Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80886 | ||
"However, Jesus did not 'suffer' from sickness and desease...until He took ours." What verse says this? "You will also notice when you read this commentary that although Matthew Henry acknowledges that healing is part of the atonement, he 'issues a disclaimer' which had absolutely NO scriptural references to support the disclaimer. This disclaimer , and I agree, instructs the believer to search the scriptures regarding healing." Could you be more specific as to Henry's "disclaimer"? I read nothing at all which suggests that Henry's understanding of Isaiah 53 leaves any room for a promised "physical healing." http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/mhc/MHC23053.HTM Respectfully, I think you are locked into a misunderstanding of the general Christian perspective on sickness. I agree that Paul likely does not have the flu foremost in mind when he is talking about himself being afflicted for the sake of the gospel. However, that is a completely different argument than whether it is God's will that sickness exist or not. You have not made a compelling case at all for the view that all Christians on earth should be physically healthy. Obviously, God allows illness and injury and infirmity in his faithful children, and biblical examples such as Epaphroditus and Timothy demonstrate that lingering illness is not a result of a lack of faith. God can and often does heal, but that act of mercy is neither always promised nor always immediate. The "health-and-wealth gospel" is not a historic Christian doctrine, but rather is a 20th-century phenomenon (unless, of course, you count Christian Science, Unity, and other mind-science cults that started popping up in the 19th-century). In order to even make a case for this teaching, one has to begin with the presumption that it is true before going to Scripture. Then one proceeds to find texts such as 1 Peter 2:24, which contextually have nothing to do with disease, and forces a foreign understanding on them. It is a pernicious doctrine because it denies the sovereignty of God in allowing disease to exist for His glory (Romans 8:28). It also dishonors those who have suffered disease and agony in their service to God. Do you really presume to sit in judgment over pioneering Christian missionaries from ages past who died from malaria, scarlet fever, and the like because they refused to sit at home in comfort and relative safety? Do you really conclude that this doctrine, which was non-existent until the last century, really reflects Christianity? Did God really allow such an important, "MAJOR" element of His gospel to be absent from the church for century upon century until we "enlightened" couch-potato Christians suddenly figured it out? Not terribly likely, in my opinion. You can make all the emotional appeals as you would like, accusing people of "penciling things in" and of denying that Jesus ever healed anyone. When the heat subsides, however, one can step back and look to see that WOF doesn't have very much light at all. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | gracefull | 80895 | ||
Per Matthew Henry's commentary: Healing Is Part of Jesus' Mission (8:17) "The context in Isaiah 53 suggests that the suffering servant's death would heal the nation from its sin (Is 53:4-6, 8-9; compare 1 Pet 2:22-25), a figurative expression frequent in the Prophets (Mt 13:15; Is 6:10; 57:18; Jer 3:22; 6:14; 8:11; 14:19; Hos 14:4). But the broader context of Isaiah shows God's promise for his people's complete wellness in the era of the kingdom (Is 29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6), suggesting secondary nuances of physical healing in 53:4-5 as well. The servant's suffering would, after all, restore to Israel all the benefits lost through sin (compare Ex 15:26; Deut 27-28). Thus Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 to demonstrate that Jesus' mission of healing fulfills the character of the mission of the servant, who at the ultimate cost of his own life would reveal God's concern for a broken humanity. Matthew himself also recognizes that genuine physical healings can illustrate principles of spiritual healing (9:5-7, 12; 13:15). But we should note the correct caution of D. A. Carson (1984:207): "BLOCK - This text and others clearly teach that there is healing in the Atonement; but similarly there is the promise of a resurrection body in the Atonement, even if believers do not inherit it until the Parousia. From the perspectives of the NT writers, the Cross is the basis for all the benefits that accrue to believers; but this does not mean that all such benefits can be secured at the present time on demand, any more than we have the right and power to demand our resurrection bodies. Because the kingdom is present as well as future, God often heals in the present, but what he does not choose to heal now he has promised to heal in the end (Blomberg 1992:145). More practically than simply quoting a few verses that address healing, we should meditate on biblical examples of healing and what we can learn thereby about how God feels about human pain. By doing so we can develop deeper intimacy in our relationship with Jesus, trusting his compassion, which is the basis for every kind of healing he graciously performs." But the broader context of Isaiah shows God's promise for his people's complete wellness in the era of the kingdom (Is 29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6), suggesting secondary nuances of physical healing in 53:4-5 as well. "Complete wellness in the era of the kingdom..." As one reads on to Carlson's notes one finds that although Matthew Henry finds healing an undeniable fact of the atonement...He chooses to speculate on the meaning of 'kingdom'. "The servant's suffering would, after all, restore to Israel all the benefits lost through sin (compare Ex 15:26; Deut 27-28)." "But we should note the correct caution of D. A. Carson (1984:207):" "Because the kingdom is present as well as future, God often heals in the present, but what he does not choose to heal now he has promised to heal in the end." Where is Carson's scriptural basis for this comparison of healing to the ressurection? While I do agree that everyone does not receive healing and that when we get to heaven we will be healed, this fact in no way addresses God's will to heal here in this life, and is in fact an attempt to disallow the fact that Christ paid for healing in the atonement, by implying it was bought only for some in this life and some in the next. "You can make all the emotional appeals as you would like, accusing people of "penciling things in" and of denying that Jesus ever healed anyone." I do not know what you mean by the second half of this statement because I know some in the forum believe in healing to some extent. But the penciled in part in regard to 2 Corinthians means adding sickness and desease where Paul spoke of 'suffering'. I noticed Talib seemed to be going in the same direction. God bless |
||||||
3 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Morant61 | 80901 | ||
Greetings Graceful! Allow me to touch upon 1 Pet. 2:24 with you for a moment. Did the death of Christ atone for all sin? When Christians sin, does Christ have to die all over again? If I remember correctly, you write from an Arminian perspective (as do I). In our belief system, all sin was atoned for on the cross, even the sin of those who do not belief. There is no need for repeated or continuous sacrifices on the part of Christ for His death atoned for all sin. Now, notice that the verb 'you have been healed' is an Aorist tense verb. It refers to completed action in the past, a one time event. This leads to the major problem with viewing this verse as a support text for the belief that God always wills to heal. If this is what 1 Pet. 2:24 is referring to, then Christians should never ever get sick period. Just as their sins were dealt with once and for all on the cross, so also their physical sickeness would have to be healed once and for all. Obviously, this is not true for Christians do get sick. However, the 'healing' here need not refer to physical healing. Notice the context of Is. 53:5: ...He was pierced for our transgressions (sin) ...He was crushed for our iniquities (sin) ...the punishment (for sin) that brought us peace was upon Him ...by His wounds we are healed. Healed from what? Sin! The entire context of Is. 53 deals with our guilt and punishment for sin and how Christ took that upon Himself. So, healing here refers to the spiritual healing that Christ accomplished. This makes perfect sense in 1 Pet. 2:24. That healing was a one time past event, for it refers to the atoning work of Christ on the cross that never needs to be repeated, not future acts of physical healing. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||