NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp healings:

rwp@1Corinthians:12:9 @{Faith} (\pistis\). Not faith of surrender, saving faith, but wonder-working faith like that in strkjv@13:2| (Matthew:17:20; strkjv@21:21|). Note here \en ti auti pneumati\ (in the same Spirit) in contrast with \dia\ and \kata\ in verse 8|. {Gifts of healings} (\charismata iamatn\). \Iama\, old word from \iaomai\, common in LXX, in N.T. only in this chapter. It means acts of healing as in strkjv@Acts:4:30| (cf. strkjv@James:5:14|) and strkjv@Luke:7:21| (of Jesus). Note \en\ here as just before.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:10 @{Workings of miracles} (\energmata dunamen\). Workings of powers. Cf. \energn dunameis\ in strkjv@Galatians:3:5; strkjv@Hebrews:2:4| where all three words are used (\smeia\, signs, \terata\, wonders, \dunameis\, powers). Some of the miracles were not healings as the blindness on Elymas the sorcerer. {Prophecy} (\prophteia\). Late word from \prophts\ and \prophmi\, to speak forth. Common in papyri. This gift Paul will praise most (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:14|). Not always prediction, but a speaking forth of God's message under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. {Discernings of spirits} (\diakriseis pneumatn\). \Diakrisis\ is old word from \diakrin\ (see strkjv@11:29|) and in N.T. only here; strkjv@Romans:14:1; strkjv@Hebrews:5:14|. A most needed gift to tell whether the gifts were really of the Holy Spirit and supernatural (cf. so-called "gifts" today) or merely strange though natural or even diabolical (1Timothy:4:1; strkjv@1John:4:1f.|). {Divers kinds of tongues} (\gen glssn\). No word for "divers" in the Greek. There has arisen a great deal of confusion concerning the gift of tongues as found in Corinth. They prided themselves chiefly on this gift which had become a source of confusion and disorder. There were varieties (kinds, \gen\) in this gift, but the gift was essentially an ecstatic utterance of highly wrought emotion that edified the speaker (14:4|) and was intelligible to God (14:2,28|). It was not always true that the speaker in tongues could make clear what he had said to those who did not know the tongue (14:13|): It was not mere gibberish or jargon like the modern "tongues," but in a real language that could be understood by one familiar with that tongue as was seen on the great Day of Pentecost when people who spoke different languages were present. In Corinth, where no such variety of people existed, it required an interpreter to explain the tongue to those who knew it not. Hence Paul placed this gift lowest of all. It created wonder, but did little real good. This is the error of the Irvingites and others who have tried to reproduce this early gift of the Holy Spirit which was clearly for a special emergency and which was not designed to help spread the gospel among men. See on ¯Acts:2:13-21; strkjv@10:44-46; strkjv@19:6|. {The interpretation of tongues} (\hermneia glssn\). Old word, here only and strkjv@14:26| in N.T., from \hermneu\ from \Herms\ (the god of speech). Cf. on \diermneu\ in strkjv@Luke:24:27; strkjv@Acts:9:36|. In case there was no one present who understood the particular tongue it required a special gift of the Spirit to some one to interpret it if any one was to receive benefit from it.

rwp@Luke:6:18 @{With unclean spirits} (\apo pneumatn akathartn\). In an amphibolous position for it can be construed with "troubled," (present passive participle \enochloumenoi\) or with "were healed" (imperfect passive, \etherapeuonto\). The healings were repeated as often as they came. Note here both verbs, \iaomai\ and \therapeu\, used of the miraculous cures of Jesus. \Therapeu\ is the verb more commonly employed of regular professional cures, but no such distinction is made here.

rwp@Mark:8:24 @{I see men, for I behold them as trees walking} (\Blep tous anthrpous hoti hs dendra hor peripatountas\). A vivid description of dawning sight. His vision was incomplete though he could tell that they were men because they were walking. This is the single case of a gradual cure in the healings wrought by Jesus. The reason for this method in this case is not given.

rwp@Matthew:8:7 @{I will come and heal him} (\eg elthn therapeus auton\). Future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive in question (McNeile). The word here for heal (\therapeus\) means first to serve, give medical attention, then cure, restore to health. The centurion uses the more definite word for healing (\iathsetai\ strkjv@8:8|) as Matthew does in strkjv@8:13| (\iath\). Luke (Luke:9:11|), like a physician, says that Jesus healed (\iato\) those in need of treatment (\therapeias\), but the distinction is not always observed. In strkjv@Acts:28:8| Luke uses \iasato\ of the miraculous healings in Malta by Paul while he employs \etherapeuonto\ (Acts:28:9|) apparently of the practice of Luke the physician (so W. M. Ramsay). Matthew represents the centurion himself as speaking to Jesus while Luke has it that two committees from the centurion brought the messages, apparently a more detailed narrative. What one does through others he does himself as Pilate "scourged Jesus" (had him scourged).

rwp@Matthew:15:33 @{And the disciples say to him} (\kai legousin auti hoi mathtai\). It seems strange that they should so soon have forgotten the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew:14:13-21|), but they did. Soon Jesus will remind them of both these demonstrations of his power (16:9,10|). They forgot both of them, not just one. Some scholars scout the idea of two miracles so similar as the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand, though both are narrated in detail by both Mark and Matthew and both are later mentioned by Jesus. Jesus repeated his sayings and wrought multitudes of healings. There is no reason in itself why Jesus should not on occasion repeat a nature miracle like this elsewhere. He is in the region of Decapolis, not in the country of Philip (\Trachonitis\).