7 thoughts on “Healing without Faith?”

  1. So… it’s possible for someone without faith to be healed, but we don’t know when. We also, as far as I recall, don’t know what it looked like when people didn’t have faith… and, as such, Jesus didn’t heal said people. Did he pray for them… and they weren’t healed? Or did he know, and not pray for their healing? Did he know both — ahead of praying? (Again, the one knowing isn’t the same thing as the other knowing. Or maybe he simply knew to pray or not to pray first; and then saw both (not necessarily linked) healing or not healing and faith or not faith demonstrated after prayer [for some], at least sometimes. And, third, were some people healed because they had a faith for different reasons or in different ways? One might have a general faith he or she could be healed (like with holy water); one might have faith in the fact the God of Israel made promises long ago for health (and said one, some of those, just needed a leader to back him or her up on it); one might have faith in Jesus as the long foreseen promised one or hoped-for messiah.

  2. Some people receive healing through the gift of healing given by the Holy Spirit that has nothing to do with the faith of the receiver.
    Jesus did not pray for every individual who came to Him for healing. He usually commanded people to be healed, often referring to the faith of the one seeking such as: “According to your faith let it be to you” and “your faith has made you well”. Prayer was not involved. Some like the woman with the issue of blood were healed without Jesus doing anything, but entirely through acting on their own faith.

    All those who came to Him were healed. The promise of health was part of the old covenant, and it remains as part of the new covenant, no different to the forgiveness of sins.

  4. Do you think a person with the gift of healing (or a gift of healing) would “command” healing now, rather than pray?

    It’s interesting that even if people had faith, Jesus “usually commanded people to be healed [with prayer not being involved].”

    One of the points of the videos here was that the people weren’t always told they had faith (of a future commendable sort anyway).

    Reworded:
    So… it’s possible for someone without clarified faith to be healed, but we don’t know when. We also, as far as I recall, don’t know what it looked like when people didn’t have* faith… and, as such, Jesus didn’t heal said people. Did he state a command for them to be healed… while they weren’t healed? Or did he know [that they wouldn’t be healed], and not issue a command for their healing? [We don’t have the stories.] Did he know both — ahead of praying/ahead of commanding? (Again, the one knowing [that they have faith or not] isn’t the same thing as the other knowing [whether or not they will be healed].) Or maybe he simply knew to pray or not to pray first; and then saw both (not necessarily linked to each other) healing or not healing and faith or not faith demonstrated during and/or after prayer/command [for some], at least sometimes. [We could imagine he received a direct word to either command or not command.] Were some people healed because they had a faith for different reasons or in different ways? One might have a general faith he or she could be healed (like with holy water); one might have faith in the fact the God of Israel made promises long ago for health (and said one, some of those, just needed a leader to back him or her up on it); one might have faith in Jesus as the long foreseen promised one or hoped-for messiah.

    * If I’m asking this in the context of having listened to these videos, the preacher said there was a place Jesus “couldn’t” heal because of the faith situation.

  5. Do you think a person with the gift of healing (or a gift of healing) would “command” healing now, rather than pray?

    “Peter said, ‘Silver and gold I do not have, but what I do have I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.’”

    Peter commanded, he didn’t pray.
    This man, lame from birth was carried daily to the gate of the temple, where Jesus had gone many times but Jesus didn’t heal him.
    There was no evidence of, or mention of, the man’s faith, and Peter had to help him up.

    A gift of healing does not mean a person can go around healing at will – it’s a gift given as the Spirit wills.

    Those that Jesus couldn’t heal because of unbelief, most likely did not approach Him or seek Him for healing.

    “they took offense at him.
    Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honour except in his own town and in his own home.”
    And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.”

  6. Jesus approached the man at the pool. Do you think he was given a word (or whatever we would call it) to go heal that guy? Based on what was spoken and recorded, his requirement was wanting to be healed. A lot of people, there, wanted to be healed. (David Servant said Jesus couldn’t clear out a hospital… and we know that’s not only because they don’t all have faith.)

  7. We can only go by what scripture tells us.
    Jesus went to the man, the man did not reach out to Jesus. Neither did Jesus go to anyone else at the pool.
    The man was healed, but no mention is made of his faith, and he did not know who Jesus was.

Leave a comment