|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 9, 2015 19:43:02 GMT -6
I'd like to read a serious treatment by someone who believes that 1 Peter 2:24 is a reference to physical healing. Any good, accessible sources that you'd recommend? Matthew 8:16-17 and Isaiah 53:4-5 are key verses on this topic. I read one author recently who argued that the word "rapha" ("you are HEALED") in Is. 53:5 is always used of physical healing in the Bible, which is completely inaccurate. I'd love to hear any and all thoughts you have on this topic. I'm researching this verse in detail and want to unpack it thoroughly. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Apr 10, 2015 7:35:43 GMT -6
All the other phrases in the original Isaiah sentence where this phrase is found do not point to physical healing, so why should this one? But also, there is an underlying issue that you might want to address. In what way if any was the physical abuse by man of the body of Jesus before and during the crucifixion connected to the ransom being paid for the sins of the whole world? I have been inclined to think that the payment was made by His suffering of God's wrath directly, without needing man's torture as an instrument of that wrath. I lean towards thinking that the Father predicted and allowed that manmade torture/rejection as a demonstration of mankind's guilt, useful in helping those who are being called to accept Christ's payment as they hopefully self-identify with the guilt of that torture.
"By His stripes we are healed" because our meditation on the rejection He suffered, as evidenced in the scourging, enlightened and convicted us of the part our sins played in that rejection and encouraged us to call out for mercy to heal our guilty souls! Peter, I believe sees the same benefit for believers suffering abuse in the same way Christ did (2:21), and so does Paul (cf. Col. 1:24).
Of course, the "healing" of salvation from sin also includes the ultimate "healing" of our bodies in the resurrection, but that does not appear to be the emphasis of Isaiah or Peter use of "healed". Jesus' use of a previous verse from the same Isaiah passage definitely pointed to His compassion being demonstrated in physical healing during His earthly ministry, but that meaning does not need to be made to color the meaning of "healed" in the later verse.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 11, 2015 9:23:42 GMT -6
Brian, the Hebrew words in Isaiah ("griefs" and "sorrows" in v. 4 & "healed" in v. 5, NKJV) ARE used in contexts of physical healing elsewhere in the OT, and two of the words are directly, prophetically connected to Matthew 8 which is also a context of physical healing & the other one is connected to 1 Peter 2 (which otherwise in my opinion has no clear connection to physical healing). So, clearly physical healing can fairly be argued in connection with Christ whether we find the argument compelling & comprehensive or faulty. Right?
Have you read that some actually think that the physical abuse of Jesus' body was connected to the ransom being paid for the sins of the world or do they simply mean that Jesus' unjust suffering (note the context in 1 Peter 2) culminated in his vicarious death and that his death has an inherent power over physical infirmities? Again, I'm looking for a good source or two & a clear understanding of that position so that I can carefully unpack the argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Apr 11, 2015 20:14:33 GMT -6
The flow of Isaiah's thought in 53:2-5 plus the waw/pronoun combination as a disjunctive at the beginning of verse 5 seems to clearly separate descriptions of Christ's ministry, and Israel's rejection in spite of Christ's compassion, from the description Christ's passion and the benefits of His passion. The words of verse 4 are only connected with Christ's ministry in Matt 8. The words of verse 5 are only connected with Christ's passion in 1Peter 2. The chronological flow of Jesus' life in Is 53 seems obvious with the emphasis of the passion and resurrection starting in verse 5 and continuing through verse 12.
I think most commentators would agree with your summary, connecting the physical wounds with the physical death as being associated with the vicarious ransom being paid for sin. But though I am not being dogmatic about it, but my view is that the payment for sin is connected only, or at least mainly, to the spiritual suffering of a spiritual death under the wrath of God while on the cross. I think Christ's proclamations "Why have you forsaken me" and "It is finished" point to the ransom being completed before Jesus expires from His physical wounds (stripes). And His resurrection from physical death is confirmation for us that the payment was accepted.
I am not denying the importance of Christ laying down His physical life as a shedding of blood sacrifice, I am just wondering how the brutality of man relates in it(stripes). The OT animal sacrifice was not accompanied by any unnecessary suffering or brutality.
|
|
|
|
Post by CowboysDad on Apr 13, 2015 12:03:14 GMT -6
Disjunctives don't necessarily suggest an entirely new event or focus, but can signify a contrast, which is how I would read it here. In this case it would seem that the argument is:
V. 4, He was afflicted by God
V. 5, BUT we are healed
I don't see a clear distinction between v. 4 and vs. 5-12 as you have suggested:
V. 4 speaks of "our griefs" and "our sorrows"
V. 5 adds "our transgressions" and "our iniquities" in similar form
V. 7 doesn't speak about the passion or the resurrection
Here's my best attempt at sorting out the question thus far:
Does 1 Peter 2:24 promise physical healing ...
Arguments in favor:
a) Matthew 8:16b-17, “[Jesus] healed all who were sick that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: ‘He himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses’” (cf. Is. 53:4). The context in Matthew is physical healing, and it refers to the same prophetic passage in Isaiah 53 that 1 Peter 2:24 does;
b) the words griefs and sorrows in Isaiah 53:4 refer to physical sickness;
c) the word healed in Isaiah 53:5 refers to physical healing; and
d) the name of God, Yahweh Ropheka, “the LORD who heals you,” is introduced in Exodus 15:26 in a context of physical healing and reinforced by passages such as Psalm 103:3, “Who heals all your diseases.”
... or spiritual healing?
Arguments in favor:
a) 1 Peter 2:24 makes no direct mention of physical healing, but rather speaks of righteousness & sins (2X);
b) Jesus “bore our sins” (a past tense verb) and thus “you were healed” (also a past tense verb)—it is not a promise of ongoing healing, but you were healed of your sins at the cross;
c) although some living subsequent to the cross have received physical healing (Epaphroditus: Phil. 2:25-30), others have not (Paul: 2 Cor. 12:7-10);
d) Is. 53:5 refers to transgressions and iniquities;
e) although the word griefs in Is. 53:4 often refers to physical sickness, it does not in every case, and in context v. 3 (“A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief [same word]”) can hardly be taken to mean that Jesus was acquainted with sicknesses;
f) although the word sorrows in Is. 53:4 can refer to physical pain, it more commonly refers to mental anguish;
g) although the word healed (from rapha) in Is. 53:5 can refer to physical healing it can also refer to spiritual healing (cf. Ps. 41:4; 147:3) and in context follows transgressions and iniquities—one Bible teacher carelessly argues that rapha “always means either a physical healing or a healer” (Jack Kelley);
h) that Matt. 8:16-17 refers to physical healing is indisputable, but Jesus’ healing ministry was presented as proof that he was capable of spiritual healing (cf. Matt. 9:6, “‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins’—then He said to the paralytic, ‘Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.’”
I welcome feedback,
Daniel
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Apr 19, 2016 9:19:33 GMT -6
I totally agree with this excerpt from Matthew Henry's commentary, and always also! thought it to be this way.
"The fruits of Christ's sufferings are the death of sin, and a new holy life of righteousness; for both which we have an example, and powerful motives, and ability to perform also, from the death and resurrection of Christ. And our justification; Christ was bruised and crucified as a sacrifice for our sins, and by his stripes the diseases of our souls are cured".
|
|
|
|
Post by brianwagner on Apr 19, 2016 9:41:09 GMT -6
I still hold that the disjunctive between Is 53:4 and 53:5 is significant. Physical healing in vs 4 and spiritual healing in vs 5... Maybe I have run into one too many Charismatics, whom when I asked them how they knew they were saved, they responded with a story about how God physically healed them! I also know of commentators who hint, perhaps because of their basing too much on the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2) and extrapolating from that healing to all healings, that if anyone was physically healed, that showed that Jesus also had spiritually saved them. I personally believe that He gives such miracles sometimes, or perhaps often, even to the unbelieving to help them to come to faith. The healing of the blind man in John 9 is such an example. But healing doesn't guarantee faith always exists or will come to fruition in the one physically healed.
|
|
|
|
Post by samuel on Apr 19, 2016 10:49:47 GMT -6
On a light note. I was married to a Charismatic gal for 22 years, after which she could no longer stand the heat, and left. She has now graduated to "name it and Claim it", I fear for the worse.
So Charismatics have very little influence, on my system of theology. One of my son-and-laws once called it a "backyard chicken house religion" because of its strange beliefs. Sometimes I think he was right, especially when all the weird-out laughing starts.
|
|
