Subject: Divine Healing? |
Bible Note: Jesified, I argue that the biblical evidence affirms that present-day Christians have the same type of divine authority over sicknesses and demons that the apostles had. The authority to heal had never been retracted, but it is available to Christians in every generation. For example, we have a record of the commission of Jesus to all believers: "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well" (Mark 16:15-18). Some have argued that this passage only applies to the apostles, who Jesus was directly addressing. However, it is strange that they would make this claim when none of them hesitates to apply Matthew 28:18-20 to all Christians, where Jesus also commissions his disciples, but without the explicit mention of miracles: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." What is the difference between Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20? If the former only applies to the apostles, then how can we say that the latter does not? This "pick-and-choose" style of hermeneutics reflects not an honest interpretation of the Scriptures, but a hypocritical and disobedient attitude. Mark 16:17 clearly states that miracles will follow "those who believe," with no mention of which generation one must live in, or whether one is an apostle. Another objection raised against this passage in Mark 16 is that it is not supposed to be in the Scriptures at all! Many who hold to this view would assert that the passage was added to the end of Mark by an editor in the second century, and it reflects the common practice at that time. I think that the evidence fails to confirm this, but we will not take the time to explore it in detail. What we may say is that, if this passage was added in the second century, it would not carry the same level of divine authority, but it would still be true for us. This is because the original apostles had died by the second century, and if this passage reflects the common practice of that day, then it is one evidence confirming the fact that miracles were not only meant for the apostles, but also the subsequent generations of Christians. Nevertheless, as I have stated, it seems that the evidence does support the inclusion of this passage in the Gospel of Mark. In the final analysis, it is a devious practice to deny passages that one finds difficult to accept as not applicable, and accept all the others, when all of them have the same standing within the Scriptures. Jesified, you have posted well, keep doing what God has called you to do. 1Cor.15:57-58. God bless |