Greg writes:
“Thus, does this symbolism therefore not require the healing of ‘every’ Israelite? And if Gentiles are included in the New Temple (Tabernacle of David as opposed, I assume, to the Tabernacle of Moses), doesn’t this symbolism also require the healing of every Gentile as well?”

The point of healing is make one a healer. God forgives us to make us “forgivers.” So, the symbolism is not about every Israelite (Israelites according to the flesh) being healed; it is about every true Israelite (according to the Spirit) being a healer. The Old Covenant touch brought uncleanness and death. The New Covenant touch brings healing and life. Same goes for the Gentiles. The Lord reprimanded Peter for his unwillingness to eat with Gentiles because he would “defile” them.

“You wrote, ‘He picked His battles.’ I can’t find that He did this in the Gospels. Perhaps something in your current interpretation is requiring that Jesus not heal them all and this is coloring your interpretation of this doctrine? Because I find that, instead, He healed all that were sick. A few times it is even stated that the people themselves brought to Him all that were sick and He healed them all.”

Yes, but he didn’t heal all the sick. He healed all those who were sick who came. This “channelled” healing died out with the apostolic church. It was a sign to Israel through Christ and the firstfruits church. And on many occasions it seems as though things were set up by the Father to bring glory to the Son.

“You wrote, ‘Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?’ No, I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I was just pointing out that scripture reveals in several cases that the motive was compassion, not for New Temple Cleansing purposes, that’s all.”

Compassion is always the primary motive, but there is always — always — a symbolic dimension as well, simply because of the symbolic nature of humanity.

You wrote, “The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure.” True, but scripture doesn’t reveal that, does it? I could just as easily assume the story is told exactly the way it is told because that is all there is to it. No “teeing up” necessary. This woman’s faith is the very thing that healed her, in this instance. This implies Father healed the woman through Jesus without consulting/warning Jesus about it. Or, it implies that Father was predisposed to healing all, and this woman tapped into it with her own faith, and no action of Jesus was even necessary (i.e. she was not healed by Jesus on/by purpose at all).

Sure, but do we see anyone grabbing Jesus’ robe after this? I think this was a special case. In fact, they are all special cases. The very modes of healing seem to be illustrations, fulfilments, or reversals of Levitical laws.

What I find very intriguing with what you say is that redemption for sin is over, redemption of priesthood is over and redemption of the physical creation is not yet over. I’m assuming your books deal with some of this, so I’ll purchase them and read them. I see the first Bible Matrix one is available on Kindle. Will the second one be on Kindle as well?

You’ll see this particularly in The Covenant Key. The Spirit’s work is always architectural, working out from the Most Holy, scattering His enemies, and gathering in the beloved.

Thanks for the comments.

I’ll get to your other comment later on.

- “Every Israelite was to wear a robe with four blue tassels.”

- “Circumcision is this death, and every male Israelite was circumcised. The ‘fountain of life’ was purified with the shedding of blood. But then, every Israelite (not just the men as far as I can tell) was robed with four tassels. This is baptism. Every Israelite was a picture of the slain Lamb at the centre of the New Jerusalem, a four-cornered city with water flowing out to heal the nations.”

- “The Israelite robes, symbolising mediatory government, were Old Covenant baptism. Every person was a miniature mountain of God, with blood sacrifice as a foundation, and four rivers flowing out across the world.”

Thus, does this symbolism therefore not require the healing of “every” Israelite? And if Gentiles are included in the New Temple (Tabernacle of David as opposed, I assume, to the Tabernacle of Moses), doesn’t this symbolism also require the healing of every Gentile as well?

You wrote, “He picked His battles.” I can’t find that He did this in the Gospels. Perhaps something in your current interpretation is requiring that Jesus not heal them all and this is coloring your interpretation of this doctrine? Because I find that, instead, He healed all that were sick. A few times it is even stated that the people themselves brought to Him all that were sick and He healed them all.

You wrote, “Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?” No, I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I was just pointing out that scripture reveals in several cases that the motive was compassion, not for New Temple Cleansing purposes, that’s all.

You wrote, “The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure.” True, but scripture doesn’t reveal that, does it? I could just as easily assume the story is told exactly the way it is told because that is all there is to it. No “teeing up” necessary. This woman’s faith is the very thing that healed her, in this instance. This implies Father healed the woman through Jesus without consulting/warning Jesus about it. Or, it implies that Father was predisposed to healing all, and this woman tapped into it with her own faith, and no action of Jesus was even necessary (i.e. she was not healed by Jesus on/by purpose at all).

What I find very intriguing with what you say is that redemption for sin is over, redemption of priesthood is over and redemption of the physical creation is not yet over. I’m assuming your books deal with some of this, so I’ll purchase them and read them. I see the first Bible Matrix one is available on Kindle. Will the second one be on Kindle as well?

Jesus healed people entirely, but He didn’t heal every believer who was sick. He picked His battles.

The redemption for sin is over (Garden), the redemption of the priesthood is over (Land – AD70), but the redemption of the physical creation is not yet over.

Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?

Gentiles were included in the new Tabernacle, which is why James referred to it as a Tabernacle of David.

The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure. And the results accord with Old Testament architecture. See
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/29/healing-in-his-tassels/
Here there is no intended compassion, at least not initially from the Son.

A few problems you may have to deal with with the mere assertion of “Jesus didn’t heal everyone.”

- Isaiah 53 reveals that physical healing is part of the redemptive work of Messiah in the exact same manner that forgiveness of sins; even using the same substitutionary words to describe the freedom from both sickness and sin.

- Deuteronomy 28 reveals “every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law” is all part of the curse which was removed by the redemptive work of Messiah (Galatians 3:13).
- The Gospels reveal that many times Jesus healed by His compassion, not for a cleansing purpose.
- The Gospels reveal that even GENTILES were healed. How is it, in keeping with an Israelite Tabernacle-cleansing motif that this can be explained?
- The Gospels reveal a few times that folks were healed WITHOUT direct action of Jesus. For instance the woman that surprised Him in the crowd and grabbed His garment.

Just things for you to consider, brother. Iron sharpens iron. Amen?

Your logic is good, but for one thing. Jesus didn’t heal everyone. I always wondered why, until Peter Leithart pointed out that the diseases Jesus healed were basically the ones that made Israel unfit for Tabernacle service, or unclean in some way. What Jesus was doing was cleansing people for a new priesthood. They were real healings, just as the pork you couldn’t eat was real, physical pork. But they were signs of something deeper.

Not sure if “bridging the gap” is the idea so much as an outflow through God’s architecture. The pattern always begins in the Most Holy, flows out through the Holy Place (bloodying the priesthood) and then into the world. So spiritual healing comes first, repentance and salvation. Corporately, we can expect that this will lead to greater health and prosperity over time. Jesus washes the inside of the cup first.

Thanks for commenting! I hope you’ll read Jordan’s “Sociology.” A thought-provoking book.

First of all, I’m not a charismatic, but I certainly know what Jordan is speaking of here as I have been exposed to this very thought itself. I was a member of a praise band in a charismatic church for about 13 years. The thing that I grew weary of in the charismatic church was the empirical testing of their ideas worked against their theories. In other words, they believed and taught a sick one should confess “the Word” many times over to generate faith so that person could be healed. So, inevitably, there would many many SICK folk in the congregation saying over and over again, “by His stripes I am healed” (Isaiah 53:5) when they were seriously ill. In fact when you asked them, “How are you doing?” the reply was a blatant lie, “I am healed!” I witnessed several in the congregation die of sicknesses and the whole time they were saying “by His stripes I am healed.”

So, being an engineer (logically-minded; practical), this offended me. I attempted to find the answer to this. My own infant daughter was completely healed supernaturally from a deformed hip and ear much to the shagrin of many in my family and much to the surprise of the doctors. It was truly amazing. And this only occurred when I had what the charismatics call, “a revelation”, while studying scripture regarding the subject of physical healing.

So, my reason for quoting Jordan is to both agree with him and disagree with where he thinks his observation leads.

He states, “…this does not mean that any particular affliction that comes upon an individual indicates some particular sin on his part”. To this, I 100% agree. And the reason for agreeing is very simple; the Jesus of the New Testament did not indicate, as He healed the multitudes, that they were all sick due to a particular sin they committed. And, in fact, the New Testament writer, James, also indicates that often the order in which things occur is (1) physical healing first, then (2) IF the sick person has committed sins, they would be forgiven (James 5:14-15).

Jordan then thinks that this assertion leads to, “And it follows, then, that we cannot say to each and every afflicted Christian, ‘Jesus wants you well.’ There may be many reasons why Jesus does not want a particular person well at a particular time.”

With this I disagree, and the reason is also very simple. The Jesus of the New Testament did not indicate, as He healed the multitudes, that any of the sick were supposed to be sick. He invariably healed them all, every single time. So if Jesus wanted one to be sick, He never revealed that in a single instance; He failed miserably to show Jordan’s conclusion. Jesus never sent anyone away sick.

Therefore, I would conclude from looking at the Jesus of the New Testament, that, yes, the sick person is not necessarily sick because of an individual sin (although there were a few instances where Jesus implies this is the case for a particular person). And, no, it does not follow Jesus wanted anyone sick, because He failed to indicate this in a single passage if it truly was His attitude.

Therefore, I would most certainly tell the person in front of me (believer & unbeliever alike) that God wants them well (spirit, soul & body) because Jesus boldly healed all, all the time. It is with this attitude that miracles started happening in my life; I began to see many folks healed on the spot (within several seconds, or minutes). This worked very well on my engineering-type mind. I now had empirical evidence that jibed with my Christology.

Now, socially, yes, I do see your point that strict obedience to some of the laws in the Old Testament would bring the blessings of God. Obedience to God’s gospel now bringing blessings makes sense. But until we reach a state of obedience (as a whole) in the body of Christ, there is God’s magnificent grace and mercy to bridge the gap. Do you agree? Or at least see what I am saying?