Paul's thorn wasn't sickness.

[Aaron]

Steve, thanks for the thoughts to ponder.

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.

There is a third option besides God having a purpose for sickness and God not being able to eliminate sickness - and that is the church.

This may open up a separate theological discussion - on whether or not we Christians today can view the anointing and calling of the apostles as being for us as well - but Jesus commissioned the apostles to heal the sick as they preached the gospel:

"Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. "(Matthew 10:1)

What about those people with sickness that God wanted to be sick? Surely they didn't have authority to heal those people. "Every kind" seems pretty clear that "every kind" of sickness was a candidate for them to heal.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you believe Christians have this same authority today - but I don't think we have any less of a call then they did. Jesus wanted to "multiply himself" in a way, and reach more people with the gospel than he could by himself - and at the same time, train them for when he would no longer be on earth.

That's the role we have today. We are figuratively and literally his body. The Head has desires for this world and his body carries out those desires - however, if the body fails to act, there are things the Head wants done that won't get done. God is sovereign, but He has sovereignly linked his plans with man.

Whether you agree with this notion or not, it is at least a logical third option - that it is God's will to heal everyone who is sick - but that he has employed the church to carry out this decree.

In a similar vein, not all suffering is good or God's will. God's desire is for us to seek justice, defend the cause of the orphan, and help the widows. (Isaiah 1:17) There are forms of suffering that God does not want to occur - but he has made us stewards of this place. If these things are not corrected, it is not because he is powerless to help, nor that he has a greater purpose for orphan suffering, but because his appointed and anointed are not being obedient to carry out his instructions.

[Aaron]

Certainly Jesus was moved by compassion to heal people at times. At other times He would heal only one or even pass by without healing.

In John 5 we read of Jesus healing an invalid at the Bethesda pool where many disabled people gathered. And Jesus slipped away into the crowd before the healed man had a chance to find out who He was. He does not appear to have healed anyone else on this occasion.

And consider this story:

So here we have a man, lame for many years, who was laid daily at the temple gate. How many times Jesus must have passed this man and never healed him. It might be argued that the man was placed at a gate that Jesus never happened to enter. That seems very unlikely; since the man was there to beg he was likely placed at the gate most often used.

Homer,

If Jesus didn't heal everybody at the pool, or the man at the gate - there may be other options other than it not being God's will. For one, we have the example in Nazareth that Jesus could not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. I won't say that God can't heal people who don't have much faith or any faith - but there aren't many examples (if any) of God healing people who didn't seek healing - or at least without someone seeking on the sick's behalf.

Jesus may have seen that the one man had faith to believe and respond to Jesus - while nobody else did. Just because the people around the pool wanted to be healed - it doesn't mean that they would respond appropriately to Jesus. Everyone wants security - but not everybody will look to God in faith for security - even if He is standing right there offering it. It's not like the man had no role to play in being healed. Jesus told the lame man to pick up his bed and walk. The man wasn't healed until he obeyed in faith.

Jesus may have wanted everyone to be healed - but Jesus also had a mission greater than healing everybody he saw. Think of a general who is walking through a battlefield. He wants all the soldiers to defeat the enemy. Should he stop in every foxhole and help shoot down the enemy? Or would he be of better service if he went straight to his commanders and gave them the strategy of how to defeat the enemy.

Jesus could have stayed in one city and healed everybody - but if he spent 16 hours a day healing everybody in every town, he would not have time to train up his disciples. He could have become a popular healing superstar, thronged by adoring fans - but his ultimate plan was to be crucified, which involved maintaining a low cover at times so he wouldn't draw too much premature attention from the religious leaders who would eventually have him killed.

Jesus told his mother "my time has not yet come" when she wanted him to display his power and turn the water to wine. Jesus could have healed the lame man when he was 20 years old - but his time had not yet come. The sooner he revealed who he was, the sooner he would have a target on his back from the enemy.

Think about this - Jesus could have preached the gospel to the elderly in his city whom he know would die before he began his ministry. Does that mean that Jesus didn't want them to be saved? No - but Jesus' life followed a direct and limited path leading to a focused goal - and once that goal was accomplished, then the gate swung wide open for everyone to benefit from his power.

[steve]

There is a third option besides God having a purpose for sickness and God not being able to eliminate sickness - and that is the church.

This is a good observation, and a strong point.

"Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. "(Matthew 10:1)

What about those people with sickness that God wanted to be sick? Surely they didn't have authority to heal those people.

You are making my point for me. Plainly, Jesus and the apostles never healed any person whom God wished to remain sick. That is the point I have been making all along: only those whom God wanted to heal got healed—and no others.

"Every kind" seems pretty clear that "every kind" of sickness was a candidate for them to heal.

I have never questioned whether God can (and, at some time or other, may) heal every kind of sickness. I don't suppose there is any kind of sickness that Paul could not heal, had God wished for him to do so. However, there were instances (not kinds) of sickness which Paul was apparently unable to heal, since he left a number of his companions sick, whom he would have healed, had he been able to do so.

For me to say, "I can eat any kind of pie," would be to say nothing on the question of whether or not I intend to eat every particular pie I encounter. One is a statement of kinds. The matter of instances would be an entirely separate question. It is the latter, not the former, that we are discussing.

Jesus and the apostles could have (and may have) healed every category of illness known to man, but they did not heal every sick person. Thus the commission to the twelve does not tell us whether we (supposing we had their authority) can heal any particular sufferer.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you believe Christians have this same authority today - but I don't think we have any less of a call then they did. Jesus wanted to "multiply himself" in a way, and reach more people with the gospel than he could by himself - and at the same time, train them for when he would no longer be on earth.

I believe that apostles have apostolic gifts, prophets have a prophet's gifts, teachers have a teacher's gift, leaders have a leader's gift, etc. Paul did not believe that every believer had every gift (1 Cor.12). He seemed to believe that one person has a gift of working miracles (apparently, another does not); some have gifts of healings (apparently, others do not). Paul said that his miraculous powers were signs of his apostleship (2 Cor.12:12). If you are an apostle, perhaps such signs will also accompany your ministry. They do not accompany mine. But then, I am not an apostle.

We have no evidence in scripture that the early Christians—apart from the apostles and a few evangelists (Stephen and Philip)—went about healing people. The evidence from Acts was that these things were performed by a few visible spokesmen for the faith, as was true in the Old Testament (Moses, Elijah, Elishah, etc.).

Even so, we know that the apostles did not heal every person. In fact, I am not sure I know of an instance of them healing any Christian. Their healings were generally performed outside the church, upon non-Christians whom they were evangelizing. In Acts 4:34, we are told that, in the Christian community, no one among them lacked any material thing (because of sharing, not because of miracles), but we are not told that none of them were sick, which would have been an even more remarkable distinction.

That's the role we have today. We are figuratively and literally his body. The Head has desires for this world and his body carries out those desires - however, if the body fails to act, there are things the Head wants done that won't get done. God is sovereign, but He has sovereignly linked his plans with man.

I agree with this, except for the first sentence. I do not see how you and I could be said to have the same role the apostles had—since even most of their contemporaries in the church did not have the role they had. The rest of the paragraph is quite correct, in my understanding.

In a similar vein, not all suffering is good or God's will. God's desire is for us to seek justice, defend the cause of the orphan, and help the widows. (Isaiah 1:17) There are forms of suffering that God does not want to occur - but he has made us stewards of this place. If these things are not corrected, it is not because he is powerless to help, nor that he has a greater purpose for orphan suffering, but because his appointed and anointed are not being obedient to carry out his instructions.

I agree that we are to relieve suffering, and I dealt with that matter in my earlier post. However, while not all suffering may be God's will, some of it is (1 Peter 4:19), and Christians are told to rejoice in their afflictions, and to find benefit in them (James 1:2 / Rom.5:3 /1 Pet.1:6-7). This is the subject we are discussing—not the question of whether God desires all people to be sick, but whether God wants all people to be well.

You have admitted that some suffering (even severe persecution) is occasionally the will of God for Christians. Yet, for some reason, yet to be defended, you believe that sickness belongs to a separate category from other sufferings, when it comes to God's will. This, as I have said above, is an artificial distinction, having neither scriptural nor logical basis.

It is okay with me for you to think this, but I had rather base my beliefs on scripture, and those who make-up their own ideas about what God will do set themselves up for great disillusionment when reality disappoints.

[Aaron]

Steve,

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?

Whatever the cause of the problem was - it seems to have come upon him unexpectedly and it eventually left him. The trial happened during the "first time" Paul preached to the Galatians. The wording indicates a unique situation that wasn't there the "second" time he preached to the Galatians - nor does Paul indicate that he is still suffering from it while writing the letter. Paul's use of wording indicates that it was something that "happened", not something that was continually "happening" to him - otherwise, why make a special mention of it in this letter? And if it was a temporary issue, it came and went before Paul wrote II Corinthians - so there is no reason to think that Paul's thorn was a continuation of this eye problem. If it were an ongoing issue, the Galatians surely would have known about it ahead of time, and there would have been no special praise issued by Paul for their gracious acceptance and care for him in his condition. It's as if they were caught off guard by the situation, yet they still received him honorably.

Swelling is not a sickness - this is a reach that can easily be refuted. Question: was there disease before the fall? I assume you would say no. Question: what would happen pre-fall if Adam fell off the brontosaurus he was riding and hit his head on a rock? Probably the same thing that happened to Paul. He might fracture his skull and experience some physical suffering. Was this type of physical suffering the result of the fall (no not that fall - the other one - the spiritual one)? Or what if Adam was cooking by the fire and he accidentally burned himself? Certainly there would be some pain and swelling. Would anyone honestly say that Adam was invincible before the fall and incapable of experiencing physical damage? So, there is a type of potential "suffering" not caused by sin. The fact that Adam was created with pain sensors is indicative that pain was a possibility - and Adam had the tools to avoid it. If Adam happened to get hurt, his body was equipped with a self-healing system. If pre-fall Adam and post-cross Paul experienced major head wounds, there would be a degree of swelling as part of the body's natural healing process that has nothing to do with a sinful world.

A frontal lobe (forehead) injury can be life-threatening if it is not properly treated. A subdural hematoma (interior swelling) around one or both eyes can indicate further swelling underneath the skin, and possibly extend to the frontal lobe of the brain. Treating a forehead injury with eye swelling must begin by seeking immediate medical attention.

Sickness is a sign that the body is not working as it was originally designed to work. Either a pathogen has slipped by the body's defenses, or a body part has not correctly developed during embryogenesis, or a group of cells start abnormally reproducing and you get cancer. Swelling - or other symptoms associated with the body healing itself - are signs that the body is working as it was originally designed to work.

There is quite an obvious categorical distinction between the two.

“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”?

"let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:20)

Salvation = deliverance from death. Of course there are several uses of the word "death" in the Bible. Are the wages of sin physical cessation of bodily function? Or is it spiritual separation from God? The cessation of a believer's body is not punishment - and should be looked at as a doorway to a reward. What about Adam? I'm under the opinion that even if Adam never sinned, God would still have brought an end to his physical body at some point. Obviously the new creation with new heavenly bodies is superior to Adam's original creation. Why would God "punish" Adam for a life of sinlessness by keeping him alive in the flesh and not allowing him to enter into the reality of the greater creation?

[Aaron]

I agree that we are to relieve suffering, and I dealt with that matter in my earlier post. However, while not all suffering may be God's will, some of it is (1 Peter 4:19), and Christians are told to rejoice in their afflictions, and to find benefit in them (James 1:2 / Rom.5:3 /1 Pet.1:6-7). This is the subject we are discussing—not the question of whether God desires all people to be sick, but whether God wants all people to be well.

You have admitted that some suffering (even severe persecution) is occasionally the will of God for Christians. Yet, for some reason, yet to be defended, you believe that sickness belongs to a separate category from other sufferings, when it comes to God's will. This, as I have said above, is an artificial distinction, having neither scriptural nor logical basis.

Steve,

You do have me thinking.

I think there is a big difference between the type of suffering God allows (or wills) and physical sickness. As I look over the scriptures you mention - I think it is quite clear what type of suffering is being talked about. You have to interpret sickness into those texts - it is not implied or warranted in my opinion.

I Peter 4:13 says "do not by surprised at the fiery ordeal among you...but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation."

The context indicates that the "good" type of suffering is the same type of suffering Christ endured. This is backed up with the statement "Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler" (vs. 15) Jesus didn't suffer because he sinned or because he had sinful attitudes that needed to be worked out of him through suffering. It is not God's will for us to suffer because of disobedience.

Again, I ask the question - did Jesus suffer sickness? I think you have to be pretty bold to say yes.

The Bible certainly doesn't say Jesus was sick. On the other hand, the gospels are very clear as to what type of suffering he did endure. Peter's audience must have known what type of suffering Christ endured if Peter is exhorting them to share in the same. There is an unspoken understanding that they know what he is talking about. Since there are no records of Jesus being sick - why should Peter's audience think sickness is among the sufferings Jesus endured and hence the suffering they should rejoice in?

Either way, the passage is very clear about what type of suffering Peter had in mind.
vs. 14 "If you are reviled for the name of Christ." Persecution from non-Christians.
vs. 16 "if anyone suffers as a Christian..." This indicates a type of suffering caused by being a Christian. Is sickness particular to Christians? Does it come because you are a Christian? Again, this indicates the particular type of persecution at the hands of non-Christians.
vs. 19 "let those who suffer [do] what is right." The suffering involves choices to do what is right when there is apparent pressure to do what is wrong.

Earlier in 4:1 Peter expounds on the type of suffering Jesus endured.
"since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourself also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God."
There is a direct correlation between this type of suffering and overcoming sin. This suffering of Christ was the resistance of his fleshly urges - the putting to death of fleshly lusts - so he could live 100% for God. Notice the outcome of this suffering is so that you won't live for the flesh but will live for God. Sickness doesn't have the same specific outcome. This type of suffering Jesus endured, and that we are called to, has a guaranteed benefit. Sickness has no guaranteed benefit.

This same sentiment is expressed in Hebrews 2:18. The result of Jesus being made like us is that he was subject to temptation.
"For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted."
His suffering was enduring temptation and resisting it.

This is the suffering that God calls us to. It is the suffering the Spirit led Jesus into: "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil." Jesus entered the wilderness full of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1) - he left the trials in the power of the Spirit (Luke 4:14).

God allows suffering by temptation because it is an opportunity to be a doer of the word, and not just a hearer who deludes himself into thinking he is something he is not. It is a chance to grow in power by walking in obedience.

James hints at this type of suffering in his discourse. He doesn't specifically say what the "various trials" are - but based on what has been discussed, it is likely persecution and temptation.

James says "Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial." He then goes right into his talk about temptation.
Paul uses similar wording "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it."

This indicates that God allows SOME temptation into our life. If He is able to block some temptation, why doesn't He block ALL temptation? Because it is under the category of sufferings he allows - not so that we succumb to it, but so that we overcome it.

Going back to James - he makes it clear that temptation is not from God. He may allow it, but He isn't the author of it. Instead, God only gives good and perfect gifts.

In conclusion, the verses that talk about the suffering of Christians specifically talk about two types of suffering: temptation and persecution. These are the only known sufferings that Jesus endured - and hence the only sufferings we are called to partake in.

These are the sufferings that come from being a Christian (I Peter 4:16). The best way to avoid these sufferings is to follow the world. The same can't be said of sickness.
This type of suffering is good because it is a sign that you are following Christ. That's why we shouldn't be surprised at it - because darkness naturally opposes the light. This type of suffering will come as long as darkness is still in the world. "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

These verses say nothing about a type of suffering that comes to work out some weakness in our life - or to angst us into giving up some sin. Peter condemns suffering that comes as the result of sinful behaviors. That is not the type of suffering God wills for us.

God wills suffering that comes because of our righteous behavior - because it is a sign that we are living as Christ did - and it leads to endurance in continuing to do so.

[Homer]

Aaron,

You wrote:

Again, I ask the question - did Jesus suffer sickness? I think you have to be pretty bold to say yes.

The Bible certainly doesn't say Jesus was sick.

I believe you are making a serious error in that you are diminishing Jesus' humanity. God became man, entered into the world and became one of us. You can "prove" all sorts of things by what the bible doesn't say.

Going back to James - he makes it clear that temptation is not from God. He may allow it, but He isn't the author of it. Instead, God only gives good and perfect gifts.

You are not very familiar with the book of Job. Job clearly attributed his calamity to God, and nowhere is Job's attribution of his troubles to the hand of God refuted. Job had boils, or something similar. This is an infection, part of his test for his own benefit. Among all the various trials Job endured, clearly his health was one of them.

You may argue that the trials of Job came from Satan but God is sovereign. Nothing happens to Job or us unless God at least allows it. Job was afflicted only to the extent God allowed him to be showing God was in control, and Job represents humanity. I have seen close relatives, Godly people from their youth until their death, who have suffered greatly, including sickness.

Job 2:9-10
New King James Version (NKJV)

9. Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”
10. But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

Job did not sin in attributing his calamity to God.

[Aaron]

I believe you are making a serious error in that you are diminishing Jesus' humanity.

Since when is sickness - a sign of a malfunctioning body - a hallmark of what it means to be human? I guess Adam wasn't created human then, was he?

Job did not sin in attributing his calamity to God.

Job said "shall we not accept adversity?” I don't hear him attributing the adversity part to God like he attributes the good to God.

Certainly Job has good lessons in it - but is it at all possible that something happened between the time of Job and our time where God relates to us according to different standards? Perhaps something happened where we are born again? Unlike Job?

Whether you agree with that specific point or not - I'm sure you would agree that we can't take any verse from the OT and apply it to us as NT believers in the same way as it would apply to an OT saint.

[steve7150]

8Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me








The "it" might leave me description sounds like the "it" has the capability of actually leaving and i think the greek word for "leave me" is "aphistemi" , which seems like an active withdrawal rather then God healing Paul of a sickness. If the "it" can withdraw it sounds like a demon that has the capability of withdrawing.

[steve]

Hi Aaron,

I disagree with a lot of your exegesis, but do not have any more time to take it up point-by-point.

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? Upon what scriptures would we base such an opinion?

Your speculations about pre-fall Adam do not jibe with my understanding, so your points based upon those speculations won't go far in convincing me. 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 an artificial distinction (which is not found in scripture) between what you will call "sickness" and other physical disorders.

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.

You spent a lot of time in one of your posts explaining how persecution and temptation are forms of suffering that Jesus (and early Christians) endured, but you avoided answering the question that launched the explanations, namely, why do you think that sickness is different from other kinds of human suffering, so that it alone cannot be rightly endured by Christians when every other kind of suffering can be? This is a central point to our disagreement, and one I would enjoy hearing answered.

I guess what I am waiting to read is something in your posts that would convince me that your doctrine on healing is not leading your exegesis by the nose, rather than the other way around. Once one has decided that God has no good use for sickness, and wishes all of it to be healed right away (that is, before the sufferer's death), this paradigm can be imposed, however implausibly, as a template for imposing alternative interpretations upon passages that have bearing on the subject—interpretations that no one would resort to, except to defend their doctrinal presuppositions about sickness and healing. Until we address this prior doctrinal commitment, we will not progress at all in our exegetical studies. So I am curious to know upon what you base this first presupposition about sickness, which drives your entire interpretation of specific texts.

[steve7150]

The "it" might leave me description sounds like the "it" has the capability of actually leaving and i think the greek word for "leave me" is "aphistemi" , which seems like an active withdrawal rather then God healing Paul of a sickness. If the "it" can withdraw it sounds like a demon that has the capability of withdrawing.steve7150






Of course a demon could manifest in a person as an illness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------