1

 

Contents

Introduction

Sickness in the Old Testament

Sickness as uncleanness – the case of ‘leprosy’

Sickness as curse – Deuteronomy 28

Job as the man who is sick despite his innocence

A change from Old Testament to New

Jesus bearing uncleanness on the cross

Jesus as accursed

Jesus as Innocent Sufferer

The transformation of our understanding of sickness

The matter of ‘judgement’ by sickness and death in Corinth

The case of Jezebel and her bed of sickness

The case of Epaphroditus coming close to death

Conclusion

Bibliography

 

Introduction

Some years ago I enrolled in a course which, among other things, explored the major ways in which the Old Testament understands sickness – as uncleanness, as curse, and as innocent suffering. It occurred to me that these themes are present in the cross of Christ. The aim of this paper is to explore the way in which Jesus Christ takes these understandings of sickness into his person on the cross and transforms the meaning of sickness.

Before beginning this exploration, I need to spell out briefly what I am not doing in this paper. Firstly, I do not imagine that the New Testament provides a clear direct theology of sickness within its pages. The Gospels do not present a theology of sickness because their focus is on the life and works of Jesus. The sick in the Gospels are healed in great numbers. The New Testament epistles do not have sickness as their direct focus either, even though there is mention of particular sick people in certain churches. A theology of sickness does not appear to have been a central concern to the apostles in the first century. Secondly, I am not proposing that the cross brings an end to sickness in this present evil age. Although the New Testament contains accounts of many and varied physical healings, there are several sick people mentioned within its pages who were not healed. Even prominent persons in the church like Timothy (1 Tim. 5:23) and Trophimus (2 Tim. 4:20) were recorded as being ill. I am not seeking to provide a theology of healing. 

What I do aim to provide here is - at least the beginnings of - a theology of sickness which moves beyond the Old Testament paradigms. The cross of Christ is a cosmological event; the whole of creation is transformed by the death and resurrection of Jesus. As a result it is to be expected that a Christian theology of sickness would take this transformation of the world into account. While we live in a world which still contains death and disease, the cross should transform the way in which we view these realities. In this paper I hope to provide just such a new way of viewing sickness through the lens of the cross. I begin by examining the three major understandings of sickness in the Old Testament – sickness as uncleanness, curse, and innocent suffering. To explore these I use the examples of the person with ‘leprosy’, the curses of Deuteronomy 28, and the innocent suffering of Job.

Then I explore how uncleanness, curse, and innocent suffering are present at the cross. At the cross Jesus bore our uncleanness, became a curse for us, and suffered as the ultimate innocent sufferer. Next, I examine three instances of sickness within the New Testament: the judgement on the Corinthian church, who failed to discern the body of Christ; the sickness which befell the false prophetess Jezebel in the book of Revelation; and the innocent suffering of Epaphroditus. I use both the significance of the cross and these New Testament examples of sickness to attempt to provide the beginnings of a theology of sickness informed by the cross. Because of the cross we can no longer understand sickness as uncleanness or curse. Christians do sometimes become sick as innocent sufferers because of their service for Christ. And sometimes God uses sickness as a call to repentance for individual Christians and the church so that church might be holy.

I begin my discussion of Old Testament paradigms of sickness with the case of ‘leprosy’ in Leviticus chapters 13 and 14.

Sickness in the Old Testament

Sickness as uncleanness – the case of ‘leprosy’

Leviticus chapters 13 and 14 describe the diseases which in Hebrew are denoted ṣāra‘at. Although this word has been traditionally translated as leprosy[1], commentators and medical practitioners are in agreement that ṣāra‘at does not describe leprosy, that is, the disease now known as Hanson’s disease[2]. A better understanding of the term would be as a descriptor which denotes several different serious skins diseases[3] with symptoms which include sores which cover the body, bleed, exude an unpleasant smell, and look repugnant[4]. 

The dominant understanding in Leviticus in regard to these skin diseases is that they cause a person to be ritually unclean because ‘holiness in Leviticus is symbolised by wholeness’[5]. The role of the priest concerning this group of skin diseases is diagnosis for the purpose of declaring a person unclean (Lev. 13:1-3, 7-15, 18-22, 24-28) (or clean in the case that his or her skin disease is not ṣāra‘at). The priest had no medicinal role; he did not offer any medical help to the person with the skin disease. Instead the priest’s role was foremost to guard the purity of the holy place – tabernacle or temple – by keeping those who were unclean away from the holy[6]. The need for ritual purity is what motivated the priest and not a concern for public health[7].

The results of being declared unclean because of having a serious skin disease are significant for the person who is unclean. Once the diagnosis of ṣāra‘at had been confirmed then the person was required to wear torn clothes and unkempt hair, cover his or her upper lip and warn people of his or her uncleanness by crying out ‘unclean, unclean’ (Lev. 13:45). The unclean person was required to live outside the community of the holy people, in exile from those who live within the presence of God and receive the blessings of the covenant (Lev. 13:46) [8]. In a way the ‘leper’ is a person on the edge of death, remaining away from the community until healed or until life’s end[9].

If the person with the serious skin disease became well again he or she could only re-enter the holy community after undergoing several rituals to transform him or her to a state of ritual cleanness. The ritual to be performed was detailed and lengthy[10], requiring each of the different kinds of sacrifice described in Leviticus, thus underscoring the weightiness of the ritual[11]. The process was not unlike passing from death to life as the person with the skin disease was one who had been dead to society. Having performed the required ritual the newly clean person was again installed into society and reconciled to God[12].

Sickness as uncleanness kept the sick person isolated from the community of faith and from God. This understanding is therefore very significant in regard to how the sick person is treated. There is a second Old Testament understanding of sickness which has serious ramifications for the sick person, that is, sickness as curse. I will now turn to an examination of Deuteronomy 28 to consider this understanding of sickness.

Sickness as curse – Deuteronomy 28

The book of Deuteronomy, especially chapters 27 and 28, provides another understanding of sickness in the Old Testament, that of sickness as curse. Obedience was promoted by the blessings of the covenant and disobedience discouraged by the awful consequences which would follow rebellion against Yahweh[13]. The curses are the weightier of the two sections of chapter 28 as the intent was to induce obedience[14]. The covenant recitation made a clear dichotomy between obedience and disobedience; no middle ground existed. Israel was responsible to Yahweh for their actions[15] and the curse which was the result of disobedience was something which came from the hand of God[16].

To each curse the people respond ‘Amen’....by saying amen the people indicate understanding and agreement and thereby remove any possible excuse for their conduct, if at some subsequent time they were to disobey the law of the covenant.....If secrecy is the theme then the curses pronounced make it clear that crime is not determined merely by its discovery and punishment; whether or not an illegal act was ever discovered, it was nevertheless a crime against God and therefore deserved the curse of God[17].

Chapter 28 contains details of the curses pronounced in chapter 27 against those who breach the covenant.  These curses make it clear that Yahweh is sovereign over all aspects of life including health and sickness[18]. There are three cycles of curses – verses 21-26, 27-34, and 35-44 - each of which begins with a description of the diseases which would befall lawbreakers[19], afflicting both body and mind[20]. The first cycle (Deut. 28:22) begins with seven disasters which will befall those who breach the covenant. Nelson and Mayes agree that these seven are diseases of the body, although some of the words are infrequent in the Hebrew text and are therefore difficult to translate. The first three are clearly diseases, the next two can be used of weather but also of disease, and the final two refer to crop diseases but can be used of human illness. The seven together in one place suggest that all are intended as human disease in this context. Consumption, fever, inflammation, feverish illness, dehydration, scorching fever, and jaundice are possible translations of these obscure words. The second cycle (v. 27) mentions four diseases of the skin, all of which are difficult to identify with certainty. These are followed in verse 28 by madness, blindness, and confusion of heart. The afflictions are those common to battle situations. They may be psychological afflictions resulting from terror or they may refer to physical afflictions. The last mention of disease is made in the final cycle. Boils on the knees and the legs, and all over the body will break out on those who break the covenant. Boils are reminiscent of the plagues upon Egypt (Exod. 9:8-12) [21]

The sicknesses, both physical and mental, which result from the curses on disobedience, are serious. If the sufferer is assumed to be under a curse then the implications are likewise serious for the sick person. This brings us to the third paradigm of sickness present in the Old Testament, that of innocent suffering. Job is a man who insists on his innocence when his friends assume that he is under God’s curse because he is sick.

Job as the man who is sick despite his innocence

The third major Old Testament understanding of sickness is as innocent suffering. This understanding is most plain in the book of Job. The book of Job records the extreme suffering of the man Job as a result of a wager between Yahweh and the satan. The satan tells God that Job would not worship him if his wealth and children were taken from him. When these events occur and yet do not move Job, Yahweh agrees to allow the satan to inflict sickness on Job himself. The events which take place in heaven are not known to Job but only to the reader. There is much of interest in the book of Job but what I want to consider is the phenomenon in Job of the sickness of an innocent man.

That Job is an innocent man is made clear by the narrator of the book. The narrator asserts Job’s innocence in the very first verse of the book – ‘That man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.’ The same thing is asserted by Yahweh in 1:8[22]. Job is an honest man who turns from what is evil. As the poetry progresses Job’s righteousness is uncovered further. In Job’s final speeches (chapters 29-31) he continues to insist on his own integrity and that this is known to all. Neither human beings (4:3-6) nor God (42:8) could apportion blame to him[23]. Indeed, ‘[t]he fact of Job’s genuine righteousness is essential to the book’[24]. The book of Job makes no claim that Job is sinless but he is an authentically good man, who loves God, and who evokes the delight of Yahweh himself for this reason[25].

The innocence of Job is made clear in other ways as well. Job conscientiously offered sacrifices for his children’s sins, whether actual or potential. Thus his suffering cannot be attributed to his children’s sins. Job is careful always to honour Yahweh, making use of the divine name only in the narrative sections at beginning and end. When Job has been stripped of his wealth and his children have died, we read that ‘In all this, Job did not sin or charge God with wrongdoing’ (1:25)[26] . Yahweh also acknowledges before the satan Job’s innocence in this matter (2:3)[27] .

In chapter 2 (vv. 7-8) Job is afflicted with an illness by the satan. The disease is one which covers all of Job’s body but the story does not provide the kind of detail which could facilitate a diagnosis. Most likely, it was a skin disease. Statements like, ‘The night racks my bones, and the pain that gnaws me takes no rest’ (30:17) suggest that he experienced severe pain. The various symptoms described in the poetry provide a shocking picture of a man whose pain and deformity are agonizing[28]. Not only does Job become seriously ill but he is ostracised because of the common belief that sickness was the recompense for the sins of the sick person. Job’s fall from the heights of wealth and blessing to sickness and poverty results in his peers assuming that he is a great sinner. Thus he became lonely and cut off from society, going off to the rubbish pile to scrape at his sores[29]. 

A change from Old Testament to New

These three understandings of sickness – curse, uncleanness and innocent suffering - are not exhaustive of what the Old Testament has to say but they do represent three significant paradigms for sickness as found in the Hebrew Bible. I want to move on to look at the way these Old Testament understandings of sickness are present in the New Testament interpretation of the suffering Jesus on the cross. My central argument in this paper is that Jesus transformed in his person, in his sacrificial death on the cross, the three main understandings of sickness in the Old Testament. As the cross is the central and most important event in history of salvation, it should not be a stretch to see the cross as having an effect on a Christian understanding of sickness. I will take each Old Testament understanding of sickness in turn and see how this is affected by the cross. The first is Jesus’ experience of being unclean on the cross.

Jesus bearing uncleanness on the cross

In this section the aim is to demonstrate that Jesus died as an unclean person upon the cross. As no explicit statement of this is made in the New Testament I will mount evidence from several angles for this purpose. The place in which Jesus died was an unclean place. Firstly, the hill on which he died is named Golgotha, the place of the skull (Matt. 27:33; Mark 15:22; John 19:17). The name itself evokes images of uncleanness. Human bones defile a place or a person. In 2 Kings. 23:16 Josiah used burnt bones to defile an altar and Num. 19:16 mentions the uncleanness of bones as well as dead bodies: ‘Whoever in the open field touches one who has been killed by a sword, or who has died naturally, or a human bone, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.’ The unclean person could transfer his or her uncleanness to objects and required a ritual for cleansing (Num. 19:20-22). In the place called Golgotha crucifixions took place regularly. It would have been impossible to avoid uncleanness in such a place of death.

Jesus was considered by his contemporaries as unclean by his contact with the soldiers at the place of crucifixion. Passakos[30] notes that according to rabbinical traditions, which were indicative of the Jewish viewpoint in the time of Jesus, there were seven classes of people. At the top were priests who were considered the most holy class of people. At the bottom of the scale were Gentiles who were more than merely unclean; they were an abomination. ‘Any contact with their bodies, clothes, houses, even cooking vessels was avoided as polluting.’ [31] In view of what Passakos says, being manhandled by soldiers would have been considered defiling to a person, quite apart from the other associations that crucifixion possessed.

Reference to uncleanness in the circumstances of Jesus’ death also occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The writer to the Hebrews says: ‘Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured’ (Heb. 13:12-13). The primary point of the passage is that Christians must abandon the Jewish establishment and its practices. This would involve suffering shame, but following Jesus is now the way to experience the presence of God[32]. However, the statement about Jesus suffering outside the camp has secondary implications. It is these secondary implications which are of concern to me here.

As I pointed out earlier in this paper, the New Testament does not provide an explicit theology of sickness. In order to think through a theology of sickness it is necessary to sometimes ‘read between the lines’ of the New Testament. In order to make his point about Christian discipleship the writer to the Hebrews makes some Old Testament allusions. The fact that Jesus died outside the holy city of Jerusalem seemed to emphasise to onlookers that Jesus was a blasphemer, cast out of the holy place[33]. Formerly, inside the camp was associated with holiness and the sacred, and outside the camp was given over to the profane and unclean[34]. Importantly, being executed outside the camp implied the shame of being barred from the holy sphere. The reason for this shame in being cast out of the camp is the belief that God was present within the camp. As the camp is made holy by God the unclean cannot remain within it[35]. Jesus is thus made unclean by his execution outside the camp.

This uncleanness and exclusion provide some parallels between the ‘leper’ of Leviticus 13 and 14 and Jesus on the cross. The ‘leper’ was excluded from the camp as unclean and not able to return to the community until cleansed. As noted earlier, having ‘leprosy’ was akin to being dead. Being outside the holy community, the ‘leper’ was one shut out from God’s presence. As Jesus died upon the cross he was, seemingly, cut off from the presence of God. Without doubt he was excluded from the fellowship of God’s people in the Temple. In being unclean upon the cross, Jesus bore in himself the uncleanness of the ‘leper’.

While Jesus is not explicitly called unclean in the New Testament, he is more explicitly said to make others clean. He cleansed the lepers (Matt. 8:1-4) and declared the disciples clean because of the word he spoke to them (John 15:3). And, more pertinently for this argument, Jesus cleansed the church by his own blood (Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:14). These passages declare that the church is cleansed from sin and from an impure conscience by the sacrifice of Christ. The most explicit reference to the cleansing of the church is found in Ephesians 5:25-27: ‘Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind-- yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.’ Jesus gave himself up, that is, he died, for the church. It is explicit in this passage that it was the action of the cross which resulted in the cleansing of the church.

Jesus Christ was unclean upon the cross, outside the city wall, and that bearing of uncleanness has had the result of purifying the church. This is the first part of the transformation of the Old Testament paradigm of sickness. Because of Jesus bearing uncleanness on the cross, sickness in Christians can no longer be understood as uncleanness. In Christ, sick people are not unclean. The second part of the paradigm is sickness as curse and Jesus has transformed this understanding as well by becoming a curse for us.

Jesus as accursed

Next we move on to explore the New Testament understanding that Jesus was accursed on the cross. Paul says of Christ on the cross that he became a curse for us to redeem us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Bruce[36] defines ‘the curse of the law’ as ‘the curse pronounced by the Old Testament Law on the lawbreaker.’ It is impossible to gain justification by means of the works of the law. Instead of the desired blessing, every person who places himself or herself under the demands of the law receives a curse for non-fulfilment. Paul cites Deut. 27:26 to show that those who do not obey the law in its entirety are under a curse[37]. As such attempts to gain blessing via the law are futile because while the law imparts knowledge of what to do it does not impart the power to do so[38].

This reality cannot be changed except by the cross. The death of Jesus on the cross has brought about redemption from the curse of the law. ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us-- for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”’ (Gal. 3:13). What this means is that Jesus Christ has borne the Deuteronomic curses in order that those who have faith in Christ can share in the Deuteronomic blessings[39]. The curse of the law was fully borne by Jesus. Nothing remains of the curse for those who appropriate the blessings of Abraham - including the Spirit - by means of faith[40]. Correspondingly, it is only in appropriating the work of the cross that the Deuteronomic curses, which apply to the present age, can be exchanged for the blessings of the future age[41].

Paul does not state that Jesus was cursed by God but the implication is there. ‘The curse of the law’ is synonymous with ‘cursed by God’[42]. Christ died and was exhibited upon the cross as a criminal, bearing the shame of the cross, as one accursed of God. Paul uses the reference to Deut. 21:23 in order to make this accursedness evident and show that the death of Jesus satisfied the justice of God[43]. The curse of God fell on Jesus in place of Israel, to whom it belonged because of her disobedience, and in place of the whole world, of whom Israel was representative.

The fact that a price was paid for this freedom from the curse is too significant to be made light of. Other passages of scripture speak of ransom (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6) and redemption (Titus 2:14). This redemption is more than merely freeing a prisoner. The mention of ‘the curse of the law’ indicates that the justice of God has been transgressed and needed to be assuaged by the cross. It is not appropriate to interpret this act as ‘release from a false conception of God’s attitude, viz., from the belief that God actually deals with men on a legalistic basis’ as Burton[44] states[45]. Rather, Christ became a curse to pay for a deliverance from the sentence of death on those who had broken the law[46].

This bearing of the curse of the law operates as an exchange; Jesus ‘became a curse for us’ (Gal. 3:13)[47]. The innocent man Jesus, who has fully obeyed the law, has taken upon himself the curse of the law, and those who have faith in him, although they be guilty of breaking the law, receive the blessings of the law[48]. As Luther[49] put it:

thou Christ art my sin and my curse, or rather, I am thy sin, thy curse, thy death, thy wrath of God, thy hell; and contrariwise, thou art my righteousness, my blessing, my life, my grace of God and my heaven.

Jesus as Innocent Sufferer

I have argued so far that Jesus has born both uncleanness and the curse of the law upon the cross. Now I will consider the final Old Testament paradigm for sickness, that of innocent suffering. Even more so than Job, Jesus suffered as an innocent man.

The man Jesus Christ was continually predisposed to doing his Father’s will as the totally obedient Son (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8). He did this without question and without sin. John (8:46) makes this point clear as Jesus challenged his opponents, ‘Which of you convicts me of sin?’[50]. This sinlessness is genuine in that Jesus was tempted as all human beings are yet he did not sin (Heb. 4:15); he is even called ‘holy, blameless, undefiled’ (Heb. 7:26). Neither Jesus’ detractors nor Jesus himself knew of any sin he had committed. Jesus never prayed for forgiveness; he had no need to do so because all that he did was in conformity to the will of God [51]. 

This sinlessness is important when it comes to understanding the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. In several places in the New Testament Jesus is spoken of as the spotless victim. ‘For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21). ‘How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!’ (Heb. 9:14). ‘"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.’ (1 Pet 2:21-24, see also 1:19). ‘And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure. Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin’ (1 John 3:3-5)[52]. His death was not the result of his own guilt but on behalf of sinners, thus providing expiation for the sins of the world[53].

The New Testament is unambiguous in its testimony to the sinlessness of Jesus. The church, too, has held this conviction for two millennia. It was expressed in writing by the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680), but held to be true by Christians from the beginning[54].  Up to the 19th century the church also held that Jesus had no corruption of his nature and thus no penchant to sin. Many theologians now hold that Jesus took on a fallen human nature, yet still without actual sin[55].

This short discussion is sufficient to make clear that Jesus was a sinless human being, walking constantly in the will of God. As such he did not deserve death due to personal guilt. Thus Jesus is the ultimate in innocent sufferers in his passion and death on the cross. The Gospels make no direct mentions of Jesus being sick on the cross, although injury is certainly strongly implied by the beating from the Romans and the reality of crucifixion[56]. For the purposes of my exploration of sickness I am not arguing that Jesus was an innocent sufferer of sickness and disease, but rather that Jesus was an innocent sufferer of physical affliction.

The transformation of our understanding of sickness

Although the cross is not explicitly connected to sickness in the New Testament, it is fair to say that Jesus’ death on the cross is an event which has and does affect every area of human life, and this must include our understanding of sickness. By his death, Jesus has undone the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. He has washed the church by his own blood, making her clean. And he has borne the suffering of the innocent in his own body. These realities mean that we can no longer understand sickness in the Christian in the same way that it is understood by the three Old Testament paradigms discussed above. In order to see how the New Testament understanding of sickness is worked out in the life of the Christian, I will now explore three New Testament examples of sickness.

The matter of ‘judgement’ by sickness and death in Corinth

In considering the way in which the New Testament views sickness it is necessary to examine some actual cases of sickness in its pages. An interesting test case for the matters under discussion is the ‘judgement’ on the Corinthian church. The question is how this ‘judgement’ on the church can be understood in light of the discussion above. Did the apostle Paul understand the sickness in the church at Corinth  as curse or uncleanness[57], or did they experience it in a different way because of the redemption of the cross?

1 Corinthians 11:17-34 contains an admonition from the apostle Paul in regard to the abuse of the communion feast. Several members of the church at Corinth had become ill and others had died as a result of their behaviour (1 Cor. 11:30). The judgement which came upon the Corinthians from the Lord was that they were asthenēs (weak, sick, ill) and arrōstos (sick, ill), plus some had koimaō (fall(en) asleep)[58]. These words are not metaphors for spiritual weakness and death[59].  On the contrary, asthenēs and arrōstos involve actual physical weakness and sickness[60].

Judgement – in various forms - is a clear theme running through this passage. Verses 29-34 contain a number of different words formed from the Greek roots krima and krinō. These roots carry the idea of judgement in its various nuances. The wordplay is less evident in the English translations[61]. Other words which belong in a judicial context abound – unworthy, answerable, chastise. The central theme of the pericope is clear. The church can either judge (examine) their own behaviour or they will be judged by the Lord[62]. 

The word ‘judgement’ in this passage should not be understood to mean condemnation. krima ‘is a neutral word’, meaning ‘judgement’ or ‘sentence’ but certainly not ‘condemnation’ or ‘damnation’. The judgement here is an unfavourable punishment, but that punishment is only temporal[63]. The intent is to exclude the condemnation of the final judgement (11:32). God chastened the Corinthians because he chastens those whom he loves (Prov. 3:12; Heb. 12:6)[64]. The world is condemned but the church is disciplined and educated to change her sinning ways towards righteous living[65]. In the case of the Corinthian church, sickness was a sign of God’s grace towards them in that it was to lead them towards repentance and away from a convergence with the sinful unbelieving world whose destiny is condemnation[66].

How are we are to understand this passage in light of what Jesus has done on the cross? That Jesus has become a curse for us (Gal. 3:13) means that there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Believers are not cast out of the presence of God, because they are blessed in Christ (Eph. 1:3), not cursed. In terms of sickness, this must imply that sickness is not a curse from God, not an expression of his wrath on the sin of a believer. Instead, the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 suggests that sickness is (at least in some instances) a part of God’s mercy which leads us to repentance.

Excursus – a scientific worldview?

How does this understanding of sickness as ‘judgement’ fit in with a scientific worldview? Paul did not interpret the sicknesses, weakness and premature deaths in the Corinthian church in terms of germs, toxins and predisposing genetic conditions, because these things were not and could not be part of his worldview as a first century person.  Central to Paul’s worldview is the cross and its implications for the nature of reality and for Christian living. As Christian people of the 21st century we cannot escape a scientific worldview, nor should we ignore scientific discoveries. However, because we are not people who live according to the visible only but also by faith, we live according to the implications of the cross of Christ for the nature of reality and for Christian living. In this sense we can share Paul’s worldview. He looks at the Corinthian situation primarily in terms of a worldview permeated by the knowledge that the incarnation has changed the invisible reality in which we, as Christian people, live.

Does a germ theory of disease then negate the possibility that sickness is a judgement of God? Bonhoeffer makes a pertinent observation about the way in which God works in a fallen world.  He writes:

The decisive point is that God’s action is now one that orders and restrains. It does not break the new laws that now apply to the earth and humankind after the fall; it participates in them. At the same time, however, by participating in them, it imposes on them restraint and order; that is, it points to the wickedness, the fallen state, of those laws.....God’s way of acting to preserve the world is to affirm the sinful world and to show it its limits by means of order[67].

In a fallen world God does not stop germs, toxins or genetic predispositions to disease. However, these things are not outside his control because he is a God of order. Sickness and disease are instruments in the hands of God and he sometimes uses these things to judge the church.

The case of Jezebel and her bed of sickness

Sickness in the church may well be a ‘judgement’ of God in order to bring the church to repentance. It may also be a means of purifying the church from those who are false teachers and false believers. God’s desire is holiness in his church, therefore immorality and idolatry must not be allowed to thrive therein.

Another example of sickness in the New Testament church is found in Revelation 2:20-23 in the epistle to the church at Thyatira. This appears to be a clear case of sickness as punishment for sin. Jezebel and her followers were sick and in distress. Jezebel was literally to be thrown on a bed, bed being a reference to sickness, which in turn figuratively means suffering. Her disciples would expect a similar punishment[68]. Here the reason for Jezebel’s sickness is spelled out plainly. She claimed to be a prophet and led some of the church away from Christian behaviour towards fornication and idolatry (v. 20). Despite being given time to repent, she had continued on in her sin (v. 21). This is a case of sickness in a New Testament church which does not leave ambiguity as to why the sickness occurred. What is of importance to my discussion is the way in which this sickness should be understood.

The case of Jezebel and her bed of sickness is different to the temporal judgment of the church in Corinth. There is no suggestion of discipline by temporal judgement in this passage. On the contrary, Jezebel was an unbeliever who had infiltrated the church, and her false teaching had to be severely dealt with. The teaching of Jezebel was a part of the idolatrous thinking of the world[69]. ‘In as much by her teaching and conduct the prophetess has placed herself outside the sphere of salvation, which is determined by communion with Jesus.’[70]  Beale suggests that the punishment metered out to Jezebel and her followers is a foretaste of the punishment which will be poured out on Babylon in chapter 18.  The ‘great tribulation’ (v. 22) which is predicted for Jezebel and her follows seems to be a beginning of the ‘great tribulation’ mentioned in 7:14, during which those who are saved will be spiritually shielded. Jezebel’s punishment is a punishment for unbelievers and her actions and speech demonstrate that she is just that[71].

The purpose of the sickness which afflicted Jezebel, and those who followed her, is the purification of the church, which Jesus keeps within his own salvific realm. Similar acts of purification of the church community are found in Acts 5:1-11 and 1 Corinthians 5.  The remainder of the church will not suffer any punishment while they hold on to what they have, which is fellowship and union with Jesus Christ. Jesus punishes Jezebel and those who follow her false teachings in order to let it be known in all the churches that he is the one who searches hearts and exercises his lordship over those who are his [72].

The end of the book of Revelation revisits some of the themes which are apparent in the case of Jezebel. Rev. 21:27 speaks of the exclusion of the unclean from the Holy City which has come down from heaven. Unclean here refers to those who have committed idolatry and been unfaithful to the true God. The connection between uncleanness and idolatry is evident in 17:4-5 where the abomination and uncleanness of the whore of Babylon refer to her idolatry. In 21:8 those who are excluded include the liars, that is, those who claimed to serve Christ yet have demonstrated by their ‘sinful lifestyle’ that they are in fact ‘false believers’[73]. The repetition of these themes in the book of Revelation reinforces the conviction that Jezebel was not a genuine believer. Her sickness was a punishment fit for an unbeliever. 

In this passage sickness is punishment but Jezebel was not a genuine Christian so this sickness is not part of the new paradigm of sickness which has been transformed by the cross. We could not conclude that sickness was punishment for Christians in the sense that it is punishment in this example. The comparison with the whore of Babylon in chapter 18 gives credence to the idea that this sickness was judgement on sin, and condemnation of that sin is included in the punishment. It differs from the judgement found in 1 Corinthians because it is judgement on unbelievers who are under the wrath of God and subject to condemnation. The church at Corinth was subject to a temporal judgement which served to prevent them from being judged with the world. Jezebel, on the other hand, was judged with the world.

God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezek 18:23, 33:11). Those who are not joined to Christ are wicked, but the opportunity to repent is still available while they live. In the case of sickness which comes upon the wicked, this is yet another call to repentance. Many will pay no heed to the call but this does not negate the purpose. Jezebel and her followers were given an opportunity to repent. The challenge, then, is for the church to discern when sickness is the result of godlessness and to bring the call to repentance to the sinner, rather than to give glib reassurance that nothing is wrong. The church is called to be a prophetic body which understands the Word of God and proclaims that immorality and idolatry is false and subject to judgement. The church can then issue the call to repentance and offer the forgiveness that is the result of the cross.

Having looked at an example of sickness as God’s temporal ‘judgement’ on the church in order to bring the members to repentance, and an example of punishment on unbelievers within the church, we now turn finally to an example of sickness as innocent suffering for the believing person. 

The case of Epaphroditus coming close to death

A good example of an innocent sufferer of illness is Epaphroditus, whose story is found in Phil. 2:25-30. Epaphroditus had been sent by the Philippian church to minister to Paul’s needs while Paul was in prison. Paul’s affection for Epaphroditus is evident in the five appellations Paul uses to describe him: brother, fellow worker, fellow soldier, messenger and minister. Brother is a term used of all those in the Christian community but the other terms say more about Epaphroditus’ work with and for Paul. Fellow worker denotes someone who has worked with Paul in spreading the gospel. Fellow soldier is a military metaphor used of one who has fought side by side with Paul and now is wounded and must be sent home to recover. Epaphroditus was also a messenger or apostle of the Philippian congregation, sent for the purpose of ministering to Paul’s needs. This ministry Paul described as a ‘priestly duty’. It is likely that Epaphroditus, in his mission to aid Paul, shared in Paul’s suffering for the gospel, maybe even his confinement[74].

Epaphroditus was sick nearly to the point of death, but Paul gave no clue about what the illness was or how Epaphroditus became ill. Nonetheless, Paul endeavoured make the Philippian church see Epaphroditus’ sickness in a positive way - it was because of the work of the gospel that Epaphroditus became so ill. Not only is there no clue about what the illness was, there is no mention of how Epaphroditus was healed of his illness. Apparently, Paul could not heal his colleague in this instance[75]. Although the nature of Epaphroditus’ illness and the means of his recovery are unknown, Paul takes pains to emphasise the seriousness of his illness.  Epaphroditus’ illness brought him extremely close to death[76].

In contrast to the severity of Epaphroditus’ illness, Paul stresses the largeness of God’s mercy. He recovered from his near-deadly disease because of ‘a sovereign merciful act of God’[77]. This immense mercy is revealed as outstanding by the fact that the ancient world was a place bereft of medical science. A person who came close to death was unlikely to recover from his or her illness. Because of this it is likely that Paul’s statement, ‘God had mercy on him’ means that God intervened directly in the case of Epaphroditus, rather than simply a general statement of God’s mercy[78]. God’s mercy was such that not only was Epaphroditus spared from death but Paul was also spared the grief of experiencing the death of a colleague[79].

Most importantly, Paul told the Philippians about Epaphroditus’ illness, which brought him near to death, because Paul wanted to uphold Epaphroditus as a Christlike example for his fellow Christians to emulate. Epaphroditus became ill in the course of discharging the mission on which the Philippian church sent him. Although he became ill during his mission he continued on in order to finish the task, and the result was nearly his death[80]. In verses 29-30, Paul commends Epaphroditus to the church, urging them to welcome him and to honour him because he came close to dying in his service for Christ and the task of helping Paul. Engaging in the work of Christ is the primary reason for Epaphroditus’ illness[81]. His coming near to death is reminiscent of Christ’s humbling himself in obedience unto death. The parallel is intended to confirm Epaphroditus as an exemplary Christian who served selflessly[82].

Epaphroditus’ illness is evidently not something which is the result of personal sin. Epaphroditus became ill as a direct result of his work for the cause of Christ. In contrast to the sickness and even death which was rampant in the Corinthian church, Epaphroditus’ illness was not given by God. The Corinthians were sick because they sinned but Epaphroditus was healed by the mercy of God because his actions were selfless. Unlike the false prophetess in Thyatira, who was being punished for her false teaching, Epaphroditus was sick because of his work for the gospel. The case of Epaphroditus is similar to that of Job as a sick righteous man and more explicitly paralleled to Christ and his humble death.

Conclusion

Having examined the way in which Jesus’ experience on the cross is connected to the Old Testament paradigms of sickness, and the examples of sick people on the pages of the New Testament, it is now possible to attempt to describe a New Testament framework for understanding sickness. The way in which the New Testament understands sickness for believers must be different to the way in which the Old Testament understands sickness. This is due to the fact of the cross, which has cosmic dimensions. It is reasonable to say that the event of the cross and resurrection of Jesus has impacted the world in a way which outweighs all other events in history. Therefore, I contend that the way in which Christians should understand the sickness of believers must be transformed by the event of the cross.

Because Jesus took both curse and uncleanness upon himself on the cross as he bore the wrath of God on sinners, it is no longer correct to view sickness through the Old Testament paradigms of curse and uncleanness. The curses of Deuteronomy were in the context of being cast out of the land because of sin (e.g. Deut. 28:21), and the unclean ‘leper’ in Leviticus could not come into the covenant community, nor into the temple, while he or she was ‘leprous’ (Lev. 13:45-46). But the New Testament affirms that believers can enter freely into the presence of God at any time (e.g. Heb. 4:16). Sickness is no hindrance to coming before God. No longer can Christians be considered cursed or unclean when experiencing sickness. The church has been washed clean by the blood of Jesus, and the blessing of Abraham, namely the Holy Spirit, will not be removed from the children of God, as he is our seal and the pledge of our inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14).

Sickness is still something which many, if not most Christians must endure at some time during their Christian walk. According to our brief survey of sickness in the New Testament, there are (at least) three ways in which sickness can be understood. The first is as a temporal judgement with the purpose of bringing the believer to repentance, in order that the believer would not experience the condemnation which is reserved for the world. This, then, is sickness brought about by the mercy of God, because as a loving Father he desires the best for his children. Here sickness is in no way either curse or uncleanness. The New Testament does not require the removal of the sick persons from the congregation nor is there any suggestion that the sick person is not sealed by the Spirit. But the sick persons, and indeed the whole church, need to bring their behaviour into line with the justice of God.

The case of Jezebel and her followers provides a second way of understanding sickness in the church. Here the sickness of Jezebel was to make clear to the church that her teaching was intolerable to God. The church needs to have nothing to do with false teachers and the sickness of Jezebel should have alerted the church to her wrongdoing. Jezebel is not a believer being chastised but an unbeliever being punished. The purpose of this sickness was to bring purification to the church. What is needed in the case of this kind of sickness is boldness by the church to deal with the problem in a godly way. There is no room for reassuring the sick person that the sickness is not his or her fault. We need to seek God for a holy and pure church.

The third New Testament understanding of sickness is sickness as a result of living a life dedicated to the gospel of Christ, whether this be in evangelism or other kind of Christian service, such as pastoring, feeding the hungry, caring for the homeless, or even living a sacrificial Christian life in obedience to God’s call that costs in financial or prestige terms. Sickness often results from hard work, stressful conditions, and living a life which is committed to the wellbeing of others above your own. This is the kind of life which Epaphroditus lived and as a result he became ill and nearly died. A life of Christian service, in whatever form, may result in sickness which is the suffering of the innocent. Jesus died the death of an innocent man and, for the believer who is sick in innocence, the cross is the place of strength. Like Paul in 2 Cor. 12:9 the power of God, which is the cross (1 Cor. 1:18), is made perfect in the weakness of the sick believer.

For many Christians, it is not difficult to see sickness as innocent suffering. Indeed, it is quite common to believe that all sickness is the result of innocent suffering[83]. What is more difficult is to accept that sickness may actually be a call to repentance for both the sick person and the church. To understand what sickness is about here it is necessary to pray and listen to prophetic voices. The role of the prophet is to bring the church to a place of repentance from sin, rather than accepting complacency. Sometimes sickness is a wakeup call that the church has allowed false teachers into her midst and tolerated heresy. Sometimes it is call to renewed zeal for the poor in the church, and seeing God’s justice upon the earth. The church needs discernment in these matters and courage to call a spade a spade.

 

All scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible.  Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.  Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Bibliography

Anderson, Francis I. Job: An Introduction and Commentary Tyndale Old Testament Commmentaries, Edited by D.J. Wiseman. Leicester: IVP, 1976.

Arndt, W.F., F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker. B a G D - Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Barrett, C.K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd Ed.) London: A&C Black, 1971.

Beale, G.K. The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3. Translated by Martin Rüter and Ilse Tüdt. Vol. 3 Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997.

Bruce, F.F. "The Curse of the Law." In Paul and Paulinism, 1982.

________. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Revised ed. New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921.

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1999.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1976.

Fee, Gordon D. Paul's Letter to the Philippians The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B, Eerdmans, 1995.

Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Leviticus: A Commentary Old Testament Library. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.

Groenhout, Ruth. "Not without Hope: A Reformed Analysis of Sickness and Sin." Christian Bioethics 12,  (2006): 133-150.

Grosheide, F.W. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953.

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Translated by Matthew J. O'Connell. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1992.

Hartley, John E. Leviticus Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Texas: Word Books.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Vol. 43 Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1983.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion: In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 9-13. Vol. 47 Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, Texas: Word, 1991.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Dallas, Texas: Word, 1990.

Macleod, Donald. The Person of Christ Contours of Christian Theology. Downer's Grove, ILL: IVP, 1998.

Mayes, A.D.H. Deuteronomy. Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy: Interpretation - a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Murphy, Roland E. The Book of Job: A Short Reading. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.

Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

O'Brien, Peter T. Commentary on Philippians New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1991.

O'Collins, Gerald. Interpreting Jesus Introducing Catholic Theology. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1983.

O'Donnell, John J. The Mystery of the Triune God. London: Sheed and Ward, 1988.

Passakos, Demetrios. "Clean and Unclean in the New Testament: Implications for Contemporary Liturgical Practices." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47, no. 1-4 (2002): 277-293.

Pate, C. Marvin. The Reverse of the Curse. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1953.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1911.

Roloff, Jurgen. The Revelation of John: A Continental Commentary. Translated by John E. Alsup. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Silva, Moisés. Philippians 2nd ed. Baker Exegatical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005.

Von Rad, Gerhard. Deuteronomy. London: SCM Press, 1966.

Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 1979.