11 And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. 13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” 14 Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. 15 But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” 16 And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded (Acts 19:11-16).
i) One of the issues in the cessationist/charismatic debate is whether the "gift of healing" is something a healer can exercise at will. Has God delegated that ability to the healer, to exercise at the healer's personal discretion.
ii) In his passage, Paul's healing ability is strictly instrumental. God heals through him.
This is evident from the fact that even Paul's bandanas had a healing effect. Paul doesn't intend to heal anyone in particular, or anyone generally, through his bandanas. He may not even be aware of how some people were using them. And how they use them, once they leave his possession, is clearly beyond his control. Healing at a distance, without his cognizance, approval, or disapproval. Paul is not even the proximate source of power.
Just as Paul's healing ability is purely instrumental, the efficacy of the bandanas is purely emblematic. They are tokens, in whose association God healed the sick.
iii) If all we had were vv11-12, that might create the impression that healing power is stored in relics, like Paul's bandanas. As if you can siphon off the healer's power, and contain it in a "battery," for future use. That reduces divine healing to magic amulets.
However, the subsequent story, which–not coincidentally, comes right on the heels of this incident–quashes that inference. The Jewish exorcists mistakenly thought the name of Jesus possessed talismanic power. They found out the hard way that the power lies, not in physical media, but personal agents. It's not an inanimate energy force which you can manipulate.
iv) Finally, this passage is sometimes compared to Acts 5:15-16. However, that passage doesn't say Peter's shadow had any healing effect. Rather, some sick people were hoping or expecting his shadow to have healing efficacy.
"i) One of the issues in the cessationist/charismatic debate is whether the "gift of healing" is something a healer can exercise at will. Has God delegated that ability to the healer, to exercise at the healer's personal discretion."
ReplyDeleteYep. Major issue. A distinction that has to be understood and represented accurately.
i) One of the issues in the cessationist/charismatic debate is whether the "gift of healing" is something a healer can exercise at will. Has God delegated that ability to the healer, to exercise at the healer's personal discretion.
ReplyDeleteRight. It's not uncommon for cessationists to say the following:
Continuationists would easily smash the cessationist position if any one of the thousands of people who claim to have the spiritual gift of healing would simply clean out a cancer ward on camera with verification by medical staff... [source]
Yet, from what I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Pentecostals and Charismatics (past and present) believe that the faith of the sick person has some determining factor in the degree and speed at which divine healing manifests. Only a minority of ministries have claimed they can heal irrespective of the faith of the sick person. For example, John G. Lake's ministry in the early 20th century, and the modern continuation of its ministry lead by Curry Blake.
The Apostle Paul wasn't able to heal Epaphroditus or Trophimus at will or irrespective of their faith or his own. Maybe that's because Paul didn't have either the gifts of healing, the gift of faith or the gift of miracles and was only able to perform miracles and healings some other way (e.g. by virtue of his apostolic office). But besides Jesus, who in the NT was able to heal at their own will? I can't think of any. Therefore, maybe cessationists are setting the bar too high for continuationists.
BTW, Curry Blake doesn't claim any special anointing or charismatic gifts. He claims (rightly or wrongly) that the ability to heal by the power and authority of Christ is the natural ability of every Christian. So, rather than teaching an elitist doctrine of healing that leads to pride [and to the "one man show"], it's an egalitarian one. This view, though a minority, is quickly gaining popularity in charismatic circles.