Jesus and Healing
Teaching about Faith
Sometimes Jesus heals an individual in response to that person’s faith. Both Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the hemorrhage are explicitly declared to be healed as a result of their faith or of the faith of their loved ones (Mk 5:34, 36). Sometimes lack of faith prevents Jesus from healing, as at his hometown of Nazareth (Mt 13:58). Jesus similarly explains that his disciples were unable to exorcise a demon-possessed epileptic because of their lack of faith (Mt 17:20). Many Christians deduce from accounts like these that if a person could only generate enough faith, healing would always occur. But this does not follow. There is a balancing theme which pervades the Gospels as well. Frequently, healings occur where there is little or no faith in order to try to instill belief in Jesus as the Son of God. All of the healings in John have this as one purpose (Jn 20:31); sometimes it is pre-eminent (Jn 4:53–54). After Peter’s mother-in-law is cured of her fever, she serves Jesus (Mt 8:15). Jesus upbraids several of the cities in which he has worked miracles because they did not repent (Mt 11:20–24). So it is clear that miracles may be designed to produce faith where there is none; once that faith has developed, healings may be less necessary (cf. Jesus’ attitude to those who demanded signs to support their faith, Jn 4:48; 20:29).
Jesus’ Compassion
Although it seems a natural inference that one of Jesus’ main motives for healing would be his compassion for the sick, the Gospels state this explicitly only on rare occasions (e.g., Mt 14:14; 20:34). If compassion were a dominant motive, then presumably all sick people in his day (or in any other day) would have been healed, and this was patently not the case (cf. Jn 5:3–5 in which Jesus singles out only one of the many disabled people lying near the Bethesda pool). Jesus undoubtedly had compassion for all the sick, but the broader testimony of Scripture is that God’s power may be demonstrated at least as dramatically through people’s suffering as through their health. (In the Gospels the classic example is the passion and crucifixion of Christ; authentic discipleship also embraced the way of the cross [cf. Mk 8:31–35].)
Breaking Down Social Barriers
Frequently Jesus heals in such a way as to incur the anger of the Jewish leaders. He does not have to touch the leper to cleanse him, but does so deliberately to show that he is unconcerned with the ritual taboos that separated classes of people (Mk 1:41). He sends ten lepers to the priest for their cures to be confirmed, but only a Samaritan returns to give thanks; Jesus declares that one clean, leaving open the question of what happened to the other nine (Lk 17:11–19). The point is that the despised, outcast Samaritan is the hero; the social barriers Judaism had erected are being destroyed. Jesus praises a Syro-Phoenician woman for her faith and heals her daughter, demonstrating that his saving power is not to be limited to Israel (Mk 7:24–30). In each of these instances Jesus is preparing the way for the establishment of a broadly inclusive religious movement not bounded by barriers of race, sex or nationality.
Challenging Israel’s Law and Exposing the Nation’s Faithlessness
Closely related to the previous category are those examples of Jesus breaking the Sabbath laws (e.g., Mk 3:1–6; Lk 13:10–17; 14:1–6). He does not have to heal on the Sabbath; not one of the maladies he cures on that day is said to be life-threatening. But he shows that the restrictions regularly attached to Jewish Sabbath law were of human rather than divine origin. He praises the Roman centurion for a quality of faith superior to that which he has found anywhere in Israel and predicts that many Gentiles will replace many Jews in God’s kingdom (Mt 8:10–11). He laments the wickedness of the generation of Israelites in which he lives as contributing to the inability of his disciples to effect an exorcism (Mt 17:17). This is not a critique by a reformer but a condemnation by one who is in the process of inaugurating a new age in redemptive history, in which the laws of the Mosaic covenant cannot carry over unchanged.
Teaching about Sin
Two healings recorded in John juxtapose opposite perspectives on the relation ship between sickness and sin. After healing the man who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years, Jesus tells him, “Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you” (Jn 5:14). Here Jesus presumes the common Jewish view that illness was a punishment for sin. But later, when his disciples ask him why a certain man had been born blind, he denies that it had anything to do with the sin of either that man or his parents (Jn 9:3). Instead, it was to manifest God’s glory. Thus, sometimes healings undo a punishment for sin; other times there is no relation between health and obedience, or between sin and sickness, beyond the general observation that all evil came into the world through original sin.
Signs of the Kingdom and of the Messiah The Gospels nowhere distinguish between the meaning of Jesus’ miracles of healing and other kinds of miracles. When one studies all of the miracles of the Gospels, it becomes clear that their predominant purpose is to demonstrate the inauguration of the kingdom of God in the person and work of Jesus the Messiah (cf. esp. Betz and Grimm, Wenham and Blomberg). But an analysis of the healing miracles alone makes this point evident.
Several passages in the Gospels give an explicit rationale for Jesus’ healings. Jesus declares that his exorcisms prove that the “kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt 12:28). He sends the messengers from John the Baptist back to their imprisoned leader to tell him that the healing of the blind, lame, deaf and lepers and the resurrections from the dead answer John’s question about whether or not Jesus was “the one to come” (Mt 11:4–6). He heals the paralytic who was lowered through the roof, so demonstrating that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins, a prerogative reserved for God alone (Mk 2:10–11). Giving sight to the blind leads to Jesus’ claim to be “the light of the world” (Jn 9:5) just as raising Lazarus reinforces his pronouncement that he is “the resurrection and the life” (Mt 11:25). Numerous summary statements throughout the Gospel link his healing with his preaching as the two major foci of his ministry (e.g., Mt 4:23; 9:35; 21:14), summed up under the call to repentance “for the kingdom of God is near” (Mk 1:15).
In addition to these specific statements, several healing miracles point to the arrival of the messianic age more indirectly. When Jesus heals a deaf-mute, Mark describes the man as one who could “hardly talk” (Mk 7:32), an expression found in the LXX only in Isaiah 35:6, in which the prophet is describing the wonders of the age to come, including the fact that the “mute tongue” will “shout for joy.” The resurrection of the widow of Nain’s son (Lk 7:11–17) strikingly resembles Elisha’s raising the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8–37), especially since Nain was located on approximately the same site as ancient Shunem. Even the crowds pick up on the resemblance as they marvel at the “great prophet” (Lk 7:16) who has arisen among them (probably implying the ultimate, eschatological prophet, fulfilling Deut 18:18). The nature of Jesus’ messianic mission is clarified, in ways not particularly pleasing to his followers, when he heals Malchus’ ear which Peter has cut off (Jn 18:10–11). His will be the way of the cross, not resisting the suffering which God has ordained for him.
Challenges
In the modern western world many people do not believe in the miraculous healings of the Gospels because they think that science has disproved the possibility of miracles. Biblical miracles, however, by definition involve a supernatural God; if such a God exists, it is only logical to conceive of him as occasion ally choosing to transcend the laws of medicine and physics which normally govern the universe. Even today, after fervent prayer or the involvement of faith healers, many people recover from illness in ways which physicians cannot explain.
Other skeptics argue on philosophical grounds that the evidence or testimony for a miraculous healing could never outweigh the evidence in favor of some naturalistic explanation. But it is not obvious why this should be so; such logic actually requires excluding a much larger category of unusual events which human experience has nevertheless proved real (see Brown).
Still other critics argue on historical grounds that the picture of Jesus as healer must be understood as the vestige of a primitive world view which permitted many ancient teachers and leaders to have miracles ascribed to them. Unless one is prepared to accept the equally good testimony of other ancient writers to the thauma turgic powers of various rabbis (e.g., Hanina ben Dosa and Honi the Rain-maker), Greek philosophers and divine men (e.g., Apollonius of Tyana and Asclepius), and occasionally even a Roman emperor (e.g., Vespasian), one has no reason for believing the Gospels. This argument holds up to a point; there may well be other genuinely supernatural miracles in many periods of world history. God may well use unbelievers to serve his purposes, and the devil certainly employs counterfeit signs to serve his (see Richards). There may be extra-canonical, non-Christian accounts of healings which are true, but for the most part it is inaccurate to say that numerous other accounts have as much evidence in support of them as do the Gospel healings. And A. E. Harvey’s helpful survey of miracle stories in ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman sources demonstrates just how unique the Gospel accounts are both in style and significance.
Corroboration
Once antisupernatural bias is removed, the Gospel healing miracles actually satisfy the various historical criteria of authenticity quite well. There is good external evidence supporting them. Other portions of the New Testament refer back to Christ’s wonder-working powers (e.g., Acts 10:38; 1 Cor 15:4–8; Heb 2:4), and apocryphal Christian texts, while fancifully embellishing the accounts of Jesus’ ministry, nevertheless bear indirect testimony to his power to heal by focusing so much attention on this aspect of his career (see esp. the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Pilate). Non-Christian Jewish sources also recognize that Jesus was a healer. Both Josephus (Ant. 18.63–64) and the Talmud (b. Sanh. 107b) refer to his extraordinary powers, although the latter source attributes them to a demonic rather than a divine origin.
Internal evidence proves even more supportive. The miracles pass the dissimilarity test; although earlier Jews and later Christians apparently healed some people miraculously, with prayer to God and invocation of the name of Christ regularly featured in their attempts. While individual parallels can be identified for specific Gospel healings (cf. esp. Lk 7:11–17 with Philostratus The Life of Apollonius of Tyana 4.45), the overall directness, authority, simplicity and restraint of the accounts of Jesus’ healings are unique.
The healings satisfy the criterion of multiple attestation; they recur in all layers or sources of the Gospel tradition, and references to them appear in multiple forms as well (summary statements [e.g., Mk 3:7–12], dialogs [e.g., Mt. 11:1–6], controversy stories [e.g., Mk 2:1–12] as well as the numerous narrative accounts of the healings themselves).
They correspond to the Palestinian environment of the early first century; features like the use of spittle (Jn 9:6; Mk 8:23) in a therapeutic context, or the types of illnesses prevalent, all fit in well with the times and customs. Even as specific a detail as the description of the pool of Bethesda near the Sheep Gate having five porticoes (Jn 5:2), where Jesus healed a long-term invalid, has been corroborated by archeology.
Most importantly, the meaning of the healings, as already noted, is closely bound up with Jesus’ teaching about the presence of the kingdom of God. They thereby satisfy the criterion of coherence, fitting well with that body of sayings of Jesus most commonly held to be authentic.
Sociology
A major new development in the past decade of NT scholarship centers on sociological analysis. Jesus’ healings, no less than other portions of the Gospels, have been scrutinized not so much from a historical perspective, asking “What really happened?” as from a social-scientific perspective, asking “How did the stories of these events function in first-century society?” The work of H. C. Kee and G. Theissen has proved seminal here. They compare the Gospel accounts with stories of healings in other Greco-Roman contexts (e.g., of Isis or Asklepios) which were not necessarily ever viewed as entirely historical. Rather, the stories of healings functioned symbolically to affirm meaning, order and integration of reality in a world filled with conflict and suffering. Similarly, the Gospel healings should be viewed as symbolic ac counts which affirm, from a primarily rural, poor and uncultured perspective, the possibility of rescue, salvation and redemption in this life in a world of rapidly overturning geographical, economic and cultural norms.
The sociological method offers important insights into the function of miracle stories in the early Christian world. It is less clear that this method stands as strictly opposed to traditional historical methods as it alleges. The Gospel accounts remain tied to history in a way not entirely identical to various Greco-Roman parallels. If substantial portions of the Evangelist’s narratives, including stories of the miraculous, did not occur as described, the claims of Christianity to be built on a unique space-time incarnation of God would be undermined. But granted that Jesus did perform miracles, sociology can prove very beneficial in explaining why people continued to talk and write about them.
Significance for Today
The question of whether or not people living after NT times can expect miraculous healing has often polarized Christianity. At one end of the spectrum many argue that the miracles are unique and not to be repeated following the close of the apostolic age. Others expect them to be common in every age for those filled with the Holy Spirit and sufficient faith. In fact, the data of the NT supports neither of these extremes. Evidence reinforces both the claim that miraculous healings will appear in almost every age of church history and the observation that such healings will still be more the exception than the norm.
Evidence of Exceptionality
Though some would argue that there is healing in the atonement (Mt 8:17), clearly no one receives full physical healing until the life to come, since all die. There is good evidence, therefore, that supernatural, physical healing should be viewed as the exception rather than the rule in this life. Healings, like other miracles, are not uniformly spread throughout the pages of Scripture or periods of church history. They tend to be clustered around the initial stages of key advances in the knowledge of God’s Word and will—Moses with Pharaoh, Elijah and Elisha, Jesus and the next two centuries of church history, and sporadically throughout the Christian era until a substantial outpouring of the Holy Spirit has once again made healings well known in the twentieth century.
On the pages of the Gospels there is no indication that Jesus healed all or even a majority of the sick people in his day. He warns against those who would work counterfeit signs and wonders in his name (Mt 7:21–23), especially as the last days unfold (Mt 24:5). He refuses to work signs on demand and warns against an inappropriate dependence on the spectacular (Mt 12:38–42; Jn 4:48; 20:29). Even the most well-authenticated signs do not necessarily prove their divine origin (Mt 9:32–33; 12:22–24); Christian faith should therefore be based on a more solid foundation.
Some of the devil’s strongest temptations involved his encouraging Christ to rely on his miraculous power to avoid the way of suffering and the road to the cross (Lk 4:1–12). Gethsemane is the most powerful testimony in all of Scripture to the divinely ordained necessity of not always receiving protection from suffering (Lk 22:39–46). In his epistles Paul echoes this theology (esp. 2 Cor 4:7–18; 6:3–10). Not all receive or benefit from gifts of healing, and Paul personally and agonizingly learns the lesson that God’s grace is sufficient for him and that God’s power is made perfect in Paul’s weakness (2 Cor 12:8).
Conclusion
Miraculous healings can and do occur today. They are perhaps most prevalent in areas into which the kingdom of God is advancing for the first time, or for the first time in a long while. Exorcisms tend to occur most in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel in lands and areas in which Satan has long held sway and in which Christianity has not flourished. To the extent that Western societies continue to become more paganized, one may expect a continued revival of healings and exorcisms there as well. As Christian individuals and congregations mature, it may well be that the need for such miracles, as a testimony to a non-Christian culture of the truth and power of the gospel, will diminish. But Christians of all theological persuasions must scrupulously avoid dictating to God what he must do or what he cannot do. Ultimately, God’s Spirit blows where it wills, and no one can unerringly predict where his gifts of healing will break out (see Smedes).
BIBLIOGRAPHY. P. J. Achtemeier, “The Lukan Perspective on the Miracles of Jesus: A Preliminary Sketch,” in Perspectives in Luke-Acts, ed. C. H. Talbert (Danville, IL: AABPR, 1978) 153–67; E. Best, “The Miracles in Mark,” RevExp 75 (1978) 539–54; O. Betz and W. Grimm, Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu (Frankfurt a. M.: P. Lang, 1977); C. Brown, Miracles and the Critical Mind (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); R. T. Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988); B. Gerhardsson, The Mighty Acts of Jesus according to Matthew (Lund: Gleer up, 1979); J. B. Green, “Jesus and a Daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:10–17): Test Case for a Lucan Perspective on Jesus’ Miracles,” CBQ 51 (1989) 643–54; A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982); J. P. Heil, “Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in Matthew,” CBQ 41 (1979) 274–87; H. C. Kee, Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven: Yale, 1983); idem, Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times (Cambridge: University Press, 1986); R. Latourelle, The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles (New York: Paulist, 1988); J. Richards, Deliver Us from Evil (Lon don: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1974); L. Sabourin, The Divine Miracles Discussed and Defended (Rome: Catholic Book Agency, 1977); L. B. Smedes, ed., Ministry and the Miraculous (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, 1987); G. Theissen, Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983); H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965); D. Wenham and C. Blomberg, eds., Gospel Perspectives 6: The Miracles of Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986).
|
