Objection: Isaiah 53:4 (Matthew 8:17) Was Fulfilled in Jesus’ Earth Ministry and Cannot Be Claimed as a Promise by Christians Today
For starters, these verses don’t promise anything anyway! They are statements of fact, not promises. A promise would require God to perform additional action to fulfill the promise, whereas these statements of fact declare a situation that you can act on immediately with no additional intervention on God’s part.
Two obvious questions arise from Matthew’s statement: (1) If it Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled, doesn’t it mean that it was fulfilled here and not during Christ’s whipping or crucifixion later? (2) If Christ’s atonement involved suffering for us, how could this have been accomplished in His ministry before that happened? These are perfectly legitimate issues, and the answers may not be immediately obvious. However, once you see the answers, you’ll wonder how you missed them. Some people who say they know Greek claim that the verb tense in Matthew 8:17 proves that the fulfillment was completed at that moment. That claim is also disproved below.
Christ Took Away Sicknesses on the Basis of His Future Atonement
If we object to Christ’s healing of the sick based on His future atonement, we should also object to His forgiving of sins, which was also based on the same future atonement! He stated that He had authority on earth to forgive sins. (See Luke 5:17-26 and its accompanying notes.) In fact, in this passage, He proved His authority to forgive sins by removing one of the curses for sins – physical sickness! Jesus Himself cited the healing as proof of His authority to forgive.
No one can dispute that Jesus forgave sins during His earthly ministry. Given that He could do that (based on His future atonement), He had an equal right to remove part of the punishment for sin (sickness) along with the sin. Sickness is one of the punishments for sin, so when sin is forgiven, sickness should be healed.
Anyone who would argue that God’s chronology was mixed up will have to take this matter up with God Himself, in whose eyes Jesus was “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). That Jesus would succeed in His mission and fulfill His role as our sacrifice was already known to God from the beginning. Because of this, mere symbols of Christ produced physical healings in the Old Testament – even though He had not yet atoned for our sins at Calvary by our time line! In effect, the people who were healed in the Old Testament by symbols of Christ were healed on credit. Since God already foreknew that Christ would die for all and bear mankind’s diseases, Christ’s credit was good!
The bronze serpent and the Passover were symbols of Christ before Christ’s atonement. They brought physical healing to the people, so much so that when they came out of Egypt after the Passover there was not a single feeble person among all the tribes of Israel (Psalm 105:37)! This is probably the most notable mass healing in the history of mankind. Where since then has God simultaneously taken away all feebleness from 2 million or so people? When Hezekiah honored the Passover, God healed the people (2 Chronicles 30:18-20). When anyone looked intently at the bronze serpent that was lifted up on a pole (symbolizing Christ), he was both forgiven and healed (Numbers 21:5-9). Yet this was based on a symbol of Christ’s future atonement. So yes, it was possible to receive healing based on a future atonement! If mere symbols of Christ could bring physical healing, how much more Christ Himself in person – unless you want to suggest that the symbols of Christ were more powerful than the Christ that they symbolized! If you could get healed by the symbols of Christ and not by Christ Himself, God is guilty of false advertising. He would have presented healing in the “promos” but then given only spiritual salvation without physical healing in the real product. God would not do such a thing.
As proved in the discussion Healing and Atonement, when atonement was made for the people in the Old Testament, healing was then available to all for whom atonement was made. Plagues were stopped in their entirety – everyone was healed. Why should the final atonement to end all atonements result in the healing of some and not all? If all could be healed during atonements in the Old Testament, surely Christ’s atonement has made healing available to all in our day.
How Could He “Bear” the Diseases of the Multitude?
Now we have the issue of how Jesus could have borne sickness as a substitute early in His ministry. Actually, He didn’t. That happened only during His whipping and crucifixion. Jesus was never sick until He was laden with the sins of the world. It is impossible to say that Jesus bore anyone’s sickness while He was in Capernaum healing the multitudes. He was not sick Himself at the time, yet He would have had to have been sick Himself if the prophecy was fulfilled in its entirety that night, because that is the clear context of Isaiah’s statements. Isaiah said that He would surely bear our sickness and carry our pains, but we would consider Him smitten of God and afflicted. This is all stated in one sentence. No one considered Jesus to be smitten of God and afflicted that evening in Capernaum. Therefore, the prophecy was not fulfilled in any final sense that night. The healings confirmed that He would bear our sicknesses later when he was smitten of God and afflicted.
A little study into the Hebrew word used for borne in Isaiah 53:4 shows that the word can be used in the sense of taking something away, not just enduring it. In other words, Jesus did not simply bear our sickness Himself. He bore it, and by so doing, took it away from us. He removed our requirement to bear it. Matthew’s quotation in Greek uses the word lambano, which also means to “take” or “receive,” to indicate that He “took” our sicknesses. That is important, because it doesn’t mean that He merely “took away” our sicknesses – He “took” them and had to endure them Himself.
Some objectors say that the “fulfillment” in the original text points to a one-time fulfillment. I agree completely; but the one time was Calvary, not Capernaum.
So how could His healing of all who were sick in Matthew 8 “fulfill” the prophecy that He would personally bear sicknesses for us as our substitute? Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled in Matthew 8:17 because Christ healed all the people on the basis of His atonement that Isaiah had prophesied about. The people were healed because of what Christ would do on the cross. The fact that the people could all be healed was confirmation that Christ’s coming atonement would cover everyone. We’re not talking about going through time warps to make this happen. You can get a better understanding of what Matthew meant when you study his use of the phrase “that it might be fulfilled.” You will find that it does not mean “this is over and done with, fulfilled in its entirety on the spot.” I will now prove this to you by citing every case where Matthew used that particular phrase. Then I will make the point from a Greek perspective.
Matthew’s Use of the Phrase “That It Might Be Fulfilled”
Let’s look at the other places where Matthew used the phrase “that it might be fulfilled” and notice how he uses it. After all, one would expect the same author to be consistent in his use of a certain phrase throughout his book. This will shed light on the phrase and demonstrate what Matthew really said.
We find out that Matthew’s use of the phrase “that it might be fulfilled” speaks of actions that will set up a future fulfillment, or ongoing fulfillment of a prophecy, with only one exception. This phrase does not necessarily mean that a prophecy was at that moment fulfilled once and for all. Matthew’s use of “that it might be fulfilled” applies to cases where a prophecy now must surely be fulfilled in the future, even though it has not technically happened yet. If the prophecy was actually completed, Matthew used the phrase “was fulfilled” instead.
Matthew 1:20-23:
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
At this time, Jesus was not yet born or named, but Matthew uses the phrase that it might be fulfilled because this action set up the future fulfillment of this prophecy. It was not over and done with at the time; it happened in the future.
Matthew 2:14-15:
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Jesus went into Egypt, not out of it, here. Yet Matthew uses the phrase that it might be fulfilled because it assured the future fulfillment of this prophecy. It was not completed at that point.
Matthew 2:16-18:
Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
In this passage, the event fulfilling the prophecy is over. Matthew says then was fulfilled instead of that it might be fulfilled. Matthew was specific enough to distinguish between prophecies that were fulfilled once and for all and those that were not.
Matthew 2:23:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
At this point, no one was fulfilling the prophecy by calling Jesus a Nazarene. But when Jesus moved to a place that would later result in His being called a Nazarene, Matthew uses the phrase that it might be fulfilled.
Matthew 4:13-17:
And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles;
The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up.
From that time, Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Jesus had not started preaching when he moved to Capernaum, but this is the point where Matthew uses the phrase that it might be fulfilled. It had not happened yet, but Jesus’ move to the area set up a certain future fulfillment of the prophecy.
Matthew 12:15-21:
But when Jesus knew it [that the Pharisees were plotting a council against him], he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
And charged them that they should not make him known:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment into victory.
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
Matthew used the phrase that it might be fulfilled to describe a prophecy that was PARTIALLY fulfilled at the time, but which continues to be fulfilled today. (Gentiles are still trusting in His name today, and Gentiles only started trusting in God in significant numbers after Acts 10.) You could not say that this prophecy was finished once and for all at the time described by this verse.
Matthew 13:13-14:
Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Although Matthew uses the words is fulfilled here, even this had an ongoing fulfillment, not a one-time fulfillment. (As we will see later, this prophecy was also consider fulfilled many years later in Acts 28.)
Matthew 13:34-35:
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
Jesus was doing what the prophet said, but He continued to do so. Jesus told other parables after that verse. Matthew used the phrase that it might be fulfilled to describe this situation.
Matthew 21:1-7:
And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
And if any man say ought [anything] unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them.
And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
Matthew used the phrase that it might be fulfilled again to describe a situation that set up the fulfillment of the prophecy but did not complete it. Jesus could not sit on the donkey before it was brought to him! So this was another indication of a prophecy that WOULD be fulfilled, but wasn’t fulfilled yet.
Matthew 26:54-56:
But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.
But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
At this point, there were plenty of scriptures about to be fulfilled, but they were not fulfilled yet. The acts leading up to the crucifixion were done to set up their fulfillment, but they were not fulfilled in any final sense at the moment that Matthew describes.
Matthew 27:7-10:
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in.
Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy [Jeremiah] the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.
This prophecy referred to an act that was fulfilled in its entirety when it was quoted. Notice that Matthew used the phrase was fulfilled instead of the phrase that it might be fulfilled to describe a prophecy that was now fulfilled in its entirety.
Matthew 27:35:
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
In this one case, the phrase that it might be fulfilled refers to an event that seems to have just been fulfilled and it does not have an ongoing fulfillment.
John actually used the same Greek words to describe the fulfillment of prophecy about what kind of death Jesus would die:
John 18:32:
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he would die.
Now consider again Matthew 8:16-17:
When the even [evening] was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
Isaiah’s prophecy stated clearly in its context that Jesus took our infirmities and our sicknesses, not just the ones of the people that evening. The final fulfillment of this had to take place later, as is clear from the context. Almost everyone acknowledges that everything else in Isaiah 53 refers to the Atonement. You cannot justify taking half of one sentence and saying that it refers to one night in Capernaum while the rest of the chapter, and indeed the rest of the same sentence, refer to Christ’s atonement that was accomplished later!
So we see that the use of the phrase that it might be fulfilled does NOT have to refer to a final fulfillment of prophecy.
Jesus’ Ongoing Healing Ministry Disproves a Total Fulfillment in Matthew 8:16-17
The fact that Jesus continued to minister healing to multitudes of sick people shows that this prophecy could not have been fulfilled in its final sense on the evening of Matthew 8:16-17. If it were fulfilled in a final sense, Jesus would not have healed any more sick people after this. Therefore, we must reject the argument that this scripture was finally fulfilled on that day and that it does not apply to what Jesus did for us later. Because the Messiah did take away illnesses, you could think of it as a partial fulfillment of the prophecy, but certainly not a final fulfillment. What changed in Jesus’ ministry that night? Nothing, as far as we can see. He continued to have times when He “healed them all.” If this prophecy was totally fulfilled that night, something would have had to be different from then on. But that isn’t the case.
In Acts, we see that Jesus continued to remove diseases from people through His Church; His acts in the gospels were only what He began to do and teach (Acts 1:1-2).
Jesus Did Not Get Sick at Capernaum
Isaiah said that Jesus bore our sicknesses and carried our pains, but it is clear that Jesus did not get sick or experience pain that evening in Capernaum. This also proves that what happened that night could not have been considered a final fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, as Jesus had not yet been punished for our sins, which was the only time when He experienced sickness or pain in His own body. He did not “take away” sicknesses in Capernaum by transferring those sicknesses to Himself, which is strictly what Isaiah prophesied. This fact alone is sufficient proof that Jesus was healing on the basis of what He was going to do. The complete fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy would require that He take on sicknesses in His own body.
This is further underscored by the Greek words that Matthew used for took and bare. The Greek word translated took is lambano, which indeed means to take or receive. Indeed, it is the same word used in Mark 11:24 where Jesus told us to believe that we receive when we pray. The Greek word translated bore is bastazo, which indeed means to bear or carry. Matthew and Isaiah are in complete agreement on this matter. Thus, the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy requires that Jesus actually took and bore our diseases, suffering them Himself, which He did not do at Capernaum.
Multiple Fulfillments of Prophecy
Although I would contend that Matthew 8:17 is a confirmation of Calvary, there is another aspect we can consider for those who want to think that Isaiah 53:4 was fulfilled that night in Capernaum. Many Scriptures have a dual fulfillment. They are fulfilled in a partial sense at one time and in a more complete sense later. Even prophecies that are stated to be fulfilled at a certain time can still have application past that point! This is no speculative argument, but one that I will prove from Scripture.
Hosea 11:1 says that God called His son out of Egypt, and in the context, He is obviously talking about Israel. So this was already fulfilled and was history, and not prophecy, except that Matthew 2:14-15 (cited above) says that Jesus’ stay in Egypt fulfilled this prophecy. So this was something that was already done but also something that was going to happen.
Isaiah 6:9-10 says: “And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, and perceive not. 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.” In Matthew 13:14, Matthew said that the people’s inability to hear and understand meant that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled. (This passage is quoted above.) However, John 12:40 also quotes this prophecy as being fulfilled, and it seems obvious that this prophecy had an ongoing fulfillment during Jesus’ ministry. Then at almost the very end of the book of Acts, Paul says this (Acts 28:25-27): “Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esiais [Isaiah] the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” This proves that a prophecy in Isaiah that Matthew said was fulfilled could continue to be fulfilled after that point.
Matthew 13:34-35, quoted above, says Jesus spoke in parables that a prophecy might be fulfilled. Yet He continued to fulfill that prophecy by speaking in parables after that point.
Matthew 12:15-21, also quoted above, indicates that “in His name shall the Gentiles trust” had a minor fulfillment during Jesus’ earth ministry when a few Gentiles believed Him, but there is surely a more complete and ongoing fulfillment in this day as millions upon millions of Gentiles put their trust in Jesus Christ. It was not “completed” in Matthew 12!
Joel prophesied that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh. Peter said in Acts 2 that the apparent drunkenness and supernatural linguistic ability of the apostles was what was spoken by the prophet Joel. However, there is no question that God continues to baptize with His Spirit today, especially because Peter said that this promise was for all believers in Acts 2:39. Of course, Jesus continued to baptize with the Holy Spirit throughout the book of Acts and He continues to do so today.
Psalm 22 may well have described David’s condition at the time, but any serious student of Scripture realizes that this psalm was also a prophetic foretelling of Christ’s sufferings at Calvary.
Jesus quoted Isaiah’s prophecy concerning Himself in Luke 4:18-19, but can anyone doubt that Jesus continues to heal the brokenhearted and set at liberty those who are bruised today? Yet Luke 4:21 says, “And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” If we use similar logic to this objection, Jesus was only anointed on that day, which is obviously not true. Although that day witnessed a fulfillment of this prophecy, the fulfillment was obviously ongoing. In fact, this prophecy is still being fulfilled today through His Body, the Church.
In light of these verses, which I do not claim to be a complete list of dual-fulfillment or continuing-fulfillment prophecies, it is not biblically accurate to claim that a prophecy which is “fulfilled” at a certain point in time cannot have either a fulfillment at a later specific point in time or an ongoing fulfillment over time. Since these prophecies were not “one-shot deals,” it is inconsistent to conclude that Matthew 8:17 could not have a later and more complete application. Jesus continued to remove sicknesses from the people after Capernaum, and He provided for it for all people once and for all at Calvary.
When ISAIAH Said That Jesus Bore Our Sicknesses and Carried Our Pains
If we want to know what Isaiah meant when he said that Jesus bore our sicknesses and carried our pains, wouldn’t it be a good idea to at least look at the rest of the verse to see what Isaiah’s context was?
Isaiah 53:4:
Surely he hath borne our griefs [literally sicknesses], and carried our sorrows [literally pains]: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
When could people say that Jesus was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted? Certainly NOT in Capernaum, where healing objectors claim that this prophecy was completely fulfilled. He was only afflicted and in pain at the end of His life when He atoned for our sins, which is definitely what the rest of Isaiah 53 discusses. The entire chapter is about His death for us! The only correct context of the prophecy is that it refers to Jesus’ substitution for us when He bore our sins.
Because Matthew only quotes the first part of Isaiah 53:4, people might think that they are free to speculate about its context. However, God Himself provides the context as clearly as possible in Isaiah 53. He bore our sins, sicknesses and pains at the same time.
The very next verse continues the same explicit thought:
Isaiah 53:5:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
The previous verse (Isaiah 53:3) calls Him a man of pains and acquainted with sickness. This too has to refer to the end of His life, because He had no physical pain or sickness until then.
Thus, the peace and the healing go together, and it all refers to Christ’s atonement. When was He wounded, bruised, chastised and striped? Definitely not in Capernaum in Matthew 8! So again, we have proven that this reference is to the atonement, meaning that in Matthew 8:16-17, He healed the sick due to His coming atonement.
The people who always admonish faith people, “A text without a context is a pretext” should follow their own advice concerning Isaiah 53:4 and its place within the same verse, the next verse, and Isaiah 53 in general. Then they would have to conclude that it is ALL about Christ’s atonement!
The Aorist and Errorists
Now what about those intimidating arguments about the Greek verb tense in Matthew 8:17? The people who make them say that they know Greek. Because you probably don’t, you are just supposed to back down and take their word for it. I’ve even seen one of the arguers use a mistaken Greek word that isn’t even the one in Matthew 8:17. It pays to do your own research rather than to take other people’s word for everything.
The argument usually states that Isaiah’s prophecy was “completely fulfilled” that evening because the Aorist tense of “fulfill” is used in the verse, and the Aorist tense indicates momentary action. But the statement that the Aorist indicates momentary action is an oversimplification, as I will prove below. The Aorist is actually not time-specific and in some cases, it can even be used to describe a future action as well as even an ongoing action. A Bible example follows below of even the indicative form of the Aorist describing future action, but the verb in Matthew 8:17 is in the subjunctive form, not the indicative form, anyway.
If you think I’m making all this up, you can download a public-domain book called “A Grammar of the Greek Language, Volume II – Syntax” by William Edward Jelf. I downloaded Jelf’s book after seeing a reference to it in T. J. McCrossan’s book, “Bodily Healing and the Atonement,” and I read this for myself on page 71 of Jelf’s book: “The Aorist is used, like the [perfect] to express future events, which must certainly happen. The absence of any notion of time expresses yet more forcibly than the [perfect] the inevitable, and as it were actual development of that which yet is future…”. Then I read page 72 where Jelf cites John 15:6 as an example of the Aorist pointing to a future event. John 15:6 says, “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” “Is cast forth” is an Aorist-tense verb, which I also verified for myself rather than taking Jelf’s word for it. Yet this supposes future action that has not yet been taken, which is Jelf’s point. The Aorist is time-indefinite – the point is the CERTAINTY of the action rather than the TIMING of it.
The Greek verb form used in Matthew 8:17 is the Aorist passive subjunctive, which is the same form used in all the other passages where the phrase that it might be fulfilled appears. As we just saw, the Aorist can indicate future action that is guaranteed to happen. The idea of a future action being guaranteed to happen by current events is borne out by the other passages above. In God’s eyes, the actions were as good as done even though they had not happened yet by our timeline.
If these Greek scholars are right about the Aorist (in particular the Aorist passive subjunctive) always describing momentary past action, we must believe the following, because the verses quoted in the previous section use the Aorist passive subjunctive of “to fulfill” in the Greek – exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 8:17:
Mary completed the act of bringing forth and naming her Son when the angel stood before her telling her that she would conceive.
God completed the act of calling Jesus out of Egypt as soon as He got to Egypt.
People called Jesus a Nazarene as soon as He arrived at Nazareth, many years before His ministry began.
The people of Zabulon and Nephthalim saw the light as soon as Jesus arrived there.
The Gentiles trusted in Jesus during His earthly ministry, and He “sent for judgment into victory” during His earthly ministry.
Jesus sat on the donkey before it was brought to Him.
All the prophetic Scriptures about Jesus were completely fulfilled when He was arrested in the garden.
Jesus was killed while He was standing trial.
Any good Greek grammar reference you can find should indicate that the subjunctive Aorist is time-indefinite, but you should already be able to figure this out from the English arguments above.
The New Testament is a Greek book. English does not always have the exact equivalent of Greek verb tenses, so we will run into trouble sometimes if we insist on an English translation being the final authority of what was written when we are unaware of the underlying Greek. I am certainly not claiming that you need to get an advanced degree in Greek to study the Bible for yourself. However, if you want to make bold public statements about what a verse means, you should at least check out the Greek before you do it. This is far easier to do today than it used to be given the great number of online tools available.
This is also why it is silly for anyone to claim that only a certain English translation “IS” the Word of God and nothing else qualifies – a tradition that persists in some circles today. I’ve had some of these folks want to argue with me on the street about this when I’m trying to get sinners saved and they should be too (rather than provoking arguments that the 1611 version of the KVJ, which is almost unreadable by modern people, IS the only true Bible). If you ask what people who speak other languages are supposed to do, they’ll tell you that they must learn English so that they can read the 1611 KJV, which is supposedly the ONLY real Bible. So did no one have any true Scripture until 1611? That’s their conclusion, though Peter had no problem calling Paul’s Greek writings Scripture. But the truth is still that the original New Testament was written in Greek, and some translations are better than others at rendering the Greek words into modern English. The King James Version and New King James Version do a good job for the most part though I’ve noted a few exceptions in this book. Young’s Literal Translation is even more accurate, but less readable for general purposes; it’s more of a reference when you really have to know what the Greek literally said even when it’s not how we would word things today in English.
Next, we have someone’s objection that the Aorist passive indicative would be spelled the same as the Aorist passive subjunctive, and that therefore Matthew 8:17 could just as well be translated that Isaiah’s prophecy was completely fulfilled. That simply isn’t true; it’s only a “scare-the-non-Greek-student” argument. The Aorist passive indicative in the Greek text in Matthew 2:17 (then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet) DOES refer to an “over and done with” fulfillment of prophecy, and it is NOT spelled the same as verb used in Matthew 8:17, which you are welcome to verify for yourself with your favorite original Greek text reference. The word in Matthew 27:9, where Jeremiah’s prophecy was fulfilled is closer but still not exactly the same as the word in Matthew 8:17, and it is still identified as an Aorist passive indicative, which is appropriate because the particular prophecy was “over and done with” at that point. Greek is precise, so if Matthew wanted to state that Isaiah 53:4’s prophecy was “over and done with” in Matthew 8:17, he knew how to state that.
Even an English-only Bible reader can see the difference, which is backed up by the Greek. In the two cases above where a prophecy met its final fulfillment, Matthew used the word then. When he said then it was fulfilled (as translated into English from the Greek word tote in Matthew 2:17 and Matthew 27:9 cited above), it was a momentary past completed action. When he said that it might be fulfilled, he referred to something where the time of complete fulfillment was not necessarily the past. Where he says “that,” it is a translation of the Greek word hopos, not tote. Even in English, that indicates a subjunctive mood, not a statement-of-past-fact mood.
Because the Aorist subjunctive is used, and the Aorist subjunctive is never time-definite, the word in Matthew 8:17 cannot be construed to prove a past fulfillment. Now because the Aorist is time-indefinite, you could argue that I can’t PROVE that it’s NOT a past action from the word alone, and you’d be right. However, you can prove that it isn’t past at the time of Matthew 8:17 from the context of Isaiah 53:4, which is most definitely an atonement Scripture in the great atonement chapter.
By the way, you can quote Greek grammar “experts” who say that the Aorist must always refer to “momentary” (or “punctiliar”) action, but even that statement is contradicted by Scripture, which supersedes Greek grammar books. Consider the following uses of Aorist verbs. Acts 1:21 refers to men which have companied with us all the time. In Mark 1:11, God says that Jesus is His Son with whom He is well pleased. One would hope that this was not a one-time condition in Jesus’ life! In Matthew 27:8, the potter’s field “was called the field of blood unto this day,” which does not sound like a one-time event given that it was “unto this day.” In Acts 10:38, Jesus went about doing good and healing, but it’s interesting that “doing good” and “healing” are in the Imperfect tense, not the Aorist. In Acts 14:3, “long time abode they.” It couldn’t have been a one-point action if they did it for a long time. In Acts 28:20, Paul “dwelt two whole years in his own hired house.” Two years could hardly be considered a one-time event. In John 2:20, the temple was 46 years in building, which HAD to be ongoing, as the temple didn’t just go up in a single moment of time. In Jesus’ prayer in John 17:11, “keep through thine own name” cannot be considered a one-time thing for God to do for Jesus’ followers, and it wasn’t a past action, either! Nor was the command in Luke 9:23 for the one who comes after Jesus to deny himself and take up his cross daily (!). If you do something daily, it cannot be definition be a one-time event, nor can it only refer to past action.
In short, anyone who says that the Aorist passive subjunctive must refer to completed past action is an Errorist.
Conclusion
While I respect people who make this objection, as they at least try to appeal to Scripture, the evidence is clear that the objection is invalid. Jesus’ removal of sickness that evening was a confirmation of Isaiah’s prophecy being fulfilled during His future atonement, just as His forgiving of sins during His ministry was proof of His future atonement. The Atonement was Jesus’ basis for continuing to heal the sick, in further confirmation of this prophecy.