Healing Prayers


1 Corinthians 12:9,28
to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit. ...And God has placed in the churchf first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

The significant thing about this text is that both “gift” and “healing” are plural and lack the definite article, hence the translation: “gifts of healings”. Evidently Paul did not envision that a person would be endowed with one healing gift operative at all times for all diseases. His language suggests either many different gifts or powers of healing, each appropriate to and effective for its related illness, or each occurrence of healing constituting a distinct gift in its own right.

One of the principal obstacles to a proper understanding of healing is the erroneous assumption that if anyone could ever heal, he could always heal. But in view of the lingering illness of Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25–30), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20), and perhaps Paul himself (2 Cor. 12:7–10; Gal. 4:13), it is better to view this gift as subject to the will of God, not the will of humankind. Therefore:

A person may be gifted to heal many people, but not all. Another may be gifted to heal only one person at one particular time of one particular disease. When asked to pray for the sick, people are often heard to respond: “I can’t. I don’t have the gift of healing.” But if my reading of Paul is correct, there is no such thing as the gift of healing, if by that one means the God-given ability to heal everyone of every disease on every occasion. Rather, the Spirit sovereignly distributes a charisma of healing for a particular occasion, even though previous prayers for physical restoration under similar circumstances may not have been answered, and even though subsequent prayers for the same affliction may not be answered. In sum: “gifts of healings” are occasional and subject to the sovereign purposes of God.

What are the practical implications of this for praying for the sick?

Philippians 2:25–30 (Epaphroditus)

Epaphroditus was evidently sent by the church at Philippi to the apostle Paul bearing a substantial financial gift (cf. 4:18). Upon fulfilling his commission, he stayed with Paul to minister to him in whatever way proved necessary. While serving at Paul’s side, Epaphroditus apparently became ill, almost died, and was later healed by God. He is now being sent back to Philippi as the bearer of this epistle.

 Evidently Epaphroditus was ill for a lengthy period of time. We know this from the fact that the Philippians had heard of his illness and he had heard that they had heard (v.26). If Paul wrote this letter from Rome, as most believe he did, considerable time would have elapsed while word of Epaphroditus’s illness was taken back to Philippi, not to mention the time it took for a messenger to return to Rome with news of how the Philippians had responded to their brother’s illness. Rome was over 600 miles from Philippi. Several weeks, perhaps months, would have passed from the time Epaphroditus fell sick to the time he received word that the Philippians were grieving over his condition.

Paul’s praise of Epaphroditus is effusive. He speaks of him as “my brother and fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need” (v. 25). Epaphroditus himself deeply loved the Philippians, for Paul says that “he was longing for you all and was distressed because you [Philippians] had heard that he was sick” (v. 26). 

Rather than wallow in self-pity, Epaphroditus was worried lest the Philippians worry about him! Indeed, according to v. 26, he was “distressed,” a word that implies a strong, deep, and disturbing upheaval in one’s spirit. Far from feeling gratified that he was the object of so much concern back home, Epaphroditus was driven to mental torment with the thought that he might be a source of grief to his Christian brethren.

Paul’s praise continues. He instructs the Philippians to receive him back with all joy and to “hold men like him in high regard, because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me” (vv. 29–30). From the word translated “risking” we learn that

    “Epaphroditus was no coward, but a courageous person willing to take enormous risks, ready to play with very high stakes in order to come to the aid of a person in need. He did not ‘save’ his life, but rather hazarded it do to for Paul and the cause of Christ what other Philippian Christians did not or could not do” (Hawthorne).

This is the kind of man, says Paul, whom we should honor. He is the epitome of the selfless, loving, sacrificial servant of Jesus Christ. Conclusions:

    1)      Epaphroditus was not sick because of some personal sin. If he had sinned so grievously as to become deathly ill, would Paul have held him up as the epitome of the selfless servant? We simply don’t know why Epaphroditus was so sick, aside from the statement in v. 30 that “he came close to death for the work of Christ.”

    2)      Illness and death are not to be viewed with indifference or accepted stoically. Paul’s response to his friend’s illness and near death was “sorrow upon sorrow” (v. 27).

    3)      Few doubt that Paul had a “gift” for healing. But his prayers for Epaphroditus were not answered, at least initially. Paul could not heal at will. This points to the fact that healing “gifts” are occasional and subject to God’s sovereign timing and purpose. Some would conclude from Paul’s failure to heal his friend that the “gift of healing” was “dying out” at this juncture in the life of the church. It seems better to conclude that healing, whenever and wherever it occurred, was subject, not to the will of man, but to the will of God. No one, not even Paul, could always heal all diseases.

    4)      God did heal him! The delay in responding to Paul’s prayers was not to be interpreted as ultimate denial.

    5)      Healing is an expression of divine mercy (v. 27), and thus should never be viewed as a “right”. We don’t deserve healing.


Storms, S. (2006). Divine Healing. Oklahoma City, OK: Sam Storms.

Popular posts from this blog

Speaking in tongues for today - Charles Stanley

What is the glory (kabod) of God?

The Holy Spirit causes us to cry out: Abba, Father