Objection: Paul Couldn’t Heal Himself in Galatia
The idea here is that if Paul could not heal himself instantly (seeing as he walked in all that apostolic power), certainly none of us could expect to receive the healing that Paul did not receive. Is this a fair argument that divine healing is not really available to us?
First, let’s dismiss the idea that he had some horrible eye disease or that he had any disease at all – there are other objection replies (Paul’s Thorn, Paul’s Physical Infirmity at Galatia) that deal with that issue. Paul had just been stoned and left for dead at Lystra, which was part of Galatia.
I would say that Paul received an amazing miracle of physical healing after his stoning. To be able to get up the very next day and go back into the city after being stoned and left for dead was phenomenal. To be able to travel like any other normal person to other parts of Galatia to preach the gospel, not being able to hop on a plane or a bus as we would today, is even more amazing. Would not those Jews, who wanted Paul dead, have inflicted horrible injury to him, given that they were convinced that he WAS dead? (And maybe he was; we know that the disciples gathered around him and raised him up, either from death or at least from death’s door.)
Obviously, Paul was healed enough that he was able to continue on the mission on which the Holy Spirit had sent him and Barnabas. All that walking would be tiring even if you HADN’T just been stoned and left for dead! Even Jesus, who was probably in the best shape of anyone who ever lived, got wearied on long journeys, as we can see in John 4:6. What an amazing healing testimony that Paul was able to go on a long journey after being so viciously stoned that he at least appeared to be dead! If you were a Jew with a nasty “everybody must get stoned” attitude toward Christians, you would probably have aimed your stones at Paul’s head to make sure that you had “offed” him. This to me is the obvious source of Paul’s apparent temporary eye trouble in the days that followed at Galatia.
Jesus had not promised Paul instant and total healing of everything when Paul was to be physically abused. In Acts 9:16 He said, “For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.” If Jesus had provided instant healing for all forms of abuse and torture as they happened, Paul would not have had to suffer at all. But the healing that Paul did receive to go from death’s door to a long journey is amazing. It would not be fair to say that Paul lacked faith for healing or did not operate in it. If you’re ever stoned and left for dead by angry Jews, let’s see how “instantly” your faith gets you healed before you throw any stones at Paul!
Paul’s infirmity at Galatia was only “at the first” as Paul himself testified (Galatians 4:13), so he WAS healed, even though it was not instantaneous. It’s hard to make an anti-divine healing argument using a case where someone was miraculously and notably healed, even if it wasn’t instantaneous! So I would argue that Paul indeed walked in outstanding faith for healing given what had just happened to him.
I’ve had some serious conditions that were completely healed in half a day to two weeks. I wasn’t instantly healed in any of the cases, either, but I didn’t keep those problems for very long!
The objector leaves an image of Paul having to continue to suffer some disease that he had in Galatia, but disease is not on Paul’s autobiographical list of severe sufferings. No, he had a persecution-related situation AT THE FIRST and he was later completely healed, even though he had to be mostly healed to get to Galatia in the first place after his stoning. That is no argument against divine healing in my book (literally)!
See also: