Sickness among God’s People in the New Testament

Although there is a close connection between faith and healing in the New Testament, we cannot automatically conclude that if a Christian is not healed it is because there is sin in their life or because they do not have enough faith. It is by no means as simple as that. Furthermore, that kind of teaching can lead to dangerous extremes like refusal to see a doctor when we are seriously ill. For example, any doctrine that teaches that God has guaranteed healing to us as Christians if only we will claim it by faith implies that it is unnecessary (and perhaps wrong) for Christians to resort to medical assistance when sick[1].

However, this is not a position adopted by the writers of the New Testament which, despite the many miraculous healings that are recorded, also makes reference to Christians who were sick and who did not find immediate supernatural healing.   These include:

• Paul
• Trophimus
• Epaphroditus
• Timothy.

We will consider each of these in turn, before turning to the case of some of the Corinthians, who were sick because of their sin.

The Weakness and Thorn in Paul’s Flesh

In Galatians 4:13 Paul says, As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. The Greek words translated as illness here literally mean a weakness in the flesh. This is similar to, though not the same as, the phrase a thorn in my flesh which he uses in 2 Corinthians 12:7. Although at first sight it is tempting to assume that these two expressions refer to the same thing, we certainly can not be sure, so we will deal with each separately.

Paul’s illness (Galatians 4:13)

Most commentators agree that Paul’s ‘weakness’ was a sickness although there is little agreement as to what that sickness was[2].   Others, however, understand Paul’s weakness to have resulted from the persecutions described in Acts 14:19ff[3].   But even if Paul’s persecutions are seen as the cause of his weakness, that does not preclude the possibility that the weakness was a sickness.   Severe persecution such as Paul encountered could certainly lead to sickness. This possibility is acknowledged by Longenecker who suggests that:

Perhaps that illness was a result of one or more of the afflictions mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:23-25; frequent imprisonments, severe floggings…[4].

But whatever the cause of Paul’s weakness might have been, its effects were undeniably physical as the use of the word flesh in this context clearly indicates[5].   Clearly either interpretation would fit the context and it would be unwise to be dogmatic as to the precise nature of that weakness or sickness.   In short, we cannot be sure that it was a sickness rather than a weakness (or vice versa).

But does this matter?  It does for those who teach that Jesus died for our sicknesses as well as our sins and claim by faith such ‘promises’ as Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24[6].   I say this because the Greek word astheneia (weakness or illness) is used in both Matthew 8:17 and Galatians 4:13, so to claim that in Galatians  astheneia refers to a weakness and not a sickness fails to resolve the difficulty, because in Matthew 8:17 Christ is said to have borne our astheneias!   So if this verse is to be claimed as the advocates of the doctrine say that it should be claimed[7] we may well ask why Paul did not claim deliverance from his astheneia.   We can only assume that he was ignorant of the doctrine!

 

Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7)

This verse is set in the context of Paul’s defence of his apostleship against the claims of those he calls false apostles (11:13). He refers to his abundant labours and frequent persecutions (11:23-33) as evidence.   In the opening verses of Chapter 12 Paul reluctantly (v.5) speaks of the visions and revelations (v.1) he has received and informs his readers that it is because of these that he has been given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to keep him from being excessively exalted (v.7).   But how is this thorn to be understood? Was it, or was it not, a sickness?

 

Paul’s Thorn – Not a sickness

The view that Paul’s thorn was not a sickness is backed up by four facts:

1. The phrase messenger of Satan could well refer to a person since, as Martin has pointed out[8], it appears that Paul does not use the Greek word aggelos (messenger) except to refer to a person.
2. The thorn may well be rightly understood to be personal on the grounds that Chapters 10-13 describe Paul’s fight against his adversaries.
3. The use of the Greek word kolaphizein (torment) may be taken to refer to beating about the head.
4. In the Septuagint the Greek word skolops (thorn) is associated with opponents of Israel (Numbers 33:55, Ezekiel 23:24).

 

Paul’s Thorn – Possibly a sickness

Despite this evidence, however, the view that Paul’s thorn was a sickness should not be entirely discounted, for the following reasons:

1. Satan is associated with illness in biblical tradition (Job 2:5, Luke13:16) and it does not seem inappropriate for a sickness to be described as a messenger of Satan.
2. Not all the difficulties Paul faces in chapters 10-13 need to have been inflicted by personal agency[9], and therefore the thorn need not be understood to be a person.
3. Indeed, it is questionable whether Paul would have asked the Lord to take it away (12:8) if the thorn referred to human opposition[10].

But all this is extremely inconclusive and as Martin comments, “The exact meaning of the thorn remains elusive.   No one has ever yet given an interpretation that is generally accepted”[11].

Yet this uncertainty does not mean that nothing may be learned from the passage. It could be that our uncertainty about the thorn is providential as it leaves open a wider field of application to our personal needs[12].   Paul’s thorn clearly represents suffering in some shape or form and, whatever its precise nature, there are lessons to be learned that may well be of value to Christians in circumstances far different from Paul’s and yet undergoing a form of suffering for which the lessons of Paul’s thorn may seem entirely appropriate.   Thus even if Paul’s thorn was not a sickness – and in my view, on balance, it probably was not – the principles taught in the passage may certainly be applied in cases where a Christian’s sickness has not been healed in response to persistent and believing prayer.

But such a position is unthinkable for those who hold that healing from sickness may always be immediately claimed because it is in the atonement.   Here, as with the passage in Galatians 4:13, it is vital for those who hold that view that Paul be shown not to have been sick.   Yet once again[13] the problem lies in Paul’s use of astheneia, for if Christ has really carried our astheneias (Matthew 8:17) how can Paul say that he glories in them (2 Corinthians 12:9)?

Trophimus, Epaphroditus, and Timothy

The evidence for the sickness of Trophimus, Epaphroditus and Timothy is very easily provided.

• 2 Timothy 4:20 tells us that Paul left Trophimus ill at Miletus.
• Philippians 2:27 reveals that Epaphroditus had been extremely ill, indeed he had nearly died, but the Lord had mercy on him.
• 1 Timothy 5:23 refers to Timothy’s frequent illnesses and recommends the taking of a little wine as a remedy.

Epaphroditus

The passage in Philippians 2:25-30 shows us, first of all, that Epaphroditus was a highly respected servant of the Lord. There is certainly no suggestion that there was sin in his life or that he was lacking in faith! Paul describes him as my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger (v.25). He tells the Philippians to welcome him in the Lord with great joy and honour men like him (v.29). This was because he had risked his life for the work of Christ and had almost died (v. 30).

Yet the passage makes it abundantly clear that this outstanding servant of the Lord became very sick – even to the point of death (Philippians 2:27).   Of course, Epaphroditus was healed.   But the words But God had mercy on him (v.27) are very significant.   Far from implying that Epaphroditus claimed his healing, these words clearly indicate that the source of his healing was God’s gracious mercy.

Nothing else is said about what caused the healing.   There is no suggestion that Paul, whose miracle-working power is well known both from the Book of Acts and from passages like Romans 15:18-20, could command his friend’s recovery.   There is no mention of faith, or prayer, or the laying on of hands, or the anointing with oil.  Rather, Paul views Epaphroditus’s recovery as the direct merciful intervention of God.

Furthermore, it is significant that Epaphroditus was not healed immediately. Yet, if getting healed were as simple as claiming it by faith, why didn’t Paul command his healing straightaway, or why didn’t Epaphroditus himself rise up in faith the moment he first got sick? Of course there is no easy answer to such questions, but what is clear from the case of Epaphroditus is that good Christians can get seriously ill and that they are not always healed immediately.

 

Trophimus

2 Timothy 4:20 simply states that Paul left Trophimus at Miletus sick.   But if healing is readily available and may be claimed by faith in the ‘promise’ that Christ has already carried our sicknesses, then why didn’t Trophimus claim it?   Surely if Paul had believed such a doctrine, Timothy, as one of his companions, would have known about it too? Yet it appears that he did not, for Paul left him at Miletus sick.

Some have suggested that perhaps Trophimus himself was to blame for his illness or simply lacked faith for healing[14].   But this is an entirely unwarranted assumption!   As Donald Gee pointed out:

Those who want, somehow or other, to fit in this verse about the illness of Trophimus with their own doctrines of divine healing are tempted to assert that he MUST have failed somewhere.   But that is the worst possible way of interpreting the Scriptures.  There is nothing whatever, in the statement, or in its context, to suggest anything spiritually or morally wrong about Trophimus[15].

 

And the alternative explanation, that Trophimus may have been healed later (with the corollary that not all healings are instantaneous)[16] really fares no better.   First, there is no statement that Trophimus was healed later, and secondly, the defence that not all healings are instantaneous really will not do. If sickness has really already been carried by Christ and healing may, therefore, be claimed by faith immediately[17], there should be no need for any delayed healings!

Thus the simple brief statement that Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus implies that neither Trophimus nor Paul could demand his healing. Indeed, according to Paul, healing like other spiritual gifts is as the Spirit himself determines (1 Cor.12:8-11).

 

Timothy

Paul’s inability to use his healing gifts whenever he chose is also made clear in his recommendation that Timothy take a little wine for the sake of his stomach and his frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23).   As with Trophimus, if the illness were Timothy’s fault we might have expected Paul to say so and to encourage him to rectify the matter accordingly.   Instead he offers a medicinal solution.  If Paul had believed that healing could always be claimed by faith, why did he not encourage Timothy to do so? But it is perfectly clear that Paul neither believed nor taught any such doctrine!

In considering the cases of Paul, Trophimus, Epaphroditus, and Timothy, therefore, we have shown that:

• Highly respected servants of God may become sick – sometimes seriously
• Sickness is not always caused by lack of faith or sin
• Healing is not always immediate
• Although we firmly believe in God’s power and willingness to heal, it is not always possible to claim healing[18].

 

[1]See Thesis pp.14-18, 21, 24.   Cf. pp.38-44, 81-84.

[2] Suggestions include malaria, epilepsy, and poor eyesight.

See Note 10 on p 271 of Thesis.

[3] E.g. Ridderbos, H.N., ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia’, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976, pp. 166-167

[4]Longenecker, R.N., ‘Galatians‘, Dallas, Word, 1990, pp. 190-191

[5]The context does not allow for flesh to be understood in its ethical sense here.

[6]See, for example, my comments with regard to Carrie Judd Montgomery and A.B.Simpson on pp. 18-24 of Thesis, esp. p.19.   See also pp.34-37.

[7]E.g. Osborn, T.L., Healing the Sick, Tulsa, TLO Evangelistic Association, 1961, p.48. Cf. Montgomery, C.J., The Prayer of Faith, London, Victory, 1930, pp. 41 and 47.   See my discussion of Matthew 8:17 and the reasons for rejecting this claim in Chapter 4 of Thesis, esp. pp. 116ff.

[8]Martin, R.P., 2 Corinthians, Waco Word, 1986, pp.413-414.

[9]See, for example, 2 Corinthians 11-23 (esp.v.27)

[10]So Martin, op. cit. p.415.

[11]See Note 29 of Thesis (pp.273-4 )

[12]So, Hughes, op. cit., p.442.   See also Barnett,  ‘The Message of  2 Corinthians’, Leicester, IVP, 1988, p.177

[13]Cf. my comments on p. 254 of Thesis.

[14]Simpson and Jeter both suggest this. See: Simpson, A.B., ‘The Gospel of Healing’, London, Morgan & Scott, 1995, pp.63-64. Jeter, H., ‘By His stripes’, Springfield, GPH, 1977, pp. 105-106.

[15]Gee, D., ‘Trophimus I left Sick’, London, Elim, 1952, p.12.

[16]Again Simpson and Jeter both suggest this.   See note 1 on p 178.

[17]See, for example, my quotation from Copeland on pp. 1-2 of Thesis.

[18] As I have already suggested, we need, like Jesus, to know what the Father is doing. It is only when we are submitted to his authority and hearing from him, that we can speak with his authority and in his name claim or command healing.