Jesus, healing and demons

Perhaps this isn't something you come across in your theological tradition, it isn't much of an issue in mine. Yet I've had enough conversations with people and seen enough damage done to people by careless handling of this sort of issue to feel it warrants a comment.

It may be extreme, but some people in some places sometimes make the dangerous assertion that either: most illness is caused by the supernatural, or that Jesus' mission on earth was primarily a healing one. Neither is true.

I was reflecting on Luke 4.38-44 this morning and couldn't help noticing several actions of Jesus pertinent to this issue.

As to whether the spiritual realm or demons are often or largely responsible for illness, may I draw your attention to verses 39-41 of chapter 4. In verse 39 Jesus rebukes Simon's mother's fever, not a demon, but the fever itself and it is healed. This by itself may be ambiguous, but then in verses 40 and 41 Jesus is healing people, and of those people, demons only came out of many. The implication being that there were lots of sick people, and only a portion of that group had trouble with demons and the supernatural. Illness may be caused by demonic activity, but it would be a mistake to look for demonic causes first.

The second contention I have at times heard is that Jesus came primarily to heal. While there is no doubt that Jesus did a lot of healing in his ministry, that was not the central focus of his ministry, and that can be seen in verse 43. Jesus is healing, he's surrounded by a crowd of people clamoring for healing, he hasn't healed them all, but he turns from them, he refuses their calls for him to stay because "I must preach the good news of the Kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose." The good news of the Kingdom includes healing, but Jesus' ministry is not focussed on healing primarily, rather healing is an adjunct, a support to his ministry of preaching.

If we are to reflect Jesus, then perhaps our priorities should reflect his?

Much illness is quite simply that, illness, with no demonic complications. And that illness, while very important, is not the primary issue, the good news of the Kingdom of God is, less popular though it was in Jesus day, and less popular though it is now.

Fascinating how little pull the longings of a large audience had on Jesus, are we also so liberated?

Happy reflecting,

doug.

Gospel: Message or Man?

Why is it so hard sometimes to be clear about exactly what the ‘gospel’ is? On the one hand we talk about it being the good news of our salvation (Rom1.16), on another Paul can talk about it as something that has been proclaimed to ‘every creature under heaven’ (Col1.23), but how can they be the same thing? One is a propositional statement - Good news; the other seems to be understood by such creatures as small fish and spiders, how can they be the same thing? Or is the gospel something really much bigger, that we sometimes pick aspects of to focus on, but that always far transcends them all?

As the ‘Word of God’ is both the man Jesus Christ, and the testimony about him, is it not possible, nay, likely, that the Gospel is both the incredible blessing for the world that the man Jesus is, and also the testimony about what he has done?

If we are people who believe this Gospel, let’s at least be clear about what it is that we believe. Are we people who know something? Or are we people who know someone? And being clear, let’s be people who are filled with an inexpressible delight that shapes and changes everything it touches.

d