Isaiah 53:4 and Matthew 8:17

[ProAmerican]

Why has 1 Peter 2:24 been left out of the equation?

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto rightoeusness, by whose stripes ye were healed."

Healed of...unrightoeusness!

1 Peter 2:24 points to spiritual healing, as does Isaiah.

The Bible says "out of the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established."

If Peter and Isaiah point to spiritual healing and only one, Matthew, seems to point to physical healing, then the two or three witnesses would apply to Peter and Isaiah (spiritual healing) and not matthew.

Ergo, a case for the doctrine of healing being provided for in the Atonement could be made, whereas a case for PHIA could not be made.

 

[lismore]

Acts 5 tells us that sick people even wanted Peter's shadow to fall on them to get healed. If he was Spiritually healing only then he would have stayed out of the sun.

Acts 5:

12The apostles performed many miraculous signs and wonders among the people. And all the believers used to meet together in Solomon's Colonnade. 13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people. 14Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number. 15As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter's shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by. 16Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by evil spirits, and all of them were healed.

Why were all of them healed again and again by Jesus and by the church?

Victory over Satan is in the atonement, through Jesus the devil is under our feet and its the wicked devil that brings the oppression of sickness (John 10:10, Acts 10:38, Luke 13). Therefore victory over sickness is in the atonement, whatever way you look at it.

 

[Strong in Him]

Its a pity some of you folks werent around you could have corrected Paul and stopped him healing everyone.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but the healing cannot have been for Jesus ministry alone because its in the ACTS.

I don't think healing was for Jesus' ministry alone. I think that Jesus healing people was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah, as Matthew commented. Isaiah prophesied that the suffering servant, who people believed to refer to the coming Messiah, would heal people. Matthew was saying "look, Jesus is the Messiah, he is healing people - fulfilling an OT prophecy."

Jesus continues to heal today, and gave the disciples and us the ability to heal too. But we are not told that any of that is because of his death on the cross.

Like I said before, if it were, the disciples would not need to heal, only give a theology lesson and remind people that they already had been healed through Jesus.

 

[lismore]

Jesus continues to heal today, and gave the disciples and us the ability to heal too. But we are not told that any of that is because of his death on the cross.
.

But sickness came through the fall of adam, adams sin.

Jesus Christ is the last adam that has smashed the power of sin. Does that not mean sins buddy sickness received a terrible blow at the cross too?

We shall know the truth and the truth shall set us free. Whoever the Son sets free is free indeed. Free in total. Redeemed. Completely bought back and totally healed. Wow!

 

[Strong in Him]

But sickness came through the fall of adam, adams sin.

I know.

Jesus Christ is the last adam that has smashed the power of sin. Does that not mean sins buddy sickness received a terrible blow at the cross too?

The trouble is that that has been inferred by people rather than taught in Scripture. Jesus said that his blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins. Sin broke our relationship with God; Jesus came to repair it.This is what is taught all the way through the NT; we have peace with God through Jesus' death, we are made righteous through Jesus' death. Jesus was the high priest of a new covenant who sacrificed for people's sins when he offered himself. Jesus was the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The angel told Mary that he would save people from their sins.

Physical healing is something seperate from that. Jesus laid hands on people and healed them, he sent the disciples out to heal the sick. After Pentecost they were able to carry on with this work because the Holy Spirit lived in them. Paul said that this Spirit gives some people a gift of healing. If it were a fact that sickness had been destroyed on the cross as well as sin, then Christians should be physically healed at the same time that they are forgiven. And no one would need a gift of healing, they'd just need to teach people that Jesus had already bought their healing and they only need accept that.

Jesus did not teach that our physical bodies would be healed when he died, only that our sins would be forgiven. He is the only way to God, only through his death can our relationship with the Father be mended, and we can come into his presence, clean, forgiven, at peace.

I'm sure that had his death been for our physical healing, he would have taught it - spelled it out so there could be no mistake.

 

[lismore]

If it were a fact that sickness had been destroyed on the cross as well as sin, then Christians should be physically healed at the same time that they are forgiven.

Or in the same way that they receive salvation..................

How do I receive salvation?

Ephesians 2:8-10. God's gift received by faith.

How do I receive healing?

Mark 1:40-42. God's gift received by faith.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Jesus healed them in order that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled. Isaiah 53:4 was fulfilled when Jesus went around Galilee healing the sick...

One thing that the Matt 8:17 quote DOES establish is that Isa 53 is in fact talking about healing of the physical body. This ends the discussion that Isa 53 is only talking about "spiritual healing"(sic).
Because Matt says Is 53 in fact is referring to physical healing, then the quote found in 1 Peter 2:24 can also be referring to physical healing.

1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto rightoeusness, by whose stripes ye were healed.

 

[lismore]

One thing that the Matt 8:17 quote DOES establish is that Isa 53 is in fact talking about healing of the physical body. This ends the discussion that Isa 53 is only talking about "spiritual healing"(sic).
.

Indeed it does. But somehow this doesnt seem to deter people from continually trying to link Isaiah 53 to 'Spiritual healing' alone.

 

[JimB]

Indeed it does. But somehow this doesnt seem to deter people from continually trying to link Isaiah 53 to 'Spiritual healing' alone.

This is indeed the case. I have conceded the fact. But Isaiah 53 does not say, at any point, that physical healing would be part of the atonement of Christ for sin. In fact, the word “atonement” does not even appear in Isaiah 53. In further fact, the word only appears once in all of Isaiah, in 22.14 where it is linked only to “iniquity”; not to physical healing.



Matthew does not use Isaiah 53.4 to say that physical healing is part of Christ’s atoninement, His “finished work” on the cross, but that the fact that Christ healed the sick during His earthly ministry was evidence of His Messiahship. Matthew wrote,

16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.” (Matthew 8)
​

The fact that, in the fact that Jesus took away infirmities, and bore away sicknesses while He was on earth, proved that He was, indeed, Messiah.

That is all Matthew is saying. Forcing the “atonement” into this passage (as is too frequently done) is not rightly dividing the Word of Truth, IMO. Rather, it is “wresting the scriptures” to make them support an otherwise unscriptural premise.

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman

 

[JimB]

One thing that the Matt 8:17 quote DOES establish is that Isa 53 is in fact talking about healing of the physical body. This ends the discussion that Isa 53 is only talking about "spiritual healing"(sic).
Because Matt says Is 53 in fact is referring to physical healing, then the quote found in 1 Peter 2:24 can also be referring to physical healing.

1 Peter 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto rightoeusness, by whose stripes ye were healed.

Then you are totally ignoring (willfully or otherwise) what Peter said. Isaiah 53 is talking about both physical and spiritual healing (I think you have called this wholeness, right?) Isaiah 53.4 is talking about physical healing because Matthew 8.17 says so. End of debate.


But Peter, in quoting Isa. 53.5, is talking about healing for something else (i.e., healing of the soul, Psalm 41.4) because he says so in context:

21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “ Who committed no sin,Nor was deceit found in His mouth” 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 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. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls, (1 Peter 2)

​

Where did you see physical healing for physical illness in that passage? He is plainly talking about healing for sin. Where in all that passage does he even hint at physical illnesses of physical healing?

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman

 

[franky67]

Then you are totally ignoring (willfully or otherwise) what Peter said. Isaiah 53 is talking about both physical and spiritual healing (I think you have called this wholeness, right?) Isaiah 53.4 is talking about physical healing because Matthew 8.17 says so. End of debate.



But Peter, in quoting Isa. 53.5, is talking about healing for something else (i.e., healing of the soul, Psalm 41.4) because he says so in context:

21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “ Who committed no sin,Nor was deceit found in His mouth” 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 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. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls, (1 Peter 2)


​

Where did you see physical healing for physical illness in that passage? He is plainly talking about healing for sin. Where in all that passage does he even hint at physical illnesses of physical healing?

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman

Why has 1 Peter 2:24 been left out of the equation?

"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto rightoeusness, by whose stripes ye were healed."

Sickness entered the world along with sin, if we are dead to sin, we are clensed of sickness because God was pleased to put grief on Jesus, Isaiah 53:10 , this is the same word used in verse 4, that said Jesus bore.

No one has yet to explain Isaiah 53:10 when you say there is no payment for physical infirmities in Isaiah 53.

This was almost the whole point of my post, that is , why did God put grief on Jesus, if grief was not to be born by Jesus ?

And JimM, would you deny that Isaiah 53 is talking about the payment for sin? Isn't that what atonement is ?

Let me repeat myself, if 53 is speaking of payment for sin, why would Isaiah insert one verse (4), out of context with the subject of sacrifice, to describe Jesus' healing on earth ?

Matthew would use the word "them" when describing Jesus' healing, and also if it's like you say, why didn't Matthew just say "He took "their" infirmities, and carried away "their" diseases ? but He said "our"

And as for the shouting Jim, no need for that, just don't reply if PHIA makes you mad.

 

[From Glory to Glory]

Sickness entered the world along with sin, if we are dead to sin, we are clensed of sickness because God was pleased to put grief on Jesus, Isaiah 53:10 , this is the same word used in verse 4, that said Jesus bore.

No one has yet to explain Isaiah 53:10 when you say there is no payment for physical infirmities in Isaiah 53.

This was almost the whole point of my post, that is , why did God put grief on Jesus, if grief was not to be born by Jesus ?

And JimM, would you deny that Isaiah 53 is talking about the payment for sin? Isn't that what atonement is ?

Let me repeat myself, if 53 is speaking of payment for sin, why would Isaiah insert one verse (4), out of context with the subject of sacrifice, to describe Jesus' healing on earth ?

Matthew would use the word "them" when describing Jesus' healing, and also if it's like you say, why didn't Matthew just say "He took "their" infirmities, and carried away "their" diseases ? but He said "our"

And as for the shouting Jim, no need for that, just don't reply if PHIA makes you mad.

Some great points here, franky!

 

[JimB]

Sickness entered the world along with sin, if we are dead to sin, we are clensed of sickness because God was pleased to put grief on Jesus, Isaiah 53:10 , this is the same word used in verse 4, that said Jesus bore.

No one has yet to explain Isaiah 53:10 when you say there is no payment for physical infirmities in Isaiah 53.

This was almost the whole point of my post, that is , why did God put grief on Jesus, if grief was not to be born by Jesus ?

And JimM, would you deny that Isaiah 53 is talking about the payment for sin? Isn't that what atonement is ?

Let me repeat myself, if 53 is speaking of payment for sin, why would Isaiah insert one verse (4), out of context with the subject of sacrifice, to describe Jesus' healing on earth ?

Matthew would use the word "them" when describing Jesus' healing, and also if it's like you say, why didn't Matthew just say "He took "their" infirmities, and carried away "their" diseases ? but He said "our"

And as for the shouting Jim, no need for that, just don't reply if PHIA makes you mad.

Not shouting, Franky. It’s not my style. I am just highlighting the phrases I don’t want you to miss in bold type so that you will not miss them. I think all capital letters indicates “shouting”.

I do not get your point about Isaiah 53.10. Of course Christ was put to grief. That has nothing to do with the PHIA theory.

And let me repeat myself: no one is denying that Isaiah 53.4 is talking about physical healing but it is only talking about the healing ministry of Jesus while He was on earth, not PHIA. You are forcing PHIA that into the equation. It’s best to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent. If PHIA is in the atonement, the Bible would have said so clearly, not just by subjective implication.

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman

 

[probinson]

Not shouting, Franky.

I think Franky was likely referring to posts 12 and 14 earlier in this thread. Completely unnecessary.

 

[JimB]

I think Franky was likely referring to posts 12 and 14 earlier in this thread. Completely unnecessary.

Oh. Those. Well, maybe I was shouting in those posts. But they were not unnecessary.

Here they are in a whisper:

Can't

we

change


the

​

subject!​

​

These

healing ​

threads​

just​

go​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

and​

on​

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman​

 

[franky67]

Not shouting, Franky. It’s not my style. I am just highlighting the phrases I don’t want you to miss in bold type so that you will not miss them. I think all capital letters indicates “shouting”.

I meant posts #12,14, I thought you were upset to see another PHIA thread.

I do not get your point about Isaiah 53.10. Of course Christ was put to grief. That has nothing to do with the PHIA theory.

Isaiah 53:10
"But the Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief."

This word "grief" means to make sick, if strongs is correct, and if it pleased God to make Jesus sick, then what is the purpose, if not to be in the form of a sacrifice for us who are in Christ ?
His shed blood was for sin, His body was crushed for our healing.
If healing was not to be included, why did it please God to put that additional suffering on Jesus ?

And let me repeat myself: no one is denying that Isaiah 53.4 is talking about physical healing but it is only talking about the healing ministry of Jesus while He was on earth, not PHIA. You are forcing PHIA that into the equation. It’s best to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent. If PHIA is in the atonement, the Bible would have said so clearly, not just by subjective implication.

53:4
"Surely our griefs He himself bore, and our sorrows He carried.
Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted"

He bore, and He carried, then it says He was looked on as taking this because of God's hand on Him, it didn't say He healed, it said He bore, He took it on His body.

When He laid his hand on the sick, He healed, when He was smitten by God, He bore.

 

[lismore]

Jesus healed all who came to him in faith and he healed them on that day............he turned no-one away.

Jesus said "Don't be afraid; just believe." Mark 5:36

"Don't be afraid; just believe."

Mark 9:23 "Everything is possible for him who believes."

"Everything is possible for him who believes."


Mark 10 51"What do you want me to do for you?" Jesus asked him.
The blind man said, "Rabbi, I want to see."
52"Go," said Jesus, "your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

"your faith has healed you." Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.

1 peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

for your sake

 

[Strong in Him]

One thing that the Matt 8:17 quote DOES establish is that Isa 53 is in fact talking about healing of the physical body. This ends the discussion that Isa 53 is only talking about "spiritual healing"(sic).

Isaiah 53:4 is. 53:5 says that he was pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that bought us peace was on him." His piercing and bruising was for our sin. The punishment that he took brought us peace with God. Not physical healing; not that he took our punishment so that we can deny symptoms the right to exist in our bodies, and if we positively confess for long enough that we are healed then we will be. Healing is only mentioned in this verse that has spoken about sin and us having peace with God. If we are supposed to read back and infer that it also refers to the physical illnesses mentioned in verse 4, it's not very clear. An important part of the Gospel, you say, is ambiguous and obscure. And Jesus and the disciples never taught it.

Why did Peter and John not say to the man at the temple, "Jesus has achieved your healing on the cross, you only have to accept it"? And why did people hope Peter's shadow would fall on them and they would be healed? How ridiculous, all they needed was to have the Gospel - which apparently included PHIA - preached to them properly. Or was it that the disciples had to heal people because they were not preaching and teaching this doctrine? I wonder why that was?

 

[lismore]

"I am the LORD, who heals you." Exodus 15:26

 

[JimB]

"I am the LORD, who heals you." Exodus 15:26

True. But who has said otherwise?

Sincerely,
~Robin Andes Merriman