correct applications

I wonder if anyone would have some thoughts on the scripture from Isaiah 33 verse 24 And the inhabitant shall not say,I am sick:the people that dwell therin shall be forgiven their iniquity KJVI heard it preached on sunday from the angle that this applies to the church now. with enphasis on believing faith that God will heal in the church and that we should aim for this.The many questions i have include, is this the correct use of this scripture,or has this been fulfilled or yet to be.Also what about the context, my initial view was that this is talking about Sin and iniquity not physical.any thoughts people :-)

Heres one slant on it:Isa 33:24 - And the inhabitant - The inhabitant of Jerusalem.Shall not say, I am sick - That is, probably, the spoil shall be so abundant, and the facility for taking it so great, that even the sick, the aged, and the infirm shall go forth nerved with new vigor to gather the spoil.The people that dwell therein - In Jerusalem.Shall be forgiven their iniquity - This is equivalent to saying that the calamities of the invasion would be entirely removed. This invasion is represented as coming upon them as a judgment for their sins. When the Assyrian should be overthrown, it would be a proof that the sin which had been the cause of the invasion had been forgiven, and that God was now disposed to show them favor and mercy. It is common in the Scriptures to represent any calamity as the consequence of sin, to identify the removal of the calamity and the forgiveness of the sin. Thus, the Saviour said Mar_2:5 to the man afflicted with the palsy, ‘Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.’ And when the scribes complained, he urged that the power of forgiving sins and of healing disease was the same, or that the forgiveness of sin was equivalent to the removal of disease Mar_2:9.Barnes' Notes

You do come up with some questions! :-D Here are my few thoughts...(Isa 33:19 ASV) Thou shalt not see the fierce people, a people of a deep speech that thou canst not comprehend, of a strange tongue that thou canst not understand.The context is one of conflict with the enemy threatening to beseige and attack. However the threatened attack will not reach the city.(Isa 33:20 ASV) Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tent that shall not be removed, the stakes whereof shall never be plucked up, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken.Zion (the Old Jerusalem, the Restored Jerusalem, the New Jerusalem, the Church.. depending on your position) will remain in peace. It will not be broken down like an easily collapsed tent. It is safe and secure.(Isa 33:21 ASV) But there Jehovah will be with us in majesty, a place of broad rivers and streams, wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby.Wide rivers are a blessing and a threat. A threat because they leave the city open to a naval attack. However, even though the city has broad rivers at its heart the enemy will not be able to use them to attack the city.(Isa 33:22 ASV) For Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our king; he will save us.Because God is in control and He is committed to defend the city.(Isa 33:23 ASV) Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not strengthen the foot of their mast, they could not spread the sail: then was the prey of a great spoil divided; the lame took the prey.A reference to those enemy ships. This is the naval equivalent of God taking off the Egyptians chariot wheels. The victory will not be the consequence of a powerful defending army, but the 'lame will take the prey'. The weak who depend upon God will have victory.(Isa 33:24 ASV) And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity.Sieges would inevitably result in disease and the weakening of the defenders. Sin would be an opportunity for sickness to enter, but in this case not only would they not get sick but their sins would be forgiven and consequently no beachhead could be established into the besieged city. God would forgive their sin and sickness would have no foothold.That would be my exegesis. The exposition, the application of a specific biblical event to a contemporary scenario, is more difficult. It always is. The overall sense is that God's people will be protected from enemy attack at every level. However, if God's people break down their own walls their must be consequences unless their pleading with God is accepted and the judgement forestalled.build thou the walls of Jerusalem was David's broken hearted request in Psalm 51.wkip

Thanks mike,I'm really not trying to go down any slant with this.Your thoughts on the context is helpful.My question while listening yesturday morning was'is this the best scripture to use to encourage folk to believe God for praying for the sick'.I guess it was being used to say,this is a state that the church should strive for in prayer for healings this probably is not making sense... thanks for your view

Hi Ron,You do come up with some questions! I know, I'll blame it on the Sea air down here,it blows clean through one ear to the other, even in August!thanks, it is all very beneficial, honest!

I guess it was being used to say,this is a state that the church should strive for in prayer for healings Isaiah is a interesting book to use in this kind of context. It threatens terrible judgements upon Israel and the nations and then looks over the years to the hope of God's salvation. It is interesting that Paul's word's to Corinth might be interpreted to mean that sickness had been able to get a foothold in the church because of sin. It would be dangerous to apply this right across the board. I think it is safer to regard these Isaiah passages as gathering up eternal principles and patterns rather than using them as a prophetic framework for a local church.Of course, having said this, it is God's word and He can use it anyway He likes. What we have to be cautious about is the formulating of doctrines from such passages.

Here's somthing for your consideration, Andrew Murray references this verse in his book titled Divine Healing. Here is a short clip from chapter 1 of that book;In man two natures are combined. He is at the same time spirit and matter, heaven and earth, soul and body. For this reason, on one side he is the son of God, and on the other he is doomed to destruction because of the Fall; sin in his soul and sickness in his body bear witness to the right which death has over him. It is the twofold nature which has been redeemed by divine grace. When the Psalmist calls upon all that is within him to bless the Lord for His benefits, he cries, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, Who... forgiveth all thine iniquities, Who healeth all thy diseases" (Psalm 103:2-3). When Isaiah foretells the deliverance of his people, he adds, "The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick; the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity" (Isaiah 33:24). This prediction was accomplished beyond all anticipation when Jesus the Redeemer came down to this earth. How numerous were the healings wrought by Him who was come to establish upon earth the kingdom of heaven! Whether by His own acts or whether afterwards by the commands which He left for His disciples, does He not show us clearly that the preaching of the Gospel and the healing of the sick went together in the salvation which He came to bring? Both are given as evident proof of His mission as the Messiah: "The blind receive their sight and the lame walk.., and the poor have the Gospel preached to them" (Matthew 11: 5). Jesus, who took upon Him the soul and body of man, delivers both in equal measure from the consequences of sin.In Christ,Ron

Here's a possibility: I think from the Jewish point of view, Isaiah 33:17-24 would be in the context of the messianic hope; the Israelites in exile were expecting the coming of the Messianic king who will judge the nations and vindicate his own people (Israel).Such restoration of Israel by the Messiah would not be just spiritual, but also national, political, and physical (which would include healing). Note that in Matthew 11:4-6, Jesus asked messengers to report to John the Baptist, "Go back and report to John what you hear and see: 5The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. 6Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me." These are allusions to Isaiah 35:5f and Isaiah 61:1-3 -- the 'job descriptions' of the Messiah. Jesus is pointing out to John the Baptist that he indeed is the Messiah, the coming king."Sin" in this context would be referring to the failure of Israel to keep their part of the covenant with God. And the judgement and punishment would be oppression by other nations and ultimately exile. "Forgiveness of iniquity," then, would mean their sins of failing their part of covenant is forgiven, it would also mean the end of exile and the return to the promised land.In all the above, I am trying to see this passage in light of 1st-century Jewish thought (with help from N. T. Wright's writings). Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of these prophetic expectations, but the New Testament twist is, the "fulfillment" comes in stages -- Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of God, but the consummation will only come in the future.

Hi RonHere's somthing for your consideration, Andrew Murray references this verse in his book titled Divine Healing. Here is a short clip from chapter 1 of that book;I heard, but can't think where, that Andrew Murray later modified his position on divine healing following the death of a young niece. Not to deny it but to express the hope and expectation more moderately.

Hi SamI think from the Jewish point of view, Isaiah 33:17-24 would be in the context of the messianic hope; the Israelites in exile were expecting the coming of the Messianic king who will judge the nations and vindicate his own people (Israel).I am happy with this if we recall that the messianic hope for many was not just a person but an age. There were many partial fulfillments in the restoration that cannot have developes as many expected. The glory of the temple and the crowning of Zerubbabel would have been seen, initially, as the beginning of the Promise fulfillment. But Z was not crowned and the temple never received its glory.Certainly, 1st century interpretation would have thought primarily in terms of military deliverance and the establishing of Israel as the governing nation on earth.I was trying to think in 8th Century BC terms. The nations were tumbling as super-power succeeded super-power and Isaiah's words would have held out a hope that Judah would be the exception to the rule.

philologos:I am happy with this if we recall that the messianic hope for many was not just a person but an age. Yes, they were looking forward to the "age to come," when God would decisively deal with evil and establish his kingdom through the people of Israel. Do you know how the messianic figure in the Old Testament came to be identified as a person?Certainly, my previous posting was looking through the lens of first-century Judaism, when the people of Israel look forward to being released from Roman control.Still learning to wrestle with the OT text...

Do you know how the messianic figure in the Old Testament came to be identified as a person?Hi SamThat's an interesting question. The Christians, of course, reasoned backwards. That in the person of Jesus of Nazareth OT prophecies had found their fulfillment. I think it must have been with the OT prophecies that indicated a descendent of David would be established upon an age-enduring throne. To begin with these prophecies produced a kind of guarantee that the monarchy would never end. Similar themes related to Zion/Jerusalem and to God's house. I remember a phrase from my more formal studies that "Nebuchnezzar's battering rams breached the theology of Judah". There was certainly a truth in this. Everything that they had regarded an inviolate had gone; monarchy, priesthood, temple, city.The Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah had the job of warning (and then witnessing) the judgement of God upon his nation and then bringing a word of comfort to sustain those who would be captives. But the royal line had been broken and there was not a 'son of David' sitting upon the throne. Their work was to look beyond the captivity to a time to come. This meant a restoration of the nation, monarchy and priesthood. However the monarchy was never properly restored in the lineage of Judah and David. Holding onto the promise of a Davidic king and yet seeing that the line had been broken would demand some interpreting! Daniel uses the word 'Messiah' in his 70 week prophecy and puts a 69x7 year timeline into place which was to be activated by the commandment to restore Jerusalem. This would be the clearest pointer to the Messiah as a Ruler (Prince). (I'll keep clear of the last week!!) As the restoration began there was a resurgence of prophecy through Haggai and Zechariah which was probably interpreted as being fulfilled in their day, although only its beginnings were seen. This would have caused an identification of the age with a person. On the face of it this would have identified the final temple builder with Zerubbabel [Zech 4:9] but later he seems to refer to Josiah the High Priest as ruling upon a throne.This is probably where the notion arose that there would be two Messiahs; one priestly and the other royal. In fact the two are combined in the royal priesthood of a new Melchizedek. Malachi seems to end the OT with the priesthood in disarray but a promise of the Forerunner priest (John Baptist).Biblical revelation then becomes silent through the times of the Maccabees until the New Testament with its rekindling of prophecy and the atmosphere described in Luke; And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; (Luk 3:15 KJV)

Ron you mentioned this interesting pointHow numerous were the healings wrought by Him who was come to establish upon earth the kingdom of heaven! Whether by His own acts or whether afterwards by the commands which He left for His disciples, does He not show us clearly that the preaching of the Gospel and the healing of the sick went together in the salvation which He came to bring? Both are given as evident proof of His mission as the Messiah: "The blind receive their sight and the lame walk.., and the poor have the Gospel preached to them" (Matthew 11: 5). Jesus, who took upon Him the soul and body of man, delivers both in equal measure from the consequences of sin.Does the preaching of the Gospel and the healing of the sick go hand in hand,should I, when preaching expect this to happen.Is this God's heart to manifest healing,deliveence each time the word is preached.This is becoming very interesting :-)

hi Sam, yes i can see the connection between the prophetic in Isaiah 33:17-24 and the comming messiah, thanks

Philologos:Can we say the same for the OT notions of "son of man" and "son of God"? Have you ever looked into the development of these terms from OT to NT?Sam

Can we say the same for the OT notions of "son of man" and "son of God"? Have you ever looked into the development of these terms from OT to NT?Hi SamI think some of the defining passages here must be;And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. (Dan 2:44 ASV)I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Dan 7:9-14 ASV)If we can suspend any dispensationalist theories we have for just a while and let these words wash over us they are wonderful. We see the references to coming with clouds, often repeated (consciously surely) in the New Testament. The coming 'son of man' is thus very clearly messianic.Ezekiel is referred to as 'son of man'. And I am sure that on occasion he is not only a prophet but a prophecy! (see this weeks Abraham devotional). Other than the reference to 'a son of the gods' in Daniel 3:26 the phrase 'son of God' is not used in the OT.

So when the OT refers to Ezekiel as "son of man" and also to Daniel (in Dan. 8:17, interesting considering fact that the phrase appeared in 7:13 with a totally different usage), is there any messianic connotation? What about references to "son of man" in Psalm 8:4 and 80:17?

So when the OT refers to Ezekiel as "son of man" and also to Daniel (in Dan. 8:17, interesting considering fact that the phrase appeared in 7:13 with a totally different usage), is there any messianic connotation? What about references to "son of man" in Psalm 8:4 and 80:17?Hi Samsorry, I had seen this and then forgot it.The references to the Psalms are, I think, on each occasion a reference to man's lowliness and humility. The Messianic references to 'son of man' are references to the the word become flesh; this too was a pointer to His lowliness. He was, most genuinely, the son of man. I note the encounter in the temptation where Satan tried to get Him to behave as God..' if thou art the Son of God' and Christ's determination to live on earth in perfect humanity... it is written man shall not live... This was the 'son of man' in his humility and ultimately his humiliation.The Ps 8 reference has both a messianic and non messianic aspect. This is talking about all mankind and yet the writer to the HEbrews recognised a unique messianic application too.I wouldn't try to expound every instance of 'son of man' in Ezekiel as having a messianic application. I feel in them, and in your last Daniel reference, a divine gentleness. The Psalm comes to mind; Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. (Psa 103:13-14 KJV) I couldn't count the times the Lord has brought this psalm to my remembrance. It is a great comfort to inevitably disappointed idealists!