[THE301: To what extent should the healing ministry of Jesus be taken as a model for healing ministry today?]

Abstract

This essay contends that Jesus never intended his ministry to serve as a paradigm for future generations. Various schools of healing claim to ‘follow the example of Jesus’, yet do things that, according to the Gospels, Jesus never did. Moreover, because of the radical differences in ancient and (post)modern culture, this is to be expected. Even taking into account passages apart from the four Gospels and other ancient texts, we are left in my opinion with too many gaps in methodology. Nevertheless, there are certain principles we can take away and apply to contemporary healing ministries, and this is in my opinion the extent to which we can use Jesus’ healing ministry as a model.

“[T]here is no such thing as an identical repetition, for though thesignifier may be the same, the occasion of its utterance, its context, isnot… Derrida sees no reason why the so-called “original” context should be more privileged than another.”

(Vanhoozer, K., “Scripture and Tradition”, pp.156-7)

INTRODUCTION

Indeed, why should it? As well as being a fundamental query of postmodern

hermeneutics, Derrida’s question has implications for contemporary healing ministry.1

Many claim that Jesus’ healing ministry is a paradigm, something to be emulated and

followed.2 But why should it be? Can it be? Was it ever even meant to be? The opinion

of this author is that, though the reasons are honest, faithful and heartfelt, attempting to

use Jesus’ healing ministry as a practical model ultimately results in:

1. An incoherence in hermeneutical methodology;

2. Serious cultural, pastoral and social concern issues;

3. A formulaic and ritualistic approach to healing.

1 Or ‘healing hermeneutics’, if one will. I admit here that I am taking Derrida’s original question out of its

immediate context of literary theory; however, given what Derrida thinks about ‘original’ context, I think

it’s fair to say he gives us free reign to do so! 2 Buller, C. A., “Healing Hope”, p.86; Dye, C., Healing Anointing, pp.48-9,54-5; Thomas, J. C., The Devil,

Disease and Deliverance, pp.129,188; Woolmer, J., Healing and Deliverance, pp.77,114-5.

However, as a pedagogic model, as something that teaches us about principles of healing,

these problems are for the most part resolved. I will not pretend that all the problems

disappear – a brief exploration of possible issues arising will be made towards the end of

this essay – but this approach to Jesus’ healing ministry is more coherent and more

realistic.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.1 – HERMENEUTICS

Treating the healing ministry of Jesus as a practical paradigm creates the major problem

of deciding what Jesus actually did. Take, for example, the Gospel accounts of the

healing of Simon's mother-in-law (Mk. 1:30-31; Lk. 4:38b-39). Did Jesus rebuke the

fever (Lk. 4:39), or not? Did he help up Simon's mother-in-law (Mk. 1:31), or not? If we

take a redaction-critical approach to the texts, Mark is out to demonstrate the power of

Jesus,3 as the explosive start of his gospel shows. As well as the continual and

characteristically Markan use of eu0qu_v (e.g. 1:10,12,18,20,23,29 etc.), Jesus says

everything about the Kingdom of God by not saying a word when he heals Simon’s

mother-in-law. By contrast, Luke has Jesus rebuke (e0peti&mhsen) the fever. The end

result is the same, but the methodology is different.4

One also needs to bear in mind the impact of the ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus.

Crossan describes Jesus as a “magician”5 rather than a ‘healer’, and backs this up with

examples of contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic magic6 (e.g. Hanina ben Dosa, Simon

Magus). The Jewishness of Jesus, and also that of the NT, has also been reasserted

through this most recent quest.7 Other literature apart from the canonical Gospels, such

as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gos. Thom. etc., are used to glean what information one can

about the ministry of Jesus and also about the possible influences behind the Gospel

writers. It is telling, however, that outside of the canonical Gospels there is hardly any 3 Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27-16:20, p.134-5; see also Haber, S., “A Woman’s Touch”, pp.183-4,191-2 & esp.

p.189. 4 It could also be argued that Luke, the gospel for the disenfranchised, has the woman get herself up as a

sign of liberation. I admit though that this pushes the text perhaps a little too much! 5 Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus, pp.304-310. 6 Crossan’s view here is itself an appropriation of Morton Smith’s work in his book Jesus the Magician (c.f.

Powell, M. A., The Jesus Debate, pp.64-6; Turner, M., The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, pp.242-3 fn.11). See

also Gnilka, J., Jesus of Nazareth, p.114; Ralphs, V., “Miracles in Luke-Acts”, pp.45,64-70. 7 E.g. Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew.

information about the healing ministry of Jesus – more than probably due to Gnostic

influence from the early second century CE onwards.8 Amidst all this uncertainty about

who the historical Jesus was and what it was that he actually did, one thing is certain:

“[t]he omission of Jesus’ healing ministry has to be ruled out simply because of the

extent of the relevant material.”9

Adopting a redaction-critical approach, and taking on board the ‘Third Quest’, if each

Gospel was written to a specific community,10 then the narrative would have addressed

different attitudes and situations within that community, thereby having a didactic

purpose. John’s Gospel especially has been seen like this for quite some time now (c.f.

Jn 1:1-18; 20:31),11 and recent redaction-critical studies on the synoptics say the same

thing.12 So, narratives such as Jesus healing the paralytic in Mk. 2:1-12, or the boy with a

demon in Mt. 17:14-21 (& pars.) serve to teach about two main aspects; namely, the

person of Jesus, and the attitude his followers should have.13 This does not mean the

Gospels are ahistorical; rather, the authors have interpreted historical events and used

them to teach their intended hearers about these two aspects. One can no longer see the

Gospels as straightforward literal history.

In light of all this, there are massive hermeneutical problems when one sees the healing

ministry of Jesus as something to be emulated:

i) The emphasis on the practical results in a separation of theory and practice.

Unavoidably, this results in incoherence and a privileging of the experiential

8 The only specific literature I could find was The Abgar Legend (c.f. Schneemelcher, W. [ed.], New Testament

Apocrypha Vol. 1, pp.492-500), and since the proposed date for this is the end of the third century CE

(p.496), it cannot be used as anything approaching reliable! 9 Gnilka, op. cit., p.112. 10 The overriding opinion of most scholarship; though see Bauckham R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians

for another view. 11 Thomas, op. cit., p.129; also pp.188,305. On the Johannine community, see Brown, R. E., The Community

of the Beloved Disciple. Along the same lines, D. A. Lee sees Jn. 9 as a symbolic rather than literal narrative

(The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel, pp.161,182,185; also Crossan, op. cit., pp.325-6). As well as this,

John’s Jewishness has been recently reasserted: c.f. Balfour, G., “Is John’s Gospel Antisemitic?”, passim. 12 E.g. Beavis, M. A., Mark’s Audience, pp.58,66-7; Rhoads, D., Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel, pp.61-2. 13 Warrington, K., “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”, p.351.

over the biblical. ‘Healing crusades’14 are an excellent example of this: what

tends to happen is that the experience becomes entirely separate to the

teaching ministry, which is unequivocally not what Jesus did;15

ii) By seeing Jesus as a paradigm, the contemporary reader of the Gospels does

two things subconsciously:

1. Assumes that their interpretation of scripture has

remained constant throughout history;

2. Treats ancient Graeco-Roman culture as identical to

contemporary culture.

Both these things are demonstrably wrong. Cultures may share

characteristics, but whereas our culture16 sees (e.g.) the healing of the blind as

merely a miracle, in Jesus’ time it was associated (in Jewish terms) with the

coming of God’s Kingdom – see, for example, Mk. 8:22-26; 10:46-52 (c.f. Isa.

29:19 LXX; 35:5 LXX; 61:6 LXX).17 Logically, then, the interpretation of

healing the blind has changed over time: the feat has gradually lost its Jewish,

messianic connotations. Since we are not the original audience of any Gospel

text, it seems foolhardy to expect the texts to have meant the same to their

original audiences as they do to us now;

iii) If Jesus’ ministry is paradigmatic, then how do we approach those situations

where we have no example of Jesus to follow, or, worse still, situations Jesus

never had to address? Where, for example, is Jesus’ praxis for the healing of

AIDS sufferers? It seems better to treat Jesus’ ministry as having pedagogic

value: to parallel the ancient stigma of leprosy with the contemporary stigma

of HIV and observe that Jesus taught inclusion of the ‘outcast’.

14 E.g. those of Benny Hinn (http://www.bennyhinn.org/). See also the Ghanaian “healing centres”

described by O. Onyinah (“Matthew Speaks to Ghanaian Healing Situations”, pp.138-40). 15 Petts, D., “Healing and the Atonement”, pp.110-116 (esp. p.114); Stein, R. H., Jesus the Messiah, pp.142-

3,178. 16 I speak exclusively within my Western-European experience, and thus admit that the situation could be

different in other, non-Western, cultures. However, I still think one would be hard pushed to find a

Christian culture that treats the Jewish heritage of the NT with any degree of seriousness as far as praxis

goes. 17 Stein, op. cit., p.128. R. A. Guelich sees 8:22-26 as a “pericope that accent[s] the disciples’ lack of

perception” (Mark 1-8:26, p.433-4) – an interpretation that fits in nicely with what I suggest above.

iv) Finally, it is proposed that, since Jesus authorised the Church to imitate his

healing ministry (Mt. 10; Lk. 9:1-6; 10:1-24), that is what we should do.18

This proposal is by no means clear; the immediate context of, for example,

Mt. 10 is that only the twelve were given any authorisation. “Either [Jesus’]

authority is delegated or it is not; to be left with an uncertain paradigm is no

paradigm at all.”19 Perhaps we synthesise Pauline thought with the Gospels –

but we should then acknowledge that we are adding to Christ’s methodology!

In summary, it seems that a redaction-critical, pedagogic approach to Jesus’ healing

ministry is best, rather than a paradigmatic approach.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.2 – CULTURAL, PASTORAL AND SOCIAL CONCERN ISSUES

Some brief, elementary logic will quickly make clear my concerns:

CBA ⇒∧ , where: A. Jesus healed all who came to him for healing.20

B. Contemporary healers often fail.

C. There are many tough social issues in contemporary

healing.

For those who claim Christ’s ministry as a practical model, this poses a large problem. If

Jesus had a 100% record, why do none of his followers? Why is it that, seemingly so

often, people pray for healing in faith, do everything ‘by the book’, and nothing happens?

Of course, those who see Jesus’ healing ministry as a practical model have ‘solutions’ to

this intransigent problem, so let us examine these to see if they a) match up to Jesus’

ministry and b) actually solve the problem.

18 Thomas, op. cit., p.188 (though his inductive reasoning is, to my mind, unsound); contra Warrington, op.

cit., pp.45-8,348-9; Dickinson, R., God Does Heal Today, p.31. 19 Warrington, “The Role of Jesus as Presented in the Healing Praxis and Teaching of British

Pentecostalism: A Re-Examination”, p.88. 20 Ibid., p.79; Dickinson, op. cit., p.24. In the NT, there is not even a hint of Jesus ever failing to heal

someone who came to him (esp. Mt. 4:23-24; though c.f. the Markan ‘partial’ healing [8:22-26]).

One proposed ‘solution’ is the theory of beneficial suffering.21 Some people are not healed

because either their ailment/suffering enables them to better serve God, or they may be

able to better share the Kingdom with those in similar situations (e.g. cancer patients,

wheelchair users). However, this ‘solution’ only appears to cause more problems:

i) Jesus taught no such thing as beneficial suffering, and his healings were

immediate.22 The whole idea seems, to my mind, like a charismatic version of

the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance; ironic, considering the

judgemental attitude towards Catholicism that I have seen and experienced in

more than a few conservative charismatic circles;23

ii) Gal. 4:13 is often used as a proof-text for beneficial suffering,24 but though it

may lend biblical sanction to such an idea, this is a non-Gospel addition to

the healing methodology of Jesus. Indeed, according to Acts (again, non-

Gospel) even the apostles deviated from Jesus’ methods (Jesus did nothing

approaching Ac. 13:4-12). As such, the hermeneutics of people who preach

beneficial suffering yet claim to follow the ministry of Jesus and ‘do what

Jesus did’ are inadequate and incoherent (see above);

iii) Beneficial suffering runs a high risk of being a callous and insensitive

dismissal of the legitimate problems of an individual.25 It may also result in

what could be termed ‘experiential atomisation’ of Christian social work: e.g.

“Oh, we’ll send someone with HIV to minister to others with HIV, because

they know what it’s like to live with it.”26

21 C.f. Woolmer, op. cit., pp.377-80; Bonnke, R., Mighty Manifestations, pp.155-6. Also see Petts, op. cit.,

pp.251-62 for an examination of Gal. 4:13; 2 Cor. 12:7; 2 Tim. 4:20; 1 Tim. 5:23; & Philp. 2:27. 22 Warrington, “Major aspects of healing within British Pentecostalism”, p.45; Onyinah, op. cit.,

pp.136,143. (The very short time-span involved in Mk. 8:22-26 means that this healing was effectively

immediate.) 23 I make no apologies for this statement. Quite frankly, I find it obscene that some Christians have the

nerve to call into question the salvation of others purely based on the church they belong to. 24 Woolmer, op. cit., pp.139ff. 25 Contra Biser, E., “The Healing Power of Faith”, pp.76-8. I can empathise with Biser’s programme of

therapeutic theology, but I remain unsure that his pessimism (esp. pp.77-8) provides a meaningful way

forward. 26 Of course, this then (in part) fosters the attitude among (e.g.) HIV sufferers that only people who share

their experience can say anything meaningful to them (c.f. West, M., “The Gift of Voice, the Gift of

Tears”, esp. pp.149-51 and the concept of “wounded healers”). Did Christ share the physical experience

In short, though the intentions are well-meaning, the oxymoron of beneficial suffering is

insufficient as a ‘solution’, both practically and biblically. To say that sometimes God

needs to heal our pride or develop our patience27 is, while true in some cases, to fudge

the issue given our logical statement above.28 (This does, of course, also step further

away from the Gospel accounts!) What, then, of the view that we can establish certain key

practical principles from Christ’s ministry?

i) This ‘solution’ is exemplary of that which I will later say is unhelpful – vis-à-vis

the desire to pin Jesus’ ministry down to a ‘by the book’ list of things to do

and not to do;

ii) It also implicitly says that any attempted (re)construction of the healing

ministry of Jesus will be deficient and have holes in methodology. For

someone claiming to ‘do what Jesus did’, this again leads to incoherent

hermeneutics (see above). To claim, as Ma does, that a contemporary healing

ministry is “just like the early church”29 is misleading at best and absurd at

worst;

iii) However, this approach (contra beneficial suffering) allows in part for Jesus’

healings to be seen as having didactic purpose.30 After all, principles can only

be established on what the Gospel texts teach us!

iv) Constructing such a list would also involve a certain amount of

autobiography, a certain amount of our own socio-cultural influences and

experiences. This is a positive thing, in the sense that we should prioritise

those principles which have the most benefit for where we are in the world,31

and contextualise them in light of this.

of leprosy (Lk. 5:12-16)? Clearly not – yet Christ was still meaningful. Thus, the ‘experiential atomisation’

resulting directly from beneficial suffering runs utterly counter to the ministry of Jesus! 27 Dye, op. cit., pp.192-3; Bonnke, op. cit., p.154. 28 Sargeant, A. J., “Healing and the Church”, pp.15-7 makes this point – to say that some healings are

instant, some take time and others only occur on the spiritual level pretty much covers all eventualities! 29 Ma, J. C., “Manifestation of Supernatural Power in Luke-Acts and the Kankana-eys Tribe of the

Philippines”, p.119. Cultural issues are at play here – I have already argued that it could be considered

foolhardy to expect the Gospels to mean the same in our culture as they did for the culture of their original

audiences. Ma seems to fall into this carefully-laid exegetical trap. 30 E.g. Warrington, “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”, p.313. 31 Onyinah (op. cit.) provides us with a good example of this.

Perhaps it would be worth picking up on the distinction made by Pilch between ‘healing’

(socio-cultural) and ‘curing’ (biomedical).32 Is it possible that we read and translate the

Gospels with our idea of ‘healing = curing’? I find it unlikely – it is very hard and a little

silly to counter-intuitively read texts like Mt. 9:18-26 (v.22: “instantly the woman was

made well”)33 – but pastorally, the socio-cultural aspect should be no less important than

the biomedical in contemporary healing ministries. Whatever approach we take, it seems

that the contextualisation of established principles points in the right direction as far as

taking the healing ministry of Jesus as a model for today goes.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.3 – RITUALISM

This problem has been previously alluded to above. There is a fine line between

outlining easily-contextualised principles (as I advocate) and ritualistic tick lists, though

the two may seem worlds apart. For example, Peter uses the name of Jesus to heal the

crippled beggar in Ac. 3:1-10 – and it works! Great! It then becomes something to be

aware of and that the Holy Spirit may prompt you to do in the future.34 But to then use

the ‘name of Jesus’ (or ‘the blood’ etc.) every time one prays for healing in a quasi-

magical, ‘foolproof’ way is absurd – especially in a postmodern world, where it is widely

acknowledged that everyone is unique and difference is celebrated.

As a direct result of the ‘name of Jesus’ healing theology, popularised by those such as

Hagin35 and Hinn, God is no longer asked to heal someone: he is demanded. Christ’s name

is used “magico-sacramentally”;36 the modern consumer attitude has infiltrated healing

ministries.37 Such manipulative concepts are totally absent from Jesus’ ministry;38 thus,

32 Pilch, J. J., Healing in the New Testament, pp.59,142. 33 Another argument against Pilch’s position is that he appears to criticise reading the Gospels with a

supernatural bias, yet simultaneously fails to realise that his scientific way of reading is just as biased! 34 Dye, op. cit., p.190. 35 Who is severely criticised in Warrington, “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”,

pp.74-129. 36 Idem, “Healing and Kenneth Hagin”, p.133. (It would certainly be an interesting exercise to compare the

incantations of ancient Graeco-Roman religion with the rhetoric of some contemporary healing ministries!) 37 Ibid., p.137. 38 Onyinah, op. cit., p.140-41.

ritualism and legalism only serve to reinforce the differences between contemporary

healing ministries and Jesus’ healing ministry.

On an autobiographical note, I tend to leap on the defensive when prayer for healing is

happening, and shudder at the laissez-faire attitude of mechanistic and ritualistic prayer.

Even so, I can’t help but wonder: is this somehow the end result of seeing Jesus’ ministry

as something to be blindly emulated? If we can claim that Christ had a method to

follow, that this method is the most successful, and that he delegated his authority to all

his followers, then can we expect anything else but legalistic prayer and methodology?

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Firstly, as an aside, I would personally like to see healing theology take on board the

concepts of T. Martin,39 who exegetes scripture in light of ancient physiognomy and

medicine. We often forget that ancient ideas can be quite dissimilar to our own, so

anything which brings us closer to the culture of the original audience is to be applauded.

Secondly, Warrington’s critique of Hagin is scathing (and, in my opinion, well deserved!),

but there is one sentence in particular that I would like to pick up on:

“[A]lthough [Hagin] claims to be following the model represented by

Jesus, he frequently deviates from it, offering a deviant and defective

healing matrix.”40

The point is that we all fall into this trap: even biblically, it is unavoidable for us to do

anything else other than deviate from paradigmatic models of Jesus’ healing ministry.

Prayer for healing hardly warrants a mention in the Gospels (the only possible exception

being Mk. 9:14-29), yet is a cornerstone of Jas. 5:13-18, as is anointing with oil (v.14).

Could the guidelines set out in Jas. 5:13-18 be seen as one community’s response to and

recontextualisation of Jesus’ healing ministry? Does it seem odd to us that the epistle of

39 “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15”, esp. p. 75 fn.1; c.f. Pilch, op. cit.,

p.103. 40 Warrington, op. cit., p.138.

James has seemingly no interest in Jesus as a paradigm? If so, perhaps we need to shift

our own perspectives.

In conclusion, Jesus’ healing ministry, in conjunction with other texts (Jas. 5; 1 Pet. 2:28

etc.) should be used to teach biblical principles about healing, not as an absolute healing

model. The benefit in examining Jesus’ healing ministry lies in seeing what is taught

through it and then contextualising that teaching, rather than slavishly attempt to emulate

the actual event. The result of this is that we then fully treat scripture as the living Word

instead of a mere ministerial manual. Jesus Christ remains the same; the outworking of

his ministry, I would contend, does not, should not and cannot.

Bibliography Books

Bauckham, R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998.

Beavis, M. A., Mark’s Audience, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989.

Bonnke, R., Mighty Manifestations, Frankfurt am Main, Full Flame GmbH, 2002 rev. edn.

Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple, New York, Paulist Press, 1979.

Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Jewish Mediterranean Peasant, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.

Dickinson, R., God Does Heal Today, Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1995.

Dye, C., Healing Anointing, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1997.

Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27-16:20, Dallas, Word, Incorporated, 2001.

Gnilka, J., Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (trans. S. S. Schatzmann), Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997.

Guelich, R. A., Mark 1:8-26, Dallas, Word, Incorporated, 1989.

Lee, D. A., The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 vols., New York, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc., 1996.

Pilch, J. J., Healing in the New Testament, Minneapolis, Augsberg Fortress, 1997.

Powell, M. A., The Jesus Debate, Oxford, Lion Publishing plc, 1998.

Rhoads, D., Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004.

Schneemelcher, W. (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL. Wilson), 2 vols., Cambridge, James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991 rev. edn.

Smith, M., Jesus the Magician, Berkeley, Ulysses Press, 1978.

Stein, R. H., Jesus the Messiah, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1996.

Stone, K. (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Thomas, J. C., The Devil, Disease and Deliverance, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Turner, M., The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now, Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1993.

Vanhoozer, K. J., “Scripture and Tradition” in idem (ed.) 2003: 149-63.

Vanhoozer, K. J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew, Minneapolis, Augsberg Fortess, 1981.

West, M., “The Gift of Voice, the Gift of Tears: A Queer Reading of Lamentations in the Context of AIDS” in Stone (ed.) 2000: 140-51.

Wimber, J., Power Healing, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1986.

Woolmer, J., Healing and Deliverance, London, Monarch Books, 2001.

Journals

Biser, E., “The Healing Power of Faith. Outline of a Therapeutic Theology”, Concilium 1998/5, 68-78.

Buller, C. A., “Healing Hope: Physical Healing and Resurrection Hope in a Postmodern Context”, JPT 10.2 (2002) 74-94.

Haber, S., “A Woman’s Touch: Feminist Encounters with the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5.24-34”, JSNT 26.2 (2003) 171-92.

Ma, J. C., “Manifestation of Supernatural Power in Luke-Acts and the Kankana-eys Tribe of the Philippines”, S&C 4.2 (2002) 109-28.

Martin, T. W., “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering”, JBL 132.1 (2004) 75-84.

Onyinah, O., “Matthew Speaks to Ghanaian Healing Situations”, JPT 10.1 (2001) 120-43.

Sargeant, A. J. “Healing and the Church”, Theology 835 (2004) 14-21.

Warrington, K., “Healing and Kenneth Hagin”, AJPS 3.1 (1999) 119-38.

Warrington, K., “Major aspects of healing within British Pentecostalism”, JEPTA 19 (1999) 34-55.

Warrington, K., “The Role of Jesus as Presented in the Healing Praxis and Teaching of British Pentecostalism: A Re-examination”, Pneuma 25.1 (2003) 66-92. Theses, Dissertations

Balfour, G., “Is John’s Gospel Antisemitic? With Specific Reference to its Use of the Old Testament”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1995.

Petts, D., “Healing and the Atonement”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1993.

Ralphs, V., “Miracles in Luke-Acts: A Study of Miracles and Mission in the Lucan Writings”, unpub. M.Th. diss., University of Nottingham, 1989.

Warrington, K., “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing of British Pentecostals, of John Wimber and Kenneth Hagin in the light of an analysis of the healing ministry of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College, London, 1999. Internet Sites

Benny Hinn Ministries, http://www.bennyhinn.org/, 2005. Accessed 10 Jan. 2005. The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations AJPS Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JEPTA Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association JPT Journal of Pentecostal Theology JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament S&C The Spirit & Church

Appendix: Scripture Index 1. Old Testament Reference Page(s) Isaiah 29:19 LXX 4 35:5 LXX 4 61:6 LXX 4 2. New Testament Reference Page(s) Matthew 4:23-24 5 9:18-26 8 9:22 8

10 5 17:14-21 3

Mark 1:10 2 1:12 2 1:18 2 1:20 2 1:23 2 1:29 2

1:30-31 2 1:31 2 2:1-12 3

8:22-26 4, 5, 6 9:14-29 9 10:46-52 4 Luke 4:38b-39 2 5:12-16 7 9:1-6 5 10:1-24 5 John 1:1-18 3 9 3 20:31 3 Acts 3:1-10 8

13:4-12 6 2 Corinthians 12:7 6 Galatians 4:13 6 Philippians 2:27 6 1 Timothy 5:23 6 2 Timothy 4:20 6 James 5 10

5:13-18 9 5:14 9 1 Peter 2:28 10 3. Apocryphal literature, Dead Sea Scrolls and other papyri Reference Page(s) Abgar 3 Gos. Thom. 2