Is it wrong to take pain medication?

I have had to take my body — a poor and feeble one it has been — under the hand of the Lord, and try to rub along as best I could, As such, S. S. says "a little wine for thy stomach's sake and often infirmity," though I latterly have been afraid of that little, from the effects of it upon the chest. I find it confessedly difficult to be sure as to His mind about simple medicinal remedies; but I am sure that those that cast all upon the Lord, and never touch any such supposed and real aids, are the happiest; their conduct most in the Spirit. The surgical operations are different, though I admit both the length of the scale from the top to bottom of the practice.

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.

(V. 23). The needs of a weak and suffering body are not to be neglected. Timothy was to “use a little wine” on account of his stomach and “frequent illnesses”. Timothy is not blamed for his illnesses, nor is it suggested that their frequent occurrence proves any lack of faith on his part; nor is he exhorted to seek that elders should lay hands on him or even pray for his healing. He is bidden to use an ordinary remedy. Nevertheless, it is “a little wine” and to be used for the sake of a weak stomach. Thus there is no excuse, in the Apostle's advice, for taking an excess of wine or using it for mere self-indulgence.

Timothy's own bodily need is not overlooked amid these instructions, and incidentally it bears witness against much that we hear in the present day. The apostle prescribes, as it were, for Timothy's weak stomach. He does not blame him for the infirmities which he has. He does not tell him that there was lack of faith or he would not have them. He does not exhort him to get people to go and lay their hands on him, or to have himself anointed with oil, or even to seek the prayers of others. He bids him use a little wine instead. We need not apologize for him in this. Scripture can bear all the responsibility for its statements, which, after all, here too as elsewhere, are carefully guarded. A little wine, only a little, and for the sake of a weak stomach: if men will make mischief out of that, let them do it.

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.

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.

It is known that oil was used throughout the East as a remedial agent. Not to make reference beyond the Bible, the Good Samaritan administered oil as well as wine to the wounded man (Luke 10:34). Isaiah refers to the mollification of wounds with oil (Isa. 1:6). Is it not therefore reasonable to suppose that the disciples and the elders of the church applied oil to sick persons, as a natural remedy, this being a simple specific within the power of those lacking medical knowledge and skill? And they did so, relying on the power and blessing of the Lord to make the means efficacious. Further than this we have no warrant for imitating their example in these days.

The Good Samaritan poured into the wounds of the man who had fallen among the thieves oil and wine. Oil was used in cases of fever and most generally in skin diseases. Anointing the sick with oil was a general practice, as can be shown from talmudical literature. In Mark 6:13, we read, "And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Would they not have been healed if they had not been anointed with oil? The anointing with oil was an old custom which the disciples made use of, but the Lord in commissioning them in connection with the kingdom message did not tell them that they should anoint the sick with oil; they did it, for such was the universal practice. If James commands these Jewish believers who were sick to be anointed with oil he reaffirmed therefore this old Jewish custom. Oil is something beneficial to the body, a remedy, just as wine is recommended by the Spirit of God as a remedy for the ills of the body (1 Timothy 5:23). It is therefore an open question whether oil may not stand here also for legitimate means to be used in case of illness. Divine healers carry with them a small bottle of oil and daub the forehead with a drop of oil, but this is not the anointing commanded here. Where is the authority to say that a drop of oil must be put on the forehead?