Health

All agree that health is one of the most precious assets a person can possess, yet there is no consensus as to what health is. Some want to restrict the meaning of health to “a state of physical well-being without significant impairment of function.” But modern psychosomatic theories, which relate our physical well-being to a whole host of psychosocial factors, render this narrow definition of health inadequate. If we accept humankind as essentially a multidimensional unity consisting of mechanical, chemical, biological, psychological, spiritual and historical dimensions, then any attempt to define health in terms of physical well-being is to reduce it to one dimension, or to dissociate one’s body from one’s unified self—something both illogical and impossible to do.

Health as Wholeness

We take a more holistic perspective of humankind. Each person is “one,” uniting within himself or herself all dimensions of life so that in health as well as in sickness there is a “mutual within-each-otherness” of the dimensions. That is, whenever one dimension is affected, all the other dimensions are involved. This implies that health is ultimately wholeness, an idea embodied in the ideal of the savior (sōtēr), which precisely means the “healer” who makes people healthy and whole. The ideal healer is the one universal healer, the Savior, Jesus Christ, who has come to bring in God’s kingdom in which we are restored to wholeness. The World Health Organization seems to have captured part of this holistic conception of health when it defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” From a Christian perspective the social dimension would include a relationship with the Creator and not just with fellow created human beings.

Health and the Image of God

The biblical creation accounts (Genesis 1-2) support this notion of health. Genesis 2:7 tells us, “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man become a living being.” In creating human beings out of the dust of the earth (material) and breathing into us the breath of life (immaterial), God has explicitly created a psychosomatic unity (nephesh)—a living being. Hebrew does not have a parallel for our word body. The reason is they never regarded it as a separate entity with a reality of its own. In contrast to the Greek mind, which tends to dichotomize body and soul and holds that the body is inferior to the soul, the Hebrew mind sees us as an ensouled body or an embodied soul rather than a soul possessing a body. Because of this, Old Testament writers do not present health in physical terms, and Jesus did not see his healing role as primarily physical. For both, health relates to the whole person.

The Genesis creation account also emphasizes the relational or social dimension of human beings:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27)

Note the plural “us.” Also note the pronouncement that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). These words emphasize the social nature of human beings as a reflection of the social character of God. This text also indicates that the social dimension includes human beings’ relationship to the rest of the creation. They are to exercise dominion over nature, which, if properly understood, is meant to be loving nurture and responsible stewardship, not the abuse and exploitation that modern people believe they are authorized to do.

Only when we maintain the harmony of person-person and person-nature relationships will we fulfill God’s intention and purpose of creating us in the divine image. If God is love (1 John 4:8), then our image bearing is first and foremost constituted by loving relations: with nature, fellow human beings and ultimately with God—a state of physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being. We are then truly integrated, authentic and fulfilled. In this view health is a divine gift, pure grace. To maintain health is to remain within the bounds of grace in obedience to God’s word and purposes, loving God, fellow human beings and the created world. As such, to be healthy is to image God.

Health as Shalom

The Hebrew word shalom is translated as “peace” 172 times out of 250 times in the Old Testament. But peace in this case means much more than the absence of strife. It is used in various contexts to express the idea of totality, completeness, soundness, welfare, well-being, prosperity, wholeness and harmony. It refers to every area of life: personal, mental, physical, corporate and national. In this sense, shalom is probably the closest word in the Old Testament to health. Implicit in the word shalom and its verb form shalom is the idea of unimpaired relationships with God, self, others and nature. Shalom, therefore, incorporates and integrates the concepts of holiness and righteousness. In practice it means living a covenanted life, set apart for a morally committed existence in relationships accountable to God, self and others. To be healthy then includes being holy and righteous.

Shalom also strongly implies the idea of fulfillment. In almost two-thirds of its usage in the Bible, it describes the state of fulfillment, specifically the fulfillment of God’s covenant of peace with humankind. This kind of fulfillment has its source in God and is the result of God’s gracious activity in the covenant. Shalom is God’s presence. God is the one who speaks shalom to his people (Psalm 85:8), and in the so-called Aaronic benediction (Numbers 6:24-26), the one to whom God has given shalom is identified as the one who is blessed, guarded and treated graciously by Yahweh. Shalom is fulfillment through divine presence, specifically through the Messiah, Emmanuel, the Prince of Peace (sar shalom), who will bring fulfillment and righteousness (Isaiah 32:17). Paul identifies Christ as our peace (Ephes. 2:14), the messianic prince who through self-sacrifice brings redemption, righteousness, fulfillment and wholeness to humankind. It is for this reason that the meaning of health in the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, includes themes such as blessedness, wholeness, maturity and holiness. This blessedness—makarios—which can be translated as “good health,” is taught in the beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) and is received through a transformation of the whole person oriented to the principles and values of the kingdom of heaven.

Health as Good

Understanding health in this way provides a different perspective on well-being. While physical health is good, it is not necessarily the only good and certainly not the ultimate good. We do not deny that our physical infirmities are real or should be removed, but in some special circumstances they may actually make a contribution to our flourishing. It is interesting to note that some secular medical social scientists have also developed a health-within-illness perspective, which sees illness as an event that can accelerate human growth (Jones and Meleis). Indeed, a healthy life includes an ability to cope with disease, suffering and death and to integrate them as part of one’s life. It is for this reason that Paul thinks that his lack of physical well-being is more than compensated by his participation in the suffering of Christ (2 Cor. 12:7-16). Many biblical figures and believers throughout church history have considered that their physical health could be sacrificed at times for the sake of God’s cause in the world.

Health and Responsibility

This multidimensional context for understanding health also suggests that we have a larger share of responsibility for our health than we often assume. When we think of health in a strictly physical and biomedical model, we tend to conceive ill health as an intrusion of a foreign agent (bacteria, virus) that breaks down part of the system (heart, liver) or as a result of some accident, matters over which we have no control. When we become ill, we adopt the sick role that largely exempts us from some or all of our responsibilities. A holistic concept of health reminds us that we are not that innocent. If we are determined to assault our bodies with tobacco, alcohol or a high-fat diet, are we really innocent when we suffer from bronchitis, cirrhosis and coronary artery disease? Paul teaches that our body is God’s temple (1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), holding us responsible for some of its maintenance. In this regard social scientists have also highlighted personal responsibility by defining health as a personal virtue and a task that each person cultivates through self-awareness and self-discipline (Illich).

Two points of caution should be noted. First, personal responsibility does not mean that we must pursue health and well-being to the point of obsession. Contemporary society has become addicted to health. So to idolize health is to confuse God with his temple. Second, personal responsibility includes accountability not only to oneself but also to other people. An interpersonal and social understanding of health insists that we assume some responsibility for other people’s sickness. We all contribute to the social conditions in which we live. The gap between the rich and the poor, sexual permissiveness, media violence, consumer culture and environmental pollutions have adversely affected our public health. The line between personal and public health is not well demarcated. As a spiritual community, Christians must take to heart our share of social responsibility in health as an expression of our loving our neighbors.

» See also: Body

» See also: Healing

» See also: Sickness

» See also: Soul

References and Resources

I. Illich, Medical Nemesis (New York: Pantheon, 1976); P. Jones and A. I. Meleis, “Health as Empowerment,” Advances in Nursing Science 15, no. 3 (1993) 1-14; S. E. Lammers and A. Verkey, eds., Moral Medicine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 150-72.

—Edwin Hui