Questions & Answers on
Healing
This is taken
from Chapter 15 of the book
Performing
Miracles & Healing by Dr. Roger
Sapp
If someone has
the gift of healing, why don't
they go and empty out the
hospitals?
If healing were
entirely in the control of the
person who has the gift, then
this would be possible. However,
the New Testament reveals that
healing nearly always involves
the faith of the person being
prayed for or the faith of a
relative or friend. While there
are a few noteworthy exceptions
in the ministry of Christ worth
considering, the vast majority
of biblical healings reveal that
someone, in addition to Christ,
had faith for the healing. As
the ministry of Christ is
analyzed, there are four clear
categories of the kinds of
persons Christ healed. There are
also two categories of persons
not healed in Christ's ministry.
These categories explain why a
person with the gift of healing
cannot empty out a hospital.
Here are four categories of
those who were healed:
1. There were
those who came to Christ on
their own and were healed.
Their faith was evident by their
behavior because they came to
Christ for healing. Thousands of
people seemed to receive their
healing this way. Most often,
these people received healing in
Christ's mass healing events.
However, some of the specific
healings in Christ's ministry
also fit this category, such as
healing of the woman with the
issue of blood.
Christ often responded to these
people by saying your faith
has healed you. This
category seems to cover the
great majority of Christ's
healings and seems to be the
most ordinary way to conduct
healing ministry.
2. There were
those who were brought by
someone else to Christ and were
healed.
In these cases, the faith of
someone else was evident by
their behavior. Again, thousands
of people seemed to receive
their healing in this way, and
often received healing in
Christ's mass healing events. A
few specific examples also fit
this category, such as the man
whose friends lowered him
through the roof to Jesus. The
account says that Jesus,
seeing their faith, healed
this man.
Together categories 1 and 2
cover the vast majority of
healings in Christ's ministry.
3. There were
those in need of healing who
could not come, but someone else
-- a friend or relative --
sought for Christ to come to the
needy person.
There are a
handful of recorded examples in
the Gospels of Christ regarding
this type of healing. Again, the
faith of another person who
cared about the sick or injured
person was involved in the
healing. Their faith was
revealed by their effort to get
Christ to come to the person in
need. The healing of the
Centurion's servant
and the healing of the
Syrophenian woman's daughter
are situations that fit this
category. In each of these two
situations, Christ gives credit
for the healing to the faith of
the relative or friend. While
this is an ordinary way to heal,
it is still a much less frequent
way that Christ healed the sick.
4. There were
those who did not come at all
and Christ seemed to seek them
out for healing.
There are only
a very few examples of this
among the thousands of healings
and miracles in the ministry of
Christ. These healings are
extraordinary, and it is
important that healing theology
acknowledges that they are
extraordinary. It seems
practical and prudent that the
theological foundation for
healing be based on the ordinary
rather than the extraordinary.
One of these examples is found
in the Gospel of John, Chapter
5. The man at the pool at
Bethesda had been sick
thirty-eight years and Christ
initiated the events of this
man's healing. In fact, even
after the man was healed, he did
not know who had healed him. It
appears that Christ purposely
went to the pool in Jerusalem
where there were a great number
of sick and injured people.
Christ may have been looking for
someone whom He could heal in
order to get all the suffering
people at this pool to believe
in Him as their Healer. After
healing this man, it is likely
that the good news about this
healing reached the ears of many
that were seeking healing at
Bethesda's pool. It is also
possible that many of them
sought out healing from Christ
in the weeks and months to
follow. In this case, Christ was
able to use His own faith to
produce the healing of this man.
Christ seemed to catch this man
completely by surprise. A second
example in the ministry of
Christ is the resurrection of
the widow's son found in Luke
7:11-18. In this account, it
appears that Christ has again
surprised everyone with this
miracle. There is no chance of
anyone responding either
negatively or positively to
Christ in this matter. In these
two cases, it appears that
Christ’s own faith is enough to
accomplish the work of the
Father, as long as He does not
encounter unbelief and doubt
among the people He is seeking
to serve. Perhaps surprising
someone avoids an unbelieving
response. Emptying a hospital
would require this type of
extraordinary healing
repeatedly. Considering Christ's
limitations in His own hometown,
not even He would be able to
accomplish this. This would be
similar to the situation at the
pool at Bethesda. The afflicted
people at this pool were not
seeking Christ as Healer, and He
was limited in the help that He
could offer. Only this man was
healed at that particular time.
The vast majority of people in
hospitals are not seeking Christ
for healing. This is much like
the pool at Bethesda. The people
at this pool in that story were
not seeking healing from Christ.
Christ only healed the one man.
Any help that a person with
healing gifts could offer in a
secular hospital under normal
conditions would be limited.
However, individuals within that
hospital setting could be healed
like anyone else if they come to
Christ for healing.
The other two
categories that must be
considered are those who were
not healed in Christ's
ministry.
A.
Some were not healed because
they did not come to Christ
because they did not hear about
Him healing.
The majority of those who
remained ill or injured in
Israel were those who did not
come to be healed. They did not
come simply because they did not
hear Good News that Christ is
Healer. The same problem remains
today. The Gospel is often
preached without revealing
Christ as Healer. Consequently,
many Christian people do not
respond in faith to Christ the
Healer and struggle on with
sickness and injury when healing
is available.
B. Some who
heard about Christ healing
people responded in unbelief and
did not come and were not
healed.
In Christ's own
hometown, the people responded
in unbelief to Him, and Christ
was unable to do much to help
the sick and injured there. The
implication of unbelief is
present in many passages.
Christ's critics and persecutors
among the religious leaders were
certainly unbelieving. Very
probably some of these critics
and their families were in need
of healing but did not come
because of unbelief. Although
Christ was present and healing
was available, most of them were
not healed. Today, critics of
healing ministry are likely to
be in the same situation. Their
criticism and unbelief will
prevent them from seeking a
Christian person equipped to
help someone receive healing.
Doesn't a
strong emphasis on faith condemn
those who are struggling with
sickness?
No. It should not
condemn anyone. Anyone can
obtain faith for healing. Christ
Himself put great emphasis on
faith in matters of healing.
Anyone wishing to emulate the
Savior's supernatural ministry
must also teach as He taught. In
many of the accounts of His
healings, Christ took the
opportunity to comment or teach
about faith.
Misunderstandings
concerning the nature of faith
are what create condemnation.
Some have taught faith as if it
were a static, unchanging thing.
They have improperly taught that
either you have faith or you do
not have it. However, true faith
constantly changes. Faith has to
do with our active reliance upon
Christ. Faith can grow or
decrease in strength. Faith is
affected by our understanding of
the Father's will. Faith is
affected by our theology. Faith
is affected by doubts. Faith is
affected by the clarity of our
revelation of the love of God.
Prayer and diligent Bible study
can affect faith as long as we
allow the Holy Spirit to use
these means to adjust us. Faith
for healing often comes to an
individual after hearing a bold
proclamation of Jesus Christ as
Healer. Faith can be released.
Faith is not static, but a
dynamic reliance upon a faithful
Healer. While a person may have
been weak in faith yesterday,
they may have their faith
released today by a faithful
presentation of the Gospel.
While they may be struggling
today, the destruction of a
theological doubt, a mental
stronghold, can release a brand
new experience of healing
tomorrow. No one should ever
allow the enemy to condemn them
as they seek to know Christ as
their Healer. The enemy wants
them to give up. However, the
Father is on their side and will
work with them until they are
healed.
What about
people who have strong faith in
Christ as Healer and have not
been healed?
This is a
difficult question to answer
because it has an answer that is
troublesome to some and
offensive to others. The answer
can make it seem as if those
doing healing ministry are
hard-hearted and insensitive to
the struggles and suffering of
some of God's people. The answer
can produce defensiveness and
reactions of loyalty in those
having genuine compassion for
those that are struggling.
However, the question must be
addressed if theological doubts
are going to be completely
removed on the matter of healing
and help offered to struggling
believers. The question itself
has several important hidden
assumptions that need to be
addressed.
First, the
question seems to indicate that
the unhealed person's faith was
unmistakable.
However, experience reveals that
these situations are often not
what they seem on the surface.
Often strong faith of
these struggling people is mixed
with significant theological
doubts and misunderstandings of
healing. These doubts can only
be discerned and revealed by
counseling with these persons.
Fortunately, today there are
more Christians being equipped
to deal with these doubts
biblically. Many times, biblical
counseling and working through a
sick person's doubts will result
in their healing. Christ points
out the relationship between
faith and doubt in
Mark's Gospel.
Truly I say to
you, whoever says to this
mountain, 'Be taken up and cast
into the sea,' and does not
doubt in his heart, but
believes that what he says
is going to happen, it shall be
granted him. Mark 11:23
This is
encouraging. Those who believe
that they have faith in Christ
as Healer and have not yet
received healing need only to
seek to remove their doubts.
Many times this is the case of
those who have not received.
They have faith in Christ but
their remaining doubts prohibit
their receiving.
Secondly, the
question also assumes something
that cannot be assumed.
The question assumes that we can
know if another person has
faith. Faith is an issue of the
heart. No one knows his or her
own heart much less the heart of
another person. Love, compassion
and loyalty sometimes makes us
want to assume something about a
person that we love that may not
be entirely true and cannot be
known for sure about another
person or even ourselves. It is
difficult to be objective about
matters that involve us so
personally.
Likewise, we
are likely to confuse hope,
sincerity and possibly even
desperation with faith.
We are likely to assume that
some actions reveal faith such
as lengthy passionate prayer and
fasting. However, none of these
things are faith. They are good
works that may or may not be
inspired by faith in Christ.
Fear and desperation rather than
faith may inspire these good
works.
Thirdly, the
question also presupposes that
it is possible to have faith for
healing and not be healed.
This assumes that the Bible’s
promises of healing, numerous as
they may be, are not reliable as
its promises are in other
matters. It assumes that the
Father is a respecter of
persons, doing for one person
what He will not for another
although the same conditions
were met. All of these
assumptions are decidedly
unscriptural and do weaken faith
in Christ as Healer. The
assumption that it is possible
to have faith for healing and
not be healed is full of doubt
itself. The doubts that this
unscriptural idea produces could
be the hidden reason healing has
not yet come. God is always
faithful to fulfill His promises
when the conditions are met.
Fourth, this
question invites the blame game.
This makes it an unhealthy
question. It balances the
righteousness of the unhealed
person against the righteousness
of God. Either we must blame the
unhealed person or we must
subtly blame God for not
fulfilling His promises. Those
who blame God and justify the
unhealed person often are blind
to their behavior. They
generally cannot see that they
are blaming God and presenting
Him as mysterious, unpredictable
and unreliable in healing. This,
of course, creates future doubts
for everyone affected by this
presentation of God. Blaming
anyone -- God or the unhealed
person -- is unproductive for
the Kingdom of God. Let us
affirm that God is faithful to
His promises and patiently work
with unhealed people to receive
His grace without resorting to
the blame game.
What about
Job? Doesn't the Book of Job
demonstrate that God is not
always willing to heal?
No. The
book of Job does not demonstrate
that God is not always willing
to heal. We must remind the
reader that the Old Testament
revelation of God is incomplete.
Christ alone completely reveals
the Father's will in the matter
of the will of God. Basing a
theology of healing on Job
rather than Jesus Christ will
certainly cause confusion.
Besides these things, the Book
of Job is often misunderstood.
However, the Book of Job does
demonstrate a number of
important things that are
largely ignored by complex
theology.
First, Satan
afflicted Job with sickness, not
God. Complex doctrine wants
to over-emphasize that God
initiated the conversation with
Satan and gave permission to
Satan before he could touch Job.
This overemphasis creates a
leap-in-logic that creates
serious theological doubts. This
leap-in-logic says this:
When God
allows something to occur, then
it is His will for that thing to
happen. This is simply because
God already knows what the
result will be when He allows
something to occur. If God does
not prevent something or
intervene in the process, then
what is happening must be God's
will.
This
leap-in-logic in effect
reverses the stated truth of
Scripture that Satan made Job
ill. It creates a doctrinal
viewpoint that states that God
wanted and made Job sick. The
Scripture does not say this.
This twisted logic is imposed on
Scripture and that produces
doubts. Just because God allows
something to occur does not mean
that it is His will. God's
foreknowledge does not mean that
all things happen according to
God's will. All the things that
occur in the earth are not God's
will. If all things that occur
were God's will, then all the
sin, injustices, losses,
tragedies, and pain of the world
would then become God's will.
This is not so. This is a
demonic view of God
presented by popular but extreme
theologies and western culture.
These theologies present God as
if He were responsible for and
doing all the destructive works
of the devil. In contrast, the
Bible declares that the
sinfulness of humanity, the
devil and demonic activity and
are the actual causes of the sad
condition of the world. God, our
Father, is not the cause of the
brokenness of the world.
Jesus Christ perfectly reveals
the Father's will in restoration
and healing of brokenness.
Christ destroys the devil’s
destructive works and brings
restoration and healing to all
who come to Him. Christ never
causes anyone to be sick or
injured. This expresses the true
will of God, our Father and is
Good News. The complex
theological view that God is the
cause of the sad condition of
the world and the suffering of
humanity is not Good News and is
therefore wrong.
Secondly, God
did heal Job. Somehow, this
fact escapes most people who
know about Job. In fact, Job
lived to be 140 years old. The
last chapter of the book
indicates that Job was greatly
blessed by God after his
sickness and experienced a
double restoration of all
the things that he had lost at
the hands of the devil. The
account reveals that Satan
robbed, killed, destroyed and
afflicted, but God healed,
delivered and restored. Complex
theology confuses these simple
biblical facts. Furthermore, if
someone believes that they are
experiencing a mysterious
dealing from God like Job's
involving sickness, then they
should expect that the final
result would be healing and
health, not further
sickness or death. When a person
dies without healing, then it
should be clear to others that
the sick person was not
experiencing a Job-like
dealing from God or they would
have eventually recovered.
Thirdly, the
length of time that Job was ill
was a small portion of his life.
The season that he was sick has
been widely agreed upon to be
less than a year long. Job lived
to be 140 years old and
apparently never again suffered
an illness like this. Less than
one-percent of Job’s life is
described in detail in the Book
of Job. To think that God wishes
someone to be ill for long
periods in their life is even
out of sync with the experience
of Job and certainly out of sync
with what Christ reveals.
Fourthly, Job's
three religious friends played
the blame game with him.
They were wrong in their
conclusions of why Job was sick.
Job was wrong also in his
conclusions of why he was sick.
The tendency of Job's friends
was to blame Job. In kind of a
defensive reaction, Job
eventually began to blame God.
No one ever seemed to blame the
real source of Job's condition,
which was the devil. (As we have
stated elsewhere in this book,
the devil and demons are not the
source of all sickness. The fall
of Adam and Eve in the Garden is
the direct cause of most
sickness. However, the devil
seems to be directly involved.
In Christ’s ministry about
one-quarter of the specific
healings involve Christ dealing
with a demon. This means that
three-quarters of the healings
do not directly involve the
devil or demons.) Eventually, in
the last chapter of the Book of
Job, God corrected the three
friends who had blamed Job. God
also corrected Job for blaming
Him.
Job’s whole
painful and difficult
circumstance brought out some
issues that needed dealing with
in Job's life. A young man,
Elihu, who had been silent
throughout the blame game
debate between Job and his three
friends finally spoke up and
corrected Job and his three
friends for playing the blame
game.
Then these three
men ceased answering Job,
because he was righteous in his
own eyes. But the anger of Elihu…burned;
against Job his anger burned,
because he justified himself
before God. And his anger burned
against his three friends
because they had found no
answer, and yet had condemned
Job. Job 32:1-3
Elihu was angry
with Job and his three friends.
They were all wrong. Job has
complained repeatedly that he
has done nothing wrong. He had
repeatedly declared his
righteousness. Job went so far
as to blame God (not the devil)
for his problems. Job's three
friends had been trying to make
an accusation against him for
dozens of chapters to explain
why these things have happened.
Finally, the young man, Elihu,
begins to put things into a
proper order. Elihu spends a few
chapters explaining why Job
cannot proclaim that he is
innocent and righteous and why
Job cannot blame God for his
predicament. For instance, Elihu
sums up and corrects Job's
self-righteous attitude
expressed in the blame game
that he has been playing with
his religious friends.
"For Job has
said, 'I am righteous, but God
has taken away my right; Should
I lie concerning my right? My
wound is incurable, though I am
without transgression.' …” Job
34:5-6
Elihu continues
his correction of Job a few
verses later.
For he (Job) has
said, 'It profits a man nothing
when he is pleased with God.'
Therefore, listen to me, you men
of understanding. Far be it from
God to do wickedness, And from
the Almighty to do wrong. Job
34:9-10
Elihu understands
that when a man justifies
himself, he subtly blames God
for his situation. When a man
declares his lack of fault in a
situation, then his tendency
will be to subtly argue that God
is mistreating him. Often the
accusation against God is
cloaked in religiosity but is
still there. God apparently
agrees with Elihu's assessment
of the situation and begins to
correct Job in similar fashion
in Chapter 38. This leads to
Job's repentance from
self-righteousness and his
healing and restoration. One of
the Book of Job's best lessons
is that the blame game
should be avoided. Justifying
yourself or justifying another
person in the matter of sickness
and healing enters the blame
game and subtly blames God.
It is better to continue to seek
the Healer than to declare that
there is no fault in the one
seeking healing. After the death
of a loved one from sickness,
there is no need to play the
blame game either. The
results of the blame game
are harmful to others seeking
healing because they produce
serious doubts about God's
faithfulness.
Doesn't
Paul's thorn in the flesh reveal
that God was not willing to heal
Paul?
Poor teaching
about Paul's thorn in the
flesh has created doubts in
the minds of many people. These
doubts have been sufficient to
block healing for many people.
Therefore, it is necessary to
thoroughly analyze this passage.
The primary verse in question is
found in Paul's Second letter to
the Corinthians. This verse
reads:
And because of
the surpassing greatness of the
revelations, for this reason, to
keep me from exalting myself,
there was given me a thorn in
the flesh, a messenger of Satan
to buffet me-- to keep me from
exalting myself! 2 Corinthians
12:7
The questions to
be considered in analysis of
this verse are:
·
What is the context of the
verse?
·
What does the verse actually say
that the thorn is?
·
What does the Greek word that is
translated "thorn" reveal?
Hopefully after
these questions are answered
honestly, then a good
interpretation of this verse
will be apparent.
The context of
these verses is revealing. At
the end of the previous chapter,
Paul is relating all the
suffering, dangers, beatings,
and imprisonment that he endured
for the sake of the Gospel. He
does not mention sickness. In
that context in chapter 11, Paul
speaks of being weak but
certainly not as a reference to
sickness but as a reference to
the difficulties that he
endured.
At the beginning
of chapter 12, Paul begins to
explain that he had special
revelations of Paradise, of the
third heaven. Then he begins to
speak of a thorn in the flesh
given to keep him from
exalting himself as a result
of the surpassing revelations
of the third heaven,
paradise. Therefore, by
implication, a thorn in the
flesh is given when someone has
special surpassing revelation
from God. A truth emerges
that should help most people's
faith:
Most people
would not qualify for a thorn in
the flesh no matter what the
thorn may be simply because they
are not having surpassing
revelations of paradise like
Paul describes.
Paul says that he
asked the Lord three times to
remove the thorn but the Lord
answered that His grace was
sufficient for Paul and that
power was made perfect in
weakness. The Greek word
translated weakness is
again used. There are a number
of Greek words used in the New
Testament used exclusively for
sickness. This word is not one
of them. It was also used a few
verses earlier in the previous
passage in a context that has to
do with persecution. Paul is
probably using weakness
again in this way. A verse in
the next chapter seems to
indicate this strongly. Both
words, power and
weakness, are also used in
this verse. In this verse, Paul
says:
For indeed
He (Christ) was crucified
because of weakness, yet He
lives because of the power of
God. For we also are weak in
Him, yet we shall live with Him
because of the power of God
directed toward you. 2
Corinthians 13:4
Paul is not
saying that weakness is
sickness. In fact, Paul says
that Christ was crucified
because of weakness. It
puts the term weakness
into the context of what
unbelieving people were able to
do to Christ. They were able to
persecute Him to the point of
crucifixion. Paul uses this word
in the same way. Paul's
weakness was the
suffering that he had to endure
at the hands of enemies.
The ordinary
Greek words exclusively used for
sickness in other passages do
not appear anywhere in this
context. Additionally, just a
few verses after writing about
the thorn Paul writes
that the signs of the apostle
were present in his ministry. He
mentions signs, wonders and
miracles. It is unlikely
that Paul would tell his readers
about his own sickness and then
a few verses later reveal his
ability to do miracles. The
context reveals that this
weakness, the thorn in
the flesh, must be something
other than a sickness or a
medical condition of some type.
What does the
verse actually say that the
thorn is?
The verse
actually does reveal what the
thorn is. Paul says that the
thorn is a messenger
of Satan. The Greek word
that is translated messenger
is the same word that is often
transliterated as angel
elsewhere in the New Testament.
Paul tells us that the thorn in
the flesh is an angel of
Satan. It is a
leap-of-logic to say that
this is sickness. Paul is
describing a fallen angel as his
thorn in the flesh. Since Paul
tells us through the context of
all the persecutions he
received, a more reasonable
interpretation would be that
Paul was asking the Lord to stop
the actions of a fallen angel
who stirred up persecution
against Paul wherever he went.
In the same way that the devil
stirred up trouble leading to
the crucifixion of Christ, Paul
was suffering trouble caused by
this fallen angel. This seems to
be validated by further study of
the words used in this context.
What does the
Greek word that is translated
"thorn" reveal?
The use of this
Greek word reveals a great deal.
The Greek word that is
translated thorn is
skolop. This Greek word only
appears in the New Testament in
this verse. However, this Greek
word appears three times in the
Septuagint, the ancient Greek
translation of the Old
Testament. A great deal of
evidence exists that suggests
that Paul and other First
Century preachers used the
Septuagint to preach from
throughout the ancient world.
The apostle Paul was probably
very familiar with how skolop
was used in this ancient version
of the Old Testament. Skolop
is found in three passages in
the Septuagint; Numbers 33:55,
Ezekiel 28:24 and Hosea 2:6. In
Numbers, this word is used in
reference to the enemies of
Israel.
But if you do not
drive out the inhabitants of the
land from before you, then it
shall come about that those whom
you let remain of them will
become as pricks in your eyes
and as thorns (skolop) in your
sides, and they shall trouble
you in the land in which you
live. Numbers 33:55
This use of
skolop above supports the
interpretation that Paul's thorn
in the flesh had to do with
persecution from enemies stirred
up by a fallen angel. The
passage above does not support
the idea that sickness was in
some way involved.
The second place
where skolop is used is
found in the Book of Ezekiel. In
that context, God declares that
Sidon and other enemies will no
longer be a thorn in
Israel's side. This usage
supports the idea that the
thorn has to do with enemies
rather than sickness.
And there will be
no more for the house of Israel
a prickling brier or a painful
thorn (skolop) from any round
about them who scorned them;
then they will know that I am
the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 28:24
In Hosea, the use
of this word is not as clear as
the previous two uses. The verse
simply says that God will
prevent His people from going
after false lovers by a wall of
thorns.
Therefore,
behold, I will hedge up her way
with thorns, (skolop) And I will
build a wall against her so that
she cannot find her paths. Hosea
2:6
This particular
use does not reveal anything
else to help except that the
verse does not reveal skolop
as having a connection to
sickness. None of the three uses
of this word in the Greek Old
Testament relate to sickness and
two are related to difficulties
with enemies.
In summary, a
close analysis of this verse
does not reveal that Paul had a
sickness or injury. The verse
itself reveals that an angel
of Satan was the problem and
the context reveals that
difficulties from enemies is
the weakness that Paul
asks the Lord to remove.
Suggestions from other verses
that Paul had eye problems, or
other conditions such as speech
difficulties, are often built
upon the assumptions that Paul's
thorn in the flesh was a medical
condition. However, the biblical
foundation for these
speculations and theological
doubts is very weak. It is
unlikely that Paul's thorn in
the flesh was a medical
condition. We are not saying
that Paul never had a medical
condition to deal with. We know
that he did like any other
person. What we can conclude is
that Paul could receive healing
like any other believer. Paul
does not provide an example of
someone that God was not willing
to heal.
What about
the four examples of people not
being healed in the New
Testament. Don’t these prove
that God doesn’t always heal?
No. What these examples prove,
if anything, that healing is not
automatic or always
instantaneous. There are four
believers in the New Testament
who are often used as examples
of believers who were not
healed. They are:
-
Timothy
had frequent ailments.
-
Epaphroditus
was a sick Christian leader
at Philippi.
-
Paul left Tropimus
behind because he was sick.
-
Paul
describes
a time when he was sick.
We will examine
these examples briefly and then
comment on how they are being
used today. The first of these
examples is a verse found in
Paul’s first letter to Timothy.
There Paul writes:
No longer
drink water exclusively, but use
a little wine for the sake of
your stomach and your frequent
ailments. 1 Timothy 5:23
Some have noted
this verse indicated that
Timothy had not been healed but
actually this verse does not
really say that at all. It does
not indicate that healing prayer
had been ineffective either. It
does not indicate that Timothy
had any particular problem at
the time of the writing of this
verse. It does indicate that
Timothy had some reoccurring
physical issues. Paul was
recommending to Timothy a
natural preventative
measure, a way of staying well.
Paul’s comments here do not mean
that Paul thought his prayers
for healing of Timothy were not
effective. Timothy might have
been repeatedly healed but the
ongoing stress of his life might
have caused him to need
additional physical help. This
is not contradictory. Paul may
have thought that preventative
measures were wise. For example,
someone asks for prayer for
blisters on their heels from
badly fitting shoes. We can pray
in faith for healing of their
wounds and wisely recommend a
preventative measure, a new pair
of properly fitting shoes
without contradiction. The
examples may differ but the
principle is the same. If we can
successfully prevent illness
through natural means, then
isn’t that wiser than seeking
healing after we are sick? If
we are ill, then we can count on
the will of God being healing
for us because of what Christ
consistently reveals of the
Father’s will.
The apostle Paul
in the book of Philippians
writes about Epaphroditus who
apparently was sick to the
point of death. This is the
second of these four examples.
Paul writes:
But I
thought it necessary to send to
you Epaphroditus, my brother and
fellow worker and fellow
soldier, who is also your
messenger and minister to my
need; because he was longing for
you all and was distressed
because you had heard that he
was sick. For indeed he was sick
to the point of death, but God
had mercy on him, and not on him
only but also on me, lest I
should have sorrow upon sorrow.
Philippians 2:25-27
Epaphroditus
recovered from this sickness.
Paul credits God with his
recovery by writing that God
had mercy on him. Since the
word mercy is often
connected with the healing of
individuals in the Gospels, it
is evidence that Epaphroditus
was healed. In fact, this
example is not really of someone
who was not healed, but could be
an example of someone who was
seriously ill for a season
before they received healing.
These first two examples do beg
the question: Does healing
from God always have to seem
instantaneous and miraculous?
We must answer no.
The third of
these examples comes from a
single verse. This verse reveals
that Trophimus had not received
healing at the time it was
written. Paul writes:
Erastus
remained at Corinth, but
Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.
2 Timothy 4:20
Of course, the
weakness of this verse is that
we do not know what happened the
next day. This is a snapshot of
a moment in time. We have to
assume that Paul had prayed for
Tropimus without apparent
success up to the point of
writing this verse. Beyond that,
we can only speculate about the
details of this situation. We
don’t know how sick Trophimus
was. We don’t know how many
times Paul prayed for him. We
don’t know if he quickly
recovered from a simple ailment
that would not allow him to
travel or he had something more
serious for a longer period. We
don’t know if he simply
recovered in a natural way,
died, or was miraculously
healed. The unknown outcome of
this situation makes this
situation a questionable one to
conclude anything about healing
upon with one exception. The one
fact that we can glean from this
verse is that not everyone that
Paul prayed for received healing
immediately. This is not a
surprise.
Paul reveals in
the book of Galatians that
because he was ill, he was able
to preach the Gospel to the
Galatians. This is the fourth
example. He writes:
…but you
know that it was because of a
bodily illness that I preached
the gospel to you the first
time; and that which was a trial
to you in my bodily condition
you did not despise or loathe,
but you received me as an angel
of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
Where then is that sense of
blessing you had? For I bear you
witness, that if possible, you
would have plucked out your eyes
and given them to me. Galations
4:13-15
This situation is
similar to the previous one with
Tropimus. We do not know the
specifics of the situation. We
do not know what the outcome of
this situation was. It does
appear that Paul recovered. He
might have been healed
miraculously. It does not appear
that he was healed immediately.
This situation is also a
snapshot of a particular moment
in time with no details as to
what happened afterward. The
fact of Paul being ill, even for
a season, does not reveal that
the will of God was not to heal
him. All ideas of that sort are
simply speculations and are not
based on what Christ reveals of
the Father’s will. Christ
revealed that the Father wants
people well.
These four
examples are often cited to
support the view that God is
selective about who He heals.
This is a very wrong conclusion
from these passages. The right
conclusion would be that these
believers had not yet received
healing. The reasons that they
had not received are unclear and
unrevealed by the passages. All
four seemed to live
beyond these recorded events.
Even if these examples included
someone who had died from
sickness, they still would not
reveal the will of God for that
person. The perfect will of the
Father is not revealed by anyone
but Jesus Christ. The Church’s
individual experience with
healing, good or bad, does not
reveal the will of the Father.
The fact of the early Church’s
mixed experience with healing
being recorded in the New
Testament does not change
anything. We can build nothing
of theological value on the
mixed experience of the Church
receiving what Christ has done.
Some in that day did not receive
Christ as Savior either. We
cannot assume since that is true
that this means that it is not
God’s will to save all. We can
only build reliably on Jesus
Christ and He reveals that the
will of the Father. He reveals
this repeatedly by healing
everyone in a multitude. He
reveals this consistently by
never turning anyone away
unhealed.
The apostle Paul
is the author of all the verses
used in these four examples.
Paul would have never used these
verses in the manner that they
are being used. He was not
trying to teach believers that
God is not willing to heal some
people by these examples. He
says nothing at all like that in
any of these examples. He was
not teaching doctrine by telling
us about these people. He was
simply relating to the
Philippians, the Galatians and
Timothy personal news about
people that they knew.
It is likely that
Paul had prayed for healing for
each person and of himself.
Instead of Paul believing that
the will of God was being
revealed when people were not
instantly healed, he was having
a similar experience with
healing that many of us have:
Not everyone receives healing
immediately. Sometimes,
healing follows over a period of
days or months. Sometimes, more
prayer is needed. Sometimes, a
crisis of faith erupts in a
person and they experience a
profound dealing of the Holy
Spirit that leads to healing.
Sometimes persistent prayer is
what is needed to see a complete
healing. Assuming it is not the
will of God because someone is
not immediately healed makes it
impossible to persist in praying
in faith.
These four
examples are often cited to
support the view that God does
not always heal. This is a
misstatement. More properly,
some do not receive healing
instantly or may not receive at
all. God is still willing that
they receive healing even if
they don’t receive. In two of
these situations (Epaphroditus
and Paul) the New Testament
reveals that these believers did
recover. So how can anyone
use them as examples of someone
not being healed? They were
healed although perhaps not
instantly. The right conclusion
would be that we simply do not
know if these other two
believers (Timothy and Trophimus)
received healing eventually or
not. Two of these situations
(Timothy and Trophimus) are
simply snapshots of a particular
moment in time in the life of
these believers. We do not know
what happened in the hours and
days after those verses were
written. The assumption that
they were not healed is not
based on the New Testament and
may reveal a theological bias.
Is healing
in or through the atonement?
Two of the apostles who walked
with Christ, Peter and Matthew
clearly connect healing with the
atonement. Isaiah Chapter 53
mixes healing verses with
atonement for sin verses. In
other words, three places in the
Bible clearly connect healing
with the atonement. Two of these
places consist of primary
apostolic witness and teaching.
The third is from a primary
messianic prophetic passage
quoted numerous times in the New
Testament about Jesus. Some want
to balance against this double
apostolic and prophetic witness
Paul’s silence on the subject of
healing in the atonement but it
doesn’t work. The fact that Paul
doesn’t say anything at all
about the subject doesn’t seem
to be a good argument for or
against healing in the
atonement. Most, if not all
arguments against healing in the
atonement are coming out of
theology, reasoning and
experience rather than the
teaching of the apostles found
in the New Testament.
It is important
to come to the right conclusion
on this matter. If healing is
in the atonement, then we
can always be sure that God
desires to heal when we receive
Christ as Healer in faith. If
healing is only through
the atonement, then healing is
some sort of add-on given at
God’s sovereign choice. It
should be evident that it would
be difficult to ever be sure
that God would heal if healing
is only through the
atonement. If healing is only
through the atonement, then
consistent, personal faith for
healing would be difficult to
obtain. It is not enough to
believe that God heals. One must
believe that God wishes (wills)
for them to be healed. Faith
would be based on less than a
stable foundation for the one
who believes that healing is
through the atonement. It would
require a personal revelation,
some sort of proof, that God
wished the person to be well to
inspire faith for healing.
Otherwise, doubt would always be
present and could prevent
reception of healing. On the
other hand, if healing is in the
atonement, then a believer can
always be sure that God wishes
them to receive healing. The
price would already be paid and
healing would be received just
like salvation is received.
There is much
biblical evidence to believe
that healing is in the
atonement. First of all, two of
the Twelve apostles, Matthew and
Peter, quote from the Isaiah
Chapter 53 passage in their New
Testament books. Both apostles
connect the passage with
healing. The Isaiah Chapter 53
passage is widely accepted to be
a description of what Christ
would accomplish at the cross.
Matthew writes:
(Christ)
healed all who were ill in order
that what was spoken though
Isaiah the prophet might be
fulfilled, saying He Himself
took our infirmities and carried
away our diseases. Matthew
8:16-17
This is a
quotation from Isaiah 53:4 that
Matthew directly connects with
Christ healing all the sick in
Matthew Chapter 8. Matthew
obviously believed that Isaiah’s
prophecy was being fulfilled by
Christ healing the sick. He
obviously believed that Isaiah
prophecy was also describing
physical healing rather than
spiritual. The second quotation
is from the apostle Peter. Peter
writes:
He Himself
bore our sins in His body on the
cross, that we might die to sin
and live to righteousness, for
by His wounds you were healed.
1 Peter
2:24
Peter quotes from
Isaiah 53:5. First of all, Peter
connects the work of the cross
very closely to healing in
actual words of the verse above.
Secondly, he quotes from the
prophecy of Isaiah about healing
that also connects healing with
the atoning work of Christ. We
conclude without any difficulty
at all that both Matthew and
Peter believed that healing was
in the atonement.
Thirdly, a quick study of the
passage in Isaiah Chapter 53
should reveal a few simple
linguistic facts. The language
of Isaiah Chapter 53 does not
lend itself at all to the idea
that Isaiah was trying to
separate the work of atonement
from the work of healing. Only
the phrase below separates the
two quotes about healing with
Matthew’s quote just before it
and Peter’s quote just after
it:
But He was
pierced through for our
transgressions, He was crushed
for our iniquities. Isaiah 53:5a
Again, the quote
above is between the two quotes
from Isaiah Chapter 53 used by
Matthew and Peter. This portion
of the verse is unmistakably
about the atonement. Isaiah is
not separating healing from
atonement for sin but is mixing
them. Just after Peter’s quote
about healing this phrase is
found:
All of us
like sheep have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own
way but the LORD has caused the
iniquity of us all to fall on
Him.
Isaiah
53:6
In other words,
every other statement in these
verses is about healing or
atonement for sin (forgiveness).
This is how this part of the
Isaiah Chapter 53 passage is
constructed:
Verse 4…
bore/carried- sickness/pain
phrase quoted by Matthew
directly followed
by…
Verse 5…
pierced-transgression phrase
about payment for sin
directly followed
by…
Verse 5…
wounds-healed phrase in
verse 5b quoted by Peter
directly followed
by…
Verse 6…
iniquity-on Him phrase about
payment for sin.
Isaiah’s prophecy
mixes the ideas Christ paying
the price for healing with
Christ paying the price for the
forgiveness of transgression
and iniquity. To then
say that healing is not in the
atonement, is an arbitrary
statement that is not based on
the linguistic facts of this
passage. The passage does not
separate the ideas. Theology
separates healing and
forgiveness in the atonement is
without biblical license to do
so.
Thirdly, the fact
that Christ used forms of the
Greek word sozo eighteen
times where someone is healed is
striking evidence that healing
is part and parcel of salvation.
Other forms of this word are
translated as salvation.
This was discussed in detail in
a previous chapter.
Fourthly, bad
logic often plays a part in the
decision to believe that healing
is not in the atonement
but through it. A summary
of some of that reasoning is
this:
No one who
has believed for forgiveness has
ever been denied, but multitudes
who have believed for physical
healing have been denied.
Therefore, healing cannot be in
the atonement like forgiveness
is in the atonement.
This logic sounds
convincing but contains many
assumptions that cannot be
proven. This statement assumes
that no one who has believed
for forgiveness has ever been
denied. While this statement
is scriptural and certainly
acceptable, it cannot be
observed and proven. Neither
faith nor forgiveness of
sin can be observed or
measured in people. Neither can
they be proven experientially.
They must be assumed by an
outside observer. This makes
this statement a statement of
sincere belief and nothing else.
There are some who would
contradict it out of their
understanding and experience.
Some people think that they have
believed but have not received
forgiveness. Most of us would
immediately reject this as being
untrue. We would kindly correct
them that they had not believed
in a proper biblical way. We
would tell them that
intellectual assent to the facts
of the Bible, desperation, being
good, church attendance, and
sincerity are not the same thing
as saving faith in Christ and if
they truly had believed, they
would have experienced
forgiveness.
The statement
that multitudes who have
believed for physical healing
have been denied is not
observable or proven either. It
is a statement of belief and
nothing else. Believing on the
part of these people cannot be
observed either. We cannot know
what is in another person’s
heart and cannot righteously
make the judgment that they
properly believe in Jesus as
Healer and yet are not healed.
Many things are confused with
faith for healing. Intellectual
assent to the fact that God
heals is not the same thing as
overcoming faith in Christ as
Healer. When someone who appears
to believe and has not received
healing is interviewed about
their beliefs, they often have
significant doubts that need to
be addressed before they receive
healing. A person may appear to
believe and even believe that
they have faith in Christ as
Healer, but this is always an
assumption on their part and
others. Receiving healing alone
proves that they have believed
properly in Christ as Healer.
Fifthly, beyond
this, when we teach about
forgiveness, we teach with
conviction that God will always
forgive. When the Church teaches
about healing this is not the
case. The Church often imparts
all its doubts and unbelief such
as the statement that we are
analyzing. If the Church taught
about forgiveness in similar
ways that it teaches about
healing, then many would have
trouble receiving forgiveness.
It is not surprising today that
some who theoretically believe
in healing have difficulty
receiving healing. If healing
were taught with the same
assurance that God would heal as
easily as He would forgive, then
those hearing would receive
healing easily. It is not
uncommon to see those who have
serious theological doubts about
healing in the atonement to have
problems receiving healing.
Sixthly, there
are a few unwise Christian
leaders who theoretically
believe in healing who do not
want to believe that healing
is in the atonement. They
recognize the significance of
this belief. If healing is in
the atonement, then God’s
will is healing in the same
that God’s will is salvation.
These beliefs will put pressure
on them to help people receive
healing and a few leaders do not
want this kind of pressure. Some
are afraid of failure. Some of
these leaders have told me that
they will not try to get anyone
healed if it means that they
will fail at times to achieve
healing for some. A few leaders
would rather that no one is ever
healed than for them to fail
occasionally to get someone
healed. Their fear of failure
and concern about their
reputation outweighs their
concern for the well-being of
their people. This is often
masked religiously by their
concern about disappointing
their people. They have
developed skills for helping
people die with assurance but
have little skill at risking
themselves to help someone be
healed. Humbling yourself to
others when healing doesn’t
happen as you would wish is
actually good for the soul and
nothing is lost of reputation
when people realize that a
leader is doing all he can to do
to help. Skills can be developed
in this area as well.
Is it
possible that the power of
suggestion is the cause of what
appears to be supernatural
Christian healing?
Assuming this
would be placing a great deal of
undeserved faith in the power of
suggestion rather in what the
Bible reveals about healing.
There is no doubt that positive
thinking and emotions have a
supportive effect on the
physical body’s ability to heal
itself just as negative thinking
and emotions have a destructive
effect. Research has shown this
is true as well as that which
has been described as the
placebo effect. Improvement
of medical conditions has been
shown when someone simply
believes that a medication
or treatment is helping them
even if the “medication” is
really a placebo that is
not really affecting their
condition. Belief seems to
reinforce the body’s limited
ability to heal itself even if
that belief is not placed in
Christ as Healer. For a number
of important spiritual reasons
we do not recommend hypnosis but
ack |