Let us turn our attention to the references already given of iaomai, sozo

and soteria in the Acts.  The healing of the lame man by Peter is used by him

to point the moral of his exhortation.  This is made evident by observing that

the word `whole' in Acts 4:9 is in the original sozo `to save', and the word

`salvation' in verse 12, soteria, is preceded by the article `the'.  In effect

Peter said: You have rejected Jesus of Nazareth, but I tell you that just as

this lame man stands before you `healed' by the power of that rejected Saviour,

so I would warn you that `The Healing', the great national `Salvation' can come

through no other.  So, when the moment had come for Israel to go out into that

long spell of blindness, the quotation of Isaiah 6:9,10 given by the apostle in

Acts 28:27, ends with the words `I should heal them'.

The healing ministry of the gospels and the Pentecostal period are called

in Hebrews `the powers of the age to come', heralding as they did the near

approach of the `kingdom of heaven'.  The `so great salvation', soteria,

`healing' was confirmed `with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and

gifts of the Holy Ghost' (Heb. 2:3,4).  Miraculous healing was one of the

special gifts granted to the church in Pentecostal times, 1 Corinthians 12:28

placing `gifts of healings' together with the gift of apostles, miracles and

tongues.  It is of importance to observe that the promise made in Mark 16:17,18

was in unabated force at the close of the period of the Acts, Paul being bitten

by a viper, but feeling no harm, and healing such a disease as dysentery (Acts

28:8) by a touch.  After Acts 28 there is no record that Paul healed anyone

again.  We are conscious that an argument built upon silence or omission is

weak, but this silence is supplemented by one or two positive references, which

all point in the one direction.  Epaphroditus was a most valuable help to the

apostle.  Any one of the names given to him by the apostle would have been

enough to warrant a miracle on his account -- `brother, companion in labour,

fellowsoldier, your messenger, and minister to my wants'.  This most useful and

faithful fellow -servant had been sick, so sick that he had been `nigh unto

death'.  Not only so but God had mercy on him, and Paul had been plunged into

sorrow.  Paul, though a prisoner, could have sent a handkerchief or an apron

(Acts 19:12) or any other portion of his clothing, for these had been effective

in dealing with disease and evil spirits.  Yet apparently he could do nothing

(Phil. 2:25 -30).

Again, Timothy, loved as a son, and a faithful servant of the church,

suffered not only a particular stomach trouble, but `often infirmities', yet no

miracle of healing was performed for his relief -- instead the apostle sent a

prescription (1 Tim. 5:23).  It is not enough to claim that certain

undiagnosable diseases have been `cured' while the sufferer was in a highly

emotional condition which so often characterizes `healing campaigns' today.

Such cases of `healing' should be sent to the local doctor for a certificate

even as Christ sent the leper to the priest.  My youngest sister and her

husband worked for fifteen years among the lepers of India.  Never, throughout

that period did a `Pentecostalist' venture to demonstrate the reality of his

claim to share in the commission of Matthew 10, and so far as we have knowledge

no healing campaign has ever been organized by Pentecostalists among lepers.

We ask `why?' and the answer is evident.  Not only so, but the raising of the

dead is also included in these gifts, but there is no accredited instance where

such a power has been possessed or exercised.  The gift of healing accompanied

the gospel of the kingdom, and when the people of the kingdom, namely Israel,

were set aside, the gifts went with them.  See Miracle3, Pentecost3, Kingdom

(p. 243), and Acts1 for further notes.  Individual faith is not in question, we

speak here only of gifts, as possessed during the period covered by the Acts.