In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, he made mention of the fact that Christ had redeemed them from the curse of the Law. Here are his comments found in Galatians chapter three:
10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
The Curse Defined
The question is: what is the curse of the Law? When we read the above referenced passage in context, we find that Paul does not go into detail about the curse. Rather he makes general reference to sin. So we know that sin is somehow involved, but it does not answer the whole question of what the curse is.
To get a clearer picture we have to examine Deuteronomy 28. This is passage in which Moses announced the curses associated with not following the entirety of the Law. For the purposes of this article we will not examine all of what the curse included, because it would make the article too long and would detract from the subject under discussion. However, I would encourage everyone to read the whole chapter so that you might gain an understanding both of the blessings and curses.
15But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
18Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
20The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. 21The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. 22The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish…
27The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. 28The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart…
35The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
45Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:
Notice how much of the curse involves physical illness.
Substitution
The redemptive work of Christ involves substitution, as was briefly mentioned in the article, Healing and Redemption. Paul makes that fact clear in 2 Corinthians 5:21.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Do you see the exchange? He was made sin in our place, and took upon himself the punishment of sin. In turn, we are made the righteousness of God in him. Let us take the time to examine Galatians 3: 13, 14.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Again Christ was made a curse on our behalf in order that the blessing of Abraham might become ours. With respect to how this substitution applies to healing we will take another look at Isaiah 53. Once again we will take our text from Young’s Literal Translation.
3He is despised, and left of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with sickness, And as one hiding the face from us, He is despised, and we esteemed him not. 4Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains — he hath carried them, And we — we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us. 6All of us like sheep have wandered, Each to his own way we have turned, And Jehovah hath caused to meet on him, The punishment of us all. 7It hath been exacted, and he hath answered, And he openeth not his mouth, As a lamb to the slaughter he is brought, And as a sheep before its shearers is dumb, And he openeth not his mouth. 8By restraint and by judgment he hath been taken, And of his generation who doth meditate, That he hath been cut off from the land of the living? By the transgression of My people he is plagued, 9And it appointeth with the wicked his grave, And with the rich [are] his high places, Because he hath done no violence, Nor [is] deceit in his mouth. 10And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick, If his soul doth make an offering for guilt, He seeth seed — he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his hand doth prosper.
Why would Jehovah, as verse 10 tells us, bruise him and make him sick? The answer to that question is found in verse five when it reads, “And by his bruise there is healing to us.” That is the exchange. Just as he was made sin that we might become righteous, he was made sick that we might become healed. Jesus was our substitute in both regards.
Chris,
I think the passage in Galatians is not vague at all - nor is the context of the book for that matter. It is clear, quite clear that the curse of the law is sin. Verse 10 and 11 qualify the rest of Paul’s thought.
In Deuteronomy 28 - we are indeed seeing curses having to do with various things including health, enemies, property, etc… At the same time, they are qualified as part of Israel’s contract with God to take over the land and to be under God’s governance. I don’t think it is biblically justified to connect these curses with the “curse” talked about all through Galatians.
Actually, in this case, I completely agree with Chris that Galatians is referring to Deuteronomy 28. We just studied this a couple weeks ago in my “Atonement” Bible study. Deut. 28 discusses at length the benefits of following the law and the curses of not. So when Paul uses the word “curse,” early Christians (especially Jews) immediately thought of the curses from Deuteronomy. I’m not sure what you mean, Colin, that the curse of the law is sin.
That said, I would disagree strongly that these verses support Chris’ idea of present-tense physical healing. For one, we have no New Testament evidence that Jesus was made “sick.” Yes, he died and he was tortured, but he didn’t take on any physical illness or disease (to our knowledge). So one has to assume that Isaiah 53 was more likely symbolically talking about spiritual illness. After all, God indeed made Jesus to be spiritually sick, by forsaking him on the cross as He would a normal sinful human being.
Interesting comments DariusT, but did Jesus die on a cross?
Here is some info I found…you can do some research as well.
The traditionally shaped cross has long been accepted by many as the symbol of the Christian religion. Is that what the Bible and the facts of history show?
TWO youths, seventeen years old, jumped into New York city’s East River in the dead of winter. Physical culture enthusiasts? No. Temporarily insane? No. They did it to show their veneration of the cross. An Orthodox priest had thrown a crucifix out more than a hundred feet into the river and these youths endeavored to retrieve it as part of a religious rite.—New York Times, January 23, 1956.
In 1956, after fifteen years of strenuous labor, a 700-foot-long sanctuary was completed to serve as a stupendous tomb for Franco and other leaders of Spain’s Falange party. Adorning it is a granite cross five hundred feet high, visible in Madrid some thirty miles distant.
Two years ago United States women’s clubs began gathering millions of dollars to build the world’s largest cross on top of Bald Knob Mountain in southern Illinois.
News items such as these show how highly the cross is esteemed in Christendom.
According to Webster’s dictionary a cross is “a structure, typically an upright supporting a horizontal beam, anciently used in the execution of malefactors.” In the Bible the Greek word usually rendered cross is stauros. Its Latin equivalent is crux. Was the stauros or crux on which Christ died a traditionally shaped cross?
Yes, say spokesmen of Christendom, such as the Signs of the Times, October 23, 1956. It dogmatically states that the stauros on which Christ died was such a cross. In support of this assertion several authorities are cited, secular and religious. But what are the facts?
The facts are that authorities are not agreed that there is “no doubt” about the nature of the stauros on which Christ died and are not agreed that it was the traditionally shaped cross. The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1907 and 1942 editions, under the term “cross” states that Christ is “generally believed” to have died on such a cross, that at best it is only “by general tradition” that the matter is established.
As for religious authorities, one states: “The accounts of the manner of the crucifixion being so meager, any degree of certainty is impossible.”1 And another tells that “no definite data are found in the New Testament concerning the nature of the cross on which Jesus died. It is only the Church writers after Justin Martyr who indicate the composite four-armed cross as Christ’s vehicle of torture.”2
And concerning the terms stauros and crux we are told that ‘stauros properly means merely a stake.’ “In Livy [Roman historian shortly before Christ’s ministry] even, crux means a mere stake.” “The Hebrews have no word for Cross more definite than ‘wood.’”3
WHY NOT A TRADITIONAL CROSS
Certainly in view of the foregoing it cannot honestly be stated that Christ without doubt was nailed on the traditionally shaped cross. And it is of striking interest to note that it is those authorities that lean toward the view that Christ was nailed on such a cross that admit doubt. But those who hold that Christ died on a simple stake or pole are not in doubt. Says one such: “Jesus died on a simple deathstake: In support of this there speak (a) the then customary usage of this means of execution in the Orient, (b) indirectly the history itself of Jesus’ sufferings and (c) many expressions of the early Church fathers.”—The Cross and Crucifixion, Hermann Fulda.
That Christ did not die on the traditionally shaped cross is also indicated by the testimony of the catacombs. Thus Dean Burgon, in his Letters from Rome, wrote: “I question whether a cross occurs on any Christian monument of the first four centuries.” Mons Perret, who spent fourteen years doing research in the catacombs of Rome, counted in all a total of 11,000 inscriptions among the millions of tombs. According to him, “not until the latter years of the fourth century does the sign of the cross appear.” Among the signs that do appear are the dove, a symbol of the holy spirit; the lyre, a symbol of joy; the anchor, a symbol of hope and the fish. Why the fish? Because the letters of the word “fish” in Greek are the same as the first letters of “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.”4
That Christ did not die on the traditionally shaped cross is also indicated by the Bible itself. It repeatedly tells of his dying on a tree, the Greek word being xylon. (See Luke 23:31; Acts 5:30;10:39.) Xylon simply means “timber,” and “by implication a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance.”5 That is why the Gospel writers all use xylon to refer to the staves or clubs that the mob carried when they came to take Jesus. (See Matthew 26:47, 55; Mark 14:43, 48; Luke 22:52.) By saying that Christ died on a xylon these indicated that Christ died on a timber, a piece of wood.
Thus the apostle Paul states that Christ became a curse to those under the law by being fastened to a xylon, since “Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake [xylon].” Paul was there quoting from the law of Moses, which required that the bodies of executed criminals be fastened to a tree or stake as a warning and which meant that they were cursed by God.—Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22, 23, NW.
A like example is found relative to one of the decrees of Cyrus, which warned that anyone refusing to obey, “a timber will be pulled out of his house and he will be impaled upon it.” In the Greek Septuagint Version the term for timber here is xylon. Again, not a cross but a simple straight beam.—Ezra 6:11, NW.
Some argue that Christ died on a cross because early Christians used the letter “X” as a symbol for Christ. However, the “X” used in this manner does not at all refer to the tree on which Christ died. Rather, it stands for the name “Christ,” it being the first (Greek) letter of the name “Christ,” written “X” and pronounced “ch” or “K.” Thus “X” is an abbreviation, not a symbol.4
Nor does the fact that the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Nicodemus state that Jesus died on a cross prove anything. Both of these works are recognized by all authorities as forgeries. Obviously both were written after the cross had been adopted as a symbol of Christendom.4
OF PAGAN ORIGIN
Clearly there is no Scriptural support for the traditional cross as a symbol of Christianity. Then how can its adoption by professed Christians be accounted for? It was borrowed from the surrounding pagans. It is another one of the many paganisms that the early apostate Christians adopted so as to appeal to the pagans and to be more like them. In this they followed the example of the Israelites who wanted a king so as to be like the nations round about. Thus Dr. Killen, in his Ancient Church, writes:
“From the most remote antiquity the cross was venerated in Egypt and Syria; it was held in equal honor by the Buddhists of the East; and what is still more extraordinary, when the Spaniards first visited America, the well-known sign was found among the objects of worship in the idol temples of Anáhuac. It is also remarkable that, with the commencement of our era, the pagans were wont to make the sign of the cross upon the forehead in the celebration of some of their sacred mysteries.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia gives similar information about the widespread use of the cross. Dr. Hislop, in The Two Babylons, likewise tells of the pagan origin of the cross and questions that Christ died on one.
The very fact that the cross is one of the most common of all pagan religious symbols should make us doubt that it could also be the symbol of the pure Christian worship of God. And so also should the extremes to which some have gone in times past in venerating the cross. Thus the Catholic writer Didron tells that “the cross has received a worship similar, if not equal, to that of Christ; this sacred wood is adored almost equally with God himself.” Once the honoring of the cross began it went to such extremes that the pagans accused professed Christians of being idolaters. “It is plain that the great mass of Christians,” says a religious authority, “attached a magical value to this sign. At all events they used it as a form of exorcism and a means of warding off unclean spirits.” “Soon the cross came to work miracles of itself. People went to the length of marking cattle to protect them from disease.”6
Today the Roman Catholic Church still celebrates the “Invention or Finding of the Holy Cross” on May 3 each year. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains why. (Vol. 5, p. 523) According to it the mother of Emperor Constantine, at the age of about eighty years, determined to go to Jerusalem to “rid the Holy Sepulchre of the mound of earth heaped upon and around it, and to destroy the pagan buildings that profaned its site.” She received revelations, which gave her confidence that she would discover Christ’s tomb and his cross. Jews had hidden the cross, but one Jew, being “touched by Divine inspiration, pointed it out to the excavators.” However, three crosses were found, and since the title that Pilate had decreed to be placed above Jesus was found separately it could not be told which was Christ’s cross. So the three crosses were carried, “one after the other, to the bedside of a worthy woman who was at the point of death. . . . On touching that upon which Christ had died the woman got suddenly well again.” However, according to another tradition Helena had a dead person carried to the spot, who became alive by contact with the true cross. “From yet another tradition, related by St. Ambrose, it would seem that the titulus, or inscription, had remained fastened to the cross.”
While this Catholic authority argues for the genuineness of this miracle, citing the words of various “church fathers” in support of its position, the fact remains that “Eusebius, who carries more weight than all they put together, wholly omits it.”1
The giving of reverent devotion to a creature or thing is disgusting to God, for he is “a God exacting exclusive devotion.” That is why King Hezekiah “removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars to pieces and cut down the sacred pole and crushed to pieces the copper serpent that Moses had made, for down to those days the sons of Israel had continually been making sacrificial smoke to it, and it used to be called the copper serpent-idol.” As apostate Israelites worshiped the copper serpent, so the cross has been worshiped by apostate Christians.—Ex. 20:5; 2 Ki. 18:4,
In fact, even to cherish the instrument on which Christ died does not make sense; it is utterly incongruous. Rather than being venerated it should be loathed and abhorred. Who would think of kissing the revolver that had been used by a murderer to kill one’s loved one? It is just as senseless to bestow affection on the instrument on which Jesus met a cruel death. Thus Maimonides, the Jewish scholar of the twelfth century, tells us that the Jews viewed the torture stake as a disgusting thing.7
Thus we see the Scriptures, the facts of history and reason uniting to testify that Christ did not die on a cross but upon an upright pole or stake, a stauros, xylon, crux. Also, that regardless of its form, it is to be abhorred rather than venerated. In keeping with these facts the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures renders stauros as “torture stake” and xylon as “stake,” when it refers to the instrument on which Christ died.8
REFERENCES
1 Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. 1, p. 957.
2 New Schaff & Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. 3, p. 313.
3 Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 508.
4 The History of the Cross, Ward.
5 The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Strong.
6 Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings, Vol. 3,, p. 328.
7 Exercitationes contra Baronium, I. Casaubon, 16, An. 34, No. 134.
Ahh yes, the new world translation - now there is some scholarship!
If not for him starting out the comment with “Interesting comments DariusT,” I would have thought that it was a completely random spam.
However, I do think there is a good point in there. People should realize just how shameful the cross really was. After all, Paul said it was “foolishness to the Gentiles.” It would be like saying that I put my faith in Christ and the electric chair today (only much more shameful in that culture).
I think it is random span that takes a commenter’s name and integrates it into the spam.
Except he removed the space between Darius and T.
“I think the passage in Galatians is not vague at all - nor is the context of the book for that matter. It is clear, quite clear that the curse of the law is sin. Verse 10 and 11 qualify the rest of Paul’s thought.”
I see what you’re saying, and I used to think the same thing. However, where Paul made reference to the Law he was specifically speaking about something he knew much about. In fact, most all young Hebrew males at that time were well versed in the Law, let alone a Pharisee. Therefore I think it is perfectly reasonable to go back and look at the particular passage he was speaking of. I just don’t think it is reasonable for Paul to have altered the entire meaning of the curse of the Law for a New Testament audience.
Further, sin manifests itself in many ways. The wages of sin is death, and sickness is nascent death. The curse of the Law is a detailed description of the wages of Israel’s sin and disobedience. Each aspect of the curse illustrates how death is manifested in those who are separated from the blessing God bestowed on Abraham.
Chris A said: “The wages of sin is death, and sickness is nascent death.”
I’m not sure I agree that sickness is nascent death, but for the moment let’s go with it. How does that square up with your belief that physical death is a natural part of life for a Christian? If sickness is nascent death and believers can expect healing from all sickness, it seems only logical that believers must never die.
Jew, you need to check out that article I wrote entitled “Biblical Bodily Healing: Longevity, Not Immortality”. That will answer your question.
I did, and it doesn’t.
I understand your point that “It is possible, therefore, to live a long life and die of natural causes without disease.” Fair enough. I just don’t see how you can also say that “sickness is nascent death.” Surely, then, if Christians die, they must experience sickness, or else they will never die. Are you saying that impending death can manifest itself as sickness in some individuals, but that Christians are promised healing and so death need never manifest itself that way?
Jew, I really don’t have anything to add to my initial comments, but I will try to sum it up. Death is an enemy that will one day be abolished. That day has not yet come. Until then the Bible provides many conditional promises of long life and health that any believer may enjoy. Your body will not function for ever because it is corruptible, but that doesn’t mean you have to die sick. Just look at some of the stories of the Old Testament patriarchs and see how they died.
OK, here’s a different question: what counts as sickness? E.g., is a genetic disorder a sickness for which we are promised healing, or is that the natural state of our corrupt earthly bodies? If you’re going to address this in a future article, I’ll be happy to wait for an answer.
“OK, here’s a different question: what counts as sickness? E.g., is a genetic disorder a sickness for which we are promised healing, or is that the natural state of our corrupt earthly bodies? If you’re going to address this in a future article, I’ll be happy to wait for an answer.”
sick·ness /ˈsɪknɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sik-nis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular disease or malady.
2. the state or an instance of being sick; illness.
3. nausea; queasiness.
[Origin: bef. 1000; ME siknesse, seknesse, OE séocnesse. See sick1, -ness]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
You’re not taking me seriously.
I honestly don’t have a better answer than that. I think everything that falls within the definition can be classified as a sickness, whether genetic or otherwise. I really don’t have anything to add to that. Do you have a different definition? I don’t know where you were going with that question.
No, I wasn’t going anywhere with it. I was just curious. That’s really all I wanted to know–whether you considered everything that generally is called a sickness to be a sickness under this biblical principle of healing. There is a qualitative difference between a disease caused by a virus or bacteria or other microbe, and a genetic disorder. I just wondered whether they both counted as sicknesses, because one could make the argument that a genetic disorder is the natural state of a person’s body and therefore is not in need of healing. That seems like a stretch, but I think it could be argued.
I still don’t understand how one can separate providing forgiveness and healing. Forgiveness of sins and healing of the body go hand in hand, and both were provided for at the same time and by the same means.
Isa 53:5
But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
Matthew 9:1-8
1And he entered into a ship, and passed over, and came into his own city.
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed:
and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. 3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth. 4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. 7And he arose, and departed to his house.
8But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.
James 5:13-15
13Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms. 14Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: 15And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
I mean it is clear that sickness came as a result of Adam’s sin, and certainly sin is removed by the atonement of Jesus Christ so why would the atonement stop there? God died spiritually and physically.
Isaiah plainly says that the Messiah was “made sick for us” and “took our infirmities and bar our sicknesses”. In verse 10 of Isaiah 53, “put him to grief” literally means “he was made sick” for us in providing the atonement, in the same sense that “He was made sin for us”
(2 Corinthians 5:21).
Isaiah 53:10
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
“he hath put him to grief” is the word chalah, which is a verb meaning
• to be or become weak, be or become sick, be or become diseased, be or become grieved:
• to be weak, be sick
• to be or become weak, feel weak
• to become sick, become ill
• to make oneself sick
• to be made sick
• to be made weak, become weak
• to make sore
• to show signs of sickness, become sick
This word does not mean grief in the sense of emotional sadness. It means sickness, including physical sickness. It is used by Matthew to refer to sickness.
Matt 8:17
This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.”
The word sorrows is makob. It is rendered pain in Job 14:22; 33:19. Usually pain is associated with sickness. Matthew actually translates this word as diseases.
If during Jesus earthly ministry He did not heal based on the atonement, then did He forgive sinners based on the atonement?” He told the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven you.” And then He said, “Rise and walk.” Jesus forgave and healed. Under what basis did Jesus forgive and heal, if not on the atonement?
Besides, Matthew says, “He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.” Whose infirmities and diseases did he carry, “Ours” or “theirs”? He said OUR diseases. “Our” means all of us. If our does not mean us today, then who was Isaiah referring to when he said He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities?
Galatians tells me I am redeemed from the curse of the law!
Galatians 3:13:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”
Healing is purchased along with salvation, but both need to be worked out in our lives. If I am honest I don’t automatically walk in either one of them. I need to persevere by faith until both healing and righteousness is worked in me.
And if you have the question that many have: “why some remain sick”, I simply must say: we must believe and act out our faith. The answer will come!