Truth Magazine

By Harold Fite

I first met Teresa Bilyeu in the spring of 1983. She and her family moved to Houston from Fresno, California, and became a part of the congregation meeting on Fry Road in Houston, Texas. The primary purpose of the move was to acquire the best possible medical treatment for Teresa. She had a heart defect!

Doctors discovered her heart problem when she was two years old. She was in her dad’s lap with her ear against his chest. “What’s that ticking noise,” she asked. “My heart,” he replied. “Listen to mine,” she urged. He did and it didn’t sound right. Through a series of tests doctors found that she had a heart murmur. A corrective transposition of the great vessels of the right and left ventricle caused the murmur. The right was on the left and the left was on the right.

The right ventricle normally circulates blood to the whole body: the left goes to the lungs. Since these were reversed, the left ventricle had to pump double time to get the blood to the whole body. The right ventricle would be of such force that the lungs could be damaged (blown out). Her mitral valve was also bad. All the doctors could do was to watch it. They could do nothing about the transposition because they didn’t have the technology at that time. This limited her activities. A special Physical Education class had to be provided for her when she started to school.

At 13 years of age she began to take medication for her condition. At age 15 doctors replaced her mitral valve with pig’s valve! This was the closest thing to a human value. From then on she was referred to as “Miss Piggy.”

During the surgery on the mirtral valve, the person on the by-pass machine didn’t get enough blood and oxygen to her left leg  paralyzing it from the knee down. They had to take her back to surgery. She was in the hospital a month taking physical therapy. She underwent two or three surgeries over the next several years so she could walk. Her left foot is two or three sizes smaller than her right one.

She began to experience a problem with the rhythm of her heart. It wouldn’t stay in the right rhythm because of the transposition. She began taking medication to get it back in rhythm, and a couple of times had to undergo electrical shock treatment.

For the next several years her condition leveled out and she was out on her own and did the things 20-year-olds did. Then she started getting sick and could not hold down a job. Medical bills continued to mount, and she had to move back home with her parents.

The family had heard of Dr. Denton Cooley, in Houston, Texas, and moved to Houston to see if he might do something to help Teresa. This was in the spring of 1983 where we began this story. She was in the hospital having work-up done when hurricane Alecia struck. She had the experience of seeing objects fly by her window. She underwent extensive tests and was told she was a candidate for a heart transplant. If no transplant death was inevitable!

It took two years to get a heart. During this period she was in and out of the hospital numerous times. She nearly died three times and passed out several times. Any small exertion would cause her heart rate to go “sky high.” She would sleep 12 hours and be up 12 hours.

Doctor Cooley and his team did the transplant on June 14, 1985. At one time Teresa’s doctors considered a heart/lung transplant, but the force of the right ventricle had not damaged the lungs. The transplant was successful.

Before the transplant the hospital required a guarantee of financial responsibility for the heart rejection medicine. Approximately $38,000 was raised through a special contribution of the members of the Fry Road congregation with pledges up to $50,000. Teresa continues to draw from it.

She has had no major problem until this year. The medication she has been taking to prevent heart rejection has contributed to bone deterioration. After her surgery she was given massive doses of prednisone (they do not do this anymore). One side effect (among many) is deterioration of the bones. After two or three weeks doctors reduced it to a level dose. She has been taking 10 milligrams now for a long time.

She has had surgery for disk problems, and has one gone bad in her neck at the present time. The medication causes headaches, insomnia, restlessness, fluid retention and bone loss. At 33 years of age, she equates her bones with that of a 50-year-old person. Because of bone deterioration doctors have lowered the prednisone to 5 milligrams. It will probably take 2 years for her body to adjust to it.

On occasions when I visited her in the hospital, I was impressed with her knowledge of her condition and the treatments she was receiving. She could tell you all the medications she was taking, and for what purpose, and her body’s reaction to it  all in medical terms. Her knowledge prevented doctors and nurses from making grave and serious mistakes several times. She could speak of her condition and her near-death experiences in a factual and unemotional way.

A father whose son was a candidate for a heart transplant, visited Teresa one day. The son didn’t want the transplant and the father was seeking some help in dealing with his son. Teresa told him, “You must change his mind to where he wants it or he will not make it.” The son refused and he died! “He didn’t have a fighting attitude,” she said. “One thing that kept me going is my stubbornness.” She kept telling herself, “I’ve got to do this.”

This doesn’t mean she never gets tired of it all. “Many times I just get tired of fighting and fighting and fighting,” she said. “I have my `pity parties’ and then, OK, I am done, let’s go on and fight again.”

I have never heard her complain of her lot or sensed any bitterness toward the cruel fate life has dealt her. She has faced her adversity with courage and dignity. Her faith in God is strong. She has maintained her sense of humor. One doctor told her father that if she lived a sedentary life she could possible live for quite some time. With an impish smile she said, “I have doctor’s orders to just sit around.”

There is no “quit” in Teresa. I asked her, “Teresa, with all that you have gone through, if you knew then what you know now, would you have had this transplant.” Without hesitation she said, “Yes.” She explained that there was a door opened for her. To give up and refuse the transplant would be tantamount to suicide. She didn’t think God would be pleased with that. She thought, “If it is my time to go, at least I will have gone down fighting, rather than just giving up.”

Doctors thought that the transplant would extend her life approximately seven years. After seven years, they thought other avenues would be open to them. Her transplanted heart has carried her for nine years, but at the present time those other avenues have not developed. She is now getting to that thin margin: she has problems with her ankles swelling; artery buildup; bone deterioration, etc. She has had too many surgeries for another transplant. “I have this weird instinct,” she said, “that if I see my 45th birthday, I will be lucky.”

Through the grace of God, he enabled her to live until medical technology caught up to give her a heart. Now hopefully medical science will discover a cure soon for Teresa’s ailment. Until then she has no options.

I pray that these feeble words have helped you to know, at least in a measure, Teresa Bilyeu. She is a woman of unflinching courage and strength, and inspiration to us all.

(Note: if you would like to write Teresa, do so in care of this writer.)

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 6-7
August 18, 1994

By Tom Roberts

This debate is important because Vance suggests a radical departure from the practice of the NT and makes his unscriptural “pattern” a test of fellowship. As one who serves as an evangelist and an elder in a local church, I deny his affirmative as both unscriptural and impractical. Our difference is not personal nor is his honesty or sincerity impugned.

Definitions: I commend Vance in appealing to the Scriptures. However “pattern” should reflect a binding quality beyond that of his dictionary (2 Tim. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:16; Heb. 8:5). Since Vance is advocating a pattern that requires “congregational decision-making in matters of judgment” and requires “an increased role for women in the decision-making processes of local churches” (Vance Trefethen, Confusion or Consensus, p. 3), his obligation is to show that pattern. He brands private decision-making by elders as “without authority” (ibid., p. 6), thus sinful. Since a pattern allows no deviations, if it can be shown that a single exception to his pattern exists, he has no pattern. However, Vance is confused about what makes a pattern. He states “Acts 15 is the only Bible pattern there is on the matter” (ibid., p. 32), but attempts to add Acts 6 and 1 Corinthians 5, etc., to that pattern. Either Acts 15 is the “sole” (only) pattern or it is not. When defining “decision-making in matters of congregational judgment,” Vance emphasized that this addressed matters of judgment and not matters of faith. Agreed, but we differ on “decision-making” itself! His pattern calls for every decision to be made by the whole congregation (including women), under male leadership. This would be required in every congregation, whether or not there were elders. I suggest that this makes elders mere figureheads, with no scriptural authority to decide any matter. Though he affirms that he believes elders have “authoritative work to do in overseeing and leading a local church,” he also requires a “consensus” (ibid, pp. 22,24,25, et al): a contradiction of terms. Consensus is “a collective opinion, general agreement” (Funk & Wagnalls Study Dictionary) in which women carry the same force as men in “decision-making” or there is no true consensus. “Consensus” is not found in the Scriptures! It fits well in a democracy, but the church is a theocracy where elders are specifically mandated (Acts 14:23; 1 Pet. 5:2; etc.). It is exceedingly strange that his entire pattern is built upon a word that is not found in the Scriptures (either specifically or in principle).

What this debate is not about: (1) “Not about feminism”? Though his disclaimer is appreciated, it is futile. I respect that he rejects feminism as such, but his position opens the door to the very evil he denounces. “Consensus” puts women on a par with men in decision-making. If a consensus of women in the majority disagrees with the consensus of men in the minority (which is true in many churches), he has placed the decision of the women over the men. The women may be humble and discreet, but either they have decision-making authority or they do not! If the minority of the men over-ride the decisions of the majority of the women, consensus would be destroyed. But when he allows the decisions of the women to prevail, he has violated 1 Timothy 2:11-15. His pattern has put him on the horns of a dilemma. (2) “It is not about women serving as preachers and bishops?” Again, I respect his disclaimer and join with him in denouncing such as a violation. But as a practical matter, once he opens the gate to decision-making women, it is foolish to think that all will be content with this “increased role” and nothing more. Already, congregations exist where women are leading in public worship. Some allow women to teach mixed classes of men and women “under male leadership” or as “co-teachers.” His position, however unwitting, advances women in that direction and cannot logically prohibit it. (3) “Not about whether elders have leadership, over-sight, or responsibility in the local church?” But of course it is. His definition of “decision-making” and “consensus” eviscerates biblical elders. Elders have no oversight in a consensus. Responsibility adheres to those making decisions and since the consensus decision is the congregation’s, the responsibility is theirs and not the elders. (4) Ad-dressed in #2 above. (5) No disagreement here.

What this debate is about: The role of elders. Does the scriptural pattern require congregational meetings (including women) every single time there are decisions of judgment to be made? or: Do elders have authority from God to meet privately and make judgment decisions that bind the whole church?

Arguments: (1) Acts 6:1-6. According to Vance it is a sin for private meetings of males to make decisions for the whole church. But look at the text. The apostles (1) privately decided to change previous practices, (2) privately decided to stop serving tables, (3) privately decided to have others serve tables, (4) privately decided that these would be men and not women, (5) privately decided there would be seven of these men, (6) privately decided the qualifications of these seven and (7) privately decided that they would appoint the men and not allow the church to do so. Yes, what the apostles privately decided pleased the whole multitude and they had a role in choosing the men who would serve. The whole church can be, even should be, involved in some congregational actions. Clearly his “pattern” denies the very thing found in Acts 6: private decisions by males that are bound upon the whole congregation. His pattern is not found in Acts 6. It violates the “traditions of the apostles” (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:16).

(2) Acts 15:12-27. His “pattern” calls for a congregational decision with no private meetings. Though the action “pleased the whole church” there were private meetings and his pattern fails in the very place he affirms as his “sole pattern.” Relating Galatians 2:1-10 to the meeting in Acts 15 will reveal the flaw in his exegesis. Galatians 2 shows that when Paul went to Jerusalem, he met privately (2:2) with “those of repute.” Acts 15:2 shows this private meeting to be with “the apostles and elders” who made the decision to give the right hand of fellowship to Paul and Barnabas. After this, they met with the whole church (15:4), then had another private meeting with the apostles and elders (15:6). Again, there is no disagreement with involving the church in the process but his pattern denies the truth of these private meetings where decisions were made. These multiple exceptions to his “sole pattern” show that he has no pattern.

(3) 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 11-13. There has never been a problem with involving the whole church in various processes, including discipline, as in this text. The problem is his assertion that no private decisions can be made that bind the whole church to the decision of the few. Read just a few verses beyond ch. 5, into ch. 6:1-5, and we see the very thing he denies. In the matter of brother going to court against brother, Paul admonishes that brethren ought not go to court before the unrighteous, but that there should be a “court of the saints” (v. 1). He advises that we ought to be able to “judge” by finding at least “one wise man who shall be able to decide between brethren” (v. 5). Here are “wise men” (would elders qualify?) who make decisions for the whole church in disputes between brethren. Vance’s pattern is in tatters!

(4) Matthew 18:15-17. He recognizes that discipline is a congregational matter and that it should be done under “male leadership”! Could these males be elders? If Vance could see the contradiction between “male leadership” and “decision-making women,” this debate would be over. When the church at Antioch sent relief to the needy brethren in Judea (Acts 11:27-30), they sent it to the “elders” (v. 30). (What decision did the women make?) When the relief went to the elders, did it not go to the churches? In this case, the elders represented the churches which received the benevolence. If discipline began individually and continued until it came before the church, would it not be before the church under the leadership of the elders? Vance will learn that there are scandalous actions of brethren that do not need to be aired before the “whole church” lest they cause weak brethren and babes to stumble. Yes, the whole church can be involved in discipline but under the leadership of the elders. Your pattern is not supported by Matthew 18.

Questions: (1) Yes, Acts 6, Acts 15, etc., but this does not prohibit private decisions by male leaders. (2) Elders are authorized to make decisions for the church as the passages above prove. If elders cannot make such private decisions, no other group could. But if elders are authorized to do so, in the absence of elders, male leadership prevails, as you yourself propose (1 Tim. 2). (3) Yes. (4) Yes, as seen above. Additionally, in Acts 11:27-30 it is inferred that the elders decided who, how long and how much, etc. (5) No, but this does not rule out an ekklesia acting through agency. Examples: 1 Corinthians 16:3; 2 Corinthians 8:23 (messengers of the churches acted on behalf of the church); Acts 11:27-30 (elders received the funds on behalf of the receiving church). (6) No, an unqualified man cannot act as or substitute for an elder. But in the absence of elders, male leadership is authorized (1 Tim. 2:11-15) as you admit. Congregations existed for a time without elders (Acts 13:1-14:23). Male leadership is necessarily inferred.

Questions for Vance: (1) Do you believe Acts 15:22 authorizes voting? (2) Can an ekklesia be represented by agency, and if so, is it the same as the ekklesia acting? (3) If the majority of a congregation is women and the women disagree with the minority men concerning a matter of judgment, can the majority rule? (4) How can women be involved in “decision making,” remain in subjection, yet overturn the decision of men? (5) Must the entire church be gathered to decide the multitudes of decisions about buying supplies, caring for the needy (including sensitive financial information), hearing complaints between members, investigating scandalous moral actions of members and make every decision about every matter? (6) Is an eldership bound by a consensus even though the entire eldership disagrees with it?

I urge brother Trefethen to abandon his faulty pattern which will only generate strife and stumbling among brethren and to turn his considerable talents to edifying (Eph. 4:29).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 16-17
August 18, 1994

By Steve Curtis

“Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scripture might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Paul’s statement to the Romans is as equally important to us today. Many great lessons can be learned from a study of the Old Testament and its characters.

One character who makes for such an interesting study is Naaman (2 Kgs. 5). Naaman, the commander of the Syrian army, is described as being great. As for the character of Naaman, he was honorable and a mighty man of valor. However, there was one major flaw in the life of Naaman, something which neither his position nor his character could overcome. He was a leper.

Naaman Was A Leper

To understand how big a flaw this was, one must know something about leprosy. Leviticus 13 enlightens us. Here leprosy can be described as follows:

vv. 1-3  a swelling scab with a bright spot which was turned white and eaten into the flesh

v. 8  a disease which spreads over the body v. 10  has the appearance of raw flesh

v. 18  a sore described as a boil

vv. 42-44  causes hair to fall out

v. 8; 47-59  is contagious

No matter what position Naaman had achieved or would achieve, he had a dreaded disease. It would be comparable to someone in our society contracting AIDS. Ask anyone today if they would like to be C.E.O. of the largest business in America, but in order to take this position he would have to contract AIDS. How many people do you think would desire this office? How many people would want to be a commander of an army if it meant being a leper as well?

Like Leprosy, There Is No

Man-Made Cure For Sins

As we consider this man Naaman, what lessons can we learn from this story? First, the characteristics of leprosy can be related to those of sin. During the days of Naaman there was no man-made cure for leprosy. Neither the king of Syria nor the king of Israel could cure Naaman of his leprosy. He had to go to the prophet Elisha who told him what the will of God was (2 Kgs. 5:3-7).

Today, there are no man-made cures for sin. However, the sad thing is that there are those who believe in man-made cures. Many turn to the pope, priests, reverends, and preachers for their cure of sin, but the cure does not lie within man’s power.

Suppose some doctor has medicine which will destroy the AIDS virus and those tormented with this disease are searching for this medicine which will save their life. As they are searching, some man approaches them saying he is a doctor and he has the cure, the miracle medicine Ro1AIDS. How many suffering from this dreaded disease will be cured if they take this medicine? Sure, it might relieve them of their heartburn and gas, but they will still die from the effects of AIDS. Or, suppose another man comes along claiming to be a doctor and tells these people all they have to do to be cured from their deadly virus is to go to the pharmacy of their choice and select the medicine of their choice. Do you think many people will be cured from their AIDS obeying these instructions? This scenario fits a description of the religious world around us. Because of men like Billy Graham, many people are going to die in their sins, believing they have received a man-made cure for sin.

The cure for sin lies solely within the power of God. It is by the grace of God that men are saved (Eph. 2:8). Through God’s grace, Christ came to this world and shed his blood on the cross. Here is the cure, Christ’s blood. John says in 1 John 1:7, “But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Both Leprosy and Sin Will Destroy The Body

Secondly, sin is just as loathsome and defiling as leprosy. It would be a horrible sight to see someone’s body being eaten away with leprosy. Just think how often we bathe, brush our teeth, put on deodorant, etc. Being Americans, we are basically a clean people. How many wives would be concerned if their husband failed to bathe for a week, or a month, or a year? Would parents be concerned if their children were not clean? Of course they would. Parents know that “cleanliness is next to godliness.” Why then do some ignore sin in their lives?

If the spiritual effects of sin could be seen, men would see just how loathsome (utterly disgusting) sin is. They would see sin eating away at their flesh and their soul and it would be avoided like we avoid contracting leprosy, AIDS, or any other disease. There are many who do not comprehend the filth of sin. Many simply ignore it. Others make “sport” of sin (Prov . 10:23). The word of God refers to these people as being foolish (Prov. 14:9). A fool does not respect anyone or anything, including God and sin. There is a reason why such a person is called a fool. One may choose to ignore sin, but when contaminated by it, ignorance will not rid the curse. Naaman could have tried to ignore his leprosy, but it would not have taken it away.

We know that coming into contact with the blood of an AIDS victim will threaten our life. We will take heed and will not ignore this fact because of the dire consequences it holds. Why then are some Christians today ignoring those things which, if we come in contact with them, will promote ungodliness, lead to sin, and destroy our spiritual well being? This attitude can be seen in different areas. One example is dancing.

Dancing seems to be harmless. Some refer to it as exercise. Others look at dancing as a social function which promotes friendship, acceptance, and memories to last a lifetime. This is Satan’s way of disguising his weapons. He hides the fact that dancing promotes wantonness, that is lasciviousness, a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19) He conceals the fact that sin will destroy the soul just as a disease destroys the body. Ask any honest, healthy teenage boy or any responsible parent what will be promoted when a young lady and a young man, enclosed in the arms of one another, move their bodies back and forth to the sway of music, in a dimly lit romantic atmosphere. Will it promote friendship? Will it promote acceptance among a peer group? Will it create memories to last a lifetime? The answer to these questions might be yes, but does that take away from the fact that dancing promotes ungodliness? No! Would the same boy avoid coming into contact with the AIDS virus or leprosy? Would the same parent ignore their son coming into contact with a deadly disease? Certain not. It is easy for them to see the dangers of life threatening diseases. Why is it not as easy for some to see that sin is a threat to their spiritual life?

The devil has many things in his arsenal of sin. Beware of his weapons which lure, entice, and disguise his death threat (Rom. 6:23). The lure of a “social” drink of intoxicants is only a temptation to sin (1 Pet. 4:3; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Beware of “stylish” dress and mixed swimming which disguise the sin of immodesty, a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19). Beware of “petty” gambling, the office pools, the football cards, the lottery, all of which contaminate the soul and lead to death. As Naaman’s position and character did not bring him comfort for his leprosy, whatever benefit we obtain from participating in sin, whatever position we achieve in this life, and no matter how great our character is considered to be by men, these will not bring comfort to our soul for our sins (Prov. 13:15).

Like Naaman, We Must Overcome

Self To Obey God

When Naaman learned of the proper source for the cure of his leprosy, we can find another lesson. Naaman received the message from Elisha to go and dip in the Jordan seven times and his flesh would be restored (2 Kgs. 5:10). What were Naaman’s choices in this matter? He could either obey and follow instructions which would bring the cure, or he could follow his own ideas and still be a leper. At first, Naaman’s reaction was to follow his own desire. Notice 2 Kings 5:11, “Indeed, I said to myself . . . (Behold, I thought  KJV).” Naaman thought he could do as he pleased, but he was wrong. He thought other rivers were just as good. If not better.

How many people make the choice Naaman made when it comes to obeying God? Behold, many people think the pope will tell them words by which they will be saved. Behold, many people think they have nothing to do to be saved, that somehow God will operate on them directly. Different people believe differently concerning what is necessary for salvation. Behold, what men think has no authority when it comes to religion (Prov. 14:12; Matt. 28:18).

As mentioned earlier, salvation from sin only comes through the blood of Christ (1 Jn. 1:7). Only when one comes in contact with the blood of Christ will he receive the cure for sin. This is the point of baptism (Rom. 6:4). Baptism is a watery burial into the death of Christ. It was at Christ’s death that his blood was shed, and when we are buried into his death, we contact his blood. In Naaman’s case, he could have chosen any number of rivers and number of times, but it was only when he dipped in the Jordan River seven times that his leprosy was cured and his skin cleansed. In man’s case, it is possible to choose any number of methods to receive “salvation,” but it is only when we are buried in water, contacting the blood of Christ, that we will receive the cure of sin and truly be cleansed.

The majority of you have already made the choice to obey God’s will concerning the subject of salvation. In order for us to grow, let us bring the application a little closer to home. Considering some things previously mentioned, suppose when it comes to social drinking of intoxicants (wine with meals, sipping at a social function, being in another country and “having” to drink alcohol, etc.), a person says, “Behold, I think . . .” Based upon his own reasoning, can a person come to a conclusion which will transform the social drinking intoxicants from a sin to a matter of judgment? Of course Satan will say, “Yes, he can.” He would have also told Naaman he could dip in any of the rivers. He will tell the alien sinner he can be baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Or, if the alien sinner does not like water at all, he can just accept Jesus as his personal Savior. The reason the devil will say yes is because he knows the alien sinner will still be lost. His weapon still has its force. The same goes for consumption of alcoholic beverages. You can call it “social drinking” or “sipping,” but the devil knows it is still drinking intoxicants, a sin. The only difference is that he has successfully concealed how loathsome it is.

The same holds true for all sin. Dancing can be called the prom, or exercise, or a social function, but it does not take away from the fact that it promotes ungodliness. Naaman had to realize the only cure for his leprosy was obedience to the will of God. Friends, when it comes to dancing, it is a sin. If a soul is contaminated with this sin, it will be destroyed as much as the body would be if it was contaminated with leprosy or AIDS. Do not let the devil hide the loathsomeness of sin. Recognize it by name and “avoid it like you would the plague.”

If Naaman would have failed to overcome his pride, he would have never received the cure for his leprosy. Pride goes before a fall (Prov. 16:18). Unless some learn to humble themselves, they are never going to rid themselves of the curse of sin.

Certainly we can all benefit from the study of the Old Testament (Rom. 15:4). Why not select one of your favorite characters and use him or her as an opportunity to grow personally or for a Bible study with your family?

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 16, p. 10-11
August 18, 1994

By Bobby Witherington

“Surely he heath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 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” (Isa. 53:4,5).

Isaiah has often been called “the Messianic Prophet.” And for good reason. For no prophet said more about the coming Messiah (Christ) than was said by Isaiah. Moreover, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah is often referred to as “a Messianic chapter.” Again for good reason. For this chapter, from beginning to end, said much about the then coming Messiah  including facts pertaining to his lineage, his being rejected of men, facts pertaining to his death, his burial, and the vicarious (substitutionary) nature of his death. Surely any honest, intelligent person who reads this chapter and then reads “the four gospels” (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and learns about the prophecies which were fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus (some 750 years later!) has to conclude that the Bible is divinely inspired of God. The mathematical improbabilities of all these prophecies being accidentally and coincidentally fulfilled in the life and death of one person are simply too incredible for one to reach any other conclusion than the fact that the life and vicarious death of Jesus was divinely planned centuries in advance, and then divinely fulfilled in every particular!

There is simply no way to overstate the magnitude of the glorious life and vicarious death of Jesus. However, it is possible to misstate the effects of Christ’s atoning death. In fact, this is often done. Especially by those who believe in modem, miraculous divine healing of the physical body. It is common for such people to read Isaiah 53:4,5, and then conclude that the effects of Christ’s death were two-fold: (1) that he died to make atonement for our sins, and (2) that he died to heal our bodies. As documentation, please note the following statements: “But is Divine Healing in the Atonement? We believe it is. We do not believe it is merely accidental; but firmly believe it is part of the work of salvation which Christ died to bring” (Does God Heal the Body To-day?, by C.H. Jack Linn, p. 15). “Again all Christians should expect God to heal their bodies today, be-cause Christ died to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins” (Bodily Healing and The Atonement, by T.J. McCrossen, p. 16).

So there you have it. It is said that “Christ died to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins,” and Isaiah 53:4,5, along with Matthew 8:16,17, are cited as proof. In fact, this constitutes one of the strongest arguments made by modem “faith healers” in support of their position and their practice. So we ask, did Jesus really die in order “to atone for our sickness as well as for our sins”? If the answer to this question is “yes,” then we must expect the body of every physically ill sinner to be made perfectly well the moment his soul is converted! In-deed, what a tremendous this-world incentive for physically sick sinners to be converted!

“Proof Text” Examination First, let us consider the alleged proof as set forth in Isaiah 53:4,5: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and … with his stripes we are healed.” “Faith healers” say that the verb “borne” (from the Hebrew nasa) is used in a vicarious or substitutionary sense. They then turn to Matthew 8:16,17 wherein we read of those whom Jesus “healed” as being in fulfillment of that “which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: He Himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.” And, presto! they conclude that physical healing is included in the atonement.

However, this argument (based upon their conclusions from Matt. 8:16,17) poses some insurmountable problems. For example, the atoning work of Jesus was accomplished in his death. “. . . While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). “. . . Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). Peter said you were “redeemed … with the precious blood of Christ … ” (1 Pet. 1:18,19). However, the healing work of Jesus (recorded in Matt. 8:16,17) took place among Jewish people, while the law of Moses was still in force, and some three years before his death! At the time when the miraculous healing of those mentioned in Matthew 8:16,17 occurred the atonement had not taken place, for Jesus was still alive. Of course, we would not minimize the significance of the miraculous works of Jesus (including his miracles of healing the sick), for these were the works which both proved that he is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:30,31), and that he had “‘power … to forgive sins” (Mark 2:1712).

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his stripes we are healed.”

You will please notice the vicarious nature of our Lord’s suffering. He was not wounded for his transgressions; he was not wounded for his iniquities, nor was he healed by his stripes. What he endured he endured for us. Also you will please observe that he was not wounded for our cancer, heart disease, stomach problems, etc. Rather, he was “wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities.” In essence, Jesus bore the punishment which we deserve because of our sins. He, as a divine sacrifice, became our substitute, and bore the penalty in our stead. Moreover, in saying “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” the prophet referred to the chastisement he received but which we deserved, and which he endured in order to procure “our peace.” Be-cause of our sins we were alienated from God (Isa. 59:1,2), but through Christ’s death he “abolished … the enmity,” and made it possible for both Jews and Gentiles to be reconciled unto “God in one body” (Eph. 2:15,16).

“But,” some will say “we are `healed’ by his stripes, so that proves that the removal of physical diseases was included in the atonement.” Our first inclination in response to this statement is to simply ask, “Why then do many sick people remain ill after they obey the gospel?” They receive the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38), but they are not relieved of their heart disease, diabetes, emphysema, etc. Moreover, they retain their pacemakers, they remain bald, they continue wearing glasses, they keep their false teeth, and (if they can afford it) they keep paying their health insurance premiums. Nevertheless, Isaiah said we are “healed by his stripes.” However, on closer scrutiny we learn that the word “healed” is sometimes used in a spiritual sense. For example, the Psalmist petitioned God, saying, “Lord, be merciful to me; Heal my soul, for I have sinned against you” (Ps. 41:4; cf. Ps. 147:3; Jer. 3:22). Furthermore, lest there be any doubt as to the nature of the healing involved, the Holy Spirit mentioned the sufferings of Christ and then referred to Isaiah’s prophecy, saying, “Who himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness  by whose stripes you were healed” (1 Pet. 2:24). When we, through gospel obedience, “died to sins” (1 Pet. 2:24), we were “made… alive together with Christ”

(Eph. 2:5; cf. Rom. 6:3,4), and thus were enabled to “live for “righteousness.” And in that process were “healed.” Peter, an inspired apostle, clearly showed that the healing provided by the death of Christ was spiritual in nature. Jesus, in his atoning death, bore our sins. He did not bear in his body our toothaches, our cancers, our heart diseases, etc.

Conclusion

The salvation of the soul is vastly more important than the well being of the body (cf. Matt. 10:28). Hence, it is a grievous mistake to place our physical needs and our spiritual needs on the same level. Furthermore we can read of numerous faithful Christians who suffered physical illnesses (2 Cor. 12:7-10; Phil. 2:25-30; 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:20), but who were not miraculously healed. Of course, we believe in praying for the sick (2 Cor. 12:7-10; Jas. 5:14,15), and we do pray for the sick, that in the wonderful providence of God they will be made well. But we do not make outlandish (and unscriptural) claims concerning modem day miracles. Nor do we believe in perverting Old Testament prophecy so as to make hardened sinners believe that their lies and lusts are no worse in the sight of God than their bursitis and rheumatism. Jesus died for our sins. He did not die for our kidney stones. Consider ye well! a

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 15, p. 12-13
August 4, 1994