron]

Where does the Bible teach that Christ acquired physical healing for all believers?

Like I said in the other thread - I don't believe that healing was something "purchased" at the atonement. We were purchased at the atonement. Sickness is a fruit of the root of sin. It came with the curse for sin. The cross dealt with the root of the problem - sin and separation from God. Jesus didn't die to heal us from sickness. He didn't die primarily so we would be forgiven. He died to reconcile us to the Father and to make us new creations. Once the debt was paid, we could come to the Father to receive the benefits of being in union with God - which includes forgiveness, righteousness, and healing.

"Bless the LORD, O my soul, And forget not all His benefits: Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases." (Psalm 103:1-3)

He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.[/quote] Gal. 3:14

The greatest promise to Abraham was God himself. “Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.” (Gen. 15:1) We realize this today through the promise of the Holy Spirit indwelling us.

Our inheritance isn't forgiveness - it is the One who makes us righteous. Our inheritance isn't healing - it is the Healer.

So, the real questions are:
1.) Is it always God's will to heal?
2.) Does God will us to be sick for some divine purpose (personal growth, teach us a lesson, etc...)?

I think the examples of OT sick saints have limited applicability for us today. They were still under the original curse of Adam and the curse of the Law. They were not fully reconciled to God.
It is difficult to gather theology from the brief one liners in Paul's epistles about sick NT saints - especially when you stack them against the revelation of God's character and stance against sickness displayed through Jesus.

The Biblical characterization of sickness is always bad - never good. Sickness was a punishment for breaking covenant with God. Deut. 28:15-48 list many sickness - cancer, fever, inflamation, boils - as curses for forsaking the Law. The curses were designed to make Israel "perish" "destroyed" and "consumed" - not to bring about "perseverance" and "proven character" like the tribulations of Romans 5. We are redeemed from this curse. God no longer has legal grounds to punish us with sickness.

While it is true that Israel might learn a lesson and repent of their evil deeds while suffering from sickness - sickness wasn't God's will for them. God's will was for them to follow Him out of their heart, not because they were being punished for sinning. I can learn a lot of lessons by sitting in prison for rape or murder - but that doesn't mean it was God's will for me to do those things.

In the NT, sickness is described as a tool of the devil to bind people. (Luke 13:16, Acts 10:38) Jesus was anointed to proclaim release for the prisoners (including those prisoners of sickness), freedom for the oppressed (including the sick), and recovery of sight for the blind (both spiritual and physical). While I won't claim that every sickness is demon related - it doesn't matter if it was demon caused or naturally caused - the symptoms are the same, and so is the sense of oppression that accompanies it.

Jesus healed all who were sick. He never denied healing by saying "this sickness is God's will for you." He gave the disciples authority to heal ALL sickness and disease. He didn't say "you might come across someone who doesn't get healed - that's because God wants that person sick." What a confusing message that would be to the disciples if Jesus' example was healing everyone who was sick - but tells them God won't heal some people because it is His will for them to be sick. When the disciples didn't get results (ie: the demon who wouldn't leave) they were confused. This indicates that up to that point they were getting 100% results for everyone they prayed for. And, the fact that the demon didn't leave when the disciples ministered didn't mean it was God's will for that person to be oppressed. Jesus said it was a lack of faith.

Perhaps Paul prayed for Miletum to be healed - or commanded the sickness to leave - and Paul didn't see immediate results. There are three possible options. 1.) it wasn't God's will 2.) it was God's will, and Miletum eventually recovered after Paul left 3.) Paul had a lapse in faith. If you don't think the third is a possibility, you may be suffering from an overly-romantacized view of Paul. Paul admits in Romans 7 that he doesn't always act in faith - he stills sins - and all sin reflects a lapse in faith.

So, in the NT sickness is lumped together with oppression and being a prisoner. When Jesus saw the sick multitudes he had compassion on them (Matt 14:14, 20:34). Compassion comes when you see needless suffering. Jesus didn't rejoice at their suffering - as if their sickness was a good thing - he had compassion on them. The Bible consistently portrays sickness as a bad thing.

On the other hand, healing is a sign of the presence of the Kingdom. When the disciples healed people, they were instructed to say "The kingdom of God is near you." (Luke 10:9) Healing is consistently portrayed as evidence of the Kingdom. Our call is to bring the reality of the Kingdom to this earth. Sickness is consistently portrayed as evidence of oppression and sin - of the kingdom of darkness. God is not glorified in sickness. He wasn't glorified by the man being crippled (John 9:3) or in Lazarus' death. He was glorified in the crippled man's healing and in Lazarus' resurrection.

I agree that Isaiah 53:5 speaks of God healing us of spiritual sickness. The severing of Israel's relationship with God and their bent on sinning was their "sickness." Notice the metaphor though! Isaiah speaks of sin and separation metaphorically as sickness. This analogy doesn't work if physical sickness is sometimes God's will and sometimes is for our good to teach us perseverance and good character. Isaiah can only use this analogy if he and his listeners understand that sickness is a bad thing - something that is not to be desired, something that is not a cause for rejoicing. The breakdown of the physical body is a proper symbol for the breakdown of their spiritual condition.

This is why physical healing was a sign that accompanied the preaching of the gospel. The healing of the physical man was a physical object lesson portraying the healing of the spiritual condition produced by the gospel. The sign that typically accompanied the gospel message was healing, not making axe heads float or turning sticks into snakes. It is no coincidence that forgiveness and physical healing are often presented in the same setting. This is one reason I believe it is God's will to heal us. Just as baptism is a physical symbol of our spiritual burial - physical healing represents our spiritual healing. As Christians, we possess a spiritual reality that goes beyond the physical. We may sin, but in reality we are dead to sin through Christ. We are completely holy and spiritually reconciled to God. Our calling is to let the reality of our spiritual condition be manifested in our everyday life - for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

We are already blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ Jesus. With this in mind, John prays that "in all respects you may prosper and be in good health, just as your soul prospers." (3 John 2) John wants their physical life to reflect the wholeness of their inner life. The physical blessings flow from the spiritual blessings. It is telling that John prays for health for the church. Would John pray for something that is not God's will for them? Peter and James desire for the church to rejoice in godly tribulations. Sickness is a "trial" John doesn't want his church to experience at all. John links health to an overflow of inner prosperity/righteousness.

Can you have biblical faith in something that is not God's will? Faith is based on God's promises or God's character. James calls the prayers offered for sick people the "prayer of faith." If praying for sick people is a faith prayer, it must be based in God's promises or God's character. Even if we don't have a specific scripture that says "it is always God's will to heal the sick" - the example of Jesus shows us God's character regarding sickness. If it was God's will for someone in James' congregation to be sick, the prayer wouldn't be a prayer of faith - it would be a prayer against God's will. Yet, James doesn't make any disclaimers. He doesn't warn that some people will be healed, but some people will remain sick by God's will. James says "the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick." And the command is for "anyone among you sick." This passage seems very clear to me that anyone who is sick should pray for healing and expect it. If you don't expect it, you aren't praying in faith. If you don't think it is God's will to heal you, you don't expect it.

Steve, I heard you address this passage in your teaching - but I don't remember everything you said about it - I think you said James is referring to people on their death bed, that the healing refers to forgiveness of sin, and that the raising up refers to the final resurrection. (correct me if I'm wrong) If that is your view, I have some issues with it. For one, it is the prayer of the elders that results in the person being restored and raised up. If the person is plagued by spiritual sickness, he is not a Christian - and no prayer by an elder will result in that person being healed of this ailment. Spiritual sickness can only be healed through the prayers and faith of the sick person. Furthermore, James specifically addresses the issue of what to do when someone is walking in spiritual sickness and is on his way to eternal death in vss. 19-20. The context of vss. 14-15 seems clearly to be referring to physical healing.

In conclusion, sickness is always described as a bad thing - an oppressive thing - as is evident to anyone who is under the power of sickness and is unable to function as they wish.

Even if we can think of cases where God uses sickness to punish someone for sinfulness - you still can't say it is God's will for that person to be sick The sickness came as a result of their sinfulness, which isn't God's will. In such a circumstance, we would expect the person to be healed when he turns from the sin.

On the other hand, Jesus showed the heart of the Father in bringing healing to the sick. Sickness evoked Jesus' compassion. Healing was a sign of the Kingdom - the Kingdom we are to pray be manifested on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus did not want the people sick - nor did James, nor did John.

How can I conclude from these examples that it might be God's will for me to be sick? I see that sentiment as a faith killer. How can we continually have faith for healing if we are not sure if it is God's will? That would only lead to the double-minded expectation that James warns will not receive anything from the Lord.

The message of the Bible regarding sickness is clear and consistent - it is only when we don't see healing manifested in our lives or the people around us that we begin to doubt the clarity of the message.

[Aaron]

On the one hand, you say that recovering from an injury is so obviously in a different category from recovering from sickness that you are surprised I could not see the difference. Then you mention Epaphroditus' condition as possibly the result of a beating, when Paul specifically calls it "sickness" (Phil.2:26).

That's my bad, I didn't reread the passage.

After all, you believe that we now have authority over germs, but I doubt if you would claim to have authority over great white sharks. The categories do not seem to be the same.

I don't know that I'd have the faith to test that out - not that we should willingly place ourselves in such harm. However, I did read of a case where a Christian turned a corner in a trail and there was a big bear there. The bear rose up to attack and the Christian took authority over the bear and it fled. Maybe it's a coincidence, maybe its a miracle. We know Paul wasn't harmed by the snake that bit him.

There is no evidence that Timothy got well. If his problem was an amoebic disorder (as seems likely from the measures Paul recommends for relief), then it was a constant condition (amoebas don't go away). His "frequent" bouts would simply be the occasional recurrences of diarrhea, and other symptoms, which typically come and go with this kind of problem.

Where did you get the idea of of an amoebic disorder? Did you hear that from someone else? My brief read up indicates that amoebas will go away. They are a parasite that can be killed. Garlic is a suggested remedy to kill parasites. They aren't like a virus that can remain in your body dormantly for the rest of your life.

If you have amoebic dysentery, your diarrhoea may go away without treatment. But if the amoeba parasites that made you ill are still living in your bowels (intestines), you can get diarrhoea again. Treatment can help clear up your symptoms and kill the amoebas in your bowels.(webMD)

People exposed to this parasite may experience mild or severe symptoms or no symptoms at all. Fortunately, most exposed people do not become seriously ill. The mild form of amebiasis includes nausea, loose stools, weight loss, abdominal tenderness and occasional fever.

The suggestion to use wine suggests that the infection was a bacterial form of dysentary, caused by the Shigella bacteria.

Dr. Martin Weisse of West Virginia University found that drinking one to two glasses of wine with a meal may also help prevent food poisoning and dysentery. Both red and white wines were found to be more effective in killing bacteria associated with dysentery than other forms of alcohol.

If one gets infected, the infection can run it's course in about a week (wikipedia)

In writing this, Paul very likely was reminded of something about Timothy that he felt needed correction. Timothy, evidently, was leaning too far toward total abstinence from wine. We know there was a lot of public drunkenness in Ephesus at that time. The reaction of almost all Christians to public drunkenness is, "I don't want anything to do with that."

Paul is evidently warning Timothy about total abstinence, especially because it was affecting his health. Timothy had not taken a balanced position. Paul warns him, "For your health's sake, don't do this."

So Paul warns him against drinking the water! If you have traveled abroad in some countries where water is not drinkable, you know what Timothy was going through. He was suffering from what has been called "the Gruts" (for lack of a more descriptive term), or the "Mexican Quickstep." Paul is warning him to use a little wine to prevent that.

Years ago I was speaking to missionaries in Costa Rica, and they were telling me about stomach problems they had been having. They said that a few months earlier Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse had come down from Philadelphia and they had told him about this. Dr. Barnhouse said, "The problem is that you missionaries don't believe your Bible. If you did you wouldn't have these troubles." Then he quoted this verse, "Stop drinking the water but use a little wine for your stomach's sake," and added, "If you would do what the apostle said to do you wouldn't have this problem." He was right -- that was the problem. Wine does prevent stomach upsets, dysentery, etc. Paul is suggesting to Timothy that he use wine to prevent this.

(from http://www.raystedman.org/new-testament ... for-elders)

To say that, if Paul got sick, he would just heal himself is very naive. Healings (and other miracles) worked by Paul were "signs" of his apostleship (2 Cor.12:12). They were not magical powers that he had control over. God was "working with [him] and confirming the word through the accompanying signs" (Mark 16:20). God did miraculous things in order to prove the apostolic message to be of divine origin—not simply to relieve the apostles from ordinary inconveniences of life, like sickness. Miracles were not simply at the beck and call of the apostles, which is why Paul couldn't heal Trophimus.

Did Jesus have control over administering healing? Jesus gave the disciples authority to heal - apparently at their will. Peter told the lame man "what I have I give to you." Peter possessed the authority and chose to use it on the lame man. To call this a "magical power" is really to profane and muddle the true nature of healing authority.

You call sickness an ordinary inconvenience - the Bible calls it oppression or punishment. Andrew Womack's testimony is that he has not been sick in over 30 years since believing that healing is always God's will. He says that he has been infected, and has started to experience symptoms, but has immediately believed for healing and rebuked the sickness, and is typically well within a few hours.

You say that Paul may have prayed for Trophimus and left the next day, before he was healed. But praying for healing (which anyone can do) is an entirely different matter from working miraculous healings (which the apostles, and a very few others, did).

The Bible says believers will lay hands on the sick and they will recover. There isn't a specific timeline addressed with the recovery time. Even some lepers Jesus healed didn't experience immediate remedy of symptoms, but were healed as they traveled to the high priest. I just heard a testimony from Kevin Denton (?) who prayed for a girl who was missing part of her jaw bone (and not a "if it be thy will" prayer) Later that night the gal felt the jaw bone begin to slowly grow back.

We have no evidence that Jesus exercised any supernatural control over natural forces prior to his being baptized, at age 30. Are you suggesting, in the first thirty years of Jesus' life, when no miracles were attributed to Him, that He miraculously made Himself immune to (or healed Himself from) all childhood illness? Do you picture the baby Jesus having authority over colic, jaundice, or diaper-rash? If so, then you have a more magical view of the incarnation than I can accept. You may be suffering from an overly-romanticized view of the incarnation.

I can comfortably assume that Jesus was created in Mary's womb with a renewed genetic code similar to Adam's. This would likely exclude him from most illnesses or discomforts such as colic or jaundice. Since diaper rash is just a physical response to being exposed to a dirty diaper for too long, I wouldn't consider this a sickness any more than a burn caused by exposure to a flame is.

[darinhouston]

I haven't followed this thread so it's probably not fair for me to interject, but I thought I'd note a story from my preacher today -- his adult son is autistic -- when he first realized something wasn't quite right with him, a high ranking lay minister (is that an oxymoron?) in the particular denomination within which he served took him to lunch. Thinking he would be sharing some encouraging words with him, he was looking forward to the lunch. Unfortunately, as the lunch progressed the man began to lambast him for his lack of faith and told him that his son would not have been born that way if he had not had such a weak faith. That's pretty disgusting to me.

[Homer]

Aaron,

Why do you separate sickness from death, the ultimate result of sickness? Death came because of sin.

[Aaron]

I haven't followed this thread so it's probably not fair for me to interject, but I thought I'd note a story from my preacher today -- his adult son is autistic -- when he first realized something wasn't quite right with him, a high ranking lay minister (is that an oxymoron?) in the particular denomination within which he served took him to lunch. Thinking he would be sharing some encouraging words with him, he was looking forward to the lunch. Unfortunately, as the lunch progressed the man began to lambast him for his lack of faith and told him that his son would not have been born that way if he had not had such a weak faith. That's pretty disgusting to me.

I agree, that is disgusting.

I'll only use this story as an example to make a counter point - not to try to heap condemnation on the man and his family.

What if it was God's will to heal that boy but the parents either don't believe God still heals or they believe that since he was born that way it must be God's will.
What if they never step out in faith by either praying for the boy or taking him to an elder who has faith for healing.

Would you think that is disgusting? Maybe disgusting isn't the best word, but I hope you get my drift.

Or do you think that the boy will automatically get healed if it is God's will, apart from any action or faith of man?

[Aaron]

Aaron,

Why do you separate sickness from death, the ultimate result of sickness? Death came because of sin.

You don't have to be sick to die. Moses still had good eyes and was strong when he died at 120yrs. (Deut. 34:7)
Not everybody passes from this life with cancer or other diseases.

Sickness and death are easy to separate. Sickness is present, prolonged suffering. Death can be instantaneous passing from this life to a wonderful eternity - and can be viewed as a good thing - unlike sickness.

Not to mention, death will be the last enemy destroyed. (I Cor. 15:26)

Deliverance from sickness and oppression, on the other hand, became a present possibility when the ministry of Jesus initiated "the year of God's favor." (Luke 4:19)
The end of death will not come until after the "day of God's vengeance" (Isaiah 61:2)

[jriccitelli]

Aaron, do you not shed skin cells?
Approx. two million cells die in your body every second. Adam and Eve may have had cells that lived longer (Without becoming Cancerous), Enoch, Moses also. Within all life on earth it seems God has set a time clock, a biological fuse that will end life, and this is biological.
Sickness and death are ‘not’ easy to separate; certainly biology and life cannot be separated. If you bleed to death, or fall off of a cliff, the result of death will be related to your being made of atoms and cells. We are mortal and until we are made immortal all bodily deaths are related to the cessation of the body’s function. Even if death is simply the body ending electronic impulses. So all flesh will end, and that is the point. We do not look forward to the renewing of this body, but the putting on of the immortal.
It is ironic that when we pray for the healing of cancer we are praying that the cells continue to die as God planned (apoptosis).
So all life has a biological self detonation. The ‘curse’ of Genesis 2:17 is on all life, and it is evident and continues to be so, we pray to avoid pain and the fate of all men but we are but biological, there is no end to our deterioration. (You would think that all the young have great faith, but the fact is when your old age comes, your real hope is for a 'new' body, not to keep the old one going)

[jriccitelli]

If Jesus has delivered us from the curse on Adam, why are we not delivered from the curse of the earth and having to till the ground?
Do Christian women not suffer pain in child birth?
Is the Christian woman’s desire no longer for her husband?
Do I lack faith since it seems nearly every plant in my yard has thorns?
Would you consider someone born with a genetic disadvantage without faith?
(My son had a disposition to bad tooth enamel, my daughter good teeth)
Wouldn’t you agree that our focus should not be on our body (Ourselves), but we should be concerned with His ‘body’, the Church?

I think that is the why the prayers and healing go along with Gods ministry, it is our compassion and empathy for others, of love for them, and not for their health alone, the goal is the salvation of their souls, before we die.
Otherwise, as you get older you could spend your ‘whole’ day praying and being concerned with health issues for your peers. (Because this body is perishing) And someday you will realize that nothing becomes more agonizing than sitting around talking about your ‘latest’ ailments with old people before prayer time.