Should Christians go to doctors?

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.

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 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, 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.

Now in these verses we have at the outset a defining note which restrains the application of the passage beyond a certain limit; the application is expressly to the sick "among you," that is, the assembly of God's people. This scripture therefore affords no warrant for a popular system of semi-miraculous cures administered to all and sundry. Sickness amongst God's people stands on special ground. It is sometimes on account of sin, as we have seen; and this passage in James recognises that the sickness about which the elders were sent for might be such, for it says, "If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Not that this would be always so; but if so, his sins should be forgiven him.

Again, so far from a public proclaimed system of healing, this was essentially private. The sick one was to send for the elders of the church, and they were to pray over him.

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.

Now in these verses we have at the outset a defining note which restrains the application of the passage beyond a certain limit. The application is expressly to the sick "among you" that is, the assembly of God's people. This Scripture therefore affords no warrant for a popular system of semi - miraculous cures administrated to all and sundry. Sickness amongst God's people stands on special ground. It is sometimes on account of sin, as we have seen; and this passage in James recognizes that the sickness about which the elders were sent for might be such, for it says, "If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." Not that this would be always so; but if so, his sins should be forgiven him.

Again, so far from a public proclaimed system of healing, this was essentially private. The sick one was to send for the elders of the church, and they were to pray over him.

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.

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.

Moreover, the signs and wonders of the time of the end are spoken of as rather giving evidence to falsity than to truth, to Antichrist than to Christ; and there will be signs and wonders wrought yet, which, as the Lord has said, would deceive, if it were possible, even the very elect. Thus, then we can easily understand (and especially in such an Epistle as the present--an Epistle to that nation to whom God had testified by signs and wonders of old, and would repeat to them now, in evidence that Christ was in nothing behind Moses) how we should find a reference of this kind to powers which might connect themselves with the elders of the Christian assembly, and yet understand why James should leave us, as it were, at a loss how to apply these things to ourselves. We can never be wrong in believing that the prayer of faith is still really the power that will save the sick, let means be used or not used; but the use of means seems in general rather according to the Lord's mind than against it. His common way is to work through that which He has Himself ordained, and there are plainly herbs for the healing of men. The very presence of such powers is proof that the Lord has given them; and if He has given them, it is for us. Faith can acknowledge Him in these, as well as be perfectly happy in trusting Him apart from all consideration of these. The prohibition of them, if God designed it, would surely be furnished to us.

Moreover, God at no time intended that things should be left, as it were, absolutely in man's hands, even though it were the hand of faith, as the doctrines taught suppose. The prayer of faith may be that which saves the sick, and yet, after all, that be far from meaning that we can find in every case a faith which should do so. God has His own will and His own way; and while we can always reckon upon Him to answer the soul that looks to Him, yet the way of His answer we do not always know. The apostle prays that the thorn in the flesh might depart from him, but it did not depart. God turned it to greater blessing. That was an answer to the prayer, but it was not such an answer as men usually count as that. Could any one suppose that among Christians, if everything were absolutely right, the sick would always be raised up, that death would hardly obtain at all, except in the extremest old age? We may imagine any such fancies, but fancies they are, and nothing else. Yet it is plain there is an appeal to God advocated here which we are always right in making, and from which we may always expect an answer in the goodness of Him whom we address. More than this, the Lord may give distinct light as to His mind that will enable one, as to anything, to ask with assurance, without the possibility of denial. If we are near enough to God for this we have cause indeed to be thankful; but we had better be humble about it, and be very sure that we have it before we claim it.

Moreover, the signs and wonders of the time of the end are spoken of as rather giving evidence to falsity than to truth, to Antichrist than to Christ; and there will be signs and wonders wrought yet, which, as the Lord has said, would deceive, if it were possible, even the very elect. Thus, then, we can easily understand (and especially in such an epistle as the present — an epistle to that nation to whom God had testified by signs and wonders of old, and would repeat to them now, in evidence that Christ was in nothing behind Moses) how we should find a reference of this kind to powers which might connect themselves with the elders of the Christian assembly, and yet understand why James should leave us, as it were, at a loss how to apply these things to ourselves. We can never be wrong in believing that the prayer of faith is still really the power that will save the sick, let means be used or not used; but the use of means seems in general rather according to the Lord's mind than against it. His common way is to work through that which He has Himself ordained, and there are plainly herbs for the healing of men. The very presence of such powers is proof that the Lord has given them; and if He has given them, it is for us. Faith can acknowledge Him in these, as well as be perfectly happy in trusting Him apart from all consideration of these. The prohibition of them, if God designed it, would surely be furnished to us.

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.