Featured why physical healing provided For In Cross of Christ?

Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong [II Corinthians 12:7-10].

Relevant points:
1. This-- whatever it was specifically-- was physical; "in the flesh."

2. It was "of Satan."

3. Even though it was of Satan, God refused to take it away.

4. While God will ultimately destroy Satan and his works, He still uses them to keep a person from exalting himself.

5. For Paul, it was "3 strikes and the idea was out." He didn't continue to chase physical deliverance when God had said no. Instead, he became "content" to face all kinds of problems because Christ is stronger where he (Paul) is weaker.

Now, was Paul wrong to take this attitude of accepting his distresses, physical and otherwise, or did he go into some deep depression about how faithless he must be since he was not healed?

 

I just showed you how they were used!

 

What was Paul's "thorn"? Notice that Paul tells us exactly what it was: It was a "messenger of Satan" (2 Corinthians 12:7). Paul didn't use a Greek word for sickness or disease in this verse, but instead he specifically used the Greek word for "angel," and he specifically said that it was a demonic angel.

 

And "it" was "in the flesh." But even if we disagree on that point, God still refused to take it away, as Paul plead 3 times. Thus, His answer for us to be free of "thorns" of any type may be No.

 

No you didn't. You showed me your personal misinterpretation of how they were used.

I will give you a hint. In scripture the word "heal" is also a reference to spiritual healing it does not have to mean physical and in this case does not. But when you miuse word studies to prove your presupposition then this is the kind of thing you get.

 

I showed scripture showing that Sozo can be interpreted both ways depending on context!

 

But...Paul did not ask God to heal him, but instead Paul asked God to take away (aphistemi, literally, "that it might depart from me") the "thorn." There's a big difference. This is the same Greek word which is used in Acts 12:10 when an angel "departed" from Peter, and in all of the 15 other occurrences of this Greek word in the New Testament it's never used in reference to sickness or healing (see Luke 2:37, 4:13, 8:13, 13:27, Acts 5:37, 38, 15:38, 19:9, 22:29, 1 Timothy 4:1, 6:5, 2 Timothy 2:19, and Hebrews 3:12). Paul wasn't asking for a sickness to be healed, but instead he was asking God to take away this demonic harassment.

 

Which does nothing to prove your point. Everyone on this board knows they can be sued both ways. But that in and of itself does not prove that the cross means a promise of physical healing this side of heaven.

 

Yak all you want to. It was a "thorn in the flesh." Regardless, it shows we can't command God.

 

James 5:15 is a classic example of Christ's saving power manifesting in our lives both as healing and forgiveness of sins.

"The prayer of faith shall save (sozo) the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven."

Salvation doesn't only mean forgiveness of sins, but includes healing of the body, deliverance and much more! Forgiveness of sins is the centerpiece so to speak and I am not trying to minimizing it at all. Christ died to purchase our redemption from sin, He also freed us from sickness, depression and poverty.

So what does Psalm 103:1-3 say to you?

 

Who said anything about commanding God? My first post rebuked that!

 

as to what you are saying here. This verse is about prayer not about atonement on the cross.

That is the charismatic false claim that leads to the very evil prosperity gospel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTc_FoELt8s

But you have yet to back up this claim with anything remotely close.

It says God heals, what it does not say is healing is guaranteed because of the work of the cross this side of heaven.

 

There's no question that Isaiah 53 speaks of crucifixion, and thus "by his stripes we are healed." One might conclude that the crucifixion fulfills a prophecy of physical healing in the atonement if Matthew did not tell us otherwise in Matthew 8.

There he specifically said Jesus took the sicknesses and infirmities on Himself during his life. Therefore, the healing by his stripes cannot be a fulfillment of prophecy regarding physical healing. The prophecy fulfillment of Matthew 8 took place at a different time from the healing by his stripes.

The healing by his stripes must, therefore, refer to spiritual healing--which is perfectly consistent with every other passage which speaks of Jesus purpose in coming to this earth. Which is, to save his people from their sins. Jesus took those sins upon himself on the cross. He took the sicknesses on himself during his life.

 

So are you also saying that salvation is not a guarantee?
His work of the cross was for salvation, right?
So how do you reconcile that sozo describes salvation..with healing being a part of that salvation?
I agree that some are not healed this side of heaven (my mother being one of them)! But we can not blame God! He paid for it all!
We are going to die physically!
As I posted earlier we are going to get sick, injure ourselves etc. But that does not mean it is God's will!

 

According to that argument, Isaiah's prophecy of physical healing was fulfilled before the cross.

Isaiah specifically said that Jesus will be stricken and smitten. The Hebrew words for "stricken" and "smitten" mean "violently, to strike" and "give [wounds]...(give) stripes" respectively, according to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary. The vicious whipping that Jesus received on His back (His "stripes") certainly fulfills this part of the prophecy. Isaiah also said that Jesus will bring peace (i.e. peace with God) and healing to us.

Consider that if the salvation parts of Isaiah's prophecy apply to us (and certainly they do) then the healing parts of Isaiah's prophecy apply to us also.

 

And the reason I hold that the prophecy of physical healing was fulfilled before the cross is that Matthew 8:17 says so. It specifically describes those healing in Capernauum as the fulfillment of that part of Isaiah 53 dealing with sickness and infirmities. I don't see much wiggle room here.

 

We are all going to be sick and we are all going to die! But that was not God's plan from the beginning or now!
Man failed not God! It is not God's will for us to be sick!

Most people do not believe that God heals today! So wouldn't they be in unbelief concerning this?

 

Lets look at healing from Peter...

1 Peter 2:24: "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed."

In the above verse, Peter was paraphrasing Isaiah 53:4-5. Notice that both Peter and Isaiah mentioned that Jesus purchased our salvation as well as our healing in the Atonement.

In the above verse, people sometimes assume that Peter meant, "by His death you have been spiritually healed [saved]." But is that really what he meant?

When Peter used the word "wounds" in 1 Peter 2:24, he used the Greek word molops. Strong's Greek Dictionary says that molops means "blow-mark:--stripe." When Isaiah used the word "wounds" (above), the Hebrew word is chabbuwrah. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary says that chabbuwrah means "blueness, bruise, hurt, stripe, wound." In the Greek and in the Hebrew, these words specifically mean "wound" or "stripe mark." Peter and Isaiah were not talking about Jesus' death, but instead they were specifically talking about His wounds (His "stripes").