[THE301: To what extent should the healing ministry of Jesus be taken as a model for healing ministry today?


Abstract This essay contends that Jesus never intended his ministry to serve as a paradigm for future generations. Various schools of healing claim to ‘follow the example of Jesus’, yet do things that, according to the Gospels, Jesus never did. Moreover, because of the radical differences in ancient and (post)modern culture, this is to be expected. Even taking into account passages apart from the four Gospels and other ancient texts, we are left in my opinion with too many gaps in methodology. Nevertheless, there are certain principles we can take away and apply to contemporary healing ministries, and this is in my opinion the extent to which we can use Jesus’ healing ministry as a model.

“[T]here is no such thing as an identical repetition, for though the signifier may be the same, the occasion of its utterance, its context, is not… Derrida sees no reason why the so-called “original” context should be more privileged than another.”
(Vanhoozer, K., “Scripture and Tradition”, pp.156-7)

INTRODUCTION Indeed, why should it? As well as being a fundamental query of postmodern

hermeneutics, Derrida’s question has implications for contemporary healing ministry.1 Many claim that Jesus’ healing ministry is a paradigm, something to be emulated and followed.2 But why should it be? Can it be? Was it ever even meant to be? The opinion of this author is that, though the reasons are honest, faithful and heartfelt, attempting to use Jesus’ healing ministry as a practical model ultimately results in: 1. An incoherence in hermeneutical methodology; 2. Serious cultural, pastoral and social concern issues; 3. A formulaic and ritualistic approach to healing.


Or ‘healing hermeneutics’, if one will. I admit here that I am taking Derrida’s original question out of its

immediate context of literary theory; however, given what Derrida thinks about ‘original’ context, I think it’s fair to say he gives us free reign to do so!

Buller, C. A., “Healing Hope”, p.86; Dye, C., Healing Anointing, pp.48-9,54-5; Thomas, J. C., The Devil,

Disease and Deliverance, pp.129,188; Woolmer, J., Healing and Deliverance, pp.77,114-5.

However, as a pedagogic model, as something that teaches us about principles of healing, these problems are for the most part resolved. I will not pretend that all the problems disappear – a brief exploration of possible issues arising will be made towards the end of this essay – but this approach to Jesus’ healing ministry is more coherent and more realistic. PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.1 – HERMENEUTICS Treating the healing ministry of Jesus as a practical paradigm creates the major problem of deciding what Jesus actually did. Take, for example, the Gospel accounts of the healing of Simon's mother-in-law (Mk. 1:30-31; Lk. 4:38b-39). Did Jesus rebuke the fever (Lk. 4:39), or not? Did he help up Simon's mother-in-law (Mk. 1:31), or not? If we take a redaction-critical approach to the texts, Mark is out to demonstrate the power of Jesus,3 as the explosive start of his gospel shows. As well as the continual and characteristically Markan use of eu0qu_v (e.g. 1:10,12,18,20,23,29 etc.), Jesus says everything about the Kingdom of God by not saying a word when he heals Simon’s mother-in-law. By contrast, Luke has Jesus rebuke (e0peti&mhsen) the fever. The end result is the same, but the methodology is different.4 One also needs to bear in mind the impact of the ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus. Crossan describes Jesus as a “magician”5 rather than a ‘healer’, and backs this up with examples of contemporary Jewish and Hellenistic magic6 (e.g. Hanina ben Dosa, Simon Magus). The Jewishness of Jesus, and also that of the NT, has also been reasserted through this most recent quest.7 Other literature apart from the canonical Gospels, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gos. Thom. etc., are used to glean what information one can about the ministry of Jesus and also about the possible influences behind the Gospel writers. It is telling, however, that outside of the canonical Gospels there is hardly any

Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27-16:20, p.134-5; see also Haber, S., “A Woman’s Touch”, pp.183-4,191-2 & esp. It could also be argued that Luke, the gospel for the disenfranchised, has the woman get herself up as a Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus, pp.304-310. Crossan’s view here is itself an appropriation of Morton Smith’s work in his book Jesus the Magician (c.f.


sign of liberation. I admit though that this pushes the text perhaps a little too much!
5 6

Powell, M. A., The Jesus Debate, pp.64-6; Turner, M., The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, pp.242-3 fn.11). See also Gnilka, J., Jesus of Nazareth, p.114; Ralphs, V., “Miracles in Luke-Acts”, pp.45,64-70.

E.g. Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus; Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew.

information about the healing ministry of Jesus – more than probably due to Gnostic influence from the early second century CE onwards.8 Amidst all this uncertainty about who the historical Jesus was and what it was that he actually did, one thing is certain: “[t]he omission of Jesus’ healing ministry has to be ruled out simply because of the extent of the relevant material.”9 Adopting a redaction-critical approach, and taking on board the ‘Third Quest’, if each Gospel was written to a specific community,10 then the narrative would have addressed different attitudes and situations within that community, thereby having a didactic purpose. John’s Gospel especially has been seen like this for quite some time now (c.f. Jn 1:1-18; 20:31),11 and recent redaction-critical studies on the synoptics say the same thing.12 So, narratives such as Jesus healing the paralytic in Mk. 2:1-12, or the boy with a demon in Mt. 17:14-21 (& pars.) serve to teach about two main aspects; namely, the person of Jesus, and the attitude his followers should have.13 This does not mean the Gospels are ahistorical; rather, the authors have interpreted historical events and used them to teach their intended hearers about these two aspects. One can no longer see the Gospels as straightforward literal history. In light of all this, there are massive hermeneutical problems when one sees the healing ministry of Jesus as something to be emulated: i) The emphasis on the practical results in a separation of theory and practice. Unavoidably, this results in incoherence and a privileging of the experiential


The only specific literature I could find was The Abgar Legend (c.f. Schneemelcher, W. [ed.], New Testament

Apocrypha Vol. 1, pp.492-500), and since the proposed date for this is the end of the third century CE (p.496), it cannot be used as anything approaching reliable!

Gnilka, op. cit., p.112. The overriding opinion of most scholarship; though see Bauckham R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians Thomas, op. cit., p.129; also pp.188,305. On the Johannine community, see Brown, R. E., The Community


for another view.

of the Beloved Disciple. Along the same lines, D. A. Lee sees Jn. 9 as a symbolic rather than literal narrative (The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel, pp.161,182,185; also Crossan, op. cit., pp.325-6). As well as this, John’s Jewishness has been recently reasserted: c.f. Balfour, G., “Is John’s Gospel Antisemitic?”, passim.
12 13

E.g. Beavis, M. A., Mark’s Audience, pp.58,66-7; Rhoads, D., Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel, pp.61-2. Warrington, K., “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”, p.351.

over the biblical. ‘Healing crusades’14 are an excellent example of this: what tends to happen is that the experience becomes entirely separate to the teaching ministry, which is unequivocally not what Jesus did;15 ii) By seeing Jesus as a paradigm, the contemporary reader of the Gospels does two things subconsciously: 1. Assumes that their interpretation of scripture has remained constant throughout history; 2. Treats ancient Graeco-Roman culture as identical to contemporary culture. Both these things are demonstrably wrong.

Cultures may share

characteristics, but whereas our culture sees (e.g.) the healing of the blind as merely a miracle, in Jesus’ time it was associated (in Jewish terms) with the coming of God’s Kingdom – see, for example, Mk. 8:22-26; 10:46-52 (c.f. Isa. 29:19






Logically, then, the interpretation of

healing the blind has changed over time: the feat has gradually lost its Jewish, messianic connotations. Since we are not the original audience of any Gospel text, it seems foolhardy to expect the texts to have meant the same to their original audiences as they do to us now; iii) If Jesus’ ministry is paradigmatic, then how do we approach those situations where we have no example of Jesus to follow, or, worse still, situations Jesus never had to address? Where, for example, is Jesus’ praxis for the healing of AIDS sufferers? It seems better to treat Jesus’ ministry as having pedagogic value: to parallel the ancient stigma of leprosy with the contemporary stigma of HIV and observe that Jesus taught inclusion of the ‘outcast’.


E.g. those of Benny Hinn (http://www.bennyhinn.org/). See also the Ghanaian “healing centres” Petts, D., “Healing and the Atonement”, pp.110-116 (esp. p.114); Stein, R. H., Jesus the Messiah, pp.142I speak exclusively within my Western-European experience, and thus admit that the situation could be

described by O. Onyinah (“Matthew Speaks to Ghanaian Healing Situations”, pp.138-40).


different in other, non-Western, cultures. However, I still think one would be hard pushed to find a Christian culture that treats the Jewish heritage of the NT with any degree of seriousness as far as praxis goes.

Stein, op. cit., p.128. R. A. Guelich sees 8:22-26 as a “pericope that accent[s] the disciples’ lack of

perception” (Mark 1-8:26, p.433-4) – an interpretation that fits in nicely with what I suggest above.


Finally, it is proposed that, since Jesus authorised the Church to imitate his healing ministry (Mt. 10; Lk. 9:1-6; 10:1-24), that is what we should do.18 This proposal is by no means clear; the immediate context of, for example, Mt. 10 is that only the twelve were given any authorisation. “Either [Jesus’] authority is delegated or it is not; to be left with an uncertain paradigm is no paradigm at all.”19 Perhaps we synthesise Pauline thought with the Gospels – but we should then acknowledge that we are adding to Christ’s methodology!

In summary, it seems that a redaction-critical, pedagogic approach to Jesus’ healing ministry is best, rather than a paradigmatic approach.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.2 – CULTURAL, PASTORAL AND SOCIAL CONCERN ISSUES Some brief, elementary logic will quickly make clear my concerns:

A ∧ B ⇒ C , where:

A. Jesus healed all who came to him for healing.20 B. Contemporary healers often fail. C. There are many tough social issues in contemporary healing.

For those who claim Christ’s ministry as a practical model, this poses a large problem. If Jesus had a 100% record, why do none of his followers? Why is it that, seemingly so often, people pray for healing in faith, do everything ‘by the book’, and nothing happens? Of course, those who see Jesus’ healing ministry as a practical model have ‘solutions’ to this intransigent problem, so let us examine these to see if they a) match up to Jesus’ ministry and b) actually solve the problem.


Thomas, op. cit., p.188 (though his inductive reasoning is, to my mind, unsound); contra Warrington, op. Warrington, “The Role of Jesus as Presented in the Healing Praxis and Teaching of British Ibid., p.79; Dickinson, op. cit., p.24. In the NT, there is not even a hint of Jesus ever failing to heal

cit., pp.45-8,348-9; Dickinson, R., God Does Heal Today, p.31.

Pentecostalism: A Re-Examination”, p.88.

someone who came to him (esp. Mt. 4:23-24; though c.f. the Markan ‘partial’ healing [8:22-26]).

One proposed ‘solution’ is the theory of beneficial suffering.21 Some people are not healed because either their ailment/suffering enables them to better serve God, or they may be able to better share the Kingdom with those in similar situations (e.g. cancer patients, wheelchair users). However, this ‘solution’ only appears to cause more problems: i) Jesus taught no such thing as beneficial suffering, and his healings were immediate.22 The whole idea seems, to my mind, like a charismatic version of the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance; ironic, considering the judgemental attitude towards Catholicism that I have seen and experienced in more than a few conservative charismatic circles;23 ii) Gal. 4:13 is often used as a proof-text for beneficial suffering,24 but though it may lend biblical sanction to such an idea, this is a non-Gospel addition to the healing methodology of Jesus. Indeed, according to Acts (again, nonGospel) even the apostles deviated from Jesus’ methods (Jesus did nothing approaching Ac. 13:4-12). As such, the hermeneutics of people who preach beneficial suffering yet claim to follow the ministry of Jesus and ‘do what Jesus did’ are inadequate and incoherent (see above); iii) Beneficial suffering runs a high risk of being a callous and insensitive dismissal of the legitimate problems of an individual.25 It may also result in what could be termed ‘experiential atomisation’ of Christian social work: e.g. “Oh, we’ll send someone with HIV to minister to others with HIV, because they know what it’s like to live with it.”26

C.f. Woolmer, op. cit., pp.377-80; Bonnke, R., Mighty Manifestations, pp.155-6. Also see Petts, op. cit., Warrington, “Major aspects of healing within British Pentecostalism”, p.45; Onyinah, op. cit.,

pp.251-62 for an examination of Gal. 4:13; 2 Cor. 12:7; 2 Tim. 4:20; 1 Tim. 5:23; & Philp. 2:27.

pp.136,143. (The very short time-span involved in Mk. 8:22-26 means that this healing was effectively immediate.)

I make no apologies for this statement. Quite frankly, I find it obscene that some Christians have the Woolmer, op. cit., pp.139ff. Contra Biser, E., “The Healing Power of Faith”, pp.76-8. I can empathise with Biser’s programme of

nerve to call into question the salvation of others purely based on the church they belong to.
24 25

therapeutic theology, but I remain unsure that his pessimism (esp. pp.77-8) provides a meaningful way forward.

Of course, this then (in part) fosters the attitude among (e.g.) HIV sufferers that only people who share

their experience can say anything meaningful to them (c.f. West, M., “The Gift of Voice, the Gift of Tears”, esp. pp.149-51 and the concept of “wounded healers”). Did Christ share the physical experience

In short, though the intentions are well-meaning, the oxymoron of beneficial suffering is insufficient as a ‘solution’, both practically and biblically. To say that sometimes God needs to heal our pride or develop our patience27 is, while true in some cases, to fudge the issue given our logical statement above.28 (This does, of course, also step further away from the Gospel accounts!) What, then, of the view that we can establish certain key practical principles from Christ’s ministry? i) This ‘solution’ is exemplary of that which I will later say is unhelpful – vis-à-vis the desire to pin Jesus’ ministry down to a ‘by the book’ list of things to do and not to do; ii) It also implicitly says that any attempted (re)construction of the healing ministry of Jesus will be deficient and have holes in methodology. For someone claiming to ‘do what Jesus did’, this again leads to incoherent hermeneutics (see above). To claim, as Ma does, that a contemporary healing ministry is “just like the early church”29 is misleading at best and absurd at worst; iii) However, this approach (contra beneficial suffering) allows in part for Jesus’ healings to be seen as having didactic purpose.30 After all, principles can only be established on what the Gospel texts teach us! iv) Constructing such a list would also involve a certain amount of autobiography, a certain amount of our own socio-cultural influences and experiences. This is a positive thing, in the sense that we should prioritise those principles which have the most benefit for where we are in the world,31 and contextualise them in light of this.

of leprosy (Lk. 5:12-16)? Clearly not – yet Christ was still meaningful. Thus, the ‘experiential atomisation’ resulting directly from beneficial suffering runs utterly counter to the ministry of Jesus!
27 28

Dye, op. cit., pp.192-3; Bonnke, op. cit., p.154. Sargeant, A. J., “Healing and the Church”, pp.15-7 makes this point – to say that some healings are Ma, J. C., “Manifestation of Supernatural Power in Luke-Acts and the Kankana-eys Tribe of the

instant, some take time and others only occur on the spiritual level pretty much covers all eventualities!

Philippines”, p.119. Cultural issues are at play here – I have already argued that it could be considered foolhardy to expect the Gospels to mean the same in our culture as they did for the culture of their original audiences. Ma seems to fall into this carefully-laid exegetical trap.
30 31

E.g. Warrington, “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”, p.313. Onyinah (op. cit.) provides us with a good example of this.

Perhaps it would be worth picking up on the distinction made by Pilch between ‘healing’ (socio-cultural) and ‘curing’ (biomedical).32 Is it possible that we read and translate the Gospels with our idea of ‘healing = curing’? I find it unlikely – it is very hard and a little silly to counter-intuitively read texts like Mt. 9:18-26 (v.22: “instantly the woman was made well”)33 – but pastorally, the socio-cultural aspect should be no less important than the biomedical in contemporary healing ministries. Whatever approach we take, it seems that the contextualisation of established principles points in the right direction as far as taking the healing ministry of Jesus as a model for today goes.

PRACTICAL PROBLEM NO.3 – RITUALISM This problem has been previously alluded to above. There is a fine line between outlining easily-contextualised principles (as I advocate) and ritualistic tick lists, though the two may seem worlds apart. For example, Peter uses the name of Jesus to heal the crippled beggar in Ac. 3:1-10 – and it works! Great! It then becomes something to be aware of and that the Holy Spirit may prompt you to do in the future.34 But to then use the ‘name of Jesus’ (or ‘the blood’ etc.) every time one prays for healing in a quasimagical, ‘foolproof’ way is absurd – especially in a postmodern world, where it is widely acknowledged that everyone is unique and difference is celebrated. As a direct result of the ‘name of Jesus’ healing theology, popularised by those such as Hagin35 and Hinn, God is no longer asked to heal someone: he is demanded. Christ’s name is used “magico-sacramentally”;36 the modern consumer attitude has infiltrated healing ministries.37 Such manipulative concepts are totally absent from Jesus’ ministry;38 thus,
Pilch, J. J., Healing in the New Testament, pp.59,142. Another argument against Pilch’s position is that he appears to criticise reading the Gospels with a Dye, op. cit., p.190. Who is severely criticised in Warrington, “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing…”, Idem, “Healing and Kenneth Hagin”, p.133. (It would certainly be an interesting exercise to compare the Ibid., p.137. Onyinah, op. cit., p.140-41.

32 33

supernatural bias, yet simultaneously fails to realise that his scientific way of reading is just as biased!
34 35


incantations of ancient Graeco-Roman religion with the rhetoric of some contemporary healing ministries!)
37 38

ritualism and legalism only serve to reinforce the differences between contemporary healing ministries and Jesus’ healing ministry. On an autobiographical note, I tend to leap on the defensive when prayer for healing is happening, and shudder at the laissez-faire attitude of mechanistic and ritualistic prayer. Even so, I can’t help but wonder: is this somehow the end result of seeing Jesus’ ministry as something to be blindly emulated? If we can claim that Christ had a method to follow, that this method is the most successful, and that he delegated his authority to all his followers, then can we expect anything else but legalistic prayer and methodology?

CONCLUDING REMARKS Firstly, as an aside, I would personally like to see healing theology take on board the concepts of T. Martin,39 who exegetes scripture in light of ancient physiognomy and medicine. We often forget that ancient ideas can be quite dissimilar to our own, so anything which brings us closer to the culture of the original audience is to be applauded. Secondly, Warrington’s critique of Hagin is scathing (and, in my opinion, well deserved!), but there is one sentence in particular that I would like to pick up on:
“[A]lthough [Hagin] claims to be following the model represented by Jesus, he frequently deviates from it, offering a deviant and defective healing matrix.”40

The point is that we all fall into this trap: even biblically, it is unavoidable for us to do anything else other than deviate from paradigmatic models of Jesus’ healing ministry. Prayer for healing hardly warrants a mention in the Gospels (the only possible exception being Mk. 9:14-29), yet is a cornerstone of Jas. 5:13-18, as is anointing with oil (v.14). Could the guidelines set out in Jas. 5:13-18 be seen as one community’s response to and recontextualisation of Jesus’ healing ministry? Does it seem odd to us that the epistle of


“Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15”, esp. p. 75 fn.1; c.f. Pilch, op. cit., Warrington, op. cit., p.138.


James has seemingly no interest in Jesus as a paradigm? If so, perhaps we need to shift our own perspectives. In conclusion, Jesus’ healing ministry, in conjunction with other texts (Jas. 5; 1 Pet. 2:28 etc.) should be used to teach biblical principles about healing, not as an absolute healing model. The benefit in examining Jesus’ healing ministry lies in seeing what is taught through it and then contextualising that teaching, rather than slavishly attempt to emulate the actual event. The result of this is that we then fully treat scripture as the living Word instead of a mere ministerial manual. Jesus Christ remains the same; the outworking of his ministry, I would contend, does not, should not and cannot.

Books Bauckham, R. (ed.), The Gospels for All Christians, Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1998. Beavis, M. A., Mark’s Audience, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Bonnke, R., Mighty Manifestations, Frankfurt am Main, Full Flame GmbH, 2002 rev. edn. Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple, New York, Paulist Press, 1979. Crossan, J. D., The Historical Jesus: the Life of a Jewish Mediterranean Peasant, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1992. Dickinson, R., God Does Heal Today, Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1995. Dye, C., Healing Anointing, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1997. Evans, C. A., Mark 8:27-16:20, Dallas, Word, Incorporated, 2001. Gnilka, J., Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (trans. S. S. Schatzmann), Peabody, Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997. Guelich, R. A., Mark 1:8-26, Dallas, Word, Incorporated, 1989. Lee, D. A., The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Meier, J. P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 2 vols., New York, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group Inc., 1996. Pilch, J. J., Healing in the New Testament, Minneapolis, Augsberg Fortress, 1997. Powell, M. A., The Jesus Debate, Oxford, Lion Publishing plc, 1998. Rhoads, D., Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004. Schneemelcher, W. (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL. Wilson), 2 vols., Cambridge, James Clarke & Co. Ltd., 1991 rev. edn. Smith, M., Jesus the Magician, Berkeley, Ulysses Press, 1978. Stein, R. H., Jesus the Messiah, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1996. Stone, K. (ed.), Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Thomas, J. C., The Devil, Disease and Deliverance, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Turner, M., The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now, Carlisle, Paternoster Press, 1993. Vanhoozer, K. J., “Scripture and Tradition” in idem (ed.) 2003: 149-63. Vanhoozer, K. J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew, Minneapolis, Augsberg Fortess, 1981. West, M., “The Gift of Voice, the Gift of Tears: A Queer Reading of Lamentations in the Context of AIDS” in Stone (ed.) 2000: 140-51. Wimber, J., Power Healing, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1986. Woolmer, J., Healing and Deliverance, London, Monarch Books, 2001.

Journals Biser, E., “The Healing Power of Faith. Outline of a Therapeutic Theology”, Concilium 1998/5, 68-78. Buller, C. A., “Healing Hope: Physical Healing and Resurrection Hope in a Postmodern Context”, JPT 10.2 (2002) 74-94. Haber, S., “A Woman’s Touch: Feminist Encounters with the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5.24-34”, JSNT 26.2 (2003) 171-92. Ma, J. C., “Manifestation of Supernatural Power in Luke-Acts and the Kankana-eys Tribe of the Philippines”, S&C 4.2 (2002) 109-28. Martin, T. W., “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: A Testicle Instead of a Head Covering”, JBL 132.1 (2004) 75-84. Onyinah, O., “Matthew Speaks to Ghanaian Healing Situations”, JPT 10.1 (2001) 120-43. Sargeant, A. J. “Healing and the Church”, Theology 835 (2004) 14-21. Warrington, K., “Healing and Kenneth Hagin”, AJPS 3.1 (1999) 119-38. Warrington, K., “Major aspects of healing within British Pentecostalism”, JEPTA 19 (1999) 34-55. Warrington, K., “The Role of Jesus as Presented in the Healing Praxis and Teaching of British Pentecostalism: A Re-examination”, Pneuma 25.1 (2003) 66-92. Theses, Dissertations Balfour, G., “Is John’s Gospel Antisemitic? With Specific Reference to its Use of the Old Testament”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1995. Petts, D., “Healing and the Atonement”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1993. Ralphs, V., “Miracles in Luke-Acts: A Study of Miracles and Mission in the Lucan Writings”, unpub. M.Th. diss., University of Nottingham, 1989. Warrington, K., “The teaching and praxis concerning supernatural healing of British Pentecostals, of John Wimber and Kenneth Hagin in the light of an analysis of the healing ministry of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels”, unpub. Ph.D. thesis, King’s College, London, 1999. Internet Sites Benny Hinn Ministries, http://www.bennyhinn.org/, 2005. Accessed 10 Jan. 2005.

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Abbreviations AJPS JBL JEPTA JPT JSNT S&C Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association Journal of Pentecostal Theology Journal for the Study of the New Testament The Spirit & Church

Appendix: Scripture Index 1. Old Testament Reference Isaiah 29:19 LXX 35:5 LXX 61:6 LXX Page(s) 4 4 4 John Acts 2. New Testament Reference Matthew 4:23-24 9:18-26 9:22 10 17:14-21 1:10 1:12 1:18 1:20 1:23 1:29 1:30-31 1:31 2:1-12 Page(s) 5 8 8 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 Corinthians Galatians Philippians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy James 1 Peter Luke

8:22-26 9:14-29 10:46-52 4:38b-39 5:12-16 9:1-6 10:1-24 1:1-18 9 20:31 3:1-10 13:4-12 12:7 4:13 2:27 5:23 4:20 5 5:13-18 5:14 2:28

4, 5, 6 9 4 2 7 5 5 3 3 3 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 10 9 9 10


3. Apocryphal literature, Dead Sea Scrolls and other papyri Reference Abgar Gos. Thom. Page(s) 3 2