Chookwatcher, it seems, favours the very Roman Catholic doctrine of death as the ultimate healer.

In discussing the thoughts of Dr Michael Brown on why apologist Nabeel Qureshi passed away in his thirties, the polemists and critics shamelessly misrepresent doctrine by saying that death is the ultimate healing, which sounds nice, but cannot be considered to be Biblical or true scripturally.

Is death perfect healing?

Indeed, chookwatcher considers death from disease to be ‘perfect healing’…

Two good articles discussing the blessed reality of Nabeel Qureshi finally finding perfect healing and rest in the presence of his Saviour.

‘What is this ‘perfect healing’? The young minister died. He succumbed to the terminal illness.

Of course, the minister in question is now, we trust, with the Lord, and will never face the likelihood of sickness or death again. But is death the ultimate healing? Does God intend death as a surrogate health measure?

The answer is no, not when it comes to a supposed cure for sickness. Death is the loss of life. Healing is the restoration of life. Whilst a person who passes on in Christ is, of course, no longer subject to sickness or death, they are not healed in the sense of being recovered from a sickness. That is flawed reason replacing Biblical reality.

Quoting an article by Gabriel Hughes, chookwatcher recommends this teaching, however.

Nabeel prayed for a miracle. He prayed to be healed. And guess what? God healed him! He delivered Nabeel into a healing far greater than he could have asked or imagined. Sickness and death will never touch Nabeel again.

Well, no. God did not heal him. The sickness killed him. The minister went to be with the Lord, and will never be sick again, true. But this cannot be claimed as a healing.

What is a healing, then?

Mark 5:35-43 While He was still speaking, some came from the ruler of the synagogue’s house who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?”

As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, He said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not be afraid; only believe.” And He permitted no one to follow Him except Peter, James, and John the brother of James. Then He came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and saw a tumult and those who wept and wailed loudly. When He came in, He said to them, “Why make this commotion and weep? The child is not dead, but sleeping.”

And they ridiculed Him. But when He had put them all outside, He took the father and the mother of the child, and those who were with Him, and entered where the child was lying. Then He took the child by the hand, and said to her, “Talitha, cumi,” which is translated, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.”

Immediately the girl arose and walked, for she was twelve years of age. And they were overcome with great amazement. But He commanded them strictly that no one should know it, and said that something should be given her to eat.

The girl was raised from the dead. Jesus called it ‘sleeping’ because He knew He could raise her. She was completely healed. The sickness took her life from her, but Jesus revived her. That is healing.

To claim that she was healed whilst she was dead would be wrong. The sickness triumphed until Jesus overcame it.

We have already spoken in a previous article about Lazarus. Jesus raised him from the dead. He was three days dead. The death was not healing. Being raised by Jesus was healing.

It is a nonsense to say that God allows people to die to heal them. The reality is that we all die, but once we have died we will be raised if we are in Christ. But the resurrection is not the same as physical healing.

More misleading reason from Gabriel:

Jesus did heal Nabeel! He is healed forever in glory! Sadly, most charismatics are not satisfied with this answer. They insist that God does mean for His children to be healed of their physical diseases right here in this life.

Of course charismatics believe that God will heal people right here in this life, because that is what the Bible tells us. Why would any true believer suggest otherwise? You have to reject scripture to oppose healing. Denying scripture is unbelief.

But it is also true to say that, no, Jesus did not heal Nabeel as Gabriel claims. Nabeel died. He went on to glory, but his physical body did not recover, and it is wrong to claim that it did. Even Jeff Maples gets this.

Nabeel was not healed…

Hughes goes on to say that people are healed of their sin, giving another piece of erroneous logic on an alternative to physical healing, but, again, this is mere reason not Biblical fact. We are forgiven sin, but sin can’t be healed. A sin is a sin. It can either be forgiven or paid for. The wages is always death. Jesus paid that price on our behalf, but we weren’t healed. It was a remission paid for by innocent blood. We died in Him. We were redeemed.

Tell the truth

Why, then, can’t these ministers simply accept and tell the truth, that healing is when a person is sick and either by natural or supernatural means recover? Why, when people die, do they have to resort to claiming that death is the healer? It is not. Death is the recompense.

God is the Healer. The sick are raised up. They do not die. They get well. Death is not healing. Recovery is healing. Being able to function in the earth in our time as normal is healing.

James 5:14-15 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.

It was the Catholic Church that introduced the notion that death is the ultimate salvation and healing because they have a religious form of godliness without the power of it. Their dogma works against the power of true scripture, and against the actual meaning of this passage. The irony is that cessationists have adopted their teachings in this way.

Reasoning away the truth of healing is a danger to both believers and sinners alike.

Polemists, especially cessationists, need to search their own hearts and read the scripture as it is presented rather than obscure the truths contained within.