Friday, October 30, 2015

Note from the author: Dr. Elizabeth K. Best

I have no idea why my blogs are not functioning normally, but they are not.   I am in the process after almost 11 years of switching my blogs over to sites on a private server to avoid third party illegal decisions regarding my work.

Healing of Christ, the name of this blog is available at two other places on the net.  These studies as well as other studies by myself, Elizabeth Kirkley Best are privately owned by me, authored by me and illustrated by me.  THERE ARE NO CO AUTHORS AND NO ONE IS AUTHORIZED TO USE MY NAME OR ACCOUNTS. It is sad that after offering free studies for 19 years online and another 11 offline that radical changes are having to be made to protect the quality of the studies.  The studies are being dumbed down, large portions erased, poor grammar added, and even doctrine and translations changed:  when this occurs, but the studies are still under my name,  it ruins my ability to function in a normal way online,  or educate and teach in a sound way.  The process basically bullies one off the net,  in one of the worst cases of free speech and free religious expression violations I have ever seen. 

I am going to offer, free of charge,  downloads and even one print copy per request, any of the studies on any of the blogs to those who will use the studies for education, but not for rewriting.  I will publish the whole blog in print format as well using either Smashwords or another print platform, or one will be able to find them listed on as well shortly.  These studies work very well as continuing bible study series for churches, homeschools, Christian schools and self study.  They are free of charge, and while no changes are to be made, and while they may not be sold , one may distribute they for genuine use.

Many Blessings to those who still believe the Lord and Savior prefers honesty in ministry.

Elizabeth Best (this email is changing as it is being hacked and misappropriated)


Thursday, October 29, 2015

Blind Bartimaeus and Faith in Israel

1531  Lucas Van Leyden


His Eyes were Blind, He could not See...Bar Timaeus

"And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus , the son of Timaeus sat by the highway side begging."

I would like to begin "in those days" as though the blind no longer have to beg, but the truth is, physical blindness today, is often treated just as inhumanely now as back then: we have a sort of "chrono-centricity" in which we think we are far advanced and more 'mature' than back in the first century a.d. but the truth is, if anything, while our technology has grown, our hearts have stayed the same, or perhaps grown even more cold and brutal.

As the disciples and Jesus came to Jericho (and went out of Jericho*) they encounter a blind beggar by the name "Bar-Timaeus", or son of Timaeus. That day, they were in no small number, and 'blind Bartimaeus' would probably have gone unnoticed to another crowd of this size, but when Bartimaeus heard that it was "Jesus of Nazareth", Yshua the "nazarim" something in his spirit caused him to 'cry out'. Before the healing, before even the gaze of the Lord turned to him, he cried out something rather unusual, for a Jewish beggar with no sight---not 'help me', nor 'give me something', but

"Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me." 10:47

Eager to calm the crowds and hustle and bustle, many charged him to be quiet--- after all, the real Jesus of Nazareth was at hand, and seemingly to many, if he were the Messiah, he would have no time to deal with this poor blind man, whom most saw as the bottom rung of the social ladder of Israel. This encounter has been written of no doubt thousands of times, but the healing often gets little more than a brief pause, and the 'cry' of an Israeli beggar for his Lord and Savior, receives almost none.

The more they tried to stop him, the more he continued in his plea and purpose [like much of Israel], he cried out "all the more"

"Thou son of David, have mercy on me."

Why did the blind man call out son of David? The title "Son of David" is mentioned exactly 23 times, 9 in the Old Testament. The titles 'son of Man', son of the Blessed, son of Adam, and son of God as well as son of the most High and others are also mentioned:  the Son-ship of Christ was not in dispute,  but peculiarly, ‘Son of David’ indicated that the blind man requiring mercy from Jesus,  already believed he was the Messiah of Israel,  as ‘Son of David’ used as a title pointed to the anointed one of Israel.    It is interesting in the New Testament, that while Jesus is called “Son of Man”  several times,  the term ‘son of man’ or  in Hebrew, ‘Ben Adam’ (Son of Adam) can be and is used of other prophets and even just a member of the human race.

For example, used of one merely in the line of Adam, the following two examples show that the term could be used somewhat liberally:

[Num 23:19 KJV] 19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
[Job 25:6 KJV] 6 How much less man, [that is] a worm? and the son of man, [which is] a worm?

The term ‘Son of Man’ though is also used more eminently when referring to the prophets, particularly of Ezekiel :

[Eze 2:1, 8 KJV] 1 And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. ... 8 But thou, son of man, hear what I say unto thee; Be not thou rebellious like that rebellious house: open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee.
[Eze 16:2 KJV] 2 Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,

The term is used in the three verses above to refer to Ezekiel, by God,  and in 91 other passages in that book alone.  Jesus also as part of his ‘offices’ which he held, was a prophet,  so the term ‘son of man’ certainly carries with it a significance that points to the ‘son of Adam’, son of God,  and prophet,  but less directly though albeit of a certainty, the messiah.

The Blind Bartimaeus though,  cries out the more specific term:  “Son of David”.  His faith is evident before Jesus even requires it of him.   Like the children and others on the road into Jerusalem during the Triumphal entry,  who cry the same,  Bartimaeus was declaring and trusting that he was the ‘Son of David’,  the Messiah of Israel.

One could argue that ‘Son of David’ would have included any of those in David’s line, since it is mentioned, for example in descriptions of Solomon or Absalom and even Joseph (Matt 1:20), literal sons or in the line; but the Davidic covenant of the land and seed, and the forthcoming King to sit on the throne of Israel (the Messiah) more clearly takes foreground from several passages:

[2Sa 7:11-14 KJV] 11 And as since the time that I commanded judges [to be] over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son.  


This is the ‘for ever’ Kingdom and King of Israel which will proceed from David’s bowels, in other words, the ‘zera’ or seed which creates the generations of David.  We find in both the ‘genealogies’ of Jesus, the one from Mary and Joseph’s side, that Jesus is a direct descendent of David:

[Mat 1:1 KJV] 1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
[Luk 3:31 KJV] 31 Which was [the son] of Melea, which was [the son] of Menan, which was [the son] of Mattatha, which was [the son] of Nathan, which was [the son] of David,

That the people who were eyewitnesses to the miracles and healing of Jesus on more than one occasion used the term ‘Son of David’ as a messianic one is clearly seen in a sample of the many passages in which he was addressed by the expression, and further evidence comes from their corollary use of the word ‘Lord’ when addressing Jesus:


[Mat 9:27 KJV] 27 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, [Thou] Son of David, have mercy on us.
[Mat 12:23 KJV] 23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
[Mat 15:22 KJV] 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
[Mat 20:30-31 KJV] 30 And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, [thou] Son of David. 31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, [thou] Son of David.
[Mat 21:9 KJV] 9 And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.


Many other passages point to the same idea.  In Israel, no man was ever to receive worship:  it was considered a form of idolatry to attribute worship, reserved only for the Creator, toward a created being.    Yet in several verses, the people of Israel confront Jesus in very unusual ways.   They bow down before him and worship him (Matt 2:11, 8:2, 9:18 etc.) even as a young infant.  In Matthew 14:33 he is referred to as the Son of God, which if it had not been true, would have been blasphemy. In 18:26 and 26:9 they fall down , or bow down and worship him, in the former, grasping his feet.    One has to understand Jewish culture in that day and time to consider how terribly unusual it was for the common people of Israel to do such a thing:  calling him the ‘Son of David’, a ‘Prophet’, the “Son of Man’ and the ‘Son of God’.  They would have been cut off from their communities and synagogues, if these attributions had been to a mere man.   Something in the Messiah, triggered the Jewish spirit so in the first century,  that frequently even in a first encounter, those seeking healing for themselves or others,  called him ‘Messiah’ in one form or another, recognized him in faith as God’s Son, and sometimes bowed down and worshipped him. (at least 12 times in the New Testament, though one was the soldier’s mocking worship.)

Though the above defense of the term is somewhat parenthetical,  we nonetheless need to take it into account in order to understand the significance of a blind man on the wayside,  crying out for mercy to Jesus,  and calling him “Son of David”.  He was declaring his very sufficient faith not only in his ability to heal, but also declaring that he recognized and thoroughly trusted Him for all that he was and would do, for to otherwise use the term would have ostracized him entirely from his people, and the blind were already marginalized in the society of the first century.

So intense was Bartimaeus’ faith that day on the roadside to Jericho,  that when he hears that it is Jesus of Nazareth passing by,  he calls out for mercy from the Son of David, not once but twice,  even amidst the admonition of those attending:

 And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me

Bartimaeus was certain that Jesus could heal him because he was the Son of David, the long awaited Holy One of Israel, the Meschiach.

Jesus, never a respecter of persons, does not tell his followers to silence the man, nor does he rush on to the next town:  he stops everything to attend to faith in Israel.

Mark 10:49 And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee. 50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.  

The blind beggar also showed signs of immediate obedience:  the minute Jesus calls, he ‘casts away his garment’,  a very precious thing then as the poor often had no more than two,   but he is willing to leave it behind, even suddenly counting it as of no value for the great treasure of being in the presence of Jesus.   Already, by this point in his ministry Jesus has encountered everyone from Roman soldiers, Kings and nobles, to outcasts and villagers:  he counted them all the same save that the value he looked for in the children of Israel and others was faith.    Often as we have seen in other studies, his first remarks are about faith, before he healed people.  Faith was more important than disease and infirmity, more important than healing, though healing followed.

Jesus’ first remark to Bartimaeus is not whether he is ‘saved’ (though that is always the point of healing),  nor does it have to do with his worthiness, or how many times he attends synagogue,  but rather,  sensing the deep faith in the man and his desire to be made well, accompanied by his belief in the Messiah of Israel,  his first statement is one of service:

Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? Mark 10:51

We see the fulfillment of the scripture regarding one of the reasons for the coming of the Messiah, which is pointed to right before the encounter with Bartimaeus:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

It is the case that when a person, in this situation the blind man trusts utterly, and places full confidence in God through his son, willingly laying all aside, that God is willing to do great works for and through him.   Bartimaeus has one request:  he wishes to receive his sight:

The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight.

The healing of the blind was a sign of the Messiah:  in Isaiah, it is noted that he will give sight to the blind in Isaiah 42:7:

To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Sight in Israel was both literal and figurative:  blindness and sight were always a metaphor for spiritual blindness and sight, as Jesus in speaking with the Pharisees upon healing the man in the temple with clay to the eyes, remarks that he came to give sight to the blind, and “to take it away from those who say they can see”.  He says in the Temple:

And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. For. John 3:17

Sight to the blind was a promise of the Messiah made in Isaiah 61, Jesus’ “Inaugural Address” when he declared that he would bring ‘sight to the blind:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

It seems that Isaiah 61 does not contain the passage about the blind,  but the site called ‘Baptist Board’ and the Masoretic text includes the following translation:

א  רוּחַ אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה, עָלָי--יַעַן מָשַׁח יְהוָה אֹתִי לְבַשֵּׂר עֲנָוִים, שְׁלָחַנִי לַחֲבֹשׁ לְנִשְׁבְּרֵי-לֵב, לִקְרֹא לִשְׁבוּיִם דְּרוֹר, וְלַאֲסוּרִים פְּקַח-קוֹחַ.
1 The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to bring good tidings unto the humble; He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the eyes to them that are bound;

The KJV is not incorrect but is translating the expression with regard to an idiom.   The ‘opening’  word, פְּקַח־קוֹחַ is based upon the word פָּקַח which means an opening of the eyes.  The preference in translation is difficult because it conveys both the opening of the eyes from some bondage, i.e. blindness,  and yet it also connotes release from captivity so both are correct and translators in a few passages like this have to consider the more salient meaning when the expression of both in English is not possible without saying more or less than is there: the Hebrew is able to convey both.  Being a KJV proponent,   I do not find any contradiction there to accuracy.
In any event, the beauty of this encounter,  is that it encompasses all that Jesus is looking for in Israel:  the opening of blind eyes, the setting free from captivity, ‘blind faith’  being better than ‘seeing unbelief’,  immediate obedience and trust, and servanthood.    Faith in Bartimaeus is the ultimate goal and accomplishment.  He is healed of blindness in the flesh, because he has in the Spirit declared Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, before Jesus heals him.
One last note must be made of this passage since many try to use the differing accounts in the Gospel as evidence of error or contradiction.  One account holds that there are two blind men, and the other names Bartimaeus and only the interaction with Bartimaeus is included in Mark 10.   Again,  one has to consider eyewitness accounts:  if one describes an accident on the corner, some will report who stood by and some will not.  That does not mean there were not more persons there than reported, or that a person who reports the onlookers is more or less correct or accurate than the one who does not, only that the one who reports the more detailed account has included more.  The same is true of this passage,  and since both accounts are included in the scripture, the whole picture comes together.  The gospels were collated as noted in Luke 1,  from many, many eyewitness accounts, firsthand accounts of people who were there when it happened.  As Luke and others put all the accounts together,   the complete picture was seen.    No error.
Faith in Israel was the heart cry of Yshua Ha Meschiach, Jesus Christ, ‘Salvation, or ‘He Saves’, the Messiah.   Jesus was more interested in forgiving sin, and granting eternal life to those in Israel even than performing miracles. The miracles and healings, though they are critical to an understanding of the beautiful Gospel,  are signs that point to Salvation and the Son of God, the Son of David.  Blind Bartimaeus could see that.
Till the next, Many blessings
Elizabeth K. Best
Judah’s Glory: Series: Healing of Christ, the Messiah of Israel


note 1:
skeptics sometimes point to this passage as an 'error' for how could Jesus be coming and going to the same place. If one does a bit of research, it will be discovered that there were 2 Jerichos, and the inconsistency is erased.




Thursday, February 06, 2014

If Any of You are Sick.....

Nestled late in the Bible,  in the Book of James comes an important study on healing which many cursorily read and yet seldom connect it to the overall study of healing in the Bible.  The passage in James regards what to do when one falls ill:

[Jam 5:14-15 KJV] 14 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: 15 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.  BLB

In most of the studies in this blog, we have looked at the healings of Jesus and apostolic healings following the ascension of Christ, described in the Gospels and Book of Acts.   In James 5 though, we are looking at an admonition by James for handling physical infirmity in the Church,  the 'Ikklesia' or Congregation or gathering/assembly of God.   Modern thinking,even in the church precludes divine healing too often and will use passages on healing to merely mean one should go see a physician.   Christ's healing though is not just for centuries past for a short time,  but for today,  and many churches and believers are seeing a revival in the gift of healing, even taking it to the streets for the thing it was partially for: a sign to unbelievers, and a platform for the preaching of the 'glad tidings' or Gospel.

Let Him Call for the Elders

Every Church which has Christ as head is supposed to have designated 'elders'.  The Greek word for elders is
                                                       πρεσβύτερος (blb)

The work is presbyteros  or presbyter  from which we derive the name of the denomination 'Presbyterian'. The church like her Savior is supposed to be the same 'yesterday today and tomorrow'  but we have a rather proud and haughty notion today that we can even form and run the church any way we choose: this is the opposite of the scriptures of truth.  The command to have elders or presbyters is obvious

Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour; especially those who labor in the Word and doctrine. I Ti 5:17.
The word 'elder' may refer to Bishops, deacons or an appointed office of elder,  as well, so the mandates are clearly that they are the leaders of the church,  surrendered to the authority of God.   the term 'elder' is not a new one in the New Testament:  it is clearly a hebrew understanding of authority or guidance in the Synagogue,  which also bears the template of organization of the Congregation of God which is laid down in the NT.  For example 'elders in the temple are referred to in the following passages:

Acts 24:1 And after five days Ananias the high priest descended with the elders, and with a certain orator named Tertullus, who informed the governor against Paul.Exodus 3:16  Go and gather the elders of Israel together....
For this reason for example using the 'Presbyterian' rubric, we are dealing with a form of church 'government', though the church is unique in having 'servant leaders' like in kind to their lord and Savior :  they are to teach, guide, uplift and lead,  but not in a exclusive rule over the congregation,  the pattern of which is condemned in Revelation in the 'Nicolaitans'. (rule over the laity).  In the church,  the elders 'show the way',  or 'set the template' for the way believers are to live their lives, for keeping the congregation on the straight and narrow with the word and with doctrine,  and in this case,  giving direction to the gifts, particularly, here, to healing.

Laying on of Hands

 Those that are sick are encouraged to go and have the elders

1. Pray over them
2. Anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord

and they are confirmed in their faith that they will be healed.   Implicit in this understanding is the laying on of hands, which is referred to as a basic building block of doctrine:

[Hbr 6:1-2 KJV] 1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Laying on of hands, as has been mentioned several times in these studies was considered such a foundational understanding that when Paul in Hebrews wishes to teach the doctrines of Christ in depth,  he briefly refers to the foundations of doctrine which are considered the 'milk of the Word'.

 [Hbr 5:12 KJV] 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

The elders 'show how' the gifts are to be done and the doctrines to be taught, and that is why their selection and character is central in the health of the church.   They have to be men of honour and honesty, temperate and good will and knowing the Word and doctrine,  or like an unlicensed driver without skill, the car would veer off the road.  When the passage in James refers to 'praying over them' it is understood that they mean at least much of the time the laying on of hands and not merely 'over' being a synonym for 'about'.    (See Being Made Whole).

Anointing With Oil

Why would God who is Spirit, need for us to have elders in healing 'anoint with oil'?   Isn't this a sort of religious ritual?   There is nothing in the Word that does not make sense or have a purpose.  From the very beginning, God includes the anointing with oil in a variety of circumstances including preparation for the Levitical and high Priesthood, and also on certain sacrifices.

[Exd 28:41 KJV] 41 And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.
[Exd 29:7, 36 KJV] 7 Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour [it] upon his head, and anoint him. ...
36 And thou shalt offer every day a bullock [for] a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.
 The laying on of hands and the anointing with oil confers authority to do a thing, and the setting apart of the thing for God's purposes.  For example,  the sweet smelling 'hakatoret' of the temple anoints the holiest of the furniture of the Holy Place,  and is peculiar to the Temple with no duplications allowed:

[Exd 37:29 KJV] 29 And he made the holy anointing oil, and the pure incense of sweet spices, according to the work of the apothecary.
[Exd 30:38 KJV] 38 Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people.

Moving back though to the original passage regarding the prayer for the sick, the anointing with oil and the prayer for the sick,  keeps in tact the organization of the church,  establishes supplication to God for the sick to be made well or whole,  and the anointing is obedience to a command which sets apart the person to God and his purposes, and obeys the Word for we are all a living sacrifice to him.    This leads to the next and critical way the prayer for the sick is to be done:

In the Name of the Lord

[Phl 2:9 KJV] 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Even after Salvation, even after coming to Christ,  with the indwelling Holy Spirit,  we cannot just consider coming before God to be 'business casual Friday'.   God is holy, a fact we have lost in the modern evangelical Church.   We are not to make him an icon on the wall, or a statue in great cathedrals, but we are also not to for a moment forsake the holy awe with which we are to approach God.  He is our friend and brother, but he is also Creator of the Universe and Almighty God,  and somewhere in the sixties in our zealous attempts to make people not too afraid of God to receive him,  in an attempt for us to make people see his love,  we dismissed his holiness which can be equally dangerous.   Christian liberty never means we can rewrite the Bible and his commandments to suit our purposes, nor does it mean that God is our equal:  that is a crazy notion.  He has the love of a Father and brother,  the comfort of a good friend, our best friend, but he also hung the stars in space and is our sovereign King.  The proper understanding of our place before him requires the idea of both:  even in prayer, even in healing and the other gifts, after Salvation with the indwelling Spirit, we are to use his Holy Name and be in awe of his name in coming into his presence as we would for any earthly sovereign power.  We end our prayers or begin them "In the name of Jesus".  We call out demonic spirits, in HIS name,  since he has given us the authority of his name:

[Mar 16:17 KJV] 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
There are countless examples and apprisals regarding coming prayerfully and in awe, IN THE NAME OF GOD, in the name of his son JESUS or YSHUA, in order to approach God on this throne: he is our mediator and his son is given 'the name above all names' for he alone prevailed and overcame in the adjudication of mankind against the curse of the Fall.  Hence, it is no surprise that we find the healings, and gifts done 'in his name'.   We do not heal: Christ heals.  We do not 'prophesy' technicallly, Christ prophesies. We do not exhort in wisdom, given excellent explications of the Scriptures etc, Christ does, so what we do, we do 'in his name',  the name above all names,  our mediator, our righteousness and our sacrifice ,the only of which is sufficient to come before a Holy God.  When the elders pray for the sick,  anointing them with oil, it is in HIS name and power, not our own.

The Promise

The Promise to doing things God's Way is quite simply that the sick will get well.

 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.  BLB

There are three points here: the prayer of faith shall:

1. Save the Sick2. The Lord shall raise him up3. His sins shall be forgiven.

The sick shall be healed in obedience to faith.  It is as simple as that, yet we so seldom have the faith to even try it the way the Lord has prescribed.  Yes, there are people with the 'gift' of healing;  technically,  anyone who prays for the sick or infirm who is right with God should be able to pray for the sick or lay hands on the sick and they will get well,  but here, in the church,  the prescription for service and the reward of the faithful is very clearly spelled out.  The word for 'save' is the same used often for Salvation:


'sotzo' or sozo, and connotes a deliverance to safety, a rescue, etc.  No doubt if one were unbeliever healed in this way,  the healing will probably afford salvation in the long run,  but there is never a mistake in the use of this or any other word in scripture,  though here the sick are 'rescued' or delivered from pain and suffering, foreshadowing the deliverance of salvation.   The Lord shall 'raise him up' also foreshadows the resurrection, though here it means raising up from a sick bed,  the word is used in regard to many healings in the New Testament:


egeiro: which is also used of the raising from the dead even by the apostles in the Book of Acts, e.g.:

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up  and walk
The rising up and 'coming back to life or health' is seen in the case of Dorcas raised from the dead, and in the above passage of the lame beggar being restored to full function,  leaping for joy at the dismissal of years of bondage.  Great joy is had by all in the healing of a suffering person,  reinforcing faith in those who prayed, at the ways and promises of God being true and trustworthy, and in the one who is healed.  This act of healing reinforces faith, and the cohesion of the Church,  and so it is no surprise either that the last point is that "His sins shall be forgiven:

His Sins Shall be Forgiven

Forgiveness of Sins is the culmination of the great plan and harvest of God, in that loosing us from the bondage of the Fall of Adam,  our sins are taken from us,  as though they had never been,  not by our own actions or pleadings, but by the one great work of God in the atonement on the Cross.  The prayer for the sick in literal, natural illness parallels and shows the plan of salvation:  sin has left us 'sick' and diseased, missing the mark, away from God and his love and purpose:  in His Name,  in supplication,  we are made whole by His work and act on the Cross and in his Resurrection we are raised to Life and the wholeness of life in Christ.  This call for prayer for the sick is not the only time that the forgiveness of sins and healing are paralleled, and in fact, one time,  when seeking healing,  the hearers surrounding Jesus are astonished to find that he forgives sin, and that first, before the healing:

[Mat 9:2-6 KJV] 2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth. 4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Note that first, Yshua forgives sin,  and is accused of blasphemy, for only God can forgive sin.   He makes the point though, that the forgiveness of sin is primary, for it is the thing keeping us from both natural and divine healing and from having whole lives.   To demonstrate that he is in no way 'blaspheming', being the incarnate God,  he then directs the man with palsy to 'Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house': the healing is immediate and presupposed:  he does not even address the palsy,  but in faith extraordinaire' takes the higher ground of the healing having already occurred in the command to 'take up thy bed and go' which would not be possible if the healing had not occurred.


The healing of the sick then upholds

1. The Order and Government of the Church, and heals the body
2. Confirms the basic doctrine of prayer and the laying on of hands
3. Confirms the 'setting apart' of healing as the work of God through the anointing with oil
4. Shows the way of Salvation
5. Imputes the forgiveness of sin,
6. Provides cohesion to the Body of Christ, and
7. Reinforces faith in all, along with a healed person

The Word of God outlines procedures not to call us to religious ritual, but to maintain the ways, teachings and purposes of God in a wondrous work.  When we obey, we see the miracles of God still extant today yet when we go our own way or repetitively mouth the words, 'that was for then, this is now', we miss the great goodness of God in the many gifts he has given us.  The prayer for the sick is a prayer for us all, soon to be healed by the great and good Lord of Life.

2. 3. 83. 84.