Perhaps the three most notable features of Luke's narrativein Acts 3 and 4 are (i) the spectacular healing miracle and prayerfor more, (ii) the Christ-centred preaching of Peter, and (iii)the outbreak of persecution. Because Peter's testimony to Christhas already been considered in some detail during the exposition,and because we will revert in the next chapter to the subject ofpersecution, we will concentrate now on the other topic ofmiracles.The current controversy over signs and wonders should notlead us into a naive polarization between those who are for themand those who are against. Instead, the place to begin is the widearea of agreement which exists among us. All biblical Christiansbelieve that, although the creator's faithfulness is revealed inthe uniformity and regularities of the universe, which are theindispensable bases of the scientific enterprise, he has alsosometimes deviated from the norms of nature into abnormalphenomena we call `miracles'. But to think of them as `deviationsof nature' is not to dismiss them (as did the eighteenth centurydeists), as `violations of nature' which cannot happen, andtherefore did not and do not happen. No, our biblical doctrine ofthe creation, that God has made everything out of an originalnothing, precludes this kind of scepticism. As Campbell Morgan putit, `granted the truth of the first verse of the Bible, and thereis no difficulty with the miracles'. Moreover, since we believethat the miracles recorded in the Bible, and not least in Acts,did happen, there is no *a priori* ground for asserting that theycannot recur today. We have no liberty to dictate to God what heis permitted to do and not to do. And if we have hesitations aboutsome claims to `signs and wonders' today, we must make sure thatwe have not confined both God and ourselves in the prison ofWestern, rationalistic unbelief.The popular exponent of `signs and wonders' teaching todayis John Wimber of the Vineyard Fellowship in California. He andKevin Springer have summarised his position in *Power evangelism*(1985) and *Power healing* (1986). Although it is impossible to dojustice to it in a few sentences, its leading ideas are (i) thatJesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, demonstrated its arrival bysigns and wonders, and means us similarly both to proclaim and todramatize its advance; (ii) that signs and wonders were `everydayoccurrences in New Testament times' and `a part of daily life', sothey should characterize `the normal Christian life' for us too;and (iii) that church growth in the Acts was largely due to theprevalence of miracles. `Signs and wonders occurred fourteen timesin the book of Acts in conjunction with preaching, resulting inchurch growth. Further, on twenty occasions church growth was adirect result of signs and wonders performed by the disciples.John Wimber argues his case with sincerity and force. Butsome unanswered questions remain. Let me ask three, especially inrelation to our study of the Acts. First, is it certain that signsand wonders are the main secret of church growth? John Wimbersupplies a table of fourteen instances in the Acts in which heclaims, signs and wonders accompanied the preaching and `producedevangelistic growth in the church'. One or two cases areindisputable, as when the Samaritan crowds `heard Philip and sawmiraculous signs he did' and so `paid close attention to what hesaid' (8:6,12). In a number of other cases, however, theconnection between miracles and church growth is made by JohnWimber not by Luke. For example, to take the only two cases hegives from the chapters we have so far considered, there is noevidence from the text that the Pentecostal phenomena of wind,fire and languages (2:1-4) were the direct cause of the threethousand converts of verse 41, nor that the healing of thecongenital cripple (3:1ff.) was the direct cause of the increaseto five thousand (4:4), as John Wimber's Table claims. Luke seemsrather to attribute the growth to the power of Peter's preaching.In this sense all true evangelism is `power evangelism', forconversion and new birth, and so church growth, can take placeonly by the power of God through his Word and Spirit. (eg. 1 Cor.2:1-5; 1 Thess. 1:5)Secondly, is it certain that signs and wonders are meant byGod to be `everyday occurrences' and `the normal Christian life'?I think not. Not only are miracles by definition `abnorms' ratherthan norms, but the Acts does not provide evidence that they werewidespread. Luke's emphasis is that they were performed mostly bythe Apostles (2:43; 5:12), and especially by the apostles Peterand Paul on whom he focuses our attention. True, Stephen andPhilip also did signs and wonders, and perhaps others did. But itcan be argued that Stephen and Philip were special people, not somuch because the apostles had laid hands on them (6:5-6) asbecause each was given a unique role in laying the foundation ofthe church's world-wide mission (see 7:1ff. and 8:5ff.). Certainlythe thrust of the Bible is that miracles clustered round theprincipal organs of revelation at fresh epochs of revelation,particularly Moses the lawgiver, the new prophetic witnessspearheaded by Elijah and Elisha, the Messianic ministry of Jesus,and the apostles, so that Paul referred to his miracles as `thethings that mark an apostle' (2 Cor, 12:12). There may well besituations in which miracles are appropriate today, for example,on the frontiers of mission and in an atmosphere of persuasiveunbelief which calls for a power encounter between Christ andAntichrist. But Scripture itself suggested that these will bespecial cases, rather than `a part of daily life'.Thirdly, is it certain that today's claimed signs andwonders are parallel to those recorded in the New Testament? Someare, or seem to be. But in his public ministry by turning waterinto wine, stilling a storm, multiplying loaves and fishes, andwalking on water, Jesus gave a preview of nature's final, totalsubservience to him - a subservience which belongs not to the`already' but to the `not yet' of the kingdom. We should not,therefore, expect to do these things ourselves today. Nor shouldwe expect to be miraculously rescued from prison by the angel ofthe Lord or to see church members struck dead like Ananias andSapphira. Even the healing miracles of the Gospels and the Actshad features which are seldom manifest even in the signs andwonders movement today.Let me come back to the Acts to illustrate this, and takethe healing of the cripple as my example. It is the first andlongest miraculous cure described in the book. It had fivenoteworthy characteristics, which together indicate what the NewTestament means by a miracle of healing. (i) The healing was of agrave, organic condition, and could not be regarded as apsychosomatic cure. Luke is at pains to tell us that the man hadbeen a cripple from birth (3:2), was now more than forty years old(4:22), and was so handicapped that he had to be carriedeverywhere (3:2). Humanly speaking, his case was hopeless. Doctorscould do nothing for him. (ii) The healing took place by a directword of command in the name of Christ, without the use of anymedical means. Not even prayer, the laying on of hands oranointing with oil were used. True, Peter gave the man a helpinghand (3:7), but this was not part of the cure. (iii) The healingwas instantaneous, not gradual, for `instantly the man's feet andankles became strong', so that he jumped up and began to walk(3:7-8). (iv) The healing was complete and permanent, not partialor temporary. This is stated twice. The man has been given `thiscomplete healing'. Peter said to the crowds (3:16), and laterstood before the Council `completely healed' (4:10, 1978 editionof NIV). (v) The healing was publicly acknowledged to beindisputable. There was no doubt or question about it. Thecrippled beggar was well known in the city (3:10, 16). Now he washealed. It was not only the disciples of Jesus who were convinced,but also the enemies of the gospel. The as-yet-unbelieving crowdwere `filled with wonder and amazement' (3:10), while the Councilcalled it `an outstanding miracle' which they could not deny(4:14,16).If, then, we take Scripture as our guide, we will avoidopposite extremes. We will neither describe miracles as `neverhappening', nor as `everyday occurrences', neither as `impossible'nor as `normal'. Instead, we will be entirely open to the God whoworks both through nature and through miracle. And when a healingmiracle is claimed, we will expect it to resemble those in theGospels and the Acts and so to be instantaneous and complete cureof an organic condition, without the use of medical or surgicalmeans, inviting investigation and persuading even unbelievers. Forso it was with the congenital cripple. Peter took his miraculoushealing as the text of both his sermon to the crowd and his speechto the Council. Word and sign together bore testimony to theuniquely powerful name of Jesus. The healing of the cripple's bodywas a vivid dramatization of the apostolic message of salvation.--John Stott, from his commentary on Acts 3-4
No comments:
Post a Comment