Hi Aaron,
I have considered your last post, and have some point to which I wish to respond:
The words ["infirmities" and "weaknesses"] are certainly not synonyms in the way they are translated in the Bible.
Your discussion of the words “infirmity” and “weakness” misses my point. I am not arguing for the use of one of these English words or the other in any given verse. I am saying the words are interchangeable in the English language. Perhaps, in your thinking, "infirmity" has more the meaning of "sickness" than does the word "weakness," but that is not necessarily the case. It doesn’t matter which English synonym is used. Infirmity means weakness, and vice versa. This is not an opinion but a lexical fact. Of course, this does not mean that they cannot be used to describe more than one kind of weakness—physical, spiritual, moral, etc. (which seems to be your point).
Human limitations will follow us into the new creation - unlike sickness - which should give some hints as to their purpose.
I do not think
astheneia is correctly translated “human limitations.” We both agree that “weakness” is a good translation, so we had best stick with this word in our dialogue. Now, the resurrected bodies will have neither “pains” nor “weaknesses” (Rev.21:4 /1 Cor.15:43). I agree that they will have some "limitations", but that has nothing to do with our subject or the Greek word under consideration.
I read that "thorn in the flesh" is a Hebraic idiom stemming back to the pagan nations surrounding Israel and their ungodly influence. "Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they shall be thorns in your side,[a] and their gods shall be a snare to you.’” (Judges 2:3)
Are you saying that Paul's "thorn" was that he was being led into apostasy by the influence of some ungodly person? If so, then I guess I could see the connection to the Old Testament expression, which meant just that.
I am aware of the Old Testament idiom "thorns in your side." It is clear, and perhaps significant, that Paul never used this expression (though he could easily have done so, had he wished to). I do not think Paul had this Old Testament text in mind. If he had, he probably would have used the same idiom as that found in the text to indicate that he was speaking of a similar thing. Instead, he used a different idiom, which is nowhere found in the Old Testament. I think it was original with him.
Some might say: “A thorn
in the side and a thorn
in the flesh are similar phrases.”
To this, a reasonable response would be: “The expressions are different—and unnecessarily so, if Paul intended to quote or duplicate the Old Testament idea. The word ‘flesh’ has a much wider range of meaning, in scripture, than does the word ‘side,’ so that the expressions are in no sense synonyms" (The expression "thorns in your side" actually is not found in the Hebrew text of Judges 2:3, but is found in Numbers 33:55).
As I said earlier, I have nothing at stake here, since we would not need for Paul to be sick in order to make the otherwise well-established point, from scripture and experience, that believers are often sick. It is the Word of Faith folks that are arguing counterintuitively against the seeming meanings of verses, and desperately trying to expunge any evidence that Paul might have been sick. They may continue their attempt, but no one can convince me that they are conducting disinterested exegesis. Exegesis with an agenda is easy to spot.
We will face tribulations because we are in the middle of a war zone of evil - but we don't have to have that evil working within us.
You refer to persecution and other environmental sufferings as being understandable and inevitable because of our being in a war zone. You allow this, apparently, because these things are external to us. Then you suggest that sickness is “evil working within us.” Doesn't this seem, to you, like you are making a category error?
Sickness is not "evil" working within us. Lust, greed, pride, hatred, ingratitude, disloyalty, etc. are evil working within us (and remain within us, apparently, until death). These are the evils in us that we would anticipate the Gospel addressing. But sickness?
Sickness is not "in me" in the same sense that evil is "in me." The latter inheres in my heart, whereas sickness is only "in me" in the same sense that my last meal is "in me"—and does not defile me. Sickness is no more an "evil" in me than is torture at the hands of man. Both are "afflictions," or "trials," to be endured, and have nothing to do with evil in the sufferer. If sickness were an evil in me, then being sick would be something for which I should repent. The fact that the one who suffers illness and the one who suffers persecution may be equally innocent and righteous before God means that neither condition is to be objected to by the Christian more than the other.
Paul knew he would expire - he knew his life wouldn't go on forever - and he was not shaken by this. He said "to die is gain." He was eager to depart and go to see God. I don't think Paul's mortality bothered him one bit - just as I don't think a sickness would have bothered him very much either.
There is a non-sequitur here: Paul did not object to dying, so he would not object to being sick either. Really? Then, it seems, he would have no reason to object to torture or the mortal danger posed by persecution either. This does not follow.
I, too, am not afraid to die. I actually long for it. However, physical pain is a real drag—and no more or less so whether inflicted by an inquisitor or by a bacterium.
Despite Paul's eagerness to be with the Lord, he knew that his work on earth was very important. With this in mind, I can see him becoming very frustrated if the one thing on earth he was focused on was being hindered.
True, but not any more relevant to the subject of persecution than of sickness.
Paul ministered "through" or "with" physical pains.
You allow that Paul was afflicted with physical pains. Yet, one of the key verses that is used to prove healing in the atonement is Isaiah 53:4, which, in Young’s Literal Translation (and the NASB footnote)—
“Surely our sicknesses he hath borne,
And our pains -- he hath carried them.”
If this is describing the effects of the atonement, then it seems that not only sicknesses, but also “pains” should have been eliminated (Of course, according to Matthew 8:17, this is not talking about the atonement, but about Jesus’ earthly healing ministry).
Why would one kind of physical pain be protected, and one abolished, in the atonement? Is there anything about sickness that is more hurtful, more a result of the fall, or more worthy of instant abolition than there is about persecution? Why is this distinction being made? Pain is pain, and suffering is suffering.
If testing is supposed to bring maturity and completion to our faith here on earth, what sort of testing is it that takes people out of the earth? A person won't have the opportunity to apply the lessons they've learned from a terminal cancer if they die in 3 months.
Likewise, James did not have time to learn, after he was beheaded, what lessons might have been learned through such an experience. It is true of all affliction—whether sickness or persecution—that there will eventually be one test that will be the final one. After finals, the studies are completed.
What we are being tested about is whether our faith and loyalty to God will endure adverse circumstances. The person who dies of cancer, and has remained faithful unto death, has passed with flying colors (Rev.2:10; 12:11)!
At the least, it might be helpful to lay out what sicknesses you think are the ones God would use to test us and which ones are just demonic and oppressive. Even if we believe sickness can be a test from God, we ought to try and discern the difference.
There is not one kind of sickness that is demonic, and another that is organic, and yet another that is divinely-imposed. Any sickness might fall into any of these categories. Boils were inflicted upon Job by Satan, but upon Egypt by God. Similarly, the blind condition of men whom Jesus healed was sometimes caused by demons and sometimes not. On some occasions, God Himself has struck men blind (Gen.19:11; 2 Kings 6:18; Acts 13:11), or withered their limbs (Gen.32:25 / 1 Kings 13:4).
In our sickness, the important question we need to resolve is not that of identifying its immediate source (Job never figured out the respective roles of God and the devil in his afflictions), but by what response we can best glorify God through it? Every affliction tests us—regardless of its immediate source—and has potential to improve us. Our response to any sickness will determine whether we are ultimately improved by it or not.
If sickness is a testing for our betterment - why does anyone go to a doctor, or take medicine to relieve the pain?
We might as reasonably ask, “If persecution is a refining experience for believers (1 Peter 1:7), why would Paul appeal to Caesar in order to escape further persecution from the Jews?”
What seems to be lacking among Christians is a scripturally-nuanced theology of suffering, its purposes and its causes. If one wishes to understand one of the key elements in God’s governance of the fallen world, then the phenomenon of suffering presents one of the most urgent subjects to master. It is also one of the most-discussed in scripture.
Your question is not about sickness, but about suffering. Why should we do anything to prevent or remedy human suffering, if it is a test to be endured? One part of a very complex answer is certainly the fact that the suffering of one person, which can be remedied by the intervention of another, is also a test of that second person. Will he act in compassion?
Free will being what it is, there is always the possibility that those who should relieve the suffering of others may fail to step-up to this responsibility, in which case, the suffering continues longer than it otherwise would have. Yet, the believer does not look to man, but to God, for succor.
Every sufferer anticipates an end to his suffering, and God eventually brings about the end—sometimes through temporal relief, and sometimes through death. Paul longed for relief through the latter (Phil.1:21-23), though he often intervened to bring relief in the former manner to others. God chooses, and the believer trusts Him to do so. However, the believer knows that God might bring relief through intervention of others—police, surgeons, the Marines, etc.—and does not refuse such interventions, but sees in them the hand of God bringing relief.
All suffering is potentially redemptive to the believer (see Rom.8:28), but all suffering is also temporal for the believer—and the believer eagerly awaits the end of the ordeal. It is not inconsistent for one to use medicines when sick (Matt.9:12), and yet to be resigned to suffer patiently what cannot be cured in that way.
If a man finds himself standing in a fire, it is wise for him to step out of it, if he can. On the other hand, if he finds himself tied to a stake in the midst of the fire, he might well accept his fate as from God. Sufferings that can be remedied should be. However, not all of them can be, by human endeavor. Those who suffer these things must leave their case in the hand of God, and someday say, “It is good for me that I have been afflicted” (Ps.119:71).
One thing that cannot, on the basis of either scripture nor reason, be done, is to separate organic sickness into a category separate from other kinds of suffering, and say that Jesus ended one kind, but not another. James said to count it all joy when experiencing various “trials” (James 1:2). The same word “trial” is used of Paul’s physical condition from which his friends would have delivered him (had they been able) by donating their own eyes (Gal.4:14 and context). Your suggestion that his problem was that his eyes were swollen shut from a beating is just possible, but not particularly likely. Even if true, why would the impairment of vision from a beating (swelling is an inflammation—a “sickness) be in a category different from the same symptoms caused by a viral infection?
I'm sure you don't believe every sickness is a test from God - but only certain sicknesses, and only sometimes. Even if that is the case, do you agree that we should address all sickness as if it was a plot of the enemy to harm us and come against it with the same mindset and authority that Jesus had when he was healing the sick?
I think all suffering, for the believer, is a test from God. Many times God uses Satan and/or microbes, injury, etc., as the means of bringing the test, but no trial in the life of the believer is meaningless, as it would be if it did not serve either to improve or prove the faith of the sufferer.
How should we approach sickness? We should fight it as effectively as possible, just as we would intervene to stop a criminal attack, if possible. This fight can include both human interventions and divine interventions (i.e., prayer).
However, it is not taught in scripture that we will see as great success in our efforts to heal as Jesus did. Even the apostles were not as successful as He was (2 Tim.4:20).
In order to completely eliminate sickness, He'd have to eliminate all sick agents - destroy all demons and create a new world without any contagions. That is his plan, but until he does that - sickness is a possible threat, just as sin is. God hasn't eliminated sin from the earth - and not because it serves a good purpose - it just requires a new creation to completely remove. But, God has eliminated the effects of sin from the believer.
I would like to see scripture in support of some of these propositions. Particularly:
1. That God tolerates sickness (without good purpose) just because it would require a new creation to remove it all. Does this mean that, if God wished to do so, He would not be able to kill every germ on the planet, and incarcerate every demon—even prior to creating the New Heavens and New Earth? Since God can wipe out whole populations of people at will (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah), how is it that germs could resist His determination to destroy them all, if He wished to do so (Only cockroaches could do that!)?
If God could, in fact, eliminate sickness, but does not do so, then we are left with only two possibilities: 1) He has a good reason for allowing sickness to continue, or 2) He has no good reason for allowing it, but is powerless to get rid of it. I hold the first view, and you hold the second. Logically, one other alternative theory would be that He is malevolent, and allows sickness for evil purposes—but neither of us would go that far.
The God revealed in scripture is neither powerless nor purposeless. My God can in fact heal sickness—all sickness—at will. He also can make His children immune to sickness, allow them to escape persecutors, preserve them unharmed in the midst of a hurricane, etc. When He chooses not to intervene with such deliverances, it is not because He lacks power. In such cases, His children are expected to trust His wisdom and goodness, just as a child must do when his father’s loving choices bring hardship or pain upon the child.
Do you see where your beliefs bring you? By saying that God has no good purpose in sickness (though you allow that He may have good purposes in other—even more torturous—sufferings, so long as they come from evil people, not germs), you have created an artificial limitation upon God. He would like to destroy all sickness (since He can find no good purpose in its existence), but He is helpless to do so!
If we were to say, “God would like to end persecution, but cannot do so prior to judging the whole world,” we might have a scriptural case, since persecution springs from man’s free will, which God might have a policy against thwarting prematurely. But sickness, in most cases, is not produced by human free will or agency, and would not seem to have any innate claim on special amnesty against being annihilated by God at His pleasure.
A theological supposition that requires secondary and tertiary theories as outrageous as these to prop it up, ought to cause those promoting that thesis to take a second look.
2. I would also like to see the scripture that supports the point, very central to your argument above, that “God has eliminated the effects of sin from the believer.” Is this written somewhere? Is there no lasting effect of sin which has not yet been eliminated—like, say, “death”?
I agree with the double purpose of some of Jesus' miracles - but people weren't simply sermon illustrations to Jesus....Jesus healed people simply because he loved them - not always because we wanted to prove a point or teach a lesson. Out of compassion, Jesus healed sickness.
This may be true (though the phrase "simply because" may be unduly reductionistic), but did He not love the sick people in India? How about those in Africa? Why didn't everybody get healed? God can heal at will. The compassion demonstrated in Christ's healings was definitely an aspect of God’s character that was illustrated in them, but it must not have been God's intention to heal ALL the sick permanently, or else He would certainly have done it.
To say (as some inadvisedly do) that God cannot heal where there is inadequate faith is neither scriptural, nor true to life. I have known a number of people who were healed (even of terminal cancer, in one case close to me) without their expecting to be healed at all. Their faith had nothing to do with it. God heals when He wants to. He apparently does not heal when there is good reason not to. It is that simple.
I can't get away from this illustration of Jesus' attitude toward sickness. His desire was to remove what was causing needless suffering.
Right. No doubt the people whom Jesus healed were experiencing needless suffering—that is, suffering that served no purpose other than providing an opportunity to show His power and compassion in healing them. So, it would follow that those whom Christ did
not heal must not have been suffering
needlessly. As Peter wrote: “
If need be, you are in various trials” (1 Peter 1:7).
On the other hand, Jesus said his disciples would face tribulations in the world. He didn't tell these people their sickness was unavoidable like he told his disciples tribulations were unavoidable.
In arriving at a biblical theology of suffering, it is not my policy to place too much weight on what is not recorded—i.e., any record of Jesus making particular statements to sufferers. Too much of what Jesus said and did is left unrecorded (in a ministry of over three years, we have samples from only 39 days!). The really significant thing that Jesus did not say was that the word “tribulations” does not include sicknesses. On what basis would we exclude so common a form of human suffering from that generic category?
I don't deny that Ex. 4:11 is a challenging passage - but if we look for examples, we see that God made Paul temporarily blind and Zechariah temporarily mute. There was some judgement involved in these cases. Whether or not these temporary conditions served any great purpose, we know they were removed. So, if these inform our understanding of God's character and purposes, God would have them be temporary and removed.
We agree, at least, on this point: that sufferings are temporary and will end. This is true, both of sickness and of all other forms of suffering.
We have examples, in scripture, of God removing the suffering of sicknesses by miraculous interventions, but also of His allowing the man of faith to die sick (2 Kings 13:14).
Similarly, we have cases, in scripture, of God delivering His people miraculously from death at the hands of persecutors, but also of His allowing faithful men to die at the hands of persecutors.
So what is the difference? In either case, the sufferings have an end. “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but [whether in life or by death] the Lord delivers him out of them all” (Psalm 34:19).
