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 as a one-text theological solution implicitly replaces faith with a religious process, by shifting the basis of healing from faith, 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 isn’t consistent with the remaining New Testament canon. Therefore, considering its unique nature, why would Jesus heal in stages when it doesn’t appear elsewhere in the Bible? We must refer to the surrounding context to explain this unique event and find the answer. Unfortunately, encouraging progressive healing carries some coercion because more often than not it doesn’t acknowledge the detail embedded in the narrative. This can negatively affect our approach to faith, and the faithfulness of God. In reality, it’s less than useful for healing. Scripture already encourages us to pray and submit our infirmities to God, without adding the difficulties of an obscure passage that in reality has the sole purpose of teaching us about spiritual blindness.
For the most part, my concern is, that the text has no clear exegesis, and I question the motive of any teaching that 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 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 is asking the question, do you not see? Do you not understand? Do you not remember, and are your hearts hardened? If we apply some literary criticism, the overall narrative suggests a specific purpose behind this healing. Jesus was conveying that the disciples did not have spiritual eyes, they 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 at best. 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? 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 then ignore the progressive steps, are we not interpreting the passage selectively? Conversely, if we take the progressive steps of the 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 people from seeing the event happen, maybe to avoid confusion? No reference to prayer is suggested in this passage, and the laying on of hands is not an acronym for prayer!
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. Most importantly, the teaching and purpose behind this healing, and the specifics of the healing itself, are unrelated, insomuch as the context and purpose were to convey teaching about spiritual blindness, not physical blindness, and the healing itself was only the format Jesus chose to convey an impending move of the spirit. 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 by the narrative, the stages of healing were theologically pointless. It would strongly suggest that Jesus failed to heal the first time as if this were possible. If this were the case it would tend to question the divinity of Christ, so the real meaning has to lie in the context, the area that many Christians seem to ignore.
I wouldn’t use this passage, because it appears prescriptive. But to be clear, I believe God reserves the right to heal as he pleases. Most commentators avoid suggesting a prescriptive application and simply 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.
