fundamentalism – Faith in Jesus

Matthew, Healing, and Isaiah 53

This is what Matthew writes:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:17. . .

The “he” refers to the Jewish “suffering servant” whom Christians univocally interpret as Jesus of Nazareth. The claim is stunning. As Matthew quotes the passage, Jesus has taken away our sicknesses, just as he has taken away our sin. Whether it was the scourging or the crucifixion, the suffering Christ carried away our sickness.

When I first noticed the passage in Matthew, I thought he had mistranslated the Hebrew. The reason I thought that is because nearly every available English translation quotes Isaiah 53:4 in approximately the following way:

Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
. . . Isaiah 53:4-5, NIV. . .

Where Matthew specifies physical “infirmities” and “diseases,” most translations offer emotional “pain” and “suffering.”^[1]

Matthew, however wasn’t reading English translations. He also wasn’t depending on the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament that the Apostle Paul relied on. Matthew was following the original Hebrew. And it fit the context perfectly. The entire passage where Isaiah 53:4 is quoted demonstrates Jesus’ business of healing the physically and mentally ill:

When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand and the fever left her, and she got up and began to wait on him.

When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

“He took up our infirmities
    and bore our diseases.”
. . . Matthew 8:14-17. . .

Matthew, then, becomes the support for those who claim that both our salvation and our healing were accomplished by the sufferings of Jesus. The counter-argument is, of course, “I still feel sick,” but that is no different from “I still feel guilty,” or “I still sin.” The battle may be won on the cosmic scale but require tenacious insistence in every local instance. Long after World War 2 was won, outposts of Japanese soldiers were bearing arms and defending their ground, not knowing peace had been declared.

For those of us still reading, we can conclude with the apostle Peter. He does not misquote Isaiah 53:5, but he changes the tense to the present perfect, so suggest a past event has present effects. He reinforces the revelation that the whole-person redemption of Jesus is clearly a done deal:

“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”
. . . 1 Peter 2:24. . .

The beauty of Peter’s version is that the common “if it is God’s will” falls completely to the wayside. Whether physical or spiritual healing is at hand, both are clearly God’s will, having been enacted in the suffering servant. No longer is it a matter of pulling out the divining rod to determine if these things are God’s will (the divining rod being a figure of speech for all the rationalizations we make). It is a matter of walking by faith, not by sight. It is a matter of trusting that the same Father who sent Jesus to redeem is the same Father who is completely aware of, and prepared for our current needs. That is true divine provision, also known as providence.

§ Footnotes §

^[1] Of fifteen versions I checked, only New American Standard, Common English Version, and Young’s Literal Translation refer to sickness in Isaiah 53:4.
The versions that (mis)translate the Hebrew for sickness (חֳלָיֵנוּ) as “pain” or “suffering” include

Amplified Bible
American Standard (but has a footnote that provides “sickness” as an alternate word for “pain”)
Common English Version
English Standard Version
Good News Translation
King James Version
Living Bible
The Message
New American Bible (Revised Edition)
New Catholic Bible (uses “afflictions” which might be construed as “sickness”)
New International Version
Revised Standard Version (but has a footnote that provides “sickness” as an alternate word for “pain”)

Changing Scripture for the Better

Sometimes the best use of scripture is to change the wording. You can call this either misquoting or adapting. It is what the New Testament apostle Paul teaches me.

If this post has rubbed your hermeneutics the wrong way, please read on. Without quibbling over small points, I provide two of the best examples of changing the scriptures, both from Paul.

He provides the low hanging fruit, and his critics are the best source of guidance. As one writer puts it:

Almost stealthily, Paul makes the error of misquoting scripture and magically creates theology out of thin air. . . . His methodology with actually quoting scripture is similar to his interpretation of it: he will use or twist any scripture any way he chooses to prove his point! 
. . . Paul Twists the Scriptures and Creates Theology out of Thin Air. . .

The writer, James Wood, goes on to illustrate his point, using the King James translation. The choice of translation shows his fairness. Wood refuses to scratch around for an arcane translation to support his point. He plays clean, as the soccer commentator may say.

He first quotes Paul. “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Romans 11:26). Paul’s point is clear: Jesus will come to save his people, “Jacob” being a figure of speech that represents the entire nation of Israel.^[1]

Next James Wood quotes the original. “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 59:20). The difference is clear. Paul assigns redemptive agency to Jesus, while Isaiah assigns agency to Zion who usher in the messiah through their repentance. In Wood’s words, “Paul makes the deliverer turn away ungodliness instead of coming to those who themselves turned from transgression.”^[2]

One could dismiss the difference as being two sides of one coin: grace on God’s side must be invited by repentance on the human side. But I prefer to run with Wood on this and agree heartily that Paul deliberately misquoted the scripture. It’s consistent with Paul’s entire mission, to show the Old Testament law fails precisely where the New Testament grace succeeds. Put differently, that the things humans fail to do to reach God were performed by Jesus and are offered as a gift by faith, no strings attached.

The second example comes from Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:6-10.^[3] The entire chapter of Deuteronomy is encouraging, stating that following God’s commands “not too difficult for you or beyond your reach,” with the result that his people may receive blessings and not curses. However, the emphasis remains upon doing—and that often involves self-reliance instead of the intended reliance upon God, our Maker.

Hundreds of years later, Paul, who was an expert at taking the letter of the law with all seriousness and commitment, realized his devotion to God’s commands was making him a monster (also known as chief of sinners). He realized his obedience was…

not sufficient
resulted in garbage (including approving of the murder of Stephen)
could never produce divine results, and
was surpassed by the righteousness that came by faith, not willpower
(Philippians 3:7-9)

A few years after writing to the Philippians, Paul writes to the Romans. He re-reads Deuteronomy from the perspective of one who no longer trusts in human effort—at all. What he retains is the statement that “the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart….” Paul, however, changes the end of the statement. Where Moses writes “so you may obey it,” Paul writes, “that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim.” He deliberately replaces obedience with faith.^{[4 see illustration]}

The replacement is consistent with his entire treatment of the passage from Deuteronomy. Where Moses says obedience is not “beyond your reach,” Paul says that declaring with your mouth and believing in your heart are sufficient.

Paul also adds a cosmic dimension to Moses, who wanted to express that the Israelites had “the command” right at hand, and that they did not need to go to heaven nor across the sea to get the command. Paul agrees that the believer need not go to heaven, but he adds that such an act would bring Christ back down to earth, as if one visit to earth were not enough. He then changes “the sea” to “the deep” (or “the abyss”) with echoes of hell, claiming that such an effort would, again, bring Christ up from the dead. Instead, he concludes that confessing and believing in what Christ has already done are all that is required.

As Paul writes elsewhere: “Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:15-17). People can repent all day long and live with guilt all their lives. But when they see the perfect and complete forgiveness of Jesus, the veil is removed and the emphasis shifts from what we do to what Christ has already done.

Many Bible teachers in Christ’s time and in our day put the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. Paul never felt bound to the letter for the letter’s sake. His commitment was “not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Thus, Paul recognized that words only approximate the truth. He expressed a similar thing elsewhere saying that we see through a mirror only dimly.

Yes, we are treading on thin ice here, knowing that such interpretive license gives rise to cults and contortions of the scriptures. But that’s the cost of revelation. By definition it is not understood from the beginning. It is hinted at, alluded to, and, finally, in the life of Christ, made as visible as humans are capable of seeing. The key isn’t, “does this fit the letter of the law?” but “does this fit the one who forgave, healed, inspired, and commissioned all those who sought his help?”

The question is, “do you want the security of religion or the joy of revelation?” The first path is safe and may or may not lead you to your destination. Remember, Jesus called the Bible scholars of his day “blind guides.” The second path offers us glimpses of a love and goodness that outshines the dark reflections with which we usually live.

Mug says I can do all things through a verse taken out of context — Thank you, whoever made this mug!

§ Footnotes §

^[1] Using the part (Jacob) for the whole (Jewish nation) is synecdoche, a common figure of speech. We use it every time we refer to “Washington” for the United States federal government.

^[2] Wood’s quote continues in a disparaging manner, true to his theme: “Such simple changes could fool the Gentiles that Paul was so devoted to saving. Instead of Paul becoming a contemporary Jonah and instructing the sinners to repent, Paul offers deceit and lies. Maybe this explains this verse that came from Paul’s pen.”

^[3] Credit for this example to James Barron, who has his own grace-imbued website.

^[4]

Comparison of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 with Romans 10:6-10 (NIV)

Jesus: the Gold Standard of God’s Character

Listen to the post (7 minutes, 42 seconds)

If you pay attention to Christian descriptions of God, they are quite varied and, frankly, at times disheartening. You may think, “If that’s what God is like, I’ll pass, please.” Whenever I’m confronted with a description of a violent/cruel/merciless God, I ask myself, “What would Jesus do?” or “Would Jesus do that?” In other words, Jesus is my touchstone for the true nature of his Father, the gold standard for divinity.

This post assumes that Jesus is the clearest representation of God’s character that we will ever have. Jesus himself says in the gospel of John: “I do only those things that I see my Father do” (John 5:19) and “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). Finally, Hebrews 1:1-3 states that, unlike the prophets, Jesus was the exact representation of God. And it states this in contrast to the prophets: “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.”

Can things be made any more clear? Hardly! No one will argue with that until they get to the corollary.

Here’s the corollary: the portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament often overrides and corrects representations of God, usually in the Old Testament but perhaps occasionally in the New Testament. If you are a fundamentalist, you were likely taught (or commanded) to take every scripture as being equally inspired by God. No progressive revelations of God allowed. So, when I demonstrate that Jesus sets the record straight, you must do acrobatics mentally, textually, and historically to explain how it’s all equally accurate stuff.

One evidence that Jesus came to set the record straight occurs in a string of statements in Matthew 5 (the Sermon on the Mount). We hear him say repeatedly, “You have heard that it was said,” followed by a quote from the Old Testament, and finally followed by “But I say to you….” And there he is, modifying the ancient scripture. This is how he came to “fulfill” “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17). Yes, the old statements stand, but they stand as pillars to hold up the clearer truth that Jesus brings. There are more ways to murder than by shedding blood, more ways to commit adultery than by sleeping with someone, fewer reasons to get a divorce than Moses allowed. Jesus makes it clear that what he has to say eclipses and surpasses many statements in the Old Testament.

At this, some of you will say that Jesus didn’t override the Old Testament, but only reinterpreted it. That’s not unreasonable.

A more abstract, yet more compelling argument contrasts the way Jesus behaves with the ways God is often reputed to have behaved in the Old Testament (as well as in the present, according to many Christians).

What do we find when we compare how Jesus treats people to the way traditional theology assumes God treats people? Here we find once again that Jesus presents a less violent, more merciful image. Jesus was fine with—and at times apparently enjoyed—spending time with sinners (tax collectors, sex workers, a thief on the nearby cross). True, he had a tough time with preachers and Bible scholars (pharisees and scribes). But none of his treatment of anyone approaches the violence and retribution often attributed to God. Many people allow ancient images of God to override the example Jesus relentlessly gives.

When we read the Old Testament with Jesus as our standard, we no longer need to juggle competing images of God. If the alleged behavior of God is the very thing Jesus came to save us from…then admit the representation is inaccurate. Here are some representations of God that, judged by the morality undergirding both the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ life, are bad business:

People of Babylon, you are sentenced to be destroyed.
    Happy is the person who pays you back
    according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the person who grabs your babies
    and smashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:8-9)

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Many, if not most, Christians will come up with justifications for both these passages. They were necessary for one reason or another. For example, the existing cultures were so rotten that they were going to infect the entire human race. Hypothetically, perhaps. But I cannot imagine Jesus doing any of those things (at all). Either the Father and the Son have a division of labor (I, the Father, destroy life, while you, the Son, repair it), or the ancient scriptures were colored by a projection of human violence onto God. Jesus never mentioned a division of labor, but instead said, “I do only those things that I see my Father do” (John 5:19).

If I’m doing violence to your interpretation of scripture, it may be because many interpretations are unjust by doing violence to the character of God. Such interpretations relegate Jesus and his Father to a long lineage of pagan gods who are vindictive and violent. The violence is on the human side. The cross shows that. I plead with you, brothers and sisters, let Jesus be your guide to how you view God. Do not let your theory of scripture mar the purity of God. Never forget that Jesus is the exact representation of God. He’s the final word and must have the final word. Everything will be better because we’ll have a better image of God!

Publishing Info
This post was first published on: Jan 12, 2024 at 18:36. If this article is significantly updated, the publication date beneath the title may change, just as it might change in order to bring current posts to the top (or bottom) of the directory.