Jesus' Helpers' Office









 Jesus' Health Ministry:

.  Ensuring God, our healer's inclusion in any health endeavour:  as seen emphatically in Jesus.

.  Addressing current secular and Christian thoughts re health.

.  Looking at academic insights.



Finding health solutions, which God longs for us to apply, at his speed. As shown to us in Jesus.

(Accepting GOD'S epidemiology given to the world in the Israelite's (cohort)!)

(While accepting Israel's messiah!)

This consists of a foundational acknowledgement of our Father in Heaven as our healer (the source of our healing): in spirit and in truth: not just the symptoms, but the cause(s). It is not based on any denominational bias or present teaching, but endeavours to connect with the healing ministry of Jesus: as God would have it occur through those in this ministry. It does not negate any activity that upon testing is found to be of the spirit of God. It recognizes healing as part of the life of Jesus’ ministry and not its total ‘message’ or purpose. It submits in humble contrition to the leading of the spirit and the pleasure of God, in agreement with his word; accordingly giving God all glory and allowing him to accept all responsibility.  While ensuring his spirit alone has total dominion.


Of course all this needs to be within the context of those involved, the desire of those seeking healing (or those with authority over them) and their willingness to accept God’s involvement. As well as the capacity of those ministering, to allow their own selves also to be used by God: just as Jesus allowed himself to be used by God.


The fear of God and the testing of the spirits will be of ultimate priority here, as the lives of often vulnerable people will be involved.


Just as Jesus’ warned, there will also be a reaction to this ministry (as all other areas of Jesus’ life in us). Envy and hate are to be expected as ‘normal’ reactions from a world that is in varying degrees of rebellion against God’s inclusion in their lives.


In short, this is just part of that life-style that John the Baptist and Jesus were endeavouring to call us toward. It is, as with their world, up to our world as to how much they will accept the beauty of the fullness of this life-style (with its blessings) and how much they will reject it. In the context that God is patient and may well be willing to wait longer that we think’s reasonable.


There will need to be acceptance by all involved as to the limits placed by all on the fullness of the manifestation of the benefits of this life-style. This is seen well in Jesus’ ministry: including the disaster that resulted from his ‘world’s’ rejection of his ‘offer’. That is, there needs to be incorporated into this ministry, a fullness of the teachings of Jesus: and not just ‘smooth-sayings’ that are ‘pleasing to the ear’. In short, this ministry will incorporate the sharing of the truth in love.


There will be also remembrance of Jesus’ words: that we (his followers) would not only do the works he did, but greater. Accordingly, we will seek to not only impart healing; but encourage each recipient’s connection with God’s eternal healing and at very least, the fullness of the application of their healing on their lives, their debt to God for it and their appropriate and correct response. In short, their submission to God’s unique purposes in their own lives (the fulfilment of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ in them). It also needing to be acknowledged that the community that Jesus healed, crucified him.  None the less, we are to take up our cross daily and follow him.


That this work is foundational to evidence of the life of Jesus in us is perhaps given vivid support in Jesus’ declaration that the ultimate basis of eternal judgment will be our actions concerning those of his brethren who experienced need. Whether we fed those who were hungry, took strangers in, clothed the naked, visited those who were sick or in prison, or gave the thirsty drink. That is, the ultimate test of our true conversion to God’s way, his kingdom, is the demonstration of our love for the total health of those of Jesus’ brethren: in particular, their most basic emotional, spiritual and physical (health) needs. Thus this ministry needs due prioritisation, in due fear of the love of our father in heaven for his own.


There needs to be a discernment of those who are Jesus’ brethren and allocating priority of such service to them, while, as enabled going on to meet the needs of others also. That is, sharing Jesus’ health, in his love, as enabled by the grace of God (our healer).  While including by grace, acknowledgment that we are at varying phases in our pilgrimage from sin to repentance through sanctification to unity with Jesus and our father and fellow brethren.


It could be said this service accomplishes much of the directives of both old and new testaments: the keeping of the law, in spirit and in truth and Jesus’ commission to disciples. The benefits are great to mankind, yet crucifixion their response: forgiving them for their ignorance, in the love of Jesus, Amen.


In summary, this work involves the finding of health solutions, which God longs for us to apply, at his speed. As shown to us in Jesus. In short, a full submission to God’s unique purposes in one's life, the fulfilment of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ in their own life. This being of particular emphasis as we are by grace enabled.


u Tube recordings:


JESUS' Helpers' Office on U Tube: 

                                      GOD'S Beautiful Family English School:

                                      Jesus' Advocacy International:

                                      Jesus' Governing Party:

                                      Jesus' Helpers' Office introduction:

                                      Jesus' HO overall ministries summarized 28 January 2013:




Send cheques or money orders, or via Direct Deposits (or via any branch of relevant bank):



JESUS' Helpers' Office Trust Account: Commonwealth Bank of Australia, St James 202110564160 (BSB 062-021 Account number 1056 4160 Account title ROBERT GEORGE CHRISTIE ITF JESUSf HELPERSf OFFICE)


JESUS' Advocacy International: Australian and New Zealand Bank, BSB 012 110 Acct 2690 15125 (For every day usage covering all expenses concerning JESUS' Helpers' Office)


(Or come in a visit (make an appointment, or leave envelope via reception): 3 Spring St (room 14B level 13) Sydney NSW and hand deliver your donation.)


You can contact Jesus’ Helpers’ Office in Sydney, Australia

Phone: 0416 1855 08.


Post: C/- Jesus' Helpers' Office, GPO Box 783 Sydney 2001. 


Further secular evidence:





Secular readings that support scriptural intimations:


The demonstration of society’s impacts on individual health (Deuteronomy 28):



(These articles are evidence that the choices of a society impact individual health.  That is, we need to ensure the society we’re in:  is Jesus’.)


Baum, F. & Fisher, M. (2014). Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities. Sociology of Health & Illness, 36(2), 213-225.


Saan, H. & Wise, M. (2011). Enable, mediate, advocate. Health Promotion International, 26(suppl_2), ii187-ii193.


Brooks, B. (2015) Personal responsibility or shared responsibility: What is the appropriate role of the law in obesity prevention? Journal of Law and  Medicine, 23 (1): 106-120



 (To look to secular writings void of scripture has the potential of blocking the hearing of God's voice:  to miss prophetic warnings and the proven wisdom found in scripture.)





Need for legal intervention in obesity and many health issues (in Marketing abuses!) is acknowledged.  In-turn, all this demonstrates the need for law in life generally, followed by acknowledging that, itself is inadequate and looking further to subtleties of human condition (as gospel covers).


There is also the intimation that the keeping of laws in a genuine sense, is needed in the movement to success, where the avoidance of them is unhelpful (re healthy communities): demonstrated in Israel.  (Deuteronomy 28.)


(In general the Social determinants of Health (concept) is secular acknowledgment of the truth in Deuteronomy 28 and scriptural injunctions generally.  That is:  'The fundamental structures of social hierarchy and the social, economic and politically determined conditions that result in good health, ill health or disease, and in which people grow, live, work and age'. (Curtin Uni 'Glossary').  So, we need to ensure we are in a perfect culture for our health's sake:  Jesus' culture suited (the only option), where his (our) father, of all knowledge and capacity, is given liberty to be our healer, redeemer, savior, from all the consequences of the social determinants of health (otherwise controlling health-outcomes).)








The below essay and references demonstrate our garden of paradise that we are lured to defrock:




Present a coherent argument for the role of government in banning unhealthy food advertising



Industry has not helped in addressing the issues related to the advertising of unhealthy food, therefor, there is need for the role of government to be activated (with accompanying effectiveness). Initiatives by those in the industry has occurred to address these issues, but these endeavours did not address loopholes such as the technicalities of defining key terms such as ‘advertising’ and ‘unhealthy foods’ (Watson, Lau, Wellard, Hughes, & Chapman, 2017, p. 788). This resulted in little actual change regarding adverts regarding unhealthy foods, as found in a follow-up study: from initial initiatives in 2011 to 2015. (Watson, Lau, Wellard, Hughes, & Chapman, 2017, p. 789).  These results were in line with international experiences (Watson, Lau, Wellard, Hughes, & Chapman, 2017, p. 790), accompanied by the conclusion that no actual effectiveness was the conclusive outcome (Watson, Lau, Wellard, Hughes, & Chapman, 2017, p791).  In fact, it has been suggested that such commercial enterprises should be totally excluded in any endeavours regarding the advertising of unhealthy foods (Moodie et al., 2013, p. 670).  This deduction being caused to note that public regulation instituting market intervention presented as the only effective intervention capable of producing evidence-based harm-prevention measures (Moodie et al., 2013, p. 670).  Additionally, the industry are noted to undermine any endeavours re such issues (Moodie et al., 2013, p. 670). This undermining constituted the use of biased research findings, the co-opting of policy-makers deceptively, the lobbying of politicians and endeavours to persuade electorates (Moodie et al., 2013, p. 673-5).  All this culminated in marketing abuses ((Moodie et al., 2013, p. 675), while public regulations (void of industry involvements) made allowances for industry’s over-riding profit-making propensities, assisting the critical analysis of evidence-based data. (Moodie et al., 2013, p. 675-6). 



 What role should government take (reasonably, ethically)?  Should government implement a Nanny State controlling function that institutes censorship controls (Brooks, 2015, p. 106)? In essence:  who is responsible for unhealthy food consumption:  is consumer misinformation (Brooks, 2015, p. 107)?  When one considers the subtleties of influences that present as resulting in unhealthy-eating:  it has been found numerous comparisons with the alcohol and tobacco industries become apparent (Brooks, 2015, p.111).  General legal principles also need acknowledging re any intervention propositions:  social justice, individual rights, fair treatment of all stakeholders, etc. (Brooks, 2015, p. 112).  It has also been noted that in fact regulation may be less effective than taxation incentive (Brooks, 2015, p. 118). Another element of regulation is the need for its effectiveness:  there’ll be no complaints, requests to institute the law, when there is no knowledge of it (Morley et al.,2008, pp341-5).  Thus, calling for a greater active government involvement in the regulatory process generally (Morley et al., 2008, pp344-5).  Thus, government needs involvement yet with acknowledging the fulness of subtleties, not only regarding corporations but also the unique individual propensities of parents (Morley et al., 2008, pp344). 




Reference list


Brooks, B. (2015) Personal responsibility or shared responsibility: What is the

 appropriate role of the law in obesity prevention? Journal of Law and

 Medicine, 23 (1): 106-120


Watson, WL, Lau, V, Wellard, L, Hughes, C, Chapman, K. (2017). Advertising to

 children initiatives have not reduced unhealthy food advertising on

 Australian television, Journal of Public

Health, 39 (4): 787-792, doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx004


Morley, B, Chapman, K, Mehta, M, King, L, Swinburn, B, Wakefiled, M. (2008). Parental

 awareness and attitudes about food advertising to children on Australian

television, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public

 Health, 32 (4): 341-7, doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00252.x.


Moodie, R, Stuckler, D, Monteiro, C, Sheron, N, Meal, B, Thamarangsi, T, Lincoln, P,

 Casswell, S. (2013). Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of

 tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries, The Lancet, 381

(9867), DOI:






Make a free website with Yola