How much is Jesus’ healing ministry a prophetic sign of the renewal of the covenant (a reversal of the curse of the covenant) rather than a normative expression of faith?

Andrew,

It is clear that his healing ministry is primarily a prophetic sign of the renewal of the covenant, for the majority of the healings can ‘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.’ (Victory 191, especially footnote 177)

If, however, as Wright also points out, this means that the healings must be seen as bestowing the gift of Shalom to those who lacked it, we must imaginatively explore the varied theological and devotional consequences this had for them and then ask if there is a parallel to our current historical moment. Further, Wright shows that Jesus’ working of miracles should be seen as the breaking in of the new order of the Kingdom of the creator God. The healings performed among Israel are a sign of what will happen for the whole world. This is highlighted particularly in his demonstrations of power over nature. His miracles then are to be seen as lived stories of the kingdom, which are stories of true exodus, and some in particular, such as the exorcisms, articulate the true exodus clearly as a deliverance from the oppression of Satan rather than deliverance from the oppression of Rome.

Wright points out Mark 5 as an example where Jesus does to Satan what the Jews wanted to do to Rome. So, regarding your question, I first want to say that so far I think that there were certain miraculous workings that we should not expect to be reduplicated on any large scale due to their first century purposes. Physical healings were fulfilling a particular objective for Jews suffering from maladies that put them in the same boat as those referred to in Deut. 23. And I think there is an argument that prophetic workings like the one in Acts 5 concerning Ananias and Saphira are to be understood as indicative of the hullabaloo of a new community trying not to loose its wits. But it seems that there would be a purpose for physical healing today as a sign that those we think are not blessed are often very much so because of their faith. A paraplegic that has been looked upon as foolish in her community for being outspoken about her faith when she herself ‘has not been blessed’ could become an agent of subverting the prevailing assumptions of the proud. (something is to be said about the power of her suffering too) Clearly healings today would not be achieving the first-mentioned purpose of Jesus’ healing in the New Testament. But so far I think it can be said that his incorporation of people into Israel was a step he went through on the way to enabling them to be Israel in the way they ought. And if any of those who are being called unto him in the 21st century find themselves hindered from being able to be the kinds of people they ought as ones incorporated into the Spirit-empowered children of Abraham, maybe healing is to be asked for. I would imagine that most of the time the healing necessary would not be physical in order for this to happen, but it is not inconceivable. What would be more likely would be something along the lines of what I hesitantly refer to as ‘inner healing’. This would include bringing the finger of God to bear upon ‘the bruised parts of the soul’ that have come about through abuse, or are self-inflicted through sin or foolishness, or are simply the result of growing up in an oppressive community of some sort. This, of course, is uncomfortable territory, for there have been many abuses in this area…and there is much that needs to be said about the import of various psychological theories and their acceptability in the community of God.

What does the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost mean within the narrative of judgment and renewal in the first century. There is a strong case for saying that the giving of prophetic gifts to the whole people (and not to the few) at this time has to do specifically with the coming judgment of Israel: it is precisely a sign of imminent judgment that not just a few isolated and misunderstood prophets will prophesy disaster but a whole community will see what God is doing in Israel.

(to Virgil too)I’m just learning how to interpret Daniel (any recommended reading would be appreciated) but I wonder if the sealing up of vision and prophecy has to do with Jesus being the last in the line of prophets like Jeremiah. This might lend itself to a view like Grudem’s, which I’m too unfamiliar with at this point to articulate fully, but which runs something along the lines of saying that New Testament prophecy is not the same as Old Testament prophecy. If this were the case, all being able to prophecy would not be all giving divinely inspired warnings of impending judgment, for that would be unnecessary. Speaking out to their neighbors warnings passed down from Jesus to the apostles and so forth might achieve the same ‘prophetic sign’ as stated in the second bullet point, especially if the communities saying this is were known for serving and suffering with the poor, among other counter-cultural distinctives.

Thinking about the dialectic identity of Christ-like suffering and new creation/new humanity is exciting. I need to work on that one more before I say anything…but I love it.

Virgil,

Regarding 1 Corinthians 13:8, I agree with Thiselton that the issue of cessation, in light of the greek work (pages 1060-1065 of his NIGTC) ‘must be determined on other grounds than exegetical discussions of this verse’, meaning ‘all that is clear [from 8-13] is that these gifts cease at the eschaton’ and, citing Barth, ‘the one form of Christian action which does not require, and is not subject to, transformation into another, higher, and future form’ is love. Obviously, as you also seem to believe, the issue is therefore ‘eschaton’ or ‘the perfect’.

I’m gonna have to go ahead and say that Paul has in mind consummation. My argument will have to come tomorrow, however. I’m drained.