Was Paul in Unbelief in Galatia?

Paul had some kind of “infirmity of the flesh” in Galatia, which almost certainly refers to the results of his stoning at Lystra just before he went to Galatia.  Paul was not instantly healed of all the results of his stoning when he was left for dead.  So the question is, was Paul in unbelief because he did not believe and receive an instantaneous miracle?

Critics of divine healing like to use Paul’s experience in Galatia as a “proof text” against healing being provided by Christ’s atonement.  This, of course, is ironic, because Paul’s issues were only “at the first” based on Paul’s own account, so Paul did get healed of his health issues.  It is strange to use a passage where someone gets healed as an argument against healing!

So in an effort to provide some kind of comeback, the theory was introduced by a faith teacher that Paul was in unbelief.  He could have gotten completely healed, but he was not exercising his faith enough.  The question is, is that a reasonable conclusion?

It would be nice if I could tell you that I have always received instant healings, but that isn’t the case.  In one case, my hand got mashed in a car door and hurt a lot.  I was standing on the Word but I did not receive an instant healing.  Then someone whom God used in gifts of healings laid hands on me, and my hand was INSTANTLY restored as if nothing had ever happened.  The swelling vanished on the spot in front of my eyes.  That was a memorable “wow” moment!  I have been on the other end of such “wow” moments for others, but I will have to say that gifts of healings were involved in those cases as well, not just normal everyday faith in the Word.

Seeing instant healings is a worthy goal to shoot for, even if we fall short.

Although I’ve studied the topic of biblical healing for decades, I am not at a point where all healings that I see are instantaneous, whether for me or others.  It does not seem that Paul was at that point either.  I don’t see that as something wrong with Paul.  One could argue that Jesus Himself was not at that point because He had to lay hands a second time on someone with eye trouble, and someone else “began to amend” when He spoke, and some lepers were healed “as they went.”  I don’t think it’s fair to “tag” Paul with unbelief just because the healing he received wasn’t instant.  Would you accuse JESUS of being in unbelief?

To be healed AT ALL after the brutal treatment Paul endured was amazing, even if it wasn’t instantaneous. Sometimes we have to stand in faith for things rather than getting immediate miracles.  If we didn’t, there would be no need for patience so that by faith and patience we inherit the promises (Hebrews 6:12) – all it would take would be faith!  (Please note that I refer to biblical patience, which determines to never let go of something, not the world’s version of patience, which is often better defined as hopeless resignation.)  So it goes too far to say that because Paul’s miracle was not instantaneous, he was in unbelief.

In fact, being healed like that against all odds so that his temporary trial was only “at the first” (as he wrote to the Galatians) shows me that Paul WAS in faith and WAS NOT in unbelief.  If Paul were really in unbelief, he would have kept whatever “trial” was “in his flesh” rather than being healed from it.

Finally, I’m sure that Paul was a work in progress like the rest of us.  The man who wrote the great love chapter got into such a tiff with Barnabas that the two of them wouldn’t work together anymore despite having planted many churches together.  Do we throw out the love chapter because Paul had a struggle at one point?  Well, neither should we throw out what the Bible says about healing just because Paul’s healing, which he DID receive, was not instantaneous.