! Peter 2:24

[Edial]

Good post Ed---thanks for the extra info and yes you've hit the nail on the head about the health/wealth people.

I'm surprissed that people in this forum havn't used this scripture below. I 'm also surprissed that when we've mentioned communion and that people that haven't prepared themselves properly can not only do it to their damnation but can actually become physicaly and mentally sick.

1 Corinthians 11:29-31 (New King James Version)

29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[a] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s[b] body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.

But that's for the Lord's Supper thread.

That is a very good topical cross reference.

Once again, repentance comes out as a needed component (v.31).

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutherNut]

LutherNut covered the OT part of this.
OT context is spiritual healing.

NT context alone does indicate a physical healing.
Is it?

It is both.

Healed (Strong's 2390) (no Greek scholar here ), appears only 3 times in the Epistles, 2 times in Revelation and many times in the Gospels and Acts.

In ALL cases it is to heal as from illnesses.
Let's drop off the instances in Gospels and Acts due to direct context of healing the sick.
Let's drop off the Revelation due to some unclear language.
Let's look at 3 instances of it in the Epistles.
(1Pt.2:24; James 5:16; Heb.12:13 - read around for context)

NT has certain sins causing physical illnesses.

(In Heb:12, there is a discipline of God that results in illnesses also).

It also presents that SUCH sins are resolved via the elders' prayers and a person will get physically well once he repents of that sin.

JAS 5:13 Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14 Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And 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. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

This definitely gets abused the following ways:

1. People assign each illness due to personal sin - incorrect.
2. People come for a healing not knowing the reason for his illness and just wanting to get well - often fails.
3. People do not completely repent of a sin causing illness, so they do not get healed. (Complete repentance includes restitution to the one who was harmed by one's sin).
4. People just come for healing without repentance - always fails.
5. People "claim" James and Peter verses to get healed - they sometimes get worse either physically or spiritually.
6. The ones that do get healed while applying 1-5, often become spiritual wrecks and get "hooked" on health/wealth gospel.

1PE 2:23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1Peter2:23-25 pertains to spiritual health (Isaiah cross reference) and physical health (strict James 5 reference).

Hope this helps.

Ed

Strawman.

The context of 1 Peter 2:24 is directly tied to Isaiah 53. It is clearly talking about the forgiveness of sins and the blessing of God through Christ's suffering.

Just becasue a word is used one way in Scripture does not at all mean that it is used that way in every instance. Context is King!

Besides, the Greek text is the most helpful because the form of the word tells us as much about its true meaning in the passage as the context does. This is why serious Bible study is not done with the English text.

This is a classic Reformed argument used for such things as denying the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament (the use of the word "sarx" in John 6) or to try and justify their claim of predestination of the damned.

It doesn't work that way.

 

[Edial]

Strawman.

The context of 1 Peter 2:24 is directly tied to Isaiah 53. It is clearly talking about the forgiveness of sins and the blessing of God through Christ's suffering.

Just becasue a word is used one way in Scripture does not at all mean that it is used that way in every instance. Context is King!

Besides, the Greek text is the most helpful because the form of the word tells us as much about its true meaning in the passage as the context does. This is why serious Bible study is not done with the English text.

In all cases Strong's 2390 iaomai means physical healing in Greek.
I choose not to ignore it.

NT clearly ties physical suffering to sin (personal or otherwise).
I choose not to ignore it.

James and Hebrews (the only Epistles references to 2390) tie DIRECTLY iaomai {2390} as healing from physical suffering, WHICH are a result of sin or discipline from God.
I choose not to ignore it.

OT references OFTEN have a DUAL meaning that are clarified in NT.
I choose not to ignore it.
Example of a dual meaning -

In OT it is stated that God closes their eyes.

ISA 6:10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes. n
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."

In NT CHRIST presents the dual meaning of this by stating that they closed their eyes FIRST and God just gave them what they wanted ...

MT 13:15 For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' n

Dual meaning - they began closing their eyes FIRST, then God closed it further - gave them what they wanted.

OT is interpreted by NT, not the other way around.

That's what Christ was doing.

And finally (and there is more) ...
Peter in the same Epistle as the OP tied physical suffering to "painful trials".

1PE 4:12 Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 13 But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. 14 If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. 15 If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. 16 However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. 17 For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 18 And,
"If it is hard for the righteous to be saved,
what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" n
1PE 4:19 So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good.

You were correct concerning Isaiah cross reference, but NT expands on it.

OT is interpreted by NT, the words of Christ - not the other way around.

Strawman? I do not think so.

This is a classic Reformed argument used for such things as denying the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament (the use of the word "sarx" in John 6) or to try and justify their claim of predestination of the damned.

It doesn't work that way.

The Reformed deny Christ's real body in Last Supper because they think they know all about the Bible.
(But the Bible herself states that she contains only enough information for one to be saved and relevant doctrines).
That is their downfall.

The body of Christ is presented as mysterious event that is silent in the Bible.
One CANNOT prove Scripturally that it is symbolic.

As a Reformed, I thought I could prove it to be symbolic, I was wrong.

Many cannot stand the Reformed, so they discard about all that they teach.
It is their downfall.

The "Reformed" are very good at hermeneutics.

An intense dislike towards another Christian group keeps one ineffective in his walk - never helped anyone.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutherNut]

In all cases Strong's 2390 iaomai means physical healing in Greek.
I choose not to ignore it.

NT clearly ties physical suffering to sin (personal or otherwise).
I choose not to ignore it.

James and Hebrews (the only Epistles references to 2390) tie DIRECTLY iaomai {2390} as healing from physical suffering, WHICH are a result of sin or discipline from God.
I choose not to ignore it.

OT references OFTEN have a DUAL meaning that are clarified in NT.
I choose not to ignore it.

I'm not ignoring anything. I am going by the use of the word and its grammatical form in the immediate context of the passage. I prefer to work with the original language text rather than rely on someone elses opinion of word uses in the texts. I listen to God, not Strong.

 

[Edial]

I'm not ignoring anything. I am going by the use of the word and its grammatical form in the immediate context of the passage. I prefer to work with the original language text rather than rely on someone elses opinion of word uses in the texts. I listen to God, not Strong.

Aren't you aware of Strong's Greek numbering system?

It is the same as Greek.

Each Greek word is numbered.

 

[DaRev]

Aren't you aware of Strong's Greek numbering system?

It is the same as Greek.

Each Greek word is numbered.

Strong's numbering system only counts words. It has absolutely nothing to do with meaning or form or contextual useage. To try and justify a meaning or an interpretation of a particular word use in any given text by using the Strong's numbering is an incorrect and improper means of hermeneutics. Strongs does not take into account word forms or declensions or sentence structure, all of which contribute to the meaning of a word in various contexts.

The use of the word in both James and Hebrews is within the immediate context of the healing of physical afflictions. The use of the word in 1 Peter is solely used in the figurative sense referring to healing in terms of forgiveness of our sins by the suffering of Christ.

 

[Edial]

Strong's numbering system only counts words. It has absolutely nothing to do with meaning or form or contextual useage. To try and justify a meaning or an interpretation of a particular word use in any given text by using the Strong's numbering is an incorrect and improper means of hermeneutics. Strongs does not take into account word forms or declensions or sentence structure, all of which contribute to the meaning of a word in various contexts.

Finer breakdown of Strong's numbering system uses tenses and variants of words.
I have one of these word studies (forgot the title) by a very well known Greek author who uses Strong's quite effectively by covering all the variants by using acronyms.

Basic Strong's is very much effective for a solid and good Bible research. Deeper Strong's is for some specific studies.
(I do not think these posts qualify for such studies).

And context, well, one Greek scholar told me that to really understand Greek one cannot do that in just a few semesters of Greek.
So, we use the English translations of Greek scholars and usually compare them when in doubt of an exact context.

A good English translation is just fine. (Not dynamic equivalent or paraphrase of course).

The use of the word in both James and Hebrews is within the immediate context of the healing of physical afflictions. The use of the word in 1 Peter is solely used in the figurative sense referring to healing in terms of forgiveness of our sins by the suffering of Christ.

You might have missed the context on these series of posts.

1Peter does talk about the spiritual healing according to it's context, but not solely.

NT presents that spiritual "illness" and physical illness are associated in many cases to one's personal spiritual handicap (but NOT in all cases, of course).

Peter text refers to OT reference that often have dual meanings.
Peter further presents in the very Epistle the relationship between spiritual healing and physical healing.

Rest of the NT is solidly behind that concept also.

And the "flavor" of a dual language of the Isaiah and Peter allows for (hints at) for a continual study into the text.

Since OT immediate reference context is interpreted by NT immediate reference context, and NT immediate reference context is interpreted by the REST of NT, what I presented is not incorrect, or at least it is not shown to be incorrect.

If we take immediate context ONLY and ignore the general context, we are still correct in our interpretation, but incomplete.

If we take a general interpretation of the Bible and ignore immediate context interpretation, we are definitely incorrect in our view.

Gradual interpretation (OT then NT then entire NT) is the hermeneutical process that presents a good flow that is not contradictory at any of it's stages, yet reveals the Bible AS a revelation of a deeper level.

That is "digging" into the Bible.
Here is this PRINCIPLE, the immediate context of Pr.2ff is INCLUDED in this principle.

PR 2:1 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
PR 2:2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
PR 2:3 and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
PR 2:4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,
PR 2:5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.
PR 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom,
and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

I do not think you disagree with that.

Thanks,
Ed