Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 2 Corinthians 1:4 who comforts us in all our affliction so that we will be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 2 Corinthians 1:4 who comforts and encourages us in every trouble so that we will be able to comfort and encourage those who are in any kind of trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. |
Bible Question: Why is there such opposition God wanting to heal His people? I'm baffeled at the number of people who believe this. |
Bible Answer: (Con't Pt. 3) The implication is that when we think of God, and when we are considering a particular instance of illness, we must begin with the biblically informed assumption that it is God’s will to heal. We must think of healing as God’s normal desire rather than the rare exception. Since, as we have seen, God has also revealed himself previously to Moses as "I am whom I am" – that is, one who is eternal, self-existent, and immutable— if his nature was to heal then, it is his nature to heal now. To say that his nature is to heal physical bodies then, and to heal spiritual lives now is to avoid the issue, and to betray God’s revelation on his own nature. God is not obligated to re-state his name and apply it to physical healing again if there is no indication that he has changed. What he has said stands forever. Anyone who says that God is now either not disposed to heal, or not disposed to heal physical bodies, is essentially challenging God’s truthfulness and his immutability – an impious charge, and one that is contrary to biblical and experiential evidence. Also, any doctrine that seems to contradict God’s healing nature must be challenged, and we will see that most likely it has either been stated wrongly, or that the doctrine is mistaken, or that it does not contradict God’s healing nature when examined closely. Nevertheless, any teaching that insinuates an unwillingness on God’s part to heal has to be questioned harshly before being accepted, if at all. It is due to a lack of information and understanding concerning this aspect of God’s nature that many contemporary Christians do precisely the opposite, in that they readily welcome teachings that are against God’s healing grace, but challenge and question teachings that promotes the same. Since God’s very nature is to heal us, our disposition should be to see him as healer, not the one who afflicts (Job 37:23). Most Christians take the name of God’s enemy seriously— his name is "Satan," meaning "the adversary," and also the "devil," meaning "the accuser, the slanderer." Due to the biblical revelation concerning Satan’s names and the descriptions of his nature (John 8:44), Christians rightly believe that it is his nature to accuse, deceive, and to be against every person, object, or value that God favors. He is the adversary of God, and he accuses God’s people "day and night" (Revelation 12:10). If we acknowledge that the Bible reveals something of Satan’s nature through his names, how much more should we take its revelation seriously when it teaches us about the nature of God through his names? We must take God’s names seriously, and not challenge or question what he has revealed as his nature, but accept that he is disposed to heal, and not to afflict. It is the "thief" who comes to "to steal and kill and destroy," but Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, has come so that we "may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10). God bless, praying that this information has been helpful. |