By: Mike Oakland

Mike Oakland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 20:23:42 +0000

I forgot to mention a key point in my last post about healing. The Matt 13:58 verse does NOT say that he “couldn’t” do many miracles… just that he didn’t. The parallel passage in Mark 6 uses the word “couldn’t” but doesn’t necessarily mean “wasn’t able” (although that it could mean that), but could also me “wasn’t willing.” The phrase “could not” could mean that He was unwilling, not unable in a limited sense…. as if mere man could restrain an infinitely powerful God. God may choose to limit Himself within the bounds of His moral nature, but doesn’t mean He lacks the power to do something. An omnipotent God by definition cannotbe limited by anything outside of Himself. A moral God may choose to limit Himself by his moral nature. For example, a moral person might be forced to hold a loaded gun to a child’s head and be told to pull the trigger or be killed. The person may say “I can’t do it” even at the cost of their own life. Couldn’t in this case clearly means not willing as opposed to not able. I suspect this to be the case with Jesus in his home town. He was able in a literal sense, but morally, how could he reward such open disrepect and dishonour? He couldn’t – with a few exceptions. Only God would know those individuals who were sick and infirmed who had respectful attitudes and had not taken offense of Him along with their friends and neighbors. God’s compassion would surely touch some though the town as a whole had been shunned. This seems far more likely in light of the hometown rejection events as shown in Luke’s telling of this story, that the offense toward Jesus was not a passive indiffernce or intellectual skepticism but an openly disrespectful, nearly violent encounter. Jesus’ own explanation in Luke seems to support my theory (yet, it’s just my opinion). He drew a connection between their attitudes and ancient Israel having “the heavens shut” suffering drought and famine with only a few foreigners being healed. The heavens being shut was God’s judgement on His children for their sin – a sin issue – not a faith issue. In fact, the lack of rain was the result of a prayer of faith, and the return of the rain likewise. We may be wrong to believe and teach that our lack of faith can tie God’s hands so simplistically. It’s true that sin and unbelief are related, but should we teach God-fearing Christians that unbelief can restrain God’s hands? Is God sovereign or not? Perhaps our emphasis should be on removing sin barriers between us and God rather than building up our faith until it impresses God enough and “releases” Him to act. Jesus said small, mustard seed size faith was enough. Jesus demonstrated a willingness to help people with weak faith, little faith, and even unbelief (“I believe, but help my unbelief.” Let’s ask in faith and keep asking. If we don’t receive what we’ve asked, let’s not fall into the trap of looking for somebody to blame. That will inevitably lead to blaming ourselves or God. We live in a fallen world. The benefits of the cross are ours positionally, but not experiencially. Those who taste of the powers of the age to come and receive supernatural healing here and now should be thankful but should restrain themselves from assuming that it’s everybody’s “right.” Those who are made to wait to taste of the powers of the age to come until then should still be thankful.

By: Mike Oakland

Mike Oakland — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 19:06:32 +0000

I agree with your overall premise about healing and spiritual inheritance have both “positional” and “conditional” elements. However, I think we over complicate this doctrine with one of two errors. Some completely disregard the fact that one of the benefits of the cross includes physical healing. Others teach that healing is a “right” given to us by the cross that we must enforce by faith. If this were the case, then the faith healers of yesteryear would be correct in saying that if a person is prayed for and not healed, then the reason can ONLY be a lack of faith rather than it not being God’s will. This makes us assume that healing is “always” God’s will. We must remember that the New Testament – especially the Pauline epistles, carries an “already but not yet” tension. We are seated wtih Christ in heavenly places positionally, but not yet experiencially. We are the bride of Christ, but the marriage supper of the Lamb hasn’t happened yet. We have received the seal of adoption, but we’re not “home” yet as full sons and daughters. We all have eternal life in us, but we will all die (unless Christ returns). Remeber, the cross not only dealt with our sin (yet we still sin), it also dealth with the power of death (yet we all die). The cross brings us healing, yet we still get sick, diseases, injurred, etc. The full measure of our inheritance given to us at the cross will not be realized until the eternal state has arrived. Until then, we receive the benefits of the cross by faith – but still in measure subject to God’s sovereign will. If God always heals those of faith by default, then Paul’s thorn in the flesh would be a product of unbelief, but we know that to not be true. We see Paul refer to his trials and suffers as a “light affliction.” This life is brief, a passing shadow. God seems to be more concerned with our character than with our comfort, yet he is still moved with compassion to heal the sick, raise the dead, and set free those who are oppressed of the devil. My concern is that believers would get disheartened and assume their faith is at fault – or worse – that God was somehow not honoring His promises and become offended at God for indifference or downright cruelty. The bottom line ought to be this: “Thou He slay me, yet will I trust Him.”

Comments on: Why doesn’t everyone who asks receive healing?

By: Mike Oakland

By: Mike Oakland