Objection: Isaiah and Peter Meant That We Were Healed from Sin
How exactly do you get “healed” from sin? What does getting “healed” from sin mean? Why would Isaiah and Peter mysteriously put forth a concept that is unknown in the rest of Scripture?
The biggest thing that was preached in the Book of Acts when they preached Jesus was that by Him forgiveness of sins is available. No one in Acts preached that through Jesus you could be healed of sins.
If sins are something to be healed, there should be Sin Doctors whose profession is to heal you of your sins. That is an absurd idea. Even people who mistakenly think that they have to go to “confession” to get forgiven don’t go to try to get their sins “healed.”
Jesus told the paralytic that his sins were forgiven. He didn’t say, “Man, your sins are healed.”
David said to bless the Lord who forgives all his sins and heals all his diseases, not who heals all his sins and heals all his diseases.
This extremely awkward objection tries to explain away the plain meaning of Isaiah 53:4 and 1 Peter 2:24 that Jesus’ sacrifice bought us PHYSICAL healing, which is plain from the words that both of them used (see “Healed” Defined for proof of this). If you aren’t willing to accept the plain meaning of the original languages, you have to come up with some kind of an explanation for why the words don’t mean what they would mean if they were used anywhere else. So this is a try, but not a very good one.
Our dear healing objectors would then be hard-pressed to make any sense out of Matthew 8:17. Even the hard-core ones who are sure that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled with no continuation that day in Capernaum are admitting by saying that it was fulfilled that day that people were being physically healed. The people thronged Jesus as He walked the earth to be healed of their diseases, not “healed” of their sins. No one in his right mind could say that Matthew 8:17 was an account of people’s sins getting healed. How then could anyone claim with a straight face that Isaiah’s prophecy, which Matthew quoted, referred to people being healed of sins by what Jesus did? Isaiah’s account in Isaiah 53, verses 4 and 5, all refers to the same atoning event. Thus, Isaiah HAD to be referring to physical healing. Otherwise, Matthew’s use of that part of that prophecy would make no sense.
The only remaining wiggle room for the objector would be that verses 4 and 5 don’t actually go together, and that idea is refuted in another objection reply. So this objection is broken and can’t be healed!