FAITH HEALERS AND DEALERS

Some Thoughts on Acts 3:1-11.

They were "filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him" (Acts 3:10). That is how Luke describes the reaction of the people who firsthand observed the apostolic healing of a man who had been congenitally lame for more than forty years (Acts 4:22). His lower extremities being but skin and bones, worshippers at the temple saw him begging in that condition for most of his life. Healed by Peter "In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene", the miracle stunned Jews who saw him "walking and leaping and praising God" (Acts 4:22; 3:8-11). Luke heaps up words to describe the reaction of the witnesses to the miracle -- "wonder . . . amazement . . . wondering . . . marvel" (Acts 3:10-12, KJV). Have you ever asked why claimed healings do not make a similar impression today?

The healing of the lame man by Peter provides an interesting contrast for what passes as faith healing. Temple worshippers thoroughly knew this man's case. They did not have to take somebody's word about his illness. His medical problem was not some "self-testified-to" internal illness, but rather a verifiably external one. First hand they had observed the man's paralysis.

Note too, that the man was healed in a public place and not in the friendly confines of a rented arena during a carefully scripted and choreographed service, where candidates are first interviewed and then carefully brought to the stage by the healer's handlers. In the public place in which he found him and in a spontaneous instant of time, the apostle Peter spoke a sovereign healing word to him.

Look at it like this. A particular evangelist claims to possess the divine power to heal people. Why doesn't he go public with it, to hospitals or rehab facilities, and heal the lame? If he did, can you imagine the amazement that would fall over nurses, doctors, staff and other patients? So why don't the healers leave the friendly confines of scripted meetings and go to hospitals? Why don't they just do it? Maybe it's because they really can't. And if they really can't when they put on airs they can, then they are liars. If however like Peter they really can, but will not, then these so called ministers are cruel. Either way their failure to heal in public places like hospitals strikes at the heart of their credibility. They are violating their "hypocritical" oath. Either they are liars or they are heartless. It's one way or the other.

Healers protest this dilemma. "It takes faith for a person to be healed" they say, "and not all sick people have faith; therefore it is not possible to heal people in a public places." Contrast this excuse with the case of the man born lame. Healing was the furthest thing from the man's mind when he begged from Peter and John. All he wanted was money, but Peter had no money. (Oops . . there goes the wealth gospel too!). So according to his faith in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, Peter delivered to the lame man a sovereign surprise. In the name of the Lord Jesus Peter healed the lame man through his (Peter's) own faith and that faith "which comes through Him [i.e., Jesus] " (Acts 3:16). In other words, it was through Peter's faith and on account of the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus Christ that the man was healed.

Sometime ago this question appeared in a local newspaper. It read: "Why don't televangelists go to hospitals and cure people instead of just a few on TV?"[1] Good question. To validate their message as being from God, Jesus, Peter and the other apostles healed believers and unbelievers in public places. Maybe healers don't visit hospitals because they really can't heal as they claim. Their ministry is more for show than for go.

Why are unbelievers not amazed by the miracles that faith healers pretend to do? Why are they not wondering after them? Maybe it's because there's nothing happening to wonder about.

Pastor Larry DeBruyn

________________

[1] "Let It Out," The Indianapolis Star, February 2, 1999, E 2.