Commissioned to heal
Commissioned to heal
Hey, I'm in the middle of a study through the gospels and here's what I've been chewing on: We see Jesus teaching/preaching, casting out demons, and healing every kind of disease. We also see Him commission his disciples (the 12 and 72) to do the same. The book of Acts seems full of all of these being a continued part of the methods of declaring the gospel.
In my experience, -although I've seen a couple miraculous cases of healing. The modern disciple/evangelist is focused mostly on the teaching and preaching, when demonized people come I've seen them dealt with, but it seems like we're all timid to step out in the authority that we should go heal disease...(at least I am and most people I know.) Can anyone think of a biblical reason for this or are we just afraid to step out in faith on it? Is there any reason we should be negating that part of carrying on Jesus' work?
I'd love anyone's thoughts. I'm trying to figure out if I'm just a coward or if there's biblical grounds to be reserved about this.
In my experience, -although I've seen a couple miraculous cases of healing. The modern disciple/evangelist is focused mostly on the teaching and preaching, when demonized people come I've seen them dealt with, but it seems like we're all timid to step out in the authority that we should go heal disease...(at least I am and most people I know.) Can anyone think of a biblical reason for this or are we just afraid to step out in faith on it? Is there any reason we should be negating that part of carrying on Jesus' work?
I'd love anyone's thoughts. I'm trying to figure out if I'm just a coward or if there's biblical grounds to be reserved about this.
Re: Commissioned to heal
This is a difficult question to answer, because I would not wish to discourage any Christian from praying for the sick. However, there are considerations that suggest that not all Christians in the New Testament were commissioned to heal. Here are some of them...
Mark 3:14-15
Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons...
In this first example, we are told that the twelve were given a special commission to heal sicknesses. This power was also given to the 72 in Luke 10, but may have been a special endowment for the specific short-term outreach upon which Jesus was sending them. While others than the apostles seem, occasionally, to have worked miraculous signs and healings, there is some reason to believe that it was primarily an apostolic activity, and, thus, served effectively to confirm the authority of one's apostleship (see 2 Corinthians 12:12).
Now, from this early example, one might conclude that healing was restricted to the few during the ministry of Jesus, but that, after Pentecost, this power was given to all who possess the Holy Spirit. But that brings us to the second example of interest:
1 Corinthians 12:9
To another [is given] faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit...
It is not clear what is meant by the phrase "the gifts of healing" (literally "gifts of healings"), but if it refers, as most seem to believe, to the gift of being able to heal other people, then it is clear that Paul considered this to be a gift given to some and not to others in the body of Christ. This would suggest that not every Christian is to be engaged in a ministry of healing others, but that some are. There is the possibility that "gifts of healings" should be seen as referring to the individual healings received by various sick folks, each being a "gift" to that person from the Holy Spirit. Even if this approach is taken, it suggests that healings are for some and not for all.
We come, next, to a very unclear promise, which has bearing on this topic as well...
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
If this is a promise that the sick will be healed by prayer, it is interesting that it is specifically the prayers of the church leaders that are referred to. If every Christian could be expected to heal as well as any other, why call for the elders? Why not just call the nearest Christian to come over and do the job.
I said this was an unclear promise because it does not specifically say that the sick will receive physical healing of his ailment. James could have written, "the prayer of faith will heal the sick..." but he does not choose to say this. Instead, he says that "the prayer of faith will save the sick." The following clause, "and the Lord will raise him up," is equally ambiguous, since this is a term that can refer to one being raised from his sickbed, or it can refer to one being raised from the dead [see note * below]. Also, the forgiveness of sins is mentioned in the immediate context.
These facts raise the possibility that James is talking about the person getting right with God on his deathbed, and has given encouragement of the Catholic tradition of giving "last rites" to the dying. The idea would be as follows:
If any man (an unbeliever?) is sick (i.e., dying—more often than not, in those days, this would be the outcome of a serious illness) and wishes to get right with God, he should alert the church leaders and confess his sins to them. They will hear his confession and anoint him with oil (maybe a compressed ritual, alternative to water baptism—the oil being used in order to signify the simultaneous baptism with the Holy Spirit?). This could refer to the sick man's conversion and recognition (in the presence of the elders) of his admission into the Church. There is then the promise that he will be saved (though not necessarily healed), and that (even if his illness should take him) he will have his part in the resurrection of the just. Of course, the word "save" can sometimes also indicate physical healing, as can the phrase "raise him up." The point is that James chose sufficiently ambiguous terminology so as to cover all the bases. Once the man has made his peace with God, the ball is in God's court. He may heal the man, or he may allow him to die and raise him on the last day.
I don't know what these things have proved about your initial question, but they may shed some light.
*Note on "raise [him] up" (Gr.egeiro)
In the Gospels, the term often refers to the healing of a bedridden person (e.g., Matt.8:15; 9:5, 6, 7; 9:25), or simply of someone arising from bed or from a prostrate position (e.g., Matt.2:13, 14, 20, 21; 8:25-26; 17:7; 25:7). However it does not seem to have this meaning in the usage of any of the epistles, except when awakening from sleep is used as a metaphor of resurrection.
Of the nine occurrences of this word in Romans, it refers to Christ's resurrection eight times, though in several of these cases it seems to be speaking of Christ's resurrection as the effective means of our regeneration—that is our spiritual resurrection at conversion (6:4; 7:4; 8:11). In one instance (13:11; and similarly, in Ephesian 5:14; Colossian 2:12) it refers directly to the believer's regeneration.
In 1 Corinthians 15:12-17 and 20, the word refers to Christ's resurrection—but specifically as the precursor and guarantor of our own eventual resurrection (see v.18). In 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:32,35, 42-44 and 52, the word refers to our resurrection at the end of the world. It also refers to the final resurrection of the believers, in 2 Corinthians 1:9 and 4:14.
Even in the Gospels, this usage of the dead being raised is not unknown. It is the common word in the Gospels for the ressurection of Christ, but also of ordinary people (e.g. Matt.10:8; 12:42; 14:2).
Mark 3:14-15
Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out demons...
In this first example, we are told that the twelve were given a special commission to heal sicknesses. This power was also given to the 72 in Luke 10, but may have been a special endowment for the specific short-term outreach upon which Jesus was sending them. While others than the apostles seem, occasionally, to have worked miraculous signs and healings, there is some reason to believe that it was primarily an apostolic activity, and, thus, served effectively to confirm the authority of one's apostleship (see 2 Corinthians 12:12).
Now, from this early example, one might conclude that healing was restricted to the few during the ministry of Jesus, but that, after Pentecost, this power was given to all who possess the Holy Spirit. But that brings us to the second example of interest:
1 Corinthians 12:9
To another [is given] faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit...
It is not clear what is meant by the phrase "the gifts of healing" (literally "gifts of healings"), but if it refers, as most seem to believe, to the gift of being able to heal other people, then it is clear that Paul considered this to be a gift given to some and not to others in the body of Christ. This would suggest that not every Christian is to be engaged in a ministry of healing others, but that some are. There is the possibility that "gifts of healings" should be seen as referring to the individual healings received by various sick folks, each being a "gift" to that person from the Holy Spirit. Even if this approach is taken, it suggests that healings are for some and not for all.
We come, next, to a very unclear promise, which has bearing on this topic as well...
James 5:14-15
Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
If this is a promise that the sick will be healed by prayer, it is interesting that it is specifically the prayers of the church leaders that are referred to. If every Christian could be expected to heal as well as any other, why call for the elders? Why not just call the nearest Christian to come over and do the job.
I said this was an unclear promise because it does not specifically say that the sick will receive physical healing of his ailment. James could have written, "the prayer of faith will heal the sick..." but he does not choose to say this. Instead, he says that "the prayer of faith will save the sick." The following clause, "and the Lord will raise him up," is equally ambiguous, since this is a term that can refer to one being raised from his sickbed, or it can refer to one being raised from the dead [see note * below]. Also, the forgiveness of sins is mentioned in the immediate context.
These facts raise the possibility that James is talking about the person getting right with God on his deathbed, and has given encouragement of the Catholic tradition of giving "last rites" to the dying. The idea would be as follows:
If any man (an unbeliever?) is sick (i.e., dying—more often than not, in those days, this would be the outcome of a serious illness) and wishes to get right with God, he should alert the church leaders and confess his sins to them. They will hear his confession and anoint him with oil (maybe a compressed ritual, alternative to water baptism—the oil being used in order to signify the simultaneous baptism with the Holy Spirit?). This could refer to the sick man's conversion and recognition (in the presence of the elders) of his admission into the Church. There is then the promise that he will be saved (though not necessarily healed), and that (even if his illness should take him) he will have his part in the resurrection of the just. Of course, the word "save" can sometimes also indicate physical healing, as can the phrase "raise him up." The point is that James chose sufficiently ambiguous terminology so as to cover all the bases. Once the man has made his peace with God, the ball is in God's court. He may heal the man, or he may allow him to die and raise him on the last day.
I don't know what these things have proved about your initial question, but they may shed some light.
*Note on "raise [him] up" (Gr.egeiro)
In the Gospels, the term often refers to the healing of a bedridden person (e.g., Matt.8:15; 9:5, 6, 7; 9:25), or simply of someone arising from bed or from a prostrate position (e.g., Matt.2:13, 14, 20, 21; 8:25-26; 17:7; 25:7). However it does not seem to have this meaning in the usage of any of the epistles, except when awakening from sleep is used as a metaphor of resurrection.
Of the nine occurrences of this word in Romans, it refers to Christ's resurrection eight times, though in several of these cases it seems to be speaking of Christ's resurrection as the effective means of our regeneration—that is our spiritual resurrection at conversion (6:4; 7:4; 8:11). In one instance (13:11; and similarly, in Ephesian 5:14; Colossian 2:12) it refers directly to the believer's regeneration.
In 1 Corinthians 15:12-17 and 20, the word refers to Christ's resurrection—but specifically as the precursor and guarantor of our own eventual resurrection (see v.18). In 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:32,35, 42-44 and 52, the word refers to our resurrection at the end of the world. It also refers to the final resurrection of the believers, in 2 Corinthians 1:9 and 4:14.
Even in the Gospels, this usage of the dead being raised is not unknown. It is the common word in the Gospels for the ressurection of Christ, but also of ordinary people (e.g. Matt.10:8; 12:42; 14:2).
Re: Commissioned to heal
The modern disciple/evangelist is focused mostly on the teaching and preaching, when demonized people come I've seen them dealt with, but it seems like we're all timid to step out in the authority that we should go heal disease...(at least I am and most people I know.) Can anyone think of a biblical reason for this or are we just afraid to step out in faith on it? Is there any reason we should be negating that part of carrying on Jesus' work?
Jesus healed people 17 separate times in the gospels after eliminating duplications and according to Acts 10 he did it through the power of the Holy Spirit and not because he was the Son of God. He also several times equated healing with faith and with lack of doubt and sometimes with forgiveness. On certain occassions he could not heal people because of their lack of faith and on another occasion he escorted someone out of town to get healed because of the unbelief around him , and when he healed the little girl he had the doubters leave the house first. In Hebrews it says he became like us and in Phil 2.7 it says he humbled himself and became a bond servant. In other words, he became like us therefore theoretically i think we should be able to heal also if we are full of the Spirit and have perfect faith.
However most Christians believe God can heal but usually does'nt so we already start out with doubt, yet Jesus said to "doubt not." I think if you read the gospels at face value it sounds to me that we can heal yet we prefer to look for reasons why it isn't possible. When Jesus healed he usually used few words and often spoke to the sickness and commanded it to leave the person or told the person they were healed. We find in John, that Jesus said we would do greater works then him yet we just seem to ignore statements like this or read into it more then it simply says.
Jesus healed people 17 separate times in the gospels after eliminating duplications and according to Acts 10 he did it through the power of the Holy Spirit and not because he was the Son of God. He also several times equated healing with faith and with lack of doubt and sometimes with forgiveness. On certain occassions he could not heal people because of their lack of faith and on another occasion he escorted someone out of town to get healed because of the unbelief around him , and when he healed the little girl he had the doubters leave the house first. In Hebrews it says he became like us and in Phil 2.7 it says he humbled himself and became a bond servant. In other words, he became like us therefore theoretically i think we should be able to heal also if we are full of the Spirit and have perfect faith.
However most Christians believe God can heal but usually does'nt so we already start out with doubt, yet Jesus said to "doubt not." I think if you read the gospels at face value it sounds to me that we can heal yet we prefer to look for reasons why it isn't possible. When Jesus healed he usually used few words and often spoke to the sickness and commanded it to leave the person or told the person they were healed. We find in John, that Jesus said we would do greater works then him yet we just seem to ignore statements like this or read into it more then it simply says.
Re: Commissioned to heal
Some thoughts...
On what basis can we suppose that God always wants to heal a physical ailment? Death is on the agenda for each of us, and, if we were sick at the time that God wished to take us, it is difficult to see why God would desire first to heal us, and then to take us. If we are sick and it is our time to go, why would He not simply allow the sickness to be the thing that takes us? Elisha, who had worked many miracles in his ministry, eventually died of a sickness (2 Kings 13:14). David also died sick. There is never a suggestion that this was due to God's special displeasure with them, nor to their lack of faith.
We know that God both heals and afflicts (on different occasions). He crippled Jacob directly, and He claimed responsibility for creating "the mute, the deaf...and the blind" (Exodus 4:11). It seems evident that the man born blind spent decades with that disability from birth because it was the will of God "that the works of God should be revealed in him" (John 9:3). This strongly suggests that the man's condition existed by the will of God for the purpose mentioned. Jesus did not heal Lazarus, but let him die. Jesus even said that He was glad that He had not healed him...why? "That you may believe!" (John 11:15).
Paul's infirmity, though referred to as a messenger of Satan, was "given" to prevent Paul from being "exalted above measure." This was apparently a good enough reason for God to refuse to heal at Paul's repeated requests (2 Cor.12:7-10). Paul's "outer man" was "perishing," but it worked for him an inward renewal and conferred to him "an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor.4:16-18). In each of the cases surveyed above, God had a different stated purpose for allowing sickness to exist. How many other reasons God may have for wishing a person to be ill we cannot guess.
In scripture, I do not find many instances of Christians receiving healings, though persons who have not yet been converted are often healed as a sign to them and to others of the veracity of the Christian message. Generally, when Christians are sick, their aliments do not end quickly nor supernaturally (e.g., Gal.4:13-14/ 2 Corinthians 12:8-10/ Phil.2:25-27/ 1 Tim.5:23/ 2 Tim.4:20).
There have definitely been seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, wherein the Sun of righteousness has arisen with healing in His wings, and "the power of the Lord was present to heal" (Luke 5:17). In such times, healings seem to abound, and unhealed sickness seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. However, no one who keeps at least one eye on reality can deny that there are other seasons when healing of the sick seems to be the exception. Of course, we are always free, at such times, to pray that our case may be one of the exceptions—and God may grant it to us.
When God does perform a miracle, it is generally in response to faith, it is true, but it is not necessarily biblical to suggest that we can expect God to supernaturally heal whenever there is sufficient faith present. To take this approach is to suggest (quite uncharitably, in the absence of evidence against them) that the scores (or perhaps hundreds) of Christians who have prayed for Joni Ericson Tada's healing were all faith-deficient Christians.
On what basis can we suppose that God always wants to heal a physical ailment? Death is on the agenda for each of us, and, if we were sick at the time that God wished to take us, it is difficult to see why God would desire first to heal us, and then to take us. If we are sick and it is our time to go, why would He not simply allow the sickness to be the thing that takes us? Elisha, who had worked many miracles in his ministry, eventually died of a sickness (2 Kings 13:14). David also died sick. There is never a suggestion that this was due to God's special displeasure with them, nor to their lack of faith.
We know that God both heals and afflicts (on different occasions). He crippled Jacob directly, and He claimed responsibility for creating "the mute, the deaf...and the blind" (Exodus 4:11). It seems evident that the man born blind spent decades with that disability from birth because it was the will of God "that the works of God should be revealed in him" (John 9:3). This strongly suggests that the man's condition existed by the will of God for the purpose mentioned. Jesus did not heal Lazarus, but let him die. Jesus even said that He was glad that He had not healed him...why? "That you may believe!" (John 11:15).
Paul's infirmity, though referred to as a messenger of Satan, was "given" to prevent Paul from being "exalted above measure." This was apparently a good enough reason for God to refuse to heal at Paul's repeated requests (2 Cor.12:7-10). Paul's "outer man" was "perishing," but it worked for him an inward renewal and conferred to him "an eternal weight of glory" (2 Cor.4:16-18). In each of the cases surveyed above, God had a different stated purpose for allowing sickness to exist. How many other reasons God may have for wishing a person to be ill we cannot guess.
In scripture, I do not find many instances of Christians receiving healings, though persons who have not yet been converted are often healed as a sign to them and to others of the veracity of the Christian message. Generally, when Christians are sick, their aliments do not end quickly nor supernaturally (e.g., Gal.4:13-14/ 2 Corinthians 12:8-10/ Phil.2:25-27/ 1 Tim.5:23/ 2 Tim.4:20).
There have definitely been seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord, wherein the Sun of righteousness has arisen with healing in His wings, and "the power of the Lord was present to heal" (Luke 5:17). In such times, healings seem to abound, and unhealed sickness seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. However, no one who keeps at least one eye on reality can deny that there are other seasons when healing of the sick seems to be the exception. Of course, we are always free, at such times, to pray that our case may be one of the exceptions—and God may grant it to us.
When God does perform a miracle, it is generally in response to faith, it is true, but it is not necessarily biblical to suggest that we can expect God to supernaturally heal whenever there is sufficient faith present. To take this approach is to suggest (quite uncharitably, in the absence of evidence against them) that the scores (or perhaps hundreds) of Christians who have prayed for Joni Ericson Tada's healing were all faith-deficient Christians.
Re: Commissioned to heal
When God does perform a miracle, it is generally in response to faith, it is true, but it is not necessarily biblical to suggest that we can expect God to supernaturally heal whenever there is sufficient faith present. To take this approach is to suggest (quite uncharitably, in the absence of evidence against them) that the scores (or perhaps hundreds) of Christians who have prayed for Joni Ericson Tada's healing were all faith-deficient Christians
I would never suggest anyone is faith deficient if they are not healed and i apologize if it comes across that way. There seem to be multiple reasons why people are'nt healed besides lack of faith in healing. Some are the devil's interference, sin, unbelief by others around the sick person or the sick person having faith and doubt simultaneously.
My basis for believing it's God's will to heal is that Jesus healed everyone. He healed groups of people 17 separate times and 1 or 2 people 47 different times. Jesus is the express image of God (Heb 1.3) therefore it must be God's will to heal and though these people were not Christians they did believe he could and would heal them. Additionally Jesus is the same, yesterday and forever and so is the Holy Spirit which is how Jesus did his healings (Acts 10.38).
In Paul's writings it's true there were references to illness but Paul though he was a great Apostle may not have known everything about Jesus teachings just as Peter had to be corrected.
I think that it is only through the New Covenant that healing should be typical because since He was our propitiation for our sins the sin problem should be resolved and the power of the Holy Spirit s/b in every believer. It was the power of the Holy Spirit that healed and that same Holy Spirit is in every believer. However if one has the attitude that one day they will die anyway so what good is healing, that's fine but i have to wonder why Christians go to doctors to try to get well.
Re Lazarus i think he also was healed, the difference was it was after he was resurrected but he was healed and still in his natural flesh and blood body.
If healing was only for the spreading of the gospel alone , where were these people when Jesus was on the cross? It seems what really spread the gospel was his resurrection and Pentecost.
Even among the few Christians who believe it is God's will to heal, most believe if they are not instantly healed then it did'nt work or if they were healed then the battle is over. Healing like any other prayer may take time to be answered and one must believe until the healing is manifested and even then the devil may test them after that.
I realize this area has been abused by many charletons and often believers get offended by this belief and it contradicts the so called "real world" but i think it is true nevertheless.
I would never suggest anyone is faith deficient if they are not healed and i apologize if it comes across that way. There seem to be multiple reasons why people are'nt healed besides lack of faith in healing. Some are the devil's interference, sin, unbelief by others around the sick person or the sick person having faith and doubt simultaneously.
My basis for believing it's God's will to heal is that Jesus healed everyone. He healed groups of people 17 separate times and 1 or 2 people 47 different times. Jesus is the express image of God (Heb 1.3) therefore it must be God's will to heal and though these people were not Christians they did believe he could and would heal them. Additionally Jesus is the same, yesterday and forever and so is the Holy Spirit which is how Jesus did his healings (Acts 10.38).
In Paul's writings it's true there were references to illness but Paul though he was a great Apostle may not have known everything about Jesus teachings just as Peter had to be corrected.
I think that it is only through the New Covenant that healing should be typical because since He was our propitiation for our sins the sin problem should be resolved and the power of the Holy Spirit s/b in every believer. It was the power of the Holy Spirit that healed and that same Holy Spirit is in every believer. However if one has the attitude that one day they will die anyway so what good is healing, that's fine but i have to wonder why Christians go to doctors to try to get well.
Re Lazarus i think he also was healed, the difference was it was after he was resurrected but he was healed and still in his natural flesh and blood body.
If healing was only for the spreading of the gospel alone , where were these people when Jesus was on the cross? It seems what really spread the gospel was his resurrection and Pentecost.
Even among the few Christians who believe it is God's will to heal, most believe if they are not instantly healed then it did'nt work or if they were healed then the battle is over. Healing like any other prayer may take time to be answered and one must believe until the healing is manifested and even then the devil may test them after that.
I realize this area has been abused by many charletons and often believers get offended by this belief and it contradicts the so called "real world" but i think it is true nevertheless.
Re: Commissioned to heal
But this just is not true. There were still sick people in Israel when Jesus left—including a lame man who had for years been positioned right next to the way Jesus often walked, coming and going to and from temple activities (Acts 3ff). Jesus did not heal every sick person in His own day, nor did the apostles in their day. This raises serious doubts about why we should expect Him to do otherwise in our day?My basis for believing it's God's will to heal is that Jesus healed everyone.
Re: Commissioned to heal
I agree with Steve. Reading John 5 about the healing of the man at Bethesda, sick for thirty-eight years and unable to walk, we note there were a multitude of sick, blind, lame, and withered there hoping to be healed and it appears Jesus healed only one person and slipped away.
Re: Commissioned to heal
Perhaps not, but he certainly knew more about them than we know. He fraternized with those who had been with Jesus, and he, no less than they, was involved in regular healing ministry. If Paul left people unhealed because of his ignorance of Jesus' teachings, would it be similar ignorance in Jesus that caused HIm to leave people unhealed?Paul though he was a great Apostle may not have known everything about Jesus teachings.
It is a nice thought that healing is always the will of God, but it just doesn't agree with scripture, nor with the practical experience of the apostles or other great men of faith.
Re: Commissioned to heal
My basis for believing it's God's will to heal is that Jesus healed everyone.
But this just is not true. There were still sick people in Israel when Jesus left—including a lame man who had for years been positioned right next to the way Jesus often walked, coming and going to and from temple activities (Acts 3ff). Jesus did not heal every sick person in His own day, nor did the apostles in their day. This raises serious doubts about why we should expect Him to do otherwise in our day?
steve
Sorry, i meant to say Jesus never turned down anyone who sought him out for healing as far as i know. The begger in Acts 3 did'nt seek out a healing therefore Peter healed him as a special act of mercy to demonstrate the power of God as also with the fellow in John 5. As i mentioned before Jesus healed through the power of the Holy Spirit not because he was the Son of God and that same Spirit is in us. If it's not God's will to heal i wonder why Jesus prayed that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
But this just is not true. There were still sick people in Israel when Jesus left—including a lame man who had for years been positioned right next to the way Jesus often walked, coming and going to and from temple activities (Acts 3ff). Jesus did not heal every sick person in His own day, nor did the apostles in their day. This raises serious doubts about why we should expect Him to do otherwise in our day?
steve
Sorry, i meant to say Jesus never turned down anyone who sought him out for healing as far as i know. The begger in Acts 3 did'nt seek out a healing therefore Peter healed him as a special act of mercy to demonstrate the power of God as also with the fellow in John 5. As i mentioned before Jesus healed through the power of the Holy Spirit not because he was the Son of God and that same Spirit is in us. If it's not God's will to heal i wonder why Jesus prayed that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Re: Commissioned to heal
Do sick people in heaven get healed? Is healing a heavenly activity? Do people in heaven even have bodies at all? How can they be sick or well? I doubt that Jesus had anything like physical health in view when He spoke of the things that are done in heaven.
Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, never to decompose. We have the same Spirit in us. Should we expect all Christians to rise from their graves before they decompose after death, since we have the same Spirit—or might there be some things about the Spirit's work in Jesus that did not parallel the Spirit's work in certain others? Elijah had the same Spirit in Him, and he seems never to have died at all. Elishah had a double-portion of that same Spirit, and he died a sick man. I don't think we can make many predictions about how the Spirit will work through any given person just because He worked that way through another.
Jesus' case is certainly a special one. For one thing, He was the entire Body of Christ—none of us, individually, is the whole body. Jesus, in His body performed all the ministries (gifts) of the Holy Spirit, but it seems to be the point of Paul's discussion of the gifts (1 Corinthians 12) to point out that the Body of Christ is now broken into individual pieces, and that each of us is one of those pieces. As a result, none of us does everything that Jesus did. Hands, feet and eyes do not all have the same function. "To one is given...[this gift]; to another is given...[that gift]." Healings, in fact, are mentioned as being among those gifts that "to one is given" and not to another.
I really do expect to see Christ heal sick people in our day, and in every day until He comes. However, I would expect Him to perform such healings through those members of His body who possess gifts of healings, and to work His other activities in the world through other members who have those other gifts.
Through the Holy Spirit, Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, never to decompose. We have the same Spirit in us. Should we expect all Christians to rise from their graves before they decompose after death, since we have the same Spirit—or might there be some things about the Spirit's work in Jesus that did not parallel the Spirit's work in certain others? Elijah had the same Spirit in Him, and he seems never to have died at all. Elishah had a double-portion of that same Spirit, and he died a sick man. I don't think we can make many predictions about how the Spirit will work through any given person just because He worked that way through another.
Jesus' case is certainly a special one. For one thing, He was the entire Body of Christ—none of us, individually, is the whole body. Jesus, in His body performed all the ministries (gifts) of the Holy Spirit, but it seems to be the point of Paul's discussion of the gifts (1 Corinthians 12) to point out that the Body of Christ is now broken into individual pieces, and that each of us is one of those pieces. As a result, none of us does everything that Jesus did. Hands, feet and eyes do not all have the same function. "To one is given...[this gift]; to another is given...[that gift]." Healings, in fact, are mentioned as being among those gifts that "to one is given" and not to another.
I really do expect to see Christ heal sick people in our day, and in every day until He comes. However, I would expect Him to perform such healings through those members of His body who possess gifts of healings, and to work His other activities in the world through other members who have those other gifts.