034 Did Jesus die for our sicknesses?

[Below is the chapter from the book, Just a Taste of Heaven, on which this podcast is based]

 

In the last chapter, as we considered various causes of sickness, we noted that, since Christ’s death on the cross both atoned for sin and won a victory over Satan, it is possible to understand that healing from sickness is a result of his redemptive work on the cross.  But that is not to say that he died for our sicknesses in the same way that he died for our sins as some teach. I have discussed this doctrine fully elsewhere[1], so in this chapter I will simply give a brief explanation of the doctrine and then summarise my findings with regard to two ‘proof-texts’ that are commonly used to support it.

Explanation of the Doctrine

The doctrine that Jesus died for our sicknesses as well as our sins probably originated in the Holiness Movement in America towards the end of the nineteenth century[2].   It was adopted by the early Pentecostals and forms part of the basis of faith of many major Pentecostal denominations today[3].   It also forms part of the teachings of the Faith movement[4]. In its simplest form the doctrine may be defined as follows:

The view that Christians may claim healing from sickness on the grounds that Christ has already carried that sickness for them just as he has carried their sins[5].

 

At first sight this teaching seems very attractive. All you have to do is claim your healing by faith and you will be healed! But on closer investigation it becomes clear that there are great difficulties with it, and various modifications have been suggested[6].  We will consider this in more detail later, but in this chapter we will simply examine the two major ‘proof – texts’ that are used to support this doctrine, Matthew 8.17 and 1 Peter 2.24.

The argument from Matthew 8:17

Put quite simply, the argument is as follows:

1. Matthew 8:16 records that Jesus healed all the sick.
2. Matthew 8:17 tells us that he did this to fulfil Isaiah 53:4.
3. But the NT shows us elsewhere that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of the crucifixion.
4. Therefore Jesus carried our sicknesses on the cross as well as our sins.

 

However, although points 1-3 of the above argument are correct, the conclusion (point 4) is not valid. The difficulty with it is that in this passage Matthew does not use the quote from Isaiah to refer to the cross.   He says it was fulfilled in Jesus’ healing ministry long before he died on the cross. Matthew deals with Jesus’ death on the cross in Chapters 26-27 and nowhere in these chapters does he suggest that Jesus died for our sicknesses. Here in Chapter 8 he is describing events that took place during Jesus’ healing ministry in Galilee about three years before his death. But to explain this further we need to look at the context of Matthew 8:17 in a little more detail.

 

Matthew 8:17 – its immediate context

Matthew 8: 16-17 tells us that Jesus cast out evil spirits and healed all the sick in order to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah 53:4, He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.   Earlier in the chapter Matthew has given us some specific examples of Jesus’ healing ministry – the leper (vv. 1-4), the centurion’s servant (vv. 5-13), Peter’s mother-in-law (vv. 14-15).   Verse 16 may well be intended as a summary of these healings and others like them which he performed that evening. Then, in verse 17 he tells us that Jesus did all this to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah 53:4, which he quotes. But why does he do this?

The most natural way to interpret his use of this verse is to understand the quote to be a confirmation that Jesus was fulfilling his role of healing the sick in accordance with prophecy about the ministry of the Messiah. But this raises very important questions like why Matthew wrote his gospel, and why and how he uses Old Testament quotations[7] like the one in verse 17.

 

Why did Matthew write his Gospel?

Certain distinctive characteristics in Matthew indicate that his major purpose in writing his Gospel was connected with the needs of the Jewish people of his day[8].    This is evident from:

• Matthew’s portrayal of Jesusas the fulfilment of OT hopes
• his application of OT texts to the life and ministryof Jesus
• his attitude to OT lawand to the tradition of Jewish scribal teaching
• his accounts of Jesus’ confrontation with the official representatives of the Jewishnation and religion
• his understanding of the Christianchurch with respect to Judaism
• his use of OT quotations (of which Matthew 8:17 is one).

 

Now the fact that Matthew is writing largely for the Jewish people of his day is highly relevant to a correct understanding of Matthew 8:17, as this is one example among many of how Matthew quotes the Old Testament to prove that Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah because he is the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. To understand this further, we need to consider now his use of what have been called formula quotations.

 

Matthew’s use of ‘formula’ quotations from the OT

There are ten quotations[9] in which Matthew includes the ‘formula’

that what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled

or

then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet.

 

Matthew uses these because he is seeking to present Jesus as the fulfilment of all of Israel’s hopes and ideals and in so doing to show the Jews of his day that Jesus is the Messiah. So, because the Jews expected the Messiah to be one who would heal the sick, Matthew uses Isaiah 53:4 as evidence that the healing ministry of Jesus showed that he was the one they had been waiting for.

And, as we have already seen, since Matthew does not apply this scripture to Jesus’ death on the cross but to his healing the sick in Galilee, there is really no basis for saying that he is teaching us that Jesus died for our sicknesses as well as our sins, unless, of course we understand him to be pointing forward to the cross on the grounds that he is writing after the cross. However, if that were so, why doesn’t he explain this teaching more clearly and mention it while he is narrating the story of the crucifixion in Chapters 26-27? Moreover, as LFW Woodford has pointed out[10], it is noteworthy that whenever Matthew uses a ‘formula’ quotation

he draws upon the scriptures quoted in order to relate their fulfilment to the actual events there and then recorded, as (e.g.) the Virgin Birth… In this passage (8:17) Matthew was not referring to our Lord’s coming passion when he drew upon this quotation, but he was referring to the actual events he was then describing.

 

This fact strongly suggests that Matthew is not pointing us forward to the cross at all, and the obvious way to read Matthew 8:17 is to understand him as saying that Isaiah 53:4 was fulfilled in Jesus’ healing ministry, not on the cross.  But that leads us to another ‘proof-text’ that is often used to support the doctrine that Jesus carried our sicknesses on the cross – 1 Peter 2:24.

The argument from 1 Peter 2:24

The last part of 1 Peter 2:24 states, By his wounds you were healed. In this section we will consider why it’s important to understand this correctly. I am going to argue, as I mentioned in Chapter 2, that the word healed in this verse is used metaphorically and should not be taken literally to apply to the healing of disease. A simple look at the context will show this very clearly.

Peter’s first letter was written at a time when the church was undergoing persecution and its main theme could be summarised as suffering now, future glory. This is seen in several passages such as 1:6-7, 11; 4:12-13, 19; 5:10. At no point in the letter does Peter discuss sickness or divine healing. 1 Peter 2:24 is part of a passage which encourages Christians to be submissive to those who are in authority (2:13 – 3:6).   This passage falls naturally into three sections which deal in turn with:

1. submission to rulers(2:13-17)
2. submission to masters(2:18-25)
3. submission to husbands(3:1-6).

 

We will deal with (1) briefly as it serves as an introduction to (2) which we will deal with in detail. We will not need to consider (3).

 

Submission to rulers (2:13-17)

Peter says that as Christians we are to submit ourselves to those in authority so that by our good behaviour we may put to silence those who accuse us (vv. 13-17).   We are free, but we must not use our freedom as an excuse for doing wrong, for despite our freedom we are God’s slaves (v.16).   So we submit to those in authority because we are submitted to God. It is for the Lord’s sake that we submit to authority, no matter what form that authority may take (v.13).

 

Submission to masters (2:18-25)

From the previous section we see that submission to human authority is an expression of our submission to divine authority. This should enable us meekly to accept the decisions of those who have authority over us.   At the time that Peter was writing, this was of special relevance to slaves[11] and Peter speaks to them specifically in verses 18-25 telling them to submit to their masters even if they are harsh.   It’s quite likely that they will have to put up with unfair treatment and will suffer unjustly (vv. 19-20). If this occurs they are to remember that they are called by Christ’s own example to endure it (vv.20 – 21)[12]. Jesus is the supreme example of an innocent person who suffered unjustly!

There is no suggestion in these verses that Christians do not need to suffer because Christ has already suffered for them.   Quite the opposite is indicated.   The Christian who suffers for doing good must endure it patiently knowing that this is God’s will for him, for Christ himself has set an example for him to follow (vv.20 – 21)[13].

Verses 22-25 (cf. Isaiah 53) set forth the sufferings of Christ as the supreme example of the innocent suffering unjustly. They demonstrate the principle, already stated in v.21, that Christ’s sufferings are an example for the Christian to follow. The statements that:

• Christwas innocent (v. 22),
• he refused to retaliate or complain (v.23),
• he committed of himself to God(v.23)

are all clearly intended as an example and an encouragement to the Christian slave who is suffering unjust punishment.   Furthermore, such an interpretation of these verses is completely in harmony with the teaching concerning suffering elsewhere in the letter[14].

But Christ’s innocence, his non-retaliation, and his committing himself to God are not the only encouragement to the Christian who is suffering unjust punishment. He is encouraged even more by the results of Christ’s suffering. Jesus’ death was not in vain! It purchased our salvation!

The sense of purposelessness felt by those enduring unjustly inflicted suffering is softened for the Christian by the realisation that Christ’s sufferings were by no means without purpose. Verses 24-25 remind us of this.   Christ’s sufferings were redemptive.   The innocent slave who is unjustly beaten by his master is reminded that Christ too was unjustly punished, but not without purpose for Christ bore our sins that we might die to sin and live to righteousness (v.24) and as a result the wandering sheep has returned to the shepherd (v.25).   Perhaps the slave might understand that his suffering too is not without a purpose, even though he might not understand what that purpose might be. Nevertheless, although there is no suggestion here that the slaves’ suffering might be redemptive in the sense that Christ’s suffering is redemptive, the suggestion might well be that by following Christ’s example in enduring unjust suffering meekly the slaves might, by their Christ-like attitude, win others to Christ (Cf. the instruction to wives in 3:1).

But that brings us now to by whose wounds you were healed which we are seeking to understand. To do so correctly we must bear in mind the context. Peter is presenting to slaves, who were sometimes unjustly treated, the example of Christ whose suffering provides the pattern for all who suffer unjustly.  And the relevance of the phrase by whose wounds you were healed in a passage addressed to slaves who were sometimes unjustly flogged is obvious.

The word translated as wounds is mōlōps which means a bruise, scar, or weal left by a lash and describes a physical condition with which the slaves were very familiar.  To slaves who were unjustly beaten Peter points out that Christ too was beaten, and because of the wounds inflicted upon him they have been ‘healed’.  The fact that Peter says you were healed rather than we are healed (Isaiah 53:5) highlights the fact that it is particularly the slaves who are addressed here for it is for them that the use of the word mōlōps (wounds) is especially significant.

But in what sense had the slaves been ‘healed’?   Peter obviously intends them to understand here the forgiveness of their sins. He is talking about ‘healing’ from the wounds of sin. This is clear from the following facts:

 

• Immediately before this Peterhas said that Christ bore our sins that we might die to sin and live to righteousness
• He uses the conjunction for in verse 25 thus identifying their ‘healing’ in verse 24 as what took place when as sheep going astray they returned to the shepherd (v.25). The fact that no such conjunction is found in Isaiah53:6 may indicate that Peter is especially stressing this connection and certainly suggests that the ‘healing’ referred to is spiritual[15]. You were healed is undoubtedly a reference to the slaves’ conversion.

 

Furthermore, to seek to understand the ‘healing’ as physical seems to be totally inappropriate.   There is no reference to the healing of disease anywhere in the epistle, let alone in the immediate context. The ‘healing’ referred to clearly means a spiritual wholeness which results from Christ’s bearing our sins on the cross and our return, as sheep who had gone astray, to the shepherd and guardian of our souls. The passage is, in fact, an encouragement to Christians to endure suffering, not a means of escape from it.

 

Conclusion

In this chapter we have shown that Matthew takes Isaiah 53:4 and applies it to healing, but NOT the cross.   Peter takes Isaiah 53:5 and applies it to the cross, but NOT to physical healing.   This means that neither verse supports the teaching that Jesus died for sickness as well as sin. However, as I have already suggested, there is a sense in which healing may be understood to be in the atonement[16], but that does not mean that Jesus died for our sicknesses just as he died for our sins.

In fact, when taken to an extreme, this doctrine can be very dangerous. For example, if we understand, as some do, that By his wounds you were healed (1 Peter 2:24) means that Jesus’ death was our healing and that, therefore, we cannot really be sick because Jesus has already healed us by his death, we are led into denying that we are sick and claiming that we are already ‘healed’, when in fact we may be seriously ill and in need of medical treatment. There are even cases of people who have died prematurely because of this very thing[17].

That is why it is extremely important that we understand that By his wounds you were healed is, as I have already demonstrated, a reference to the slaves’ conversion when, because Jesus had died for their sins, they were healed from the spiritual wounds that sin inflicts and returned to the Shepherd of their souls.