Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
When interpreting the Bible, it is essential that we do so in such a way as to ascertain the intended meaning of the author. Every culture contains unique linguistic qualities, and those must be taken into account. Some of the most difficult things to translate are figures of speech. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a figure of speech as “An expression that uses language in a nonliteral way, such as a metaphor or synedoche, or in a structured or unusual way, such as anaphora or chiasmus, or that employs sounds, such as alliteration or assonance, to achieve a rhetorical effect.”
For example, the Apostle Paul uses the phrase “thorn in the flesh” in 2 Corinthians 12:7:
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure (2 Corinthians 12:7).
There is little doubt among Christians that this is a figure of speech. There is, however, some disagreement over the meaning. Many have traditionally asserted that Paul was referring to a sickness. I have read after ministers who have even cited ophthalmia, an eye disease, as the specific ailment Paul was referring to. This belief is at least partially based on a literal interpretation of Galatians 4:15. My belief is that Galatians 4:15 was intended to be figurative as was 2 Corinthians 12:7. We will explore why I believe this later in the article.
Old Testament Witnesses
I believe that the true meaning of Paul’s thorn in the flesh can be obtained by referencing other scriptures where a similar figure of speech was used. There are three Old Testament references to this figure of speech. They are found in Numbers 33:55, Joshua 23:13, and Judges 2:3. Let’s look at each verse.
But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell (Numbers 33:55).
Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you (Joshua 23:13).
Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you (Judges 2:3).
In each of these verses, the “thorns in your sides” figure of speech refers to Israel’s enemies. These were actual people, not diseases.
New Testament Witnesses
Could Paul have been talking about his enemies? I believe he was. Notice that he gave us insight into what he meant by “thorn in the flesh” by clarifying that it was the “messenger of Satan”. Do eye diseases qualify as messengers? No, they do not. Could people qualify as messengers of Satan? Yes, they definitely could. Notice also that Paul said this messenger was sent to “buffet” or torture him. Some commentators have said the literal meaning of the word translated “buffet” is “blow after blow”. I believe Acts 16:22-24, 2 Corinthians 6:5, and 2 Corinthians 11:23, 24 shed more light on what Paul was trying to say.
The scriptures from 2 Corinthians are particularly noteworthy considering they are found in the same book as the “thorn in the flesh” reference:
And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them. And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks (Acts 16:22-24).
Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one (2 Corinthians 11:23, 24).
Other Problems with the Alternative View
If we are using scripture to interpret scripture, we cannot determine that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” is anything other than a personality or personalities. As earlier mentioned, the opinion that the “thorn of the flesh” refers to disease is in part based on Galatians 4:15.
Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
Proponents of the alternative view often point to this scripture as evidence that Paul had diseased and pus-filled eyes. Again, one need only refer to Numbers 33:55 and Joshua 23:13 to understand this figure of speech. In reference to Israel’s enemies Numbers 33:55 uses the phrase, “thorns in your eyes”. Joshua 23:13 says “pricks in your eyes.”
Aside from the previously mentioned problems with the alternative view, there are some other problematic areas. To explore these other areas it is important to look at the passage again, this time in the broader context:
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10).
Adherents to the alternative view often point out that Paul prayed to the Lord for healing three times and was denied health. They believe that when the Lord said “my grace is sufficient for thee” that actually meant that God would help Paul endure his sickness. They might also point out the use of the word “infirmities” in verse 9, and say that means he was sick. It is true that this word is used in connection with sickness, but it is also used in connection with general physical weakness. How can we know whether the passage in 2 Corinthians 12 refers to sickness or general physical weakness? We can know by reading the passage in context, because there are two specific statements that tell us we are talking about physical weakness – the phrase “my strength is made perfect in weakness” and the phrase “when I am weak, then am I strong.” Certainly a person who is sick can be weak because of a sickness, but a person can also be weak in the sense that they are powerless to overcome struggles apart from the grace of God.
Next: Biblical Bodily Healing Part III: Longevity, Not Immortality
Last week, I agreed with much of what you had to say. This one… I don’t agree with a single word after the first paragraph.
You have taken some incredible liberties and leaps of logic to make the Bible line up with your views.
First of all, last week you said that sickness can be due to a demonic spirit or agent (or messenger if you will). This week you claim that some sickness (in this case, eye disease) can’t be of the devil. Which one is it?
Second, the “thorn in the flesh/sides/eyes” figure of speech could very well refer to different sources (human enemies, spiritual enemies, physical illness). For example, today’s equivalent would be the phrase “pain in my ass” (PIMA). You could say that so-and-so is a real PIMA, you can mention how a sinus infection is a PIMA, etc.
Third, isn’t extreme physical weakness (we know that Paul wasn’t likely complaining about some mildly sore back) but a form of sickness, disease, or the like? You are jumping through some amazing hoops to keep your healing on command theology intact.
So either Paul didn’t have enough faith or…
Great article Chris A. I like that you bring up the other passages that use similar figures of speech. I noticed that each of the other passages talks about thorns in relation to Israel. Are there any examples of that idiom being used in relation to a single person, the way Paul uses it in 2 Corinthians? We could even look at extra-biblical documents to see how that idiom was used.
Chris, this is an interesting take on the term, and I can’t help but see that it is a fairly reasonable suggestion. I will have to reevaluate my current understanding.
“First of all, last week you said that sickness can be due to a demonic spirit or agent (or messenger if you will). This week you claim that some sickness (in this case, eye disease) can’t be of the devil. Which one is it?”
I have to assume you misunderstood or perhaps I did not communicate thoroughly enough. Certainly sickness comes from the devil, directly or indirectly. And the Bible mentions certain cases where a spirit is directly involved. In this passage, we have no evidence that would suggest the trouble Paul had with Satan’s messenger was a disease; it’s just not there. If we compare the parallel passages where the figure of speech was used, we find that it refers to adversarial personalities and not sicknesses.
“Third, isn’t extreme physical weakness (we know that Paul wasn’t likely complaining about some mildly sore back) but a form of sickness, disease, or the like?”
Again, you have to pay attention to the context to determine whether he was talking about general physical weakness or disease. It is disingenuous to assert something that you cannot reasonably gather from the text. I will again point out two quotes that Paul is talking about physical weakness or powerlessness and not an eye disease: “my strength is made perfect in weakness” and “when I am weak, then am I strong.” He was saying, in effect, I am powerless in my own humanity to overcome what I have to endure. Nevertheless, my strength through Christ is made perfect in my human frailties.
“Are there any examples of that idiom being used in relation to a single person, the way Paul uses it in 2 Corinthians?”
No, there aren’t. My personal belief is that Paul was referring to a demonic influence that stirred up people against him to prevent him from ministering the Gospel. I base that on the reference to the “messenger of Satan” and what he said in Ephesians 6:12.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”
If we are using scripture to interpret scripture, we cannot determine that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” is anything other than a personality or personalities.
I’ve thought about this, and I disagree in part. If we use Scripture to interpret Scripture, we cannot draw any conclusions about the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. There isn’t enough evidence. I get the distinct impression that Paul was intentionally vague. He didn’t intend for anyone to know the true nature of his thorn in the flesh.
It’s quite possible that Paul suffered from eyesight problems (though this is only speculation) and other sicknesses, but that these were not the “thorn in the flesh” he spoke of.
Or Paul knew that his audience all knew what his “thorn” was.
I agree with the statements by Jew and Darius that there is not clearly enough information to determine the nature of Paul’s “thorn”, whether physical or spiritual, or a specific person or group of persons. It would definitely be necessary to look at original word meanings and usages to get to the bottom if this, and I am willing to allow that Paul’s “illness” is insufficient evidence to falsify the position that believers don’t get sick. The fact that Paul eventually died though would seem to suggest that believers CAN suffer ailments that they will not recover from. One can perhaps argue that germs or snake venom don’t affect “true believers”, and Paul even survived a stoning intended to kill him. However, he did eventually die, which seems contrary to the idea that God guarantees healing to his followers. (Though Paul remains an excellent example that God does AT TIMES miraculously heal normally fatal conditions.) If God guarantees healing to His followers, why have only two people in recorded history not died?
Stay tuned, Atanamis.
The Bible doesn’t say Paul died. Maybe he’s still alive.
You refer to the American Heritage Dictionary definition of a “figure of speech” and proceed to analyze the phrase “thorn in the flesh” as a “figure of speech.” One of the dictionary definitions you quote the dictionary as giving is the structured nonliteral use of language known as “chiasmus.” You should note that 2 Corinthians 12:7 is chiastic:
A . . . lest I should be exalted above measure . . .
B . . . there was given to me . . .
C . . . a thorn in the flesh . . .
C’ . . . the messenger of Satan
B’ . . . to buffet me . . .
A’ . . . let I should be exalted above measure . . .
As often is the case with Biblical (and other) chiastic structures, corresponding elements in the opening and closing flanks may relate to one another and the analysis of the one element may be helpful to an analysis of the other. This, of course, you do by perceiving (rightly) that Paul “gave us insight into what he meant by ‘thorn in the flesh’ by clarifying that it was the ‘messenger of Satan.’” Indeed. But in conducting such an analysis of the words as a figure of speech, you have limited youself to the English language and the translations of what you believe are “similar figure[s] of speech” from the Old Testament and the New Testament. True it is that the translators have come up with English-language renditions in Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Acts, and 2 Corinthians of what you deem to be “similar” figures of speech — e.g., “thorns in our sides” (Numbers), “thorns in your eyes” (Joshua), “thorns in your sides” (Judges), “stripes upon them” (Acts), and “stripes above measure” (2 Corinthians). Yet you have given no rationale for choosing these as “similar” figures of speech. Only the first three of them (all from the Old Testament) use the word “thorns.” The Greek word in your 2 Corinthians 12:7 passage is σκόλοψ (transliterated as skolops and pronounced skol’-ops), the literal meaning of which is “a pointed piece of wood, a pale, a stake
a sharp stake, splinter,” obviously (or at least apparently) making it, as you correctly note, a prime candidate for analysis as a “figure of speech” in Paul’s case, not to be literally understood. None of the New Testament passages you call upon use the English word “thorn” and, indeed, nowhere other than in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is the word σκόλοψ ever employed; it is unique to that one passage.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word is ןיבצ (transliterated as Tsaniyn and pronounced tsaw-neen’), the literal meaning of which, too, is thorn or prick. It appears thus, also, in Joshua 23:13. But in the Old Testament passages in which those words are used, the justification to say that the word “thorn” should be a figure of speech relating to “Israel’s enemies, actual people” is forced by the very language of the scripture passages themselves: in each case the Old Testament author expressly and unmistakably says that the enemies shall be pricks in your eyes or thorns in your eyes. The equation of the two is forced by the verb used (”shall be” in each instance), equating the “thorn” with the “inhabitants” (Numbers) and “nations” (Joshua). Without much futher ado, you simply posit that “we cannot determine that Paul’s ‘thorn in the flesh’ is anything other than a personality or personalities.’” Oh?
Analyzing the target passage chiasitcally, one naturally should direct some attention to the cognate element (C’ . . . the messenger of Satan . . .). Σαταν (Satan) is the adversary, the name given to the prince of evil spirits, who by his demons is able to inflict them with diseases. The alternative view is not all that untenable, at least on those linguistic grounds. The disease itself would be the messenger, Satan would be the sender thereof. But that does not answer the question at all.
And note further that the word Satan (Σαταν) appears nowhere else in the New Testament. Its Hebrew origin is ןחש (transliterated as Satan, pronounced saw-tawn’), used 23 times in the Old Testament, generally translated as “adversary,” with the relevant appearances being in 1 Chronicles 21:1; throughout the first two chapters of the Book of Job (1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7); Psalm 109:6; and Zechariah 3:1, 2. Nothing there seems to suggest that the Hebrew word for Satan was employed as a figure of speech and none of the passages speaks of a “messenger of Satan.” In short, the wording and the structure of verse 7 alone (and reference to the language used passages that contain what you deem to be “similar” figures of speech found elsewhere in scripture) do not, in my opinion, suffice to justify any conclusion as to whether the “thorn in the flesh” is something personal in his body, something personal in his soul, or something external to his being, such as an enemy individual or group of people or some other external force.
But please note, of course, that verses 8-10 are also a key that should be turned. The King James Version (Authorized), from which you quote verse 7, supplies the following English-language translation for verses 8-10:
8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Why go to the Lord three times? Why refer to the “thorn” as something that might “depart”? That seems to hint that the “thorn” was recurrent and that it was amenable to being removed. Why does the Lord, it seems, refer to the thorn as a “weakness” (which, I quickly point out is not sin or moral weakness, merely weakness)? Why does Paul thereupon essentially equate the thorn with “infirmities” (same caution)? Why, indeed, does he seemingly also equate it with “reproaches,” “necessities,” “persecutions,” and “distresses”? Why does Paul seemingly also refer to the thorn as something that makes him “weak” or that manifests in him a “weakness.”
Note that Paul continues the idea even beyond this passage — see 2 Cor. 13:9 (”we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong”).
In short, I do not think you have advanced any good reason to jettison the argument that the thorn might be some sort of a weakness with which Paul was afflicted (whatever it might be) and I do not think you have supported your apparent view that the “thorn” is a person or group of people who stand in opposition to him in his ministry. Indeed, the ambiguity of his passage may, indeed, have been intentional to make the teaching more universal in nature (a passage that might not have been ambiguous to his readers, whom he had visited repeatedly (12:1) and who likely knew exactly what “thorn” — I think some sort of a “weakness” — he spoke of).
All I have to say is wow.
To be fair, ambiguity is all Chris was really claiming here. He is bringing into question the idea that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was necessarily a physical affliction. This is necessary because Chris is attempting to argue that God WILL heal all physical afflictions, and in this case God refused to remove Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”. If this were a physical ailment, it would in one passage negate Chris’s claim that God WILL heal all physical afflictions that impact a believer, if the believer asks in faith.
That said, I appreciate your review of the original language words and their meanings. Looking at translated figures of speech in English to determine their original meaning is just short of useless, and the article failed to delve into the original word meanings necessary to make its point. Your response seems to greatly support the article, in clarifying that even when original work meanings are considered that the meaning of “thorn in the flesh” remains unclear.
“…and in this case God refused to remove Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”. If this were a physical ailment, it would in one passage negate Chris’s claim that God WILL heal all physical afflictions that impact a believer, if the believer asks in faith.”
I believe this comment brings out what I feel is another possible misconception about this verse. How can we ascertain that God “refused” to remove the thorn? When he said that his grace was sufficient for him, was that tantamount to refusing to remove the thorn? I say no. The picture of grace we get in this passage is God, not merely helping one endure hardship, but in the midst of the hardship proving his power. So while God may not have removed the thorn, I don’t think we should say he refused to. He provided a means by which Paul was able to rise above the persecution.
As far as delving into the original languages goes, I agree that it can be helpful. But when we look at the differences between the words translated “thorn” from either language, they mean essentially the same thing. And knowing the extent to which Paul referred to expressions found in the Old Testament, I think it is completely unreasonable to assume that Paul was not doing just that in the passage in question. It would have been very out of the ordinary for Paul to make reference to something found in the Old Testament to make it mean something totally other than it meant originally. Sure, sometimes there are multiple applications of some things, but that doesn’t change its meaning altogether.
well id like to say the word buffet does mean to strike repeatley with clinched fist
in hebrew term yes we know paul was struck with an eye diesease.
truth is we could all come up with a concept of what paul is talking about many guess at it .
but truly we all have a thorn in the flesh were God grace is sufficent for us
the flesh body i s very prone to sin .truly the only to that know are paul and God.
how ever the context says. a messanger of satan. can be a human or anything let us trust that the holy spirit will guide us but some times these are our thorns for Gods uses for with out a weakness how could on possibly cling to God grace and peace from jesus christ be with you .
The lord is good, the good lord invented punctuation and capital letters for a reason.
Amen, Thainamu. I don’t even bother to read something so poorly written.
1 Chronicles 16:34
O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his MERCY endureth for ever.
Psalm 103:8
The LORD is MERCIFUL and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in MERCY.
Psalm 25:10
All the paths of the LORD are MERCY and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.
Proverbs 3:3
Let not MERCY and truth forsake thee: bind them about thy neck; write them upon the table of thine heart:
Proverbs 14:21
He that despiseth his neighbour sinneth: but he that hath MERCY on the poor, happy is he.
Proverbs 21:21
He that followeth after righteousness and MERCY findeth life, righteousness, and honour.
Proverbs 28:13
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have MERCY.
Matthew 5:7
Blessed are the MERCIFUL: for they shall obtain MERCY.
Hebrews 2:17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a MERCIFUL and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
?
I would just like to exhort everyone to be merciful to those new to ZFT. It is the godly thing to do. Plus its just good manners.
I would like to exhort everyone to use proper punctuation, correct spelling, and good grammar so that I (and others) can actually understand what they’re trying to say. No one was being very rude (though Thainamu was being quite sarcastic), just asking “the lord is good” to write in such a way as to be understood.
Chris, I’m not sure “the lord is good” needs my mercy as this is not a moral issue, nor do I have a personal argument with him or her. If his or her actions were morally wrong, that would be a case for offering mercy. I reckon this is just a case of laziness.
I just want to encourage him or her to take the little extra effort to write so that we all can actually understand what he or she wants to say. Punctuation and capital letters carry meaning in written discourse–they aren’t just there for decoration.
If “the lord is good” is a non-native English speaker, I would not hold him or her to as high a standard.
I’ve decided to make English the official language of ZFT. Anyone speaking other languages will be deported. Capisch?
Oh crap…
“I would like to exhort everyone to use proper punctuation, correct spelling, and good grammar so that I (and others) can actually understand what they’re trying to say. No one was being very rude (though Thainamu was being quite sarcastic), just asking “the lord is good” to write in such a way as to be understood.”
Not everyone has the ability to write correctly. But should that disqualify a person from contributing to a written conversation? I’m not accusing anyone of intentionally being rude, but at the very least such comments can come across as insensitive. It is very hard to discern tone in written communication. I ,for one, think it is better to promote an environment where people need not feel discouraged to participate. I don’t like to see someone made to feel unwelcome. It’s just not right, and I don’t think there is anything anyone can say to justify that. Can a person not state an opinion on a Christian matter without being bullied? I’m not mad at anyone, but I honestly felt very embarrassed by the comments that were made. If something is unreadable, what’s so hard about just not reading it?
Chris said, “It is very hard to discern tone in written communication.”
That is part of my point. Good grammar, punctuation and attention to details will help a person to portray the tone they want to portray.
I can have sympathy on a person who is truly incapable of writing properly–if they are handicapped in some way as to not be able to use the shift key, for instance, or if they do not speak English as a first language. But like I said before, more often than not it is just laziness or sloppiness.
As for “If something is unreadable, what’s so hard about just not reading it?” Maybe it is more disrespectful to just ignore it than it is to ask the person to write intelligibly. If I just ignore the person, I’m saying, in effect, “you’re too stupid for me to even consider.”
I was not saying that to “the lord is good”. I would like to know what he or she actually wanted to say, and if he or she would like to try again, I’d read it and take him or her more seriously.
Look…I appreciate good grammar. And while I know I’m not the best writer, it bothers me personally when I make a grammatical error. And let me also say I really appreciate that most of the people on this blog are excellent writers, and that you all have a knack for articulating what you mean with the aid of a keyboard. I take my hat off to you all. I really mean that.
I am well aware of the tendency of technology (like texting) to make real writing all but obsolete. People are being dumbed down, and have begun to use words like “irregardless” and the like. I don’t like that, and although it is frustrating, I think we must be careful not to take it out on people that may lack education, or perhaps lack the ability to communicate the English language for other reasons.
In case anybody cares, I almost deleted the lord is good’s comment because I thought it was spam.
I’m tempted to make this a diatribe on the public schools..
Back to the original topic, this time with some practical application. Chris A, I’d like to know your take on the following two emails I’ve seen today regarding a man in our church who is in the hospital, not doing very well. He was well one day and in the hospital with pancreatitis the next, the illness becoming severe very quickly. I won’t mention any names, but this man is around 70 years old, has lived his life as a career missionary, and is the father of our pastor.
Many of us have been praying for Mr. M since he went into the hospital. My personal prayers have been for God’s peace for the entire extended family especially for his frail wife, for comfort to all who are distressed because of Mr. M’s illness, and lastly, for his healing “if it be your will.”
In contrast, this is what two others are praying:
and
To be honest, I don’t think I have the faith–if that is what it is–to pray the above two prayers. My view of the situation is more like this: God, I thank you for the wonderful life of service Mr. M has given you these many years, and for his wonderful children and grandchildren who love and serve you too. If this is your time to take him home, let him go soon and not suffer so much. Hold his grieving family in your strong arms of love.
Am I praying all wrong? Is my lack of faith preventing God from healing Mr. M? Chris, this is a serious question and I see this as your chance to talk about some practical application in your series of posts about healing.
Sorry, I used the wrong kind of brackets. Can one of you nice mods fix my post? Thanks.
fixed ya.
“Am I praying all wrong? Is my lack of faith preventing God from healing Mr. M? Chris, this is a serious question and I see this as your chance to talk about some practical application in your series of posts about healing.”
First of all, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that your lack of faith is preventing God from healing him. Every situation is different, and I am unfamiliar with the situation so I cannot say for sure the best way to approach it. There are many particulars that I cannot specifically address. Having faith for yourself is one thing. Having faith for another is a different matter. If this gentleman is ready to go, he’ll go no matter what - unless he changes his mind. I will pray myself, and see if the Lord would give me insight into this particular situation.
Thainamu, I would pray exactly as you do. Let me show you what I find in error (especially with the second email):
Below is what the Lord has given me to pray. Thanks.
How did the Lord “give” it to this person? I assume we are just to take their word for it - in which case, we have to measure this against scripture.
Bind the spirit of death.
What is the “spirit of death”? I did not know that “death” was a spirit. Death seems to be a state of nature rather than a spiritual force.
Release the spirit of life in Mr. M’s body to restore every tissue. Muscle, cell , organ back to excellence.
There also seems to be a “good” spirit called “life” which God can “release.” Presumably, Mr. M has been denied this spirit by God? Or is the spirit of “death” winning the battle? I don’t really see this in scripture at all.
Arrest every demon spirit assigned to Mr. M. Bind their hand and feet. Call their mouth mute, their eyes blind, their ears deaf . Command them to be paralyzed from moving forward against Mr. M.
These spirits also seem to have anthropomorphic attributes as well such as eyes, ears, etc… Moreover, they seem to have mission sand assignments like soldiers.
Speak faith into everyone praying for this situation. Speak the Word of God into the situation.
This sounds to me like magic or casting spells. Definitely not biblical.
Colin, not that I necessarily disagree with your comment, but death is referred to the Bible as possibly a spirit or being.
Rev. 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
Perhaps this means that the existence of death is destroyed.
As for the rest of your comment… it sounds like this person connects evil spirits and sickness much like Chris A. does in his healing articles.
As for the last part, I don’t know that he means speaking the Word of God like it’s some magic spell but rather speaking spiritual truth (the Word of God) into a situation where they feel demons are participating.
Again, while I disagree with the prayer, using symbolic language isn’t unBiblical. Quite the opposite, symbolism and anthropomorphic terms are quite Biblical.
This doesn’t mean this at all. I think the passage and the broader symbolic context of Revelation applied consistently reveal this to be a representation of death (the condition) no longer existing. This is confirmed in 21.
Is the bible magic that makes evil spirits run away?
God’s Word is Jesus, and just the mention of His name makes demons flee. That’s why an exorcism done properly invokes the name of Jesus.
Demons seem to have no problem mentioning his name in scripture.
The NT tells us that apostles routinely invoked the name of Jesus to drive out demons. It’s all about the use of the name. Demons aren’t scared to say the name, but if you tell them to flee in the name of Jesus, they will.
On a side note, isn’t it interesting how demons and evil spirits aren’t really mentioned until Jesus came to earth? I wonder if his casting out demons was a radical idea.
The power of the name of Jesus rests in the authority behind it. At that name every knee shall bow, because all power in heaven and earth has been committed to Jesus. Believers invoke that name to exercise authority. Because Jesus was to ascend to the right hand of God, he conferred the authority given to him upon those that believed in his name. The Head exercises his authority on earth through his body.
18And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
19Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
20Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
(Luke 10:18-20)
Evil spirits are mentioned in the Old Testament, howbeit not as much perhaps. Remember how Saul would be overcome with an evil spirit and David was sent to play music for him? Upon the playing of the instrument, the spirit left.
Sorry, I meant that it’s interesting that casting out of demons is so rare, not the presence of evil spirits itself.