N. T. Wright on the Purposes of Jesus' Healings

Yesterday I did a post interacting with N. T. Wright and a bit of the debate on his use of history in theology and interpretation.  Today I wanted to share some words from him where he brings the first century historical setting to bear on a matter of interest to many of us, and where this historical background is particularly helpful.

For those who are not familiar with Wright, he places a huge emphasis on Jesus as the redeemer of Israel, the one who is bringing restorating Israel from the exile, and who is redefining what that redemption looks like and is reconstituting what it means to be an Israelite (i.e. the inclusion of the Gentiles).  With that in mind on page 191 of his book Jesus and the Victory of God he says this about Jesus' healing ministry:

For a first-century Jew, most if not all the works of healing, which form the bulk of Jesus' mighty works, could be seen as the restoration to membership in Israel of those who, through sickness or whatever, had been excluded as ritually unclean.  The healings thus function in exact parallel with the welcome of sinners, and this, we may be quite sure, was what Jesus himself intended.  He never performed mighty works simply to impress.  He saw them as part of the inauguration of the sovereign and healing rule of Israel's covenant god.

Later in the same chapter Wright will go on to suggest that this explains why Jesus performed miracles for Gentiles and for a Samaritan - they "bear witness to the inclusion within the people of YHWH of those who had formerly been outside."  Further, after detailing many of the healings of Jesus, Wright says:

The effect of these cures, therefore, was not merely to bring physical healing; not merely to give humans, within a far less individualistic society than our modern western one, a renewed sense of community membership; but to reconstitute those healed as members of the people of Israel's god.  In otehr words, these healings, at the deepest level of understanding on the part of Jesus and his contemporaries, would be seen as part of his total minstry, specifically, part of that open welcome which went with the inauguration of the kingdom - and, consequently, part of his subversive work, which was likely to get him in trouble.

I don't know at this point if I want to say that Wright's words advance the discussion on the place of what we call "charismatic gifts" in the contemporary church.  And the only reason I have this hesitation is that this is a good example of where a particular historical paradigm dominate his theology, and it may be that a proper use of the analogy of faith, or the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, would yield some different, or at least modified results.

Having said that, I think at the least Wright provides another avenue of discussion here.  Most discussion centers around the continuation or non-continuation of the gifts (do a search on the words "charismatic" or "cessationist" on my blog or Arian Warnock's blog and you'll get more stuff than you'll want to read on that matter).  Continuationists insist that the so-called "charismatic gifts" continue throughout this age until the return of Jesus and that there is no biblical warrant for saying they have ceased.  Non-continuationists or cessationists believe they had a particular function in the first century that doesn't apply today.   Cessationists generally believe that these gifts were for the purpose of "attestation," they attested to the fact that Jesus was who He said He was, and they attested to the apostles authority as bearers of divine revelation.

Wright takes a different route here, at least in regards to the miracles of Jesus, seeing them as one part of His vocation to reconstitute Israel.  He is suggesting that, if we carefully look at the healings in the gospels we will see that the emphasis is not on the restoration of the individual to health, but on the restoration of the individual to membership in the reconstituted Israel of God.

Since I just read this yesterday I haven't fleshed it all out, but it does intrigue me.  If Wright is correct here then the healings of Jesus are not merely for the sake of health, nor are they merely an act of love or mercy.  They serve an evangelistic purpose in that they removed the things that made people ritually unclean.

This will cause me to read the stories of healing differently from now on.  It is interesting that you don't see Jesus healing people of colds and flu's and bad backs and sprained ankles - if Wright is correct He heals specific people of specific diseases that made them ritually unclean, not merely unhealthy.  And so what would that say to or about those who practice charismatic healing ministries today?

Quick Update - after posting this I was reading some of the miracle stories of Jesus in Matthew 8-9 and there is one which could seemingly go against what I have written here, and what Wright has suggested.  In Matthew 8:14-15 Jesus heals Peter's mother of a fever and I can't think of a reason she would have been ritually unclean because of that fever.  On the other hand, if we take Matthew 8:1-17 as a unit then you can see that the healing of Peter's mother is of a piece with the healing of the demon possessed and sick in verse 16.  If so, then the explanation for why Jesus healed them is given in verse 17:

This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities an carried our diseases." (NIV)

This is a part of the larger story in Isaiah 52-53 of the suffering servant.  So, it appears that the healing of Peter's mother and others here in Matthew 8 are for the purpose of authenticating Jesus as the suffering servant, the redeemer of Israel. 

I offer that thought so that we aren't too quick to say "see, Jesus healed a fever that was not a cause of ritual uncleanness, thus your point (and Wright's point) is invalid."  It may still be the case that this healing of Peter's mother can be seen as a part of the overall program, where healings are not merely for the sake of health, but a means of the restoring and reconstituting Israel.

Comments

[Kyle]

Wow! Now that's a new lense to view things through! The ramifications, especially on the charismatic/cessationist debate, could be immense!

[David Wayne]

Kyle - my sentiments exactly!

[Phil Walker]

In one sense, I'd always understood the healing of lepers and the like as being restoration to Israel (see, for instance, Jesus' repeated instructions to "show yourself to the priest"; links to Leviticus are also hard to ignore), but of course, it takes Tom Wright to bring out the significance of that.

It certainly helps me see how the preaching of the Gospel from the miracles of Jesus is helped (you may think it odd, but I find that the gospels, and particularly the miracles, are the hardest things for me to understand).

[pgepps]

I think that if I were a contemporary charismatic (which I'm not--I'm a very-not-strict cessationist), I would want to claim that the work of restoration continues; that the kind of logic here applied to Christ's works in the body would apply to the works of Christ's Body.

I'm not sure this advances the discussion, much, in that regard.

However, it does add another dimension to our consideration of Jesus' miracles--in addition to compassion and signification, we have the restoration of those excluded from fellowship. Good thoughts, though I think I agree that Wright's lens seems too narrowly focussed, here.

Cheers,
PGE

[Mark E. Stabenhouser]

This is a well written article. our Lord Jesus Christ did in fact peform so meany miracles that no page is large enough to record them all. i found a site that explains this better than i can. hope you will be able to read them.
http://unicef1.blogspot.com/

http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/starcom2/

[Mark Horne]

FYI, if you look at Mark's Gospel in chs 1-2, you have:

#. Casting out "unclean Spirit"
* Raising up Simon's mother in law from bed.
# Cleansing Leper
* Raising paralytic to rise, take up his bed, and walk.

The miracle of Simon's mother in law ends with her showing them hospitality. The next story after the paralytic is the calling of Levi and then receiving hospitality from Levi with his friends. When challenged on this, Jesus makes a pretty clear reference to the healing of the paralytic. He proved he could forgive by healing. To his opponents he says that he is the physician called to heal the sick = have fellowship with sinners.

All this is to say that one could argue that this ABAB pattern strongly emphasizes healing as restoration to table fellowship and service. The language of "unclean" would automatically have such connotations and the stories of healings and then eating would back up the same point. The story of Simon's Mother in Law would be the seed that gets to become more elaborate in the story of the paralytic and Levi's table.

I wrote a book about this awhile back.

[David Wayne]

Mark - what's the title of your book?

[Dave Rattigan]

Are you trying to pin heresy on Warnock?

Or was "Arian Warnock" a typo? :¬D

[Mark Horne]

The Victory According to Mark / Canon Press

[Eric Blauer]

It seems to me that a good deal of the miracle ministry of Jesus was predominantly a compassionate ministry of Justice for the poor. A perspective I don't hear that much. The gospel was good news for the poor spiritually and physically. Acceptance, inclusion, demonstration of deity etc all seem to be present in the overall works but for the poor guy unable to care for his kids...it was good news indeed! He could go back to work, fend off the oppressive rich, gain his dignity back, care for others and live out the reality of loving one another.

[Chong]

David,

Very interesting post. According to Jesus’ own words, the miracles did provide proof that he came from the Father. The Cessationist may argue that such proof was only necessary to establish Jesus’ divinity and apostolic authority, but what about throughout the church age? Jesus came and preached the message of the kingdom of God. And the miracles attracted the audience and authenticated the message.

A while back as I was giving this matter some thought, I wondered if the message of the gospel would go forth with greater power today if accompanied by miracles. Obviously it would. As with Jesus and the apostles, it would show that the message is not from man, but from God. And sometimes I think that’s what we need in this postmodern world—where every man has a message and they’re all considered equally valid. So miracles would provide proof that what we offer is supernatural. But what would that look like? I tend to be skeptical when I hear of modern-day miracles. But I have heard of them—particularly among missionaries. I would be very reluctant to believe in the legitimacy of preaching engagements that promise miracles. But I do believe that the Spirit still performs miracles (as He wills) and may do so in conjunction with some larger missionary effort. And I still wonder if it is a lack of faith on my part in not expecting the same when I’m sharing the gospel.

I also wanted to note that the miracles did not only serve to attest to Jesus’ divinity. They served a variety of purposes—not the least of which was to show love and compassion.

Shalom,
Chong

[Peter Smythe]

I know that this is just an excerpt, but Wright appears to mystify the concrete. I do not see anywhere in the account of the woman with the issue of blood where she was concerned about becoming a member of the community. She heard and took her healing before Jesus even recognized who she was.

Acts 10:38 plainly states that everyone that Jesus healed was oppressed in some measure by Satan. Hebrews 2:14 says that he came to annul the works of the devil. Theologians may want to philosophize about this and that, but for the sick, that is the bottomline.