Which PHYSICIAN are you?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by latterrain77, Apr 22, 2003.

  1. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was thinking about the Lord's example of "healing" (Matt. 10: 7-8) and "physician" (Mark 2: 17). An analogy dawned on me. Consider the following situation:

    A man not feeling well (let's call him "Mr. Notwell") decides to go to the doctor. He visits one doctor and then another for a second opinion. Here is how the conversation with the two doctors goes after his check ups:

    Doctor #1 - "Mr. Notwell step into my office. I have some bad news for you. I've looked at the x-rays and it shows you have a terrible disease. It's a very bad, particularly awful disease. Frankly Mr. Notwell, when I saw the x-ray's I was aghast! Your condition has progressed and it is bad. I'm sorry, but there is not much that I can do for you. I wish you well."

    Doctor #2 - "Good morning Mr. Notwell please step into my office and have a seat. May I get you a cup of coffee? Tea? Mr. Notwell, I have some good news for you and I also have some bad news for you too. First, the bad news. I've looked at the x-rays and they reveal that a problem does exist. The good news is that I think I can help you. Now understand, it will require effort on your part as well as mine. But I think I can help. If we work together I'm confident that we can deal with it effectively. One thing is certain Mr. Notwell, you can count on me to walk you through every step of the healing process. I will be there for you no matter how bad it gets. I'm here to HELP you."

    Which of these two doctors are YOU and why? Are you Doctor #1 or Doctor #2? Thanks! latterrain77
     
  2. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doctor #2 because he patterned after the Great Physician, which we should all try to do.

    [​IMG]
    Sue
     
  3. Istherenotacause

    Istherenotacause
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    If anyone answers #1, they should stop and bow right where they're at and beg the Lord to save them!
     
  4. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am always curious when someone posts a question which has an obvious answer, O.K. 77 whats the punch line and also what is the disease?

    Murph
     
  5. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    My answer is neither. I will be Doctor #3 (from whom he should have gotten a third opinion :D ) who would say:

    "Mr. Notwell step into my office. I have some bad news for you. I've looked at the x-rays and it shows you have a terrible disease. It's a very bad, particularly awful disease. Frankly Mr. Notwell, when I saw the x-ray's I was aghast! Your condition is bad. I'm sorry, but there is nothing that I can do for you. BUT, I know a Great Physician who can!"
     
  6. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure the punch line is, "Why don't we treat fellow Christians like that?"
     
  7. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Amen rlvaughn!

    BTW... You're not kin to the Vaughns from Mobile and Mississippi are you? I lost contact with my great aunt 'Sister' (Dot maiden name Conway) and her daughter Brenda back in the 60's.

    Diane
     
  8. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi all! Thank you for the terrific replies.

    The punchline is the Biblical verses that I mentioned (Matt. 10: 7-8, Mark 2: 17) which shows that the disease is SIN. "i'm blessed - Sue" and "istherenotacause" are right on the money! Thank you! [​IMG]

    Doctor #3 as suggested by rlvaughn is of course true. However, the LORD "the great physician" has commissioned we believers to be his "staff of physicians" on earth (Matt. 10: 7-8). WE are to do the things that Matt. 10: 7-8 directs. The believers are the "physicians" and the "medicine" is delivered though "preaching" (v7).

    Notice that doctor #1 was not uneducated, or necessarily unprofessional, or even wrong in his diagonosis. But he was COLD, indifferent to the plight of "Mr. Notwell."

    By contrast, doctor #2 was warm, encouraging, hopeful and above all compassionate to Mr. Notwell. Compassion is the essence of every true believer and the nature of the fruit of the spirit (Gal. 5: 22-23). In my view, the more desperate the situation the more intense our compassionate effort should be. To whom much has been given much shall be required (Luke 12: 48). Thanks! latterrain77
     
  9. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    25
    Not as far as I know, Diane, though it's possible that we're distant kin to any Vaughns between here and Georgia. My Vaughn ancestor came to Texas from Greene County, Georgia, having married into a large Parker family in Greene & Taliaferro Counties, many of which family came to this area of Texas.
     
  10. C.S. Murphy

    C.S. Murphy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, by the way are we speaking of sin in general or one in particular?

    Murph
     
  11. Anthro

    Anthro
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    0
    I ALWAYS have communicated "bad" diagnoses in the form of a challenge for the person to go beyond standard hope to overcome the disease, which calls forth their reserves and gives them a sense of destiny and purpose for the fight ahead. Life and death are in the power of the tongue.

    Food for thought:

    Luke, the writer of Acts, shows an abrupt change in person (i.e., "we") starting in Acts 16:10 that indicates somewhere soon prior this point he had become an actual participant in the action of which he writes. From this point on, probably around 50 A.D., we can follow Luke's expressly full-time ministry with Paul, which continues throughout the rest of Paul's life.

    In following Luke's course we find that, during the early part of Paul's first imprisonment, around 56 A.D., Luke gives his greeting through Paul to the church at Colossi (Colossians 4:14). Some time later, toward the end of Paul's first imprisonment, Luke gives his greeting through Paul to Philemon, and is called by Paul one of his "fellow laborers" (Philemon 24). Luke's account in Acts then stops at around 60 A.D., but Luke's ministry with Paul continues on.

    Later, during the time of Paul's second imprisonment, Luke is still with him. Luke's full-time career ministry with Paul is exhibited when Paul writes the last recorded letter of his life, around 64 A.D. In 2 Timothy, Paul mentions how his ministry companions have all forsaken him—except for one, that is. Paul states, "Only Luke is with me" (ch. 4:11). The only possible break in Luke's companionship with Paul after joining him is the belief of some scholars that Luke served for a short while as itinerate pastor for the church at Philippi, while performing ministry in the surrounding area, until a permanent pastor could be found. Either way we see, incontestably, that the primary Biblical model for medical missions work is a full-time career model, and we get a glimpse of the quality of spiritual life that indwelt Luke: physician, evangelist, writer and historian, itinerate pastor, church planter, and constant missionary companion. After Paul's death, it is thought that Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts accounts to Theophilus, and carried on ministry in the locale of these books' recipient.

    Type of Medical Ministry Luke Undertook

    But what specific type of ministry might Luke have carried out in his travelings with Paul? Consider a portion of Acts which gives perhaps the clearest displaying of it. During one point in Luke's travelings with Paul, they are en route to Rome via ship to bring Paul to plead his religious freedom case before Caesar (Acts 27). While on the Mediterranean, a storm of hurricane force arose (vs. 14), which caused the ship to wreck (vss. 27-41). In accordance with Paul's divinely given foresight (vss. 23-26), the entire crew survived by either swimming or floating to the island of Malta, where they were shown unusual kindness by the natives who provided them with basic human necessities (vs. 42- ch. 28:2). Heightening the natives' interest in Paul and Luke, God miraculously protected Paul from a poisonous viper bite (vss. 3-6), which resulted in the ship's crew being invited to the estate of Malta's chief official (vs. 7).

    While there, Paul and Luke discovered that the official's father was bedridden, carefully pointed out by Dr. Luke to be there sick with "recurrent fever and dysentery" (vs. 8). As befitting a work where the gospel is brought for the very first time, Paul "went [in]to [the room to] see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him" (vs. 8). Continuing on with the text, "When this has happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured" (vs. 9).

    A casual reading of verses 8-9 would leave one with the mistaken impression that the rest of the island's sick came to Paul for a miraculous healing, as was given to the chief official's father. However, a study of the specific language used by Dr. Luke to describe these events reveals otherwise.

    The word in verse 8, commonly translated "healed", is the Greek word iaomai, which denotes an instantaneous event—in this case, an instant divine healing given to authenticate God's prime designate messenger, Paul.

    But the word in verse 9, commonly translated as "cured," is a word altogether different from the one translated "healed" (iaomai) in verse 8. The word is therapeuo, from which we get our English word "therapy." Like the word therapy, therapeuo denotes not an instantaneous event, but rather a process. As the highly reputable Wycliffe Bible Commentary has noted regarding this text and its use of therapeuo,

    It might better be translated, "were treated." It suggests not miraculous healings but medical treatment, probably at the hands of Luke the physician. Verses 10 and 11 suggest that this medical ministry lasted throughout the three months stay at Malta.

    Type of Medicine Luke Practiced

    The incident of the shipwreck on Malta also gives strong indication, by default, as to the type of therapuro Luke probably employed.

    After the shipwreck, it is untenable that Luke was able to save and swim to shore amidst hurricane force waves, winds and rain, while holding on to his medical bag. And even in the truly incredible event that he did so, the bag and its contents would certainly have been saturated with salt, which would likely have spoiled any medicinals therein. Moreover, the entire incident during Malta is predicated upon the fact that Paul and the ships crew, including Luke, had lost all their supplies.

    Since Luke was almost certainly empty-handed upon his arrival at Malta, he had to scurry the island for medicinal plants to use as therapuro. And since Malta had (and still has) a very Mediterranean climate—wet winters and dry summers—as did most of the regions surrounding the island, it is very likely it grew plants familiar to Luke. It is plausible to assert that Luke was able to find on the island what he needed to treat patients with.

    This is not to imply physicians of today should practice herbalism. Rather, it shows Luke actually using the best of the medical knowledge of his day, and perhaps even beyond it. In all probability, Luke was a doctor in the most orthodox sense of the word.

    How Might Have Luke Trained?

    How might Luke have trained for his medical ministry? The Roman world had several medical schools. The people who trained within them represented pretty much the gamut of Roman society, with the usual exception of the aristocracy. Graduate physicians were generally employed in one of three ways.

    In private practice.
    These were, of course, usually Roman citizens or freedman, since slaves would not have been free to practice privately, except in the instance where one was engaged in this for the profit of his master.

    In the large households of the upper strata of Roman society.
    Such households commonly reached into the hundreds. Slaves, employees, and family of the house lord, resided in often huge homes, wherein a bustle of civic and business activities took place. Frequently, a slave of the master was sent to medical school to train in medicine so as to give care for the whole of his master's "household."

    Private physicians would also take full-time positions in these households, to give medical care to all within it.

    It is most likely that Luke was this later kind. This is indicated by his strong repoire with Theophilus, and the deep understanding Luke displayed in Luke-Acts of those within Theophilus' aristocratic strata. It may well be that Luke had known Theophilus prior his conversion, and hence prior his work with Paul. Later after Paul's death, Luke turned and carried out his ministry to Theophilus, in the hope that it would have the far reaching impact the it indeed did.


    Anthro hold copyright
     
  12. LauraB

    LauraB
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually I think I am a little of both. In my view of the 2 doctors, #1 was straight forward and to the point, a quality I look for in anyone, but #2 was kind and compassionate and his willingness to work as hard as the patient needed to work to try to help heal the patient is also a quality I seek.

    I am compassionate, and I go out of my way to help people, and I do not abandon them in their timeof need. But I also do not sugar coat, or tip toe around things. I am straight forward and to the point with people. I say what I feel, good or bad.

    So my answer would be I am Both.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    How about the physician who scolds us for our bad health practices?

    Mark 16
    14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

    HankD
     
  14. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Human "physicians" should not "scold" anybody. Rather, they should ENCOURAGE and educate people to change their bad habits. Loving advice is far greater than angry rebuke. Where sin is grace does much more abound (Rom. 5: 20). The Prodigal Son's dad understood this (Luke 15: 11-32) and his example is a great one for the rest of us dad's (and "physicians") to follow.

    I have noticed that for the most part human "Scolders" are often the type of folk that scold those who can't defend themselves. Scolder types rarely scold those whom they perceive as powerful. They rebuke the defenseless with force yet they politely "negotiate" with the powerful. Why? (James 2).

    Wise Christian men avoid "scolding" because the wisdom of the inerrant Bible suggests that it is better for men to persuade with meekness (James 3: 13-18, particularly v17). The word scold is derived from the idea of "scalding hot." Why burn someone when compassion and comfort work so much better?

    Calling down fire from heaven (Luke 9: 54-55) is an exclusive right that belongs to GOD alone - according to HIS good pleasure. Verse 55 is unambiguous and proves both points at the same time (HE can, we can't).

    Murph. The disease of sin is ALL sin. I'm glad that we agree. [​IMG] Thanks. latterrain77
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

    To everything there is a season...

    While gentleness is the norm, rebuke is sometimes necessary.

    HankD

    [ April 23, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]
     
  16. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi HankD. Calling down fire from heaven and the "rebuke" are not the same thing. Nor is "scolding" and the "rebuke" the same thing either (more below).

    Christians may not call down fire from heaven (Luke 9: 54-55, Rev. 13: 12-13). In effect, "calling down fire from heaven" is what occurs when we condemn and judge another sinner rather than exhort him (Romans 2: 1, Matt. 7: 1-2, Luke 6: 37).

    With respect to "the rebuke," Christians do have a limited right to it's CORRECT use (and Christ's rebuking power and that of humans are not the same). The purpose of the rebuke is to "reinform" those with whom a controversy exists. The Biblical rebuke is accomplished through the action of "Preaching the word" with PATIENCE and sound doctrine, to him with whom we have a controversy (2 Tim. 4: 1-3). A rebuke issued with anything other than this is a flawed rebuke.

    A rebuke MUST be issued with the intent of exhorting the other (v2) which means to encourage and earnestly advise the recipient of the rebuke - not to punish or destroy him! A Biblical rebuke is NOT a pompous, arrogant verbal tirade by one against another. It is the exact opposite.

    In contrast to the patient, Scripture laden speech of the Biblical rebuke, is the practice of scolding. Scolding is almost always issued with "anger" (however veiled) and it's intent is to demean, humiliate, disparage and vilify it's unfortunate recipient (Proverbs 19: 11, Proverbs 21: 23). Scolding is NOT Exhorting.

    Sinners can only be changed through the compassionate, PATIENT preaching of the word, along with the hearing of that word, when both are supported by GOD's Grace. ONLY GOD may judge both the saved and unsaved - not us (2 Tim. 4:1). In the earlier hypothetical "physician question," Doctor #2 understood this. Doctor #1 did not. Thanks! latterrain77
     
  17. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose of rebuke is to bring a person back into right fellowship with God. When a person is rebuked, he will either rebel or repent.

    A lot of times Christians rebuke improperly. They do not do it in love and have no thought of restoration. If you can't forgive, don't rebuke.

    Blessings,
    Sue
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    Dear Latterrain,

    I agree, many either go overboard or rebuke with the wrong motive.
    Perhaps scold is the wrong word for me to have used, being the father of 11 children their mother and I have scolded them many times over the years (and never had any thought of pouring scalding water on them).

    We are a very close and loving family.

    Perhaps the following phrase will work for you...

    Titus 1:
    13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
    14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

    Personally, I thought your model of "physician" was correct just lacking in a necessary element that of "rebuke" which although not the norm is necessary and scriptural to restore a "Notwell" to health.

    Such also is the pattern of the "Great Physician"

    Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

    Peace
    HankD
     
  19. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi HankD. As I've said before, you get my vote for DAD of the year! 11 kids equals 11 distinct blessings to you and Mrs. HankD from GOD (Psa. 127: 3-5). Your children are also blessed to have a terrific Christian dad like you too! [​IMG]

    I agree with much of what you have said. I will only add that the "sharp rebuke" of Titus 1: 13 does not mean a "sassy" one. The word of GOD (the Bible) is "SHARPER" than a two edge sword (Heb. 4: 12). The definition of the "sharp rebuke" in the Titus text is simply a rebuke that is imbued with Scriptural references and verses (which are "sharper" than a two edge sword of themselves). By contrast, grievous words only stir up anger (Prov. 15: 1).

    The Rev. 3: 19 verse is a rebuke from the LORD, not from another human. The LORD's rebuking power is unfettered (of course) while the human one is limited (see my prior post). Even still, there is nothing in the Rev. text to suggest that the LORD's rebuke toward those HE loves was "angry speech." Actually, the LORD speaks to us ONLY through the inerrant Bible. We are "rebuked" by it. Of course, there are an unlimited number of ways that the LORD can chasten us in addition, but that is well beyond my human understanding. Thanks! [​IMG] latterrain77
     
  20. latterrain77

    latterrain77
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2002
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Sue. I agree entirely with your comment that; "A lot of times Christians rebuke improperly. They do not do it in love and have no thought of restoration. If you can't forgive, don't rebuke." I AGREE. [​IMG] Thanks! latterrain77
     

Share This Page

Loading...