Board index ‹ Miracles

[Judah Moo]

Do faith healers discriminate against amputee victims? There are attestations of blindness, the inability to walk, various bacterial ailments, etc., being miraculously cured. But one entire category of handicapped people seems invisible to faith healers. Why is that?

[jimwalton]

The nature of healing in the Bible is restoration, not regeneration. There's one illustration in the Gospels where the disciples are unable to cast out a particular demon and heal the person. Jesus does it easily, and the disciples ask why they weren't able. He basically tells them that it was beyond their pay grade. Some things are not within their capability.

In that sense it's not much different than modern doctors. They are only able to do what the body allows them to do. They can do surgery, but the body is what heals itself. Doctors can't heal bodies; it's not within their capability. They can use surgery to correct (it's amazing what they're capable of), but they can't use surgery or medicine to regenerate limbs or spinal cords. It's not within their capability right now.

You're wrong to think Christians are able to do all things. We can't levitate houses, transport ourselves like on Star Trek, or jump over tall buildings with a single bound. Nor can any faith healer regenerate limbs. It's not discrimination, but limitation. When God gifts us, he doesn't make us into super heroes or members of the Justice League.

[Lemmings]

I'll have to disagree with a couple of your points, Jim. When you say that Jesus healed someone that was "beyond their pay grade" referring to the disciples, I think the verses in Mark 9: 14-29 that contain that story just do not back up that claim. In fact, verse 23 states that "Everything is possible for one who believes." (NIV) Also, his reply to the disciples when asked why they couldn't remove the possessing spirit was "This kind can come out only by prayer." (NIV) of which prayer can, of course, be done by anyone. I think this reasonably implies that it was certainly "within their capability" as you say.

Also, I would like to provide some additional biblical context to your statement that it is "wrong to think that Christians are able to do all things." In a perfectly literal sense, your statement is clearly true that Christians cannot do all things. However, the bible explicitly states "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." You mention that Christians cannot levitate houses, transport, or just jump over tall buildings, but I would make the claim that moving a mountain is much more impressive of a miracle than those you mentioned and that seems possible within the context of that verse.

Lastly, you mention that "When God gifts us, he doesn't make us into super heroes..." However, I seem to recall from my old church days many times that believers have either been promised what would be considered "superpowers" or actually attained them in certain situations. The story of Samson's strength comes to mind from the Old Testament as well as the the New Testament claims that those who believe can drink poison without ill effect, pick up deadly snakes without being injured, heal the sick, and even remove demons (Mark Ch 16).

Let me know if you think I'm misreading the context, but all of these verses seem pretty clear to me. Cheers.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the opportunity to continue the conversation. Let's look first at Mark 9.23: "Everything is possible to him who believes." No one, and I mean no one, takes Jesus's words to mean "everything": interplanetary space travel at the speed of light, time travel, making ourselves the size of blood vessels so we can ride in someone else's blood stream, blowing over cities with the force of our exhale, become God ourselves, and millions of other ridiculous possibilities. Instead, we most certainly have to interpret his words. In other words, "everything" doesn't and can't possibly mean "everything", as I have just shown.

Nor do Jesus's words mean that we can automatically get anything we want if we just think positively. Again, his words have to be interpreted according to what he meant by them. So I can still claim with quite a bit of confidence that Jesus was not giving them power to regenerate amputated limbs.

On to Mark 9.29: "This kind can come out only by prayer." A comment from Dr. William Lane might suffice: "The disciples mistakenly believed that the gift they had received from Jesus (6.7) was in their control and could be exercised at their disposal. This was a subtle form of unbelief, for it encouraged them to trust in themselves rather than in God. Their previous success in expelling demons provided no guarantee of continued future power. Rather, the power of God must be asked for on each occasion in radical reliance on God’s power alone." This is still no claim that they were able to do everything their hearts imagined or their souls desired. Jesus's words have to be rightly interpreted.

As to the "moving mountains" (Matt. 17.20), it's a parable, a proverb, and a figure of speech, and you probably know that. Mustard seeds were used proverbially to define a small quantity; mountains for the incomparably difficult. His words aren't to be pressed too literally. We all know there are limitations to the powers given to us, as again I have already shown. What Jesus means is that within the sphere of his commands and commissions, we are able to accomplish everything he asks as we operate in the appropriate sphere of our relationship with Him and trust in his authority to not only command us but also to empower us for his work.

From your writing and my assumed trust in some reasonable understanding of the Bible, you probably know these things. But I am still grateful for a chance to dialogue.

> However, I seem to recall from my old church days many times that believers have either been promised what would be considered "superpowers" or actually attained them in certain situations.

Sure, but still within limitations. I have read of people in such a panic over loved ones in emergency situations that they were able to lift cars to free them. Adrenaline has amazing effect. Samson was empowered by God to the full extent of a physical body's capability, but that didn't mean he could run faster than a speeding bullet, be more powerful than a locomotive, or jump over tall buildings with a single bound. While God can and does empower people with remarkable abilities at times, none of us is naive enough to think that the possibilities are limitless into the sphere of the absurd.

And that text you mention from Mark 16 is almost universally recognized as not authentic. The only people who believe it are the snake handlers, and many of them get bitten and die.

So I do think you are misinterpreting the words of Jesus. All language has to be interpreted, and we work hard to interpret it correctly. You're reading these so literally that you're missing the point and actually taking quite a superficial understanding of them.

[Lemmings]

Good to hear from you again. Thank you for the response. As an act of full disclosure, I wanted to make clear that I am an atheist (although one with a Pentecostal upbringing) and my interest in this conversation is purely academic, but one that does interest me. Seeing how the Bible is interpreted differently by different readers has always interested me. That being said...on to the fun!

I would like to respond first to your beginning two paragraphs by first stating that I agree with them pretty much in their entirety, which is why I said in my first response,"In a perfectly literal sense, your statement is clearly true that Christians cannot do all things." However, I am a little surprised at some of the examples you gave for situations that humans could not do (i.e. interplanetary space travel, miniaturization, etc.). This seems to imply that you are of the opinion that an intervention by God cannot surpass the maximum bounds of the human form, but can only open the body/mind? up to its full potential. I will refer back to this later when discussion Samson.

Next we move on to the discussion of Mark 9, which is the story of the boy possessed with the evil spirit/demon. I certainly see your explanation as being a reasonable and possible explanation. However, we now have two competing explanations, mine and yours. How do we determine which is correct? With no other considerations, I hope you would agree that a passage should be considered literal unless obviously otherwise. Within the context of the chapter, there is no reason to believe that the words of Jesus should be taken any other way than literally. In that case, it seems to me that the only reason to take the passage as a metaphor or a parable would be if there were full-scripture context that we have not considered. However, I cannot think of a single verse (correct me if I am just not recalling properly) that would indicate that this passage should be taken anything other than literally. Therefore, although your explanation is possible, the most reasonable decision would be to take the passage literally.

We then move on to the "moving mountains" passage in Matthew 17. I am a bit surprised by some of the phrasing you use in your response. I am concerned about a couple of assertions that I find unfounded. First is the assertion that the "moving mountains" passage is a parable. Second is the assertion that Jesus's words "aren't to be pressed too literally." I agree with you that it would not make sense for Jesus to be referring to a literal mustard seed's worth of faith. I mean, how does one quantify a unit of faith? On that point, we agree. However, even if I assume that you are correct that the mountain is also metaphorical and that the mountain represents an "incomparably difficult" task, would that not still support my position? Would not seeking superpowers be considered an incomparably difficult task? It seems that this would support the position that attaining superpowers (an incomparably difficult task) would only require a little bit (mustard seed's worth) of faith.

Now on to Samson. I suppose killing a thousands philistines at once with a jawbone might (and I feel that this is a stretch, even at peak effectiveness for the human body) be possible, so I'll let that one go. However, I am concerned about the ability of a human body to pull down the pillars supporting a temple that holds more philistines than Samson killed in his entire life before that day. This number would clearly be in the thousands, and such a temple would require pillars that I would suspect would be beyond the human body to pull down, even at the body's peak effectiveness. I am no expert on either civil engineering or an expert on the human body, so this is pure assertion by me. If you disagree, feel free to call me out and I will see if I can delve into some numbers.

I am happy to concede my points regarding Mark 16 in their entirety due to the issue of authenticity.

In conclusion, I feel that a literal interpretation makes the most sense for Mark 9. I propose that Matthew 17 supports my position whether interpreted literally or metaphorically. Lastly, I feel that the Samson story makes clear that miraculous intervention by God through prayer IS able to go beyond any capabilities of the human body. These premises together support the hypothesis that God is willing to intervene beyond the scope of the human body, which would support the conclusion that God is willing and able to heal amputees. Since we do not see the healing of amputees, this would lead us to only a few possible conclusions. One, that the God as proposed by these premises, does not exist; or two, that the God that is proposed by these premises does not wish to heal amputees. The reasons behind conclusion number two are not dealt with in this particular argument, so it would be presumptuous of me to speculate.
Thanks again for the interesting conversation.

[jimwalton]

> This seems to imply that you are of the opinion that an intervention by God cannot surpass the maximum bounds of the human form, but can only open the body/mind? up to its full potential.

God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. We have to look at how he operates in our world and how he interacts with us. There is no record (of which I am aware) where God surpasses the maximum bounds of human capability. So I would surmise that he is able to do such things, he "never" has (that I am aware), and so I don't expect him to do that. He can unlock the body to its full potential, as you have said, but I'm not aware of any instance of surpassing its capability.

> "Mark 9": I hope you would agree that a passage should be considered literal unless obviously otherwise

Actually, I don't agree with this. The Bible is a rich repository of many literary forms, and I think a passage should be taken the way it was intended to be taken. "Literal" is not the default. If it was meant as parable, metonymy, simile, metaphor, figurative, then those are the default interpretive frameworks. You may say, "Then those were obvious." Not necessarily, and so we must exercise care in jumping to any conclusion, especially the "literal" or the "metaphor" ones, both of which are greatly abused in Bible interpretation.

> Within the context of the chapter, there is no reason to believe that the words of Jesus should be taken any other way than literally.

Actually, the Gospel of Mark is riddled with literary forms and hidden agendas. Some of those that might contribute to this context is his widespread use of irony and masking the message of Christ. Jesus is a riddler in Mark. Mark also shows Jesus in an epic battle against all things ungodly, including Satan, demons, disease, and even lack of understanding (in his Gospel the disciples never get a SINGLE thing right except the declaration in 8.29. Other than that, they are complete imbeciles).

In this pericope, the spectacle of the transfiguration is followed by the lack of faith (again) on the part of the disciples. The transfiguration is a redux of his baptism (the heavens open, followed by temptation (there), demon possession (here). It is the first of a series of 7 training episodes, and the disciples blow all seven. Almost every one of them is a conflict situation followed by an illustration using little children.

The other important element is the presence of the religious leaders (the third major set of characters in Mark's story). They are presented as espousing a point of view opposed to God (conflict). Jesus portrays them as having authority but not the truth (1.22), not understanding the Scriptures they know so well (12.24), and misunderstanding the power of God (12.24; 2.1-12). But we are led to vilify the leaders and sympathize with the disciples because the religious leaders are *choosing* not to see.

The set up is an argument between the teachers of the law and the disciples (conflict again). The leaders were often sent to evaluate Jesus or to try to trick him; we can assume the same here. They must be drilling the disciples for their inability demonstrate God's power. Jesus' question in v. 17 is probably addressed to the leaders. He steps in to defend his boys.

A man, the apparent object of the incident, steps forward to explain another conflict (between the power of God and the power of demon possession). Jesus rebukes the whole bunch, leaders and disciples alike. No sense of God in any of them! One can hardly tell the followers from the spoilers.

Here's an important part: the man (v. 22) is now doubting the power of Jesus himself. That's where Jesus's statement about "everything is possible for him who believes" comes. Jesus is the one who is doing; Jesus is the one in whom lies the power. It's not the disciples who can be all-powerful. It's trust in Jesus that releases the power to accomplish such things (hence, also, "This can only come about by prayer."). Given that Mark portrays the disciples as bumbling incompetents, his point would NEVER be that the power was theirs. No, this is a training session: the power belongs to Jesus, always. They are to have faith (19, 23), and Jesus has the power. The exorcists of the day focused on their own power; Jesus here emphasizes prayer instead. The point is never to set earthly limits on God's power, not that the disciples can have great power to do things like regenerate amputated limbs.

In this particular text, Jesus is using hyperbole, as he often does. He doesn't mean "everything." It's an overstatement not intended to be taken literally. Jesus did the same thing in 10.21 & 25.

> Moving mountains and Matthew 17

The mustard seed probably doesn't refer to the littleness of faith (quantity) as to its adequacy (quality). Even a little faith can be effectual, and that is Jesus's point, not the literal moving of a mountain. We are not seeking superpowers, but to have a relationship of trust with God. John Stott says, "Faith bridges the gap between humanity and eternity." It is the abandonment of oneself to God's will.

> Samson

The pillars in the structures of the ancient world were often pieced together, having been made and lifted as segments, and gravity was all that held them in place. As far as Samson pushing them, a temple belonging to the Philistines (dated to the 11th c. BC) has been excavated by archaeologists at Tel Qasile. It had two central pillars, located near the altar, that held up the roof. They were approximately 2 yards apart. On top of them had been wooden posts that supported the ceiling and roof. A large man with outstretch hands could reach both of them enough to get leverage. With sufficient strength (there's the key), he could bring the whole house down.

As to the numbers, numbers are always suspect in the ancient world. They were often symbolic (numerology), cultural (again, numerology), or approximations. While it may not actually be 3000 (Judges 16.27), the point is that an immense number met their creator that day.