the medicine and not a physician? In the light of the procedure presented, the symbolic use of the oil with a more direct miraculous h ealing seems the favourable position. However, James is not excluding the use of physicians and medicines in the cure of diseases. His reference is in all probability to a practice beyond the normal medicinal methods, possibly to those situations where medicine stands helpless. The passage of James reveals another factor in the question of miraculous healing. Certainly his words do not connote that all sickness is due to sin, for there is positive Scriptural evidence to the contrary (cf. Job. 2:1-8; Dan. 8:27; 10:7-12; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23; Jn. 9:1-3), but he does imply that sin may be involved on occasion by the statement concerning the sick individual, “ and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (5:15). His further exhortation to “ Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed” adds to this thought. Since God does send physical in firmity because of sin (1 Cor. 11:30), it is obvious that " . . . a practice beyond the normal medicinal methods, where medicine stands helpless." 'v. B X- X medicines would be of no avail until the cause was re moved through confession. Thus the healing would be more directly related to the act of God at least from man’s viewpoint, although God may in fact use the medicines which had previously been ineffective. God’s Old Testament promise to Israel presents a simi lar circumstance. To His people, God revealed that He was Jehovah Rapha, The Healer, and that in obedience to His will, Israel would be spared from the diseases of Egypt which are probably to be understood as incurable as far as human power is concerned (cf. Deut. 28:17). The cure from such a disease would be direct from God upon the restoration of fellowship, and yet God included numerous natural health regulations in the statutes of Israel’s law which, if obeyed as commanded, would pre vent these diseases from ever occurring. CONCLUSION In adjudging any claim to the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the believer must with the Bereans “ search the Scriptures to see if these things be so.” It has been shown that the Word of God has nothing to say of the power of the Holy Spirit as manifest for bodily healing on the basis of the atonement. On this criterion alone many modern healing movements must be eliminated as a genuine display of God’s power. God has not promised to do this and is not doing it. While the Holy Spirit may yet endow men with the gifts of healings, those claiming that gift and their results must be compared with Scripture. Do they take their place in the body of Christ as the Scripture indicates as a true sign to the un believer? Do they really effect the miraculous cures of the early chvurch, causing the lame to walk and opening eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf, completely and permanently? Although the believer claims not a restored, but a resurrection body, God is healing today according to His sovereign will invoked by the prayers of His people. But as in the other areas of life, He normally uses the en deavours of man and the means which are his through providential grace.
signs. Thus the gift of healing was not designed for the health of the church, but for the authentication of its message. The writer to the Hebrews seems to declare that such authentication from God was primarily for the ori ginal apostles of the Lord’s message (Heb. 2:3-4), and the absence of the general recognition of these signs in subse quent church history appears to substantiate this fact. The usual explanation is that these signs were given to the messengers of God’s revelation until such time as it was ultimately, objectively recorded in permanent form through writing. It does seem, however, to be impossible to state dogmatically that God cannot and does not on occasion use these signs today. The judgment of the con temporary claims to such gifts can only be made finally upon their conformity to the Scriptural description of this phenomenon. Aside from their never appearing as an aid to the general bodily health, they are not included as a top priority gift of the church. The Corinthian ac counts show them well down the list (1 Cor. 12:28), and they go without mention in the other Biblical references to gifts (Rom. 12:6-8; Eph. 4:8-11). Surely their posses sion does not indicate an individual spirituality superior to the other members of the body of Christ, all of whom are gifted (1 Cor. 12:7). From the place that the Scriptures allot to the gifts of healing, it is incredible that they could Biblically become the focal point of a ministry as in numerous instances today. BODILY HEALTH IN THE SCRIPTURE While God does not purpose to provide perfect bodily health for the believer (for who can say that he is free from all physical infirmity?), His compassion does cause Him to alleviate much physical pain and suffering through bodily healing. This restoration can be miracu lous; however, the general impression of Scripture is that God uses the ordinary means of medicine. Nor does this fact detract in the least from the healing efficacy of God. Surely no one would deny that salvation is all of God, and yet the believer is told to work out his own salvation (Phil. 2:12). Prayer is made to God for daily bread with the belief that He supplies, and yet it normally comes through some effort on the part of the supplicant. Thus there are favorable connotations attached to the occupa tion of the physicians (Col. 4:14; Matt. 9:12; Jer. 8:22) and the use of medicines (Isa. 1:6; Jer. 30:13; Lu. 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23). The question of whether the procedure of healing outlined by James (5:14-16) refers to a miraculous re covery solely through the prayer of the elders or to a procedure with medicinal treatment is open to question. The emphasis of the context certainly is upon the efficacy of prayer which is operative in either way. The question revolves around the anointing with oil. Because oil was recognized in Biblical times as containing medicinal properties (Is. 1:6; Lu. 10:34) and the word used for anointing is not that used with the most sacred connota tion, it is argued that the elders were to apply the normal medicinal treatment of the day which God used in the healing. Now while it is true that the more common word is used for this anointing, this does not appear to rule out the possibility of its symbolic use. The disciples were commissioned to heal through the anointing of oil in the same terminology of James (Mark 6:13). Surely this was more than medicinal. Furthermore, the higher term for anointing is used in the New Testament only of God’s anointing, making the more common word preferable in this instance (Acts 4:27; Lu. 4:18; Heb. 1:9; Acts 10: 38; 2 Cor. 1:21). One other question is raised with the medicinal interpretation: Why were the elders to apply
27
SEPTEMBER, 1963
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker