Introduction
In this
article, I intend to argue that the New Testament and Christian understanding
of God’s grace is not simply ‘mercy’ for sinners but also ‘healing’ for the
morally infirm who are dying and need new life.
The imagery of healing grace is primarily post-New Testament, and later
Christian authors like Augustine or John Colet, who will be discussed, depend
for it more on Greek and Roman philosophy than on the New Testament. That said, links can be made to the Old and
New Testaments, and the theological value of ‘healing grace’ captures the Bible’s
theology of salvation. While the
Reformation’s focus on justification by grace through faith can, in some
expressions, be faulted for underemphasising the very Biblical (Old Testament
and New Testament) teaching on God’s empowering work of righteousness through
Christ and the Spirit in our lives, we might note that John Calvin did place his
discussion of justification within the larger section of ‘Regeneration’ in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin, too, recognised the ‘new creation’
theology of the Church that I am here calling ‘healing grace’, whatever one makes
of his description of justification.
That said, we
are at a point in Christian circles today where we need to hear less of ‘hyper-grace’
(in the sense of forgiveness and justification alone) and more of ‘healing grace’
(in the sense of God’s salvation as a power at work within us to restore life and
righteousness). The full theology is that
of forgiving and healing (transforming) grace. The error in our day is expressed vividly in
teaching around homosexuality in some Evangelical churches. While rejecting same sex acts, some believe
that same sex affections or desires are not sinful. Some say that wrongful desires or orientations
are not sinful, only acts, while others even elevate same-sex attraction as an
intrinsic good—a sort of ‘spiritual’ or deep friendship—as long as one does not
perform sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage. The present discussion relates to this deeply
mistaken understanding of God’s marvellous grace.
Augustine
In his reply
to Coelestius’ teaching for his fellow bishops, Eutropius and Paulus, Augustine
addresses the problem of besetting sin and Christian righteousness ('On Man's
Perfection in Righteousness', ch. 2). He says that sin is an act and can,
therefore, be avoided. Yet, underlying
actions are what we might call (not Augustine) ‘capacities’, for Augustine
likens humanity’s sinful condition to that of a lame man, unable to walk. We can hardly ask a person who is lame to
walk. Now, those today arguing that
homosexuals are ‘born that way’, that their orientations are ‘natural’ to them, may say that they are hardly to be blamed for their condition and, therefore,
it is not a sin. They may also dress up
this lameness as a value, as people sometimes do when finding goodness in an
infirmity. Indeed, some have suggested
that being ‘gay’ brings a depth of male (or female) friendship—apart from any
physical contact.
Yet this is
not at all Augustine’s point. His
analogy of lameness points to the need for healing, a healing that can only
come by God’s grace. He distinguishes
the soul, the seat of one’s emotions or desires, from acts that result from
these. As a person may have a defect,
lameness, so a person may have a defect of the soul. For example, a person’s soul may have the
defect of avarice that leads to the action of the theft. Moreover, even when the soul ‘does nothing in
gratification of its avarice’, it is said to be evil.
So, what is the Christian answer to the conundrum of besetting sin? What is needed is neither an acceptance that
one acts acceptably because of one’s infirmity nor a mere prohibition against
actions without addressing the condition of the soul. The metaphor of an infirmity helps us
articulate a right theology. Augustine
says, ‘the man cannot avoid the lameness, unless his foot be cured’. He continues, ‘The same change may take place
in the inward man, but it is by God's grace, through our Lord Jesus Christ.’ And again, ‘By faith, however, it receives renovation; in other words, it is healed
day by day—yet only by God's grace through our Lord Jesus Christ.' In this second quotation, Augustine contrasts
faith with the law in the example of the tenth commandment not to covet (Exodus
20.17). The sick soul is incapable of
right action and needs healing, and such healing comes by faith in the daily
healing by God’s grace through Christ Jesus our Lord. Augustine accepts the view that sin is not
sin when one can do nothing about it, like being lame, but the man is culpable
if he does not agree to the remedy when there is one (ch. 3). That remedy is the work of Christ, our great
physician. Alister
McGrath says,
The
idea of Christus medicus—Christ
as the authentic healer of the human soul—was used extensively by Ambrose
[Augustine’s teacher]: ‘We have found shelter with the Physician, who has
healed our former wounds. We have received the great medicine of His grace; for
great takes away great sins’.
Augustine’s
language alludes to 2 Corinthians 4.
Paul does not use the analogy of illness or sickness but of actually
dying and being made alive, which is language that more adequately relates to
the grace of God in Christ Jesus. Paul
says that we carry in the body the death of Jesus that ‘the life of Jesus may
be manifest in our bodies’ (4.10). Paul
begins this comment with reference to his ministry as a ministry of being
‘afflicted in every way’ (4.8), but the theological background extends to the
Christian life more generally: ‘For
we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the
life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh’ (4.11). Paul’s ministry, then, involves an outward
wasting away but an inward renewal day by day (4.16), just as this is true
generally of all believers. This is
Augustine’s justifiable interpretation of the text, even if its first
application is to Paul’s ministry. The
believer, by faith (not works) is healed day by day, a sick (even dying) soul
needing the daily healing by God’s grace through Christ Jesus.
As Alister McGrath notes regarding Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of Jesus’
parable of the good Samaritan, ‘‘justification is a process of
transformation by which sinners are healed and renewed within the community of
faith.’ Augustine held together justification as an
event and as a process in a Christian’s life that is worked by God. Good works are effected in the believer by
God; they are His works in the believer and in this way may be said to be ‘imputed’
(inputantur) to him or her (De civitate Dei XXII, 30).
John Colet
On the eve of
the Reformation, in 1497, the reforming priest and scholar, John Colet, wrote a
commentary on Romans that focussed on God’s healing grace. Writing prior to Martin Luther, he, too,
argued that God’s grace alone is the means of our salvation. He did not, however, so articulate God’s
grace as to leave it as only a justification of sinners. Rather, he understood Paul’s argument in
Romans 5-7 to be that God’s grace is a healing of the soul. Paul’s imagery in Romans 6 is not one of
healing and sickness, but what he does say is consistent with this
metaphor. As in 2 Corinthians 4, Paul’s
image is of dying and rising with Christ and then of a slave serving the master
of sin or the master of righteousness.
Set free from the former master, the slave may now serve righteousness
from the heart (Romans 6.15-18). The
language of a changed heart shows us that Paul has in mind the new covenant
righteousness wrought in us that the prophets foretold (Isaiah 59.20-21; Jeremiah
31.30-34; Ezekiel 36.24-27). The
restoration of sinners is even depicted by Ezekiel as a resurrection from the
dead by the life-giving Spirit of God (37.14).
Paul does
understand the human condition as an infirmity unto death, writing, ‘Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver
me from this body of death? (Romans 7.24).
Colet latches onto the image of sin as a disease only curable by
Jesus. Writing in reference to Romans
5.12ff, he says,
And so, as sin grew and gathered strength, it was needful,
for the healing of mankind, that saving grace should then much more increase
and abound; that men, being justified by it, might be able through Jesus Christ
to attain eternal life (Chapter V).
While the Law,
instead of bringing healing, ‘exposed and aggravated the disorder’, ‘the ‘medicinal grace [of God was] ...
given in the death of Christ for healing the disease of sin’ (Chapter VI). The Law may even be said to be a good remedy
even though it could not restore health to a dying patient. The more efficacious remedy is God Himself
and His grace.
Colossians
Paul’s letter to the Colossian
church might also be considered in regard to the singular reliance of believers
on Jesus Christ. Alternative powers are
discounted (1.15; 2.14-15), including philosophy (2.8), since it attempts to
provide humans with ways to heal themselves.
Martha Nussbaum explains how Greek and Roman philosophies believed that they provided therapies for sickly souls of unhealthy desires. She notes, for instance, that the Stoic, Chrysippus
held that, as there is medicine for the body, there is medicine for the
diseased soul (referenced in Galen, On
the Views of Hippocrates and Plato 5.2.22).
Articulating the Stoic teaching, the Roman statesman and author, Marcus
Tullius Cicero, says that philosophy is the medicinal art for the soul: ‘We
must endeavor with all our resources and all our strength to become capable of
doctoring ourselves’ (Tusculan
Disputations 3.6). Paul’s dispute with philosophy is precisely on this
point: philosophy claims to offer a humanly contrived remedy for the disease of
sin.
Christ Jesus, however, removed
alternative remedies of the Law and other authorities for a soul’s ‘art (or craft) of life’,
as the Stoics described it (technē biou). Paul says, using different analogies, that
Jesus cancelled
the record of debt that stood against us with its legal
demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and
authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him (Colossians 2.14-15).
Thus, regulations of food,
drink, religious festivals, Sabbath, and other ascetic or religious practices
(like the ‘worship of angels’, what to handle, taste, or tough) provide no
value for stopping the indulgence of the flesh (2.16-23). Only the power of the cross and the rule of
Christ in our lives will heal us from our disease (to use the medical metaphor
to make Paul’s point).
What is Christ’s remedy for
sin? We might comment further in
Colossians 2.20-3.17, which answers this question in four ways. First, the Christian participates in the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. He or she dies
with Him to all human regulations. That
is, Christ’s death accomplishes what these regulations could not
(2.20-23). He or she rises with Christ,
sets his or her mind on things that are above, where Christ now is, and is assured of appearing with Him in glory, for He is now the believer’s very life
(3.1-4). Far from being a technē or skill, the victorious life is
the life of Christ, in which the believer participates fully.
The second way Paul describes
this is briefly mentioned in Colossians 3.7 and is a common Old Testament notion
of ethics: ‘walking’. How and where
does one walk? The believer has turned
away from how he or she once walked. So,
for example, Deuteronomy says, ‘You shall walk in all
the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and that
it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you shall
possess’ (5.33). A third
image Paul uses is that of ‘putting away’: the believer has things in his or
her life to put away, such as ‘anger,
wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth,’ as well as lying
(3.8-9).
The primary way in which Paul captures the solution for human sinfulness
in Colossians 3.5-17, however, is with the imagery of removing clothing and
putting on new clothing. The believer is
to ‘put off the old self with its practices’ and ‘put on the new self, which is
being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator’ (3.9-10). While the image suggests human participation
in this, it equally emphasises that this is a ‘new creation’ (cf. 2 Corinthians
5.17) work of God, a restoration to the image of God (cf. 2 Corinthians 3.18). Restoration from sickness is not a powerful
enough image for Paul, who sees the seriousness of sin as a death and the
divine solution as a new creation.
Greek and Roman philosophy was framed in terms of the four cardinal virtues
corresponding to the order of the body: wisdom (the head—knowledge, understanding), courage
(the chest or heart—emotions and passions, like fear, pity, love, anger, grief,
resentment, mourning), temperance/self-control (the stomach and sexual organs—the
affections or bodily desires, such as gluttony and licentiousness), and justice
(the right ordering of the self and society).
The right ordering of the self for Aristotle (in his Nichomachean Ethics) involves two things: the right balance of virtues between vices of
deficiency and excess, and (as Plato already argued in the Republic) the right ordering of the head over the chest over the
lower regions, so to speak. That is, a
wrong ordering of the self, for example, would be the licentious person placing
his affections or bodily desires above wisdom and knowledge.
This brief description of the framework for considering philosophical
ethics is helpful in discussing Paul’s ethics in Colossians 3.5-17 (and elsewhere),
even though Paul does not work directly from notions of cardinal virtues or Greek
and Roman philosophy. What he says, however, may reflect the cultural
context. His thoughts are not organised
in the way that moral philosophy was.
Yet, in this passage, note that Paul understands that sin affects head,
heart, and practices, and the solution is a change in each area. We might arrange his thoughts somewhat as
follows:
|
|
Head (Understanding)
|
Heart/Chest (Emotions/Passions)
|
Lower Areas (Bodily Desires)
|
Right balance (justice)
|
|
Virtues of the New Self
|
Renewal in knowledge after the image
of the Creator
‘…teaching and admonishing one another
in all wisdom’
|
Compassionate hearts, kindness,
humility, meekness, patience, bearing with one another, forgiveness
‘Let the peace of Christ dwell in you
richly…, singing…, with thankfulness in your hearts to God’
|
|
‘Put on love, which binds everything
together in perfect harmony’
‘And whatever you do, in word or deed,
do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father
through him.’
|
|
Vices and Practices of the Old Self
|
|
Impurity, passion, evil desire,
covetousness
Anger, wrath, malice, slander, obscene
talk, lying
|
Sexual immorality
|
|
Again, Paul does not so organise his thoughts as to reflect the framework
of Greek and Roman philosophy. Yet what
philosophy covered in searching for a therapy for the ailing self is addressed
by Paul: he addresses the solution for the head, heart, lower parts, and right ordering or balance
in his own way. That is, ethics covers
the whole self, not some isolated part of the self or soul. More importantly, Paul’s solution is entirely
theological, not philosophical. Instead
of a craft for soul care, Paul insists on a divine solution: God at work in
us, who are in Christ. Our role is to respond to that grace—God’s
saving and transforming work in our lives.
Romans and Ephesians
This understanding of Paul’s ethics is reflected elsewhere in his
writings. In Romans, the plight of human
sinfulness is in acts of the flesh that
derive from impure passions and
result in a depraved mind. The four-part problem of sin is all there in
Romans 1.18-32: sinful bodily acts or practices, impure passions or emotions,
the lack of wisdom and understanding, and an imbalance of the creature rejecting
the Creator. One is only half-way
through Paul’s theology in Romans when one affirms that salvation is a
justification by grace through faith (3.21-5.21). Then comes Romans 6-8, which establishes that
salvation is the work of God in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit to make us
righteous. Romans 7.7-25, often
misinterpreted as a description of a Christian’s wrestling with sin, rather is
part of a larger argument in Romans 6-8 contrasting life under the flesh, sin,
and the Law to life in Christ and the Spirit (cf. the introductory verses to 7.7-8.17 in 7.5-6). Thus, the theological conclusion in Romans
culminates in the restoring of the depraved mind that does not know the will of
God:
I appeal to you
therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living
sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but
be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern
what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans
12.1-2).
God’s
solution to human sin is not merely forgiving grace but also transforming
grace that restores the depraved mind. It is not just a matter of
Christians not sinning in bodily acts but also a transformation of passions of
the heart—restoring right desire—and a transformation of the mind to know God’s
will.
Paul’s moral
argument in Romans is expressed in brief in Ephesians 4. Christians must no longer walk in the
futility of their minds (4.17).
Formerly, they were darkened in their understanding, alienated from the
life of God on account of the ignorance within them—the hardness of their
hearts (4.18). We have, notice, moved from head to heart,
and now Paul proceeds from heart to the body’s or flesh's affections and acts: ‘They have become callous and have given
themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity’ (4.19). This part of Ephesians parallels Colossians 3
and need not be repeated, except to say that he continues to explore God’s
solution for the mind, heart, and bodily affections and activities through
5.21.
The solution to human sinfulness is God’s forgiving and transforming
grace. It restores the mind, heart, and
bodily affections and activities. It
brings right order to the new creation, the new man in Christ Jesus.
Jesus’ Ministry and the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not featured in a number of texts in the Synoptic
Gospels as He is in Paul, such as in Romans 8.1-17 and in Paul’s ethics in
general. Yet Jesus’ ministry is the
bringing of God’s cleansing and empowering Spirit. This fundamental understanding of Jesus’
ministry is expressed in terms of the difference between John the Baptist’s
ministry and Jesus’ ministry—which are related, not opposed. John’s ministry was a baptism of repentance
for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus’
ministry was a baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Behind this two-fold ministry of John and Jesus lies the narrative
theology of Israel’s restoration from captivity in sin. Israel went into exile due to sin; God’s
restoration of Israel was not according to Israel’s works but God’s grace. He both forgave Israel her sins and restored
her in righteousness by the work of the Holy Spirit. This is the New Covenant promise already
noted (Isaiah 59.20-21; Jeremiah 31.31-34; Ezekiel 36.24-27). John’s baptism offered cleansing from past
sin through repentance and forgiveness.
Jesus’ baptism offered the new creation life of the Holy Spirit who
enables one to live righteously according to God’s Law.
This is what Jesus means in John 3.5: ‘Truly,
truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God.’ To be born of
water is to repent and receive forgiveness (John’s baptism). To be born of the Spirit is to be born again
(this is the passage where Nicodemus puzzles over what ‘born again’ means—the Greek
equally means ‘born from above’). What
Jesus brings differently from John is the empowering Spirit of God that
transforms sinful lives. As God says in Ezekiel 36.27: ‘And I will put my Spirit within you, and
cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.’
Not only is
the Holy Spirit active in healing grace, but the Servant of God is through the
cross as well. Theologically stated, healing grace is linked to both
pneumatology and Christology. The Old Testament text mentioning a
'healing' from sin is in Isaiah 53.4-5:
Surely he has borne our griefs
and
carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten
by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our
transgressions;
he
was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us
peace,
and with his wounds we
are healed.
Jesus
applies this to His healing ministry prior to the cross in Matthew 8.17. Peter applies it to Jesus’ removal of our sin
on the cross:
He himself bore
our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to
righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were
straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your
souls (1 Peter 2.24-25).
This analogy of sin to sickness and the
theology of grace including healing is already introduced in the Old
Testament. Jesus’ application of the
text from Isaiah to His healing ministry shows us the link between this literal
ministry of healing to the theology of healing grace: it foreshadows Jesus’
healing through suffering of our deadly disease of sin.
Conclusion
This study began with a claim by Augustine that God’s grace is a healing
grace. This notion was then examined in
John Colet’s commentary on Romans, and along the way the notion of a therapy to
treat the infirmity of the human condition was discussed in Greek and Roman
philosophy. What the ancients saw as a
task for philosophy, Christians insisted was only resolvable by the grace of
God. That grace was both a forgiving and
a transforming grace. To examine this
theological solution, I noted places in Paul where he works this theology out
and also compared and contrasted his teaching to Greek and Roman ethics. I also noted that this teaching about
forgiving grace and transforming grace is consistent with an understanding of
the Old Testament’s hope of a New Covenant and with Jesus’ addition to John the
Baptist’s ministry—an addition of the baptism of the Spirit to the baptism of
water. This discussion could be expanded
considerably. The New Testament,
however, supports the teaching of Augustine.
In all this, we see that an understanding of sin as just acts and not
also a disease of sinful affections and desires and of God’s salvation as just
forgiving grace and not also transforming or healing grace is incomplete.
The error of a partial theology has played out in our day in regard to
sexual immorality. Some have wanted to
limit it to acts—the affections and acts of the body.
Some have wanted to understand grace as merely a matter of achieving the
status of justification and not the transformation God brings by making us
righteous. Some fail to link the baptism
of John to the baptism of the Spirit that Jesus brings. Some so emphasise the sacrificial work of Jesus—His
removal of our sin by His shed blood—that the further work of Jesus and the
Spirit is underemphasised. As Paul says
in 1 Corinthians: ‘But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified
[a better translation would be ‘made righteous’] in the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God’ (6.11).
