Chronic Disease: Two Worldviews
In reading this, please keep in mind that these thoughts are preliminary and not decided on my part. I'm raising questions that I think need answers, and I only suggest some possibilities. In future postings I will explore more the historical and Scriptural evidence on both sides - and other sides - of this issues in hopes of coming to some conviction, whatever that might be.
The belief of most of the modern church is that chronic disease, whether cancer or asthma or arthritis or acid reflux, is just a part of living in a fallen world. Medical science and other voices tell us the causes are genetic, poor nutrition, chemical impurities in our food and water, etc. Furthermore, God has given us the abilities to take advantage of plants and chemicals He's placed in this world to get some measure of relief, if not cure, these diseases. In most cases, there is no cure - that's why they're called chronic - and perpetual medication is the only relief and modern medicine is pretty good at managing many chronic diseases. Even more, God has a perfect purpose in chronic disease to refine His people. Some have even likened suffering under a disease with suffering for Christ, as one who is persecuted.
There's a catch in this. None of it is in the Bible. Every mention of suffering I've looked at is in the context of persecution and there is no mention or context of illness. There is also a pesky little word in Galatians 5:19-21 that is translated as witchcraft. The word in Greek is pharmakeia, the same Greek word from which we get our word pharmacy. The Greek word, per Strong's 5331, means "medication ('pharmacy'), i.e. (by extens.) magic (lit. or fig.)." Every place in the KJV Bible it is translated as either witchcraft or sorcery. It comes from Strong's 5332, pharmakeus "from pharmacon, (a drug, i.e. a spell-giving potion); a druggist ('pharmacist') or poisoner, i.e. (be extens.) a magician." (Italics from Strong's) This word is always translated as sorcerer in the KJV.
I've seen some commentators respond to this saying that clearly what is being talked about is hallucinogenic drugs used by witches. Actually, the definitions would seem to indicate some sort of poisons given to others unawares - I would assume - not many people would volunteer to take poison, knowing it is poison. But I'm not sure this fits with the definitions properly.
I've been looking into the history of medicine and haven't come up with much, except that chemical medications don't seem to have been used until Paracelsus (16th century) introduced the idea from his application of alchemy to physiology - creating the concept of biochemistry. He was considered by much of the church as a conjurer and a necromancer at the time, thus perhaps prompting the KJV translators to render the word as witchcraft or sorcery. Early medications, however, seem to be what we could call strictly natural - teas, infusions, etc. A reading of Hippocrates indicates this.
Furthermore, I have yet to come across the word medicine or medication in the New Testament, and only twice in the Old Testament. Hippocrates, however, uses the word, too, yet in the sense I mentioned early - teas, infusions, etc.
Let me propose another worldview. Chronic illness may be a sign of a problem that God wants to remedy and not a necessary part of living in this fallen world. In the scriptures, chronic illness was often (not always) the result of sin. Epidemics (plagues) had a spiritual root cause. In no case did Jesus turn away a person saying that He had a better plan for them that entailed their leprosy or handicap or whatever the disease was. There was a blind man who was blind from birth to glorify the Lord through Jesus' healing of him (John 9:3), but he was healed without asking Jesus for it. On the other hand, Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" to someone He'd just healed (not all). I don't want to go on too long now, but I believe that healing is God's way, not disease.
If you want more information about this, go to the website of Pleasant Valley Church. They have a much better presentation. I would also be willing to interact with anyone on this and post discussions.
Now consider that medication and medical science in general, when it comes to the treatment of chronic disease, may be hindering the purposes of God. It allows us to live with spiritual root causes of disease and the consequences, when God has a solution to the root cause and the consequences. It may be man telling God he won't accept God's solution, that he'll work one out on his own, just like he wants to do with salvation.
If this is true, and I'm still working through it, then there's one big problem: most of the Western church today has almost no power at all to appropriate God's solution. I contend that, in part, we have chosen modern science over God and believed a distorted view of the scriptures. Until the church deals with these problems, medical science is all we have. But consider that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:21) Those who practice pharmakeia shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
I haven't concluded what I believe about this, but it really needs serious, prayerful thought by every believer. What does this mean? Have we bought into a pagan, if not occultic, worldview?
Blessings to all,
Rob
The belief of most of the modern church is that chronic disease, whether cancer or asthma or arthritis or acid reflux, is just a part of living in a fallen world. Medical science and other voices tell us the causes are genetic, poor nutrition, chemical impurities in our food and water, etc. Furthermore, God has given us the abilities to take advantage of plants and chemicals He's placed in this world to get some measure of relief, if not cure, these diseases. In most cases, there is no cure - that's why they're called chronic - and perpetual medication is the only relief and modern medicine is pretty good at managing many chronic diseases. Even more, God has a perfect purpose in chronic disease to refine His people. Some have even likened suffering under a disease with suffering for Christ, as one who is persecuted.
There's a catch in this. None of it is in the Bible. Every mention of suffering I've looked at is in the context of persecution and there is no mention or context of illness. There is also a pesky little word in Galatians 5:19-21 that is translated as witchcraft. The word in Greek is pharmakeia, the same Greek word from which we get our word pharmacy. The Greek word, per Strong's 5331, means "medication ('pharmacy'), i.e. (by extens.) magic (lit. or fig.)." Every place in the KJV Bible it is translated as either witchcraft or sorcery. It comes from Strong's 5332, pharmakeus "from pharmacon, (a drug, i.e. a spell-giving potion); a druggist ('pharmacist') or poisoner, i.e. (be extens.) a magician." (Italics from Strong's) This word is always translated as sorcerer in the KJV.
I've seen some commentators respond to this saying that clearly what is being talked about is hallucinogenic drugs used by witches. Actually, the definitions would seem to indicate some sort of poisons given to others unawares - I would assume - not many people would volunteer to take poison, knowing it is poison. But I'm not sure this fits with the definitions properly.
I've been looking into the history of medicine and haven't come up with much, except that chemical medications don't seem to have been used until Paracelsus (16th century) introduced the idea from his application of alchemy to physiology - creating the concept of biochemistry. He was considered by much of the church as a conjurer and a necromancer at the time, thus perhaps prompting the KJV translators to render the word as witchcraft or sorcery. Early medications, however, seem to be what we could call strictly natural - teas, infusions, etc. A reading of Hippocrates indicates this.
Furthermore, I have yet to come across the word medicine or medication in the New Testament, and only twice in the Old Testament. Hippocrates, however, uses the word, too, yet in the sense I mentioned early - teas, infusions, etc.
Let me propose another worldview. Chronic illness may be a sign of a problem that God wants to remedy and not a necessary part of living in this fallen world. In the scriptures, chronic illness was often (not always) the result of sin. Epidemics (plagues) had a spiritual root cause. In no case did Jesus turn away a person saying that He had a better plan for them that entailed their leprosy or handicap or whatever the disease was. There was a blind man who was blind from birth to glorify the Lord through Jesus' healing of him (John 9:3), but he was healed without asking Jesus for it. On the other hand, Jesus said, "Go and sin no more" to someone He'd just healed (not all). I don't want to go on too long now, but I believe that healing is God's way, not disease.
If you want more information about this, go to the website of Pleasant Valley Church. They have a much better presentation. I would also be willing to interact with anyone on this and post discussions.
Now consider that medication and medical science in general, when it comes to the treatment of chronic disease, may be hindering the purposes of God. It allows us to live with spiritual root causes of disease and the consequences, when God has a solution to the root cause and the consequences. It may be man telling God he won't accept God's solution, that he'll work one out on his own, just like he wants to do with salvation.
If this is true, and I'm still working through it, then there's one big problem: most of the Western church today has almost no power at all to appropriate God's solution. I contend that, in part, we have chosen modern science over God and believed a distorted view of the scriptures. Until the church deals with these problems, medical science is all we have. But consider that "they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:21) Those who practice pharmakeia shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
I haven't concluded what I believe about this, but it really needs serious, prayerful thought by every believer. What does this mean? Have we bought into a pagan, if not occultic, worldview?
Blessings to all,
Rob
posted by Rob Walsman | 4:42 PM
4 Comments:
The following is a post from an acquaintance regarding this post. He didn't know how to post the comment and, several months later, I decided to post it for him anonymously:
I'd like to respond to your subject blog. Sorry for not using the auto reply, but the 300 character limit is too restrictive for me.
You stated that you don't find the word medicine in the New Testament. Whether we find the word or not, we certainly find the concept of medicine. For example:
- 1 Tim 5:23 "No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."
- Mark 6:13 "And they (the twelve) were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them."
- Luke 10:33 - 34 "But a certain Samaritan ...came to him, and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them ... and took care of him."
- James 5:14 "Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
- Rev 4:18 "I advise you to buy from Me ...eye salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see." Clearly a metaphor, but a metaphor with reference to medicine.
- I found 34 references to ointments in the OT and NT. These references may be mainly to cosmetic and ceremonial use, but I presume some refer to medical use.
- I found 37 references to herbs in the OT and NT. Most of these are in the context of plants, vegetables, or seasonings, but I presume some are references to medical use, e.g. Proverbs 27:25 "And the herbs of the mountains are gathered in." Why would someone go up into the mountains just to gather food? The implication here is that the herbs are highly prized as medicine or seasoning.
- I found 11 references to physicians in the OT and NT. The NT references are all from Strong' s #2395 "a physician,'' the verb form is #2390 "to cure, heal, or make well." There is no implication of sorcery or poisons here.
- Luke is referred to in Col 4:14 as "the beloved physician." I don't recall any reference in the NT to Luke renouncing his former life as a physician. Moreover, Luke appears to be Greek, thus he was a Greek physician. If Greek influences were all negative and corrupted the early church, I don't think we would see Luke referred to with such respect in the NT.
I agree with the hypothesis in your opening paragraph, the one that you shoot down. That God has given us plants and minerals and other natural substances that have healing value, and expects us to use them for our benefit. I see this in Gen 1:29 - 31 "Then God said, Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed ... and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you. ... And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good."
Until recently (around World War II) the vast majority of prescription drugs were derived from plants. Even today, the major drug companies have researchers souring remote areas of the earth for previously unknown plants, fungi, etc. and testing them for medicinal value. I believe that even with our advanced technology, mankind is still benefiting from God's gift of healing plants.
I think it is a mistake to reject all of this as ungodly. Even though pagans used medicinal plants as part of their occult healing practices, that does not make the plants unclean. They were simply using what they found in nature and ascribing its value to evil forces rather than to the creator. Evil men have corrupted every good gift God has given.
I think the best argument against relying only on faith and eschewing all use of drugs and physicians it the practical argument - it doesn't work. Faith healing groups such as, in Indiana, the Glory Barn and the Church of the Firstborn (I don't have these names exactly right) are full of examples of children dying from readily curable conditions and adults wracked with doubt and guilt as they are forced to decide whether to follow the teachings of the group and watch their loved ones suffer and die, or break from the group that claims to be the only true church. This is not an example that Christians should follow.
I'm not sure where you are going with this chapter, but I disagree with what appears to be your main premise and wanted to let you know why I disagree.
Here is my response to him:
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. You’re the second to respond to that posting. The topic generally draws a strong response/reaction. Some of my comments are interleaved with yours.
First of all, I haven’t tossed it all out – yet. I’m doing a lot of reading on the history, trying to reconcile pharmakeia with pharmacy – or not. Also, I have no functional alternative – yet. What I’m trying to do is discuss and hash it through with the historical development, so I’m very glad you responded and didn’t say just nod your head or remain silent. Thank you!
So, what do you do with pharmakeia in Gal 5? That’s one real sticking point for me. I can’t ignore it. None of what you’ve mentioned below is medicine, per se, of the form of modern medicines or rise to pharmakeia. Anointing with oil and drinking wine can’t really be classified as medicine. Anointing with oil is generally a symbol of anointing with the Holy Spirit, isn’t it? Having Timothy drink wine – a food – is the closest to a medicine. One might say, “You need a balanced diet, Timothy.” That I can grant indicates there is a place to fix our diets to get relief. But I think that’s a long way from what we have as modern medicine, wouldn’t you agree?
In calling for the elders, I think there’s the expectation of divine healing rather than medicated healing.
I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and respectful disagreement. You disagreeing with me is far more beneficial than me getting a note saying – “Neat stuff, keep it coming.” Silence would not be helpful at all. I welcome your response to the above. Never hesitate!
Below on comments paragraph by paragraph as best I can indicate them:
General:
- I don't think wine, oil bandaging wounds does not classifies as pharmakeia, mediciation or the type of medical treatment that concerns me.
- The phrase "healing them" does mean via medical means but rather by God's power.
Rev 4:18
Yes, but a metaphor to medicine cannot be construed as an endorsement? Also, what was the salve made of?
34 references to ointments:
I found 32 in 29 verses. Can we find some that are clearly medicinal? In 14 verses, Strong's Hebrew 8081 makes it clear that we're talking about an oil of some sort. In all but Isaiah 6:1, it's clear that the purpose is not medicinal. In Greek, it's muron - like myrrh - clearly a perfume or something used at burial.
37 references to herbs:
It is possible these are just for food, tho' perhaps medicinal. Genesis 3:18 indicates food only, at least for Strong's Hebrew 6212. We can’t make a case for medicine on Pr 27:25. Keep in mind that the Israelites were an agricultural people. Their fields surrounded their towns, so they had to go out of the city anyhow. One summer I stayed at a Swiss village in the Alps. There was an Inn that served fresh wild blueberries on ice cream – delicious! Every day or so, they’d go up on the mountain side to pick those blueberries. So, I can believe someone would “go up into the mountains just to gather food,” sure they would and do. Basically, I found that none can be clearly seen to imply medicinal herbs.
11 references to physicians:
- Gen 50:2 – Egyptian embalmers, not healers in this case. I’m reading up on medicine in Egypt – more to come later in my blog, but it is clear that their healing practices were inextricably intermeshed with magic and their gods.
- 2 Chr 16:12 – Asa sought the physicians instead of God for healing. He could have been healed by God, or so it’s implied. KJV omits the word “only” in the phrase “he sought only physicians” that the newer translations render. The newer translations imply the two together might have been okay, whereas the KJV doesn’t seem to yield that possibility. The Hebrew text from which the KJV is translated doesn’t have any implied only, apparently. I don’t know if the Hebrew text for the newer translations has a word there for it, or if it’s more of an interpretive translation, as the newer translations tend to be.
- Job 13:14 – Job tells his friends they are essentially worthless physicians or quacks. No endorsement here but a metaphor.
- Jer 8:2 – The implication is that there is a physician and balm yet no healing. They were under judgment. Not an explicit condemnation of physicians, but not a ringing endorsement, either. The physicians couldn’t oppose God’s judgment on His people for their sin. Perhaps the physicians were part of the sin, but that’s not clear either. This one doesn’t help our case either way except to say as 2 Chr 16:12 said that physicians were present. Of course, so were foreign gods. Presence does not indicate endorsement. Given that healing in that era was tightly bound to God or the gods, i.e. no “secular”/”scientific” healing, it doesn’t clarify things for me.
- Mt 9:12 – Jesus is using a metaphor – “the whole need not a physician” – this can’t be taken as an endorsement by Jesus of physicians and more than Mt 25:27 is Jesus' endorsement of usury. Jesus never sent anyone to a physician as the manner of healing.
- Mk 2:17 – same as previous ref.
- Mk 5:26 – a comment that a woman Jesus was about to heal couldn’t be healed by physicians – again, no endorsement here. Just working with the facts of the woman’s case.
- Lk 4:23 – “Physician heal thyself…” A common expression, no endorsement.
- Lk 5:31 – See comment on Mt 9:12
- Lk 8:43 – See comment on Mk 5:26
- Col 4:14 – The comment that Luke was a physician – no comment on whether he continued to practice or renounced it, but with the work the Apostles did in terms of signs and wonders, there probably wasn’t too much need for his practice. Again, this doesn’t clarify, but I can concede that it lends more to your case than to mine. I would say that this is the only verse that seems to lend any support at all.
Luke "the beloved physician":
It is a warm reference – “the beloved physician.” The Greek word there is simply iatros which Strong’s defines simply physician from 2390, to cure. It’s an interesting reference because physicians at that time didn’t have a lot of schooling as they do today. It was more of a trade or craft. One comment I came across made by Eusebius (quoting Clement) muddies the waters some, however. “The healing art is said to have been invented by Apis the Egyptian . . . and afterwards improved by Aesculapius.” Apis was a god of Egypt. Aesculapius was a god of Greece. The Egyptians claimed that their healing arts were taught them by their gods, Apis initially, being the first among them chronologically. The Israelites, being 400 years in Egypt, could very well have picked up the same practices. They most likely were dependent on them while in Egypt until God visited His people and gave them His law, then said if they keep His statutes “I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.“ (Ex 15:26) The healing function of the gods of Egypt has been replaced by the Lord God, if they keep his commandments. Deut 28 says what will happen if they don’t. Also Deut 7:15 “And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee…” Do we, as Christians grafted into Israel inherit these promises? Lastly, the fact that we have no renouncement of medicine by Luke in the Scriptures does not mean he did not renounce it. There is much for me to report re what early Christians thought of so-called "secular" healing.
Re God giving us plants for medicine:
The Gen reference is explicitly regarding food in Eden before the Fall. It would seem that all the plants in Eden were edible and good for man. I would assume that medicines were not needed before the Fall. There would be no sickness and maybe even no injury. How about poisonous plants now? There are also certain hallucinogenic plants used by some Indian tribes in S. America. Are those good for “food,” too? By your reasoning, I would think so, but I don’t think you’d go that far. It seems that since Eden, something is different, so I don’t think that passage can be used in the way you propose.
But just because we can do something, should we? That’s a question I’m wrestling with. What are our limits – we do have some. We’ve accomplished a lot in science, technology and medicine, but so did the builders of the tower of Babel. I think the Titanic was one of our towers that God tore down, but I also think there are more. Pride and independence from God was an issue in both cases. More in later postings.
Re "mistake to reject all of this as ungodly":
Yes, I agree that just because pagans use something doesn’t make it evil, or we’d have to stop praying and fasting, too. Have you read my post “What provoked my thinking”? I plan to lay out what evidence I’ve found that the foundations of our thinking are pagan and occult, not just parallel offshoots. The ultimate question is “have we or can we purify it?” Another question is “what influence has this had on our thinking about God and faith? Has pagan thinking influenced us more than we think?” I believe so.
Re "it doesn't work":
Yep! I agree! My roommate my first year out of college was a member of the Glory Barn (they reject all of medicine outright). He and I had many discussions. They had a very simplistic view of healing and faith in general that omitted huge portions of the Scriptures. At the same time, they aren’t completely wrong, either. I’m still taking Prilosec because I don’t have healing, yet. But the question isn’t “what’s our experience?” so that we can fix our interpretation of the Scriptures. We should ask, “What do the Scriptures say” and “why does my experience not line up with that teaching?” That’s what I’m asking and it isn’t an easy question. What do the Scriptures say regardless of what my experience shows. I think where we’ve gone wrong as a whole in the Western Church is something very foundational – we fit the Scriptures to our experience and trust more in science (that has foundational pagan and occult influences which I’m laying out) than we do in God. But the solution isn’t tossing our medicines and casting ourselves in faith on God. Doing so is to expect mechanical efficacy and omit the relational aspects of healing – relational to Jesus and relational to His Body, at the least. I think the Western church in general has a deep wound that needs cleaning down deep before being sutured at the surface. We also are very used to instantaneous gratification. If it doesn’t happen easily or quickly, we give up. Anyhow, I continue to delve into the history of all this to see what I can find, but so far it’s not good. I have read over 35 references cover to cover (aside from Internet sources) and listen to over 48 hours of lectures (on video) on the subject, plus I took a philosophy of science course last semester that provided some interesting information. I have more than 170 more I hope to get to, some of them the works of the early “scientists” themselves. My posting “What provoked my thinking” lays out how this got started.
In my Greek studies I recently stumbled upon what you talk about in this post. And as you point out, the Bible isn't specific on what constitutes as pharmakeia. As I am searching what extra-Biblical information I can find, I see that you have many of the same concerns I do.
As of the last year, I found the truth behind modern medicine. Modern medicine is now more chemical and artificial which usually treat the symptoms only rather than the real illnesses. So because of the harmfulness of modern medicine, I only take natural remedies to cure sickness.
Most extra-Biblical sources say that pharmakeia is recreational drugs which bring on hallucinations. It's obvious that pharmakeia does not refer to natural cures as rob has commented. I have yet to see evidence to show whether pharmakeia refers to recreational drugs, modern drugs, hallucinatory drugs, witchcraft, or drugs for pagan purposes.
Have you come across any additional information on this subject? You can also reach me by email. xyhelm@gmail.com
Xyhelm: Thanks for you thoughtful comments. First, beware of so-called "natural" medicines. Have you ever noticed how much New Age paraphernalia is present in "natural" food stores, vitamins stores, etc. A LOT of the "natural" movement is very occultish. Actually, these "cures" are merely a replacement for pharmakeia which really do the same thing in many cases - treat symptoms. In other cases, there may be healing, yet, for a Christian, it is tantamount to going to a witch doctor. But there is a lot more to say about this to be very convincing and to offer what I believe to be God's alternative, which is, after all, what we want. Patience - it's coming.
As for pharmakeia, it is directly linked with various forms of witchcraft, sorcery and pagan cult practice. English translations of the Bible translate it as witchcraft or sorcery in the three passages where it occurs. A specific negative practice is the use of poisons, in particular but not limited to someone's harm. Go to this link to see the definition from an online Greek lexicon.
I have read a number of books that address pharmakeia to some degree which just reinforce this view and none of them refers to hallucinogenic drugs at all, though it could be construed indirectly. All those who want that connection alone, that I have seen, are Christians wanting to exclude the use of modern pharmaceuticals from these passages, always without references to support their assertions.
Again, sadly, I have way too much to say on this to address it all here, but stay turned - I'll get back to this topic in the near future - I hope.
Blessings,
Rob
Post a Comment
<< Home