“THE POWER OF TESTIMONY.”
BY REV. A. G. DANIELS.
One thing I know,
that, whereas I was blind, now I see. – John ix: 25.
The healing of
disease in answer to prayer is already one of the great themes of the day, and
it is both rapidly challenging the attention of those who hitherto have never
given it a though, and growing in interest among those whose minds have been
given to its study for many months and years.
It seems to the
writer of these lines that many words and much time have been wasted, both by
the opponents of this doctrine and by its advocates, from a failure to
recognize and emphasize the force of the credible testimony.
It is the object
of this article to call attention to this all-important factor in the
discussion of this great subject.
And now will the
reader, before he goes further with me, turn to John’s record of the gospel and
read carefully the ninth chapter? We have here the history of the healing of a
blind man by the power of Jesus, the Son of God.
We are given,
too, somewhat in detail, the effect this healing had upon his friends and
neighbors, and their utterances concerning it. Let us get the whole history
before us.
1. That God’s work might be
manifested, Jesus anointed the blind man’s eyes with clay, sent him to wash in
the pool, and the man came seeing, as other men.
2. His neighbors, and those
accustomed to see him by the wayside, now gather round him, and begin to
speculate about the healing. As was altogether natural, they begin with a
series of questions: First, they question among themselves, and the answers
come from among themselves, “Is this the man that was blind, or not?” Some
said, “Yes, it is he.” Others said, “No, it is not he, but he looks like the
blind man.” The man himself simply said, quietly, “I am the same.”
3. Granting that he who now sees is
identical with him that had been blind, they now ask, “How ere thine eyes
opened? They have been opened, we admit that; tell us how it was done.”
In answer to this question, the man who had been healed, in a very artless,
child-like way, simply testifies to the facts in the case, in the words of
verse eleven. That was all.
4. Then came the question concerning
Jesus, “Where is He?” They wished now to see Him that had wrought the cure, and
ask further questions of him, probably. The man was content to answer simply,
“I know not.”
And now he is
brought before the Pharisees-the learned men of the day. Follow the inspired
John into detail here:
1. Their question is, “How was it
done?” The answer was as brief and simple as before.
2. Some of the Pharisees at one
proclaim, dogmatically, “However it may be as to the fact of his healing, it
has not been done by the power of God, at any rate!” Others said, “If this man
is not of God, how can he do such wonders?” There was a division among the
learned ones at once.
3. Thus divided among themselves,
they ask the man who had been healed what he though of Jesus. He answered, “He
is a prophet.”
4. Because he held this opinion
the Jews now refuse to credit the story of his healing, or even of his previous
blindness, until his parents shall come and testify. They ask these parents two
questions; 1st, “Is this your son who, ye say, was born blind?” and,
2d, “How, then, doth he now see?”
The answer is, “We know that he is
our son and we know that he was born blind; but how he now seeth we know
not-ask him.” The latter words were spoken, and are told, because they feared
the Jews, who had threatened to put out of the Synagogue any who should confess
that Jesus was the Christ.
The Jews were prejudiced against the
truth in the case beforehand.
5. Now they call the man who had
been healed, and begin to instruct him, “Give the glory to God in some other
way than through Jesus; we know that this man is a sinner.” The man answered,
“Whether Jesus is a sinner I do not care to discuss. One thing I know, that,
whereas I was blind, now I see.” With this fact wrought into his very bones,
how far above any desire was he to discuss the question whether his Physician
was of God or “a sinner,” unworthy of confidence!
6. Again they return to the question
“How?” The man still adheres to his simple testimony, but becomes somewhat more
earnest in manner now. “I have told you how it was; wherefore would ye hear it
again; is it because ye wish to become his disciples, too, or because ye would
find fault?”
7. In reply to the assertion, “As
for this man, we know not whence he is,”-the man who had been healed now gives
evidence that he not only has faith in Jesus and is in the reality of his cure,
but that he has a logical mind as well. “Herein is the marvel, that ye know
not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes!!”
8. They now make only reply
possible, “Dost thou teach us?” and cast him out.
Concerning the course pursued by
these neighbors and these Jews, it may be remarked: First, The most diligent
and thorough inquiry into this reported healing was perfectly proper, and,
indeed, their duty. Whether the blind man and the man who now came seeing were
one and the same, must be first established. Then whether he had really been
blind, the very properly came up for a thorough consideration. Then it was
quite right to investigate the reality of his healing-to hear what the man
himself had to say, and any other testimony that could be produced. They only
did their duty in insisting carefully and persistently upon having all possible
testimony before them as a foundation upon which to rest their belief in regard
to the miracle.
Second. The Pharisees were
unreasonable in rejecting all evidence and refusing to credit the healing
because of the man’s opinion concerning the character of Jesus, or, indeed,
because of his opinion upon any subject. A real, miraculous healing did not
render himself infallible in his opinions, nor did it unfit him for an
intelligent opinion. His opinions did not come into the case at all. What was
wanted here was evidence-that, and that only.
Third. They were unreasonable in the
case-in their attempt to explain the healing in some other way than that
established by the testimony-and in casting out him who had been healed,
because he dared to use logic in such a way as to utterly destroy their
conclusions.
Concerning the
course pursued by the subject of this healing, it serves as a model till the
end of time. He simply, and in an humble manner, gave his testimony as
to his healing. He gave no opinion until asked, and they gave it modestly. HE
uttered but one sentence that may be called an argument, and that not for
argument’s sake, but only when the door was wide open, and all he had to do was
to go in and take possession. One thing he knew, and he was content to
testify as to what he knew. Here was his power.
The application
of the above is, perhaps, already sufficiently clear to the reader. Human
nature has not changed, although many centuries have rolled into the past.
What it is
reported to-day that some afflicted one has been healed of his disease by the
power of God, in answer to prayer, men at once gather round the case and enter
upon its discussion. This is well. But, that we may arrive at the truth, we
must remember that mere opinions, pro and con, are of no value whatever to help
us to the truth. The testimony in the case is the all-important thing.
Speculation is as utterly worthless here as it is when a man is on the trial
for his life before a jury of twelve. What you and I think about when the
report reaches us does not enter into the question. Nothing but the known
truth, such as can be sworn to by competent witness, is at first to claim our
attention. Was he sick? Let testimony answer. Has he been healed? Let testimony
answer. How as it done-through remedial agents or without them0through some
human power, or by Divine power only? Weigh the evidence, and let testimony
answer. If we would get at the truth, there must be no prejudice in our mind
that will forbid or hinder the cordial reception of the verdict that testimony
gives.
Many reports of
such healing have come to our ears with recent years. Were these persons truly
sick? Testimony says they were. They were sick for many years, receiving no
help from any human source, and constantly growing worse. Have they been
healed? Testimony says “Yes.” They are as well as they ever were- as well as
other men. They have been well for years, and doing more work than most people
think themselves able to do. How were they healed? Testimony says without the
use of remedies-under the very eyes of the most skillful physicians who could
only confess their inability to heal; instantly some of them; gradually,
others. In the name of Jesus they have arisen from their beds and
walked; in His name they have been walking ever since, physically and spiritually.
What about these witnesses
from whom we have this testimony? Are they competent? They are the parents of
those who have been healed. They are their brothers and sisters. They are
friends and neighbors. They are the physicians and pastors of those who were
sick, but are now well. They are in position to know the facts, and are thus
competent.
Are they
trustworthy? Those who know them say they are. They testify to what they know,
then, and their testimony is true. With this competent and trustworthy
testimony before us, what shall be our verdict? It is evident that no other
theory then that which ascribes the healing to God’s power can account for the
facts. Let us be careful here, lest, in thinking ourselves wise, we show our
selves as foolish as the unreasoning Pharisees. Let us not reject a theory that
to any devout Christian cannot seem absurd, whatever else it may seem, for
another that is absurd to the thinking Christian and the thinking infidel
alike. With all the facts before us, and with no other reasonable solution of
the problem, it becomes highly probable that God has seen fit to exercise His
power independent of the usual channels of His providence, and has healed some,
at least, without the use of remedies. This is so highly probable as to become
morally certain, especially when we consider the wonderful work that God is
doing through these restored ones.
We are not asked
to believe mere rumors, but established facts. The testimony of the healed and
of their friends and neighbors is before us, and it invites the most searching
investigation. The questions to be decided is-have these persons been healed in
answer to prayer and by God’s power only? Trustworthy testimony says they have.
Only speculation says no, and its verdict rests upon no testimony whatever, nor
upon any fact. Let us be candid, as the Pharisees were no, and joyfully receive
the truth, giving the glory to Jesus, the Son of God.
Let us not be so
unreasoning, either, as to connect the experiences of these brethren who
have been healed in this way with their teachings, in such a manner as
to make them stand or fall together. As interpreters of the Word, they take
their place with us all as longing for the truth, but liable to error. Their
doctrinal beliefs have nothing whatever to do with the fact of their healing.
They may be wrong in the former; they cannot be wrong in the latter. Unless we
look to our consecration and magnify the Spirit of God as our Guide into all
truth, they may come nearer the truth of the Word than we.
Does not this man
who was healed of his blindness speak a word across the centuries to those who
have recently been healed by the same power? If so, it seems to me to be this: “Enter
not into disputations in doctrine, but keep to your testimony.”
“One thing I
know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.” These learned Pharisees were able
to teach this man in many things, but they could not resist his simple
testimony as to fact. Dearly beloved, ye who have been exalted of the Lord,
utter no harsh words against the Church and her ministries because they do not
interpret some parts of God’s word as you do!
