How should a Christian view prescription drugs?

The bearing of all this upon human sickness and the use of medicines is simple. The connection of sickness with Satan is through sin, and it is a governmental dealing of God with men calculated to turn them to Him in their need. Medicines are creatures of God, acting according to divinely established laws. To call them works of the devil is the opposite of the truth. Faith therefore can use them, as every other creature of God, with thanksgiving.

The Lord said, "They that be whole need not a physician," showing that then, as now, the work of such persons was to cure diseases. In the O.T. the word is rapha, 'to heal,' and in Gen. 50:2 Joseph called upon such to embalm the body of his father, a certain amount of chemical knowledge being needed also for that. The Lord promised to the Israelites that if they obeyed Him He would preserve them from the diseases that were common in Egypt. On the other hand, there are many proofs in scripture that diseases were sent as a punishment for the sins of His people. For any remedy for such, their eyes should have been directed to Him who was disciplining them. Of Asa it is said, "he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians," which probably means those associated with magic. 2 Chr. 16:12.

The Christian should surely be cast upon the Lord in his sicknesses, and be exercised as to why they are sent or allowed, though doubtless he may use the means, without trusting to them apart from the blessing of God upon them. Jehovah Himself was the physician of His people Israel, ready at all times to heal and restore them. Jer. 8:22. Job, in the bitterness of his soul, found his friends to be physicians of no value. They did not understand his case, and only added to his misery. Job 13:4.

In the N.T. ἰατρός signifies 'healer.' The Lord Jesus was the Great Healer not only of the diseases of the body, but of the soul. Luke 4:23. A woman who had spent her all on physicians without relief obtained from Him an immediate cure. Luke 8:43. Luke was called 'the beloved physician,' though there is no information as to his practising this profession. Col. 4:14.

The anointing with oil in the name of the Lord seems to be the claim of an authority which those of whom we are speaking would be the last to assert. No doubt the emphasis is laid here upon the "prayer of faith," to save the sick, and the prayer of faith certainly should not be lacking with us. We need not doubt how much we should gain if there were a more simple and constant reference to the Lord in these matters, and we cannot but remember the example of old of one who sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians, and died. The use of means that are in our hand may easily be perverted to the slighting of this way of faith; and it would certainly be far better to leave out the means in any case rather than to leave out the Lord. The distinct and united acknowledgment of our dependence upon Him in all these cases is due from us, and we suffer loss if God is not acknowledged; but then for this, no elders or anointing can be needed, and the prescription of these things makes it evident that something more is contemplated here than simply the prayer of faith. Even so, there is no prohibition of means, if there be no prescription of them; and in God's ordinary way of working He certainly works by them. He could sustain us at any time without food, but we do not ordinarily expect Him to do this, although the food may profit nothing except the Lord please to use it. We cannot but remember in this way the prescription of a little wine to Timothy, while at the same time he was in the very midst of an assembly which had its regularly appointed elders.

Further, it might, or might not, be that the patient would himself have faith to be healed. The faith - healers imperatively require such faith; Scripture does not. The prayer spoken of in James is the prayer of the elders, and in reference to this it is said, "The prayer of faith shall save the sick." It may be easily supposed that the sick one would himself Join in the prayer, and that, with more or less assurance of faith - but it was the " prayer of faith " that carried efficacy.

Finally, nothing could be more outside the scope of the passage in James than the popular notion of faith - healing. The case contemplated in James is clearly one of a very serious nature, where death is imminent; and so also in 1 John 5. The idea of the Scripture being used as a substitute for medicines which God has provided in nature is not only unwarranted, but is contrary to the scriptural and apostolic principle of using remedies for ailments (see both 2 Kings 20:7, and 1 Tim.5:23). It is theological quackery.

Further, it might, or might not, be that the patient would himself have faith to be healed. The faith-healers imperatively require such faith; Scripture does not. The prayer spoken of in James is the prayer of the elders, and in reference to this it is said, "The prayer of faith shall save the sick." It may be easily supposed that the sick one would himself join in the prayer, and that, with more or less assurance of faith but it was the "prayer of faith" that carried efficacy.

Finally, nothing could be more outside the scope of the passage in James than the popular notion of faith-healing. The case contemplated in James is clearly one of a very serious nature, where death is imminent; and so also in 1 John 5. The idea of the scripture being used as a substitute for medicines which God has provided in nature is not only unwarranted, but is contrary to the scriptural and apostolic principle of using remedies for ailments (see both 2 Kings 20:7, and 1 Tim. 5:23). It is theological quackery.

Truly we have no warrant for believing that the Lord has secured to His own a present exemption from the physical and mental disabilities common to mankind. Neither have we warrant for believing that the power He exercised in New Testament times over the sick bodies of men is continued to His present witnesses. In those miracles of healing He demonstrated once for all His power as the First Cause, dispensing with all material remedies as intermediaries, accomplishing His purpose with a word or touch. He was pleased to use a plaister of figs for the recovery of Hezekiah, but the king knew that it was Jehovah who had healed him, as he said, "He has both spoken unto me, and himself has done it" (Isa. 38:15). And we, encouraged by the personal activities of Jesus recorded in the holy Gospels, may use our medicinal remedies in the assurance of His equal activity today both in sympathy and in power to heal.

The Lord, however, did not heal Hezekiah apart from a natural remedy. Isaiah ordered that a lump of figs should be placed on Hezekiah's boil, and he recovered (v.7). God had made the figs and He knew they would be effective in this case. If one would demand that God should heal him, yet refuse a natural remedy, this would not be faith healing, for faith gives God credit for supplying whatever means of healing He sees fit.

The apostle from his own lessons could counsel others, as indeed he did his beloved Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach's sake and his often infirmities, which had to do surely with his body. Then he, who had wrought so many miracles for others, let his genuine child in the faith go on with his infirmity, using means which some absolutely condemn through yielding to human speculations.

All sickness does not come under the head of chastening, though discipline we may find in it, and find it needful, therefore, to that end. The apostle's thorn in the flesh had this character, and was not removed, nor could be; God taught him to acquiesce in and to profit by it. For Timothy's weak "stomach's sake and often infirmities" he prescribes, not the prayer of faith, but "a little wine." Trophimus he leaves at Miletum sick; Epaphroditus too is sick, nigh unto death, right under the apostle's eye; but God has mercy on him, and on Paul too thus, and raises him up. Even in apostles' days, and with such as he, the gifts of healing were used, not indiscriminately, or for the personal ease of Christians, but for the glory of God as with Lazarus' resurrection, or that healing of the sick of the palsy, "that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins."

Thus stands the matter, simply taking Scripture. That we need still the admonition, "Have faith in God," — that men may still die, because they seek not to God, but the physician, as Asa did, — that many an one may lie unhealed for whom a simpler and therefore more discerning faith would find in God the power to heal, — all this need not be doubted. On the other hand, Christians cannot be too earnestly warned against a view of things, coming up in many quarters in the present day, which ignores the sorrowful realities of the flesh and the world. It is but another fig-leaf apron, — another human invention to cover man's nakedness; a fruit of wisdom acquired by the fall, and not divine. F. W. Grant.

Another illuminating word is Paul’s tender regard for Timothy’s health, which was evidently poor. How comforting it is to draw from this the assurance that God Himself cares for us all in His wisdom as to our health and well-being. His inspired instructions were, “Drink … a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities” (1 Tim. 5:23). But this carries with it many thoughts. It certainly did not open the door to freely drinking wine for self-gratification, that might easily lead to excess. Did not the Apostle specify the amount, “a little wine,” using God’s good gift for medicinal purposes.