Some Half-Baked Thoughts on Persistence

Hover over the references to see the Biblical text

I've been considering what overlap there is in the theologies and/or application of healing among successful ministries, and am pondering the practice of commanding healing. This practice is something we see in the New Testament (e.g. Matthew 8:3, Luke 4:39). It is also very clearly taught in John G. Lake’s teaching as continued by Curry Blake. It is also practiced in Word of Faith groups almost as a side effect of positive and negative confession. It is also commonly practiced in Pentecostal circles—Art Thomas, for example, models this approach.

Where it is less commonly practiced, there seems to me to be less evidence of consistency in healing. That could be because less forceful approaches to healing are reflective of an absence of conviction that healing is always God’s will. However, I have an alternative and complimentary possibility. Before I make that suggestion, however, I’d like to give some background to my thinking.

There are places we see demons putting up a fuss in the Gospel narrative. They don’t leave immediately and must be repeatedly told to get out (Mark's account of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1-17). We also see this at least once where a condition acts the same way but there is no mention of demonization (the two part/step healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-25). In all cases, repetition and tenacity lead to full healing. I think there is a case to be made that the tenses in the discussions about faith Matthew 17:20, Mark 11:23, and Luke 17:6 are intended to indicate that faith keeps at it until the thing is done.1 I mean, it makes little sense for Jesus to say (in Matthew) that the disciples’ small faith was the problem and then turn around and just tell them that the tiniest amount faith is sufficient—that would be nonsensical. However, telling them that tiny faith that persists is sufficient would make sense. It also fits the context. When Jesus returned from the transfiguration, the disciples have tried and failed to deliver the boy. In other words, they have tried and they have stopped—they gave up!

So why would we need to persist? Do we gain power by this action? I would say not. As Peter noted, healing isn’t the result of our power anyway (Acts 3:12). Do we gain more authority by it? Again, I’d say not. Our authority comes from Jesus, and he has all authority (Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:9). So, what then might persistence do?

Here’s my thought (and forgive me if this has been obvious to you for years): we’re convincing the affliction. Whether it’s a demon or simply a physical ailment, we are enforcing God’s will by commanding freedom and healing. God’s will is clear on this, but it seems we sometimes need to convince the demon/affliction of this fact. So, tenacious conviction that results in persistence may simply serve to convince the hearer (by which I mean the demon or affliction) that we are really, truly there to enforce God’s will—we’re just forcing the hearer to take us seriously. This could explain why even small faith is sufficient: our faith level is not the point of failure; failing to convince the hearer is the failure point. However, if we persist—even with small faith—we will eventually cause the problem to give up and comply with God’s will.

So, what do you think? Is there any merit to my ruminations or do you think I just wandered off into left field with this one? Do we need to convince ailments (and/or demons) the don’t respond right away that we really are there to enforce God’s will?

FOOTNOTES
1. Despite three semesters in seminary, my Greek is not great, but here are my thoughts on the tenses. in Matthew 17:20, Mark 11:23, and Luke 17:6. I’m quoting the ESV with any changes I make shown in square brackets.

In Matthew 17:20, Jesus starts with the present tense (continuous in the Greek) when he says, “If you [are having] faith like a grain of mustard seed,” and then moves to the future (a simple completed action in Greek) when he says, “you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you” (all three uses of “will…” are translated from future tense verbs). So, if you continue in faith the time will come when what your faith is working for actually gets done.

Mark 11:23 uses aorist for all the verbs in “whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart…” Aorist is past tense but does not indicate whether the thing that occurred happened once, multiple times, or over an extended period, so all this says is these things happened. However, the final part of Mark 11:23 has “but believes that what he says [is happening]” all in the present (continuous) tense and then ends with the future tense for “it will be done for him.” So, if you do have told the mountain to be thrown in the sea and you didn’t doubt, and you continue giving that command in faith, what you’re commanding will happen.

Luke 17:6 starts with the present (continuous) tense for “If you [are having] faith like a grain of mustard seed” and then moves to the imperfect (also continuous) for “you [would have been saying] to this mulberry tree” and then to the aorist for the remaining portion: “‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.” So, if you have persisted faith and have been telling the mulberry bush to move, that’s what would have happened.

In all three cases then, the tenses can indicate that continuing in faith results in the thing being done.

Comments