A gracious promise crowns the instruction in James—“The Lord shall raise him up.” It is unthinkable that such a word could find a place in the New Testament without a blessed fulfillment being a commonplace among Christians. They fell sick like other men—but they were healed by the Lord. Their answers to their many other prayers on the other matters found a counterpart in answers to prayer for healing also. We too, can glory in the many, many Christians today who can testify to similar grace in receiving Divine healing directly from the Lord in answer to prayer, and often after obedience to this scriptural admonition to ask the local Elders to anoint them with oil and pray over them in His Name.
Yet a complete doctrine must take into account the whole counsel of God revealed in His word. It is our common weakness to give little or no attention to passages of Scripture that fail to support our favourite doctrines. It is so here. If ultimate healing from the Lord came to Trophimus as we are told it did come to Epaphroditus then it must have been delayed. Perhaps there WERE some spiritual conditions that Trophimus needed to fulfil, but we ought to tread very carefully in making the slightest insinuation. Paul suggests none, although he did so quite plainly in the case of the many weak and sickly among the Corinthians (I Cor. 11:30). Apparently also, Dorcas had not called for the Elders at Lydda(Acts 9:38) to pray over and anoint her with oil—unless their ministry failed to prove efficacious, or unless we take the extreme view that her death was deliberately ordained by God to allow Peter to perform the miracle. Paul did not seem to seek the assistance of the ministry of any Elders to anoint him for his own infirmities, and in the case of Timothy he advised carefulness of diet rather than prayer. If we wish we can assume that in the healing that came to Epaphroditus the Elders at Rome had prayed for him, but we are not told anything about it. Finally we must remind ourselves once more, at the risk of repeating the obvious, that sooner or later those early Christians all died. No observance of James v. 14-17, however scrupulous, ultimately prevented the course of nature. So it is clear that its application must have SOME limitations. If we were more willing to recognize that we might dispose of some of our “problems of Divine healing.”
Should Trophimus have “claimed” Divine healing? In asking this question we approach what will be the crux of the matter for many devout and sincere believers, and we must seek wisdom to tread carefully lest we injure faith.
Preachers of Divine healing usually stress that healing should be “taken” or “claimed” in the Name of the Lord without any question as to it being the will of God to heal. That is regarded as settled beyond any shadow of doubt, provided that one who is sick is prepared to confirm to certain plainly set forth conditions. Any querying as to the will of God to heal is treated with merciless suspicion as harbouring doubt and unbelief, and the candidate for healing is exhorted to refuse it any place in the heart or mind. Let us admit at once that this attitude has helped many. Faith involves an act of the will, and a trust in the substance of things hoped for, and acceptance of the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). Faith has to “take” healing as a right to be claimed in the Name of the Lord whatever the outward appearances may be. There is something splendid about this and genuine miracles of Divine healing have rewarded such unwavering faith, even after a protracted battle. But for those weaker in faith and in personality it can prove very difficult and disheartening and baffling. Such an attitude imposes a tremendous burden if there is not a personal faith ready to assume it, come what will.
pages 19&20
Be the first to react on this!
