Whole Person Whole Life Blog

Whole life together

Home Essays on Whole Person Life

Exemple

Excerpt #1 of “Analysis of Romans 13:1-7 in Light of the Analogy of Scripture”

               Given the length of the full paper I recently published on this site, I am posting excerpts which emphasize specific principles within the paper.  Hopefully, these excerpts will not only encourage you to read the actual paper, but also think more deeply about the role of Romans 13:1-7 in our response to both Godly and ungodly civil government in our day and time.  A proper understanding and obedience to Scripture is critical today as always.  This particular Scripture has been mishandled in so many ways that a methodical approach to its exegesis is needed to avoid further error by both individual Christians and the broader church.  The pressures being exerted upon true Christianity by the contemporary civil government demand a Biblical response informed by Romans 13:1-7 and the other Scriptures addressed within this paper.

               (These excerpts are posted in the order as found in the paper, but do not include the entirety of the paper which combined.  Only the PDF contains all sections of the paper.)

God as Ultimate Authority: The First Broad Principle  

               The nature of authority, as portrayed Biblically in both propositions and narrative descriptions, indicates that God remains the ultimate authority throughout all time.  Civil authority, which is a beneficial institution for mankind, originates with God and is then delegated by God who has divided this authority into earthly jurisdictions and directs it through His revealed law.  

               Authority originates with God and is therefore delegated by God.  Romans 13:1-7 addresses this directly in verse one, “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” In addition, rulers are called a “servant” (diakonos) of God in verse four and “ministers” (leitourgoi) of God in verse six, indicating that they owe their allegiance to the One from whom their authority was derived (Logos software). …    It is inconsistent with the Scriptures to claim that human governments arise primarily from any “social compact” or “consent of the governed” (Bromiley, 545).  Human governments are God ordained for righteous ends even if enacted through human secondary means.  In addition, men are intended to be in subjection to earthly authorities,….

Read MORE HERE

Read More →
Exemple

               We must avoid “everyone doing what’s right in their own eyes” while avoiding a one size fits all approach that does not adapt for our individuality when attempting to pursue whole person health.  Oughtness or rightness must come from outside of our persons as we cannot depend on our own limited knowledge, reasoning or fallen tendencies. We start with the obedience of the creature to the Creator and then recognize the gift of life and health as an assigned responsibility to nurture.  We are called to act as stewards of this gift, looking to our Creator for what virtues to pursue.  The virtues should not be solely self-directed but ones that promote our ability to love God and love our neighbor as well as care well for ourselves.  We must learn to care for our physical body, our mind, and our spirit in ways that enable us to rightly relate with God and others.   

               Today many gurus and health prophets emphasize health practices and principles which focus almost solely on what the individual gets out of their own health.  These experts sell “feeling good”, “stronger/faster/more fit bodies”, “Peace with nature”, “control of your own health”, and other slogans that do not extend beyond the mundane realm of existence.  They are not necessarily inherently bad values, but at least incomplete values, primarily because they miss out on the obligation which exists beyond one’s self.  At most, some will encourage us to be examples to our children or to do something so we can see our grandchildren one day.  At this basic level, they are not inherently wrong, but they miss out that there is a higher purpose to life’s existence.  Targeting the virtue of doing what is best for only oneself will never fully get at a healthy life because it misses the larger picture.

               The rightness of a proposed virtue to pursue should be evaluated to determine its true worth in pursuing.  We are not our own gods to set our own realities as creation needs a lawgiver, one who determines what is a virtue and the necessary means to achieve those virtues.  Our creaturely limits pose an obstacle to even choosing the right virtues much less achieving them for whole person health.  The limiting influence of fallen emotions and desires means that we are practically guaranteed to pursue the wrong set of virtues if left to our own wills.  Logic and science do not automatically overcome the desires of our fallen natures. 

               Even without the distorting influence of emotions and desires, determining virtues to pursue in health through the assumed emotionless process of science falls short of what we need.  Science neither knows enough about our functioning nor can extrapolate that to virtue to provide a foundation for us.  On one hand, contrary to popular opinion, science does not understand mankind fully from a biologically mechanistic standpoint. Science does not have the ability nor technology to know the dynamic and vastly intricate operations of our physical body at any given moment, much less in an ongoing dynamic sense.  The amount of data required to know and simultaneously process exceeds our capacity.  The computational capacity for even the information we can access is already beyond our ability leaving us with broad probabilities for understanding what is happening within our bodies presently much less for what will happen next in time.  As a result, we are left with an insurmountable obstacle to determining what appears good for our bodies in all circumstances of life.  On the other hand, even if science fully understood how our bodies function, transferring what is into what should be in terms of oughtness in pursuing a particular virtue cannot be proven.  Virtue cannot ultimately be derived from the descriptive nature of science. 

               To move beyond the realm of science and our limits, we must acknowledge the creature – creator distinction with its implications.  We are not our own, but belong to our “potter”, the one who formed us like clay from the earth.   We are beholden to follow the rules of this designer rather than attempt to make up our own rules by our own standards.  We are beholden to submit to the values and pursue the virtues our Creator ordained.  This moves us to an appreciation of this life as a gift which our Creator did not have to bestow upon us in creating us as He did.  When this life we live is viewed as a gift with responsibilities, we can approach its working out as ongoing acts of stewardship.  We are called to care for our health and nurture it so it can serve the purpose our Creator intended for it. 

               With the purpose of stewardship before our eyes, we can ask God what virtues should be our models.  We base these on the purposes He has laid out before us and also the direct instructions He has given us.  Loving God and loving our neighbor are set before us as the two greatest commands.  These two commands sum up the first and second tables of the Law, the Ten Commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai.  Loving our neighbor is a reflection of how we love ourselves as we are told to love them as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31). Our virtues should lead to fulfilling the obedience of these two great commandments while vices would lead us away from fulling these commands.

               From here, we can look at our approaches to physical, mental, and intellectual health.  All forms of health can be means to these great ends or they can become ends in and of themselves which transform into idols at that point.  In other words, when the goals of health supersede the goals of loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, they function as an idols.  In contrast, when the goals of health functions as a means to serve these two commandments, they become worthy virtues to pursue.

(Continued in Part 2)

Next in this Series… “Virtues to uphold in Whole Person Health: Part 2”

Read More →
Exemple

Do Not Segment Our Life – R.C. Sproul

“We do not segment our lives, giving some time to God, some to our business or schooling, while keeping parts to ourselves. The idea is to live all of our lives in the presence of God, under the authority of God, and for the honor and glory of God. That is what the Christian life is all about.” R.C. Sproul

              In a sense, the division of our time is practically divided into such silos of work, rest, entertainment, family, or church. Different days of the week and different schedules of the day routinely give time to different aspects of daily and weekly life. This can lead to intense attempts to balance our hours, to cover the needs of life with sufficient allotted time, and to find time to recover from the cycles of life.

              A fundamental error of man lies in this piecing together time resources to cover the necessities of such daily life without seeing the whole as life before God. We have forgotten that we are called to be stewards of our time as much as stewards of our tangible resources like money and our intangibles like skills and talents. Such stewardship attitude prevents us from losing sight that all of life is intended to be worked out before our Creator.

              No part of the day, of the week, or of our lifetimes are exempt from consideration in how they serve God. We cannot step away from this responsibility and choose how we spend a period of time without looking at how it serves God. While this initially feels burdensome, we are told in Matthew 11:28-30 that His burden is light.

              With this in mind, we can order our days, weeks, and years in light of our stewardship to God. We should order our beliefs, our thoughts and feelings, and our practices in light of seeking after that commendation of “good and faithful servant” (Matthew 25:23). We and others around us who follow this example will flourish in God’s blessing through such work.

Read More →
Exemple

              The following two paragraphs introduce you to the 23 page PDF attached and downloadable for those who seek a full-orbed Biblically-grounded exposition of Romans 13:1-7.  My primary goal for choosing this topic for a seminary class thesis paper was so that I could immerse myself in the full Biblical teaching on how Christians should respond to civil governments that are opposing God’s Word.  This has grounded my family’s approach to the current encroachment of the “State” upon other God-ordained institutions in our present day.  I hope that all of you who read it with a desire to find God’s truth will find His truths expounded clearly here.  Though written 10 years ago, its pertinence to contemporary issues demonstrates how God’s unchanging truth retains its foundational importance at all times.  I welcome your feedback and discussion as always.

              Twenty first century Christians stare in disbelief at society’s degradation into debauchery and post-modernism, asking themselves where they are and how they arrived here.  Even the more conservative non-believers often scratch their heads in amazement. Occasionally remembrances of America’s golden past instill some hope, but how these bygone freedoms may be regained perplexes many in the church.  By the power of what authority will justice be restored?  By the power of what authority will lawlessness be suppressed?  By the power of what authority will the world’s vain philosophies be subdued?  One who reads the Bible will answer that such authoritative power ultimately rests in God alone, yet still must ponder how to respond to the earthly authorities who undermine such righteous objectives.  The already, but not yet of reality means that Christians live not only under God’s sovereign authority, but also under earthly authorities, and the majority in our nation do not consistently submit their governing decisions to Biblical authority.  Dilemmas between obeying God and obeying rulers regularly confront today’s believer.

               In search of guidance, many have turned to Romans 13:1-7 in hopes that its explicit commands will either guide them or will justify their current behaviors.  Though considered the “locus classicus” on a Biblical view of civil government by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, these verses nevertheless have been interpreted and applied in a wide variety of ways.  Simply stating that Romans 13 answers the question fully is insufficient as it does not address many themes of government (Bromiley, 545).  A proper and full-orbed hermeneutics of the topic is essential.  The grammatico-historical approach demands cultural examination of the writer and the recipients.  It demands a syntactical dissection along with a study of the key words.  It would demand a survey of views professed by our theological ancestors.  It would demand delaying a verdict until the whole counsel of God, both the Old and New Testaments, was consulted.  In surveying the broad scope of opinions on the topic, this last demand of an analogy of Scripture seems less satisfied than the prior demands and thus serves as the basis for this paper.  In widening the breadth of verses which weigh in on this question of civil authority and the authority of God, individual Christians in the contemporary milieu may begin to understand how to approach the dilemmas which have faced Christians throughout the ages, the same ones which seem to be more evident in our immediate social context.  (The English Standard Version has been used for all Scripture citations unless otherwise noted).

To read the full paper, download the PDF below.

Read More →
Exemple

By Jennifer Potter

              In Psalm 11 David laments, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)- a sentiment which fits well within the context of our current cultural dissolution, a dissolution resulting in part from cultural adherence to ideology over relationship, covenantal relationship.  When we base the principles underlying our thinking upon an ideology, we forfeit the stability of foundational covenantal principles in both the society and the individual …”for as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he (Proverbs 23:7 KJV)[E1] .” Therefore, let believers practice covenantal thinking, rejecting ideological influence, that a stable foundation may be put into place for both the individual and for the larger society. 

              In order to reject an ideological influence, we must be able to recognize its presence.  The word ideology originated with Enlightenment thinkers of the French Revolution who were looking to create a new science which would be useful in developing new truths to replace the old foundations of society. Simply put, ideology was the study of man’s ideas or sense perceptions.  This study was to form the new enlightened or rational societal foundation, one without need for transcendence. Man was to be the center of this endeavor. While ideology as a science did not persist, in the 1800s, a focus upon man and his own perceptions took hold of thinkers who were still searching for ways to alter the foundations of society and produce a man centered utopia.  Men more readily practiced eisegesis in their formulation of truth reading into their studies that which their own senses preferred.  This eisegesis resulted in myriads of thought systems such as the communism of Karl Marx revolutionizing cultures even into the present.

              Today, ideology as a term is used to describe a system of thought developed through man’s eisegetical study which proscribes acceptable thought and behavior centered around abstract premises with little care about their rationality. As they have moved into popular culture[E2] , the ongoing revolutionary fervor of man’s ideologies has eroded previous cultural foundations; now force is used to apply ever-morphing ideologies upon masses of people.

              While the practice of forcing others to fit into a narrow and evolving ideology seems to have conquered our present culture, believers need not be ensnared. Through covenantal thinking we can reject ideological absurdities. Our thinking, when based upon exegetical truth keeps us within the context of the covenantal relationships established by God. Understanding, developed from exegesis of the Word, means our lives can be defined by relational rootedness with the Creator and with one another. Paul tells the Ephesian church to “…try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” in the context of their relationship to Him as His children (5:10 ESV).  In Ephesians 4, Paul encourages them to remember that “…they are members of one another” bounded by the covenant and the relationships it creates (4:25 ESV).  Covenantal relationship bounded by broad stipulations forms the foundation upon which we can return stability to our own lives and the life of our culture.  Ideologies tear down but covenantal relationship builds up.

              So, what do the righteous do when the foundations have crumbled?  According to Psalm 11, first remember that God is on his throne watching the children of man and testing the righteous until such time as the wicked and their false ideologies will be destroyed holding to the promise that ” …the upright shall behold His face (Ps. 11:7).”  In the interval, the time of testing, we live based upon covenantal thinking rejecting vain philosophies and ideologies (Colossians 2:8) and rightly exegeting the Truth of God found in the Bible. Embracing the covenantal relationship bounded by the Creator’s stipulations keeps us from falling for the narrow eisegesis of man centered ideologies thereby rebuilding the crumbling foundations and offering the stability of Truth. 

Further Study:

https://www.biblegateway.com. English Standard Version (ESV). Accessed September 4.2023.

https://www.biblegateway.com. King James Version (KJV). Accessed September 4, 2023.

Kennedy, E. (1989). A cultural history of the French Revolution (p. 20). New Haven: Yale University Press.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antoine-Louis-Claude-Comte-Destutt-de-Tracy[E3] ,

Cranston, M. (2023, June 17). ideology. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ideology-society. Accessed June 17, 2023.

Sypnowich, Christine, “Law and Ideology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/law-ideology/>. Accessed June 17, 2023.

Uzgalis, William, “John Locke”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/locke/>.  Accessed June 17, 2023.

Harper, D. (n.d.). Etymology of ideology. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved July 15, 2023, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/ideology


 [E3](Britannica, Antoine Louis; Kennedy, 56)

Read More →
Exemple

Part 3: Various Scriptures Addressing God’s Approach to Man’s Health

               (Continued from Part 1: Old Testament Wordy Study and Part 2: New Testament Word Study

               Beyond the word studies considered in the Old and the New Testament in which physical or spiritual health were restored, many other Biblical references address various aspects of health where God through His Scripture authors addressed issues of physical health.   An attempt to formulate a Biblical view of whole person health would be deficient without considering these examples.

               We see some explicit instructions for both Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church which teach us that God cared for the physical needs of His people as well as the spiritual needs.  Beginning with the Old Testament in the Pentateuch, in the giving of the Ceremonial food laws, there were religious aspects and additionally there were physical health aspects which we better understand now.  Certain prohibited foods like those which feed on the filtering of sea water are now known to be ones with higher contaminants and parasites.  Avoiding these foods benefitted the Jew not only  spiritually in obedience to God’s commands, but also benefitted them physically. 

               In the New Testament, Paul could instruct Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach which apparently was causing some type of distress for Timothy.  Paul was not a masochistic leader telling others to buck up and take the punishment but wanted Timothy to be well physically (I Timothy 5:23). However, in balancing spiritual and physical health, Paul would also urge Christians to submit one’s body to the spiritual health race.  One’s physical health was important, but clearly not the primary and ultimate goal (I Corinthians 9:24

               Many other inferences to the importance of physical health to the reality and order of God’s created world then come to attention when looking for them even if they are not the primary focus of the particular Biblical text.  In Genesis, God created man out of the dust of the earth and created man with the need to breathe, eat, sleep, and relate with others.  This was God’s design.  Later we see the sin in taking of another human’s life whether in Cain killing Abel and receiving judgment or in other condemnations of murder (Genesis 4) up to and including the 10 commandments prohibition of murder (Exodus 20:13).  God also demonstrated care of the physical bodies of the Jews during the plagues on Egypt in the Exodus.  While the Egyptians suffered multiple bodily illnesses, the land of Goshen where the Hebrews lived was spared.  Even the Egyptians took notice of God’s preservation of the Hebrews.  During their time in the wilderness, God provided food and water to the wandering Hebrews rather than just making them to not need such physical things.  During the time of the famine, God provided for Elijah (I Kings 17).  While God cared for the physical needs of the Jews in the Old Testament time, He concurrently called them to pursue holiness over comforts and pleasures. 

               We also see pictures of God providing for the physical needs of believers and unbelievers in the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ works.  His first miracle addressed a physical need and also a relational need at the wedding feast in Cana as He made water into wine (John 2:1-12). As we already read, He healed countless diseases.  He often addressed spiritual and physical needs together either in series or simultaneously in these accounts.   God as the Father and in the humanity of the Son demonstrated God’s interest in caring for the physical, emotional, spiritual, and relational needs of his disciples and followers. 

               Taken together and considered in light of the principles gleaned from a broader understanding of the Bible we get a better sense of God’s view of health for mankind.  God created man with a body and a spirit, with a mind and with emotions relating to other humans.  He provided a garden to meet the physical needs.  He created a woman to meet relational needs.  He preserves humanity despite the rebellion of the fall and promises to restore man to a state of holiness again in the new heavens and new earth, still with body and soul in Revelations.  While we live upon the present earth waiting for the  future restored earth, he continues measures of temporary restoration in healing body, mind, spirit, and relationships through obedience and His Spirit’s work.

               The shalom he offers is one of wholeness without an exclusive focus on any one aspect of health, although He emphasizes the primacy of spiritual health with its greater impact in the eternal realm.  With this emphasis on the spiritual health of His children, He does not ignore the physical needs of His people. He uses many physical pictures to explain the blessings of the spiritual life so that the two are analogically tied together.  He mentions feasts in heaven (Revelation 19:7-9 and many others), the bread of life (John 6;35), and “living water” (John 4:14). In each, a physical reality images the spiritual blessings that God provides or offers to mankind.

               Our values should reflect His values for health if we are to be obedient. Shalom which includes body, mind, spirit, and relationship should be sought with spiritual health being primary and never sacrificed for any other aspect of health.  In this way, blessings can be enjoyed in all areas as none are inherently sinful unless they become an idol.  The blessings of whole person health are interdependent parts of a whole interacting in such a way that Ignoring one aspect, especially the spiritual, can limit enjoyment of others.  We can thus view ourselves as stewards of the gift of spiritual and physical life, caring for our body so that we can pursue spiritual health, mental strength, and relational health.  We should and can value the right ordering and functioning of our whole being rather than an overemphasis on a single aspect.

Next in the Series… Virtues to uphold in Whole Person Health

Read More →
Exemple

The Weight of Sin is Lighter – Veith

“A century ago a person may have committed adultery flagrantly and in defiance of God and man, but he would have admitted that what he was doing was a sin. What we have today is not only immoral behavior, but a loss of moral criteria.” Veith, G. E., Jr. (1994b). Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Crossway, p 18.

              In other words, “sin” no long carries the weight it did in the past. While sins like adultery, stealing, and so forth have been around from the earliest descendants of Adam and Eve, we live in a time when the conscience of the broader public has become so seared, that it is hardly a thought any more. Not only have individuals become numb to the guilt of sin, but a majority are losing awareness that sin exists in the first place.

              Many of us feel like this is unprecedented in our lifetimes and we are somewhat correct, but this is not truly unprecedented in history. In Biblical history, we are told of an age, in fact multiple ages of Israel’s history when everyone did what was right in his own eyes (Judges 21;25, Judges 17:6, Isaiah 5;21, Deuteronomy 12:8, Jeremiah 11:8).

              Over the past few generations in America, we lived with a consensus about many sins being wrong and deserving of public denouncement. Having a child out of wedlock, adultery, public drunkenness, and other sins were enough for someone to lose some value in their public reputation. While still treated as a person in the image of God, their sins were considered a warning sign that all was not well for them.

              Today, such sins do not produce such a response from the public at large, but are so commonplace that their acknowledgement in the public sphere produces little to no response. We have lost the criteria as a society to look upon such sins as even being sins. Loss of this mooring leads us inevitably to seeking more and more after what is right in our own eyes.

              To recover from such a loss of moral criteria, we must first discern where we went off the tracks with our beliefs, our thoughts and feelings, and our practices individually and collectively. Then we must systematically shine the light of God’s truth on them, exposing them so we can restore this public consensus.

Read More →
Exemple

 New Testament Word Study Regarding God’s View of Man’s Health

              Having surveyed God’s view of health in the Old Testament through these word studies in a prior essay (LINK), we can approach the New Testament with an initial foundation and consider how various New Testament Greek terms deepen our understanding of God’s view of man’s health.  A variety of Greek words convey God’s perspective on mankind’s whole person health.  While each word shares a sense of wellness, obvious nuances mean that these terms convey different angles on how we should view our health.  Each offers some particular insight, but taken all together the group provides a more robust understanding of what God wants us to know about whole person health. 

               We will walk through hygianio (hygiaínō), therapeuo  (therapeúō),  iaomai (ee-ah’-om-ahee), and sozo (sode’-zo).  With each, a definition and some examples of how each is expressed in the New Testament help to shape our understanding of the design God is instructing us to pursue for whole person health.

               First, Thayer’s bible dictionary defines hygianio as:

  1. To be sound, to be well, to be in good health
  2. Metaphorically: of Christians whose opinions are free from any mixture of error
    1. Of one who keeps the graces and is strong

In this definition, we have soundness, a “soundness”, or holding together in wellness.  While the metaphorical use regarding opinions without error does address doctrine and truth issues, the implication is that this word implies lack of error or lack of illness in terms of health.  A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to physical health as well as spiritual health. 

               In 3 John 2, we read that John prays for the letter recipients that they are all in “good health” or hygianio.  This wellness or soundness refers to physical health as John immediately says that he hopes their physical wellness matches the prospering of their soul.  Hygianio therefore cannot just refer to spiritual health, but John prays that their physical health will be as good as their spiritual health. 

               Next in Luke 15:27, the parable of the Prodigal son provides another opportunity to consider how hygianio is used to describe the health of the Prodigal son. The father rejoices that the son is back “hygios”, or safe and sound.  This suggests a wholeness at least in body if not in body, spirit, and relationship, except for the older brother’s unwillingness to restore his relationship.

               In Luke 5:31, we find Jesus meeting in the home of Levi the Tax Collector where He was challenged by pharisees for eating with sinners.  Jesus responds “Those who are ‘well’ have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”  The primary import is clearly spiritual, but the “well” is this same word, hygianio, and clearly refers to physical wellness in its non-figurative use standing next to “physician”.  The word is secondarily used as figurative of the health of the spirit which was his primary target.

               In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 3, we find Jesus healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath.  Jesus “restored”, the act being described by a verb form of hygianio, the withered hand, exemplifying the clear use of this word in terms of a physical healing through a spiritual work.  We see Jesus caring for physical needs over the rigid rules of the Pharisaical Sabbath keeping.

               In the Gospel of John, chapter 5, we read of the encounter between Jesus and the paralyzed man at the pool of Bethesda who hoped to be made “well” by the angel’s stirring of the waters.  Verses 4, 6, and 9 use the hygios form of hygianio and clearly refer to a physical healing.  The words of the paralyzed man indicate no thought of spiritual or relational health, only a physical healing that he might walk again.  Jesus makes him “well” or hygios and enables him to walk again. 

               In each of these uses of hygianio or a form of the word, we find an aspect of physical healing or soundness.  Some illness is removed or someone rejoices that no illness nor unsoundness is present.  We find both Jesus and the disciples expressing pleasure in the physical health of others.  This implies that we as Christians today, following Christ and the disciples examples, can rejoice and be glad in other’s health.  It would seem from these examples that working to restore health and finding joy in physical health are both good goals.

               Second, we consider the Greek therapeuo, {ther a pe úō}, which Thayer’s dictionary defines as:

  1. To serve, do service
  2. To heal, cure, restore to health.

In this definition we have a picture of someone being made well through an action performed upon them.  It focuses more attention on the work of the one healing or curing, but still conveys that the recipient is made well.  We see the word therapeuo used at least 30 times in the Gospels alone and 5 times in Acts.  A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to physical health.

               In Matthew, several uses of therapeuo and its derivatives provide insight.  In Matthew 4:23-24, Jesus ministered to crowds who had ‘every disease and every affliction” as He went about “healing” them.  No one can argue that He was not addressing physical illnesses although many who oppose the supernatural working of Christ have tried to say that He used psychological means to cure psychological illnesses in these individuals who only looked like they had physical illnesses.  In reality this was clearly a removal of at least physical illness in many cases, but given the mention of demon oppression, it could sometimes include spiritual healing as well.  The two aspects were not mutually exclusive one of the other.  In contrast, the word used for disease or sickness in these verses was the word nosos, which clearly referred to physical illness elsewhere in Matthew 8:17, 9:35, and 10:1.  Clearly, physical healing was a work done by Christ and even delegated to the apostles in Matthew 10:1.

               We see connections between spiritual health or the Gospel and physical health in two other quick examples of therapeuo from the New Testament.  In Mark 6:5, Mark reports that Jesus healed fewer sick people in Nazareth due to the state of their faith.  An unhealthy spirit, one in which the people did not have faith in Christ for whatever reason, prevented their geographic area from receiving as many physical healing works in it.  In Luke 9:1, like Matthew 10:1, we read how Jesus gave power to His disciples to heal physical illness as He was sending them out to preach the Gospel.  Spiritual power was the source of physical healing and physical healing commonly accompanied spiritual healing.

               Third, we look at iaomai, (ee-ah’-om-ahee) which is defined int Thayer’s dictionary as:

  1. to cure, heal
  2. to make whole
  3. to free from errors and sins, to bring about (one’s) salvation

In this definition we see the nature of the work being done whether to remove a disease by healing/curing or making whole or to remove spiritual disease of sin and thus bring out someone’s salvation. A few verses from the New Testament provide a clearer backdrop of how this word was applied to health.

               Two verses from Matthew bring out connections between spiritual and physical health using this word iaomai.  In Matthew 13:15, Jesus quotes the book of Isaiah that if the people would turn spiritually, that God would “iaomai” them.  Isaiah had used the word raphe which we studied from the Old Testament in part one of this word study.  Matthew intended to convey the same sense of physical healing by iaomai as was in raphe.  Then in Matthew 15:28, we read how the faith of the Canaanite woman led to the healing of her daughter.  Her daughter apparently suffered both spiritually and physically as the physical healing occurred secondary to the removal of demonic oppression.  The driving out of the demon was necessary for the physical healing to take place.  In God’s usual pattern we see physical healing being important yet connected with spiritual health.

               Another two examples help paint a fuller picture of the use of iaomai in the New Testament.  In Luke 9, Jesus is sending out the disciples to preach and to heal.  When he describes the healing in verse 6, he uses iaomai.  They were doing both spiritual and physical healings for the people.  Then in I Peter 2:24, Peter is explaining how the people are healed or iaomai by the wounds of Jesus.  Given Christ’s primary role in salvation, this example appears to refer primarily if not solely to spiritual healing.  This particular word, iaomai, for to cure or to heal or to make whole could refer to spiritual or to physical healing or to both aspects together as parts of a whole work. 

               Fourth and final, we find the word sozo (sode’-zo) defined by Thayer’s dictionary:

1.  To save, keep safe and sound, to rescue from danger or destruction

2.  …(not pertinent)

3.  to save a suffering one (from perishing), i.e. one suffering from disease, to make well, heal, restore to health.

Two examples from the Gospel of Matthew begin to fill out how this word was used.  In Matthew 9:21-22 Jesus interacts with the woman who had an issue of blood and had touched His garments seeking healing.  She clearly had a physical illness from this description which received a physical healing from Jesus.  In Matthew 15:29-31 we read about the crucifixion of Jesus.  The people are asking how Jesus could have saved others but could not sozo himself.  There was an inclusion of Jesus saving his own physical life, but there seems a fuller sense that does not exclude Jesus saving Himself from the punishment by crucifixion for wrongdoing.  An irony was intended in that the Savior could not sozo or save himself from physical punishment that was resulting from spiritual guilt.

               The word is again used to refer to physical healing in Luke 17:19 where Jesus cleanses 10 lepers.  He removes their leprosy, obviously a physical healing, and this is translated as “made you well”.  Yet, in Titus 3:5 a description of Jesus’ work is given in which he is said to sozo us in the washing of regeneration.  This seems a clear example of using the word to describe spiritual healing rather than physical healing.  Then in James 5:15 we again read of a physical use of the word in that the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick.  We are left with an overall impression that sozo may be used to describe the work of either physical or spiritual healing or when both types of healing are involved. 

               For the Greek words, hygianio, therapeuo, iaomai, and sozo a New Testament picture of health forms in which the physical and the spiritual are not fully separated when we see examples of these words referring to physical health or healing in one place and spiritual in others.  Given the number of times we see Jesus healing physical illness in the Gospels as these words are used, we get a sense of the importance of physical health in addition to spiritual health as well as a connectedness.

Next in the series…  Part 3: Various Scripture Addressing God’s Approach to Man’s Health

Read More →
Exemple

By Jennifer Potter

              Before subsequently interweaving throughout the covenants, marriage and by extension family, find their inauguration within the Creation Account.  Over the course of the first two chapters in Genesis, covenant relationship defines not only God’s providential relationship to His creatures, but He also establishes covenant relationship as the means by which His image bearers are connected to one another.  In man’s brief period of innocence, their beneficent Creator provides for them the most fundamental of human social relationships – covenantal marriage- establishing from their union the plan of covenant family as the means by which humanity fills the earth. Commentator Matthew Henry observed that “marriage is one of only…two ordinances instituted in [man’s] innocency” (1). Highlighting the significance of covenantal ties between humanity, God establishes the fundamental social institutions of covenantal marriage and by extension the covenantal family as a part of His “very good” creational order establishing for all time the norms by which society best functions.

              In studying the social structures instituted at Creation, Biblical standards for marriage and family emerge in their covenantal context. In general, the first chapter in Genesis gives an overview of the Creation week when on the final day of creative activity, God determines to form His image bearer giving humans a crowning significance as the Psalmist declares, “You have made him [mankind] a little lower than the heavenly beings, and crowned him with glory and honor” (ESV, Psalm 8:5).   Upon his image bearers, the Creator declares blessing using language common in biblical covenantal structures, the ‘is-ought’ blessing, meaning an assured promise is stated but a responsibility requiring active participation also is presented.  This blessed responsibility reads, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion “…over every living thing that moves on the earth,” giving covenantal responsibility to the man and woman to fill the earth with other image bearers that they may care for the Creation as their Creator cares for them (ESV, Genesis 1:28).  Through God’s explicit design and blessing, the covenantal family is made the primary means of both filling the earth and caring for it.  By the end of the chapter, the fundamental relationships of marriage and family have been established as part of a covenantal and well-managed created order.  

               These fundamental relationships are further expounded upon in the extended retelling of man’s creation in Genesis 2.  This account gives more details on the covenantal nature of the relationship between the man and the woman.  In summary, God creates the first man Adam giving him substance formed out of the dust, existence through His breath, residence in the garden, blessings through provisions and beauty, employment through garden keeping and animal classification, relationship with Himself through covenant, and covenantal sacraments in the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Having situated man in a perfect garden, God relates to Adam, who as Matthew Henry asserts dwelt in an easy and honorable state, placing this man under the Covenant of Works and giving him full ability to carry out his responsibilities in paradise (2,3).

              However, even in these ideal conditions, God saw that Adam needed a helper of like substance for to be alone was not good (ESV, Genesis 2: 18). In Hebrew the word helper literally means “one who helps” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent translating directly as “a helper” (4,5).  This helper was not to be a subordinate being but one able to provide for the man that which God Himself recognized as needful even in His good Creation.  Of note, the Greek word for helper used in this account is also used in the New Testament referring to God Himself as Helper suggesting the strong positive role man’s helpmeet was given.  Hebrews 13:6 reads: “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear” [italics mine] (ESV). So, God planned to provide man with relationship not only to Himself but also to a strong helper equal in honor to the man and indeed both distinct and yet a part of man; for God does not again use the dust of the earth to fashion this helper. Rather, He uses the body of the man.  Taking the flesh of the man by using a rib from his side God creates one equal in significance, one to be beloved and protected at his side (1).  In a very real sense, they are of one flesh.  Word study is again valuable here. This word flesh is from the Hebrew word meaning “flesh or blood relations” with the Greek Septuagint equivalent meaning “flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts” (6,7). These words shed light on the deep relational connection established by the Creator’s hand between His image bearers. In the account, following the formation of man’s help meet, the Lord leads the woman in presentation to the man almost as if He is “the officiating minister” joining the two together by sovereign appointment (8). Here, in the fresh beauty of the garden, the Creator positioned Adam and his wife under the marriage covenant which in a sense fits or at least reflects the definition of covenants God initiates between Himself and humankind: “a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered” (9). This similarity in covenantal elements emphasizes the inter-relationship between the vertical covenant and the horizontal covenant established at creation. In this first horizontal covenant, the Sovereign Creator initiated, arranged, and oversaw the structure establishing it at the dawn of humanity’s existence placing marriage under man’s covenantal responsibilities to Himself while providing for man’s needs.

              After the presentation of the newly formed covenantal helper, the man responds in joyful acknowledgment of God’s provision in this one woman declaring her “…. bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (ESV, Genesis 2:23) acknowledging God’s masterful answer to his need for companionship and succor.  Matthew Henry comments in “…designing Adam a help meet for him, he made him one wife…And wherefore did he make but one woman for one man?  It was that he might seek a godly seed- a seed of God…a seed that she bear the image of God , be employed in the service of God, and be devoted to his glory and honor” (10)  In this, the second chapter of Genesis, God establishes the marriage covenant between one man and one woman, a creational ordinance acknowledged by Christ in the New Testament and tied to the one flesh union between the man and woman who are given the responsibility to have children instituting the covenant family for as Henry also concludes “the raising up of godly seed…is one of the great ends of the institution of marriage” (10). Therefore, after the creation of the woman, God directly inaugurates not only the marriage covenant but also the family lines by which man’s ongoing covenantal responsibilities will move forward. Through the marriage covenant and this end of bearing seed, Adam and his wife will carry out the blessed responsibility of being fruitful, filling the earth, and having dominion.

              Being established prior to the Fall, covenantal marriage, with the resulting family, stands out as the first horizontal covenant inaugurated in Scripture.  Adam, as the representative head of humanity (11) and the woman as his help meet are covenanted together by God’s explicit design that together they may obey the stipulations of the covenant with their God and fulfill their responsibilities toward one another participating in the blessing of filling the earth with godly seed who will care for the creation.  God as covenant initiator, sets forth in the creation account the pattern for man’s first covenant with woman in marriage.

              This covenantal pattern continues as a fundamental aspect of subsequent covenants after man’s fall into sin such that the marriage covenant and the family born from it place covenantal responsibilities upon all mankind. Such subsequently repeated covenantal responsibilities apply not only to a man and woman in a marriage covenant but also to any group of men and women as a church or society in regards to honoring and protecting this marriage covenant. In the New Testament, Jesus[LP1]  places this responsibility upon humanity in general: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (ESV, Matthew 19: 6b).  A society’s repudiation of God’s fundamental covenantal design puts them at odds with the Creator of the Universe- a very precarious place indeed.

  1. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9,2023.
  2. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NIV, Accessed July 9, 2023
  3. Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter VII:II. and IX:II. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (p. 852 & 854). 20th Edition. Great Commission Publications.
  4. Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/05828.html, Accessed July 11, 2023.
  5. Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland.   https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/998.html,  Accessed July 11, 2023.
  6. Old / New Testament Greek Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org.  Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland. https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/4561.html, Accessed July 9, 2023.
  7. Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary developed by Jeff Garrison for StudyLight.org. Copyright 1999-2023. All Rights Reserved, Jeff Garrison, Gdansk, Poland.  https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/hebrew/01320.html, July 10, 2023.
  8. Edith, D. (1963). Family Living in the Bible (p. 5). Harper and Row Publishers.
  9. Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the Covenants (p. 15). Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.
  10. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi%202&version=NIV, accessed July 9, 2023
  11. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 16. Trinity Hymnal (2021), (870). 20th Edition. Great Commission Publications.
Read More →
Exemple

               After part one of this essay addressed the effects of easy geographical mobility, of excesses in extracurricular activities, and of age segregation on the development of family bonds, we now look at other forces and trends of contemporary society which press upon why we gather and with whom we gather.  First, we consider the effects of vicarious sports’ influence on our lives.  Second, we examine how the changing priority of finding life fulfillment in experiences alters the depth of relationships in gathering.  Third, we consider how expectations for achievement in life affect our gathering in the setting of labor.  We then further consider how these various societal trends influence the gathering of friendships and church relationships.  This all prepares us for the next essay in the series considering what true gathering would look like if we overcome the negative societal influences on gathering.

               Beyond the factors in part one of the essay, we also see the effects of the changing values of society as a whole and of its subgroups on why people gather.  The first example considers the influence of vicarious college and professional sports on why we gather.  While society has historically always gathered around forms of entertainment, our society has modified the Coliseum of Rome into our modern stadiums where we idolize the physically talented and gifted athletes.  The dedication of many to “their team” may extend beyond simple entertainment into obsessions.  Beyond the physical gathering for such games and competitions, the mass media’s ability for live coverage enables physically separated millions not only to share an event simultaneously, but furthermore to choose from a multitude of such events with just a click of a remote.  The lure of professional sports and the allegiance to one’s college alma mater often gather people for nothing more substantial than this common interest of which they are at best only a vicarious spectator.  At worst, the obsession can reap enough of their time and energy to lead to neglect of other parts of their life.

               Second, some priorities for one’s life fulfillment have also changed.  With less emphasis on the creation of lasting worth with one’s time, activities become more and more focused on the experiences of pleasure.  While creating memories with one’s family during the experience of a vacation are good, they should have more lasting value than just the repetitive need to find another experience which outdoes the last one.  This drive for experience manifests itself in the following ways. In the travel industry, marketing naturally sells to this drive with promises of experiences to remember but the drive spills over into other areas of life that are not as natural to this pursuit.  College life can become more about the experience than the education it is meant to instill as college campuses compete to have the coolest recreation center or the most robust social life.  For the older crowd planned communities promise all you need for daily life with every convenience in one pre-packaged neighborhood.  For some, the pursuit of some experience drives their choices and adversely influences their gathering away from interest in more enduring priorities.

               Third, expectations for achievement in life have been radically altered from early childhood on up to adulthood.  Rather than the olden days of rewarding those who excelled in a sport or at school, the emphasis has shifted to being sure all feel a part of the team with participation trophies and grading systems that avoid making someone feel bad for not doing as well as another.  While competition inherently grants some reward to those who win, more and more emphasis is placed on just showing up. We must wonder if this trend in expectations is playing a role in what we see as these children grow into adults.  As adults, many of today’s employees may walk into a new position expecting immediate respect and the rewards of prolonged service before they have paid their dues.  They may wonder why work seems harder at the bottom in starting out.  They then express their frustrations without understanding their supervisor’s confusion at their expectations.  In gathering with others in the business to produce and create, they may focus on what they are getting out of it.  While admittedly, some past generations could go to the extreme of overworking, some in this generation seem to want the benefits of having invested years into a work position without actually having to invest those years.

The Impact of These Trends Beyond Family

               These societal forces and trends not only impact on the gathering of family, but also upon how friends gather.  While common interests and relational affections still bring different people together, the bonds can still be weakened by ease of mobility and the superficiality of why many gather.  When families are moving every few years, they do not have as much time to deepen relationships outside the family.  Relationships of shorter duration can be easier to let go of as the work of maintaining such relationships at a distance outweighs the work of just finding new ones.  With the fast pace of life on top of this mobility, without some intentional effort, friendships can remain shallow.  In these situations, inevitable differences will have a greater chance of long-term division as there is less strength in the bond to prevent separation. 

               Neither do the superficial activities of life focused on entertainment offer the deeper bonds of achieving worthy goals together.  The strongest bonds of sports participation primarily come with the teamwork that wins a competition at some level, yet most of these “group wins” fade in memory as time passes and more important challenges of life arise, making the district and regional championships of past decades just a fleeting memory that few others remember.  As we age, we may gather around entertainment interests like sports or the latest band, but take away that superficiality and bonds quickly weaken without deeper roots.  Over time, more and more of the gathering is spent with those with whom one agrees on the peripherals of life rather than agreeing upon core values, the ground more fertile for deeper roots.

               Churches are not left unaffected by societal forces and are not always able to overcome the secondary differences when core values are not as deeply shared.  Being hindered in growing deeper roots by the ease of geographical mobility and less time together due to the pressures of contemporary life, they may succumb to division by secondary differences.  Simultaneously, in the interest of growing the church in numbers, the seeker sensitive approach often dilutes out the more committed Christ followers with those more aligned with the world.  This leads to more compromises and can begin to focus more on activities rather than doctrinal unity, setting the stage for divisions when differences eventually arise.  When the majority in a church body seek church for what they will get out of the experience rather than the worship of God, sooner or later the secondary differences with overcome the strength of the shallow shared values, driving the “body” apart.

               In the end, the practice of gathering in today’s society has moved towards patterns that hinder deeper relationships and hinder unity over deeper values.  The patterns of easy geographical mobility and age segregated activities combine with the seeking of superficial experiences in commonalities like sports teams make today’s society less enduring.  At this point, conserving such a declining culture and its consensus is pointless.  Instead, a restoration to God’s design for relationships under covenant around deeper meaning is needed.  Coming essays will focus on this work of restoration.

Next in the series… True Gathering By a Different Standard.

Read More →