Can anyone tell me where in the Bible (New Testament), Paul (Saul) could have healed a person, but didn't. Which book and who the person was?

Avatar

Check Acts 14:8:
Now at Lystra there was a man sitting, who could not use his feet; he was a cripple from birth, who had never walked. 9 He listened to Paul speaking; and Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he sprang up and walked.

There was a few instances of raising the dead, The young man that fell asleep while he was preaching and fell out the window and died. Paul raised him from the dead, it's in Acts somewhere, but I don't have it on me.

Avatar

Found it, Acts 20:9, man falls out of window, dies, paul raises him.

Also, Paul himself was bitten by a viper in Acts 28:3, and did not die.

Joseph Rasel

I believe the question was misunderstood. I was looking for the place in the New Testament where Paul left someone sick and not healing that person. I did end up finding the answer.


2 Timothy 4:20
"Erastus stayed in Corinth, and I left Trophimus sick in Miletus"

From this passage of scripture, I see no apparent explanation for Paul not healing Trophimus. Trophimus was a trusted companion of Paul
(Acts 20:4;21:29). I believe this shows that every man has his appointed time.

Thanks to you and may God Bless

keenu

I think that the reason Paul (Saul) left him sick was that he (the one left) did not believe he could be made well. If you notice, that is THE key to being healed.
We actually heal ourselves but if a person believes that someone else can heal him then he will just believe that it was someone else and not himself.

Avatar

I once sort of believed that you could heal yourself. but the fact is, when you're sick, you're sick you accept it or not. And you are wrong, the key to Paul's ability to heal is God's power, not mind power.

Avatar

Joe, it's also a good possibility that he just had the flu or something similar not life threatening that Paul left him behind because he wasn't well enough to travel.

Berean_Christian

Actually it's inconsistent with proper Biblical exegesis to assume Trophimus was not healed. It is reading too much into the simple letter of Paul and extrapolating something that is not there. In addition there is actually a hint of evidence from the fragments of Hippolytus, a 2nd century Christian historian that preceeded Eusebius by almost 2 centuries. The fragment infers that he was healed. Hippolytus appears to number Trophimus as number 70 among the herd of 70 that followed Jesus, and were eventually won back to the Lord - most probably after Pentecost. But he also adds this, "Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul." Since we believe Paul was martyred by beheading by order of Nero in 67 A.D, certainly after he wrote 2 Timothy we can then infer Trophimus must have recovered from his illness in order to die along side Paul at the hand of Nero.
Regards, Berean