|
People come to all kinds of conclusions to justify not being healed. I understand that it's a hard thing to ask for something, not receive it, and, then, try to come to grips with why it wasn't received. Especially, something as necessary as healing. It has been my observation that, when healing doesn't come, we would rather point our finger at God and say that it is He that will not heal, not us who will not receive. That may be understandable, but it raises theological difficulties. As we have seen in previous articles, God has stated, in His word, that Christ died for our healing as well as for our forgiveness. He says that the prayer of faith shall save the sick and that God would raise him up, that healing is a promise, and that all the promises in Christ are "Yea, and amen". He has made it clear that it is His will for us to be well. If He does not honor His word, what does that make Him?
To me, it is far more comforting to point the finger at myself and say that I'm not meeting all the conditions of being healed rather than conclude that God is not being true to His word. I can then address which condition is not being met. But, I believe that I am, overwhelmingly, in the minority. People just can't live with the guilt of thinking that they are somehow at fault for not having prayers answered.
Let's look at some of the justifications people use for not receiving their request for healing:
Death is a method of healing.
After all, the person that has died will, no more, experience pain, sickness, or disease. They have passed to a greater glory where there is no more sickness. They are free from the pain of disease. So, God healed them by letting them die and enjoy their long-awaited pain-free life. He used death to heal them. This is the ultimate healing. God answered prayer by letting them die.
This is comforting. So, why should I try to take away another's comfort? I'm not wanting to rob people of their comfort, I'm just wanting to point out the folly in this conclusion. If you'll go back to honestly review what was requested of God, you'll find that physical healing was requested - physical healing. That means to be made whole, physically. If a person dies, the only way he dies is - physically. The spirit leaves the body. So, physical death and being made physically well are two opposites. Your body is not made whole by dying. It returns to dust. Jesus never healed a single person by letting that person die. He resurrected dead bodies, but he didn't kill live ones.
There is no scriptural justification for the theory that God heals through death and, to grasp onto this straw, is to be grasping onto a theological error that can cause further error down the road, for theological positions are but building blocks to other theological positions, one founded upon another.
Isaiah 38:18 (KJV) For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
Mark 5:23 (KJV) And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
1 Cor. 15:26 (KJV) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Paul's thorn in the flesh.
2 Cor. 12:7 (KJV) And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh...
Boy, have I heard that one a lot! Preached from the pulpit, it is usually used to relieve the people from the consternation they encounter when their prayer for physical healing is not being answered. The underlying proposition is that God does not want to heal you, He wants you to learn to trust Him. His grace is sufficient. He wants you to live with the sickness and learn from it or allow the sickness to make you humble and more mature. After all, since God told Paul to deal with his thorn in the flesh and let it make him a better person, who are we to expect to be delivered from our thorn in the flesh?
So, what was this thorn in the flesh? Well, scholars can't quite reach the same conclusion, but it is, more often than not, thought to be some type of disease. If it was God's will that Paul suffer with some type of disease, it could be that it is God's will for you to suffer some type of disease. But, was Paul's thorn in the flesh some type of disease? Let's look at some the last part of the above verse:
2 Cor. 12:7 (KJV) there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Right there, Paul identifies this thorn in the flesh. It was a messenger of Satan. The Greek word translated messenger, here, is "aggelos" and means "a messenger, especially an angel". This word is translated "angel" 179 times in the New Testament. It is never translated, "disease". So, this messenger wasn't a disease, it was an angel. And what was this messenger's assignment? To "buffet" Paul. The Greek word for "buffet" is "kolaphizo" , which means "to rap with the fist, buffet". Webster gives the definition of buffet as "to hit with the hand or fist; punch; slap; to beat back as by repeated blows; thrust about". Paul sought relief from this buffeting, but was told, basically, to lean on God's grace. Now, by what means did this messenger buffet Paul? He shares some of his hard times in the previous chapter:
2 Cor. 11:23-27 (KJV) Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
In verse 30, Paul calls these things, "mine infirmities":
2 Cor. 11:30 (KJV) If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
The Greek word for "infirmities" is "astheneia" and means, "malady; moral frailty :- disease, infirmity, sickness, weakness". So, while it can be translated "disease", it is not to be understood, here, as a disease upon Paul. No, his infirmities were more of a frailty, which came to the forefront when being buffeted by the messenger of Satan. Paul says that he will glory in his infirmities for, when he is weak, then he is strong:
2 Cor. 12:10 (KJV) Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Some other scripture verses often used to prove Paul had a disease are:
Galatians 6:11 (KJV) Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
Paul had to write big numerals because he could barely see, you see. The Greek word used for "letter" here is "gramma". It is translated elsewhere as "letters" (Acts 28:21); "writings" (John 5:47); "bill" (Luke 16:6-7); and "scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:15). It can also be used to denote a letter of the alphabet but, as we can see, it could also mean that Paul had written a long epistle with his own hand as opposed to having another write down his dictation, as he had other epistles. To use this verse as proof that Paul had an eye disease is to make it say something that it doesn't say in order to justify a position.
Galatians 4:13-16 (KJV) 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. Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
Paul's eyes were so bad that the Galatians would be willing to give them their eyes if it were possible. Again, to reach this conclusion, we are stretching the realms of believability and making it say something that it does not say. This is not a proof that Paul needed a new set of eyes. No, this is an expression of affection that the Galatians had for Paul. It would be like someone saying that they would give their right arm for you. Would that mean that you have a bum right arm? Maybe, but not likely. This position is strengthened by his last question in which he asks if, after their willingness to give him their eyes, is he now their enemy?
As we have demonstrated above, Paul's infirmities were the weaknesses he suffered while being buffeted by the messenger of Satan. He was being knocked around, physically, by this messenger. Paul called this a "temptation". The Greek word for "temptation" is "peirasmos" and means, "a putting to proof; adversity". So, Paul was being tested, proven, and placed in positions of adversity by his infirmity.
More to come…..
|
|
