Progressive Healing

Mark 8:22-26. This process is referred to once in the entire Biblical corpus, and when healing is not producing the desired results, those who want to be healed are encouraged to come forward repeatedly because it is said that “God heals in stages”. Because Christians are encouraged to submit all prayers to God, some of which are not always answered, the idea of incremental stages is appealing. However, misrepresenting Mark, by using it as a one-text theological solution, implicitly replaces faith with a religious process, by shifting the basis of healing from God to a process of incremental works that may never end.

I’m not suggesting that God can’t heal in stages, but if we question why he would do so, and consider the available evidence, a literal application of this text isn’t consistent with the remaining New Testament example. Therefore, considering its unique nature, why would Jesus heal in stages when it doesn’t appear elsewhere in the Bible? If we consider the surrounding context it goes some way to explain this unique event. Unfortunately, encouraging progressive stages of healing carries some degree of coercion because more often than not it doesn’t acknowledge the story embedded in the narrative. Scripture already encourages us to pray and submit all our prayers to God, without adding the difficulties incurred by suggesting God couldn’t heal us the first time. In reality, this event has the sole purpose of teaching the disciples about spiritual blindness, not physical healing.

For the most part, my concern is, that the motive undermines the miraculous by suggesting a prescriptive process. The very nature of a process demands a measured result. On the other hand, submitting our prayers without a religious process behind it, rests on faith, and the sovereignty of God, without leaving open questions about half-finished healing. Therefore, it seems unwise to complicate the miracle of healing with this teaching. The irony is that we don’t see many miracles, at least to the degree one might expect, and this is without the complication of progressive healing.

I believe this passage has a strong contextual meaning and is written in three dialogues. The first and last are between Jesus and his disciples, and the middle is between Jesus and the blind man. Throughout the narrative Jesus questions the disciples, do you not see? Do you not understand? Do you not remember, and are your hearts hardened? Some degree of literary criticism would suggest the overall narrative points to a specific purpose behind this healing. Jesus was conveying to the disciples that they didn’t have spiritual eyes, and couldn’t see beyond the obvious, but a time was coming when they would.

Some aspects of this dialogue demand more provocative questions if we believe the narrative is prescriptive, including; why Jesus took the blind man outside the city, why two and only two stages of healing, why he spat on the blind man’s eyes, and why tell him not to tell anyone? Commentators and theologians alike express little of their own opinion about the meaning of this text, and most delve into speculation about the unique nature of the event. Most Commentators are not forthcoming about the meaning of the text because no clear meaning exists.

If we support and teach progressive healing based on Mark 8:22-26, can any application be separated from the detail outlined in the healing itself? Is it right for us to take one aspect of the context, and ignore the rest of the detail? When people come for healing, do we also teach this as a two-stage process, as demonstrated? Do we take the person outside the city, and most importantly, do we spit on their eyes, before we lay hands on them?

If the passage is prescriptive, as some imply, and we ignore the progressive steps, are we not interpreting the passage selectively? Conversely, if we take the progressive steps of this narrative, at what point are we reducing the sovereignty of God, to New Testament legalism? In the interest of debate, it might be argued that when Jesus took the blind man outside the city, it was to stop any announcement of the event, or maybe to avoid confusion? No reference to prayer is suggested in this passage, and laying on of hands is not an acronym for praying.

What purpose is served by God healing anyone in stages? Why would Jesus want to heal this way?  Generally, many Churches teach that we should continue to seek healing not because Jesus heals in stages, but to encourage faith. In the narrative, the blind man did not seek healing based on the idea that Jesus healed in stages, and nothing he did, determined what Jesus would do. Interestingly Jesus never taught on this subject at any other stage, either as something he did, would do, or as a methodology for us to follow. The teaching and purpose behind this healing, and the specifics of the healing itself, are unrelated, insomuch as the context and purpose were metaphors to teach the disciples about spiritual blindness, and the healing was the method Jesus chose to convey an impending move of the spirit that would open their eyes. One might say that the blind man was an uninformed recipient of a healing that served a greater prophetic purpose. Indeed, if there was no greater purpose intended in the narrative, the stages of healing were theologically pointless, and would strongly suggest that Jesus failed to heal the first time, as if this were possible. If this were the case it would also question the divinity of Christ. Therefore, the real meaning has to lie in the context, the area that many Christians seem to ignore.

I wouldn’t use this passage, because of its prescriptive nature. But to be clear, I believe God reserves the right to heal as he pleases. Most commentators avoid suggesting a prescriptive application and allude to the vague, inconsistent, and unique nature of this healing. The fact that it stands alone within a specific context, doesn’t suggest it has a general application today. The point of my letter is not about restricting what God can do with healing, it’s about warning us not to take difficult and isolated texts, and project our self-serving ambitions into their meaning. We do this to manipulate the miraculous and revel in our efforts. The general example that Jesus demonstrated about healing, is perhaps a better example to follow and leave the idea of progressive stages to God. Essentially God doesn’t always heal, no matter what process we might incorporate. A basic rule of theology says that where a verb, or pronoun, is applied in scripture, God reserves the right to interpret it.