Remitted on the Cross or not?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by pelathais

That's always been a tough one for me. It seems to equate salvation with healing. Yet, even in Scripture believers were ill. When Timothy suffered some sort of stomach ailment Paul didn't tell him, "By His stripes you and your stomach are healed!"

Paul said, "... use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. ..."

What about the stripes?

The trajectory of Isaiah seems to be speaking about healing us from the disease of sin... that is, healing our souls. It does not seem to have in view physical healing. However, we find Isaiah quoted in Mt 8 that is says Jesus fulfilled prophecy by healing people.

We are healed of sin, yet we are still dying from sin. Our healing is complete body, soul and spirit, but is not yet realized. Sometimes we get a glimpse of the future glory, a "tasting and seeing" of how good the future redemption will be, but not one person has figured out how to be immortal yet. Our victory is in the resurrection, just as His victory is in the resurrection.

What is clear about NT writers is that they exercised great authority in how they applied scripture -- authority that is frankly dangerous if all of us assume that same authority. John MacArthur makes one example:

When you do find New Testament writers quoting the Old Testament, there often is a significant variation. Very often, there is a significant variation. For example, “Out of Egypt have I called my son.” It says that when Jesus came out of Egypt after having been taken there to avoid death from Herod. The prophecy was, “This is that which was written by the prophet, “Out of Egypt, how I called my son.” Well, there’s no way, in reading the prophecy in the Old Testament you would ever conclude that the comment there, referring to the exodus of Israel out of Egypt, had anything to do with a Messiah coming hundreds of years later who would be taken out of Egypt and brought back to the land of Israel. So, the New Testament writers do exercise inspired authority over the interpretation and application. I think the truth was inherent in the Old Testament text. I think the intention of God was there, but I don’t think there would be any way to understand the fullness of that intention without what the New Testament says. You would never know, “Out of Egypt have I called my Son,” was a reference to the Messiah, until that’s what happened, and then, you say, “wow, there it was!” But, the Old Testament writer might be looking at that in the terms of 1 Peter searching to see what it was really meaning because he had no way to understand that.

So, when you come to Isaiah 53, and you read, “He took our infirmities, and He bore our sicknesses,” we understand that the context of Isaiah 53 is talking about our sins, our iniquities because the rest of the verses all refer to that. But, when you get to the New Testament, and Jesus begins to do His healing ministry, you have previews of coming attractions in that, because now the text and all the while was intended to mean that, but now the text is expanded in its interpretation to cover not only our sins, but our physical healing.

I hasten to add, you believe that in the atonement you receive physical healing. We all do. It’s not now that we receive that. It’s at our glorification. And, what Jesus was demonstrating in His miracle power was that He not only had power over the souls of men, He had power over the bodies of men. And, that He is the one who can not only give eternal life to the soul, but He can give eternal life to the body, as demonstrated by His power over all that deforms and debilitates and destroys the physical.

This is where I disagree with much of Pentecost, including UPCI, AoG, etc. I do not believe our physical healing in this life is in the atonement -- even while I still believe we can have physical healing in this life, if the Lord wills, and we should still pray and ask. But to make that part of the atonement has never made full sense to me. It is not necessary or needed. Healing has been part of God's people, as the Lord has chosen, throughout the Story. If anything... the access of all believers to be used in the charismata, gifts of healing --- that may be the only evidence that causes me to reconsider the significance of the atonement. Even then, it's not healing that is enabled, it's gifts of healing included to all the Body.

[Adino]

Originally Posted by Socialite

The trajectory of Isaiah seems to be speaking about healing us from the disease of sin... that is, healing our souls....

I agree. Notice the following passages:

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

To understand with the heart and 'convert' in Isaiah 6:10 meant to 'return to God in faith' or to 'repent.' To "be healed” meant to be 'made whole' or to have one's conscience 'purged from sin.' It meant to experience forgiveness.

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert (i.e., repent), and be healed (i.e., experience forgiveness).

Those who repented would experience forgiveness.

Mark 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

See also Matthew 13:15; John 12:37-40; and Acts 28:23-28.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Adino

I agree. Notice the following passages:

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

To understand with the heart and 'convert' in Isaiah 6:10 meant to 'return to God in faith' or to 'repent.' To "be healed” meant to be 'made whole' or to have one's conscience 'purged from sin.' It meant to experience forgiveness.

Isaiah 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert (i.e., repent), and be healed (i.e., experience forgiveness).

Those who repented would experience forgiveness.

Mark 4:11-12 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

See also Matthew 13:15; John 12:37-40; and Acts 28:23-28.

That helps me understand why Jesus would heal someone physically, even while telling them that their sins were forgiven.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That helps me understand why Jesus would heal someone physically, even while telling them that their sins were forgiven.

The ministry of healing that Jesus conducted during that brief three and a half year period of time is remarkably different than the ministry of any other human being in history. I think we've seen the primary component identified here: Jesus could forgive sins.

Many have argued, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever..." (Hebrews 13:8). Yes, that's true. But we are not the same person as Jesus Christ. I am well aware of the many passages that can be taken to mean things like John 14:12; but I have yet to see any of the enthusiastic advocates of this line of thinking actually do any work that is even comparable to the least of the works of Jesus Christ, let alone "greater." I think that we may be missing something important in our understanding of John 14:12 as a result.

It occurs to me that some may want to add that Jesus said to his disciples, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23). However, I don't think this passage involved the idea of the disciples actually forgiving sins in lieu of the Lord's own forgiveness as some practice the confessional.

I believe that there is healing provided for in the atonement. However, I think that we must expend a bit more patience while we await that great and final work of healing (Revelation 22:2).

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The ministry of healing that Jesus conducted during that brief three and a half year period of time is remarkably different than the ministry of any other human being in history. I think we've seen the primary component identified here: Jesus could forgive sins.

Many have argued, "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever..." (Hebrews 13:8). Yes, that's true. But we are not the same person as Jesus Christ. I am well aware of the many passages that can be taken to mean things like John 14:12; but I have yet to see any of the enthusiastic advocates of this line of thinking actually do any work that is even comparable to the least of the works of Jesus Christ, let alone "greater." I think that we may be missing something important in our understanding of John 14:12 as a result.

It occurs to me that some may want to add that Jesus said to his disciples, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (John 20:23). However, I don't think this passage involved the idea of the disciples actually forgiving sins in lieu of the Lord's own forgiveness as some practice the confessional.

I believe that there is healing provided for in the atonement. However, I think that we must expend a bit more patience while we await that great and final work of healing (Revelation 22:2).

What was the purpose/need? Why was bloodshed needed, God's Son needed for us to experience physical healing in this life?

(My struggle with "healing in the atonement")

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

What was the purpose/need? Why was bloodshed needed, God's Son needed for us to experience physical healing in this life?

(My struggle with "healing in the atonement")

I also struggle with "healing in the atonement" - at least as it is applied frequently in the "here and now." I see the healing coming at the time of the eschaton, the last thing.

The atonement is intended to allow us to have a place with God in eternity and to reopen the path to the Tree of Life that had been closed by sin. The healings in the days of the ministry of Jesus Christ were a sort of "foretaste" of the eternal healing that we shall receive. The healings ministered to us by the gifts of the Spirit (both before and after the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ) are another "foretaste" - however, I would argue that they are not the same as the healings performed by Jesus Christ Himself.

I see the "purpose/need" for "healing in the atonement" in the grander scheme of eternal life. I do not associate physical healing with the salvation from sin that we experience today.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong about this. I have a standing invitation for anyone to meet me at a Children's Hospital anywhere in North America so that they can show me that I'm wrong. No takers, so far.