I am saying that we are not to exalt circumstances and experiences over truth. It is without a doubt not God's will for us to be sick. It violates Jesus work here on the earth at the cross.
Why aren't all healed?...why aren't all saved when they hear the gospel?..the answer is most likely in there. We see through a glass darkly and when we see Him we will know why. Still Jesus is very plain in His representation of the nature of the Father and He did come to do His will.
Jesus is perfect theology. Jesus came and revealed the will of the Father on this earth. I know this conflicts with what our experiences tell us but it does not negate the truth of Christ revealing the will of the Father. We are elevating circumstances and experiences over truth.
I am quite aware of the Greek and how the words are used in the verses I quoted. But you, sadly, are so caught up in the Word Faith nonsense, your theology is so rigid, and totally leaves out the parts of the Bible that you don't like. And twists parts that you do like.
Suffering can certainly be sickness. It is an affliction. If I am not afflicted by RA, then I will eat my hat! In fact, the real problem goes with your shallow doctrine goes back to the poor use of Isa. 53.
"
It is without a doubt not God's will for us to be sick."
This is the beginning and foundation of your incredibly bad doctrine. It is wrong because of the following reasons:
1. some poor flat-out wrong interpretations of key texts
2. selective use of texts
3. failure to have a wholistic biblical view of things, esp. a failure to understand the essential framework of the New Testament writers.
The aim of all biblical interpretation is the "plain meaning" of the text. What is meant by this is the
original meaning, that which the author
plainly intended and and the original readers
plainly understood.
Although the Bible is a book for all seasons, and speaks out of the past directly to our present situation, it does so because it
first spoke to them in their situation. Therefore the first task of interpretation is
not to find out what it says to us, but to find out what it originally said to them. God's Word to us is not a new word, never before discovered; rather it must be the same word that He originally spoke back then and there. And this is the only legitimate Word to be heard in Scripture.
All of this must be insisted upon because the basic biblical failure of the "perfect health" evangelists is the interpretation of their primary texts. They simply fail to do adequate
exegesis, which has to do with determining the meaning of a text in its original context.
Some of the proof texts that Word Faith evangelists use when referring to healing include esp. Isa. 53:4 (quoted in Matt. 8:17) and Isa. 53:5, (quoted in 1 Peter 2:24)
From these verses, and others which I will not get into here, it is highly questionable as to whether the Bible teaches that healing is provided for in the atonement.
In fact the AoG state clearly that although healing can be "provided for" in the atonement,
because the atonement brought release from the consequences of sin; nonetheless, since "we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies" suffering and death (and the sickness that often brings death!) are still our lot until the final resurrection.
There are many texts which tell us that sin has been overcome by Christ's death and resurrection, in fact, there is NO text that explicitly says the same about healing in the Bible, even Isa. 53, and it's NT citations as noted above.
Matthew's use of Isa. 53:4 does not even refer to the cross, rather he clearly sees the text as being fulfilled in Jesus' earthly ministry. This is made certain by both the context and by his choice of Greek verbs in his own unique translation of the Hebrew. (
ἔλαβεν elaben= he took; ἐβάστασεν ebastasen = he removed)
The citation of Isa. 53:5 in 1 Peter, on the other hand does not refer to physical healing. The usage here is metaphorical, plain and simple. In a context in which slaves are urged to submit to their evil masters - even if it means suffering for it - Peter appeals to the example of Christ, which Christian slaves are to follow. This special appeal to Christ, beginning in verse 21, is filled with allusions to and citations of Isaiah 53, all of which refer to Christ having suffered unjustly as the source of the slave's redemption from sin.
Thus Peter says, "He himself bore our sins, ... that we might die to sin. He then goes on: "By his wounds you have been healed (Isa. 53:5)
for you were as sheep going astray. (53:6) The allusions to verses 5 & 6, joined by
for and referring to "sheep going astray," plus the change to the past tense, all make it abundantly clear that "healing" here is a metaphor for being restored to health from the sickness of their sins. Such a a metaphorical usage would be natural for Peter, since sin as "wound," "injury" or "sickness" and the "healing" of such "sickness" are thorough going images in the OT see - 2 Chronciles 714; Psalm :2; Isaiah 1:5-6; Jeremiah 30:12-13; Nahum 3:10.
Furthermore,the OT citations in 1 Peter tend rather closely to follow the Septuagint even when this translation differs from the Hebrew. In fact, the LXX had already translated Isa. 53:4 metaphorically ("He himself bore our sins" rather than "our sickness")
The final points are that Matthew clearly saw Isa. 53:4 as referring to physical healing, BUT as part of the Messiah's ministry, not the atonement. Peter saw the "healing" in Isa. 53: as being metaphorical and thus referring to the healing of our sin sickness. Thus, neither NT references sees the healing of our sin as referring to physical healing in the atonement.
As for Isaiah, what did he himself intend? Almost certainly the first reference is metaphorical, as the Septuagint, the Targums and Peter all recognize - Israel was diseased; she was grievously wounded for her sins (Isa. 1:6-7). Isaiah 53 in context refers to the healing of the wounds and disease of sin.
The Bible therefore does NOT explicitly teach that healing is provided for in the atonement, although God can and does heal. I won't get into the egarious claims of the Health and Wealh heresy that it is never God's will to be sick, as you so erroneously claim, or that God must heal when asked, or that it is part of the price Jesus paid on Calvary which is patently false.
By the way, I got this from the pamphlet "The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels" by Gordon D. Fee. He is a premier scholar of the New Testment, and also a Pentecostal. He is not against healing, but he does believe that there is sickness in this world, and while God heals, it is not provided for in the atonement, as so many including you Grace777 have misquoted (or shall I say, misunderstood) so many times. I would urge you to order this pamphlet or some of his other writings.
.....