[This book was found on our library
shelves and is as applicable today as it was in 1925. It provides a solid refutation of
the false claims of the so-called "faith-healers." The book is copyrighted;
however, the book is out of print and the copyright is over 50 years old. "We feel
assured the truth as set forth in this volume is greatly needed, and we believe the Lord
will graciously use this testimony for His Word, and the witness against this present-day
healing delusion." - A.C. Gaebelein, 1925]
The Healing Question
An examination of the claims of
Faith-Healing
and Divine Healing systems in the
light of the Scriptures
and History
By
ARNO CLEMENS GAEBELEIN
Editor of "Our Hope"
CHAPTER VI
Examination of Scripture Passages Used For Divine Healing
Divine healers use certain passages of Scripture upon which they base their systems and
their claims. An examination of these passages is now in order. We do not refer to the few
passages in the Old Testament Scriptures which are frequently quoted, like Exodus 15:26
and Deuteronomy 7:15. These passages have nothing whatever to do with the Church, for they
were addressed to Israel under the law dispensation. We confine ourselves exclusively to
the New Testament.
Matthew 8:17. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." This is
the passage upon which the leading divine healers formulate their doctrine that when our
Lord died on the cross, besides bearing our sins, He also bore our infirmities and our
sicknesses. He made atonement for the ills of our bodies as He made atonement for the ills
of our souls. The phrase "healing is in the atonement" is used constantly
by all these healing s systems. The Christian and Missionary Alliance" puts
alongside "Christ our Justifier and Sanctifier" the third expression of the
fourfold Gospel, "Christ our Healer," which supports the contention that Christ
died for our sicknesses. But there is no such fourfold Gospel taught in the Scriptures.
The greatest Gospel preacher, the Apostle Paul, never preached it, nor does the
Holy Spirit ever speak of a fourfold Gospel. There is but one Gospel.
All other divine healers follow this teaching and tell those who are sick to believe
that Christ by His work on the cross [page 71] has wrought healing for diseases and all
bodily infirmities. Mrs. Aimee Semple McPherson in a sermon on "A double Cure for a
double Curse" declares that Christ provided a double cure. Salvation and Healing,
that Christ has atoned for sins and sicknesses. Then she states that the bearing of our
sicknesses was accomplished in a special way. Here are her words: "Was He whipped
that my many sins might be washed away? No, child, the blood of the Cross was sufficient
for that. Then why did they pluck the beard from His face and beat Him with cruel staves?
Was that for cleansing for sin? No, child, the blood was sufficient for that . . . Then
why did they whip Him so? Why, child, do you not know the meaning of that lash, the cruel
blows of the smiter's scourge? 'Twas thus He bare our suffering, and by His stripes ye are
healed. . . . At the whipping post He purchased our healing." This is a new and
contradictory invention. She practically teaches, if this can be called teaching, that our
sicknesses were not atoned for in the same manner as our sins. She teaches two separate
and distinct atonements, a thing which is altogether unknown in Scripture. This invention
is akin to some of Mrs. Eddy's perversions.
The Bosworth Brothers with their dogmatic assertions outstrip even Mrs. McPherson's
unscriptural statements. F. F. Bosworth is a strong believer in the theory that Christ
atoned for our diseases. Here are his words: "I want to establish this in your minds,
that Jesus included healing for your body as one of the benefits provided for you by His
death on the cross." Then he makes the astounding claim that while the wine in the
Lord's Supper represents the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, the bread
represents His body broken for the healing of every man's body. We quote him again:
"You can be healed when you put the [page 72] bread in your mouth, if not before, by
discerning the Lord's body."-"It is just as easy to be healed of cancer as to be
forgiven of sins."–"Thousands are in the cemeteries before their time
because they have not discerned the Lord's body broken for their healing. Thousands of
others are sick, who can be healed if they will discern it." Then he cites different
cases where persons (nearly all women) were healed when they ate a piece of bread and
discerned the Lord's body. Tumors, goiters, rheumatism and indigestion disappeared
miraculously when that piece of bread was eaten in the correct and scriptural way. Such
teaching is unknown in the entire history of Christianity, and is practically on the same
level with the Romish perversions of the great Memorial feast. If the eating of a piece of
bread at the Lord's table results in the healing of diseases, then the drinking of the
wine must effect in the same manner the forgiveness of sins. It is right next to the
bloodless sacrifice of the mass. The invention of Mr. Bosworth is more than unscriptural,
it is wicked. And the poor, struggling sick believe this perversion and delusion. We quote
from an article published in "Our Hope" dealing with this error:
"When our Lord, that night in which He was betrayed, took bread,
and gave it to His disciples, was it that their bodies might be healed? Was it that they,
and all who should come after them, were to remember that He bore their sicknesses on the
cross, as the cup was to bring to their remembrance that He bore their sins there? Was
this to remind them that the awful judgment of God rolled over His blessed Head-not only
because of their sins, but because of their sicknesses that were to be upon Him, too? If
that were the case, would it not follow that if they had, or we have, no sickness, we must
omit this part of the Supper, for it can have no interest for us, since the body of the
Lord was given for the healing of every man's body! I can but believe that my readers will
find it as difficult to read calmly as I to write of this flippant travesty of the most
solemn truth, so dogmatically, even exultantly pressed as a wonderful discovery by Mr.
Bosworth, and as the very basis of his teaching.
But is there, then, no difference in the teaching of the two emblems?
Indeed there is; but it is as far as the poles from Mr. B's deductions. [page 73] The
bread speaks, as a divinely selected emblem, of that judgment that passed upon Him as our
substitute during the last three hours on the cross, from noon to three. As the waving
grain had to be cut off by the sickle, so we remember Him as being thus "cut
off" for our sins (Daniel 9:26). As the bread had been under the millstones, so we
remember Him as being thus "bruised for our iniquities." As it had gone into the
oven, and been subject to its heat, so we remember Him, as suffering for us the
awful heat of God's judgment upon our sins which He was bearing in His own holy Body, and
with adoring hearts and the deepest self-abasement we take that bread–for it was our
sins–not our frailties or sicknesses or premature death, that He was bearing in that
dark hour! Here we see how inflexibly righteous is our God, for even when His holy,
precious, beloved Son is bearing our sins-yes, being made sin–His eye doth not pity,
His hand doth not spare, and it is thus that we "discern" that it is not the
mere bread that might give us "physical benefits only," but, to faith, the
Lord's Body." [F.C. Jennings, "Our Hope," November, 1921].
But what does Matthew 8:17 mean? Does it not say that Esaias' prophecy "Himself
took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses" is fulfilled by Him? And therefore did
He not take the sicknesses and the pains of our bodies upon Himself, as He took our sins,
and bore them all away as the Lamb of God? And if so, then what is the reason to
deny that healing is in the atonement? Such are the reasonings of divine healers. We only
need to give this star text another glance to find the answer which annihilates the whole
argument. The Lord Jesus Christ had healed many, and in connection with these miracles of
healing we find the text "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet." Then the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in the day when our Lord
Jesus Christ healed the great multitude. It was fulfilled about three years before the
Lord died on the cross. The prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in His divine ministry of
healing, and not when He hung on the cross. Some, to overcome this fact, state that the
three years of His life were years in which He made atonement, till the work was capped on
the cross. But this is only another error. Our Lord did [page 74] not bear sins during His
holy life on earth, nor was He mad sin for us, till He hung on the cross, when God made
Him sin for us. The teaching that Christ carried our diseases up to the cross and that He
had actual disease Himself is another unscriptural invention. But they go to the
fifty-third chapter of Isaiah and say that the bruises and stripes predicted there were
laid upon our substitute, because He made atonement for our sicknesses. But where is this
written?
The chapter in Isaiah assures us that He was bruised for our iniquities. Nor is
there anywhere in prophecy a passage in which the Spirit of God associates bodily hearings
with the atoning work of our Lord. In vain do we look through the Epistles for such a
doctrine. What then does it mean, "Himself took our infirmities and bare our
sicknesses"? It can mean but one thing. The Lord Jesus entered in divine sympathy
into the depth of the need He so graciously relieved. He suffered with those who suffered.
The burden of infirmities and sicknesses He shared sympathetically with the afflicted
ones. "In their afflictions He was afflicted."
At another occasion He expressed this sympathy by sighing, before He healed the deaf
and dumb, and He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. In this sense and in no other, He took our
infirmities and bore our diseases. If it meant the future bearing on the cross the Holy
Spirit would have made a mistake in writing "that it might be fulfilled." If He
had atoned for our physical condition then death should also have been abolished. Diseases
are but the stepping stones towards that goal of human life. We must add, that if it were
true that Christ died for our sicknesses, then His atoning work in this respect is a
failure. His people ever since these words were written have borne all manner of
diseases and have died. Some of the greatest saints of God, the most mighty instruments of
God the Holy Spirit, men of faith [page 75] and whole-souled devotion, were weak in body
and afflicted with infirmities. The choicest saints on earth today are the
thousands of shut-ins, who suffer in patience and sing their sweet songs in the night.
Matthew 10:7-8 "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have
received, freely give." Some of these faith healers fall back on this command.
They say, "Jesus said, 'Heal the sick.' We only follow His instructions, and besides
preaching we also heal the sick as He commanded." This command has nothing whatever
to do with the Church. It was given to accompany a special message at a special
time. When that message had been given at that special time the commission was no longer
in force . The special message was the message of the kingdom promised to Israel, and the
time was when His Jewish disciples were to evidence the genuineness of the message by the
working of miracles. Nowhere in the New Testament is it repeated, or stated that the
Church should "heal the sick." But what about cleansing lepers and raising
the dead? Is this not also included in this commission? Why not fall back on this
also and say "we raise the dead" because Christ told us to do so. And what about
the other instructions given in Matthew 10:1-10? Let these divine healers then be obedient
to the command, "Freely ye have received, freely give." Let them stop their
collections, their "love-tokens," and stop getting rich through the misfortunes
of others. We know that some of these divine healers who possessed hardly a dollar are
worth fortunes now, one is worth at least over a half of a million of dollars. It came
through "healing campaigns" which netted weekly thousands of dollars. Any man or
woman who claims to fulfill Christ's command in Matthew is either ignorant or a fraud,
perhaps both.
Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and
they shall recover.
This is another star text with the gift of tongues believers and the faithhealing
cults. Many times well meaning people have written us and asked us if we did not believe
that it is written: "And these signs shall follow them that believe .. . . they shall
speak in new tongues. . they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
This is a fair sample of how delusionists and fanatics quote Scripture. Five things are
mentioned in regard to signs:
- Casting out demons.
- Speaking in new tongues.
- Taking up serpents.
- Drinking a deadly thing.
- Laying hands on the sick.
Very cunningly only two of these five things are selected–the speaking in tongues
and laying hands on the sick. But if these two signs are now with us, and a believer can
talk in new tongues and lay hands on the sick for their recovery, what about the other
three? They are never quoted by divine healers. Only a fool would take up a rattlesnake
and rely upon the promise given here and play with the reptile. Several years ago a
Pentecostal preacher in Alabama tried to make a demonstration that the Lord will keep His
promise. Someone brought a rattler in a box. After calling upon the name of the Lord to
make good His word, he loosed the string and was promptly bitten in the hand. Only expert
medical attention and treatment saved his life. , This is not faith but presumption. Only
a fool would take a cup filled with a deadly poison and expect the Lord to save him from
the consequences.
What does the passage mean? It refers exclusively to the beginning of this present age.
The Lord did not say, [page 77] "and these signs shall follow them that believe always."
These signs were not to continue throughout this dispensation, but were present only in
the beginning of it. In fulfillment of this promise, they spoke with new tongues; they
cast out demons; they laid hands on the sick, and they recovered; a serpent bit Paul and
he escaped harm, and probably some one may have drunk a deadly thing, though we have no
record of this.
John 14:12. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me, the works
that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go to My
Father." This text is also used as an authority for faith-healing. Let us note
that the Lord Jesus Christ does not speak here of the works of a special class of
believers, but He says: "He that believeth on Me." It includes every believer
who reads these lines. But who can claim to do now the same works, which He had done in
instantaneous hearings, opening the eyes of those born blind, and raising the dead. Is
there a record anywhere in the history of the Church since the days of the Apostles, that
believers did the same miracles which Christ did, including the raising of the dead?
Divine healers may claim to heal like Christ healed. They do not. We know that the girl
Dorcas had died, and Peter presented her alive. The Apostle Paul brought Eutychus to life
after he had expired. But here we read that he who believes on Him is to do greater works.
These greater works are certainly not of a physical nature. No greater work could ever be
done than the raising up of a man who was four days in the grave. The greater works are
spiritual works.
The raising of a soul out of the grave of sin is a greater work than the raising of one
physically dead. The dead who were raised by our Lord, Jairus’s daughter, the young
man at the gates of Nain, and Lazarus, had to die again. Dorcas and [page 78] Eutychus
also had to die, but when the soul dead in trespasses and sin is quickened and
raised from the dead, eternal life is given which can never more be shadowed by death.
These are the greater works.
Romans 8:11. "But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell
in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal
bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." This text is used by divine
healers, as if the body of the believer, because indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is quickened
into health in the case of sickness; that the indwelling Spirit will impart the
resurrection life of Christ. But why do believers die? The indwelling Spirit is
omnipotent; He can quicken so that death has no chance. The whole divine hearing
application is erroneous. The preceding verses make it clear that the spirit of the
believer has been made alive by the Holy Spirit, as being due to the righteousness
effected by the cross of Christ. But the physical body of the believer is dead on account
of sin. The quickening of the believer's body is not a present fact but awaits future
realization. The word "quicken" means to make alive that which is dead. The
quickening takes place in resurrection, when the believer's body will be made like unto
His own glorious body. As the Holy Spirit had a part in the resurrection of Christ, so He
will quicken the believer's body when the Lord comes, because He dwelt in that body as the
seal of redemption. Many of the divine healers who preached this text, taught that the
Holy Spirit quickens now, heals and is also an agent of prevention of illness, finally
caught a disease, and nephritis. tuberculosis or some heart trouble carried them off, and
their bodies died like the bodies of unbelievers die.
James 5:14. "Is any sick among you. Let him call for the elders of
the church and let them pray over him, anointing him [page 79] 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." This
is the most used text, or rather misused text, by healers and their systems, and demands
our closest scrutiny. In the first place it is false reaching and a perversion of this
text when it is said "this is the one divinely given direction in cases of all
sickness." Hence in the healing meetings held by these men and women James v:14 is
given as the one and universal way for anybody in the case of sickness, and the hope is
held out, if a person has faith, and is anointed with oil, that healing will follow. Every
year many thousands of people are deceived by these statements and suffer the most awful
disappointment. The wrecks which some "divine healers" leave behind are truly
appalling. James 5:14 was never intended to be a remedy for human ills in all cases, to be
applied at all times, in all places and under all conditions. The definite assurance is
given, "the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord will raise him up."
But can this be the reasonable outcome of every sickness? Let us think of the multitudes
of true believers who died as the result of some sickness. Thousands who know Christ,
young and old, pass away every year through some illness. Now if these "divine
healers" are right in saying that this is the way all cases of sickness must be dealt
with, God's appointed way in every sickness, then these believers died because they did
not call the elders of the Church. They died because they were not anointed with oil, and
though earnest prayer was made by loved ones, they died because those many prayers were
not offered in faith. Such must be the logical conclusion.
The case of the sick one mentioned in James is a special case. James's Epistle was the
first Epistle written. It is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. We are [page
80] still upon Jewish ground here, though James and those to whom he writes were
believers. The old covenant promised to the Israelite freedom from disease if he obeyed
the covenant of the law. In case sickness came it was looked upon as the result of some
sin committed. This is the case here. Sickness is viewed as a chastening of the Lord for
some specific sins, and as this is confessed and put away, the chastening ends and the
sick one is raised up. Some healers have seen that this is in question here and applied it
in their practice. A short time ago the writer was requested to call on a woman who
despaired of her soul's salvation. She told us a pitiful story. She suffered from some
heart affection. Someone induced her to go to a "healing meeting"' in the
Southland. She was anointed and thought she had received some benefit, but the ailment
came back stronger than before. When she visited the healer again and presented her case,
he told her that she had better find out the sin she had committed; that there was an
unconfessed sin in her life, and unless she confessed that sin she would never be raised
up. The poor soul could not locate that special sin and when we visited her she was on the
verge of despair, thinking she was lost forever. How pitiful!
But in the next place, what about the elders? We do not enter into an
examination of the question-do we still have elders today in the Apostolic sense? Let us
suppose such elders as are described in the First Epistle to Timothy (chapter 3) are
available. They are to be called. In the "divine healing meetings" there seems
to be only one person who does the work of anointing and praying. That person is
the whole thing. He is the outstanding figure. The sick and afflicted look to him. He has
secured a reputation that his anointing, his touch and his prayers help the sick. .He
knows how to advertise in a sensational way. All the divine [page 81] healers, Mrs.
McPherson, Mrs. Crawford, younger women, whose names need not be given, Bosworth, Price
and all the rest are big advertisers. Instead of the sick sending for the elders, the
elders run after the sick. The trumpet of advertising is blown as loud as the trumpet of a
circus. All is centered upon that one leader and the command "call the elders"
is completely set aside.
But there is a more flagrant disobedience involved. The most successful healers are
women, Who has authorized a woman to anoint the sick? Certainly not the Holy
Spirit, who declares emphatically what a woman's place is to be in the Church (1 Timothy
2:12-14). An elder, we read in Scripture, is to be "the husband of one wife."
Where do we read that an elder is to be "the wife of one husband"? Where? Will
some one answer this question? No woman, no matter what her gifts, her ability and her
pretensions might be, can ever be an elder. She is disqualified by the Word of God from
carrying out the instruction given in James 5:14. Yet women today are in the anointing
business more than men. They are not subject to the Word of God. They disobey its
instructions. They take a place in leadership which is the very opposite from what the
Scriptures say her place is to be.
In the next place we come to the anointing. What is this anointing in our text? In
"divine hearing" meetings a drop of oil is used and put on the forehead. Some do
it in the form of a cross. Most of these healers at the same time touch and stroke the
forehead and other parts of the body. If there is eye trouble, or ear trouble, these
organs are massaged. If it is a limb which is affected, it is massaged. A gentleman in San
Diego told us that his wife persuaded him to submit to an anointing by the hands of Mrs.
McPherson for deafness in one ear. She anointed him and at the same time massaged
the affected ear in a vigorous way. She then asked him, "Can you hear?" He said,
"Yes." Then there [page 82] was handclapping over another miracle. Thirty
minutes later he was as deaf as ever. Not the oil had done anything but the massage, but
it did not last.
Let us look first at the word "anointing." Even in our English language the
word means more than using a drop of oil. In our English translation the word
"anoint" stands for two wholly different Greek words. The first is "Aleiphein";
it is the common and mundane. "Chriein" is the sacred and heavenly
word. Aleiphein is used indiscriminately of all actual anointings, whether
with oil ointments, while "Chriein," in its connection with "Christos"
(Christ) is absolutely restricted to the anointing of the incarnate Son of God by the
Father and the Holy Spirit. The word "Aeiphein" used here and translated
"anointing" is more correctly translated [Note: The
Bible Believers Resource Page does not agree that the rendering of the AV1611 warrants any
so-called correction] by "massaging"; the correct rendering would then be
"massaging him with oil." Sir Robert Anderson, a scholar and able exegete, gives
the following helpful comment on this matter: "Most expositors represent this
anointing as a sacramental rite to be performed by the elders. And the inaccurate
rendering reading 'anointing him with oil' lends itself to this error. But as it is
certain that among Orientals the elders would not themselves massage a female invalid,
it must not be assumed that they did so in other cases. The Revised Version marginal
reading 'having anointed him' is grammatically correct; but 'after he has been anointed,'
better suits our English idiom [Note: The Bible Believers
Resource Page does not agree with the use of corrupted versions, as was the Revised
Version]. The added words 'in the name of the Lord' are commonly taken as proof
that the anointing was sacramental. But this betokens ignorance of the true character of
the Christian life; for it is to common and mundane acts that the exhortation refers,
'Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do it [page 83] all in the name of the Lord Jesus
(Colossians 3:17). The passage is clear and simple. Its teaching may be summed up in two
words, namely, the use of means and believing prayer."
With this we are in full accord. We are fully persuaded that the anointing with oil has
no sacramental meaning, but was used for the physical benefit of the sick. What we have
further to say on this matter will convince any sane and unprejudiced mind.
In the parable of the good Samaritan we find that he applied two remedies to the
bruised and mangled body of the victim of the highway robbers, wine and oil. In using oil
the Samaritan used the most popular remedy of the ancient world. Olive oil was regarded
throughout the Orient as one of the most potent agents for the relief and cure of disease.
Celsus, Josephus, Pliny, Arctaeus, Galen and other ancient writers refer to the medicinal
use of oil. The ancient physicians recommended that patients who had passed through the
first stage of fevers should be massaged with oil. They also recommended the liberal use
of oil as a preventative. It is still so today. Niebuhr assures us that the first remedy
used by Jews in Arabia is an oil massage. But there is stronger evidence than this.
Frequent references are made in talmudical literature that the Jews, in the first part of
the Christian era, made use of oil in the treatment of nearly all diseases. We have given
special attention in research to confirm this [Those who have access to the Talmud may
turn to Bab. Yoma 77b; Yer. Shab. 14:14c. See also "Jewish Encyclopedia," Vol.
1, page 613.]. According to these sources incantations, magical and enchanting
murmurings were used, a custom which the Jews had adopted during the Babylonian captivity.
Babylonian research has established the fact that [page 84] special magical incantations
were used for every known disease. Hundreds of these magic words and incantations are
found on the cuneiform tablets and bricks. The famous Hebraist Lightfoot is right when he
says: "It was customary for the unbelieving Jews to make use of anointing for the
sick joined with a magical and enchanting muttering; but how infinitely better is it to
join to the use of oil the pious prayers of the elders of the Church."
We have shown the true and only satisfactory meaning of James 5:14, 15. Exactly what is
said today by healing systems and "divine healers" as to what this passage
means, is that which it does not mean. They forbid the use of means, when the passage
endorses the use of means. They are on the same level with Romish practices by giving the
anointing with oil a sacramental meaning.
Our historical research has shown that nothing was heard of a sacramental use of oil
for the sick till the fifth century, the time when the Church was about plunging into the
Romish apostasy. The first four centuries of church history know nothing whatever of the
superstitious use of oil in case of sickness. Apart from the passage in James and in the
Gospel of Mark (where oil also stands for a remedial agent) the rest of the New Testament
knows nothing of a sacramental anointing of the sick. The Apostle Paul never mentioned it.
As far as the record goes, he never used it. He left Trophimus sick, and the Holy Spirit
instead of telling Timothy to call for the elders, sent him a prescription. Nor is there
any other teaching to be found in the great Church Epistles. With this we have shown that
there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the teachings and claims of
"Divine Healing." It lacks Scriptural support from start to finish. It is
therefore Anti-Scriptural. But let us examine next the pretended works and results of
"Divine Healing" cults and their leaders, and we shall know them by their
fruits.
Chapter 7:
An
Examination of the Works and Results of Divine Healers
Back to Table of Contents
email