Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Peter 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Peter 2:24 He personally carried our sins in His body on the cross [willingly offering Himself on it, as on an altar of sacrifice], so that we might die to sin [becoming immune from the penalty and power of sin] and live for righteousness; for by His wounds you [who believe] have been healed. |
Subject: did Jesus die for our sins or sickness |
Bible Note: Having some spare time, I hope it is okay that I take the opportunity to share some insights supporting the view that physical healing is included in the atonement. I would like to respond (in 2 parts) to certain verses posted by Kalos (ID#160440). Part 1. As I discussed previously (ID#161083), to limit the reference in Isa 53 to spiritual healing only is not just inconsistent with the text, it also would make Matthew’s use of the text erred since he sees Jesus physically healing the sick as fulfillment of Messianic activity. Now the question of whether physical as well as spiritual healing is in the atonement can be answered by determining when in his life Jesus, according to Isaiah, bore our sickness and the chastisement that made him whole, and was bruised for our healing. Was it not at the same moment he was “Smitten and afflicted by God,” when he was “wounded because of our sins, crushed because of our "iniquities,” and “the Lord visited on him the guilt of us all” (cf. Tanakh)? Was not that moment at the Cross? At the Cross, Isaiah prophesied that he was punished for “our sins” and “our sickness” (v.4a; 5a, Tanakh). If "transgressions" and "iniquities" set the context for spiritual healing, then “disease” (v.3b; 10a), and “sickness” (v.4a) should also set the context, which would, therefore, suggest both spiritual and physical healing is considered. Again, this is not to say that healing is guaranteed (and neither do I mean that a person will necessarily, although possible, never be sick all throughout his life). Even forgiveness is not guaranteed or automatic just because Jesus Christ died on the Cross for sinners and neither for a believer who sins refusing to repent (Matt 6:15; 19:35). However, physical healing for the sick, like forgiveness, is provided. As I see it, in Timothy’s case, the “sickness” concerned his diet; a change in diet was the reason for his stomach having problems. Once Timothy followed Paul’s advise, it is assumed in the text, he would be cured. Therefore, this verse cannot be used to support the idea that God intends some to be sick. Regarding Trophimus, even if admitting the apostle was not able to secure a healing for him, should that one occasion in itself nullify the many verses that say God desires and promises, can and does heal and that such healing is provided in the atonement as Isaiah 53 suggests? Epaphroditus, true was sick, but he was healed as v.27 suggests: “…God had mercy on him…I sent him…” Whether or not he was healed by Paul’s hand is irrelevant. The fact is, Epaphroditus was healed. Should we assume that the Psalmist, who declared, “[God] heals all your diseases” (Psa 103:3), was not inspired but rather mistaken? Job, it is true, was sick but God healed him completely. In any case, is there the suggestion that Job’s case is, rather than unique, the same as every believer who suffers? I do not think it is; Job is the exception to the rule. |