Ron Dunn Podcast - Does God Heal Today - Part 5

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

What should my attitude as a believer be towards healing and the body given to me?

There is a sense, of course, in which all healing comes from God, but I want to make a distinction between what I would call natural healing and supernatural healing. For it is true that, in a sense, all healing does come from God, and there is in the natural healing of the body, the natural process of healing within the body, there is that element of divine superintendency. All healing does come from God. But what we are speaking about when we speak of divine healing is the supernatural healing, not the natural. Does God supernaturally, miraculously heal today? Are there instances where God will intervene in the course of natural affairs and heal some person who perhaps is unhealable in the sense of natural healing? And again, I think most of us would answer that question with,

yes, God does heal today. All of us, one time or another, have either witnessed or have heard testimonies of those who have been supernaturally healed by God. In some instances, the cases were terminal and the doctors had given up all hope, and yet God intervened and there was a divine, miraculous healing. Hardly a week goes by that somebody doesn't ask me either in a letter or personally to remember so-and-so in prayer and ask that God will heal them. And few of us have at one time or another had a burden on our heart to pray for the healing of a friend or a loved one.

And even while we have been praying, perhaps the question has come, can we authoritatively pray for their healing? Will God hear our prayer? And in many instances, God has, and in others, God has not. And so the big question really is not so much does God heal, but why does he heal some and not others? And this is a very perplexing and frustrating question, for there have been times when it seemed to me that if ever God would heal an individual, it would be this individual. Much prayer has been made, and even people have stood and given testimony that God had given to them a word that this person would live, and yet they did not.

I remember when my mother was seriously ill several years ago. I prayed that God would heal her, and there came a point in my praying when I really believed that God had heard my prayer and had answered it. And I felt right up until the last that God would heal her, but yet he did not. So the question keeps coming back again and again, why are some healed and not others? There are those that have a very easy answer, and when somebody

for whom they have been praying for healing dies, they can explain it by saying, well, they just did not have enough faith. And there are others who say that when the person died, well, God did hear our prayer, he now has perfect healing. The fact of the matter is, if a person dies of a disease, he has not had perfect healing. The Bible never uses that phrase. The person literally died of that disease, he has not been healed.

And if that is perfect healing, then why weren't we praying for that in the first place? No, I think these explanations of why certain people are not healed, the explanation, well, there just wasn't enough faith or they received perfect healing, I think those are not only unscriptural but wholly inadequate. Why are some healed and not others? It's a nagging question. Even some popular faith healers like Catherine Kuhlman, who did not actually call herself a faith healer, but even Catherine Kuhlman couldn't give an answer to that.

In one of her books she makes this statement, Why are not all healed? The only honest answer I can give is, I do not know. And I am afraid of those who claim they do know. For only God knows, and who can fathom the mind of God." In her own case, for twenty years, Catherine Kuhlman was troubled with an enlarged heart that eventually damaged a vital valve and caused continuous pain. And for the last several years of her life, she never went anywhere without her medicine because the pain was so intense. And eventually she died of that.

Here was a woman who ministered healing to others, and yet she herself never received healing. Why is it? It's an old issue. I was surprised to discover in my study of this subject that even in the early church up through the fourth century, there was a great deal of controversy about this. As a matter of fact, an entire book has been written discussing the issue of healing within the church in the first 400 years of its existence.

And still today, we're troubled by that question. Why are some healed and not others? In recent times this subject of healing has been receiving a new emphasis and there are some teachings, I think, that are erroneous and misleading. We need to understand exactly what the Bible teaches about this matter of healing. It's a vital issue because sooner or later all of us are going to be touched by it. We're either going to want the healing of a loved one or the healing of ourselves. We need to understand the truth of the Bible about it

because some have been hurt and grieved and harmed because of erroneous teachings in it. I remember a number of years ago in our own church we had a man who died, and after he died some of the friends of the family came around and told his wife that if she had only had enough faith he would have been healed. Now to me to make that kind of statement in the name of Christianity borders on blasphemy. That's simply adding guilt to grief. I have talked to many, many Christians who felt that something was wrong with their own lives and they were going through a terrible time of self-condemnation because they felt

that if they had had enough faith or there had not been some sin in their life, either they themselves would have been healed or a loved one would have been healed. So what is the truth? Does God heal today? Yes, I believe he does. Well, does he want everyone to be healed? In the words of the title of a popular book, does Jesus want everyone to be well? Is healing in the Atonement?

Can I simply claim healing for whatever malady I have? In the words of someone to me, do I have to put up with sickness because sickness, after all, is from the devil? And if God does heal, how can I be healed? Should I pray for healing? Is sickness always from the devil? We're going to be looking at these questions and others as we consider this subject, does God heal today? But first of all, in this first study, I want us to do some foundation work. I believe that most of the mistaken teaching concerning healing and other issues for that matter are a result of a violation of what we

call the law of hermeneutics, the law of interpretation. Now, how do you go about determining scriptural truth? How do you discover what the Bible actually teaches on a subject? Well, there are certain basic principles of interpretation. There are certain factors to be kept in mind and observed in determining scriptural truth. This is why I have read this 15th verse from Paul's second chapter, where he says that we are to be diligent to present ourselves approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. And that's what we want to do. We want to handle accurately, as it ought to be handled, the word of truth. We do not want to use any

sleight of hand. We want to let the Bible speak for itself. And we have to be, as Paul says, diligent in this matter. That's a very interesting word. It means to be persistent and zealous. It carries the idea of hard work with it. Friends, I want to say to you that good, accurate Bible study is hard work. And I'm afraid that many of us who preach are guilty of ad-lib preaching. We are guilty of preaching things that we have not diligently and thoroughly studied. We hear someone say something, we read a tract on some truth and it catches fire, and immediately we start propagating it without, first of all, for ourselves diligently studying to see if this is the truth.

I'm afraid that one of the problems among great many of us ministers today is our slothfulness in getting into the word. So we want to do our best, or do your utmost, as one translation reads, to handle accurately the word of truth. So today we're going to look at some of these laws of interpretation, factors that we must observe if we are going to determine accurately the teachings of Scripture. First of all, if we are to handle accurately the word of truth, we must recognize the Bible as the word of God, as our only guide and authority. Let me repeat that. In handling the word accurately, the first and to me the obvious factor and principle is

we must accept the word of God as the final word and the only word of authority. It is the Bible that gives us our direction and our doctrine. When I was a teenager, I remember there was a popular novelty song going around titled, It's in the Book. Well, that's going to be our motto as we study this subject. The question is, is it in the book? It's not a question of what you and I think or what we feel or what others have said. It's not a matter of basing truth on experience or observation. The question is, is it in the book? And we must accept this Bible as the full and final revelation of God. There is no additional revelation from God apart from and outside of the Bible. And any impression that we receive

or any prophecy that is given must square with what is in the book. Today, a lot of people are going around saying they've received a word from God. And that's all right as long as they have received a word from God. And the way that you know whether or not they've received a word from God is, does it square with what is in the word of God? Is it in the book? I remember a woman telling me some time ago that God told her to leave her husband and children and go out into a ministry. So she just left her husband and children and went out on the road into ministry. I doubt seriously that God would ever tell anybody to do that. I don't think God told her to do that. The Lord would never lead us to do something that is contrary to what is written

in the book. It has to be in the book. And one of the great dangers among some Christians today is this idea that the Lord is still giving new revelation apart from and outside and beyond what is written in the Bible. Most of us are familiar with Catherine Marshall and her writings. I like Catherine Marshall and her books have blessed me, but in one book she wrote a few years ago, she said one of the most dangerous statements ever made. In her book, Something More, she makes this statement, how good it is to realize that the Holy Spirit did not limit his revelations to the truths contained within the canons

of the Old and New Testaments. How good it is to realize that the Holy Spirit did not limit his revelations to the truths that are contained within the canons of the Old and New Testament. I said that that is a very dangerous statement, and for this reason. You see, the word canon itself means a rule, a standard, a measuring rod. And the measuring rod for Christian faith is the Bible. And that Bible is complete. The Bible is the only objective part of our faith. It is that which anchors us and stabilizes us. If we see Scripture as

less than the final infallible authority for faith and practice, immediately we have opened the doors to theological and doctrinal chaos. Anyone or everyone can claim to be speaking God's revelation. Friend, the revelation of God ended with the closure of the New Testament, and there has been no additional revelation. What we receive today is illumination, and God simply today is illuminating us so that we can comprehend the truth that is revealed, and the record of that revelation is the Bible. When people stand in some service somewhere and say, I have a word from God, and we take what they say as infallible and as authoritative as what is written in the book, immediately

we have cut loose from the anchor and we are subject and vulnerable to every excess and false teaching. I think one of the very important verses in this respect is found in Jude and the third verse. The little epistle of Jude in verse 3, Jude says, Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt a necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Now, I want you to notice the phrase, the faith. The definite article is used there in the English text as well as in the Greek, and it points to a definite one and only faith, the faith. Now, when the Scripture uses that phrase, the faith, it is referring to the body of Christian truth, the whole revelation of God, the faith. Now Jude says that he wants us to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all. The Greek word refers to something done for all time needing no repetition, which was once for all delivered. That's an aorist passive participle if you're interested,

and that indicates a completed act. Now notice Jude says, "...the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Not is being delivered, not will be delivered, but has been once and for all delivered. Now my friends, the faith, the body of Christian truth, the revelation of God, has already been once and for all fully and finally delivered, and there is no other. And I know that there have been times when, in trying to authenticate a certain truth, we pointed to folks that embraced that truth, and we said, look how they've been blessed.

Look how they're growing. Certainly, that must prove that what they're teaching is true. Well, with that kind of logic we'd have to say the Moonies are right. We'd have to say that all the cults and false sects are right, because they're growing by leaps and bounds. Folks, it doesn't make any difference how much they seem to be blessed or what kind of lives they seem to live, that is not the issue. The issue is, is it in the book? Is it in the book?

That's the first statement. If we are to handle accurately the word of truth, we must accept the Bible as the only guide for our faith and practice. Secondly, in accurately handling the word of truth we must take into account the progressive character of revelation. This is extremely important, and a great deal of misunderstanding comes about if we fail to recognize this fact, that the revelation of God in the Old Testament through to the New Testament was progressive. What do we mean by progressive revelation?

One theologian gives this definition, progressive revelation is the growing apprehension of man of the redemptive purpose of God which culminated in Christ's person and work. Jesus, you remember, said to his disciples, I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. Now, what Jesus was saying is, fellows, there are some things that I want to say to you, but I have to save that for later on, because right now you're just not mature enough, you're not spiritually intelligent enough to take it in. Progressive revelation means that God revealed to man only that which he was able to comprehend. In the infancy of a human race, God had to lead them step by step by step. That's why we use the expression from shadow to substance, Talking about the sacrifices and types and symbols in the Old Testament, those were the

shadows, but in the New Testament they were brought to fruition and fulfillment in Christ Jesus, that's the substance. God had to teach them in the kindergarten method, and as he brought them along, the revelation progressed. It does not mean that what God revealed in the Old Testament was not true. It was. But he just didn't reveal much of it. The Old Testament is the beginning. That's the elementary grade.

And then the New Testament comes along, and it completes and complements that progressive revelation. This is why Jesus repeatedly uses this phrase, fulfill, in Matthew 5, where he is comparing the Old Testament law with what he is coming to do. He says, I have come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, to bring it to completion. He's not saying that what was taught in the law was wrong. It just didn't go far enough, you see. And in Galatians 4 and 4, Paul uses the expression, In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son. There was a fullness of time.

In other words, there was a progression to that point when men were able to receive the Messiah. In Hebrews 1, the first couple of verses, you will have a tremendous statement concerning this idea of progressive revelation where he says that in times past God spoke to the fathers and the prophets in many portions and many ways, and in these last days has spoken to us in his Son. The writer of Hebrews is saying that in the Old Testament days God spoke to our fathers in many different ways and many different seasons, but now in these last days he has spoken to us in his Son.

The progressive nature of revelation. And the New Testament is the final word of that progressive nature. Now, the reason that I make such an issue of this is because there is a problem. We believe the Old Testament. I believe the Old Testament just as much as inspired as is the New Testament. I preach from the Old Testament. I believe it is a part of the Word of God. But I also know that not everything that is found in the Old Testament is for us today.

I don't think that all of the sacrifices and ceremonies that they had to go through in the Old Testament are for us today, I don't think that all of the sacrifices and ceremonies that they had to go through in the Old Testament are for us today. For instance, you take the eating of certain meats, pork. The Jews were prohibited from eating ham or bacon, pork chops. They wouldn't do that. Well is that for us today? Some people believe that it is. But Paul, writing to Timothy, said that one of the signs of the last days and one of the signs of false teachers would be that they would prohibit from eating certain meats.

And he said everything has been sanctified by God. In other words, Paul is simply saying that that is not for us today. The problem then is what part of the Old Testament is for us. I know much of it is and some of it isn't. How are we to know? What part of the Old Testament is applicable to us today? The answer is that part which is taught in the New Testament. Now listen carefully. Only that part of the Old Testament which is reiterated in the New Testament

applies to us in this Christian dispensation. Now, folks, this is extremely important, and a great deal of false teaching has come about because people fail to observe this rule. As you read through the Old Testament, you will notice that the Old Testament view of salvation is basically physical and material. For instance, very little is said in the Old Testament concerning eternal life or the hereafter. Salvation is spoken of in the Old Testament more in terms of physical deliverance and material blessings. This is the reason Job's friends were certain that Job had sinned because he had lost all of his possessions and he had become physically ill. The prevailing philosophy of that day was

material and physical blessings were signs of God's favor. The Old Testament view of salvation was basically physical and material. For instance, compare David's thanksgivings in the Psalms with Paul's thanksgivings in Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians. You will find that David's thanksgivings were largely concerned with physical and material blessings. Totally, almost totally concerned with physical and material blessings. Totally, almost totally concerned with physical and material blessings. But you'll not find that in Paul's thanksgiving.

When he prays to God, now he gives thanks to the churches for what they've given him, but you'll notice that when Paul offers his praise of thanksgiving to God, he doesn't thank God for the big house that he has and for the double-cam big house that he has and for the double-camel garage that he has built. He doesn't thank God for all the stocks and bonds that he has. No, sir. He is thanking God for the spiritual blessings. In the Old Testament, in those days, the infancy of the human race, they were not able to see the value of spiritual blessing. And in their immaturity, they made salvation synonymous with physical and material blessings.

But as that revelation progressed and in Jesus Christ was brought to fulfillment, we see that the greater blessings are not physical and material, but they are spiritual. Some time ago I was in a meeting in a certain church and the wife of the pastor had been troubled for a good while with migraine headaches. She came to me one night to discuss something that she was disturbed about. She had gone to a meeting where a Bible teacher was holding a meeting. She met with him and he counseled her about her migraine headaches in the area of healing. Using some passages in the book of Deuteronomy that deal with curses coming on the second

and third generations, he told her that her illness, her migraine headaches, were caused by something that her parents or grandparents had done and that she was under this curse. And that if she would break the curse and rebuke the devil and so forth, she would be healed. And she was greatly disturbed about this. And I've run into this a great deal lately, where people are using these passages in Deuteronomy 5 and 29 and 30 and saying that much of the illness that people have today is a result of a curse that they are under.

The only thing wrong with that is, it is wrong. The book of Deuteronomy was written to a specific people for a particular situation in a time-space circumstance. It is spoken to the Jews in that particular situation. It is not spoken to us, and the way I know that is that that teaching is not reiterated in the New Testament. The New Testament doesn't teach that if you have a migraine headache, or if you have ulcers, or if you are sick in some other way, it is because you are under

a curse. That is one of the false teachings that is causing a great deal of harm to some people that arises because we fail to obey the laws of interpretation. Only that part of the Old Testament which is reiterated in the New Testament applies to the Church today. Number 3, if we are to handle accurately the word of truth, we must distinguish between the picture and the frame. We must distinguish between the picture and the frame. You say, What in the world are you talking about? Well, just this. The Bible has a historical and geographical and cultural setting, that's

the frame, in which the divine truth is portrayed, that's the picture. You have a picture and you have the frame. Now, you do not mistake the frame for the picture. The frame is necessary because something must hold and make presentable the picture to those that see it. The same is true with the Word of God. God did not reveal himself to us in a vacuum. When God wanted to reveal to man divine truth, he had to have a physical setting. And that historical and geographical and cultural setting is the frame in which the picture of divine truth is placed. Now there is an oriental character to the Bible, of course, because it was set in the East. That is its historical, geographical,

and cultural setting. Now listen carefully. God does not ask us to adopt the culture and customs of the land in which the Bible was written. For instance, Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he dealt with that issue of eating meat offered to idols. And he goes on and on, not only in Corinthians but in Romans. It was a very, very important burning issue of that day, eating meat offered to idols. Does that apply to me today? I mean, frankly, folks, I can't remember the last time that came up. I don't, when I go to Whataburger and get a hamburger, I don't ask the fellow, first

of all, before I eat this, I want to know, was this hamburger meat offered idle? Some of it ought to have been, but that's not an issue for us today. Well, then, does it mean nothing to us? Because, you see, Paul, out of that, though, came up with a principle, and the principle of faith and practice was this, that we ought to do nothing that would hinder the spiritual life of a weaker brother. And he says, as long as the world stands, I will eat no meat offered to idols if it offends my brother. We're not to go around trying to find meat that's been offered to idols today so we won't eat it.

That's not the point. That was the cultural, geographical, historical setting. That's the frame. The picture is that we're to do nothing that would weaken a brother in Christ. I was in England this past summer at the Keswick Convention, and one night after one of the sessions, a woman came up to me, and as we talked, she asked me, do you believe the Bible? I said, well, yes, I do.

She said, well, you think we ought to obey it and do what it says? And I said, well, yes, I do. She said, then why don't we greet the brethren with a holy kiss, as Peter told us to? Well, that was very interesting. I didn't know if she was wanting me to kiss her or what, but she had a point, and she was very serious about it.

She says, Doesn't the Bible say, Greet the brethren with a holy kiss? And I said, Yes, it does. But the emphasis there is not upon kiss. It's upon holy. That culture, even today, the form of greeting was a kiss. I was watching news on television just the other day when Arafat got off the plane in one of those Arab countries. I forget who it was and where it was, but anyway, as he got off the plane, one of the

Arab leaders met him, and he went up to that fellow and he kissed him on both cheeks twice, and he kissed him on the nose three times. I've never seen that done before. But anyway, Arafat was greeting his brethren with a kiss. I don't know that it was holy, but he was greeting with a kiss. If Peter had been writing that to us today, he would say, greet the brethren with a holy handshake. That's the setting.

That's the frame, the kiss. And yet, every once in a while, I run across somebody who believes that we ought to practice that in our churches, greet the brethren with a holy kiss. Folks, that is not what Peter is saying. The emphasis is upon holy. In other words, all of our relationships with our brethren ought to be a holy relationship, even in the greeting. It ought to have about it the character of holiness. I hadn't intended to get into this, but since I'm in the neighborhood, I'll stop by and visit it for a while. A few years ago,

I was in a meeting and there was a singer working with us. I had not known him before, and this is the first time we'd ever been together. One night, as he began the service, he told the audience that he had been raised in a Baptist church and was still a Baptist, but that he had a real grievance against the Baptist church because he discovered something that the Baptists failed to teach him. They robbed him of something because they failed to teach him. Well, I leaned forward in my seat. I was wondering what in the world this Baptist church had failed to teach this fellow that was so awful. Surely they taught him how to be saved and such as this. But then he said, They never taught me to worship God by raising my hands.

In the past few years there has been a lot of emphasis upon the raising of hands, and all of us have sung those choruses based primarily on the Psalms, I will lift up my hands unto the Lord. And in practically every church I go into today you will see some folks that will be raising their hands. As a matter of fact, even in that Stayed Dignified Keswick Convention in England you will find a few folks out yonder lifting their hands. The only problem is that it has become for many a spiritual status symbol. Lifting the

hands in praise and worship and singing has become a symbol of deep spirituality and being really with it. In other words, if you hear of a church where they raised their hands, man, that church really on fire, that church really spiritual, it's really got the spirit. And if the churches don't, then they are dead and stepping. I have been in meetings where the music director has chided people and criticized folks because they didn't want to raise their hand. Well let me just say this. There is only one place in the New Testament where the lifting of hands is mentioned, and

that is in 1 Timothy 2 and verse 8. Paul is writing about the prayer life of the church. In verse 8 he says, Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and dissension. Let me just very hurriedly make these observations. In the first place, again the emphasis here is on holy, not the lifting up of hands. Among the Jews there were three postures of prayer. They either prostrated themselves face down on the ground, or they knelt, or they stood with their hands raised to heaven. Those were the three customary postures of prayer for the Jews. Paul is simply saying to these folks here, I want men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without wrath and

dissension. He's not telling them to lift up their hands. They will do that anyway because that is a part of their custom. That's a part of their culture. What he is telling them to do, that when they pray, they had better do it with holiness, no wrath and no dissension. Paul here is speaking about prayer, not praise, not worship. The only time the New Testament tells us to lift up our hands is not in singing hymns or in worshiping or in praising, but in prayer. And these words are addressed to the men. He says, I want the men. And that word has the definite article with it. The men, specifically, and it's not the general word for man. It doesn't mean human race.

But it is that specific word that means men as contrasted with women. In other words, the male. Because, again, it was the custom for the men only to pray aloud in their public gatherings. And of course, we're not going to accept that. Today we believe men and women both can pray aloud in public gatherings. So if we're not going to accept one custom, why accept the other? And honestly, most of the folks that I see lifting their hands in services are women, not men.

And yet Paul says, I want the men to do it. Well, he's not talking about what we're doing today. That verse doesn't apply at all. You say, well, are you against raising hands, lifting hands? No, not at all. I believe this. If you want to lift your hands when you're worshiping God, if that means something to you, if that enables you to worship more freely,

if that proves to be an emotional release for you and enhances your worship, then you do it. You ought to be free to do it. But do not make that a spiritual status symbol. Listen very carefully. There is absolutely no deep spiritual significance to the lifting up of hands apart from what it means to you personally. No more than what saying amen means to some people. You see, people are different. There are some folks that that like to say amen in church. Some people like to raise their hands. I used to

have some folks in my church that would say, right on, preacher, right on, preacher. I believe there ought to be liberty within the context of dignity and good taste and order. There ought to be liberty within the worship service, and if you want to raise your hands, that's fine. You do it. But the lifting up of hands does not mean that you're more spiritual or the church is more spiritual or more with it or anything else. It has no spiritual significance

apart from what it means to you personally. You say, well, it's good enough for David, and he clapped his hands, and the Bible says that we ought to clap our hands in the Old Testament, and David lifted his hands, and he clapped his hands, and he danced, and if it's good enough for David, it's good enough for us. Well, that's right. David also worshipped by animal sacrifices, too. You cannot use David's worship as a model for our worship. That is a part of a cultural,

historical, geographical frame in which the picture of truth is set. And again, I know some folks who are going to go away saying, well, that brother Dunn, boy, he is really stuck in dead, and he doesn't have the Spirit. He doesn't believe in lifting hands. I believe in doing whatever you want to do within the realm of the Holy Spirit's leadership, and if you want to raise your hands, that's fine. All I'm saying is that to make that a vital part of worship and say that that's the way to worship and we worship better by doing that, is totally unscriptural and unfounded. Well, enough of that.

Number four, if we're to handle accurately the word of truth, we must recognize that Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture, Scripture interprets Scripture, and every verse, now listen carefully, every verse must be interpreted in the light of a total Bible context and its own individual context. Taking verses out of context is dangerous

and misleading in establishing truth. I heard about a fellow, and you've all heard this story, I'm sure, about this brother who believed that he could get a word from God just by letting the Bible fall open at random and shutting his eyes and dropping his finger on a verse, and that would be the word that God had for him. Well, he did that. And he dropped his finger on a verse with his eyes closed.

When he opened his eyes, here was the verse. Judas went out and hanged himself. And he thought, well, I don't think that's the word. And so he opened the Bible again, closed his eyes, and let the finger fall on the verse, and he opened his eyes, and this is what that verse said, Go thou and do likewise. Now, if that brother had taken those two things out of context and put them together verse said, go thou and do likewise. Now, if that brother had taken those two things out of context and put them together and said that's a message for God, he wouldn't be with us

today. Every scripture must be interpreted in the light of its context and the total biblical context. And a great deal of false teaching has come about because we have been guilty of taking verses out of their context and twisting them to say what we want them to say. All right, number five. If we are to handle accurately the word of truth, we need to recognize the literary character of the particular book that we're studying. I'll repeat that. If we're to handle accurately the word of truth, we must recognize the literary character of the book that we're studying. For instance, Psalms, the book of Psalms, is largely a book of poetry.

And so you'll find a great deal of poetical images, figures of speech that are not to be taken literally. Folks, I don't believe God has feathers. David said he did. I don't believe that God actually has wings, but David said he did. But we understand that David is speaking with poetic license, and those are images. And we know that God doesn't have feathers. And I don't believe that Jesus literally has a sword protruding from his mouth, as the Revelation says,

that is symbolical of something else. I don't believe that Jesus literally right now is walking around with a real steel sword, a Wilkinson sword, protruding between his lips out of his mouth. I don't believe that. We must recognize the literary character of the book that we're studying. You say, now why are you making such a deal about this? Well, pay close attention.

I don't want you to misunderstand. The Gospels and the Acts are historical records. The four Gospels are historical records of the life and times of Jesus. The book of Acts is a historical record of the life and times of the early church. Now, the epistles are the teaching books. They are not historical records. They are not personal accounts of events. They are the teaching letters to the church. Now, it is the epistles that give the church its doctrine and direction. There are some things in the Gospels and some things in the Acts that Jesus did and that the apostles did that God doesn't intend for us to do today. How do I know that? Well, I get from the epistles what are taught my

direction and my doctrine. I heard a preacher say some time ago that the church today ought to meet in homes. We ought not to meet in one big building, we ought to meet in homes. We ought not to meet in one big building. We ought to meet in homes because the early church did. And because the church in Acts met in homes, then we ought to meet in homes. That's the way to do it. Folks, that's nonsense.

They also wore sandals and rode donkeys. That is a historical, geographical, cultural setting. We are not to get our doctrine from what the apostles did, but from what they taught. It is the epistles that belong to the church and that give us our doctrine and our direction. Now, that's not to say that we're not to get doctrine and direction from the Gospels and from the Acts. Don't misunderstand. All I'm saying is how are we to know what part of the Gospel

was simply historical or simply for those immediate apostles and what part of it is it for us today? It's that which is reiterated and taught afresh and anew in the epistles. For instance, in John 14, 12, Jesus said, that whosoever believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also. Now a great many people interpret that to mean that we are to do the same physical works, physical miracles that Jesus did. I've heard some people say and use that as a proof text that we are to perform the same miracles, and by that they mean

the miracles of healing that Jesus did. We have the same right, the same power to go about healing anybody and everybody because Jesus said in John 14, 12, we'll do the same works that he did. Well, personally, I believe Jesus there is John 14, 12, we'll do the same works that he did. Well, personally, I believe Jesus there is referring to spiritual works, not physical works or miracles. The reason for that is Jesus not only worked miracles of healing. I don't know why when people interpret this verse that way, they refer themselves to miracles of healing. Jesus did far more than that. He also walked on the water. He also turned the water into wine. He also fed 5,000 out of one sack lunch. He also raised Lazarus from the dead who had been in the grave for four days. And if we're going to interpret

John 14, 12 in that way, then we have to say, then I can feed 5,000 with one sack lunch. I can walk on water. I can turn water into wine. I just soon turned it into coke. We can do all those same things. You say, well, no, that's not right. That doesn't make sense. Of course it doesn't.

How do we know then that Jesus is not saying here that we are to duplicate the very physical and material miracles he did because it's not taught. We're not taught to do that in the epistles. If we want to discover what should be the attitude of today's church toward healing, now listen to me very, very carefully, for this is what we're getting down to. If we want to know what should be our attitude today toward healing, we must find it taught in the epistle. We cannot determine what our place in healing should be simply by reading

the Gospels and the Acts and saying what Jesus did and what the apostles did, that means that we're to do the same thing. We must go through the epistles and see what the church is taught to do there. You do not build your doctrine on what the apostles did, but upon what the apostles taught. There is one last factor that we want to look at and then we will be through. If we are to handle accurately the word of truth, we must remember that the primary theme of the Bible is God's redemptive activity. The primary theme of the Bible is God's redemptive activity. Folks, the Bible deals with ultimate truth. I think that in coming to a scriptural attitude

and belief towards healing and other things like this, one of the basic problems is our view of the Bible, our philosophy of the Bible, our philosophy of Christianity. What is the Bible anyway? What does the Bible deal with? I have an old book that someone gave me some time ago written by a fellow who claimed that he had found all sorts of things prophesied in the Bible, specifically in the Old Testament.

For instance, he found where the tire shortage back in the Second World War, most of us too young to remember that, but he found a place in Isaiah where he says that is a prophecy of the tire shortage in World War II. He found a place where God prophesied concerning the invention of flamethrowers and tanks and submarines and airplanes. Total nonsense, absolute nonsense. My dear friends, the Bible deals with ultimate truth. I cannot bring myself to believe that thousands of years ago God, writing the Bible and giving the word of God, was concerned with the invention of the flame thrower or the temporary tire shortage during World War II. The Bible is not, folks, a handbook on nutrition.

The Bible is not a handbook on economics. One of our problems is we're taking the Bible and turning it into something that it was never intended to be. The Bible deals with ultimate truth. The primary theme of the Bible is God's redemptive activity. God is concerned primarily, now listen to me carefully and you will find this in the New Testament, God is concerned primarily not with our physical and material status, but with our spiritual status. That is not to say he is not concerned. That's not to say that he's

not concerned about these other things, for I believe that he is. But to take the Bible and teach it and preach it as though one of the primary and major themes of it was material and physical blessings and prosperity is to do harm to the redemptive purpose of the Word of God. God is primarily concerned with his own redemptive activity. Not to say he is unconcerned about the other, for he is, and the Bible has something to say about that. I believe that, I recognize that. But many times we find ourselves

preaching these lesser things on the same level and with a par for forgiveness of sin. And when we do that, we fail to recognize this very important law of interpretation that the primary theme of the Bible is God's redemptive activity. Time is gone. Let me just summarize. Number one, the Bible is the record of God's revelation. God revealed himself in time and space. Men saw what God did and the Holy Spirit moved upon them, helped them to interpret it correctly and to see exactly what it meant, and gave them the ability to write it down. What we have today is the Bible, the record of that revelation. It is the sole guide for doctrine and practice.

If I want to know what I am to believe and how I am to behave, I find it in the Bible. It's got to be in the book. In establishing truth, nothing else enters in. Experience and circumstances and such as that may serve to illustrate the truth already established, but it does not serve to establish the truth. You are making yourself vulnerable to false teaching if you let experience or observation of the experiences of others establish truth. It never establishes truth. Only the Word of God establishes truth. Experience and so forth illustrate truth already established. And finally, we must be diligent and honest in handling the Word of God. Let the Bible speak for itself. That's not always easy to do, but it is something that I believe the Holy Spirit will enable us to do. And that is the most important thing,

is that regardless of how many laws or factors or so forth that we have of interpretation, unless the Holy Spirit of God illuminates our heart and mind, we cannot come to the truth. And so that is our prayer, that the Spirit of God, who inspired this book, will now illuminate our hearts and minds so we can understand it and come to a knowledge of the truth. Let's pray together. Father, I pray that you'll take the word of God today and make it real and alive for us. And it is our prayer. And God, you know our heart. Our only desire is to handle accurately the word of truth so we can come to the knowledge

of truth so that we can come to full maturity in Christ Jesus.