Which PHYSICIAN are you?

Doctor #2 because he patterned after the Great Physician, which we should all try to do.


Sue

 

If anyone answers #1, they should stop and bow right where they're at and beg the Lord to save them!

 

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

 

My answer is neither. I will be Doctor #3 (from whom he should have gotten a third opinion ) 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!"

 

I'm sure the punch line is, "Why don't we treat fellow Christians like that?"

 

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

 

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.

 

I agree, by the way are we speaking of sin in general or one in particular?

Murph

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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 ]

 

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

 

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