Sickness among God’s People in the New Testament

Although there is a close connection between faith and healing in the New Testament, we cannot automatically conclude that if a Christian is not healed it is because there is sin in their life or because they do not have enough faith. It is by no means as simple as that. Furthermore, that kind of teaching can lead to dangerous extremes like refusal to see a doctor when we are seriously ill. For example, any doctrine that teaches that God has guaranteed healing to us as Christians if only we will claim it by faith implies that it is unnecessary (and perhaps wrong) for Christians to resort to medical assistance when sick[1].

However, this is not a position adopted by the writers of the New Testament which, despite the many miraculous healings that are recorded, also makes reference to Christians who were sick and who did not find immediate supernatural healing.   These include:

• Paul
• Trophimus
• Epaphroditus
• Timothy.

We will consider each of these in turn, before turning to the case of some of the Corinthians, who were sick because of their sin.

The Weakness and Thorn in Paul’s Flesh

In Galatians 4:13 Paul says, As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. The Greek words translated as illness here literally mean a weakness in the flesh. This is similar to, though not the same as, the phrase a thorn in my flesh which he uses in 2 Corinthians 12:7. Although at first sight it is tempting to assume that these two expressions refer to the same thing, we certainly can not be sure, so we will deal with each separately.

Paul’s illness (Galatians 4:13)

Most commentators agree that Paul’s ‘weakness’ was a sickness although there is little agreement as to what that sickness was[2].   Others, however, understand Paul’s weakness to have resulted from the persecutions described in Acts 14:19ff[3].   But even if Paul’s persecutions are seen as the cause of his weakness, that does not preclude the possibility that the weakness was a sickness.   Severe persecution such as Paul encountered could certainly lead to sickness. This possibility is acknowledged by Longenecker who suggests that:

Perhaps that illness was a result of one or more of the afflictions mentioned in 2 Corinthians 11:23-25; frequent imprisonments, severe floggings…[4].

But whatever the cause of Paul’s weakness might have been, its effects were undeniably physical as the use of the word flesh in this context clearly indicates[5].   Clearly either interpretation would fit the context and it would be unwise to be dogmatic as to the precise nature of that weakness or sickness.   In short, we cannot be sure that it was a sickness rather than a weakness (or vice versa).

But does this matter?  It does for those who teach that Jesus died for our sicknesses as well as our sins and claim by faith such ‘promises’ as Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24[6].   I say this because the Greek word astheneia (weakness or illness) is used in both Matthew 8:17 and Galatians 4:13, so to claim that in Galatians  astheneia refers to a weakness and not a sickness fails to resolve the difficulty, because in Matthew 8:17 Christ is said to have borne our astheneias!   So if this verse is to be claimed as the advocates of the doctrine say that it should be claimed[7] we may well ask why Paul did not claim deliverance from his astheneia.   We can only assume that he was ignorant of the doctrine!

Paul’s thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7)

This verse is set in the context of Paul’s defence of his apostleship against the claims of those he calls false apostles (11:13). He refers to his abundant labours and frequent persecutions (11:23-33) as evidence.   In the opening verses of Chapter 12 Paul reluctantly (v.5) speaks of the visions and revelations (v.1) he has received and informs his readers that it is because of these that he has been given a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to keep him from being excessively exalted (v.7).   But how is this thorn to be understood? Was it, or was it not, a sickness?

Paul’s Thorn – Not a sickness

The view that Paul’s thorn was not a sickness is backed up by four facts:

1. The phrase messenger of Satan could well refer to a person since, as Martin has pointed out[8], it appears that Paul does not use the Greek word aggelos (messenger) except to refer to a person.
2. The thorn may well be rightly understood to be personal on the grounds that Chapters 10-13 describe Paul’s fight against his adversaries.
3. The use of the Greek word kolaphizein (torment) may be taken to refer to beating about the head.
4. In the Septuagint the Greek word skolops (thorn) is associated with opponents of Israel (Numbers 33:55, Ezekiel 23:24).

Paul’s Thorn – Possibly a sickness

Despite this evidence, however, the view that Paul’s thorn was a sickness should not be entirely discounted, for the following reasons:

1. Satan is associated with illness in biblical tradition (Job 2:5, Luke13:16) and it does not seem inappropriate for a sickness to be described as a messenger of Satan.
2. Not all the difficulties Paul faces in chapters 10-13 need to have been inflicted by personal agency[9], and therefore the thorn need not be understood to be a person.
3. Indeed, it is questionable whether Paul would have asked the Lord to take it away (12:8) if the thorn referred to human opposition[10].

But all this is extremely inconclusive and as Martin comments, “The exact meaning of the thorn remains elusive.   No one has ever yet given an interpretation that is generally accepted”[11].

Yet this uncertainty does not mean that nothing may be learned from the passage. It could be that our uncertainty about the thorn is providential as it leaves open a wider field of application to our personal needs[12].   Paul’s thorn clearly represents suffering in some shape or form and, whatever its precise nature, there are lessons to be learned that may well be of value to Christians in circumstances far different from Paul’s and yet undergoing a form of suffering for which the lessons of Paul’s thorn may seem entirely appropriate.   Thus even if Paul’s thorn was not a sickness – and in my view, on balance, it probably was not – the principles taught in the passage may certainly be applied in cases where a Christian’s sickness has not been healed in response to persistent and believing prayer.

But such a position is unthinkable for those who hold that healing from sickness may always be immediately claimed because it is in the atonement.   Here, as with the passage in Galatians 4:13, it is vital for those who hold that view that Paul be shown not to have been sick.   Yet once again[13] the problem lies in Paul’s use of astheneia, for if Christ has really carried our astheneias (Matthew 8:17) how can Paul say that he glories in them (2 Corinthians 12:9)?

Trophimus, Epaphroditus, and Timothy

The evidence for the sickness of Trophimus, Epaphroditus and Timothy is very easily provided.

• 2 Timothy 4:20 tells us that Paul left Trophimus ill at Miletus.
• Philippians 2:27 reveals that Epaphroditus had been extremely ill, indeed he had nearly died, but the Lord had mercy on him.
• 1 Timothy 5:23 refers to Timothy’s frequent illnesses and recommends the taking of a little wine as a remedy.

Epaphroditus

The passage in Philippians 2:25-30 shows us, first of all, that Epaphroditus was a highly respected servant of the Lord. There is certainly no suggestion that there was sin in his life or that he was lacking in faith! Paul describes him as my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger (v.25). He tells the Philippians to welcome him in the Lord with great joy and honour men like him (v.29). This was because he had risked his life for the work of Christ and had almost died (v. 30).

Yet the passage makes it abundantly clear that this outstanding servant of the Lord became very sick – even to the point of death (Philippians 2:27).   Of course, Epaphroditus was healed.   But the words But God had mercy on him (v.27) are very significant.   Far from implying that Epaphroditus claimed his healing, these words clearly indicate that the source of his healing was God’s gracious mercy.

Nothing else is said about what caused the healing.   There is no suggestion that Paul, whose miracle-working power is well known both from the Book of Acts and from passages like Romans 15:18-20, could command his friend’s recovery.   There is no mention of faith, or prayer, or the laying on of hands, or the anointing with oil.  Rather, Paul views Epaphroditus’s recovery as the direct merciful intervention of God.

Furthermore, it is significant that Epaphroditus was not healed immediately. Yet, if getting healed were as simple as claiming it by faith, why didn’t Paul command his healing straightaway, or why didn’t Epaphroditus himself rise up in faith the moment he first got sick? Of course there is no easy answer to such questions, but what is clear from the case of Epaphroditus is that good Christians can get seriously ill and that they are not always healed immediately.

Trophimus

2 Timothy 4:20 simply states that Paul left Trophimus at Miletus sick.   But if healing is readily available and may be claimed by faith in the ‘promise’ that Christ has already carried our sicknesses, then why didn’t Trophimus claim it?   Surely if Paul had believed such a doctrine, Timothy, as one of his companions, would have known about it too? Yet it appears that he did not, for Paul left him at Miletus sick.

Some have suggested that perhaps Trophimus himself was to blame for his illness or simply lacked faith for healing[14].   But this is an entirely unwarranted assumption!   As Donald Gee pointed out:

Those who want, somehow or other, to fit in this verse about the illness of Trophimus with their own doctrines of divine healing are tempted to assert that he MUST have failed somewhere.   But that is the worst possible way of interpreting the Scriptures.  There is nothing whatever, in the statement, or in its context, to suggest anything spiritually or morally wrong about Trophimus[15].

And the alternative explanation, that Trophimus may have been healed later (with the corollary that not all healings are instantaneous)[16] really fares no better.   First, there is no statement that Trophimus was healed later, and secondly, the defence that not all healings are instantaneous really will not do. If sickness has really already been carried by Christ and healing may, therefore, be claimed by faith immediately[17], there should be no need for any delayed healings!

Thus the simple brief statement that Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus implies that neither Trophimus nor Paul could demand his healing. Indeed, according to Paul, healing like other spiritual gifts is as the Spirit himself determines (1 Cor.12:8-11).

Timothy

Paul’s inability to use his healing gifts whenever he chose is also made clear in his recommendation that Timothy take a little wine for the sake of his stomach and his frequent illnesses (1 Timothy 5:23).   As with Trophimus, if the illness were Timothy’s fault we might have expected Paul to say so and to encourage him to rectify the matter accordingly.   Instead he offers a medicinal solution.  If Paul had believed that healing could always be claimed by faith, why did he not encourage Timothy to do so? But it is perfectly clear that Paul neither believed nor taught any such doctrine!

In considering the cases of Paul, Trophimus, Epaphroditus, and Timothy, therefore, we have shown that:

• Highly respected servants of God may become sick – sometimes seriously
• Sickness is not always caused by lack of faith or sin
• Healing is not always immediate
• Although we firmly believe in God’s power and willingness to heal, it is not always possible to claim healing[18].

[1]See Thesis pp.14-18, 21, 24.   Cf. pp.38-44, 81-84.

[2] Suggestions include malaria, epilepsy, and poor eyesight.

See Note 10 on p 271 of Thesis.

[3] E.g. Ridderbos, H.N., ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia’, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976, pp. 166-167

[4]Longenecker, R.N., ‘Galatians‘, Dallas, Word, 1990, pp. 190-191

[5]The context does not allow for flesh to be understood in its ethical sense here.

[6]See, for example, my comments with regard to Carrie Judd Montgomery and A.B.Simpson on pp. 18-24 of Thesis, esp. p.19.   See also pp.34-37.

[7]E.g. Osborn, T.L., Healing the Sick, Tulsa, TLO Evangelistic Association, 1961, p.48. Cf. Montgomery, C.J., The Prayer of Faith, London, Victory, 1930, pp. 41 and 47.   See my discussion of Matthew 8:17 and the reasons for rejecting this claim in Chapter 4 of Thesis, esp. pp. 116ff.

[8]Martin, R.P., 2 Corinthians, Waco Word, 1986, pp.413-414.

[9]See, for example, 2 Corinthians 11-23 (esp.v.27)

[10]So Martin, op. cit. p.415.

[11]See Note 29 of Thesis (pp.273-4 )

[12]So, Hughes, op. cit., p.442.   See also Barnett,  ‘The Message of  2 Corinthians’, Leicester, IVP, 1988, p.177

[13]Cf. my comments on p. 254 of Thesis.

[14]Simpson and Jeter both suggest this. See: Simpson, A.B., ‘The Gospel of Healing’, London, Morgan & Scott, 1995, pp.63-64. Jeter, H., ‘By His stripes’, Springfield, GPH, 1977, pp. 105-106.

[15]Gee, D., ‘Trophimus I left Sick’, London, Elim, 1952, p.12.

[16]Again Simpson and Jeter both suggest this.   See note 1 on p 178.

[17]See, for example, my quotation from Copeland on pp. 1-2 of Thesis.

[18] As I have already suggested, we need, like Jesus, to know what the Father is doing. It is only when we are submitted to his authority and hearing from him, that we can speak with his authority and in his name claim or command healing.

[Below is the chapter on which this episode was based. Click here for books by Dr David Petts]

Lessons about healing from the epistles – James

The passage in James 5:14-15 provides the clearest instruction to Christians who are sick to be found in the New Testament:

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned he will be forgiven.

These verses clearly offer a high expectation of healing. In this chapter we’ll consider:

• the general context in which the verses are set
• the precise intention of the verses themselves
• reasons why healing may not result immediately.

The general context in which the verses are set

As we will see when we come to consider James 5:14-15 in more detail, it is quite clear that James intends us to understand that if a Christian who is sick calls for the elders of the church[1], and if the elders pray in faith, the sick Christian will be healed. However, to understand the full significance of these verses, it is important to consider first some of James’s earlier teaching.  We begin by looking at a passage where, perhaps surprisingly, James talks about the uncertainty of life itself.

The Uncertainty of Life – James 4:13-16

The general sense of these verses is extremely clear.  Because of the brevity of life we cannot be certain of tomorrow.  Therefore in all our plans we should recognise that their fulfilment is entirely dependent on the Lord’s will.  Verse 15 indicates that even the question of whether we shall be alive tomorrow is subject to the will of the Lord. Our life is just a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. This aspect of James’ teaching must not be disregarded when we seek to understand the statement in 5:15 that the prayer of faith will make the sick person well. Everything is subject to the will of the Lord.

The Last Days – James 5:1-9

In the first six verses of chapter 5, James condemns people who misuse wealth.  He says that they have afflicted their employees (vv. 4-5) and killed the righteous (v. 6) and as a result misery is coming upon them (v. 1).  This, together with the reference to the last days (v. 3), suggests that the day of judgement is in mind. This appears to be confirmed by the mention of the coming of the Lord (vv. 7 & 8), and the Judge who is standing at the door (v. 9).  When we come to consider the passage about healing, therefore, we need to remember that the thought of the return of the Lord is very much in mind.

Patience in suffering – James 5: 7-12 

In the last section James used the coming of the Lord as a threat to the wicked. But in this section he uses it to encourage Christians – James calls them brothers (v. 7).  He tells them to be patient (vv. 7, 8, 10) until the Lord comes (vv. 7, 8).  This appears to be because they are suffering (v. 10). But what sort of suffering is James talking about?  Perhaps he is referring to suffering inflicted by the rich oppressors mentioned in verses 1-6. The use of the word then (which here means therefore) in verse 7 certainly suggests this.

However, it is interesting that James mentions Job as an example of suffering and patience (vv. 10-11). Bearing in mind the wide range of disasters – including sickness – that Job went through, it seems likely that James has in mind any form of suffering that may come our way as Christians. This should clearly be borne in mind when we consider the full significance of the passage on healing, to which we will turn shortly. Before doing so, however, we need to consider what James means by trouble when he says in verse 13, Is any one of you in trouble?

The meaning of Is any one of you in trouble? (v. 13)

The Greek word that James uses here is the verb kakopathein which literally means to suffer anything bad. This is also the word[2] that he uses in v. 10 when he talks about patience in the face of suffering. The use of the same word here seems to link the passage about patience in suffering with the passage containing the promise of healing. This confirms what we said in the last section, namely that sickness should be understood to be included in James’ use of suffering (kakopathia) rather than distinguished from it[3].

If this understanding is correct, then the promise of healing for the sick in verse 15 must be balanced by the teaching on patience until the coming of the Lord in verse 7-12.  Verse 13 encourages any who are suffering to pray and any who are cheerful to sing praises.  Verse 14 encourages any who are sick to call for the elders of the church to pray over them anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.

But if we are right in saying that sickness is included in James’s understanding of suffering, we need to explain why James gives different instructions (i.e. to call for the elders to pray for you rather than pray for yourself) to those who are sick. The explanation for this is that James is probably referring to someone who is seriously sick, as will become clear as we turn now to the precise intention of the verses themselves.

The precise intention of the verses themselves

In this respect I suggest that four factors indicate that James has in mind here someone who is seriously ill.  These are as follows:

1. The sick person is to call for the eldersrather than go to  This may well indicate the person is so ill that they are incapable of going.
2. The eldersare to pray over This is the only time in the New Testament where the verb to pray is followed by the word over. It probably suggests that the elders are standing over the sick person as they pray, which may well indicate that he or she is lying down.
3. Furthermore, the statement that the Lord will raise him up clearly implies that the sick person is lying down[4].
4. Finally, the fact that they need the eldersto come and pray for them points to the possibility that the sick person is too ill to pray for him or herself.

So I conclude that the sick person James has in mind is seriously ill and that the exhortation to call for the elders for anointing and prayer should not be taken to apply to minor ailments. Thus, although sickness would be included within James’ understanding of suffering, some sickness is so serious that it makes people feel unable to pray for themselves, or at least of praying in faith[5], and that it is why they must call for the elders. Indeed, it is important to notice that the sick person in verses 14-15 is not required to exercise faith – only to call for the elders of the church.  It is the elders’ responsibility to pray the prayer of faith and anoint the sick one with oil in the name of the Lord.

But what is the significance of the oil?  Most commentators acknowledge that, although oil was frequently used for medicinal purposes, the context in James 5 demands that the oil be understood to be of some religious significance[6].  Indeed, even if James knew that oil was of some medicinal value, he would hardly have believed that it was a panacea for all illnesses! Besides, James tells us that it is the prayer, not the oil that will make the sick person well.

It is probably best, therefore, to concentrate on the word anoint rather than the word oil. In both the Old and New Testaments, anointing is associated closely with the work of the Spirit in healing (Isaiah 61:1-2, Luke 4:18ff.) and it is therefore reasonable to understand the anointing with oil in James 5 to be symbolic of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. As such it might well quicken the faith of the sick person.

But anointing with oil and the prayer of faith are not the only things that James mentions in this passage. He talks about the confession of sins (vv. 15-16). The important thing to notice here is the word if  –  If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. We have already seen, from both the Old Testament and the New, that sickness may sometimes be the result of personal sin. We have also seen that very often it is not. James’s statement here is completely in harmony with this teaching. The sickness might have been caused by sin. If that is so, the sin should be confessed and then prayer offered for healing. But if the patient is unaware of any sin that might be hindering their healing, confession would clearly be inappropriate.

Reasons why healing may not occur immediately

The clear promise of verse 15 is that the sick person will be made well. But what if no immediate healing results?  Careful examination of the passage suggests the following possibilities:

1. The sickness has been caused by sinthat needs to be confessed
2. The eldershave failed to pray in faith
3. There needs to be more earnest and persistent prayer
4. The healing will take place when the Lord returns.

We have already discussed (1) in the previous section. With regard to (2) the view that the elders have failed to pray in faith seems perfectly reasonable, especially in the light of James’s insistence earlier in the epistle that prayer must be in faith and that he who doubts will receive nothing from the Lord (James 1:5-8).

Another possibility is that (3) the healing, though not immediately manifested, will be gradual or delayed. James goes on to talk about the power of prayer in verses 16-18 and uses Elijah as an illustration. What is significant about Elijah is that he prayed earnestly (v. 17) and he prayed persistently (cf. 1 Kings 18:41-45 where he prays seven times until his prayer is answered). The reference to Elijah here, therefore, is almost certainly intended to imply that sometimes persistent prayer is needed for the sick to be healed. If we are sufficiently earnest we will be persistent.

Finally, with regard to (4), I have already indicated that the statement that the prayer of faith will make the sick person well (5:15) must be balanced by James’s statement that we only live if the Lord wills (4:15). As Christians our lives are in the hands of the Lord and, if he chooses, he may take us to be with himself at any time. In Part Two we will see how the ultimate healing takes place when Jesus comes again and our mortal bodies are clothed with immortality (1 Corinthians 15:50-54). We have already noted that in James’s understanding the coming of the Lord was very near. It is, therefore, at least possible that when he says, the Lord will raise him up (v. 15), he has also in mind the fact of the final resurrection. This view is supported by the fact that the verb James uses in this connection is egeirein, the word that is also used in connection with resurrection.

Of course, James’s primary intention was undoubtedly to indicate that an immediate miracle of healing should be expected. However, it is possible that we may discern within his statement a secondary intention which, based on the earlier analogy with Job (James 5:8-11), suggests that if immediate healing is not the will of the Lord then the sick must be patient until the Lord’s coming at which time they will undoubtedly be ‘raised up’[7].

Indeed, as Moo has argued

….the days when God’s promises are to be fulfilled have begun, but a climax to that period is still expected. It is in the eschatological tension of the ‘already….. not yet’ that James’ ethics are to be understood[8].

If this understanding is correct, then the prayer of faith is not a prayer that insists that healing must be immediate but a prayer that commits the sick one to God knowing that his will is best[9] and that he can be trusted to ‘raise up’ the sick whether it be immediately by a miracle of healing or ultimately at the return of the Lord.

In short, although the passage indicates that the sick may expect to be healed, there is no guarantee that the healing will be immediate.  The apparently clear promise of a miracle of healing must be tempered by James’ earlier teaching that prayer must be offered without doubting (1:6-8), that no-one can count on tomorrow but recognise that the length of life is as the Lord will (4:13-17), and that Christians must, like Job, be patient in suffering (5:10-11) for the coming of the Lord is at hand (5:8).  Then healing is guaranteed!

[1] Church leaders are given a variety of titles today. Here James simply refers to them as elders. For more detailed explanation of the role of elders in the New Testament church, see:

Petts, D., Body Builders – Gifts to make God’s people grow, Mattersey, Mattersey Hall, 2002, pp. 71-88.

[2] In v. 10 he uses the noun kakopathia whereas in v. 13 it is the verb kakopathein. Both forms are part of the same Greek word group.

[3]Cf. Job 2:7 and passim.

[4]For discussion that in this passage a fair degree of illness is present, see Motyer, A., The Message of James, Leicester, IVP, 1985, pp.193-194.

[5]For James’ emphasis on the importance of praying in faith, cf.  James 1:5-8. My suggestion that the patient might be so ill as to be unable to pray in faith is based on the psychologically debilitating effects produced by certain physical afflictions.

[6] Cf. Adamson, J., The Epistle of  James, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976, p. 197

Mitton, C.L., ‘The Epistle of James’, London, Marshalls, 1966. p. 199.

Moo D.J., ‘James’ Leicester, IVP, 1985, p. 178.

See also Shogren, G.S., ‘Will God Heal Us – A Re-examination of James 5:14-16a’, Evangelical Quarterly 61, (2, ‘89), pp. 99-108.

[7] One passage in Job is highly significant in this connection. In Job 19:25-27 he says:

I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see him with my own eyes – I and not another. How my heart yearns within me!

[8]Moo, op. cit., p. 44.

[9]ibid p. 186.

[below is the chapter on which this podcast was based – click here for books]

Medical Healing

There are undoubtedly positive promises for healing in the New Testament, but if these are not balanced and understood in the light of  the overall teaching of the Bible, there is always a danger of going to unbiblical extremes.

One such extreme is the belief that to resort to the use of medicine indicates a lack of faith. An outstanding example of this is A.B. Simpson, who was one of the earliest exponents of the doctrine that Jesus died for sickness as well as for sin. In his major work on the subject, The Gospel of Healing, first published in 1885, he concluded that, if healing is in the atonement of Christ, then the use of medical “means” is to be rejected in favour of divine healing:

If that be God’s way of healing, then other methods must be man’s ways, and there must be some risk in deliberately repudiating the former for the latter…. for the trusting and obedient child of God there is the more excellent way which his Word has clearly prescribed[1].

And again:

Having became fully persuaded of the Word of God, the Will of God, and your own personal acceptance with God, NOW COMMIT YOUR BODY TO HIM AND CLAIM HIS PROMISE OF HEALING in the name of Jesus by simple faith…… From that moment doubt should be regarded as absolutely out of the question, and even the very thought of retreating or resorting to old ‘means’ inadmissible. Of course such a person will at once abandon all remedies and medical treatment (my italics)[2].

However, although the early proponents of the doctrine encouraged the rejection of the use of medicine, in recent years its advocates have been more careful. This is possibly because of the legal implications (particularly in the United States) rather than because of a change in convictions.  As Bruce Barron has aptly commented, though the main proponents of the doctrine never advocate abandonment of medical care, those who hear that healing is available to all who will claim it by faith might easily infer that[3]. Indeed, whatever the overt position of the teachers of the doctrine might be, there have been tragic cases among their followers because of the rejection of medical care.

Perhaps the best-known example of this is the case of the eleven-year-old diabetic Wesley Parker whose parents, believing that Jesus died for Wesley’s sickness, threw away his insulin. Refusing to return to a doctor, they watched Wesley die in agony. Even then, in their attempt to exercise faith, they planned a ‘resurrection service’ instead of a funeral. After the service they were arrested, found guilty of child abuse and imprisoned[4].

And allied to the rejection of medical care is, of course, the denial of symptoms which can be an equally risky business. McConnell points out that in diseases such as cancer, where early detection is directly proportional to cure rates, the denial of symptoms can have tragic consequences. He records how physicians in Tulsa have described to him the frustration of attempting to treat serious illnesses that could have been prevented had they been diagnosed sooner. One cancer specialist commented that on a weekly basis he encountered believers who were denying the symptoms of cancer [5].

McConnell also records how a woman described to him the results of following the teaching to deny the reality of a sore throat. Although her sore throat persisted and worsened to a point that she grew seriously ill, she still did not seek medical attention. When she finally did see her doctor her sore throat turned out to be advanced rheumatic fever. Her health and mental clarity have been permanently affected [6].

These shocking examples should warn us against the extremes to which some have gone – no doubt sincerely – because of their understanding of God’s promises to heal. But does the Bible adopt a negative position towards the use of medicine? It is to this question that we must now turn our attention. We will consider:

• Passages which possibly reveal a negative attitude
• Passages which reveal a positive attitude

Passages which possibly reveal a negative attitude

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, we have already considered the case of King Asa who did not seek help from the Lord, but only from the physicians (2 Chronicles 16:12)[7]. We suggested that this verse should not be taken to mean that it is wrong for God’s people to seek medical help, but rather that Asa’s fault was that he sought help only from the physicians and did not seek help from the Lord. This, as we shall see, is certainly in harmony with what appears to be the New Testament attitude.

In the New Testament Mark 5:25-26 is perhaps the most negative reference with regard to the medical profession. Luke simply states that, although the woman had spent everything she had on doctors, none of them had been able to heal her (Luke 8:43).   Mark however emphasises that she had suffered at the hands of the doctors and instead of getting better had actually become worse!

But was it Mark’s intention to be critical of the medical profession? This is certainly one way of understanding his statement, but it is by no means the only way.   A second possibility would be to understand Mark as criticising the particular doctors who treated the woman but as not condemning the medical profession as a whole.   Thirdly, and in my view preferably, we may understand that Mark’s intention was to stress the seriousness of the woman’s condition and thus to emphasise the greatness of the miracle that Jesus performed on her. To state that doctors have failed completely in a particular case is not necessarily to condemn the medical profession as a whole. In support of this view Schweizer comments:

It is affirmed explicitly that human skill had been exhausted.   This is a regular feature in miracle stories, which usually indicates the severity of the illness…… and does not say anything about the Christian’s attitude toward physicians[8].

Furthermore, Mark’s inclusion of Jesus’ saying that the healthy do not need a doctor but those who are sick (Mark 2:17) strongly suggests that his attitude to the medical profession in general was by no means hostile, for although the saying is used to illustrate a spiritual truth and to defend Jesus’ eating with sinners and tax-collectors (v.16), the parallel would have been offensive had he disapproved of the medical profession[9].

But is the medical profession condemned elsewhere in the New Testament?   According to John Nelson Parr[10], the use of pharmakeia (translated as witchcraft in Galatians 5:20 and in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:15) certainly indicates such condemnation. Parr argues that pharmakeia properly means ‘The administration or application or use of a medicine, a remedy, a purgative, a charm, or poison’[11]. He dismisses the possibility that in the New Testament the word may carry the connotation of sorcery because he believes that it primarily means the use of drugs and is clearly distinguished from the occult because the New Testament uses other words to refer to sorcery.

Thus in the passages referred to it is not sorcery (since for Parr pharmakeia in the New Testament does not mean sorcery) that is condemned, but the practice of medicine! Such a conclusion clearly reveals a serious lack of understanding of the nature of language[12] and makes no allowance for variation in the use of a word according to context. A similar error today might be to assume that the word ‘drug’ always refers to narcotics and never to a medicine on the fallacious assumption that the writer would use the word ‘medicine’ if he meant medicine!

Furthermore it is noteworthy that, despite the scathing implications of Parr’s understanding of the meaning of pharmakeia in the passages referred to above, he later modifies his position with the following comment:

It is perhaps necessary to make it clear that we do not condemn physicians because we do not find the Saviour ever condemned them; and while He never recommended or advised anyone to go to them, He did not forbid anyone to go, neither did He upbraid anyone for having been to them. We need to avoid going to a fanatical and unscriptural extreme! [13]

This comment, it seems to me, clearly invalidates his former argument and leads naturally to a consideration of those passages in the New Testament which display a positive attitude to medicine or the medical profession.

Passages which reveal a positive attitude

I have already drawn attention to Jesus’ saying that the healthy do not need a doctor but those who are sick (Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31) and have argued that such a statement by no means suggests hostility to the medical profession.   Indeed, it may reasonably be understood to indicate approval.   At the very least it is an acknowledgement of a need.

The reference, found only in Luke, to the proverb Physician, heal yourself (Luke 4:23) is used by Harnack as evidence of Luke’s special interest in the medical profession[14].   It is noteworthy that the use of the proverb indicates no hostility to the physician’s skill.   Indeed, coupled with the understanding that Luke was himself a physician (Colossians 4:14), the use of the expression almost certainly indicates approval.

Even more interesting, however, is Harnack’s twofold suggestion that Luke may well have been Paul’s physician and that his medical skill complemented Paul’s charismatic gifts in healing the sick in Malta and that Luke accompanied him as his personal physician.   Indeed, this was part of the purpose of his presence with Paul in Rome (Colossians 4:14)[15].   Nevertheless, even if this suggestion is to be rejected for want of compelling evidence, the very use of the phrase the beloved physician clearly displays in itself at least a positive attitude towards his medical ability.

Furthermore, the phrase must surely indicate the distinct possibility that Luke was still practising medicine, for why else should he be referred to as a physician rather than as just a brother?   Even if, as Martin suggests, Paul commented on Luke’s medical ability because it was so unusual[16], the view that the New Testament condemns the practice of medicine must surely be rejected.

Finally, it is noteworthy that on at least three occasions the New Testament actually advocates the use of medicinal means. One clear example, to which I have already referred, is Paul’s recommendation to Timothy to take wine for the sake of his stomach[17].  A further example is the instruction given to the church at Laodicea to purchase eye salve that they might see[18], and although the use here is clearly metaphorical it seems hardly likely that such a metaphor would have been employed if the use of medical means were disapproved of.

Yet another example is the use of oil and wine in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37).   In v.33 the Samaritan takes pity on the wounded man and in v.34 dresses his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.   He then takes him to an inn where he takes care of him.   It is clear from the context that the purpose of the oil and the wine was medicinal and Harnack cites Hippocrates to show that ‘physicians of antiquity used oil and wine not only internally, but also for external application’[19].   And Jesus commands his followers to Go and do likewise (v.37).   Such an exhortation would surely have been inappropriate if his intention had been that his followers should not use medical means in healing the sick.

The right attitude today

From what we have seen, there is no clear evidence in either the Old or the New Testament of a negative attitude towards the use of medicine. In fact there are indications of a positive attitude. This suggests that as Christians today we too should be positive about it and be grateful to God for the advances in medical science that have been made since Bible times.

But given that the use of medicine and the medical profession is appropriate for a Christian, the question arises as to when we should avail ourselves of it, bearing in mind that God has promised to heal us. In this connection it is important to realise that it need not be a question of God or medicine. It can, and probably should, be a matter of both. As Christians we should seek the Lord in everything, so we should not, like Asa, consult the doctor and forget the Lord. On the other hand, we should remember that God works through the natural as well as through the supernatural. It would seem foolish to ask God for a miracle when there is a simple natural solution.

A good illustration of this principle is God’s miraculous provision of food for the Israelites when they were travelling through the desert. Exodus 16 reveals how God provided ‘manna’ as food for his people. There was always enough for each day and on the day before the Sabbath there was enough for two days! And this provision lasted throughout the forty years they were in the desert until they came to a land that was settled; they ate manna until they came to the border of Canaan (v.35)[20]. This is confirmed in Joshua 5:12

The manna stopped the day after they ate… food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate the produce of Canaan.

The lesson from this is very clear. God has many natural ways of providing for the needs of his people. It is when our needs are beyond our natural resources that we may expect God to provide supernaturally. God does not work miracles when there is no need for them.

Now if we apply this principle to healing we are ready to answer the question as to whether sick Christians should resort to medical means for their healing, and if so, at what stage – before or after prayer? The answer is clear. Since we are to pray continually (1 Thessalonians 5:17), we should pray as soon as we are ill and continue to pray until we are better.

But that does not mean that we should not consult a doctor or take medicine.  Indeed, in most cases it seems that it is through medical means that the Lord chooses to heal us. Where human skill is insufficient, however, as Christians we have the assurance that even when something is impossible with man, all things are possible with God. It is perhaps at this stage that the passage in James 5:14ff. becomes most relevant.

[1] Simpson, A.B., The Gospel of Healing, London, Morgan and Scott, 1915, p. 68.

[2] Ibid pp. 88-89.

[3] Barron, B., The Health and Wealth Gospel, Downer’s Grove, IVP, 1988, p. 129.

[4] The full story of Wesley’s tragic death is told by his father in:

Parker, L., We let our son die, Eugene Oregon, Harvest House, 1980.

[5] McConnell, D. R., A Different Gospel – a Historical and Biblical Approach to the Modern Faith Movement, Peabody, Hendrickson, 1988, pp. 165 and 169.

[6] Ibid p.169.

[7] See pp. 36-37.

[8]Schweizer, E., ‘The Good News according to Mark’, ET D.H.Madvig, London, SPCK, 1971, p.117. Cf. ibid p.20. Cf. Alexander, J.A., ‘The Gospel according to Mark’, London, Banner of Truth, 1960 p.127, Anderson, H., ‘The Gospel of Mark’, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1976, p.152.

[9]A similar argument may be applied to Matthew and Luke’s attitudes to the medical profession (not to mention Jesus’!) – cf. Matthew 9:12, Luke 5:31.

[10] Parr, op. cit. pp46-50, but cf. pp61-62.

[11] ibid. pp.44-60.

[12] Cf. the criticism I levelled against Parr earlier with regard to his understanding of sōzō. See pp. 135ff.

[13] Parr, op.cit., p. 61.

[14]Harnack, A., ‘Luke the Physician’ London, Williams and Norgate, 1907, p.17.

[15]For my rejection of this view, see Thesis pp 266ff.

[16]Martin R.P., ‘Colossians and Philemon’, London, Oliphants, 1974, p. 135.

[17] 1 Timothy 5:23. See my discussion on p. 261 of Thesis.

[18]Revelation 3:18.

[19]Harnack, op. cit., p. 190.   Cf. Hobart, op. cit., pp. 28ff.

[20] Canaan, of course, was the Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey. There was abundant natural provision. They no longer needed supernatural food.

Lessons about healing from Acts – Part Two

The healing of the sick on the island of Malta

Last time:

There are many references to healing in the Book of Acts.

General references include:

• the disciples’ prayer that God would stretch out his hand to heal (4:30)
• the statement that on one occasion all the sick were healed as Peter’s shadow passed over them (5:14-16)
• a description of Philip’s evangelistic ministry in Samaria (8:5-8)
• and the mention of extraordinary miracles of healing as a result of people touching handkerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul (19:11-12).

Specific miracles of healing described in Acts include:

• The healing of the cripple at the gate of the Temple (3:7-9)
• The healing of Aeneas and the raising of Dorcas (9:33-42)
• The healing of the cripple at Lystra (14:8-10)
• The raising of Eutychus from the dead (20:9-12)
• Paul’s deliverance from snake-bite, the healing of Publius’ father, and of the sick of the island of Malta (28:1-10).

We noted that:

• It was not just apostles who performed miracles (e.g. 6:8, 8:6-8)
• Most of the healings recorded took place in an evangelistic context (or resulted in many turning to the Lord)
• Some healings were extraordinary (e.g. 5:14-16, 19:11-12)
• Healings were not the only signs which led to the conversion of many (e.g. the miracle of tongues on the Day of Pentecost).

The main lessons that we can learn from the miracle in Acts 3

• No situation is too difficult for God.
• It is not always the person in need who is expected to exercise faith. We can move in faith ourselves as we seek to minister to people, but to do so we need to be submitted to God’s authority and led by his Spirit.
• In this connection it is important that we learn to hear what God is saying.
• We can only command healing in the name of Jesus when we are sure we have heard from God and are acting under his authority.
• It is important to distinguish between praying for the sick and commanding their healing. We can and should always pray for the sick, but we can only command healing when we have heard directly from God on the matter.
• God works miracles through us in order to confirm the message of the gospel.

The healing of the sick on the island of Malta        Acts 28:1-10

1 Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.  2 The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold. 3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, “This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.” 5 But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. 6 The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.

7 There was an estate nearby that belonged to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us to his home and for three days entertained us hospitably. 8 His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him. 9 When this had happened, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured. 10 They honored us in many ways and when we were ready to sail, they furnished us with the supplies we needed.

The events described take place after the ship, on which Paul is travelling as a prisoner on his way to Rome, has been wrecked.

Thanks to God’s mercy, all have managed to reach the shore safely.

Because of the cold and rain, the islanders kindly light a fire and, as Paul goes to put wood on the fire, a poisonous snake bites his hand (v. 3).

But Paul shakes it off into the fire and suffers no ill effects (v. 5).

This miracle, which is clearly comparable with the promise of Jesus in Mark 16:18, causes great amazement among the islanders who decide that Paul must be a god.

Although this is not stated here, we must assume that Paul would have quickly corrected this misunderstanding, just as he did in Acts 14 when he and Barnabas were thought to be gods after healing the cripple at Lystra (Acts 14:8-18).

We are then told that Publius, the chief official of the island, welcomed them into his home where they stayed for three days.

His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery (v. 8).

The description of the order of events following this is noteworthy.

(1) Paul went in to see him

(2) he prayed

(3) he placed his hands on him

(4) he healed him.

(5) As a result, the rest of the sick on the island came and were cured.

This healing is noticeably different from the miracle performed by Peter on the cripple at the gate of the temple.

The phrase after prayer (v. 8) is significant here. In Acts 3 we do not read that Peter prayed for the cripple. Rather, he commands his healing – In the name of Jesus… walk!

Similarly, Paul in Acts 14:8-10 commands the healing of the cripple at Lystra – Stand up on your feet. But here in Acts 28 he prays before laying hands on the man who is ill.

This need not mean that he prayed for him, as we are told that after prayer he placed his hands on him and healed him.

The suggestion may well be, therefore, that in praying Paul was looking for guidance in the matter.

If this interpretation is correct, there is an important lesson to be learned from Paul’s actions here. If we do not already have clear revelation concerning the healing of a sick person (as did Peter in Acts 3 and Paul in Acts 14) it is important to pray for guidance before seeking to minister healing.

As a result of this healing, the rest of the sick of the island came and were cured (v. 9).

The islanders of Malta, therefore, had witnessed some amazing miracles at the hands of Paul – his deliverance from snake-bite, the healing of Publius’s father, and the healing of the rest of the sick.

Yet despite this, surprisingly there is no direct reference to the conversion of the islanders, although it might be argued that their coming for healing was, in itself, an indication of their faith

But there is one further issue to be considered before we leave Acts 28.

It is noteworthy that Luke, who was the author of Acts, was present with Paul at this time.

This is evident from the various uses of we and us in this passage (e.g. vv.1, 2, 7, 10).

Now we know that Luke was a doctor (Colossians 4:14) and it has been suggested that verse 9 implies that Luke used his medical skills in curing the sick on Malta.

This view is based on the words They honoured us… (v.10).

Surely, it is argued, Luke must have done some healing if he was honoured along with Paul.

BUT

1. There is no statement in Acts 28 that Luke used his medical ability in Malta.
2. It is by no means impossible that Luke as well as Paul was charismatically gifted in the realm of healing.
3. The bestowing of honours on both Luke and Paul does not imply that both were used in healing the sick. (Cf. Acts 14:8-12 where both Paul and Barnabas are honoured because of a healing performed by Paul).
4. The most natural way to interpret the passage is to understand the sick of the island coming to Paul for the laying on of hands (v.9) as a result of the healing of Publius’s father (v.8). However, the fact that Luke probably did not use his medical skills in Acts 28 does not mean that medical skill is not important. We’ll talk about this next time.

Conclusion

Our examination of healing in Acts has shown us that:

• Jesus’ disciples performed very similar miracles to those that Jesus performed
• There is every reason to believe that we can expect similar miracles (Mark 16:16-18 and John 14:12)
• No situation is too difficult for God. The impossible becomes possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.
• It’s not just apostles who perform miracles. Signs are promised to those who believe.
• It is not always the sick person who is expected to exercise faith. We can move in faith ourselves as we seek to minister to people, but to do so we need to be submitted to God’s authority and led by his Spirit.
• We need to hear what God is saying. We should only command healing in the name of Jesus when we are sure we have heard from God and know that we are acting under his authority.
• If we are unsure about this we should pray before seeking to minister to the sick.
• Most of the healings recorded resulted in many turning to the Lord. God works miracles through us in order to confirm the message of the gospel. It is in the context of evangelism that we can expect healings and other kinds of miracle to happen.

Testimony: Ruby’s healing

Details of this healing and other miracles I have experienced are recorded in my book ‘Signs from Heaven’ available via my website.

There are many references to healing in the Book of Acts. Some of these are general, others are specific.

General references include:

• the disciples’ prayer that God would stretch out his hand to heal (4:30)
• the statement that on one occasion all the sick were healed as Peter’s shadow passed over them (5:14-16)
• a description of Philip’s evangelistic ministry in Samaria (8:5-8)
• and the mention of extraordinary miracles of healing as a result of people touching handkerchiefs and aprons taken from Paul (19:11-12).

Specific miracles of healing described in Acts include:

• The healing of the cripple at the gate of the Temple (3:7-9)
• The healing of Aeneas and the raising of Dorcas (9:33-42)
• The healing of the cripple at Lystra (14:8-10)
• The raising of Eutychus from the dead (20:9-12)
• Paul’s deliverance from snake-bite, the healing of Publius’ father, and of the sick of the island of Malta (28:1-10).
• We will consider the first and the last of these in some detail, but first the following general points are important:
• It was not just apostles who performed miracles (e.g. 6:8, 8:6-8)
• Most of the healings recorded took place in an evangelistic context (or resulted in many turning to the Lord)
• Some healings were extraordinary (e.g. 5:14-16, 19:11-12)
• Healings were not the only signs which led to the conversion of many (e.g. the miracle of tongues on the Day of Pentecost).

We will consider two passages in more detail:

• The healing of the cripple at the gate of the temple (today)
• The healing of the sick on the island of Malta (next time)

The cripple at the gate of the temple

This amazing miracle is recorded in Acts 3:1-8 where we read:

1 One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer – at three in the afternoon.

2 Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.

3 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money.

4 Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!”

5 So the man gave them his attention expecting to get something from them.

6 Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk”.

7 Taking him by the right hand he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong.

8 He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping and praising God.

The condition of the man before he was healed.

Physically he was in a desperate state

He had been a cripple from birth (v. 2)

He was over 40 years old (Acts 4:22).

He had never walked in his life!

And his psychological condition was really no better.

There is no indication that he had faith to be healed.

He was expecting to receive nothing but money (v. 3)

He was put at the temple gate every day to beg (v. 2).

In complete contrast to this we see the confidence of Peter and John

Although they had no money to offer the man, they had something infinitely better!

Peter says, What I have, I give you. This is highly significant.

It implies that in some way Peter knew that he had the gift of the man’s healing and that he had the authority to give it to him.

But how could Peter know this?

The answer must surely be that he knew it by revelation of the Holy Spirit.

Why do I say this?

Jesus himself was a man under authority and did only what he saw the Father do.

In John 20:21-22 he had said to his disciples, As the Father sent me, I am sending you, and with that he breathed on them and said, Receive the Holy Spirit

The disciples were not only to continue the ministry of Jesus after he had gone, but that they were to continue it in the same way, by revelation from heaven.

Once Jesus had gone, they would receive this from the Holy Spirit who came at Pentecost. That is how Peter could say,

What I have I give you

He knew by revelation of the Spirit that the time for this man’s healing had come (cf. 1 Cor 12:10)

Timing is often highly significant with regard to miracles of healing.

Since the man had been placed at the temple gate every day, it is highly likely that Jesus must have passed that way. If so, there was a purpose in the delay for this man’s healing, as we shall see.

Peter’s use of the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (v. 6)

In Bible times, as is often the case today, to do something in someone’s name was to do it with their authority.

And you can only have a person’s authority to do something if they have told you, or at least given you permission, to do it!

The name of Jesus is not a magic formula whereby you can get what you like just by claiming it and adding the words in the name of Jesus

That might be getting fairly close to breaking the commandment, You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God (Exodus 20:7)

To act or speak in the name of Jesus means to do so with his authority, and that is exactly what Peter was doing here in Acts 3.

In fact, Peter is so sure of his authority here that he takes the risk (humanly speaking) of taking the man by the hand and helping him up (v. 7). You need to be very sure that you’ve heard from God if you’re going to take the hand of a person who has never walked in their life, help them up, and tell them to walk! But Peter had heard from God. That’s why he had faith for the miracle.

Faith for the Miracle

In verse 16, Peter explains to the crowd that had gathered how the miracle had taken place – by faith in the name (authority) of Jesus.

As we have already seen, the faith referred to here was not the man’s, but Peter’s. Nevertheless, Peter is quick to draw attention away from himself and to give the glory to Jesus. It was not by Peter’s power or godliness that the man had been made to walk (v.12)

Miracles do not happen for us because we are especially holy. They are charismata, gifts which come from the grace of God, and the Holy Spirit gives them to us just as he determines (1 Corinthians 12:11).

Finally, the dramatic effect of this miracle upon the people who saw it

They were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened (v. 10)

Jesus had promised in Mark 16 that miraculous signs would accompany believers in order to confirm the word of the gospel. And that is what we see happening in Acts.

But unlike so many situations today, in Acts the miracle usually occurred before the preaching of the word, not after it (cf. Acts 2 where Peter preaches to the crowd after their attention has been arrested by the miracle of speaking in tongues)

So now in Acts 3 Peter uses the miracle as a wonderful opportunity to preach the gospel (vv.13-16) and as a result the number of believers grew to about 5,000 (Acts 4:4).

The main lessons that we can learn from this miracle

• No situation is too difficult for God. The impossible becomes possible through the power of the Holy Spirit.
• It is not always the person in need who is expected to exercise faith. We can move in faith ourselves as we seek to minister to people, but to do so we need to be submitted to God’s authority and led by his Spirit.
• In this connection it is important that we learn to hear what God is saying. We can only command healing in the name of Jesus when we are sure we have heard from God and are acting under his authority. It is important to distinguish between praying for the sick and commanding their healing. We can and should always pray for the sick, but we can only command healing when we have heard directly from God on the matter.
• God works miracles through us in order to confirm the message of the gospel. It is in this context that we can expect miracles to happen. If we are not preaching the word, then there is nothing for him to confirm!

NEXT TIME: Paul’s ministry in healing the sick on the island of Malta.

[Below is the chapter on which this podcast is based]

In the last four chapters we have examined the healing ministry of Jesus as it is portrayed in each of the four Gospels. But Jesus did not only heal the sick, he commissioned his disciples to do so too. So in this chapter we will turn our attention to the healing ministry of the disciples as it is described in the Gospels. In the next chapter we will see how that ministry continued in the Acts of the Apostles.

The Gospels record three occasions when Jesus commissioned his disciples to heal the sick. These include:

The call of the Twelve (Matthew 10:1-8, Mark 6:7-12, Luke 9:1-6)

The sending out of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1-24)

The Great Commission (Mark 16:15ff)

We will consider each of these in turn before turning to the Acts of the Apostles.

The call of the Twelve

Matthew, Mark and Luke all record how Jesus gave the twelve apostles authority to heal the sick (Matthew 10:1-8, Mark 6:7-12, and Luke 9:1-6). The account in Matthew is the most detailed, so we will concentrate on that, making reference to Mark and Luke only where appropriate.

In Matthew 10:1 we are told that Jesus

called his twelve disciples and to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to cure every kind of disease and sickness.

Verses 2-4 then give us a list of the names of the twelve. The following verses (5-42) recount the instructions which Jesus gave to them on that occasion. However, it is verses 7-8 that are particularly noteworthy with regard to healing. Here Jesus says:

As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near’. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received. Freely give.

Mark and Luke add little to this, except that Mark says:

They went out and preached that people should repent. They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them (Mark 6:12-13)

and Luke says:

So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere (Luke 9:6).

As we consider all three passages together, the following points are noteworthy:

There appears to be no limit to the authority that Jesus gave them on this occasion. Matthew 10:1 says that Jesus gave them authority to heal every kind of disease and sickness and this extended to cleansing lepers and even raising the dead (v.8). Their authority is such that they are not told to pray for the sick but to heal them.

This authority was given at a specific time to a specific group of people whom Matthew names (10:2-4). We should not, therefore, automatically assume that the same authority is given to us, unless this is plainly stated elsewhere in the New Testament[1]. However, the passage in Luke 10, where Jesus sends out another 72 with a similar commission does suggest that this authority was not intended to be limited to the 12 apostles.

Since Jesus later told his disciples to wait for the power of the Holy Spirit before they were to go out and preach the gospel (Acts 1:4-8), it is possible that the authority given on this occasion was intended for the duration of Jesus’ earthly ministry only. Once Jesus had returned to heaven the disciples in Acts would perform healings as they were prompted by the Holy Spirit.

The twelve were sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 10:6). In fact, Jesus specifically tells them not to go to the Gentiles or Samaritans on this occasion (v. 5). This again suggests that the situation being described here was unique. The commission is given, as we have seen, at a specific time, to a specific group of people, and with a specific purpose – to proclaim God’s kingdom (v. 7) to the lost sheep of Israel. This need not mean, however, that we can learn nothing from this passage. It is interesting that Paul, in his mission to the Gentiles obeys Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 10:14 to shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against any who reject the gospel message (cf. Acts 13:51).

Jesus does not appear to teach any methodology of healing on this occasion. There are no instructions, for example, to lay hands on the sick. However, Mark tells us that they anointed the sick with oil (6:13), and this was presumably at Jesus’ instruction. This was later to become a regular means of healing for the Lord’s people as we will see when we come to consider James 5:14ff.

There is a clear connection in both Matthew and Luke between healing and the kingdom of God[2]. Luke says that Jesus sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick (Luke 9:2, cf. 10:8) and Matthew states that Jesus said, As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near’. Heal the sick, raise the dead…(Matthew 10:7-8).

The sending out of the seventy-two

As we have already mentioned, Luke not only records the sending out of the twelve apostles, but he also tells us of a later occasion when Jesus appointed seventy-two[3] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go (Luke 10:1). Then, after giving them instructions very similar to those he had given earlier to the twelve (vv. 2-8) he tells them to heal the sick (v. 9). The significance of the number (whether 70 or 72) has been much discussed and need not detain us here[4]. What is significant, however, is the fact that this clearly extends the commission to heal beyond the twelve apostles. Other points of interest are, again, the connection between healing and the Kingdom of God (v. 9), and the fact that the disciples were sent out two by two (v. 1).

Perhaps more important, however, is the passage in verses 17-20 where Luke tells us:

The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord even the demons submit to us in your name”. He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightening from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions, and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.

We have already noticed that salvation is more important than being healed. But this passage clearly indicates that salvation is more important than the power to heal! It also shows us that the authority Jesus had given the 72 was no less than that given earlier to the apostles – it was authority over all the power of the enemy. It seems that, rather than the apostolic power being limited to a few, Jesus intended it to be extended to many! But that leads us very naturally to the passage in Mark 16.

The Great Commission

The passages we have considered so far in this chapter describe occasions where Jesus sent out his disciples to heal, during the time of his earthly ministry, before he had died and risen from the dead. Now, in Mark 16:14-20, we turn to a passage in which Jesus gives his disciples a similar commission after his death and resurrection, indeed immediately before his ascension into heaven (v.19). Mark records how Jesus said to them:

Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.

Although the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on the grounds that it is not found in the most reliable early manuscripts, it is nevertheless worthy of our consideration for several reasons:

It has long been considered to form part of the canon of Holy Scripture.

The passage is in complete harmony with Jesus’ earlier statements to his disciples found in the examples we have already considered.

The promises Jesus makes here are, with the exception of one, all fulfilled in the Acts of the Apostles, of which Mark 16:20 might well be considered to be a summary.

To this we might add the further evidence that modern experience testifies to the literal reality of these things[5] .

Now, turning to the passage itself, we notice that, although the command to go into all the world and preach the gospel was given initially to the Eleven[6] (v.14), the promise of miraculous signs was not made only to them but to those who believe (v.17). It was not just the apostles who were to spread the good news, but those who came to faith as a result of their ministry were to do so too, and the same signs would accompany their preaching[7].

Of course the signs which Jesus promises will accompany the preaching of the message of the gospel are not the message itself. The message, which must be preached to all the world (v. 15), is that Jesus died for our sins and that we may be saved by believing in him (v. 16). The signs are given to confirm the truth of that message (v. 20).

It is important to notice too that healing is not the only sign mentioned in these verses. God has many ways of confirming his word. Jesus is not saying that all believers will manifest all of these signs. Some will be used one way, others in another way (cf. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10). Understood correctly Mark 16 does not imply that all Christians will be used in healing the sick, any more than they will all pick up snakes! Jesus is simply saying that these are the kind of signs that will accompany his servants as they go out and preach the good news.

Finally, it is important to notice that the responsibility for having faith for healing in this passage is not placed on the sick, but upon those who lay hands on them. Jesus says, These signs will accompany those who believe…they will place their hands on sick people and they will get well (vv. 17-18). If we are to minister to the sick, especially in the context of evangelism, we should not place all the burden of belief upon them. It is our responsibility to have faith for their healing.

Conclusion

The passages we have examined indicate that:

The disciples were given authority to perform exactly the same kind of miracles that Jesus performed.

This was closely connected with the proclamation of the kingdom of God.

This authority was initially given to the twelve apostles, then to a wider group of 72 disciples, and ultimately, after Jesus’ resurrection to all who believe as they go into all the world to preach the gospel. This does not mean, however, that all Christians will be used in healing.

Healing miracles in themselves are not the message. They are given to confirm the message, which is the good news that Christ has died for our sins and that those who believe this will be saved. Being saved is more important than being healed and even having the power to heal.

The responsibility for believing for healing lies with those who lay hands on the sick, not necessarily with the sick themselves, as they may well still be unbelievers.

These principles are seen very clearly in Acts, to which we now turn our attention.

[1] Mark 16:15 ff. may be taken to mean that authority to heal is given to all believers. However, we will discuss this in more detail later.

[2] Matthew uses kingdom of heaven consistently where both Mark and Luke use kingdom of God. The two terms are synonymous.

[3]  Some manuscripts have 70 others, rather than 72.

[5] See, for example, Burton, W.F.P., Signs Following, London, AOG, 1949, where the author relates how all these signs accompanied the ministry of the Congo Evangelistic Mission.

[6] Judas, having betrayed Jesus and having committed suicide, the number of the original apostles at this point was reduced from 12 to 11.

[7] Cf. Matthew’s version of the Great Commission where the apostles were to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe everything the Lord had taught the apostles (Matthew 28:19-20). We have already noted that Matthew records how Jesus had taught the apostles to heal the sick!

Lessons about healing from John

None of the Gospel writers tell us of all the miracles of healing Jesus performed.

John has chosen to record only three (4:46-54, 5:1-15, 9:1-25) although he makes it very clear that Jesus did many more (John 20:30).

His purpose in recording them, along with the other miracles he tells us about, is that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you might have life through his name (John 20:31).

So John’s aim is not so much to tell us how we may be healed as to enable us to be saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. John 3:16).

This is why John always refers to Jesus’ miracles as signs. They point to who he is.

We are going to consider two of the healings recorded by John

• The invalid at the Pool of Bethesda(John 5:1-15)
• The man born blind(John 9: 1-25),

Although there is much to be learned about healing from both these accounts, the important thing is that they should lead us to be saved through faith in Jesus

The invalid at the Pool of  Bethesda (John 5:1-15)

The Pool of Bethesda (which means House of Mercy) was in Jerusalem.

A great number of disabled people used to lie there hoping to be healed by an angel who would come every so often and stir up the waters.

John tells us that one who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

When Jesus saw him, he said to him, Do you want to get well?

The man replied that he had no-one to help him into the pool when the water was stirred.

Then Jesus said to him, Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.

The man was immediately healed, picked up his mat, and walked!

This was on the Sabbath day.

Jesus slipped away into the crowd but the Jews rebuked the man who had been healed for carrying his mat on the Sabbath.

The man replied that it was the man who had made him well who had told him to.

So they asked him who the man was, but the man did not know.

Later, Jesus found him and said, See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you (v.14).

Then the man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well.

Lessons from story

1. A great number of sick people gathered at the pool (v.3), but Jesus healed only one of them on this occasion.
2. This is strikingly different from some of the other accounts, particularly in Matthew (4:23-24, 8:16, 9:35) where we are told that Jesus healed all.
3. Of course, this is not a contradiction with the accounts in Matthew, as Matthew does not record this particular miracle.
4. Although there were occasions when Jesus healed all (as Matthew tells us)
5. there were other occasions when he did not (as John makes clear here).

We notice that it was Jesus who took the initiative on this occasion.

1. The man does not call out to Jesus
2. He does not even know who Jesus is (v.13)
3. So he can hardly exercise faith in Jesus!
4. In fact, he does nothing towards his healing. He can do nothing! He is helpless and hopeless.
5. He does not even have anyone to bring him to Jesus.
6. It is Jesus alone who is responsible for the miracle.
7. The only part the man plays, if we may call it that, is to want to get well (v.6).

In many respects, therefore, this miracle is a wonderful picture of the salvation

1. Humanity as a whole suffers from an incurable condition, the disease of sin.
2. We are helpless and hopeless without Jesus.
3. But, thank God, he has taken the initiative.
4. He has died for our sins and our condition can be cured if we want to get well.
5. Of course, unlike the man in the story, we now know who Jesus is.
6. We can call out to him in faith. And it is through believing in him that we receive eternal life!

It is significant that this man’s illness seems to have been caused by his sin.

1. We are not told what that sin was, but the fact that Jesus says in verse 14, Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you, clearly implies that sin was the cause of the sickness.
2. This does not mean that all sickness is the result of personal sin, but here, the most natural way to interpret the passage is to understand that the man’s sickness was caused by his sin (so Carson).
3. Note the similarity to the account of the healing of the man who was let down through the roof in front of Jesus (Luke 5:17-26).

In both cases:

1. the men are healed with almost the same command, Get up! Pick up your mat and walk!
2. the sickness appears to be connected with personal sin
3. there is opposition from the Jews
4. there is a clear indication of the deityof Jesus.

With regard to this last point, in the passage in Luke it is Jesus’ claim to have authority to forgive sins that his opponents rightly see as a claim to deity.

Here in John 5, however, it is his insistence that he is doing his Father’s work in healing on the Sabbath that is seen as making himself equal with God (vv. 17-18).

Healing & Salvation – Dr David Petts

In recent talks we saw several occasions where Jesus said Your faith has healed you.

The Greek word used here is sozo which can also mean save.

Does this mean that that healing is in some sense a part of salvation?

The answer to this question is NOT NECESSARILY.

Is healing a part of salvation?

The fact that sozo (which in the NT is usually translated ‘save’) is sometimes used to mean ‘heal’[1] has been used by some to argue that healing is included in salvation.  

John Nelson Parr (Divine Healing p26), for example, comments:

“If Peter included healing in ‘being saved’ (Acts 4:9) (…also note the same word in verse 12 twice), are we not justified in teaching that physical healing is included in the salvation purchased for us by the Prince of Life.?”.

This conclusion is invalid, however, because it involves an elementary error in semantics.

The fact that the same word is used twice in a passage does not necessarily imply that it is being used with the same meaning on both occasions.  

Nevertheless it will be helpful briefly to consider the meaning and use of sozo.

The meaning of sozo

The Greek verb is related to the adjective saos (safe) and means

‘to make safe’

and hence ‘to deliver from a direct threat’

and  ‘to bring safe and sound out of a difficult situation’.  

Foerster lists four major areas of meaning for sozo:

saving, keeping, benefiting, and preserving the inner being

Saving includes

• being snatched from peril especially in the context of war or of a sea-voyage
• ‘deliverance’ from judicial condemnation
• being ‘saved’ from an illness.

Keeping includes

• a king keeping a subject alive by granting pardon
• men being kept from perishing
• the spark of a fire being kept from going out
• lost money being ‘got back’, and of wine or goods being ‘kept’.

But sozo and soteria can have a purely positive content.  

Benefiting

• Prayer is offered to Zeus for the soteria of the nation, for peace, wealth, the growth of crops and cattle
• With regard to healing sozomai can mean not only to be cured but to be in good health
• the oath ten men soterian which means ‘by my health’.

preserving the inner being of men or things

• Plato thought that it was the task of the ruler to sozein the state by maintaining it as a constitutionally ordered state
• sozo and soteria often refer to the inner ‘health’ of man”.

So, long before the New Testament documents came to be written, sozo was being used in a wide variety of ways.   

It is noteworthy, however, that in all the examples mentioned above the root meaning of being made or kept safe is clearly discernible.  

This is also true of the use of sozo in the New Testament

Each meaning carries with it the underlying suggestion of being made or kept safe.

The use of sozo in the New Testament

New Testament writers use sozo and its cognates to mean being made or kept safe whenever such terminology is appropriate.   Three main ways:

• Acute danger to physical life
• Deliverance from disease
• Salvation

Acute danger to physical life

• In the stilling of the storm the disciples plead with Jesus to ‘save’ them (Matthew 8:25)
• Peter walking on the water (Matthew 14:30)
• In the accounts of the mocking of Jesus on the cross (Matthew 27:40-42, Mark15:30-31, Luke 23:39) he is challenged to ‘save’ himself.
• Paul’s shipwreck in Acts 27:20, 31, 34
• Hebrews 11:7 refers to Noah preparing the ark to save his household

Those who see healing as a part of salvation on the grounds that sozo is used to  mean ‘heal’ must, to be consistent, include deliverance from physical danger on the same grounds!

Such a position is of course clearly untenable in the light of NT teaching with regards to Christians who suffer persecution (e.g. 1 Peter, passim, Romans 8:35-39, 2 Corinthians 11:23-33).

Deliverance from disease

sozo is used to mean ‘heal’in:

• the healing of the woman with the issue of blood (Matthew 9:21-22, Mark 5:28, 34, Luke 8:48)
• the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:23, Luke 8:50)
• the healing of blind Bartimaeus (Mark 10:52, Luke 18:42)
• Luke’s account of the deliverance of Legion from demon-possession (Luke 8:36)
• the healing of ten lepers (Luke17:19)
• Cripple at Beautiful Gate Acts 4:9
• Cripple at Lystra Acts 14:9
• James 5:15

So it’s clear that sozo is used in the New Testament to mean to deliver from both danger and disease.

But sozo and soteria in the New Testament mean far more than this.  

Salvation

The danger from which man needs to be saved is more than physical and by far the major emphasis of soteria in the New Testament is that of deliverance from sin.  

But does deliverance from sin automatically imply deliverance from sickness and danger?

It seems to me that although the use of sozo links deliverance from sickness with deliverance from sin linguistically

this need not in itself imply a theological connection.   

The New Testament writers did not develop a systematic theology of soteria subdivided into categories of physical and spiritual deliverance.

They used sozo wherever it might appropriately be used to mean ‘make safe’ or ‘deliver’.  

So to argue from the use of sozo for anything more than a linguistic connection between those uses may possibly indicate a misunderstanding of the nature of language.

Nevertheless it seems likely that writers sometimes took advantage of cases of physical deliverance

e.g. the healing of blind Bartimaeus to illustrate the principles of spiritual deliverance – how those who are spiritually ‘blind’ might, through faith in Jesus ‘see’

But to say this is not to confuse the illustration itself with the truth it illustrates.  

Healing may illustrate salvation without being part of it.  

Thus Parr’s claim, based on the use of sozo in Acts 4:9-12, that ‘physical healing is included in the salvation purchased for us’  is shown to be invalid.

[Below is the chapter from the book, Just a Taste of Heaven, on which this podcast episode is based]

The Power of the Spirit

Isaiah predicted that when the Messiah would come the Spirit of the Lord would be upon him in order that he might preach good news to the poor, proclaim freedom to those who were captive, and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour (Isaiah 61:1-2)

In Luke 4:18-19 Jesus claimed that this prophecy was now fulfilled. This is important in our understanding of Luke’s Gospel because it illustrates Luke’s emphasis that Jesus performed his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Luke 3:21-22 tells us that just after Jesus was baptised by John in the River Jordan the Holy Spirit descended on him. As a result of this he returned from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1), and in 4:14 he returns to Galilee in the power of the Spirit.

This may also be reflected in Luke 5:17 where we are told that the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick (cf. 6:17:19).

In this chapter we will consider three healings recorded by Luke, two of which are not recorded in any other Gospel:

• The paralytic(5:17-26)
• The womanwith curvature of the spine (13:10-17)
• The ten lepers(17:11-19).

The paralytic (5:17-26)

Luke begins by saying that the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick (v.17). This statement raises important questions:

1. Wasn’t God’s power always present with Jesusto heal the sick?
2. If it was, then why does Lukebother to mention it?

And these questions raise a further question,

3. Did Jesuswork his miracles by virtue of the fact that he was God, or did he (even though he was God) perform them as a man through the power of the Holy Spirit?

The answer to this last question must surely be that Jesus performed his miracles as a man, by the power of the Holy Spirit. How else could he tell his disciples that anyone who had faith in him could do similar, and even greater, works (John 14:12)? This would only be possible because of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus would send.

If this answer to question 3 is correct, then the answer to question 1 must be that Jesus only worked his miracles when led by the Holy Spirit to do so (cf John 5:19).

The answer to question 2, therefore, is that Luke mentions that the power of the Lord was present to heal, to emphasise that at that moment the Holy Spirit was empowering Jesus to heal and leading him to do so.

If this understanding is right, then it will clearly have implications for us as we minister to the sick today. If Jesus ministered to them as he was led and empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so, then how much more do we need the Spirit’s leading and empowering?

But we must now turn to the account of the healing itself. Here is how Luke describes it:

18 Some men came carrying a paralytic on a mat and tried to take him into the house to lay him before Jesus.

19 When they could not because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and lowered him on his mat through the tiles into the middle of the crowd, right in front of Jesus. 20 When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.”

21 The Pharisees and teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?”

22 Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? 23 Which is easier; to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven’, or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?

24 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…” He said to the paralysed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home”.

25 Immediately he stood up in front of them, took what he had been lying on and went home praising God.

The following points are worthy of note:

• It seems that in this case it is not the sick man, but his friends who take the initiative(v. 18). Indeed it appears to be their faith (v. 20) to which Jesus  In this respect it is similar to the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8. This teaches us that it is not always the faith of the sick person that is the basis for the healing.
• Jesussays, Your sins are forgiven, before he performs the healing (v.20). Why? 3 possibilities:

1. It may indicate that the man’s sickness had come as a result of personal sin– or even that the sick man believed it had!
2. It’s possible, too, that by demonstrating his authorityto forgive sins, Jesus is seeking to stress his Messianic authority to the critical Pharisees.
3. However, it seems just as likely that he is showing his audience that the forgivenessof sins is more important than the healing of disease.

• The story demonstrates Jesus’ authorityas the Son of Man (v. 24), a Messianic title. It implies his deity. The Pharisees were right to say that only God has the right to forgive sins, they just didn’t realise that Jesus was God. (Not his miracles, but his authority to forgive sins).

The woman with curvature of the spine (13:10-17)

Only found in Luke’s Gospel.

The Bible indicates that some sickness is the result of personal sin, as may have been the case with the man we considered in the last section.

At other times, though by no means always, it may be caused by the activity of Satan, as the next passage clearly shows:

10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues,

11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.

12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity”.

13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.

14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not the Sabbath”.

15 The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water?

16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?

This passage, like the last we considered, describes a confrontation between Jesus and the religious authorities of that day.

Again the passage is used to demonstrate Jesus’ authority, this time to heal on the Sabbath. It also shows the rejection of that authority by the Jewish leaders to whom Luke intends the parable of the fig tree in verses 6-9 to be a warning.

This shows that the main purpose of the passage may not have been to teach about healing as such, but to highlight again the failure of the Jewish authorities to recognise who Jesus was, and to show Jesus’ righteous indignation at man-made regulations which only brought God’s people into bondage.

Nevertheless, there are several aspects of the story which enlighten us with regard to healing:

• Here is an example, similar to the case of the healing of Peter’smother-in-law, where it is Jesus, not the sick person who takes the initiative (v.12).
• There is no mention of faithon the part of the woman. Jesus heals her as soon as he sees her (v.12). This is another indication of Jesus’ willingness to heal.
• There is no suggestion that the sickness was caused by sin. It was caused by ‘a spirit’ (v. 11) acting as an agent of Satan(v. 16). This is not demon-possession. Jesus does not cast it out. He does not address the spirit, he speaks to the woman, tells her she is free and lays hands on her. Immediately she is healed.
• However, more important than the cause of the sickness is the clear implication that as one of God’s people the womanhad a right to be healed (v. 16).
• The passage clearly shows that compassionis more important than legalism. Compare Luke 14:1-6 where Jesus heals a man suffering from dropsy on the Sabbath and leaves the Pharisees and legal experts speechless!

The ten lepers (17:11-19)

This story, too, is only found in Luke’s Gospel. He tells us that as Jesus was going to Jerusalem, travelling along the border between Samaria and Galilee, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance, as lepers were required to, and called out in a loud voice, Jesus, Master, have pity on us! Then Luke tells us:

14 When Jesus saw them, he said, “Go, show yourselves to the priests”. And as they went, they were cleansed.

15 One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice.

16 He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him – and he was a Samaritan.17 Jesus asked, “Were not all ten cleansed? Where are the other nine?

18 Was no-one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?”19 Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well”.

Note:

The failure of the Jews to recognise Jesus for who he was. The nine Jewish lepers who were healed and yet failed to come back to give thanks may well be taken to symbolise the ingratitude of Israel as a whole, despite the many blessings which Jesus brought to them.

One obvious lesson from this story, therefore, is the importance of gratitude.

The importance of faith.

This is seen in the lepers’ initial plea for pity. It implies that they believed Jesus could help them.

Furthermore, Jesus’ instruction, which is given before they are healed, that they must go and show themselves to the priest (cf. Matthew 8:4 where the leper is told to go after Jesus has healed him), surely implies the demand that they should act in faith. It is only as they go that they are cleansed (v. 14).

Jesus’ last words to the grateful Samaritan leper, Rise and go; your faith has made you well.

Jesus’ statement here[1] is identical to what he said when speaking to the woman whose bleeding was healed when she touched his cloak (Mark 5:34). There we suggested that Mark might have intended us to understand that the woman received more than healing for her body. At the very least, we argued, Mark was using a miracle of healing as an illustration of salvation, and it seems likely that this is also Luke’s intention in the story of the grateful leper.

Conclusion

• Jesus performed his healings by the power of the Spirit and as he was led by the Spirit. This is where his authority sprang from.
• The forgiveness of sins is more important than the healing of the body.
• Some sicknesses may be caused by personal sin. Others may be inflicted by Satan.
• Faith features strongly in healing. It is sometimes the faith of the sick person, but it may be the faith of friends. Sometimes that faith is tested. In some cases faith is not mentioned at all.
• Miracles of healing may be powerful illustrations of God’s saving power. This may indicate that in some sense healing is a part of salvation. (Next time)