eMissionary wrote:Scripture says we are to lay our hands on the sick and they shall be healed. Acts 19:11-12 says, "Now God worked unusual miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them."What a wonderful picture! Paul didn't even have to show up and lay on hands - he could just send along some personal item that had touched his person and the person would be healed!Yet in 1 Timothy 5:23 we read Paul's instructions to Timothy, "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities."It strikes me as quite interesting that Paul didn't instruct Timothy to simply "place the epistle over his stomach until God healed his "frequent infirmities."This demonstrates that although God at one time worked miracles through Paul's hand, after a time, the miracles ceased. The reason is given elsewhere in scripture - such things were described as "signs and wonders" and not typical or normal of Christianity.Scripture only records Christ Himself (all of the gospels) and the Apostle Paul (Acts 28:8) as ever laying hands on a person and healing them.Mark 16:18, in speaking of those signs which would accompany believers, says that in Christ's name "they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."First of all, it doesn't suggest that every believer will manifest all these signs - we read elsewhere for instance, that not everyone is given the gift of tongues - so we shouldn't imagine this as a list that applies to all believers.Secondly, the chapter ends saying, "they (i.e. the Apostles) went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs." - which seems to suggest that the purpose of these sign gifts was to confirm that the person was a messenger from God.Thirdly - that portion of the gospel of Mark from which the text is taken (Mark 16:9-20) does not exist in any known manuscript prior to the eleventh century. Most scholars contend that this portion of Mark is not original - but an eleventh century addition, furthermore, that the original ending to Mark was likely lost. Never the less, it is included in most translations because failure to do so would upset a lot of people.Given that this sort of healing became less common even in the lifetime of the Apostles, and given that not everyone receives the gift, and given that the premise that normal believers will lay hands on people is primarily based upon an eleventh century addendum to the text - I do not fret when a person isn't healed by my laying on of hands - I simply assume it is either not my gifting, that my personal authority is no longer necessary since we have the authority of scripture - which means I no longer require sign gifts, or that this particular text is a later attempt to give Mark a biblical sounding ending - and isn't the best place for me to develop my doctrine.Dan