The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of Divine Heal

[larrylyates]

God has made Himself known through the ages by miraculous healings and has made special provisions in the age of grace to heal all who will come to Him in faith and obedience.

Divine healing was purchased for us by the blood of Jesus Christ, especially by His stripes (Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 8:16-17; I Peter 2:24).

Jesus went everywhere healing those who were sick (Matthew 4:23-24; Matthew 9:35), and He commanded His disciples to do the same (Matthew 10:8). He said concerning those who believe the gospel, "They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover" (Mark 16:18). Jesus instructed that, "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations;" (Matthew 24:14).

Mighty healings and miracles followed the disciples wherever this gospel was preached. The Apostle Paul taught us that the Gospel preached in the absence of signs and wonders, including healing, is not the Gospel of the Kingdom. (Romans 15:19; II Cor 2:4,5).

There is no sickness or disease too hard for God. Any of us, our children, or our friends can be healed by the power of God. The only hindrance to healing is the belief that there are hindrances to healing.

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him , anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed" (James 5:14-16).

Further food for thought can be found at this link: http://miraclesinaction.weebly.com/1...-them-all.html

[Lafon]

Oops! You failed to note the course of action the one who is "afflicted" must take - "Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray." (James 5:13)

Why must the one who is "afflicted" pray for his healing, when one who is "sick" are commanded to "call for the elders of the church" to come and pray for their healing?

What's the difference between an "affliction" and a "sickness"? And why the difference in their response for remedy?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Oops! You failed to note the course of action the one who is "afflicted" must take - "Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray." (James 5:13)

Why must the one who is "afflicted" pray for his healing, when one who is "sick" are commanded to "call for the elders of the church" to come and pray for their healing?

What's the difference between an "affliction" and a "sickness"? And why the difference in their response for remedy?

A very good question and one which points to the accuracy of the Biblical text and the specificity of the Greek language. The one who is "afflicted" is instructed to turn to God in prayer and the "sick" to call for the Elders. Why? Because each is dealing with very different situations. There is indeed, as you note a distinction between affliction and sickness.

A simple and quick search of a very common resource will suffice for our discussion. The Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries
can be found in the back of the Strong's Concordance, a staple of most Bible libraries. It defines "afflicted as;

G2553 κακοπαθέω kakopatheo (kak-op-ath-eh'-o) v.
1. to undergo hardship [from a compound of G2556 and G3806]
KJV: be afflicted, endure afflictions (hardness), suffer trouble
Root(s): G2556, G3806
See also: G2552

While "sick" is defined as:

G770 ἀσθενέω astheneo (as-then-eh'-o) v.
1. to be feeble (in any sense) [from G772]
KJV: be diseased, impotent folk (man), (be) sick, (be, be made) weak
Root(s): G772

We are promised by Jesus in the Parable of the Sower (Mt 13, Mk 4, Lk 8), that affliction and persecution will come because of the Word. ("for the word's sake." Mk 4). It is just one of the tools in satan's arsenal designed to steal the Word out of our hearts. The believer is to pray for strength to endure and bear up under the affliction or hardship. We are NEVER told that physical illness is either to be expected or tolerated by the believer.

A common teaching is that God gives us sickness to make us holy or "spiritual." This is not true (sickness usually brings out the worst in most). God does allow his people to suffer, but they should suffer for doing right or for the name of Jesus, not through sickness (1 Peter 4:12-17). In 2 Corinthians 11:23-27, Paul listed all the ways he had suffered for Jesus, but he never counted sickness as part of his suffering for the gospel. Jesus never refused to heal someone because God had made them sick to improve their character.

James 5:13-14 therefore, distinguishes clearly between suffering and sickness and gives different responses. If anyone is in trouble, he should pray, but if he is sick, he should call the elders. Trouble and sickness have different causes, so they require different responses. Biblical suffering does not include sickness.

[Lafon]

Please recognize that I do not refute the fact that God heals or that He has given this authority to His chosen people, however, with that being said, I do not agree with your assertion that God never "inflicts" one as a means of correcting a fault in them.

How do you explain Exodus 3:24-26, wherein it is explicitly written that the LORD sought to kill Moses for failing to circumcise his youngest son?

While we aren't told the manner through which God sought to slay Moses for his negligence in keeping the commandment of circumcision, can there be any doubt that it must have been through physical ailment of some type?

How do you define chastisement?

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Please recognize that I do not refute the fact that God heals or that He has given this authority to His chosen people, however, with that being said, I do not agree with your assertion that God never "inflicts" one as a means of correcting a fault in them.

How do you explain Exodus 3:24-26, wherein it is explicitly written that the LORD sought to kill Moses for failing to circumcise his youngest son?

While we aren't told the manner through which God sought to slay Moses for his negligence in keeping the commandment of circumcision, can there be any doubt that it must have been through physical ailment of some type?

How do you define chastisement?

We must always bear in mind that we live today, under the New Covenant. Many of the things we find true under the Old Covenant are no longer true for us. Probably the most common misuse of an Old Covenant example being applied to New Covenant reality is the thief on the cross. This is often trotted out as an example of "salvation by faith alone, by mere confession," when in reality the thief was "saved under the Old Covenant. That's another issue, for another tread.

Under the New Covenant sickness is viewed as a work of the enemy and was always treated as such by Jesus and His disciples. In fact, Jesus rebuked sickness in the very same way in which He rebuked evil spirits.

We are told in 1 John 3:8 that it was "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil."

Acts 10:38 tells us of "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
We see clearly that satan was the oppressor and Jesus the healer. This indicates that sickness is an oppression and work of the devil.

As far as Moses? Whatever that incident represents, we have not one single example in the New Covenant of the Lord using sickness to chastise His people. In fact, in both the Hebrew and the Greek the words used for chastisement convey the meaning of discipline and instruction.

In Hebrew it is:
H4148 מוּסָר muwcar (moo-sawr') n-m.
1. (properly) chastisement
2. (figuratively) reproof, warning or instruction
3. also restraint
[from H3256]
KJV: bond, chastening ((-eth)), chastisement, check, correction, discipline, doctrine, instruction, rebuke.
Root(s): H3256

The Greek is the very same word tranlated elsewhere as teaching:
G3809 παιδεία paideia (pai-dei'-ah) n.
1. tutorage, i.e. education or training
2. (by implication) disciplinary correction
[from G3811]
KJV: chastening, chastisement, instruction, nurture
Root(s): G3811

If, as most seems to believe, sickness is in some fashion the will of God, why do these very same people take medicine and go to doctors in order to get out of the will of God? Again, there is simply no New Testament evidence to support this belief.

[Lafon]

In a posting on the thread - Biblical Facts on Divine Healing - in response to my suggestion that the words of Job 33:19-22 were in opposition to your assertion that "God never causes illness to teach us a lesson," you discounted the relevancy of Elihu's comments, and in so doing failed to take into account that when God spoke to Job He never refuted any of the things which Elihu had stated.

Should one not take this to infer that Elihu's statements were meritorious? If not, then simply strike chapters 32-37 of the book of Job from your Bible, for apparently you believe them not to be inspired of God!

The truth be told, God, indeed, authenticated Elihu's statements to Job, for among His first words God asked for his response to the same charge that Elihu had registered (that is, Job had spoken about things without knowledge of that which he spoke of - compare Job 34:35 and 38:2).

Your assertion that "God never causes illness to teach us a lesson" also fails to take into consideration the following:

1. In referring to the manner in which God seeks to cause the "righteous" man who is guilty of transgression to become aware of his deed, we find it written in Job 36:6-12 that He will cause them to "be holden in cords of affliction" as a means of correction. Would one be amiss to conclude that the "affliction" here implies that God has "inflicted" some type of physical suffering? Surely this should not be discarded altogether!

2. God told Ezekiel that "When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: ... and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered..." Are we to completely discard either disease or some type of physical suffering as being a type of "stumblingblock" which God chooses to "inflict" upon that righteous man who has committed transgression? I think not!

[Lafon]

Larry, my friend, I am not a "babe in Christ," so there is no need for responding to my statements in a condescending manner. There is no need for you to conduct a discourse with me as if I am destitute of all knowledge pertaining to the precepts of God's sacred written Oracles. Please refrain from such unwarranted behavior, else I must terminate any further participation in this matter! Having noted that please allow me to continue.

As we both are well aware, God NEVER changes the manner in which He does things (Malachi 3:4). Indeed, the words of Psalm 145:17 expressly asserts that "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works", which implies that once He does something it establishes an unchanging precedent and that with regards to that particular matter in every instance thereafter, He always acts in the same manner.

The ONLY exception to this principle, of course, is found in the terms of His former covenant with man and those of the new, for in the words of Hebrews 8:7-8 we are told that because the former was found to be faulty He deemed it needful to institute a new and better way. Indeed, we should be thankful that there's no longer a need to offer animal sacrifices to atone for our sins, for even as saints of God, and try as we may, nevertheless we sometimes fail, but the blood of the Lamb of God was offered once and is continually effective.

In contrast to your expressed belief, I hold that although God deemed it necessary to institute a new covenant regarding the manner in which sinful man finds salvation, nevertheless He did NOT alter or change the manner in which He elects to go about the task of causing a "righteous" man to be made aware of whatever transgression he might be guilty of having committed, which included "inflicting" the righteous with physical suffering where He deems that to be appropriate.

I would also state that in my learned opinion the definitions of biblical words by Strong's, Vine, Thayer, and a host of others (which you seem to be so fond of referencing as if they are infallible), must never be considered as the only manner in which one is to construe them. Such men as these are imperfect mortals just as you and I, so their opinions are no more, or less capable of being wrong than are ours. While I do often reference them in my studies, I will never consider their definitions as if they are inspired of God.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Lafon

In a posting on the thread - Biblical Facts on Divine Healing - in response to my suggestion that the words of Job 33:19-22 were in opposition to your assertion that "God never causes illness to teach us a lesson," you discounted the relevancy of Elihu's comments, and in so doing failed to take into account that when God spoke to Job He never refuted any of the things which Elihu had stated.

Should one not take this to infer that Elihu's statements were meritorious? If not, then simply strike chapters 32-37 of the book of Job from your Bible, for apparently you believe them not to be inspired of God!

The truth be told, God, indeed, authenticated Elihu's statements to Job, for among His first words God asked for his response to the same charge that Elihu had registered (that is, Job had spoken about things without knowledge of that which he spoke of - compare Job 34:35 and 38:2).

Your assertion that "God never causes illness to teach us a lesson" also fails to take into consideration the following:

1. In referring to the manner in which God seeks to cause the "righteous" man who is guilty of transgression to become aware of his deed, we find it written in Job 36:6-12 that He will cause them to "be holden in cords of affliction" as a means of correction. Would one be amiss to conclude that the "affliction" here implies that God has "inflicted" some type of physical suffering? Surely this should not be discarded altogether!

2. God told Ezekiel that "When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: ... and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered..." Are we to completely discard either disease or some type of physical suffering as being a type of "stumblingblock" which God chooses to "inflict" upon that righteous man who has committed transgression? I think not!

Our understanding of the events in the Book of Job may be a little different. You are quite correct that in Job 42:7, 8 God does not address the comments of Elihu. I do not agree that as a result, this indicates his comments to be "meritorious." An examination of the grammatical structure of Job 38: 1 indicate that God is interrupting the discourse of Elihu. Verse one can be rightly understood as, "Then Jehovah answered for [or on behalf of], Job. Verse Two is actually a sharp rebuke of Elihu. While it is true that Elihu didn't accuse God of "teaching Job a lesson by making him sick" like Job's three friends. Nonetheless, Elihu's intelligent, well-meaning, but clueless speech is interrupted by God as follows: "Who is this (Elihu) that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" (Job 38:1). it is Elihu that God addresses in verse two, not Job. In verse 3, God turns the focus of His response to Job

If Elihu really knew what he was talking about, he would have said, "Job, what happened was that the devil presented himself before God and accused you to God's face, saying..." But, again, Elihu also was clueless about what was going on.

What I find most remarkable about the discourse which follows is that the Lord acting as a wisdom teacher, employs the didactic method of interrogation. His questions are concerned with nature, a common medium in Wisdom Literature (1Ki 4:33). The questions put to Job are ironic in nature since the situation is not simply instructional but also polemical (Bergant, 180).

The Lord does not directly address Job's situation. No reference is made to his suffering or his alleged sinfulness. None of Job's questions is answered directly, yet when the Lord is finished, Job is satisfied. Something about the speeches satisfies and rehabilitates Job. But what? Several suggestions have been offered. Among them my favorite is the following.

Since the Lord's speeches are difficult and seemingly unrelated to Job's sufferings, the answer is not to be found in their words but rather in the appearance of the Lord himself. It is not so much what the Lord says as the fact that he showed up. The theophany itself rehabilitates Job.

I don't know if that answers your questions at all. You are not wrong to point out how in the Old Covenant, the Lord several time used physical illness to turn me back from sin. The case of Miriam's leprosy comes to mind as well as Abimelech. Of course there are several others. There is no denying this fact. My concern is the use of these Old Covenant examples to teach New Covenant principles. I feel we are sometimes on shaky ground in turning to the Old Covenant to help us understand the New. While revelation is a progressive unfolding, there are some very significant changes as well that must be taken into account. That is more of a subject for your post which followed this one.

[larrylyates]

Originally Posted by Lafon

Larry, my friend, I am not a "babe in Christ," so there is no need for responding to my statements in a condescending manner. There is no need for you to conduct a discourse with me as if I am destitute of all knowledge pertaining to the precepts of God's sacred written Oracles. Please refrain from such unwarranted behavior, else I must terminate any further participation in this matter! Having noted that please allow me to continue.

As we both are well aware, God NEVER changes the manner in which He does things (Malachi 3:4). Indeed, the words of Psalm 145:17 expressly asserts that "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works", which implies that once He does something it establishes an unchanging precedent and that with regards to that particular matter in every instance thereafter, He always acts in the same manner.

The ONLY exception to this principle, of course, is found in the terms of His former covenant with man and those of the new, for in the words of Hebrews 8:7-8 we are told that because the former was found to be faulty He deemed it needful to institute a new and better way. Indeed, we should be thankful that there's no longer a need to offer animal sacrifices to atone for our sins, for even as saints of God, and try as we may, nevertheless we sometimes fail, but the blood of the Lamb of God was offered once and is continually effective.

In contrast to your expressed belief, I hold that although God deemed it necessary to institute a new covenant regarding the manner in which sinful man finds salvation, nevertheless He did NOT alter or change the manner in which He elects to go about the task of causing a "righteous" man to be made aware of whatever transgression he might be guilty of having committed, which included "inflicting" the righteous with physical suffering where He deems that to be appropriate.

I would also state that in my learned opinion the definitions of biblical words by Strong's, Vine, Thayer, and a host of others (which you seem to be so fond of referencing as if they are infallible), must never be considered as the only manner in which one is to construe them. Such men as these are imperfect mortals just as you and I, so their opinions are no more, or less capable of being wrong than are ours. While I do often reference them in my studies, I will never consider their definitions as if they are inspired of God.

I have already sent you a personal message earlier as I had no time to properly respond to you but felt some kind of acknowledgement was appropriate. I pray you will accept those words in the spirit in which they are offered. I offer them again, publicly.

No Sir! You are hardly a "babe In Christ" or in understanding. Your knowledge of the Scriptures and wisdom of experience I am sure greatly eclipses my own. I in no way intended anything I wrote to come to you as condescending. In my haste, I was not sufficiently focused or attentive to how I was sounding. The fault is mine and I truly apologize. In the future I will delay my response if I do not have the time to do it justice. Please accept my apology in the spirit of friendship and brotherhood.

I still don't feel I have sufficiently satisfied your questions about Job. I will however, move on to this post. You ask important and penetrating questions that I believe go to the heart of what I consider to be relevant issues.

I accept that any of the number of Hebrew/Greek Reference works are but the works of fallible men. My desire was merely to use a reference which might be readily available to those who come behind and read these words. I do not typically devote a lot of time to citing references ad nauseum. When I do however, it is because I believe it will lend clarity and understanding.

You and I are of differing viewpoints regarding the meaning and intent of Malachi 3:6. While I certainly agree with you that God is immutable as to His nature and character, I do not believe that is what is at issue in this passage. Bible commentator John Gill in his remarks on this verse, points out that the Hebrew Targum is,

"for I the Lord have not changed my covenant.''

Therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed;

Nevertheless we read such verses in the Old Testament as well as New as:
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

These verses indicate that God isn't the sort to flip sides. But what, I ask you, of these verses?

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

We find this theme repeated in passages such as:
2 Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50, Genesis 18:23-33.

Very clearly God not only can, but does in fact "change" and He does it with apparent frequency. We would both agree that there are no contradictions in the Holy Writ. So what are we to make of this?

You quoted above: "Indeed, the words of Psalm 145:17 expressly asserts that "The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works", which implies that once He does something it establishes an unchanging precedent and that with regards to that particular matter in every instance thereafter, He always acts in the same manner."

While I agree implicitly with the words of the psalmist, I do not feel that they justify your conclusion. The failure of Christian Theologians and teachers to "Rightly divide" the truths of this question has become a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the enemy. He effectively uses it to cause untold harm by casting doubt on the reliability and inspiration of the Biblical text. Many unbelievers, hearing this argument have justly asked how the God of the New Testament bears any relationship to "the judgmental, angry" God of the Old. they appear completely different to the uninspired/unrenewed mind.

Much more can be said here than space permits. In no way do I mean that to avoid your question. We simply have a very different understanding of this issue. I will only add this: Malachi 3:6 -- This is a "no change" verse, and we should immediately remember what we have seen above about such things. "Change" does not refer to simply any possible change, but has specific contexts.
Here, it is said in the context of maintaining the covenant promise of preservation to the Israelites in spite of their sins. A covenant agreement is a serious thing -- it is a written contract. This was an unconditional promise, unlike those under the Jeremiah 18 clause, and God will not break it, and has not (though the Israelites did).

My main concern with this line of reasoning is that, as I have stated in earlier posts, we have a better covenant, based upon better promises.

At the risk of oversimplifying, the viewpoint that advocates sickness, not health, are making the New Covenant out to be inferior to the Old Covenant. I know you are quite familiar with Deut 28. Under the Old Covenant, you had the promise of divine health and all manner of blessings and prosperity, if you obeyed the terms of the covenant and did not run after other gods. So under the New Covenant have we no remedy? We can get sick any time for any reason or no reason, and maybe God will do something about it if he feels like it, or maybe not, because maybe even God wants us sick to teach us some mysterious lesson? The very logic of this has eluded me for years, even in my Baptist (healing has passed away) days.

Under the Old Covenant God was Jehovah-Rapha (Ex 15:26). We have the exhortation of Psalm 103:1-3. We have the prophecy and promise of Isaiah 53. It is clear that God indeed used physical illness to chasten His people under the Old Covenant. On that we can agree.

My point is that nowhere do we find a single example of this in the New Testament. In fact, when the disciples asked Jesus, "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. ...'

The teaching that sickness is sometimes the will of God is to me a very dangerous one. It is absolutely devastating to faith. How can I believe the Lord for my healing if in some part of my mind I believe it might be His will for me to be sick. Never mind the dilemma that puts me in when I decide to take medicine or go to a doctor! I wasn't being flippant when I said that in my earlier post. These are real issues I deal with daily with people.

This is just one example of a traditional teaching that leaves people confused and unable to stand in faith. If it is the Truth that sets us free, what do half-truths such as this do? It is my experience that the Church today is asleep and in bondage. Just like the Pharisees of Jesus day, we make the Word of God of no effect through our traditions of men.

We probably will not agree on this, but hopefully I have done a little bit better job of conveying my belief, if not my heart. I again, apologize for my earlier post and ask your forgiveness. I appreciate the manner in which you approach your topic and I look forward to our future exchanges. May it all be done in the Spirit of better understanding and fellowship in the Word. Thanks for your patience.

[Lafon]

As far as Moses? Whatever that incident represents, we have not one single example in the New Covenant of the Lord using sickness to chastise His people.

Well, Larry, you asked, so here it is.......... but first, allow me to lay a foundation, of sorts, for what I am about to write for your consideration of its merits.

Firstly, Paul instructed Timothy, saying, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (II Timothy 3:16). Simply stated, we are to employ the sacred written principles of the Bible to establish the truth of all things.

Secondly, Solomon, writing by inspiration of the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:20-21), advises - "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell" (Proverbs 23:13-14). Again, simply stated, here we discover God, through the pen of His servant Solomon, advises you and I to inflict corporal punishment (i.e., physical pain) upon our children in an effort to correct a fault in them.

Would God instruct you and I to do such a thing, yet Himself refrain from such action when it involves His own children? Of course not! With this thought in mind then lets examine an example of this action by the Lord in the writings of the New Covenant, and where better to find this than in the writings of Paul:

Referring to one's participation in the sacred symbols of what is commonly called The Lord's Supper, Paul writes - "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep" (I Corinthians 11:26-30). And so I am compelled to ask you:

Who brings sickness, yea, even death, upon that one who fails to properly discern the bread and the cup, but chooses instead to partake of these sacred symbols unworthily? Surely you do not suggest that Satan would do such a thing, for it should be rather readily acknowledged that he, in fact, takes delight in such an act of unrighteousness, does he not? Indeed, the source for the sickness noted here is, in reality, a direct consequence of an unrighteous deed that results in a "sickness that is unto death" (see I John 5:16).

Indeed, apostle Paul even attributed such a deadly sickness as an act of chastisement which the Lord inflicts, for we find this written in the succeeding passages: "But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world" (I Corinthians 11:32). Simply interpreted, should one partake of the sacred symbols of The Lord's Supper who is unworthy of doing so, then it is the Lord Himself who chastises them for this unrighteous deed (i.e., brings sickness [physical pain] which, if such an act is not repented of, will result in their death).

This is also why James was inspired of God to write to inform that saint who has been "afflicted" (chastened of the Lord) to pray for their own healing, for he was referring to the selfsame thing, that is, physical pain which the Lord has inflicted as a direct consequence of an unrighteous act having been accomplished by the one that is "afflicted." (see James 5:13)

So, my friend, there you have indisputable evidence in the writings of the New Covenant, which tells of the Lord inflicting physical punishment for the purpose of correcting a fault (and remember, Paul's words of I Corinthians were written as admonishment to those who were saved).