None of These Diseases
“He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found…”
And [Moses] said, (T) (Creation)
…..“If you diligently heed the voice of the LORD your God (H) (Division)
……….and do what is right in His sight, (Ascension)
……………give ear to His commandments (E) (Testing)
……….and keep all His statutes, (Maturity)
…..I will put none of the diseases on you (O) (Conquest – Blessing)
…..which I have brought on the Egyptians. (Conquest – Cursing)
For I [am] the LORD who heals you.” (S) (Glorification)
— Exodus 15:26
“QuantumGreg” posted a comment on Sam Frost’s review of my book. He objects to the idea that, under the New Covenant, obedience to the Law will bring a decrease in disease. It’s a very reasonable objection.
“…does this not sound like Law to you? In fact, it is the Law (Deuteronomy 28). It sounds so much like the Old Covenant that it has no resemblance to the New Covenant, don’t you think?
What happened to forgiveness of sins bought for humanity by the blood of our Savior in this type of scenario? Why is strict obedience to the Law again becoming the condition on which we receive blessings from God? What happened to grace? What happened to faith in Christ as the means of blessing from God?
Once again, I find myself coming to the conclusion that many of these kinds of ideas accidentally “forget” that Christ came and showed a NEW way; a way of love, mercy & grace, and that the Law was done away with (fulfilled) in Him. Not that there is now lawlessness (for lawlessness is sin, of course; 1John 3:4), but that there is a NEW and living way paved by the blood of Jesus Christ, and faith in His name that brings the blessings of God; not strict obedience to “law” like in Deuteronomy 28.
So, if you could point me either to the scriptures that help me see this setup for this age until the end of time, or perhaps to a book/article by Jordan (or yourself), that would be awesome, brother. Thanks!
Some thoughts…
I do believe that Christ calls us beyond Moses to a prosperity that transcends the physical world, but not a prosperity that leaves the physical world behind. I would see many of the breakthroughs in medicine as gifts from God, products of the application of a Christian worldview. Perhaps life spans will once again increase, but this can only be a benefit as we grow in holiness. Before the flood it was a curse.
I don’t think anyone is advocating a strict adherence to the Law of Moses. The Law was slain and resurrected. But we are called to obey the gospel, and the outflow is obedience to the Law of Christ. The health and wealth of the world has increased dramatically, particularly over the last 150 years. We don’t expect this to make any huge declines. Great inroads are now being made against even malaria.
The principle is plunder (blessing) for obedience and plagues (curses) for disobedience. But it is not the law of Moses we are called to obey. It is the gospel. It changes lives, and in His grace, God blesses those changed lives, and through them, the world. [1]
Obedience to the Law would most certainly bring an end to sexually transmitted diseases. Travis Finley commented that the Gospel is tri-official: prophet-priest-king. Obeying the gospel is not just believing in the priestly office of Christ. He is the priest who died, but now He is the king who must be obeyed.
In The Sociology of the Church, James Jordan criticises the irrationality of Charismatics who reacted against rationalistic orthodoxy, but balances it with this:
All the same, charismatic theologians note rightly that the New Covenant is a time of healing, and that the Bible indicates a certain expectation that God will heal the diseases and afflictions of His people. Such promises were found in the provisional administration of grace to Israel under the Old Covenant (as in Ex. 15:26; Dt. 7:15; Prov. 4:22). It is particularly with the ministry of Christ and His disciples, however, that we find abundant healings manifested, as tokens of the nature of the New Covenant era.
The problem that most charismatic theologians have with applying this data is that they are Americans, afflicted with the overly-individualistic approach to life that characterizes “American Baptist Culture.” In fact, all sickness signifies and manifests the curse on man for original sin, and all healing signifies salvation in Christ. As Job’s friends had to learn, however, this does not mean that any particular affliction that comes upon an individual indicates some particular sin on his part. And it follows, then, that we cannot say to each and every afflicted Christian, “Jesus wants you well.” There may be many reasons why Jesus does not want a particular person well at a particular time.
By itself, this fact eliminates virtually all encouragement to pray for healing. We may well just seek to relax fatalistically in whatever Providence seems to decree for us. It is at this point that the charismatic theologians have a salutary corrective to offer, for in fact we do have a general (not a particular) warrant for believing that the normal Christian experience is one of health, not of sickness. This is especially true in terms of the coming of the New Covenant. God has judicially declared the world cleansed of evil; that is, God has re-symbolized the world from darkness to light.
This re-symbolization or redefinition is the foundation for the recreation of the world. God has re-symbolized man as healed, and since the symbolic dimension is primary, this means that man is to be healed physically as a consequence. Thus, the healings performed by Jesus were not “merely” symbols of Spiritual healing, but were tokens of the fact that physical healing is normally a consequence of Spiritual healing.
Rampant illness in our society as a whole simply indicates that we are under the Egyptian curse, because of secular humanism and the refusal of the Christian churches to deal seriously with it. (For instance, in spite of all the yelling about abortion, and all the rhetoric about abortion’s being murder, how many evangelical leaders have come out and demanded the death penalty for conspiracy to commit abortion? Has anybody? No wonder God does not take evangelicalism seriously!)
Reformation and revival will do the most to bring about deliverance from disease. All the same, since the church is the society of the saved, a ministry of physical healing is an important part of the work of the church, both ministerially and evangelistically. [2]
One pitfall of “rediscovering” the Old Testament is overlooking the qualifications that do need to be made between the old administrations and the new. For instance, the theonomy of the 70s and 80s has been tempered greatly from its original form. [3] The Law needed to be rediscovered to round out a truncated, gnostic gospel, but the Law also needed to be slain and resurrected.
So, the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26 must be interpreted in the context of the Church-State of Israel under Moses. But they most certainly apply to the Church, and to the real world in which the real Church lives today. Even Old Testament Israel herself was forced to apply them in new ways when she lost her sovereignty. This was all in the plan of God to bring wisdom to mankind.
However…
There are some Christians who assert that the dietary and ceremonial laws of Moses were given for health reasons. This is not true. Sojourners were not commanded to keep them. They were for the distinction and humbling of Israel as obedient priests. They were certainly given to us as object lessons to help us understand “clean and unclean,” and some may indeed promote good health, but this factor is incidental. [4]
__________________________________
[1] See also Ethics or Magic.
[1] James B. Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, pp. 284-286. [PDF]
[3] See James B. Jordan, The Dominion Trap.
[4] See James B. Jordan, Pig Out? 25 Reasons Why Christians May Eat Pork. Available from Biblical Horizons. “In recent years, a couple of well-known Christian spokesmen have taught that Christians should keep the “Mosaic dietary laws. ” The Bill Gothard Institute and R. J. Rushdoony’s Chalcedon movement have taught that God designed these dietary laws as rules of health. Other Christians have picked up this idea, and it has become widespread. There is, however, no Biblical foundation for this teaching. The Bible makes it clear that from Noah to Moses, believers were free to eat any kind of animal meat they chose. A careful study of the Mosaic dietary laws shows that they were given for sacramental and symbolic reasons, not for reasons of health. James B. Jordan has studied this question intensively for several years. Here he presents the fruit of the research that went into his 500-page Studies in Food and Faith. He shows that eating pork is a sign that the gospel has gone to all the world.”
October 25th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Brother Mike, Jordan writes, “In fact, all sickness signifies and manifests the curse on man for original sin, and all healing signifies salvation in Christ. As Job’s friends had to learn, however, this does not mean that any particular affliction that comes upon an individual indicates some particular sin on his part. And it follows, then, that we cannot say to each and every afflicted Christian, ‘Jesus wants you well.’ There may be many reasons why Jesus does not want a particular person well at a particular time.”
First of all, I’m not a charismatic, but I certainly know what Jordan is speaking of here as I have been exposed to this very thought itself. I was a member of a praise band in a charismatic church for about 13 years. The thing that I grew weary of in the charismatic church was the empirical testing of their ideas worked against their theories. In other words, they believed and taught a sick one should confess “the Word” many times over to generate faith so that person could be healed. So, inevitably, there would many many SICK folk in the congregation saying over and over again, “by His stripes I am healed” (Isaiah 53:5) when they were seriously ill. In fact when you asked them, “How are you doing?” the reply was a blatant lie, “I am healed!” I witnessed several in the congregation die of sicknesses and the whole time they were saying “by His stripes I am healed.”
So, being an engineer (logically-minded; practical), this offended me. I attempted to find the answer to this. My own infant daughter was completely healed supernaturally from a deformed hip and ear much to the shagrin of many in my family and much to the surprise of the doctors. It was truly amazing. And this only occurred when I had what the charismatics call, “a revelation”, while studying scripture regarding the subject of physical healing.
So, my reason for quoting Jordan is to both agree with him and disagree with where he thinks his observation leads.
He states, “…this does not mean that any particular affliction that comes upon an individual indicates some particular sin on his part”. To this, I 100% agree. And the reason for agreeing is very simple; the Jesus of the New Testament did not indicate, as He healed the multitudes, that they were all sick due to a particular sin they committed. And, in fact, the New Testament writer, James, also indicates that often the order in which things occur is (1) physical healing first, then (2) IF the sick person has committed sins, they would be forgiven (James 5:14-15).
Jordan then thinks that this assertion leads to, “And it follows, then, that we cannot say to each and every afflicted Christian, ‘Jesus wants you well.’ There may be many reasons why Jesus does not want a particular person well at a particular time.”
With this I disagree, and the reason is also very simple. The Jesus of the New Testament did not indicate, as He healed the multitudes, that any of the sick were supposed to be sick. He invariably healed them all, every single time. So if Jesus wanted one to be sick, He never revealed that in a single instance; He failed miserably to show Jordan’s conclusion. Jesus never sent anyone away sick.
Therefore, I would conclude from looking at the Jesus of the New Testament, that, yes, the sick person is not necessarily sick because of an individual sin (although there were a few instances where Jesus implies this is the case for a particular person). And, no, it does not follow Jesus wanted anyone sick, because He failed to indicate this in a single passage if it truly was His attitude.
Therefore, I would most certainly tell the person in front of me (believer & unbeliever alike) that God wants them well (spirit, soul & body) because Jesus boldly healed all, all the time. It is with this attitude that miracles started happening in my life; I began to see many folks healed on the spot (within several seconds, or minutes). This worked very well on my engineering-type mind. I now had empirical evidence that jibed with my Christology.
Now, socially, yes, I do see your point that strict obedience to some of the laws in the Old Testament would bring the blessings of God. Obedience to God’s gospel now bringing blessings makes sense. But until we reach a state of obedience (as a whole) in the body of Christ, there is God’s magnificent grace and mercy to bridge the gap. Do you agree? Or at least see what I am saying?
October 25th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Hi Greg
Your logic is good, but for one thing. Jesus didn’t heal everyone. I always wondered why, until Peter Leithart pointed out that the diseases Jesus healed were basically the ones that made Israel unfit for Tabernacle service, or unclean in some way. What Jesus was doing was cleansing people for a new priesthood. They were real healings, just as the pork you couldn’t eat was real, physical pork. But they were signs of something deeper.
Not sure if “bridging the gap” is the idea so much as an outflow through God’s architecture. The pattern always begins in the Most Holy, flows out through the Holy Place (bloodying the priesthood) and then into the world. So spiritual healing comes first, repentance and salvation. Corporately, we can expect that this will lead to greater health and prosperity over time. Jesus washes the inside of the cup first.
Thanks for commenting! I hope you’ll read Jordan’s “Sociology.” A thought-provoking book.
October 26th, 2011 at 11:04 am
I don’t doubt there are many deeper things in what we perceive as very simple and straightforward actions by our Savior. But, where did Jesus not heal them all?
A few problems you may have to deal with with the mere assertion of “Jesus didn’t heal everyone.”
- Isaiah 53 reveals that physical healing is part of the redemptive work of Messiah in the exact same manner that forgiveness of sins; even using the same substitutionary words to describe the freedom from both sickness and sin.
- Deuteronomy 28 reveals “every sickness and every plague, which is not written in this Book of the Law” is all part of the curse which was removed by the redemptive work of Messiah (Galatians 3:13).
- The Gospels reveal that many times Jesus healed by His compassion, not for a cleansing purpose.
- The Gospels reveal that even GENTILES were healed. How is it, in keeping with an Israelite Tabernacle-cleansing motif that this can be explained?
- The Gospels reveal a few times that folks were healed WITHOUT direct action of Jesus. For instance the woman that surprised Him in the crowd and grabbed His garment.
Just things for you to consider, brother. Iron sharpens iron. Amen?
October 26th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Thanks Greg
Jesus healed people entirely, but He didn’t heal every believer who was sick. He picked His battles.
The redemption for sin is over (Garden), the redemption of the priesthood is over (Land – AD70), but the redemption of the physical creation is not yet over.
Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?
Gentiles were included in the new Tabernacle, which is why James referred to it as a Tabernacle of David.
The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure. And the results accord with Old Testament architecture. See
http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/07/29/healing-in-his-tassels/
Here there is no intended compassion, at least not initially from the Son.
October 28th, 2011 at 3:08 am
Mike, very good article on “Healing in His Tassels.” Brother, even in this article you state:
- “Every Israelite was to wear a robe with four blue tassels.”
- “Circumcision is this death, and every male Israelite was circumcised. The ‘fountain of life’ was purified with the shedding of blood. But then, every Israelite (not just the men as far as I can tell) was robed with four tassels. This is baptism. Every Israelite was a picture of the slain Lamb at the centre of the New Jerusalem, a four-cornered city with water flowing out to heal the nations.”
- “The Israelite robes, symbolising mediatory government, were Old Covenant baptism. Every person was a miniature mountain of God, with blood sacrifice as a foundation, and four rivers flowing out across the world.”
Thus, does this symbolism therefore not require the healing of “every” Israelite? And if Gentiles are included in the New Temple (Tabernacle of David as opposed, I assume, to the Tabernacle of Moses), doesn’t this symbolism also require the healing of every Gentile as well?
You wrote, “He picked His battles.” I can’t find that He did this in the Gospels. Perhaps something in your current interpretation is requiring that Jesus not heal them all and this is coloring your interpretation of this doctrine? Because I find that, instead, He healed all that were sick. A few times it is even stated that the people themselves brought to Him all that were sick and He healed them all.
You wrote, “Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?” No, I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I was just pointing out that scripture reveals in several cases that the motive was compassion, not for New Temple Cleansing purposes, that’s all.
You wrote, “The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure.” True, but scripture doesn’t reveal that, does it? I could just as easily assume the story is told exactly the way it is told because that is all there is to it. No “teeing up” necessary. This woman’s faith is the very thing that healed her, in this instance. This implies Father healed the woman through Jesus without consulting/warning Jesus about it. Or, it implies that Father was predisposed to healing all, and this woman tapped into it with her own faith, and no action of Jesus was even necessary (i.e. she was not healed by Jesus on/by purpose at all).
What I find very intriguing with what you say is that redemption for sin is over, redemption of priesthood is over and redemption of the physical creation is not yet over. I’m assuming your books deal with some of this, so I’ll purchase them and read them. I see the first Bible Matrix one is available on Kindle. Will the second one be on Kindle as well?
October 28th, 2011 at 4:09 am
Brother Mike, I am terribly excited about getting a copy of Totus Christus as the recognition of patterns in scripture has helped me tremendously in discerning the truth (or non-truth) of various eschatologies! Centering up on Christ with my theology has, at times, overwhelmed my mind and emotions. In fact, I have asked Father for theologians that have noticed these patterns. Almost immediately I “stumbled” on James Jordan… and now… you. Blessings!
October 28th, 2011 at 6:52 am
Well, if the Lord sent you to Jim and to me, we must be doing something right! Glad to be of help – and you are correct – the real payoff is the outcome concerning eschatology.
I’ll get to your other comment later on.
October 28th, 2011 at 6:58 am
Yes – BMXII will be on Kindle, but perhaps not for another month or so.
November 2nd, 2011 at 8:47 am
Well, it seems the publisher actually did manage to do a Kindle version this time. Last time they said they couldn’t do it, as I had supplied the artwork (due to the diagrams). So I paid a company to make one. I don’t know what kind of job they have done, but I checked out the first chapter online and it seems passable.
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:48 am
Good questions from Greg, too…
Greg writes:
“Thus, does this symbolism therefore not require the healing of ‘every’ Israelite? And if Gentiles are included in the New Temple (Tabernacle of David as opposed, I assume, to the Tabernacle of Moses), doesn’t this symbolism also require the healing of every Gentile as well?”
The point of healing is make one a healer. God forgives us to make us “forgivers.” So, the symbolism is not about every Israelite (Israelites according to the flesh) being healed; it is about every true Israelite (according to the Spirit) being a healer. The Old Covenant touch brought uncleanness and death. The New Covenant touch brings healing and life. Same goes for the Gentiles. The Lord reprimanded Peter for his unwillingness to eat with Gentiles because he would “defile” them.
“You wrote, ‘He picked His battles.’ I can’t find that He did this in the Gospels. Perhaps something in your current interpretation is requiring that Jesus not heal them all and this is coloring your interpretation of this doctrine? Because I find that, instead, He healed all that were sick. A few times it is even stated that the people themselves brought to Him all that were sick and He healed them all.”
Yes, but he didn’t heal all the sick. He healed all those who were sick who came. This “channelled” healing died out with the apostolic church. It was a sign to Israel through Christ and the firstfruits church. And on many occasions it seems as though things were set up by the Father to bring glory to the Son.
“You wrote, ‘Jesus’ compassion is a good point, but are these mutually exclusive?’ No, I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I was just pointing out that scripture reveals in several cases that the motive was compassion, not for New Temple Cleansing purposes, that’s all.”
Compassion is always the primary motive, but there is always — always — a symbolic dimension as well, simply because of the symbolic nature of humanity.
You wrote, “The woman in the crowd could have been teed up by the Father, for sure.” True, but scripture doesn’t reveal that, does it? I could just as easily assume the story is told exactly the way it is told because that is all there is to it. No “teeing up” necessary. This woman’s faith is the very thing that healed her, in this instance. This implies Father healed the woman through Jesus without consulting/warning Jesus about it. Or, it implies that Father was predisposed to healing all, and this woman tapped into it with her own faith, and no action of Jesus was even necessary (i.e. she was not healed by Jesus on/by purpose at all).
Sure, but do we see anyone grabbing Jesus’ robe after this? I think this was a special case. In fact, they are all special cases. The very modes of healing seem to be illustrations, fulfilments, or reversals of Levitical laws.
What I find very intriguing with what you say is that redemption for sin is over, redemption of priesthood is over and redemption of the physical creation is not yet over. I’m assuming your books deal with some of this, so I’ll purchase them and read them. I see the first Bible Matrix one is available on Kindle. Will the second one be on Kindle as well?
You’ll see this particularly in The Covenant Key. The Spirit’s work is always architectural, working out from the Most Holy, scattering His enemies, and gathering in the beloved.
Thanks for the comments.