Authors: Praying Medic
If you spend time with those who heal the sick, you’re going to hear a number of objections to and myths about healing. The remainder of this chapter will address some of the most common ones you’re likely to encounter.
Divine healing has been the rightful domain of the Church for two thousand years. But in the centuries following the death of Jesus, healing became a rare thing. Over time, some church leaders adopted the view that healing ended in the first century or soon afterward, when the New Testament Scriptures were completed. Supporters of this view argue that it was at this point that healing was no longer needed to verify the preaching of the gospel and the practice of healing ceased. This view became known as
cessationism.
It became a dominant view and is still popular today.
The argument against healing can’t be made from the plain teaching of Scripture itself. You can scour the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation and not find a single verse plainly teaching that healing would ever cease. The best a cessationist can do is to argue against healing by inference; that is by inferring into a passage a meaning that is not obvious to the reader. The most commonly heard objection to healing is Paul’s thorn in the flesh. Let’s look at Paul’s commentary on this issue:
And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.
2 COR. 12:7
Cessationists argue that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was a form of sickness that he asked God to remove and God refused to do it. From this they argue that God may want us to be sick for various reasons. There are several problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that sickness is not discussed plainly in this passage. If one believes that Paul was discussing sickness, it must be inferred into the text, because the plain rendering does not give that meaning. The second problem that cessationists must overcome is that the obvious subject of the chapter is persecution – not sickness. In this passage, Paul illustrates his teaching on persecution with a personal example, focusing for a moment on the persecution he suffered for the revelation he received from God. He stated that in order to keep him from being exalted too highly, God allowed Satan to send a messenger to harass him. Notice; there is no mention of sickness.
When you examine the Greek text, there is no indication that the messenger Paul referred to was a form of sickness. The Greek word for “messenger” in this passage is
aggelos,
which is usually translated “angel.” The obvious meaning would be that Satan sent a fallen angel (or perhaps a demon) to harass Paul, which God permitted to keep him humble. There is no reason to believe this passage supports the idea that God would not heal him of sickness.
The other argument used against healing is the observation that sickness was present among early church leaders such as Paul, Timothy and Epaphroditus. Cessationists point to the presence of sickness as evidence that healing began to decline and eventually ceased, causing the Church to live with sickness as the “apostolic age” came to a close.
Let’s look at the sickness of Epaphroditus, which Paul mentions in his letter to the Philippians:
Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need; since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. For indeed he was sick almost unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. Therefore I sent him the more eagerly, that when you see him again you may rejoice, and I may be less sorrowful.
PHIL. 2:25-28
It is true that Epaphroditus suffered sickness, even to the point of near death. But if we want to know whether healing had ceased, we must determine if he was healed or not. After describing his sickness in verse 27, Paul says, “but God had mercy on him.”
What did Paul mean? It’s impossible to say with certainty, but the tone suggests an unexpected outcome. Paul writes, “Epaphroditus was sick… but God had mercy on him.” The natural conclusion one would come to was that after a serious battle with illness, Epaphroditus was healed. Paul then writes that he sent Epaphroditus so that the believers in Philippi might rejoice upon seeing him. Would Paul send a friend who was nearly dead thinking that it would cause them to rejoice?
A more logical explanation would be that after Epaphroditus was healed, Paul was able to send him, knowing that when they saw him healed they would rejoice. Rather than suggesting that healing had ceased, this passage confirms that healing was still in operation. Now let’s look at Timothy’s illness and Paul’s prescription for it:
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.
1 TIM. 5:23
In this brief passage, Paul notes that Timothy’s infirmities were a result of drinking only water. We don’t know the reason why the water he drank made him sick. It’s possible that it was contaminated, giving him some type of bacterial infection. Paul’s antidote was to have him drink a little wine. The infirmities were not severe enough that they required healing. Paul confidently explains that the illness would resolve if he refrained from drinking only water. This passage in no way indicates that God would not heal Timothy. It’s merely the case of an older and wiser man instructing a younger one to take some practical steps to avoid becoming sick.
The New Testament does not show a decrease in the effectiveness of healing as critics suppose. The disciples were still healing all who were sick and demon-possessed as recorded in the book of Acts:
And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, so that they brought the sick out into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at least the shadow of Peter passing by might fall on some of them. Also a multitude gathered from the surrounding cities to Jerusalem, bringing sick people and those who were tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all healed.
ACTS 5:14-16
It has been suggested that because members of the church were sick, God must not have been willing to heal them. In response, I’d like to make this observation: I know hundreds of people who successfully operate in healing today and nearly all of them suffer from sickness once in a while. The presence of sickness among a group of people does not prove that healing isn’t also happening among them. On the contrary, in order for healing to occur, sickness must be present.
The argument against healing is not supported by the works of the early church. Instead, we find that Jesus and His disciples demonstrated and taught that operating in the healing power of God was the expected, normal lifestyle for every believer and they gave no indication that healing would ever cease.
We should also consider the fact that many people are receiving healing today. Every year tens of thousands of people receive miraculous healing that is documented as such by physicians. If these things were supposed to have ceased, we might ask why so many people are still experiencing them?
Finally, there is the idea that healing was intended only as a means to support the spread of the gospel and that healing ceased because it was no longer needed. Jesus commissioned His disciples to heal as they preached but He never suggested that healing would cease to be used this way. Furthermore, healing isn’t just a means to verify a message. It’s a tangible demonstration of God’s power, love, mercy and compassion, a means of warfare against the kingdom of darkness, a means of making people spiritually, physically and emotionally whole and a way to bring people into a personal relationship with God.
This is a commonly held view and it’s understandable, given what most people know about healing. It comes from the observation that healing is done by only a few people and that the ones doing it must be special in some way. Although healing miracles haven’t been abundant, they have been reported throughout the entire church age. Because of their scarcity, the practice of healing fell into obscurity and people wondered why. The honest answer would be to admit that the Church had strayed from the commission Jesus had given it. But admitting error is painful. Some leaders chose instead to invent explanations justifying the absence of healing. And this is what is taught in many congregations today. The truth is that the demise of healing came as a result of disobedience to the instructions of Jesus and nothing more.
On the rare occasion when someone did manage to operate in healing, the people who saw it came to one of two conclusions. Some thought the healers were frauds because healing wasn’t being done by respected religious leaders. They vilified the “fraudulent healers” and developed doctrines against healing.
Those who accepted healing believed that God had imparted a special gift to that person. The special person nearly always became the object of attention and would earn legendary status; their names being inscribed forever in the minds of our culture; men and women like John G. Lake, Smith Wigglesworth, Amiee Semple McPherson and Benny Hinn.
The truth is – both of these conclusions are wrong. These men and women deserve neither the criticism nor the acclaim they’ve received. They weren’t given a special gift. They were simply walking in the power that’s been available to every believer all along. The only real difference between the man on the platform and you is that he believes God wants to heal the sick and he acts on that belief, and you probably don’t. But you could, with a little faith and obedience.
If you are interested in healing, there is only one prerequisite. The power and authority to heal the sick is given to the disciples of Jesus. If you aren’t His disciple yet, you should become one. Ask Him to come into your life and the Spirit of God will come and dwell in you.
If you are a believer, the power and authority are already yours. Jesus commissioned His disciples to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons and proclaim the kingdom. This power and authority is given to every disciple of Jesus (see Mt. 10:7-8 and Lk. 10: 1-9).
There is however, a true gift of healing as described in 1 Corinthians chapter 12. We’ll discuss this in detail in another chapter, but briefly, the gift of healing is not the same as the authority given to believers to heal the sick. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are primarily for building up and strengthening other believers. Healing and miracles are included in those gifts. Paul taught that not all believers would operate in every spiritual gift, so in a sense the gift of healing may not be operational in every believer. In contrast to the gift of healing, the believer’s authority to heal is tied to the proclamation of the gospel. Jesus expected all of His disciples to proclaim the gospel and healing the sick goes along with that. If you are one of His disciples, you have the same authority to heal as any other believer.
When I say that one of my friends healed a sick person, I sometimes hear the objection, “We can’t heal the sick, only God can do that.” This is another understandable objection, but it’s best to look at what the Bible says.
If you asked a group of Christians who it was that multiplied the loaves of bread and fishes to feed the multitude, the majority would say it was Jesus. And the majority would be wrong. If you look closely at the passage that describes this event, you’ll notice a few details that are often overlooked. When the multitude grew hungry and the disciples asked if they should send the crowd away, Jesus gave them a challenge, saying, “You give them something to eat.” A bit perplexed, they found a boy who had a few fish and some bread. They gave the bread and fish to Jesus, who blessed it, broke it and handed it back to them. When He gave it back to them, it had not yet multiplied. The disciples began to hand out the food and as they distributed it, it began to multiply in their own hands. It was in the hands of the disciples that the miracle took place, not in the hands of Jesus (see Jn. 6:5-13).
A small error it may be, but the revelation we have from the correct perspective shows that the disciples were capable of working greater miracles than they knew. Jesus challenged them to do the miraculous works of God in the same manner He did. In Luke chapter 10, He told them to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead and proclaim the kingdom. So allow me to ask a few questions:
If the kingdom of God was proclaimed by the disciples, who was responsible for doing it?
The answer is, “the disciples.” No one would say that God proclaimed the message of the gospel, because believers proclaim the gospel.
If demons were cast out by the disciples, who was responsible for doing it?
For the same reason we would say the disciples proclaimed the gospel, we would say they cast out demons. Although the power of God is used to do it, God does not cast out demons. It is done by disciples.
If the sick were healed by the disciples, who was responsible?
Once again, it would be the disciples.
And if the dead were raised by the disciples, who would be responsible for doing it?
The disciples.
We use the power of God to do all these things; even proclaiming the gospel, for “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (see Rom 1:16). God is the one who receives the glory for the works that we do. But the fact remains that Jesus told His disciples to heal the sick. He did not tell them to ask the Father to heal the sick. He told them to do it. When a disciple obeys and healing happens, it is not wrong to say the disciple did the healing.