The gift of healing in 1 Cor 12:4-7 isn’t revelatory in function. It’s for edification, not revelation
I'm not sure if terms are being used in the same way, consistently, by various people in the discussion. I'm not saying the whole conversation is pure equivocation. But, taking off from the above statement...
Isn't it most reasonable to see that the Spirit's gifts are all bound up together, though individually/personally distributed through the body; and therefore they have a combined
function, singular, not purely discrete
functions. Moreover, each gift is not limited to one function; but clearly may do "double-duty," performing functions at various levels.
Healing in the nature of the case has not an either-or function. All one needs do is look at the healings performed by Christ, to note their
revelatory function. His healings also could not help but be edifying/strengthening to both individual recipients (and loved ones) and the church of the time; but in the Lord's own case conducting the healing was meant to draw all men to him, to cause them to put their faith in him and his words. Something similar can be said about the OT--the example of Naaman comes quickly to mind. The healing that he experienced (which Jesus himself takes note of) had as its primary purpose
revelation of the power of the true God.
When one puts the 1C church's healing gift into the context of the apostolic era, it's abundantly clear to me that--as with their Lord, immediately preceding in time--the presence of healing was one element among many for the validation of the word of the gospel apostolically proclaimed. The word, the agents of the word, and the church institution established by the word through the agents of it, to be its pillar and ground, were authenticated by a multiplicity of signs attesting to the reality of this great work of God in Christ.
And of course, anyone who was restored by the work of divine healing, directly attributable to known Spirit-intervention felt the contribution personally, experienced strengthening, as did those who beside him desired the same and fed of the work's fruit. When Eutychus was brought back to life, Act.20:9-12, "they were not a little comforted," i.e. edified. But the context of relating the healing
itself bears witness to the prioritized purpose for which the healing served, namely the apostle's preaching (vv7,9,11, the last v actually set between notice of the death and notice of the reanimation).
The message of healing in the Bible is one that says, "Physical healing is a good thing, especially for supporting and drawing attention to the need of everyone for spiritual healing." Our bodies are instrumental for us to glorify God, 1Cor.6:20, for which reason they must and will be raised again on the last day--healed for all time, purged of sin's corruption. God's power to heal is indivisible from the revelatory function of signs generally. Begin 1Cor.12:3, the chapter I previously mentioned presenting Paul's core doctrine of the gifts of the Spirit. From there, note the gifts are from "the same Spirit," vv8,9,11; and "one Spirit," v13, twice told.
The plea I'm making is that we should all recognize how the whole issue of the Spirit's gifts: extraordinary and ordinary, revelatory, edifying, glorifying, temporary, occasional, permanent--it is a complex matter, a rich matter, not usefully reduced to non-nuanced and contrary positions, requiring serious exegetical labor in 1Cor.12-14, and related biblical territory.
