Healing … Part I

I must make this declaration first of all as I begin to look at the question of healing.

"God heals" … that is never in doubt. But by looking only at what I see today as believers pray for healing … I do ask this honest question … "Is healing really promised?"

James 5:14-15 … "Is any sick among you? 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 shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."


The following is from the commentary of … Adam Clark.

"It was the custom of the Jews to apply oil as a means of healing, and that James refers to this custom, is not only evident from the case of the wounded man ministered to by the good Samaritan in Luke 10:34, but from the practice of the Jewish rabbins. Jewish history books record that a Rabbi Joshua in Capernaum, anointed sick Jews with oil and they were made whole. Jews, not Christians.
The Jews had therefore, recourse to this as a natural remedy; and we find that the disciples also used oil in this way to heal the sick in cases where natural means were ineffectual. Mark 6:13 …'And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.'
On this latter I suppose that it might have been done symbolically, in order to prepare the way for a miraculous cure; but I am led to doubt its propriety, (its proper use) yet I dare not decide.
In short, anointing the sick with oil, in order for their recovery, was a constant practice among the Jews. And here I am satisfied that it has no other meaning than as a natural means of restoring health; and that James desires them to use natural means while looking to God for an especial miraculous blessing. And no wise man would direct otherwise."


So today, should I conclude then, that anointing the sick with oil is the will and command of the Lord for healing, or just James, a Jew himself participating in this old Jewish custom? Do I dare decide?


The following is from the commentary of … Albert Barnes.

"'The prayer of faith shall shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up' … This must be understood, as such promises are everywhere, with this restriction, that they will be restored to health if … it shall be the will of God; if He shall deem it for the best. It can not be taken in the absolute and unconditional sense, for then, if these means were used, the sick person would always recover, no matter how often he might be sick, and he need never die. The design is to encourage them to the use of these means with a strong hope that it would be effectual.
It may be added, that no one can demonstrate that this promise has not been in numerous instances fulfilled.
There are instances, and not just a few, where recovery from sickness seems to be in direct answer to prayer, and no one can prove that it is not so."


Let's look at one example the Apostle Peter gave about healing … in this case it's about slaves, beaten or punished unjustly as Jesus was.

1st Peter 2:18-24 … "Servants, (slaves)being subject to your masters, if you endure grief, when ye do well, and suffer wrongfully for it, ye take it patiently, for this is acceptable with God … because Christ also suffered wrongfully for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps. He also did no sin to suffer for, but committed himself to God and bore our sins in his own body on the tree … by whose stripes ye were healed." (My edited translation.)

Some think the apostle Peter alludes to the stripes which servants received from their masters, to whom he was now speaking; and in order to encourage them to bear them patiently, observes that Christ Himself also suffered stripes, and that they had healing for their wounds, through Jesus being beaten and bruised receiving stripes for them.

Can we claim or teach that any believer, of any age, with any sickness, in any circumstance, can obligate God to give healing because of this scripture in Peter? Is it a "whosoever may ask" type of promise … or is it a promise at all?

"By whose stripes ye were healed" … Peter has taken this phrase he uses from Isaiah 53:5 (below.) Peter was an eye witness to the scourging that Jesus received and therefore affirms Isaiah's scripture as true and accurate.

The idea seems to be that the Saviour was scourged or whipped; and that the effect on us is the same, producing a spiritual healing … recovering us from our sins, our faults; as if we had been scourged ourselves.

And with his stripes … The word used here in Hebrew means stripe, bruise, the mark or print of blows on the skin. The proper idea is the wound or stripe made from being beaten, or scourged.

Ye were healed … Sin is often spoken of as a disease; and redemption from it as a restoration from a deadly malady.

By faith, when we see the stripes inflicted on Him made by the beating He received; we should remember that they were on account of our sins, not His; and the effect in reclaiming us is the same as if they had been inflicted on us.

Isaiah 53:5 … "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."

The Hebrew word Isaiah used for healed is "rapha" which means … to mend, to cure, to heal and make whole. (Mainly used of physical things … like our flesh.)


The following is a slightly different point of view on Isaiah 53:5 from the commentary of … Albert Barnes.

"How literally this was applicable to the Lord Jesus, it is unnecessary to attempt to prove. It may be remarked here, that this could not be mere conjecture; for how could Isaiah, seven hundred years before it occurred, know that the Messiah would be scourged and bruised? It is this particularity of prediction, compared with the literal fulfillment, which furnishes the fullest demonstration that the prophet was inspired. In the prediction nothing is vague and general. All is particular and minute, as if he saw what was done, and the description is as minutely accurate as if he was describing what was actually occurring before his eyes.
He was bruised for our iniquities … we are healed … literally, it is healing to us; or healing has happened to us. The healing here referred to, is spiritual healing, or healing from sin. Iniquities are sin. The forgiveness of sin, and the restoration to God, is frequently represented as an act of healing.
The figure is derived from the fact that awakened and convicted sinners are often represented as crushed, broken, bruised by the weight of their transgressions, and the removal of the load of sin is represented as an act of healing.
The idea here is the Messiah would be scourged; and that it would be by that scourging that health would be imparted to our souls. It would be in our place, and in our stead; and it would be designed to have the same effect in recovering us, as though it had been inflicted on ourselves.
And will it not do it? Is it not a fact that it has such an effect? Is not a man as likely to be changed from a lifestyle of sin, who sees another suffer in his place what he ought himself to suffer, as though he was punished himself?
Would not a wayward son likely to be recovered from a course of sin by seeing the sufferings of his father, mother, or sister, if they were unjustly subjected to a severe punishment for his sins?
It is on this principle that the plan of salvation is founded. We shall be more certainly reclaimed by the voluntary sufferings of the innocent in our behalf, than we should be by being personally punished. Punishment would make no atonement, and would bring back no sinner to God."


In some countries of the world still today, people are beaten and flogged for their acts of crime. In fact we did the same thing here in America early in our history; were not people tied to posts and scourged in public shame, or put in stocks in an effort to correct their conduct? It didn't work. But had we taken a man's wife or one of his children and flogged them for his crime … he most likely would have made a vow to himself never to be a lawbreaker again; but we can't do that.

To Be Continued …

Where noted … from the commentaries of Adam Clark & Albert Barnes.