spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State spirit and healing in africa - University of the Free State

etd.uovs.ac.za
from etd.uovs.ac.za More from this publisher
23.06.2013 Views

can as well open up a relationship to God as the experience of being saved”. This way, Westermann places healing within the framework of the covenant between God and his people. 5.2.2 New Testament understandings of healing In the New Testament, healing is inextricably linked with the concept of the new covenant in Christ, as well as with the promise of God’s Kingdom. The new covenant in Christ is a continuation and renewal of the divine covenants with Abraham, Moses and David. In Christ, Yahweh reveals that he makes a new beginning, and he realizes for his people the possibility to remain faithful to the covenant. In Jesus’ death the new covenant is initiated, and healing can then be considered as a gift or grace related to the covenant. As such, healing in general can be linked indirectly to the atoning death of Christ, who inaugurated the new covenant and bestowed healing as a promised blessing upon the covenant partner (De Vries 2006:380). The biblical concept of the new covenant is related to the concept of the Kingdom. After all, the thoughts on the new covenant, as found in the Old Testament and the New Testament, lead to the recognition of God’s reign. In the light of the (renewed) promise of shalom, the miracles performed by Jesus testify to the manifestations of God’s emerging rule. Regarding approaches to healing in the New Testament, academic attention predominantly focused on the healing miracles Jesus performed during his earthly ministry. On the basis of historical critical research there is scholarly consensus that Jesus performed miracles (cf. Twelftree 1984, 1993; Blomberg 1987:90; Wink 1992:134f; Meier 1994:607; Habermas 2001:117; Williams 2002; Borg 2006), and it is now widely accepted to consider Jesus as healer and exorcist. The synoptic gospels in particular present Jesus’ healing and liberating activities as a sign of God’s coming kingdom (cf. Carroll 1995:137; Giesen 1995:65; De Vries 2006:391f). The miracles are construed as references and as provisional manifestations of the kingdom, arriving in the person of Jesus Christ. Twelftree (1993:170) contends that the miracles that Jesus performs, constitute the actual message: the miracles “are the kingdom of God in operation”. The reign of God implies the overthrowing of the kingdom of Satan (cf. France 1990:28f; Giesen 1995:44ff; De Vries 2006:389). In the New Testament, disease is also attributed to Satan, who obstructs the well-being (shalom) of God’s people. So Jesus’ acts of forgiveness, liberation, healing and resurrection are inherent in reducing the power of Satan and demonic spirits. Or, in the words of Goppelt (1978:119), Jesus’ healing miracles imply spiritual, physical and social healing. Contrary to the Old Testament, the idea that disease and healing evolve from God is not found in the New Testament in the same direct manner. New Testament thinking ignores a uniform 128

approach towards the cause of disease, and offers a variety of sources for disease and suffering. One of the causes of illness is the power of the devil or Satan, who in the New Testament has a more independent position in relation to the reign of God. In addition, matters like personal responsibility, punishment for sin and/or the prelude for repentance, and the absence of a clear cause are also involved in New Testament understandings of illness. De Vries (2006:423) stresses that the Scriptures show no explicit link between disease and demise, and he refers to Thomas (1998:304), who says: “despite the frequent appearance of such views in contemporary theological explanations of the origins of illness, it is interesting that in New Testament discussions about the origins of illness the writers never explain the presence of infirmity as being simply the result of living in a fallen sinful world”. All in all, it can be said that all studies related to healing and disease show that the biblical starting point is that the God of the Scriptures is a healing God. The biblical stories are witness to God’s comprehensive commitment to healing and wholeness for all creation, for all people. God is actively involved in the healing and restoration of people, and He involves Himself in the process of reconciliation and regeneration. The covenant provides the context for understanding healing, as well as the perspective of the kingdom that bears the tension of the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’. 5.2.3 Biblical roots of healing ministries The way in which, in the African context, meaning is attached to illness and evil shows remarkable similarities with how illness and evil are depicted in both the Old and the New Testament. Illness, sin and ritual transgressions are major obstacles to the human being, who desires life in abundance but who is continuously confronted with the impact of evil forces (cf. De Vries 2006:420). The biblical message for healing, restoration and liberation clearly acknowledges the existence of evil forces, and addresses their impact on the human being, that is on his or her relationships and future. In Scripture, healing or restoration is not restricted to the body, but includes a person’s spirit as well as their material goods such as land, children, cattle and prosperity (Wind 1995:153; Westermann 1972:10). Jenkins (2006:117) asserts that “the biblical emphasis on healing rings so true to modern believers because it fits precisely into their cultural expectations and the healing traditions of pre-Christian societies”. From an African Christian perspective, healing and wholeness are the core of the Christian message and mission. One could wonder what would be left of the Gospel if one were to remove all healing-related stories from Scripture, or interpret them from a strictly psychological point of view. Stories of miraculous healings and effective exorcisms are taken seriously and literally, 129

can as well open up a relationship to God as <strong>the</strong> experience <strong>of</strong> be<strong>in</strong>g saved”. This way,<br />

Westermann places <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> framework <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> covenant between God <strong>and</strong> his people.<br />

5.2.2 New Testament underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong><br />

In <strong>the</strong> New Testament, <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> is <strong>in</strong>extricably l<strong>in</strong>ked with <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new covenant <strong>in</strong><br />

Christ, as well as with <strong>the</strong> promise <strong>of</strong> God’s K<strong>in</strong>gdom. The new covenant <strong>in</strong> Christ is a<br />

cont<strong>in</strong>uation <strong>and</strong> renewal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e covenants with Abraham, Moses <strong>and</strong> David. In Christ,<br />

Yahweh reveals that he makes a new beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> he realizes for his people <strong>the</strong> possibility to<br />

rema<strong>in</strong> faithful to <strong>the</strong> covenant. In Jesus’ death <strong>the</strong> new covenant is <strong>in</strong>itiated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> can<br />

<strong>the</strong>n be considered as a gift or grace related to <strong>the</strong> covenant. As such, <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> general can be<br />

l<strong>in</strong>ked <strong>in</strong>directly to <strong>the</strong> aton<strong>in</strong>g death <strong>of</strong> Christ, who <strong>in</strong>augurated <strong>the</strong> new covenant <strong>and</strong> bestowed<br />

<strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> as a promised bless<strong>in</strong>g upon <strong>the</strong> covenant partner (De Vries 2006:380). The biblical<br />

concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> new covenant is related to <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> K<strong>in</strong>gdom. After all, <strong>the</strong> thoughts on<br />

<strong>the</strong> new covenant, as found <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Old Testament <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament, lead to <strong>the</strong> recognition<br />

<strong>of</strong> God’s reign. In <strong>the</strong> light <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> (renewed) promise <strong>of</strong> shalom, <strong>the</strong> miracles performed by Jesus<br />

testify to <strong>the</strong> manifestations <strong>of</strong> God’s emerg<strong>in</strong>g rule.<br />

Regard<strong>in</strong>g approaches to <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> New Testament, academic attention predom<strong>in</strong>antly<br />

focused on <strong>the</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> miracles Jesus performed dur<strong>in</strong>g his earthly m<strong>in</strong>istry. On <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong><br />

historical critical research <strong>the</strong>re is scholarly consensus that Jesus performed miracles (cf.<br />

Twelftree 1984, 1993; Blomberg 1987:90; W<strong>in</strong>k 1992:134f; Meier 1994:607; Habermas<br />

2001:117; Williams 2002; Borg 2006), <strong>and</strong> it is now widely accepted to consider Jesus as healer<br />

<strong>and</strong> exorcist. The synoptic gospels <strong>in</strong> particular present Jesus’ <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> liberat<strong>in</strong>g activities as<br />

a sign <strong>of</strong> God’s com<strong>in</strong>g k<strong>in</strong>gdom (cf. Carroll 1995:137; Giesen 1995:65; De Vries 2006:391f).<br />

The miracles are construed as references <strong>and</strong> as provisional manifestations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom,<br />

arriv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> person <strong>of</strong> Jesus Christ. Twelftree (1993:170) contends that <strong>the</strong> miracles that Jesus<br />

performs, constitute <strong>the</strong> actual message: <strong>the</strong> miracles “are <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>of</strong> God <strong>in</strong> operation”. The<br />

reign <strong>of</strong> God implies <strong>the</strong> overthrow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> k<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>of</strong> Satan (cf. France 1990:28f; Giesen<br />

1995:44ff; De Vries 2006:389). In <strong>the</strong> New Testament, disease is also attributed to Satan, who<br />

obstructs <strong>the</strong> well-be<strong>in</strong>g (shalom) <strong>of</strong> God’s people. So Jesus’ acts <strong>of</strong> forgiveness, liberation,<br />

<strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>and</strong> resurrection are <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> reduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> power <strong>of</strong> Satan <strong>and</strong> demonic <strong>spirit</strong>s. Or, <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> words <strong>of</strong> Goppelt (1978:119), Jesus’ <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> miracles imply <strong>spirit</strong>ual, physical <strong>and</strong> social<br />

<strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong>.<br />

Contrary to <strong>the</strong> Old Testament, <strong>the</strong> idea that disease <strong>and</strong> <strong>heal<strong>in</strong>g</strong> evolve from God is not found <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> New Testament <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> same direct manner. New Testament th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g ignores a uniform<br />

128

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!