Was Matthew mistaken??

[From Glory to Glory]

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.

Once again, I reference the following verses:

James 5:14-15: "14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."

Is this explicit enough for you? How could it be any clearer? Or, do you believe that God's will IS healing for His children, but you just have a hard time believing that it was part of the redemptive work of Christ? If that is the case, even though I disagree with you, we could at least agree that God's will is always to heal. If you do not believe that at all, then how do you explain those verses in James?

 

[FrankFaith]

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?

You're preachin' to the choir, bro! I agree--better Covenant--healing still included!

...just another thing that the oppostion will not infer! They'll stretch supposition to the max but won't infer Truth. So very sad.

 

[franky67]

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.

Jesus was sent to the Jews to confirm the everlasting covenant, Rom. 15:8, as such He began to confirm that covenant at the beginning of His ministry, He said in the synagogue when He healed the woman bent over for 18 years, He said shouldn't this DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM be free, in other words she was intitled to healing by the conditions of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Later Jesus referred to healing as the children's bread when the samaritan woman asked Jesus to heal her daughter.

At the last supper, Jesus said the bread was His body, broken for them. Jesus said to remember both the body and the blood.

Matthew knew Jesus was fulfilling the covenant when Jesus did the things which made Matthew remember Isaiah's prophesy.

Luke 1:72, John the baptist's father Zacharias said Jesus was sent because God remembered His Holy covenant,

Luke 1:54,55 Mary says about the same thing, referring to the covenant by saying " in remembrance of His mercy as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his offspring forever."

Salvation in all the Old testament meant complete , spirit, mind, and body.

franky

 

[Strong in Him]

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?

When I take the bread and wine at communion, I give thanks to God that he loved me so much that he sent Jesus to die on the cross for my sin, so that I could come into the presence of a Holy God.

 

[franky67]

When I take the bread and wine at communion, I give thanks to God that he loved me so much that he sent Jesus to die on the cross for my sin, so that I could come into the presence of a Holy God.

But why are there two elemants ?

 

[TreeOfLife]

OK, I think I get it.


If Jesus only did what He saw the Father doing, and everything that Jesus did pleased the Father, isn't it safe to say that it is God's will to heal because that's what Jesus did?

Also, I don't remember even one instance of Jesus making anyone sick. Ever.

He did curse the fig tree, but hey, I don't like fig trees either!

 

[TreeOfLife]

Oh man! All that and I think I put this on the wrong thread!

Sorry.

 

[Strong in Him]

Once again, I reference the following verses:

James 5:14-15: "14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven."

Is this explicit enough for you? How could it be any clearer? Or, do you believe that God's will IS healing for His children, but you just have a hard time believing that it was part of the redemptive work of Christ? If that is the case, even though I disagree with you, we could at least agree that God's will is always to heal. If you do not believe that at all, then how do you explain those verses in James?

If what others are saying is correct, that verse should read "if any of you is sick let him call the ministers of the church to hold a communion service and given plain teaching that by remembering the Lord's death you can receive physical healing too."

I have never said that healing is not for today.

 

[KingZzub]

Healing is for today AND it is for all.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[From Glory to Glory]

If what others are saying is correct, that verse should read "if any of you is sick let him call the ministers of the church to hold a communion service and given plain teaching that by remembering the Lord's death you can receive physical healing too."

I have never said that healing is not for today.

I understand that, but do you believe it is for ALL who come to Him? I am honestly asking you because I honestly don't know what you believe.

There is more than one way for people to be healed. These verses outline the process of the prayer of faith. Communion is another way to be healed, which has worked for me. Also, any believer, at any time, can appropriate their healing through their own prayer of faith. Also, some healings take place through the gift of healings. Many people combine them and exercise more than one way at a time. Why does healing have to take place the same way, every time? Jesus certainly did not do it the same way every time. Our loving Father has provided many ways to be healed. The main thing is that faith is an important element in each way. For instance, when I take communion, I am remembering and recognizing the price that was paid for my healing, and I am receiving it and believing that healing is taking place as I partake of the elements. Without faith in His body broken for ours, healing would most likely not take place, no matter how many times I took communion. It is the same with every other method of healing--it is really faith, either our own, or the faith of others, that allows us to receive what God has provided for us--just like any other provision He has for us. He operates through our faith--just like the forgiveness of our sins. If I don't trust Him as my Savior, I will not be saved.

 

[fwGod]

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.

that kind of reasoning doesnt fit with other scripture that says that God is no respecter of persons.
why should just the people that Jesus personally ministered to get healing/ed and not everybody else who ever after came to Him by way of the cross?

and "then He wasnt fulfilling it on the cross".. (i repeated that so there'd be no doubt what i was refering to).. totally ignores the fact that isa53 describes Jesus on the cross. so how can the prophesied event of something yet future be somehow different in purpose at the actual event of Jesus 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.

what's wrong with the reader remembering and backtracking to when matt. did use the verse in chapter 8? or.. if they dont think of that.. some Bible versions actually have reference helps.

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.

too much redundency and some jews would think that their intelligence was being insulted.

the phrase is.. Jesus said, "this is my body which was broken for you.." now why didnt matt say 'Jesus means healing of sickness/disease'?

the jews understood .. and his audience was jewish people.. the passover which was a lamb given for the healing of their bodies.

and Jesus at the communion supper was replacing the lamb.. for The Lamb of God.
john the baptist knew it.

so the bread represents His body.
for what purpose?
well. what does a sick body need?

Paul said that when Jesus hung on the cross, He was made a curse for us. that is speaking of 'the curse of the law' which is written out in detail in deuteronomy28 and its full of physical ailments, problems, disorders, etc.

so why should Jesus go through such a curse and it not be for the healing of our bodies?

and Paul said in the taking of communion, that if the body is not worthily recognized then those people "sleep" or die unnecessarily.
why do they die?
because they dont take their healing by the broken body of Jesus.

it all connects together.

><>

 

[psalms 91]

a very well thought out post, excellent