Many Christians are very dependent on medical science, and almost never seek God for healing. Some pray for healing only in the most extreme cases, and others do not think to pray for healing even then. Few expect miracles. We must condemn this tendency to exclude God from the area of health. Although the Bible seems to allow the use of medicine, it does not explicitly encourage it. Also, it warns against looking to medicine as a substitute for seeking healing from God:
In the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa was afflicted with a disease in his feet. Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians. Then in the forty-first year of his reign Asa died and rested with his fathers. (2 Chronicles 16:12-13)
As the preceding verses indicate, Asa had started to turn from God and his heart had become hardened (16:1-10). When a man’s heart is hardened, he turns to human solutions instead of seeking God in faith and repentance. Thus as he trusted in human alliances in war, now he relied on the physicians in sickness.
This is the main drive behind the doctrine of cessationism. Those who assert this heresy claim to be zealous to defend the sufficiency and completion of the Bible, but they are liars, for if they care so much about the Bible, they would obey what it says about healing. Despite the overwhelming abundance of commands, promises, and examples on the subject, they remain determined to stop trusting in God’s miraculous power for their health, but turn to the doctors instead. Moreover, they make it their mission to hinder others from trusting in God for healing miracles, and they do this even in the name of Jesus. Even as they honor God with their lips, their hearts are far from him. This is the spirit of unbelief and murder that Jesus condemned in the Pharisees, who crucified Christ in the name of God.
There are numerous attempts to justify the complete dependence on medicine and the lack of faith in biblical healing.
One of them states that most of the physicians were idol worshipers, and they would appeal to demonic powers to heal. Thus it was a sign of apostasy for Asa to seek the physicians, not because they were physicians, but because they were idol worshipers. Therefore, the argument is that our passage should not prevent us from looking to modern physicians.
This is a stupid excuse. Many doctors are Catholics, Buddhists, among other things, and they are idol worshipers. Even if many of the others are not idol worshipers in this traditional sense, they are atheists and evolutionists. Are atheists and evolutionists much better than Catholics and Buddhists? Certainly, many doctors are firmly anti-Christian in their beliefs, and they treat the sick on this basis. If looking to the physicians was wrong in the past because they were idol worshipers, then it is arguable that looking to the physicians in the present is even worse.
Another argument is that medical science was too primitive. The physicians often did more harm than good because they lacked the superior theories and technologies of today. However, our passage states that Asa died because he did not seek God, and not because medical science was not advanced enough. This argument further exposes the spiritual sickness behind this perspective – the proponents forget about God and turn to a practical focus.
Medical science is often ineffective, and for many it remains inaccessible and unaffordable. The woman who suffered a bleeding issue “had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse” (Mark 5:26). Today, tens of thousands of people can still relate to this. This in itself might not be an argument against seeking help from medical science, but it shows that even if we are concerned only with practical effect instead of faith toward God, it still has not advanced to the point where we no longer need God to heal us. However, even if medical science is totally effective, accessible, and affordable, this still does not become an argument to seek healing from medicine rather than from God’s power.
Then, some people claim that our passage does not prevent us from visiting the physicians, but it warns against depending on them to the extent of excluding God from the healing process. That is, if our primary dependence remains on God, then we may seek medical help in peace. Thus J. Barton Payne writes, “The king’s sin lay in having recourse to [the physicians] ‘only’ and not seeking ‘help from the Lord.'”[1]
However, the word “only” has been added in the NIV and several other translations, perhaps to accommodate this bias. The more literal translation of the NASB says, “And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign Asa became diseased in his feet. His disease was severe, yet even in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12; see also KJV and ESV).
Nevertheless, even if we allow the word “only” to remain, this would emphasize Asa’s complete dependence on the physicians, but it would not necessarily justify alternatives such as seeking healing from both God and the physicians, from God through the physicians, or primarily from God and secondarily from the physicians. Moreover, if our primary dependence is truly on God, then we should first focus on faith, prayer, and miracles instead of medicine. Thus this argument backfires. In any case, the passage distinguishes between seeking God and seeking physicians, so that Asa “did not seek the Lord, but the physicians.”
There are a number of biblical passages that people distort in order to justify their dependence on medicine. We will first take James 5:14-15 as a representative case, since the discussion on this passage is also applicable to the others.
Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
Donald Burdick says that we should consider “this application of oil as medicinal rather than sacramental.” After all, “it is a well-documented fact that oil was one of the most common medicines of biblical times…It is evident, then, that James is prescribing prayer and medicine.”[2]
We should be happy that not all biblical scholars are so stupid and biased. For example, E. Gibson writes, “If…the oil was used as an actual remedy, (1) why was it to be administered by the elders? and (2) why is the healing immediately afterward attributed to ‘the prayer of faith’? These questions would seem to suggest that oil was enjoined by St. James rather as an outward symbol than as an actual remedy.”[3] And Alexander Strauch writes, “James certainly is not naïve enough to believe that oil is curative for all diseases. We can assume that if oil were needed for medicinal purposes, it would have been applied long before the elders’ visit….The elders’ task is to pray for healing, and according to verse 15, it is the prayer of faith – not the oil – that restores the sick….The oil, therefore, must have had a symbolic significance.”[4]
James does not say that the elders should pray for healing and the physicians should administer the oil, but that the elders should do both. If the oil represents medicine, then the modern application must be that preachers should prescribe medicines and perform surgeries on the church members. The text excludes the notion that God would heal through the oil, because it states that it is the prayer of faith that heals the sick, and offers the oil no credit in the healing. If the Bible teaches that God also heals through natural substances, it does so elsewhere, because this text does not say it.
If the oil is medicinal and sufficient to heal, then it would be unnecessary to pray for healing, but the passage credits only the prayer of faith for the healing. There is no implication that the oil has any part in making the person well. On the other hand, the Bible records numerous instances in which God healed the most extreme cases and even raised the dead in answer to prayer without the use of natural substances. Thus prayer alone is sufficient, and this means that it is unnecessary to combine prayer with medicine when receiving healing from God.
Even if oil has healing properties, it cannot cure all diseases, but James places no limit on the kinds of sicknesses that can be healed by the prayer of faith. Then, most people would agree that modern medicines are much more effective than an external application of oil to the body. However, James does not say to use medicine, but oil. It would be arbitrary to assert that we could obey the passage by using any medicine that we like for the situation. If a person forces the text to become the basis for the use of medicine, then it would allow him to use only oil. Instead of twisting the text to make it surrender impossible interpretations, it would be easier to admit that he does not have sufficient faith for healing and that he does not care to find a true basis for the use of medicine in the Bible.
There is no warrant to change “water” to “liquid” in baptism, so that we could use espresso, or to change “bread” to “food” in communion, so that we could have calamari instead. And there is no warrant to change “Jesus” to “entity” in the gospel, so that faith in Christ becomes the same as the worship of Satan. Nevertheless, when a biblical scholar is determined to advance his own desire, to accommodate the world, and to legitimize his unbelief and rebellion, espresso baptism, calamari supper, and the worship of demons could be the result. Thus “oil” becomes “medicine.”
Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to mention false worship in this context. When the Israelites were bitten by venomous snakes, God instructed Moses to make a snake and put it on a pole, and when those who were bitten by snakes looked at it, they were healed (Numbers 21:4-9). The object had no power to heal the people, but it was symbolic of the coming atonement of Christ, who would become a curse on the cross so that he could save his people.
However, the Israelites made it into an idol and burned incense to it until the time of Hezekiah. It was a mere symbol, and the king was commended for destroying it (2 Kings 18:1-4). If a symbol becomes more than a symbol in people’s minds and begins to share a place with God or to even take his place, then it would be better to destroy the symbol so that the people could look to the reality again.
As for those who encourage the people to look to the symbol as the reality or as sharing a place with the reality, they are by definition false teachers who promote idol worship. The oil in our text has no healing power, but it is a mere symbol to remind the sick person of God’s power and presence, so that he may look to Christ, who took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses (Matthew 8:17). When biblical scholars elevate the oil into something that contains the reality of healing, even when a text credits only faith in the Lord to heal, then they have become false teachers who lead God’s people to idol worship.
This is more subtle and sinister than the overt worship of idols. Moses was the one who make the bronze snake, but it becomes false worship when the people made it into something that it was not. Likewise, James was the one who instructed the use of oil, but it also becomes false worship when the scholars make it into something that James never intended. They have become Satan’s agents to spread unbelief and rebellion. The notion that this might be an overreaction is evidence of the effectiveness of this kind of subtle deception.
The correct interpretation is that the oil is a mere symbol, nothing more. If the Bible allows the use of medicine, this passage does not teach it, but it teaches that God will heal when we pray in faith.
Another passage that some people use to justify their dependence on medicine comes from 2 Kings 20:1-7.
In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”
Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, “Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: “Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.'”
Then Isaiah said, “Prepare a poultice of figs.” They did so and applied it to the boil, and he recovered.
Their argument is that God healed Hezekiah through the figs, so that it is appropriate to use medicine as a way to receive healing from God.
However, this interpretation suffers similar criticisms as the claim that James encourages the use of medicine. If the figs were sufficient to heal, the king’s physicians would have applied them long before the prophet arrived. But if God’s power alone was sufficient to heal, then it means that the figs were unnecessary.
In addition, it was the man of God who announced the healing and prescribed the figs, not the physicians. Thus the text refuses to accommodate those who wish to extract an endorsement of doctors and medicine from it. It simply does not teach what they want to force the Bible to teach.
Another example sometimes used to support the dependence on medicine comes from the ministry of Jesus:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth….Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing. (John 9:1, 6-7)
Even biblical scholars, so accustomed to subvert the word of God in order to advance their tradition and excuse their unbelief, hesitate to claim that this is an instance where a natural remedy is applied in conjunction with divine power. If the mixture of mud and saliva can restore sight, or even help it a little, then even unbelievers should be able to perform the cure.
Perhaps the man was born without eyes, and Jesus created them as God created Adam’s body from the earth, but there is in fact no need to speculate on the reason he used mud. It is evident that Jesus healed the blind man by supernatural power, and any natural substance could serve no medicinal purpose in a case like this.
Mark 2:17 is a popular verse used to support the dependence on medicine: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Mark 2:17). From this, it is argued that Jesus endorsed medical science. However, the passage addresses spiritual matters. Jesus was offering an analogy that people would understand – sin to the soul is like sickness to the body, and the fact that these were sinners made them the ones who needed him.
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:15-17)
Jesus’ statement cannot be taken as his prescription for the sick, because he himself healed multitudes of people by miraculous power, and he never referred them to the doctors. Those who claim that the verse represents his assumption that the sick should look to the doctors must also insist that Jesus never practiced what he preached – not once. Thus the interpretation is blasphemy.
Moreover, Jesus commissioned his disciples to heal the sick and cast out demons. There is no record of them referring anyone to the medical doctors for healing and exorcism. If the verse affirms medical science as the normal solution to sickness, then Jesus and his disciples never followed through with it. That is, Jesus never practiced what he preached, and his disciples never obeyed what he commanded. The interpretation slanders the foundational figures of the Christian faith.
On the other hand, when the Bible addresses the sick person, it instructs him to call on the elders and ask for prayer. The prayer of faith will heal the sick; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven (James 5:14-15). It does not tell him to call on the preacher to help him receive forgiveness, and then call on the physician to help him receive healing.
When the Bible refers to doctors in the context of physical healing instead of in a mere analogy, it does not portray them as effective: “And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years. She had suffered a great deal under the care of many doctors and had spent all she had, yet instead of getting better she grew worse” (Mark 5:25-26). Did Jesus have this in mind when he said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick”?
Jesus did not mean that the Pharisees were not sinners, but he was telling them why he was eating with sinners – they needed him. The Pharisees hardened their hearts and refused to admit that they were also sinners, and that they needed him just as much. Likewise, those who attempt to hijack biblical verses to justify their dependence on medicine harden their hearts and refuse to admit that, despite advances in medical science, God is still performing miracles of healing, and that we need these miracles just as much as before.
Another popular attempt points out that Luke was a physician, and Paul referred to him as “the doctor” (Colossians 4:14). This is supposed to legitimize medical science. However, everyone had an identity or profession before his involvement in ministry. Peter was a fisherman who became an apostle, but this does not tell us anything about his profession as a fisherman.
Matthew was a tax collector who became an apostle, but his profession was openly despised. Since tax collectors were often dishonest and oppressive, even the Bible identifies them with sinners (Matthew 18:17). But in the list of the twelve apostles, he is still called “Matthew the tax collector” (Matthew 10:3). Then, Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 refer to “Rahab the prostitute” even in the context of her faith. As for Paul, he was a Pharisee who persecuted and murdered Christians, and who then became an apostle. All of this does not suggest that the Bible endorses fraud and extortion, prostitution, murder, and such things.
Therefore, the mere fact that Luke was a physician does not contribute to our discussion. It is possible that Paul mentioned Luke’s profession only as a way to identify him. In the Bible, we are not told whether he continued to practice medicine – Luke himself recorded only miracles of healing – and his accomplishments are never associated with his profession as a doctor.
There are several passages that lend some support to the use of natural means; however, they still do not support medical science as much as people make of them.
A verse that might affirm the benefit of physical exercise is 1 Timothy 4:8: “For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.” The NASB says, “bodily discipline is only of little profit.” It is possible that Paul is referring to the asceticism of false teachers. This would be consistent with the context. If this is the case, then the verse would have nothing to do with physical health at all. But for the sake of argument, we will assume that he has in mind physical training from a health perspective.
Physical training is inferior because its benefits never permeate “both the present life and the life to come.” The spirit is more important than the body. Just how inferior is physical exercise? If I were to say, “Tommy has but a little strength, but Johnny is very strong,” you would not think that Tommy is strong at all. Therefore, the purpose of this verse is not to support physical exercise, but to assert the superiority of spiritual fitness over physical fitness. Most people do not need any encouragement to see physical fitness as important; rather, they need to have a lower view of physical fitness relative to spiritual fitness.
Thus the proper use of this verse is to urge people to place less focus on physical fitness, so that they may pay more attention to their spiritual health. It is strange that it is sometimes used to validate physical exercise when it explicitly teaches that we should emphasize the spiritual. Nevertheless, the verse does not declare that physical training is without value. Paul could have written, “Physical training is completely useless, but godliness is beneficial for all times,” but he did not. The verse certainly does not teach that physical exercise is sinful or harmful. Therefore, physical exercise is permitted as a preference, even a wise preference, but this verse does not prescribe or require it.
Philippians 2:25-30 is a passage from which we may infer something about the use of natural means for health:
But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. For he longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow. Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you may be glad and I may have less anxiety. Welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor men like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up for the help you could not give me.
Paul says that Epaphroditus became ill because he overworked. This implies that the problem was avoidable. If he had allowed himself to rest, he could have avoided the illness. Homer Kent agrees:
Epaphroditus’s close call with death is to be explained in relation to his sickness (v.27), and was not the result of persecution or of adverse judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the ailment was directly due to his Christian labors on behalf of Paul. Perhaps it resulted from the rigors of travel and was compounded by his efforts to continue ministering to Paul in spite of being sick. It was not merely an unavoidable circumstance but was a risking of his life in the interests of his ministry.[5]
Our decisions can influence our health. Rest could help avoid sickness. Nevertheless, this is an unnecessarily inference. The passage itself does not encourage healthy habits, but only offers the reason for the illness.
It is alarming that the passage is often used to diminish the ministry of healing, since it seems that he was not immediately healed even though he was with the apostle. However, this is an inference driven by the desire to draw out such a conclusion. The text itself indicates that Epaphroditus was rescued from the brink of death because God showed mercy. This could mean that God healed him with an instant miracle after a time, or that God healed him by a gradual miracle, or that the man recovered by apparently natural means. In any case, there is nothing in the text to diminish the ministry of healing or to endorse the use of medicine.
What is strikingly clear is that whereas Paul magnifies God’s mercy in this passage and indicates that this resulted in healing, biblical scholars often attempt to diminish the ministry of healing with it. This is how a wicked heart of unbelief warps people’s attitude and perception.
In a letter to Timothy, Paul writes, “Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23). Perhaps this verse comes closest to a support for the use of natural means in health, but it remains for us to see how much support it offers to the use of medicine.
The Bible establishes as the norm that we should look to God for health and healing through faith (Matthew 8:17; James 5:14-15). The verse indicates that it is acceptable to adjust one’s diet for health reasons, but it would be an obvious case of unbelief and prejudice to take this one verse written to a specific individual and force it to overshadow the overwhelming number of biblical passages that instruct us to trust God for health and healing. Christian scholars often attempt to deceive people with such a maneuver, but it is easy to see through it unless one wishes to accept the lie because it excuses unbelief.
If the Bible indicates that it is proper to use natural means as one way to maintain our health, as this verse seems to tell us, then we should accept this. However, we must consider how much encouragement it is really giving us to use natural means, and how much support it is giving to the use of medicine. Those who claim that it constitutes the norm and that it gives eager approval to the use of medicine deny the clear meaning of the text. Wine is not the same as medicine, and it is only an adjustment to the diet.
As Ralph Earle writes, “The word for wine (oinos) is sometimes used in LXX for…unfermented grape juice…Furthermore, it is generally agreed that the wine of Jesus’ day was usually rather weak and, especially among the Jews, often diluted with water. Moreover, safe drinking water was not always readily available in those eastern countries.”[6] Cleon Rogers agrees: “The command to abstain from drinking water exclusively may have been due to the fact that contaminated water contributed to Timothy’s indigestion.”[7] Paul’s statement amounts to an instruction for Timothy to adjust his diet to suit his specific situation.
If a friend has a specific health problem, and I advise him, “Stop eating only meat, but eat some vegetables,” it would be a huge stretch to say that this constitutes explicit approval for the use of medicine. Thus any support that our verse offers to medicine remains very weak, indirect, and inconclusive. However, it remains that the verse indeed makes it acceptable to adjust one’s diet for health reasons.
A common argument in support of the use of medicine is that natural substances are inherently good. As Wayne Grudem writes:
God has…created substances in the earth that can be made into medicine with healing properties. Medicines thus should be considered part of the whole creation that God considered “very good” (Gen. 1:31). We should willingly use medicine with thankfulness to the Lord, for “The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof” (Ps. 24:1).[8]
However, this is a false inference from the Bible. Just because God’s creation is “good” does not mean that whatever we do with created things are also good. If the argument is that we may use medicine because all created substances are good, then there is no reason to be selective about it – a poisonous mushroom is just as “good” as one that has healing properties.
This argument is also associated with 1 Timothy 4:4-5, which says, “For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” This has been used to justify participation in the arts, sports, politics, all kinds of recreations and amusements, and made to support the notion that all activities are as holy as the gospel ministry. Some even combine this with other passages to establish a mandate to become involved in culture, so as to present themselves as more righteous and obedient than those who focus on spiritual matters.
However, verse 3 says, “They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” Paul’s focus is different. He is showing that no substance is ceremonially forbidden by God. He means that we are free to marry, and that we may eat pork, lobster, and all kinds of foods if we receive them with thanksgiving. Instead of honoring this message of freedom from ceremonial restrictions, Christians wrest the passage from him and force it to condone their worldly desires and ambitions. In any case, it offers no support to the use of medicine.
The Bible does not endorse the use of medicine, but does not seem to forbid it. There are many attempts to extract an endorsement from the Bible, but all the arguments backfire on those who assert them, exposing their unbelief and hardness of heart. Still, it does not follow that we must abandon the use of medicine, but it means that we must drastically lower our view of it.
Jesus says, “He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matthew 5:45). All rain comes from God, but it is an effect of his ordinary providence, and we usually would not refer to it as a miracle. However, rain could sometimes be a miracle: “Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops” (James 5:17-18).
Likewise, healing through medicine could be attributed to God, but only in the sense that our daily food also comes from him. Our food comes from God, but usually not in the same sense that Jesus fed the thousands when he multiplied the fish and the loaves. We should be thankful for all natural provisions, but we should never confuse them with miracles.
An important difference is that the Bible makes healing through faith the standard instead of the exception (Matthew 8:17; James 5:14-15), so that it is unacceptable to consider it an optional aspect of Christian life and ministry. This is not to suggest that those who use medicine should feel condemned or that they should stop taking their medication. The point is that those who speak as if the Bible eagerly and explicitly supports the use of medicine are wrong – there is no such support in the Bible. Rather, it teaches us to increase in our faith for healing and in our dependence on God’s power.
[1] Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1988; p. 491.
[2] Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1981; p. 204.
[3] The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. 21, “The General Epistle of James”; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers; p. 71.
[4] Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership; Lewis and Roth Publishers, 1995; p. 258.
[5] Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 11; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Corporation, 1978; p. 136.
[6] Ibid., p. 381.
[7] Cleon L. Rogers, The New Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998; p. 497.
[8] Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 1064.