Divine Healing

and other related lectures

 

-four-

 

God’s intention / man’s invention;

Do we do or don’t we do the doctor?

 

 

Whenever the subject of physical healing arises, a fundamental & often inevitable question is asked by many who affirm healing as God’s will; ‘If The Lord is our healer, is it right for believers to go to the Doctor?’ In my view, it is not a question of right or wrong, but rather, one of necessity; in other words, ‘If The Lord is our healer, is it necessary for believers to go to the Doctor?’ Let’s look at this biblically & carefully. 

Among those who uphold a staunch belief in healing, there is a hard core who declare that it is wrong, or even a sin to go to the doctor, or take medication of any kind. Of course, when I asked why certain leaders within this group wore glasses, I got into a little bit of trouble. Me & my big mouth! Pregnant women still attended hospitals in order to have their babies delivered with medical assistance & these same people underwent dental procedures. 

There are still those who would rather die than take medicine or submit to a medical procedure of any description. Some believers are often in an absolute quandary when it comes to the question of medical science. There are those who affirm God’s ability to heal the sick & they make a bold proclamation of it. Their belief in healing also comes with a denouncement of doctors & medical science, accompanied by scathing condemnation of believers who submit themselves to the same. The strength of their conviction & the force of their argument rests in their personal experience of healing which seemingly confirms their contentions, or in the assertions of those to whom they listen. Their leaders & teachers. As such it is unreliable as a basis for their stance. 

There is also the belief that while God is well able to heal the sick, not all believers can attain it or receive it because of a lack of faith, therefore, it is wise to seek medical attention, even though it isn’t God’s best. Trust me, I’ve heard this said. The main thrust of their argument is based on the fact that medical science is also striving to make people well, therefore it is not in opposition to healing. In their view, it could even be considered complimentary. 

As well as these prevailing views there is also the misguided warning that modern medical practise has its roots in witchcraft & sorcery. 

These unnecessarily polarized points of view are often centred around questions of right or wrong. They do not deal with the matter of necessity. Let’s be honest if there were sufficient Holy Ghost power manifested within The Church, we would not hesitate in promoting healing in the world because reliance upon medical science would not be needed. This is not the case. Therefore, because there is no manifestation of healing, we divert the sick to the doctor, or we pray for them until they die. It is not a question of whether it is right, or whether it is wrong; it is a question of necessity. To answer these questions & address these objections we must go to The Scriptures. Let’s look. 

²³ The rest of all the acts of Asa, and all his might, and all that he did, and the cities which he built, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Nevertheless in the time of his old age he was diseased in his feet. ²⁴ And Asa slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David his father: and Jehoshaphat his son reigned in his stead (1^st Kings 15:23-24).

¹¹ And, behold, the acts of Asa, first and last, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. ¹² And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians. ¹³ And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign. ¹⁴ And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries’ art: and they made a very great burning for him (2^nd Chronicles 16:11-14). 

Among those who oppose medical practice, there is the popular belief that it was The Lord who smote Asa. I have certainly heard this taught. Their reasoning is that had the king sought The Lord, he would have lived, but because he went to the physicians, The Lord allowed him to die. Excuse me while I sigh deeply & very slowly roll my eyes. 1^st Kings tells us that Asa was in his old age. 2^nd Chronicles tells us that there was somewhere in the region of a two year period between Asa’s feet becoming diseased & his eventual death. Yes, I agree that he could & should have sought The Lord, but Asa should not have left things so long. The simple truth is that Asa had allowed the disease in his feet to develop to the point where it was now beyond medical help. While it is true that God could certainly have healed him at that late stage, Asa died because the physicians he sought were unable to alleviate his suffering or remedy his condition. The Lord did not smite the man, the man used little or no wisdom. Go to The Lord first, but also visit your doctor with your symptoms & discover what it is that’s wrong with you! This case is not a slam dunk against seeking medical aid. 

Those who support medical science cite the case of Hezekiah & the prophet Isaiah as an endorsement of medicine & its compatibility with healing.   

¹ In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. ² Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying, ³ I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore. ⁴ And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, ⁵ Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. ⁶ And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. ⁷ And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered (2^nd Kings 20:1-7). 

I have absolutely no idea whether figs contain any inherent healing properties, but it was what the prophet prescribed. However, unlike Asa, Hezekiah had enough common sense to cry out to The Lord before it was too late for him. ^‘For Isaiah had said, Let them take a lump of figs, and lay it for a plaister upon the boil, and he shall recover’ (Isaiah 38:21).  

There are those who disapprove of medical practice on the grounds that physicians were also sorcerers, therefore to submit to the doctor was tantamount to a surrender to witchcraft. This is a very weak argument & one that has no foundation in The Word of God. Yet it is a claim that has been made. Again, in order to answer these questions & address these objections we must go to The Word of God. Forgive me, but allow me to show you this absurdity for what it is. 

²² Is there no balm (sorcerer’s potion) in Gilead; is there no physician (witch or warlock) there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered? (Jeremiah 8:22). 

¹¹ Go up to Gilead, and take balm (sorcerer’s potion), O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines (witch’s concoctions); for thou shalt not be cured (Jeremiah 46:11). 

⁸ Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm (sorcerer’s potions) for her pain, if so be she may be healed. (Jeremiah 51:8). 

Are you getting the picture? Don’t close your Bible just yet, I have one or two other examples to share with you. I’m spending some time here because there are literally lives at stake. People have suffered & even died needlessly because of the foolish belief that I am highlighting right now. I kid you not!! 

¹⁰ And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. ¹¹ And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? ¹² But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician (sorcerer), but they that are sick (Matthew 9:10-12).  

²⁵ And a certain woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, ²⁶ and had suffered many things of many physicians (sorcerers), and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse (Mark 5:25-26). 

²³ And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician (sorcerer), heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country (Luke 4:23). 

Do you remember Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9-24)? Or was he Simon the physician? He offered the Apostles money in exchange for the ability to impart The Holy Spirit through the laying on of his hands. This gift not have been used as part of Simon’s bedside manner, but rather as a demonstration & enhancement of his craft. This is the reason that Peter reacted as he did. If Simon were a physician, then the ‘..gall of bitterness..’ & ‘..bond of iniquity..’ (Acts 8:23) would be referring to Simon’s medical practise. This was not the case because Simon was a sorcerer & not a physician, there is no correlation between the two; they are not synonymous terms. 

Luke, the writer of the third Gospel, & author of the book of Acts, was a physician. When the apostle wrote to The Church at Colosse, he concluded his epistle with the words ‘Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you.’ (Colossians 4:14). Paul calls Luke beloved. If our brethren are correct in their supposition, we could read this verse thus, “Luke, the beloved sorcerer, and Demas greet you.”. It is highly unlikely that Paul would have travelled extensively with a sorcerer, or endorsed his ministry. Because Paul addresses Luke as a physician, there are grounds to suppose that he may still have been practicing medicine to some degree. If this were the case, according to those objecting to the use of medicine, Luke would have been practicing sorcery. 

⁶ And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer (physician), a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus: ⁷ which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. ⁸ But Elymas the sorcerer (physician) (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. ⁹ Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, ¹⁰ and said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? ¹¹ And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. ¹² Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord (Acts 13:6-12). 

We will now examine this incident supposing that the terms physician & sorcerer were synonymous. If this is the case, Luke has incriminated himself in no uncertain terms & Paul has proved himself to be a hypocrite of the highest order. 

The Apostle’s companion describes Bar-Jesus as ‘..a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew,.’ (Acts 13:6). All things being equal, Luke has given us a self-portrait; grounds for rejecting his Gospel & the entire book of Acts, if it was penned by him. Paul describes Bar-Jesus as one ‘..full of subtilty and all mischief,..’, a ‘..child of the devil..’ & ‘..enemy of all righteousness..’. well why in the world would anyone speak to a medical professional in this way? He says to him, ‘..wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of The Lord?’ (Acts 13:10). All things being equal, the Apostle is summing up his companion Luke if he too were a sorcerer; for him to deal with Bar-Jesus in this way but allow Luke to continue practicing witchcraft is a demonstration of double standards.

⁸ And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. ⁹ But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. ¹⁰ And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. ¹¹ And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: ¹² so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them (Acts 19:8-11). 

If those who oppose medicine were correct in their assumption, we would have to conclude that for two years the apostle Paul held his meetings in a place where witchcraft was taught. Why? Well, it’s because the school of Tyrannus was a medical school; therefore, if physicians were sorcerers, this is one of the places in which they would have learned their art. Tyrannus had been a doctor in Rome & upon returning to Ephesus, he had opened a medical training facility. Paul held daily meetings there for two years. They must have had the sorcerer’s apprentices going in through the front door & Paul casting demons out of them in the back!!  

Notwithstanding all of this, there is still no condemnation or endorsement of medical practise in The Word of God. The question, ‘Is it right to go to the Doctor’ becomes obsolete; we ask instead, ‘Is it necessary to go to the Doctor?’ There are times when it is most definitely necessary, if only for diagnosis & identification of our maladies.

 

 

 

 

Divine Healing

and other related lectures

 

-three-

 

God’s redemptive document;

Is physical Healing in Christ’s Atonement?

  

We have seen that the ministry of healing is a definite display of the grace & compassion of God. Therefore, it should not be considered strange to believe that The same Lord Who healed under the old covenant & in the Person of Christ & through His Apostles, will also choose to heal today. He remains gracious & compassionate; therefore I believe that He will, if He wills. For some believers, the key to their cure rests in somehow proving that the finished, atoning & redemptive work of The Lord Jesus Christ, includes Him suffering to guarantee healing for our physical bodies, as well as salvation for our souls. By far the most popular passages of Scripture cited to this end, are found in Isaiah 53, Matthew 8 & 1^st Peter 2. 

Isaiah 53 shows us a striking biblical portrait of Messiah; The Suffering Servant. Read the whole chapter & you will see this quite clearly. The Gospel is right there. This is God’s emancipation proclamation for Israel & by extension, all other nations. However, those who champion divine healing as something that is part & parcel of the Atonement, will only zero in on the small portion of the chapter that they believe deals with the subject at hand. In reality & in its context, it deals with our Redemption as a whole. Let’s look at these verses in particular. 

⁴ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. ⁵ But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:4-5). 

These prophetic words came at a significant period of time before Christ, yet even those who do not believe The Lord Jesus Christ is the promised Saviour will attest that Isaiah’s prophecy points to The Messiah. The themes of substitution & identification run through this entire chapter very clearly. However, there is no explicit mention of YHWH’s servant suffering for sickness & disease. Traditionally we have assumed that this is the case, because of Matthew’s interpretation of Isaiah. So, we have to ask whether the Prophet’s words relate to sin, sickness or both. We have to do this if we are to remain credible.  

¹⁶ When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: ¹⁷ that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses (Matthew 8:16-17). 

The argument unfolds thus. Matthew interprets the words griefs & sorrows as infirmities & diseases, therefore in this estimated belief, Isaiah’s prophecy is obviously speaking about bodily healing, right? Case closed. Slam dunk. Break out the custard creams & let’s do cartwheels. However, this simplistic line of reasoning leaves me scratching my head & rubbing my chin.

Why would Matthew say this, unless his understanding & subsequent interpretation are correct? We have to be careful here, otherwise we will run away like children, with our shoes on the wrong feet & laces untied. If healing is foretold as an element of the atoning, finished work of Christ, we have a slight grammatical & theological problem. Let’s look again at the text. Isaiah says, “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not (Isaiah 53:3)”. If sorrows & griefs are only to be equated with infirmities & diseases, it could be argued that YHWH’s suffering servant was himself subject to illness. This would make Him a man of disease, acquainted with sickness. 

As we read over these verses, we can see that there are several things that have to be considered as Matthew is obviously quoting Isaiah 53. First of all, the action of Christ in delivering the possessed & ministering healing to all the sick that were present brought the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Concluding His sermon on The Mount & then descending, Jesus heals a leper. He then heals the Centurion’s servant & later, Peter’s mother-in-law. Those who oppose the ministry of healing will suggest that these verses deal explicitly with the healing of those present at the specific time of The Lord’s ministry, on that particular occasion. In other words, He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah as He ministered healing during that one evening. This would mean that Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice did not include healing because He bore infirmities & carried sicknesses before going to the cross. Therefore, healing could not be a part of Christ’s Atonement & our Redemption. 

Also, what about those The Lord healed before & indeed after this occasion? There is nothing in the text of Isaiah’s prophecy to suggest that the bearing of griefs & carrying of sorrows would be localised to one particular occasion, unless of course, that occasion was the cross. I would contend that Matthew is quoting Isaiah by way of example, not as an ultimate fulfilment. 

Do you remember Jesus teaching the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-9)? When asked by His disciples why He spoke in allegory, The Lord quoted Isaiah, saying, ‘Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: for this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.’ (Matthew 13:13-15). Was this prophecy ultimately fulfilled there & then, when Matthew reports Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah? No. Was The Lord speaking in relation to physical healing of the body? No. He cites Isaiah by way of example, not as an ultimate fulfilment. 

We have another example of this in the epistle to The Hebrews, where the writer again quotes Isaiah; ‘Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: ¹⁵ looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;’ (Hebrews 12:12-15). The writer is quoting Isaiah 35 by way of example, not as an ultimate fulfilment. 

³ Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. ⁴ Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompense; he will come and save you. ⁵ Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. ⁶ Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. ⁷ And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. ⁸ And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein (Isaiah 35:3-8). 

Peter’s interpretation cites Isaiah’s prophecy as a post cross reality, but is the Apostle speaking of physical healing? ‘Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.  For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls’ (1^st Peter 2:24-25). Those who believe that Matthew identifies Christ’s fulfilment of Isaiah’s words on that one evening, would have to conclude that Peter could only be writing these words to the leper, the Centurion’s servant, his mother in law & those who had been present on that singular occasion. This is not true. 

At this point I would pose a question & suggest an alternative biblical view. I say this as someone who is neither theologian nor grammarian. While one side argues that physical healing is in the Atonement because of Matthew’s interpretation & the other denies its relevance beyond the instance surrounding the quote, both are missing or ignoring the centre ground. Physical, bodily healing does not have to be in the Atonement in order for it to be vital, viable or valuable. The Lord Jesus Christ healed the sick before He went to the cross & He healed the sick after the cross in acts of gracious mercy. God has not constrained Himself contractually to deliver physical healing in the way that we have been taught. If this were the case, the Lord has left Himself open to being sued in the courts of heaven. No doubt someone will now attempt this & gain a slot with Sid Roth. Isaiah 53, Matthew 8 & 1^st Peter 2 show us The Lord’s willingness & ability to heal, not His obligation. It is on that basis that we approach Him. 

¹⁴ Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. ¹⁵ For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. ¹⁶ Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16).