Abstract:
There has been a considerable growth of interest in the role of the Church in 'healing' in recent years. In some cases this has involved the development of a form of 'alternative medicine' in the practices of the charismatic healing movement. It is argued that any attempt to develop a theology of healing requires to be based on an understanding of the biblical accounts of the work of Jesus together with the developing theological insights of the New Testament writers in interpreting his work and relating it to their own experience. Further, there also requires to be a recognition that the Bible cannot be transliterated into the twentieth century, but that due attention should be paid to the critical, historical, and other problems which biblical interpretation faces. This study is an attempt to begin the hermeneutical process. It is an introductory study which examines the record of Jesus' healing ministry as preserved in Mark. It begins by setting the work of Jesus into its socio-historical context in first century Palestine, giving some consideration to both empirical and magico-religious medicine and the issue of Jewish messianic expectation at the time. It then proceeds to analyse each of the thirteen recorded healings and attempts to relate these to the concepts of modern medicine, particularly in regard to diagnostic categories, as well as examining the theological purpose which appears to lie behind the narratives in their present edited context within a proclamation of the gospel. The study concludes with a general discussion of the work of Jesus from the standpoint of modern concepts of disease and provides a theological evaluation. It is argued that the healings of Jesus appear to have been generally, if not entirely, of functional and psychological illness and that he appeared to have used the normal methods of healing that would be expected of an itinerant 'prophet/healer'. There is thus an element of ambiguity about his works, just as there was about his words, so that an understanding of his person was dependent on a disclosure situation and the healings by themselves do not take on any evidential value. It is further argued that to use the term 'miracle', in the sense of a direct intervention of God contrary to 'natural law', as an explanation of these events is inappropriate. It is argued that the category of miracle is not one of explanation at all, but rather of theological interpretation which probes to a second level of purpose and spiritual meaning. The practical implications of these considerations for the Church today are briefly discussed.
