Old Testament Foundations: A Biblical View of the Relationship of Sin and the Fruits of Sin: Sickness, Demonization, Death, Natural Calamity, by Peter H. Davids
7 I prefer the term “taboo” to “unclean,” for the latter in English normally indicates physical uncleanness, which is never intended by the Hebrew term, while the former (at least in its anthropological meaning) means, “prohibited” or “avoided by social custom” or to “exclude or prohibit by authority or social influence” (quotations from J. B. Sykes, ed., The Concise Oxford Dictionary [sixth edition] [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976]). This definition complex would fit both people and animals (e.g. pigs). The alternative is “ritually unfit”, which is appropriate for the separation of people from Jewish cultic ritual, but not for their separation from the community nor for the prohibition on certain animals.
8 We should not be surprised that the evil spirit is “from the Lord,” for all events are attributed directly to the Lord in the Deuteronomic history. It is only in Chronicles that we discover that some of what was attributed to the Lord should be attributed to Satan (a being not named in pre-exilic books). Compare 2 Sam 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1. There is progress in revelation within the Old Testament.
9 The disturbance of family relationships was especially significant in the ancient world in which the family was one’s security and submission to parents was a cardinal virtue. This was true not only for the Jewish world, but also for the whole Graeco-Roman world. Thus an apocalyptic scenario is pictured in terms of family breakdown in Mark 13:12, while the blessing of God was associated with family restoration, as in Mal. 4:6.
10 There are other natural disasters, such as the famine and the storm at sea reported in Acts (Acts 11:28; 27:13ff). The famine is never connected with any type of sin. In the storm at sea only the damage to the particular ship Paul is on is connected to sin (i.e. the failure of those responsible to listen to Paul, Acts 27:9-12), not the storm itself.
11 The fact that in Mark the “hundred times as much” is not necessarily owned by the Christian, but simply supply his or her needs does not mitigate its being a divine provision and a rejection of lack as not being part of the kingdom. At the same time, it does cause problems for those Christians who would measure their spirituality by the quantity of goods they possess rather than by the fact that their needs are being met. See further Gordon D. Fee, The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels (Costa Mesa, CA: The Word for Today, 1979) and John White, The Golden Cow (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979). The problem with the positions these men criticize is that they have lost the “already-not yet” tension of the New Testament (Mat 12:28; Lk 11:20; 17:21; I Cor 13:8-12; 15:24-25; Rev 11:15-17) and so, among other things, try to live out an over-realized eschatology. Of course this does not excuse the opposite error of living without faith in either the healing power or the provision of God, even if our experience of both is partial in this age.
12 John 5:14: “Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, ‘See, you are well again. Stop sinning or something worse (cheiron … ti) may happen to you.” Regarding this passage several scholars have made remarks like those of H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. 8. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965), p. 458f.: “One can surmise, but not establish, a relationship between the man’s sins and his disease. Something worse might happen to him. This might be taken to mean a ‘worse’ disease, or some form or the other of chastisement, indeed eternal punishment… . It would be a calamity which would form a sharp contrast to the salvation which the man had just been permitted to receive in his healing”; similarly, G. Bertram, “hamartanō,” TDNT, vol. 1, p. 288, n. 58; A. Oepke, “iaomai,” TDNT, vol. 3, p. 204; id., “nosos,” TDNT, vol. 4, p. 1095.
In the Johannine literature Rev 2:22 is often cited as an instance of sin resulting in sickness. Yet while the English phrase “bed of suffering” (NIV) is common for sickness in English, the term thlipsis “suffering” in Greek literature indicates persecution rather than illness. “Jezebel” has been involved in adultery, which includes participating in idolatry. The irony is that instead of getting a comfortable bed, she will get a bed of affliction, namely that the pagans with whom she has been compromising will turn on her. See further on this word group P. H. Davids, “Sickness and Suffering in the New Testament,” in C. Peter Wagner and F. Douglas Pennoyer, eds., Wrestling with Dark Angels (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1990) 215-237.
13 Cf. James 5:15-16 “The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.” In Rabbinic Judaism personal sin was viewed as the cause of sickness (A. Oepke, TDNT, vol. 3, p. 201, nn. 24-25; A. Richardson, The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels [London: SCM Press, 1942], pp. 65f.), an assumption at least partly based on the Old Testament’s view of sin and sickness (cf. Ps 103:3; cf. Exo 15:26; Deut 7:12-16; 28:15, 21-22; Ps 32:3-4; 38:3, 5). Jesus seems to have affirmed such a view in cases like that of the paralytic in Mark 2:1-12.
14 We could add to this list the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5, in which lying to the Holy Spirit is the cause of their deaths, but as their deaths are not attributed to a disease—they just die—we cannot say for sure that a sickness was involved.
15 It is easy to understand how the sins of parents could lead to illness in a person, for not only is this stated in the Old Testament (Exo 20:15; Deut 5:9), but we also see it frequently in such diseases as fetal alcohol syndrome. How one’s own sins could cause a person to be born blind is less clear. While some parts of pre-first-century Judaism did believe in the pre-existence of the soul before conception (see Wisd Sol 8:19-20), later rabbinic Judaism spoke of the possibility of sin in the womb (see Gen Rab 63 (39c)). See further on this the standard commentaries on John 9:1-3. While we cannot tell whether the rabbinic attitude was common in Judaism in Jesus’ time, it would certainly explain the comments of the Twelve.
16 The Greek kan plus the subjunctive ē followed by a future tense in the next clause expresses the “if” and shows that this is a conditional sentence in which there is a real possibility but not a certainty that this is the case.
17 In itself this does not necessarily indicate the primary motive. One could ask whether Judas had another reason to betray Jesus (e.g. disappointment with Jesus’ messianic program) and, knowing that the Jewish leaders would pay well for his assistance, chose to get money for what he might have done anyway or whether money was the primary motive?
18 The story of Judas Iscariot unfortunately does not settle the issue of whether a Christian may be demonized. The question itself is of relatively recent origin, dating from the end of the last century. For its first 1800 years the church simply did not raise the question, but did tell stories about Christians who had been demonized. See, for example, the Dialogues of Gregory the Great (Gregory the Great, Dialogues, trans. Odo John Zimmerman, New York: Fathers of the Church, 1959). Those who raise the question usually do so on the basis of the idea that demons “possess” a person and could not do so if the Holy Spirit indwelt the person; that is, they do it on the basis of a deductive process rather than on the basis of a scriptural text. The problem is that the Greek term daimonizomai simply indicates that a person is in some way influenced by a demon (cf. Foerster, “daimonizomai,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 19-20, who translates the term “to suffer from a daimōn”). The idea of “possession” is a development of theology in the post-Nicene and later era.
Can the Holy Spirit indwell a person who is also influenced by a demon? Why not? The Holy Spirit certainly indwells people who sin, who are assaulted by temptation, and who fall quite seriously. Still, in seeking biblical substantiation one must ask whether Judas was in fact a believer? Certainly there is no reason to believe that he was any less successful than the others in doing the works Jesus sent the disciples out to do, nor do we find any evidence that the other disciples had any suspicions about his character. It is likely that at least initially he believed all that the other disciples believed. At the same time, since the whole of Jesus’ ministry was pre-Pentecost, one could argue that none of these people were believers in the modern sense in that they were not necessarily indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Judas was certainly demonized in the end, but the issue of whether or not he was a believer rests on one’s definition of what it means to be a believer.
Category: Biblical Studies, Fall 2006
Followers
Fans
