X Close Menu

Beni Johnson, Wife of Bethel Church’s Bill Johnson, Has Died (Healing – Part One)

4

Actually, the title to this article is incorrect. Although Beni Johnson is no longer alive on this earth, she is very much alive in the presence of her Savior. But I trust all of you know that. Now, to the main point of this brief article.

Although they are doing their best to hide their true feelings, cynical internet bloggers and rigid cessationists are speaking out concerning Beni Johnson’s passing. They preface their comments with denials that they are being insensitive or gloating, but it isn’t hard to see an attitude that smugly says, “See, we told you so!”

My comments here are not an endorsement of everything Bethel teaches. I have concerns with a number of things they believe. But I have stood with them in prayer these past few months that God would be pleased to heal Beni and extend her earthly sojourn. How many of the critics of Bethel did the same?

You don’t have to agree with every facet of Bethel’s beliefs about God’s will in relation to healing in order to align your heart with brothers and sisters in Christ in intercessory prayer. God simply chose not to heal Beni in this life. His reasons are known only unto him. His ways, after all, are “unsearchable” and “inscrutable” (Rom. 11:33). But Beni’s death in no way, shape, or form will diminish in the slightest degree my commitment to pray for the healing of the sick. Here at Bridgeway we have witnessed a number of miraculous healings in recent weeks. So, why did God heal them and not Beni Johnson? I don’t know.

What I do know is that most cessationists simply don’t understand the nature of divine healing. And contrary to their claims, Beni’s death (or the death of any other Christian) in no way suggests that healing gifts are no longer operative in our day. Let me explain.

There is no such thing as the spiritual gift of healing. There never has been and never will be. Many Christians, perhaps even most, think of healing in much the same way they do the spiritual gifts of teaching or mercy or evangelism or encouragement. That is to say, they envision a person with the gift of healing as being able to heal all diseases at any time, whenever they will. A person with the gift of teaching can teach at the drop of a hat. So too with gifts such as mercy and serving, just to mention two. They are gifts that are in our possession and under our control. This is the single most serious mistake when it comes to understanding the spiritual gift of healing.

On numerous occasions I’ve heard people say, “Well, if the spiritual gift of healing is still valid and operative in our day, Beni Johnson would never have died. Furthermore, we should visit the nearest cancer ward and empty it of its patients.” This betrays a fundamental misconception of how this spiritual gift is described and how it actually functions in the NT.

Let’s begin with the way Paul refers to this gift in 1 Corinthians 12:9 and again in 12:28 and 12:30. These are the only three places where the gift of healing is mentioned. Note well. I didn’t say they are the only three texts where healing is mentioned. Healing is found pervasively in the four gospels and in the book of Acts. But the “gift” or charisma of healing is spoken of in only three texts, and in all three instances it is the same terminology: “gifts of healings.” Virtually all English translations render this as, “gifts of healing” (singular). But Paul quite explicitly employs the plural of both nouns: “gifts [plural] of healings [plural]” (charismata iamaton). This can’t be insignificant or merely stylistic. Furthermore, of the nine gifts listed in this paragraph, only healing is mentioned in conjunction with the word “gift(s)”. What could this imply?

Evidently Paul does not envision an individual being endowed with one healing gift operative at all times for all diseases. His language suggests either many different gifts or powers of healing, each appropriate to and effective for its related illness, or each occurrence of healing constituting a distinct gift in its own right.

I’ve had the opportunity on numerous occasions to meet people who have what appears to be a healing anointing for one particular affliction. Some are able to pray more effectively for those with back problems while others see more success when praying for migraine headaches. This may be what Paul had in mind when he spoke of multiple or a plurality of “gifts” of “healings”.

As I said above, one of the principal obstacles to a proper understanding of healing is the erroneous assumption that if anyone could ever heal, he could always heal. But in view of the lingering illness of Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25-30), Timothy (1 Timothy 5:23), Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20), and perhaps Paul himself (2 Cor. 12:7-10; Gal. 4:13), it is better to view this gift as subject to the will of God, not the will of people. Therefore, a person may be gifted to heal many people, but not all. Another may be gifted to heal only one person at one particular time of one particular disease. When asked to pray for the sick, people are often heard to respond: “I can't. I don't have the gift of healing.” But if my reading of Paul is correct, there is no such thing as the gift of healing, if by that one means the God-given ability to heal every person of every disease on every occasion. Rather, the Spirit sovereignly distributes a charisma of healing for a particular occasion, even though previous prayers for physical restoration under similar circumstances may not have been answered, and even though subsequent prayers for the same affliction may not be answered. In sum: “gifts of healings” are occasional and subject to the sovereign purposes of God.

Few doubt that Paul had a “gift” for healing. But his prayers for Epaphroditus weren’t answered, at least not at first (see Phil. 2:25-30). Clearly, Paul could not heal at will. Aside from Jesus, no one else could either! And there is doubt if even Jesus could (read John 5:19; Mark 6:5-6). Some would conclude from Paul's failure to heal his friend that the so-called “gift of healing” was “dying out” at this juncture in the life of the church (in spite of the fact that late in his ministry, in Acts 28:9, Paul apparently healed everyone on the island of Malta who came to him). It seems better to conclude that healing, whenever and wherever it occurred, was subject, not to the will of man, but to the will of God. No one, not even Paul, could always heal all diseases. If Paul was distressed that Epaphroditus was ill, almost unto death, and that initially his prayers for him were ineffective, I doubt seriously if the apostle would have drawn the same conclusions that modern cessationists do. Paul understood the occasional or circumstantial nature of gifts of healings.

The fact that healing is an expression of divine “mercy” (Phil. 2:27) means that it should never be viewed as a “right” or as something the Christian can claim. There is no place in the life of the believer or the local church for the presumptuous approach to healing that is found in advocates of the health and wealth gospel or in the Word of Faith movement. Healing is not the payment of a debt. God does not owe us healing. We don't deserve healing. I believe we should have faith for healing. But there is a vast difference between faith in divine mercy and presumption based on an alleged right. God had “mercy” on Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:27), the same word used in the gospels to describe why Jesus healed people while he was on the earth. God's motive for healing hasn't changed! The primary reason God healed through Jesus prior to Pentecost was because he is a merciful, compassionate God. And the primary reason God continues to heal after Pentecost is because he is a merciful, compassionate God. God is no less merciful, no less compassionate, no less caring when it comes to the physical condition of his people after Pentecost than he was before Pentecost.

There may well be a close connection between gifts of healings and the gift of faith which immediately precedes in Paul's list of the charismata. The spiritual gift of faith is a unique and extraordinary capacity to believe that God is going to do something quite remarkable for which we don’t have an explicit biblical promise.

Perhaps, then, “the prayer of faith” to which James (5:15) refers is not just any prayer that may be prayed at will, but a uniquely and divinely motivated prayer prompted by the Spirit-wrought conviction that God intends to heal the one for whom prayer is being offered. The faith necessary for healing is itself a gift of God, sovereignly bestowed when he wills. When God chooses to heal, he produces in the hearts of those praying the faith or confidence that such is precisely his intent. The particular kind of faith to which James refers, in response to which God heals, is not the kind that we may exercise at our will. It is the kind of faith that we exercise only when God wills.

Many in the church today say they believe that God still heals, but they live as functional deists who rarely if ever actually lay hands on the sick and pray with any degree of expectancy. Jesus laid his hands on the sick (Lk. 4:40), as did the early church (Acts 9:17; 28:7-8; cf. Mark 16:18). And so should we.

People often confuse praying expectantly with praying presumptuously. Prayer is presumptuous when the person claims healing without revelatory warrant, or on the unbiblical assumption that God always wills to heal. This then requires them to account for the absence of healing by an appeal either to moral failure or deficiency of faith (usually in the one for whom prayer is offered). People pray expectantly when they humbly petition a merciful God for something they don't deserve but that he delights to give (Luke 11:9-13; cf. Matt. 9:27-31; 20:29-34; Lk. 17:13-14). Expectant prayer flows from the recognition that Jesus healed people because he loved them and felt compassion for them (Matt. 14:13-14; 20:34; Mk. 1:41-42; Lk. 7:11-17), a disposition that nothing in Scripture indicates has changed.

In the meantime, please pray for the Johnson family at Bethel.

To be continued . . .

 

4 Comments

Hi Sam, thanks for your writing/teaching ministry. It's very helpful. I'm surprised that you state without any question or nuance that Beni is in the presence of her Savior. What I've seen and heard from watching hours of videos from Bethel church and Bill's sermons is that there are biblical reasons to believe another gospel/ another Jesus other than the one Paul preached is being proclaimed and believed in. What gives you the total assurance that Beni is in the presence of God?
Thanks,
Marshall
Well said, Sam. Thanks. Bill Perkins
Could it be there are other categories than the one you choose to highlight: cyncical bloggers and cessationists?

Is it possible that one can be praying for extreme comfort and peace that passes understanding for their brothers and sisters associated with Bethel and also praying for friends that have left the faith because of Bethels consistent, and arguably idolatrous,
focus on what you describe as ‘presumptuous praye’?

What is the right Biblical response to leaders that use the very language that you teach is not Biblical?

Perhaps you could be a bridge to health through your relationship with Bill and your understanding of this third category - charismatics that elevate the Word of God over the word of men, that elevate the Word of God over experience and a culture of Biblical truth over a culture of honor.

Please prayerfully consider your unique position to acknowledge this third alternative to the categories you highlighted.
Great word, Sam! Thanks for good calvinistic/charismatic theology biblically, plainly and powerfully set forth.
No one has helped me more and provided more preaching, teaching and writing material than you. The Lord will give you the final credit because many times I didn't give you any. You're admired, appreciated, and loved!
Wade

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Do not change this field:
Leave this field untouched: