Was Matthew mistaken??

[FrankFaith]

16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases."[c]

Here's that verse in Isiah (Isiah 53:4) along with verse 5...


4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

So, how about some information from the learned here on both sides. The official OP questions are...

Did Matthew get it wrong for these reasons:

a. Because Matthew used the word "translated "diseases" (Matt 16:17), but Isiah used the word "sorrows" in Isiah 53:4, did Matthew make a mistake--is this NT scripture (Matt 16:17) wrong?!

b. Matthew wrote that Jesus "drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick", then stated that He (Jesus) did this specifically for one reason: "to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah" in Isiah 53:4, which He quoted WRONG!?

The point I'm making here is that Matthew clearly believed that there was a PHYSICAL healing connection based upon Isiah 53:4. But he said that Jesus healed to fulfill the scripture in Isiah, which says in verse 5 "by his wounds we are healed."

What's up with this--Matthew not only used the wrong word (diseases vs. sorrows), but he also quoted the wrong scripture to support his belief that Jesus physically healed based upon--and to fulfill--OT scripture?!

Somebody please help me here because I'm much too simple minded to figure this one out...and please stay with the program--don't mess up this focused issue with a bunch of off-topic, unrelated...stuff.

Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[LittleRocketBoy]

Since there is no private interpretation of scipture, we have to assume that if Is 53:4 refers to physical healing (as Matthew states) then Is 53:5 can also refer to physcial healing. To blindly insist that Is 53 does not refer to physical healing tends to end the debate... Nabals are present, forget it.
The "spiritual healing"(sic) crowd has its head in the sand on this one.

 

[TreeOfLife]

Matthew was in the physical presence of the Lord for three years. I think I'm going to trust what he says on this.

 

[FrankFaith]

What do you think about the idea that God has allowed for the salvation of those who do, as well as and those who don't, believe that Jesus is the "double cure" (saver and physical healer)--but that in reference to physical healing, He has allowed for those who choose NOT to believe this, as well as for those who choose TO believe this, by PURPOSELY providing scripture which can be interpreted either way--without actual definitive scripture that comes right out and says "Yes--Jesus IS the Double cure!"?

*This way those who choose NOT to believe that Jesus is the DOUBLE cure do possess salvation and still retain their free will to choose.

 

[FrankFaith]

Matthew was in the physical presence of the Lord for three years. I think I'm going to trust what he says on this.

Which is...what?! What was Matthew trying to tell us here--that's the question!!

 

[psalms 91]

What do you think about the idea that God has allowed for the salvation of those who do, as well as and those who don't, believe that Jesus is the "double cure" (saver and physical healer)--but that in reference to physical healing, He has allowed for those who choose NOT to believe this, as well as for those who choose TO believe this, by PURPOSELY providing scripture which can be interpreted either way--without actual definitive scripture that comes right out and says "Yes--Jesus IS the Double cure!"?

*This way those who choose NOT to believe that Jesus is the DOUBLE cure do possess salvation and still retain their free will to choose.

We can always choose without losing salvation, tithing comes to mind as well as obedience and many other things that we can do and not recieve the blessing but still be saved

 

[FrankFaith]

We can always choose without losing salvation, tithing comes to mind as well as obedience and many other things that we can do and not recieve the blessing but still be saved

Agreed.

 

[CrazyforYeshua]

I don't think you can read those scriptures and apply it to anything other than what Matthew meant-physical healing. If we believe Gods' Word to be true, we have no other choice.

 

[FrankFaith]

I don't think you can read those scriptures and apply it to anything other than what Matthew meant-physical healing. If we believe Gods' Word to be true, we have no other choice.

Well, I happen to agree. This is a chance for the opposition to belly-up and show us where we could be mistaken.

 

[talitha]

There are quite a few instances in the New Testament where it seems that the OT is being 'misquoted'. In fact I have read that it's a common Hebraic literary form / form of expression. But I forgot what it was called. Does anyone here know?

blessings
tal

 

[Strong in Him]

16When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
"He took up our infirmities
and carried our diseases."[c]

So if Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53v4 by healing all the sick who came to him, then he wasn't fulfilling it on the cross. Matthew makes this comment about Jesus' healing miracles, he does not repeat this verse when he is writing about the crucifixion and say that Isaiah 53 had now been fulfilled. He does not report that Jesus said at the last supper "this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins and healing of sicknesses." If Jesus had said this, I'm sure Matthew would have said "this was to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah." And we would be in absolutely no doubt at all.

 

[victoryword]

Even a literal translation of Isaiah 53:4-5 can conclude that this is PHYSICAL healing:

He is despised, and left of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with sickness, And as one hiding the face from us, He is despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains -- he hath carried them, And we -- we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted. And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.” -Isaiah 53:3-5; Young's Literal Translation

Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy]. [Matt. 8:17] But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole. -Isaiah 53:4-5; The Amplified Bible
But it was our pain he took, and our diseases were put on him: while to us he seemed as one diseased, on whom God's punishment had come. (BBE)

Yet surely, our sicknesses, he, carried, And, as for our pains, he bare the burden of them, - But, we, accounted him stricken. Smitten of God and humbled, (Rotherham)

Surely he has borne our sickness, and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. (Hebrew Names Version)

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. (Jewish Publication Society)

Surely He has borne our sicknesses, and He carried our pain; yet we esteemed Him plagued, smitten by God, and afflicted. (LITV)

But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. (NET)

Surely he has borne our sickness, and carried our suffering; yet we considered him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. (World English Bible)
​

The biggest argument that one might have to fight against concerning Matt. 8:17 is not that Matthew should be taken literally because many opponents of Healing in the atonement claim to believe that it is inspired Scripture. The problem is that they claim that this passage was already fulfilled at the very moment in Matthew 8 and therefore does NOT apply to us today. Since they claim it was fulfilled at that moment then we cannot claim divine healing in the atonement. It is a ridiculous argument, but it is one that many use to dispute the healing doctrine.

 

[victoryword]

So if Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53v4 by healing all the sick who came to him, then he wasn't fulfilling it on the cross. Matthew makes this comment about Jesus' healing miracles, he does not repeat this verse when he is writing about the crucifixion and say that Isaiah 53 had now been fulfilled. He does not report that Jesus said at the last supper "this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins and healing of sicknesses." If Jesus had said this, I'm sure Matthew would have said "this was to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah." And we would be in absolutely no doubt at all.

Ah, case in point ....

I just mentioned this ridiculous argument in my last post without having read this. Here is my response from an article I wrote on this subject (which I will be revising soon). You can find the full article here though I will only address the part that responds to SIM's post:

Matthew 8:17 New Testament proof that Isaiah 53:4-5 was teaching physical bodily healing in the atonement:

And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. -Matthew 8:14-17
​

This should have been enough to end all disputes against physical healing in the atonement. Nevertheless, those who oppose healing in the atonement have come up with an answer for this. They tell us that this passage does not refer to the work on the cross, but to Jesus earthly ministry. They tell us that this cannot apply to us and does not teach that healing is in the atonement.

I believe that they are completely wrong. No one will dispute that Matthew is quoting from Isaiah 53:4. No one will dispute the fact that Isaiah 53:3-10 is prophesying Christ's death on the cross. Yet, they will take one portion of this that is quoted in Matthew and tell us that it was already fulfilled at that time and therefore it does not apply to the cross.

If we are to interpret Matthew 8:17 then we would have to interpret John 12:38-41 this way:

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.
​

This Scripture is telling us that the prophecy from Isaiah 53:1 was fulfilled on the during the time of Christ's earthly ministry. If we were to interpret this passage as we do Matthew 8:17 then we might be justified. Nevertheless, we cannot say that this passage cannot apply to today's believer due to the fact that Paul quotes it again in the epistle to the Romans:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? -Romans 10:13-15
​

If Isaiah 53:1 is said to have been fulfilled in Jesus earthly ministry, yet Paul tells us that it is still applicable, and if Peter tells us that Isa. 53:5 is still applicable to the believer (1 Peter 2:24), then why wouldn't Isa. 53:4 still be applicable to today's believer? It appears to men that men had to go out of their way to "invent" teachings that would dispute the teaching of physical healing in Christ's atonement due to their unbelief.

 

[Strong in Him]

I just mentioned this ridiculous argument in my last post without having read this. Here is my response from an article I wrote on this subject (which I will be revising soon). You can find the full article here though I will only address the part that responds to SIM's post:

I fail to see how it is a ridicuous argument. Matthew 8v16 says that Jesus healed the sick and demon-possessed who were brought to him. V17 then says THIS was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah. The OP asked if Matthew was mistaken. No, if his understanding that Jesus' healing miracles on earth were foretold in Isaiah 53v4, he may well have been right. He does not say anything here about healing in the atonement. Jesus had not yet been crucified, why would he? And as I said he did not repeat this verse when writing about the crucifixion, and say that now Jesus had died it had been fulfilled.

Sorry, but to say that this verse confirms Jesus' healing ministry, but because we are saved from our sins as foretold by Isaiah it must mean that we are also healed because of the cross, is a big leap to make. Isaiah's prediction of the Messiah's healing ministry was fulfilled when Jesus healed - Matthew says so. And it doesn't mean that it only applied to then - Jesus still heals today. Nothing in this Gospel says that Isaiah 53v4 was fulfilled when Jesus died, and therefore we are physically healed by his death.

 

[victoryword]

I fail to see how it is a ridicuous argument. Matthew 8v16 says that Jesus healed the sick and demon-possessed who were brought to him. V17 then says THIS was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah. The OP asked if Matthew was mistaken. No, if his understanding that Jesus' healing miracles on earth were foretold in Isaiah 53v4, he may well have been right. He does not say anything here about healing in the atonement. Jesus had not yet been crucified, why would he? And as I said he did not repeat this verse when writing about the crucifixion, and say that now Jesus had died it had been fulfilled.

Sorry, but to say that this verse confirms Jesus' healing ministry, but because we are saved from our sins as foretold by Isaiah it must mean that we are also healed because of the cross, is a big leap to make. Isaiah's prediction of the Messiah's healing ministry was fulfilled when Jesus healed - Matthew says so. And it doesn't mean that it only applied to then - Jesus still heals today. Nothing in this Gospel says that Isaiah 53v4 was fulfilled when Jesus died, and therefore we are physically healed by his death.

Then you would have to apply that same logic to those other "which was fulfilled" passages that were supposedly fulfilled during Jesus time. If you must dismiss anyone part of Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 53 as being inapplicable to Christ's redemptive work, then you must dismiss all of it. Now what would that do to 1 Peter 2:24?

Nevertheless, before the cross, people were saved by looking towards the future fulfillment of Christ's redemptive work (gen. 3:15; 15:6; Job 19:25, 26; John 8:55, 56; Heb. 11:26). Sure proof of this is found in Hebrews:

Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Heb. 4:1, 2)
​

Therefore, if people could be saved by the redemptive work of Christ BEFORE it was ever accomplished (Rev. 13:8) then they could be healed by the redemptive work of Christ, or by healing in the atonement, BEFORE Christ went to the cross. That is what Matthew 8:17 is referring to. People were being saved and healed by the Lamb who was slain from the foundations of the world.

 

[Strong in Him]

You said earlier;

:

And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. -Matthew 8:14-17


​

This should have been enough to end all disputes against physical healing in the atonement.

Why?? The atonement had not yet taken place. What does Matthew actually say - that THIS, ie the healing miracles that Jesus had just done, was fulfilling a Messianic prophecy. Another verse to show his Jewish congregation that the Messiah's coming was predicted in the OT and was fulfilled in Jesus.
Nowhere is anything mentioned about physical healing being part of Jesus' work on the cross, Jesus had not yet died on the cross. Why did Matthew quote this verse here and not when he was writing about Jesus' death? Why did Jesus not say that his blood was being poured out for the physical healing of others, just as Isaiah had said?

It seems that an assumption is being made that because Isaiah 5 mentions the Messiah being pierced for our sins, a reference to the cross, then this must be also how he took up our infirmities in verse 4. Which must refer to physical illnesses because it says so in Matthew's Gospel. Jesus did take people's physical illnesses, and healed them. It doesn't say that he also healed them by his death on the cross. You would have thought that, if this was an important part of the Gospel, someone - Jesus, Paul, God - would have been more explicit about it and repeated it until everyone understood.

 

[LittleRocketBoy]

So if Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53v4 by healing all the sick who came to him, then he wasn't fulfilling it on the cross. ...

This is entirely possible.. but first we must establish the fact the Is 53 is in fact referring to healing. There are those who will insist that Is 53 does not refer to healing at all. So the point here is to first show that Is 53 DOES refer (at least verser 4) to physical healing.

 

[FrankFaith]

So if Jesus was fulfilling Isaiah 53v4 by healing all the sick who came to him, then he wasn't fulfilling it on the cross. Matthew makes this comment about Jesus' healing miracles, he does not repeat this verse when he is writing about the crucifixion and say that Isaiah 53 had now been fulfilled. He does not report that Jesus said at the last supper "this is my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins and healing of sicknesses." If Jesus had said this, I'm sure Matthew would have said "this was to fulfill what was said by the prophet Isaiah." And we would be in absolutely no doubt at all.

I must say that if inferrence or deduction is your side's issue as far as healing being ours/made available to us at the time of the atonement, don't you think that this is QUITE a stretch??

You must admit that this is reall an pretty absurd statement for you to make. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever except your mere supposition.

*The BODY represents healing--not the blood.

 

[victoryword]

You said earlier;

And I gave further clarification LATER. I gave some references for my position.

Why?? The atonement had not yet taken place.

As I stated in my last post, people before the cross had the same gospel preached to them as we have had (Heb. 4:1, 2) and they looked FORWARD to the future redemptive work for their salvation:

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. (Joh 8:56)
​

The folks being healed in Matthew 8:17 were also being healed due to the future redemptive work of Christ.

 

[FrankFaith]

You would have thought that, if this was an important part of the Gospel, someone - Jesus, Paul, God - would have been more explicit about it and repeated it until everyone understood.

I see what you mean. So, what do you think can we safely infer from Jesus' healing ministry--and that He only did the will of the Father--only what He say the Father do?

Like you said, you'd think that if God didn't want us getting the wrong idea here, that He, Jesus, Paul, etc., would have let us know that healing wasn't available to us like salvation is...especially since Faith that this is the case is encouraged everywhere with not a single warning that we might be placing our Faith in something not available to us!!

But instead, you favor your baseless, man-made stretch over Faith-filled belief with basis everywhere throughout scripture!!