043 Christians and the use of medicine

[below is the chapter on which this podcast was based - click here for books]

Medical Healing

 

There are undoubtedly positive promises for healing in the New Testament, but if these are not balanced and understood in the light of  the overall teaching of the Bible, there is always a danger of going to unbiblical extremes.

One such extreme is the belief that to resort to the use of medicine indicates a lack of faith. An outstanding example of this is A.B. Simpson, who was one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine that Jesus died for sickness as well as for sin. In his major work on the subject, The Gospel of Healing, first published in 1885, he concluded that, if healing is in the atonement of Christ, then the use of medical “means” is to be rejected in favour of divine healing:

 

If that be God's way of healing, then other methods must be man's ways, and there must be some risk in deliberately repudiating the former for the latter.... for the trusting and obedient child of God there is the more excellent way which his Word has clearly prescribed[1].

 

And again:

 

Having became fully persuaded of the Word of God, the Will of God, and your own personal acceptance with God, NOW COMMIT YOUR BODY TO HIM AND CLAIM HIS PROMISE OF HEALING in the name of Jesus by simple faith...... From that moment doubt should be regarded as absolutely out of the question, and even the very thought of retreating or resorting to old 'means' inadmissible. Of course such a person will at once abandon all remedies and medical treatment (my italics)[2].

 

However, although the early proponents of the doctrine encouraged the rejection of the use of medicine, in recent years its advocates have been more careful. This is possibly because of the legal implications (particularly in the United States) rather than because of a change in convictions.  As Bruce Barron has aptly commented, though the main proponents of the doctrine never advocate abandonment of medical care, those who hear that healing is available to all who will claim it by faith might easily infer that[3]. Indeed, whatever the overt position of the teachers of the doctrine might be, there have been tragic cases among their followers because of the rejection of medical care.

Perhaps the best-known example of this is the case of the eleven-year-old diabetic Wesley Parker whose parents, believing that Jesus died for Wesley’s sickness, threw away his insulin. Refusing to return to a doctor, they watched Wesley die in agony. Even then, in their attempt to exercise faith, they planned a ‘resurrection service’ instead of a funeral. After the service they were arrested, found guilty of child abuse and imprisoned[4].

And allied to the rejection of medical care is, of course, the denial of symptoms which can be an equally risky business. McConnell points out that in diseases such as cancer, where early detection is directly proportional to cure rates, the denial of symptoms can have tragic consequences. He records how physicians in Tulsa have described to him the frustration of attempting to treat serious illnesses that could have been prevented had they been diagnosed sooner. One cancer specialist commented that on a weekly basis he encountered believers who were denying the symptoms of cancer [5].

McConnell also records how a woman described to him the results of following the teaching to deny the reality of a sore throat. Although her sore throat persisted and worsened to a point that she grew seriously ill, she still did not seek medical attention. When she finally did see her doctor her sore throat turned out to be advanced rheumatic fever. Her health and mental clarity have been permanently affected [6].

These shocking examples should warn us against the extremes to which some have gone – no doubt sincerely – because of their understanding of God’s promises to heal. But does the Bible adopt a negative position towards the use of medicine? It is to this question that we must now turn our attention. We will consider:

Passages which possibly reveal a negative attitude Passages which reveal a positive attitude Passages which possibly reveal a negative attitude

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, we have already considered the case of King Asa who did not seek help from the Lord, but only from the physicians (2 Chronicles 16:12)[7]. We suggested that this verse should not be taken to mean that it is wrong for God’s people to seek medical help, but rather that Asa’s fault was that he sought help only from the physicians and did not seek help from the Lord. This, as we shall see, is certainly in harmony with what appears to be the New Testament attitude.

In the New Testament Mark 5:25-26 is perhaps the most negative reference with regard to the medical profession. Luke simply states that, although the woman had spent everything she had on doctors, none of them had been able to heal her (Luke 8:43).   Mark however emphasises that she had suffered at the hands of the doctors and instead of getting better had actually become worse!

But was it Mark's intention to be critical of the medical profession? This is certainly one way of understanding his statement, but it is by no means the only way.   A second possibility would be to understand Mark as criticising the particular doctors who treated the woman but as not condemning the medical profession as a whole.   Thirdly, and in my view preferably, we may understand that Mark's intention was to stress the seriousness of the woman's condition and thus to emphasise the greatness of the miracle that Jesus performed on her. To state that doctors have failed completely in a particular case is not necessarily to condemn the medical profession as a whole. In support of this view Schweizer comments:

It is affirmed explicitly that human skill had been exhausted.   This is a regular feature in miracle stories, which usually indicates the severity of the illness...... and does not say anything about the Christian's attitude toward physicians[8].

 

Furthermore, Mark’s inclusion of Jesus’ saying that the healthy do not need a doctor but those who are sick (Mark 2:17) strongly suggests that his attitude to the medical profession in general was by no means hostile, for although the saying is used to illustrate a spiritual truth and to defend Jesus’ eating with sinners and tax-collectors (v.16), the parallel would have been offensive had he disapproved of the medical profession[9].

But is the medical profession condemned elsewhere in the New Testament?   According to John Nelson Parr[10], the use of pharmakeia (translated as witchcraft in Galatians 5:20 and in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:15) certainly indicates such condemnation. Parr argues that pharmakeia properly means ‘The administration or application or use of a medicine, a remedy, a purgative, a charm, or poison’[11]. He dismisses the possibility that in the New Testament the word may carry the connotation of sorcery because he believes that it primarily means the use of drugs and is clearly distinguished from the occult because the New Testament uses other words to refer to sorcery.

Thus in the passages referred to it is not sorcery (since for Parr pharmakeia in the New Testament does not mean sorcery) that is condemned, but the practice of medicine! Such a conclusion clearly reveals a serious lack of understanding of the nature of language[12] and makes no allowance for variation in the use of a word according to context. A similar error today might be to assume that the word ‘drug’ always refers to narcotics and never to a medicine on the fallacious assumption that the writer would use the word ‘medicine’ if he meant medicine!

Furthermore it is noteworthy that, despite the scathing implications of Parr’s understanding of the meaning of pharmakeia in the passages referred to above, he later modifies his position with the following comment:

It is perhaps necessary to make it clear that we do not condemn physicians because we do not find the Saviour ever condemned them; and while He never recommended or advised anyone to go to them, He did not forbid anyone to go, neither did He upbraid anyone for having been to them. We need to avoid going to a fanatical and unscriptural extreme! [13]

 

This comment, it seems to me, clearly invalidates his former argument and leads naturally to a consideration of those passages in the New Testament which display a positive attitude to medicine or the medical profession.

Passages which reveal a positive attitude

I have already drawn attention to Jesus’ saying that the healthy do not need a doctor but those who are sick (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31) and have argued that such a statement by no means suggests hostility to the medical profession.   Indeed, it may reasonably be understood to indicate approval.   At the very least it is an acknowledgement of a need.

The reference, found only in Luke, to the proverb Physician, heal yourself (Luke 4:23) is used by Harnack as evidence of Luke’s special interest in the medical profession[14].   It is noteworthy that the use of the proverb indicates no hostility to the physician’s skill.   Indeed, coupled with the understanding that Luke was himself a physician (Colossians 4:14), the use of the expression almost certainly indicates approval.

Even more interesting, however, is Harnack's twofold suggestion that Luke may well have been Paul’s physician and that his medical skill complemented Paul's charismatic gifts in healing the sick in Malta and that Luke accompanied him as his personal physician.   Indeed, this was part of the purpose of his presence with Paul in Rome (Colossians 4:14)[15].   Nevertheless, even if this suggestion is to be rejected for want of compelling evidence, the very use of the phrase the beloved physician clearly displays in itself at least a positive attitude towards his medical ability.

Furthermore, the phrase must surely indicate the distinct possibility that Luke was still practising medicine, for why else should he be referred to as a physician rather than as just a brother?   Even if, as Martin suggests, Paul commented on Luke’s medical ability because it was so unusual[16], the view that the New Testament condemns the practice of medicine must surely be rejected.

Finally, it is noteworthy that on at least three occasions the New Testament actually advocates the use of medicinal means. One clear example, to which I have already referred, is Paul's recommendation to Timothy to take wine for the sake of his stomach[17].  A further example is the instruction given to the church at Laodicea to purchase eye salve that they might see[18], and although the use here is clearly metaphorical it seems hardly likely that such a metaphor would have been employed if the use of medical means were disapproved of.

Yet another example is the use of oil and wine in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37).   In v.33 the Samaritan takes pity on the wounded man and in v.34 dresses his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.   He then takes him to an inn where he takes care of him.   It is clear from the context that the purpose of the oil and the wine was medicinal and Harnack cites Hippocrates to show that ‘physicians of antiquity used oil and wine not only internally, but also for external application’[19].   And Jesus commands his followers to Go and do likewise (v.37).   Such an exhortation would surely have been inappropriate if his intention had been that his followers should not use medical means in healing the sick.

The right attitude today

From what we have seen, there is no clear evidence in either the Old or the New Testament of a negative attitude towards the use of medicine. In fact there are indications of a positive attitude. This suggests that as Christians today we too should be positive about it and be grateful to God for the advances in medical science that have been made since Bible times.

But given that the use of medicine and the medical profession is appropriate for a Christian, the question arises as to when we should avail ourselves of it, bearing in mind that God has promised to heal us. In this connection it is important to realise that it need not be a question of God or medicine. It can, and probably should, be a matter of both. As Christians we should seek the Lord in everything, so we should not, like Asa, consult the doctor and forget the Lord. On the other hand, we should remember that God works through the natural as well as through the supernatural. It would seem foolish to ask God for a miracle when there is a simple natural solution.

A good illustration of this principle is God’s miraculous provision of food for the Israelites when they were travelling through the desert. Exodus 16 reveals how God provided ‘manna’ as food for his people. There was always enough for each day and on the day before the Sabbath there was enough for two days! And this provision lasted throughout the forty years they were in the desert until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they came to the border of Canaan (v.35)[20]. This is confirmed in Joshua 5:12

The manna stopped the day after they ate… food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate the produce of Canaan.

 

The lesson from this is very clear. God has many natural ways of providing for the needs of his people. It is when our needs are beyond our natural resources that we may expect God to provide supernaturally. God does not work miracles when there is no need for them.

Now if we apply this principle to healing we are ready to answer the question as to whether sick Christians should resort to medical means for their healing, and if so, at what stage – before or after prayer? The answer is clear. Since we are to pray continually (1 Thessalonians 5:17), we should pray as soon as we are ill and continue to pray until we are better.

But that does not mean that we should not consult a doctor or take medicine.  Indeed, in most cases it seems that it is through medical means that the Lord chooses to heal us. Where human skill is insufficient, however, as Christians we have the assurance that even when something is impossible with man, all things are possible with God. It is perhaps at this stage that the passage in James 5:14ff. becomes most relevant.

 

[1] Simpson, A.B., The Gospel of Healing, London, Morgan and Scott, 1915, p. 68.

[2] Ibid pp. 88-89.

[3] Barron, B., The Health and Wealth Gospel, Downer’s Grove, IVP, 1988, p. 129.

[4] The full story of Wesley’s tragic death is told by his father in:

Parker, L., We let our son die, Eugene Oregon, Harvest House, 1980.

[5] McConnell, D. R., A Different Gospel – a Historical and Biblical Approach to the Modern Faith Movement, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1988, pp. 165 and 169.

[6] Ibid p.169.

[7] See pp. 36-37.

[8]Schweizer, E., 'The Good News according to Mark', ET D.H.Madvig, London, SPCK, 1971, p.117. Cf. ibid p.20. Cf. Alexander, J.A., 'The Gospel according to Mark', London, Banner of Truth, 1960 p.127, Anderson, H., 'The Gospel of Mark', Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976, p.152.

[9]A similar argument may be applied to Matthew and Luke’s attitudes to the medical profession (not to mention Jesus'!) – cf. Matthew 9:12, Luke 5:31.

[10] Parr, op. cit. pp46-50, but cf. pp61-62.

[11] ibid. pp.44-60.

[12] Cf. the criticism I levelled against Parr earlier with regard to his understanding of sōzō. See pp. 135ff.

[13] Parr, op.cit., p. 61.

[14]Harnack, A., 'Luke the Physician' London, Williams and Norgate, 1907, p.17.

[15]For my rejection of this view, see Thesis pp 266ff.

[16]Martin R.P., 'Colossians and Philemon', London, Oliphants, 1974, p. 135.

[17] 1 Timothy 5:23. See my discussion on p. 261 of Thesis.

[18]Revelation 3:18.

[19]Harnack, op. cit., p. 190.   Cf. Hobart, op. cit., pp. 28ff.

[20] Canaan, of course, was the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey. There was abundant natural provision. They no longer needed supernatural food.