Was Matthew mistaken??

[victoryword]

The desire to make a distinction between the spiritual and [do away with] physical benefits of Christ's redemptive work reminded me of a post I made on another thread that I thought would be appropriate here:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to our Western, Greek influenced mindset, we have made a distinction in God's work of salvation. We divide God's workings of salvation and redemption into the spiritual and material (physical) aspects. This is why we have to go through so many hurtles and debates explaining the fact that God wants us to be blessed physically as well as spiritually. Yet, the ancient Hebrews never made any such distinction. One theologian points out that the Old Testament concept of salvation did not have anything to do with simply "going to Heaven" or limit itself to "spiritual blessings"

To begin, one must ask if the Hebrew terms for save and salvation in the OT ever mean saved from eternal condemnation. In the OT, the covenant people were “heaven bound” by trusting in God’s promise of Messiah.[4] How*ever, they still needed to be delivered (saved) from sickness, enemies, pre-mature death, general problems or covenantal restitution due to sin (cf. Deuteronomy 28–30).[5]


The stem of the verb save (ya„s‚aà) originally meant “to be roomy, broad,” which is the opposite of the concepts of “oppression” or “narrowness.” As a result, “to be constricted, [and] oppressed” seems to be the “rescue” one needs by “moving out into the open.”[6] This is the basic concept behind the us*ages of save and salvation in the OT. That is, since sin, enemies, and calamities are restrictions that hinder, rescue is needed to release one from these restrictions. (The whole article can be found here)

​

In the New Tesatement, that same word used in "salvation" was never meant to be limited to going to Heaven when we die. Strong's says that the word means, "From a primary word sῶς so¯s¯ (contraction for the obsolete sa´ος saos, “safe”); to save, that is, deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): - heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole."




It is because of the influence of secular Greek philosophy upon Christianity that we are now having to fight against these distinctions between God's desires for our spirits and our bodies. Yet, if we were to throw aside western Greek thinking and think like Jewish people (The Bible was primarily written by Jew with the exceptions of Luke and Acts) then we would see that "salvation" and redemption encompasses the whole man, and not just part of the man.

This was your theology 101 lesson for tonight (or anti-theology 101, depends on how you view it).

 

[psalms 91]

The Jews understood the Old Testament and knew of Gods provision for healing and health as found in Exodus 15:26 and Deut Chap 28. If that wqas in the Old Covenant and we are under a better covanent dont you think we have even more, all power and authority I give to you.

 

[He put me back together]

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!

Brother Frank,

I think your question, while it is one that perhaps more people should ask on different lines, begs the incorrect assumption that the Scriptures are and always have been written in English...or at least in the same language. They are not. There are several quotations in the English-translated NT that do not line up perfectly with the English-translated OT.

They were both translated from different languages. A Greek version of the NT is not going to consist of exactly the same English-transferrable words as the original Hebrew of the OT, because no two languages translate to a third in the same way. The quotations you are reading in the NT were translated from Hebrew into Greek, and then translated into English. The Hebrew ideas were transferred into Greek ideas, which made good sense in Greek, but once re-translated into English, feature a slightly different set of words. These are likely not to be mistakes, but rather a testament to ideas transcending language.

Furthermore, the word translated "sorrows" could be literally translated as pain, relating to either physical or mental pain. This quite logically translates into "disease" just as well as "sorrows," especially given the context.

Given this, it really should be no suprise that the same message written in Hebrew will translate into English somewhat differently than one that is already translated into Greek.

 

[ProAmerican]

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!

The Apostle Peter, though, spoke of Isaiah 53:4-5 as being spiritual in nature.

 

[victoryword]

The Apostle Peter, though, spoke of Isaiah 53:4-5 as being spiritual in nature.

WRONG! 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)

​

 

[lismore]

“...and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing.” -ISAIAH 10:27

By the anointing of the Holy SPirit Jesus breaks the yoke, by the power of the Holy SPirit as spoken by the prophet.

What does this mean to your discussion?

Another thing the anointing of the Holy SPirit does is leads us corporately into all truth.

1 Thessalonians 1:6
You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.

No matter how much trouble or sickness there is we should not look at the circumstances alone or place our faith in circumstances. Receive the message with joy. God is bigger than the circumstances.

What is this message?

John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Rather then debate about healing doctrines, why dont we pray for people that are sick among us? Both for their physical health and the inner man? If the anointing breaks yokes, why not seek the anointing and see yokes broken, words of revealation given and spiritual growth on this very forum?

Somehow I see this thread going to 100+ pages without really touching the bedrock.

Group Hug

 

[LittleRocketBoy]

That Is 53:4 refers to physical healing is not a theological question.
It is a reading question.

 

[Strong in Him]

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.

I assume your insults, rather than attempts to answer my post, means you don't really know what to say?

 

[TreeOfLife]

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

Wrong. Your question was whether or not Matthew was wrong. If you intended another question you should have worded your OP better.

I happen to agree with your posistion, but I do grow tired of being either dismissed or told I am off topic everytime I try to contribute.

If you have a fight lurking that you just can't get away from, it's not with me.

Geez.

 

[victoryword]

And I have proof right here.

 

[FrankFaith]

I assume your insults, rather than attempts to answer my post, means you don't really know what to say?

Insults?!

 

[FrankFaith]

Wrong. Your question was whether or not Matthew was wrong. If you intended another question you should have worded your OP better.

I happen to agree with your posistion, but I do grow tired of being either dismissed or told I am off topic everytime I try to contribute.

If you have a fight lurking that you just can't get away from, it's not with me.

Geez.

Gimminney cricket--I sure never meant to cause this sort of frustration. Please accept my apology.

 

[Strong in Him]

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!!

No, listen. Jesus healed when he was on earth and does so today. He can heal instantly or gradually, as immediate response to prayer, or through the medical profession. 3 1/2 years ago he healed me of something and I don't even remeber sepecifically asking for it, and I have heard about unbelievers with no faith at all who were healed.

Jesus heals today as he did then because he is the same, his power hasn't changed just because he is no longer around in person on this earth. The Holy Spirit has given some people the gift of healing, he gave some people in the OT this gift. Healing is from God, Jesus is God. Healing is by God, through Jesus, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Healing happens today - am I clear about that?

But this is not the same as saying that healing is available to everyone because of Jesus' death on the cross. Atonement means at-one-ment, reconciliation, making amends or paying the price for sin. All the way through the Bible sin has always been paid for by blood sacrifice. Starting in the garden when God made clothes for Adam and Eve from animal skins. Read the types of sacrifices described in Leviticus, a sin offering involved killing an animal. Jesus was described by the angel and by John the Baptist as someone who would save people from their sins. In Hebrews he is described as the once for all sacrifice for sin. His death was about reconciliation to God, peace with God, receiving forgiveness of sins from God. Neither he nor Paul teach that healing was due to his death on the cross. If they did, then they would have also said that when a person is saved, they would be made physically well. Paul would have specifically taught that we have peace and physical health through our Lord Jesus Christ. He would not have become ill himself, and he would have not had to leave fellow workers behind because they were sick. Paul healed people, there is no evidence that he first said "healing is availale because of the death of Jesus. You have to accept this first and if you do you will be made well."

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

Don't know what you mean by this, but again, if you are resorting to insult, maybe you've run out of argument?

 

[Strong in Him]

Insults?!

Well implying that I am stretching the Scriptures to fit in with my beliefs, and saying that I am making absurd statements based on supposition, is hardly complimentary.

 

[psalms 91]

Answer one question, are we under a better covanent?

 

[churchlady]

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.

Strong, I am curious about something and would like to ask you a question. It's not a trick question - I would really like to know.

When you take communion and thank God for the blood poured out for your salvation, what are you thanking Him for when you afterwards take the bread and give thanks?

 

[FrankFaith]

Don't know what you mean by this, but again, if you are resorting to insult, maybe you've run out of argument?

I see that you see this as an insult--the written word is so amazingly insufficient for communicating hte things of the spirit--and then this sort of thing happens when excitement is taken as insult. *I even see that you would take it that way--please forgive my carelessness if you can...

This is the meat of what I was saying:

...baseless, man-made stretch over Faith-filled belief...

You see, your supposition is, indeed baseless--it has no basis--you are making assumptions--nothing more, albiet assumptions you consider logical and free of error based upon logical deduction--but not scripture. What you've got is still baseless--and a baseless stretch, whereas, I have a basis for my Faith--and a basis everywhere throughout scripture--where should I start to explain myself with examples there are so many! *The very fact that healing does, indeed, occur is proof--as is the very Faith that I possess. My Faith exists--it is the evidence of things hoped for/unseen.

Again, please forgive me if my excitment over this Truth has angered you--that was not my intent.

 

[psalms 91]

I see that you see this as an insult--the written word is so amazingly insufficient for communicating hte things of the spirit--and then this sort of thing happens when excitement is taken as insult. *I even see that you would take it that way--please forgive my carelessness if you can...

This is the meat of what I was saying:

...baseless, man-made stretch over Faith-filled belief...

You see, your supposition is, indeed baseless--it has no basis--you are making assumptions--nothing more, albiet assumptions you consider logical and free of error based upon logical deduction--but not scripture. What you've got is still baseless--and a baseless stretch, whereas, I have a basis for my Faith--and a basis everywhere throughout scripture--where should I start to explain myself with examples there are so many! *The very fact that healing does, indeed, occur is proof--as is the very Faith that I possess. My Faith exists--it is the evidence of things hoped for/unseen.

Again, please forgive me if my excitment over this Truth has angered you--that was not my intent.

Here is Word does it not say that we are under a better covenant than the old? In the Old healing and health was provided for providing we met the conditions, Exodus 15:26 and Deut Chapter 28, so are you saying that even though we have a better covanent that we are walking with less?

 

[FrankFaith]

Here is Word does it not say that we are under a better covenant than the old? In the Old healing and health was provided for providing we met the conditions, Exodus 15:26 and Deut Chapter 28, so are you saying that even though we have a better covanent that we are walking with less?

I don't know what you're getting at, but I know I'm not walking with less--I'm whole, bro! --and I don't have to purchase any animals to sacrifice when I mess up!

 

[psalms 91]

I don't know what you're getting at, but I know I'm not walking with less--I'm whole, bro! --and I don't have to purchase any animals to sacrifice when I mess up!

Walked around that one so let me put it this way, if the old covenant contained provisions for health and healing and we are walking with a better covenant how can it not include health and healing? Or are we walking with less than the old covenant?