Search

There is, and always has been, a dark side to Pentecostal theologies of healing. This is because Pentecostal theologies and practices of healing have not adequately dealt with the reality that for many Pentecostals the promise of divine healing is not borne out by experience. This contradiction between promise and experience exacerbates the suffering of people who are not healed after prayer and alienates them from the very faith community that should be supporting them. The key argument of this thesis, and the original contribution to knowledge it will provide, is that a theological-exegetical reading of the Gospels and Acts can be utilised to inform and ground a renewed theology of healing which, rather than alienating those affected by illness, injury, or disability, empowers them. A literature review confirms that there is not already a biblically based and sufficiently developed pentecostal theology and practice of healing, which is consistent with the experience of the many Pentecostals who are not healed after prayer, which is, or could be, followed by Pentecostals in Britain today (Chapter 3). The Pentecostal hermeneutic of Spirit, Community and Word is utilised to ground the renewed theology of healing. The lived testimonies of Christians whose prayers for divine healing remain unanswered bears witness to the fact that not all faithful Spirit-filled Christians are healed today (Chapter 4). A theological-exegetical reading of the healing narratives in the Gospels and Acts reveals that the presuppositions held by many Pentecostals in relation to healing were not upheld (Chapter 5). This demonstrated that the Evangelists did not expect their readers to assume that Jesus healed all who came to him, or that faith was a prerequisite to healing. The outcomes of the reading of the Gospels and Acts, as well as the examination of the lived testimonies of current Pentecostal believers are utilised to ground a renewed Pentecostal theology of healing (Chapter 6). This theology is shaped by a theology of the cross and the message of Johann Blumhardt, which set healing within a cosmic-eschatological perspective. Significantly, this renewed theology is one which does not alienate those who suffer. Rather, it acknowledges the sustaining power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who are suffering, and it recognises their continuing faithfulness to God in the midst of suffering as lives that are victorious. It is theology which calls the church to fight the causes of suffering, but also to be present with those who suffer. The church can then respond consistently and compassionately to those who suffer both before and after prayers for healing, regardless of the outcome of those prayers.

The aim of this study is to explore the issue, whether or not Matthew in 8.16- 17 quotes Isaiah 53.4a as a proof-text without considering its context. This issue of the quotation has a great significance for two areas: hermeneutics and theology. First, the hermeneutical significance of the quotation is concerned with the issue, whether the intention and method of Matthew’s quotations of the Old Testament is a contextual approach or a non-contextual approach. Second, the theological significance of the quotation is connected to theoretical (dogmatic) and practical theology. Firstly, the significance for theoretical theology is concerned with the discussion of Matthean Christology: the identity of Jesus, the nature of his healing ministry; the provenance of his understanding of atonement. Particularly, the last one is crucial, for the whole Christian doctrine of Atonement depends on the answer to this problem. Secondly, the significance for practical theology is related to the discussion of “healing in the atonement” in Charismatic circles. This discussion can be progressed, only when it is shown that Matthew quotes Isaiah 53.4a in Matthew 8.16-17 with regard to its context, because this at least provides the basis for such a discussion. This study has attempted to treat the issue of the quotation by applying narrative analysis to Matthew 8.16-17 and the necessary part of Isaiah 52.13-53.12. This analysis includes semantic, linguistic philosophical, literary and theological explorations. With this analysis, this study has discovered an answer to the issue and some important findings, which are significant in terms of methodology, hermeneutics and theology. The answer provided by this study is that Matthew does not quote Isaiah 53.4a as a proof-text without considering the context. Rather, he, familiar with the context, quotes it in Matthew 8.16-17 in order to strategically affect the implied reader’s recognition of Jesus as, firstly, the suffering servant who is finally to offer himself as a guilt offering or a ransom, and secondly, as the Messiah. The findings are the significance of “prolepsis” in Matthew; the relationship between “ransom” lu,trον and “guilt offering” םשָ אָ ; complementary parallelism (the relationship between structure and meaning); the complementary structure of the “we” and “they” in the unfolding narrative of Isaiah 52.13-53.12; the death of the servant; and the relationship of “diseases” and “sufferings/sorrows” in 53.4a. All of these findings have enabled this study to trace the events of Jesus’ ministry and their underlying causes as far as possible to the depiction of the servant in Isaiah 52.13-53.12.