We are saved from WHAT?

[Paidion]

HAVE WE BEEN SAVED PRIMARILY FROM HELL? OR FROM SIN SICKNESS?

Of course disciples of Christ are saved from hell, but “primarily” is the operative word here. If we are saved primarily from sin sickness, then salvation from hell is a consequence of our healing.

It is interesting that the Greek word “σωζω” (sōzō), the word translated as “save” clearly refers to physical healing in 15 of the 103 occurrences of the word in the New Testament, and no translation renders the word as “save” in any of those occurrences.

Here are the verses in which the word must be rendered as “heal” or some equivalent such as “made well”:

Matthew 9:21,22
Mark 5:23, 28,34; 6:56; 10:52
Luke 8:36,48,50; 17:18; 18:42
John 11:12
Acts 4:9; 14:9

There are other passages in which it is not so clear, but yet probable that the word means “heal.” Here is one example:

And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it proper on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save (σωσαι) life or to kill?" (Mark 3:2-4)

Did Jesus save the man's life? It doesn't seem likely that the man would have died if Jesus had not healed his hand. So it is probable that Mark had "heal" in mind here in his quote of Jesus' question. There are also a number of other occurrences of “σωζω” which would probably be better had the word been translated as “heal”.

Jesus came into this world to save people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Does Jesus save people from their sins by healing their whole persons? Giving them well-being (shalom)? Or by providing them with a “get out of hell free” card? Is Christ's magnificent sacrifice of Himself of Calvary's tree just a means of covering the sinner's sin so that they can escape hell and get to heaven? Or is it a means of providing the grace by which the sinner may be healed of his sin sickness? Does God want people to be righteous? Or is He only interested in saving them from hell? If the latter, why doesn't he just do it?Why did Christ have to die?

Jesus' whole ministry on earth involved physical healing as well as casting out demons, and setting people free from whatever was troubling them. Even Jesus giving His life as a ransom in the place of many is a reference to his service to people. The context makes this clear:

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28 NKJV)

Jesus “gave his life” that is, used his life to serve others. “But in what sense would that be a ransom?” you ask. The Greek word “λυτρον” can not only mean the price paid for liberating a slave, but can also simply refer to the liberation of people from misery. The latter definition can be found in many Greek lexicons, for example in the Online Bible's Greek lexicon. Louw & Nida gives the meaning of the word as “the means or instrument by which release or deliverance is made possible.” In this case the life of Christ itself, the life that He lived in service to others, was the means of their deliverance from their suffering and misery. The Abbott-Smith lexicon states that “in a general sense” the verb means “to deliver.”

Jesus Himself read a scripture from the book of Isaiah which predicted what Jesus would do in service to others, and Himself declared that He has fulfilled that scripture:

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD." Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:16-21 NKJV)

So Jesus gave His life—spent His life to deliver people from their misery—to ransom them from the things which trouble them.

It amazes me how many passages in the New Testament speak of “εἰρηνη”, the Greek translation of the Hebrew “shalom”. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word are usually translated as “peace.” However, “peace” is but one aspect of the meaning. “Shalom” means “total well-being” including safety, health, prosperity, completeness, and contentment. In Ephesians 6:15, Paul speaks of the “gospel of well-being” or the “good news of well-being.” He also stated in 2:17 that Jesus Himself preached well-being both those who were far off (the gentiles) and those who were near (the Jews).
And He came and proclaimed well-being to you who were far off and well-being to those who were near. (Ephesians 2:17)

Now, I write this in no way to support the modern “health and wealth gospel” which puts the emphasis on the personal gaining of health and wealth. Rather the emphasis needs to be on the health of the whole being, the health of “body, soul, and spirit”. When the sin question is dealt with—I mean the purging of sin from our lives, not the mere hiding it by the “covering of Christ's righteousness”— the “natural” result is completeness, contentment, safety, health, and prosperity. That is not to say that safety, health, and prosperity must necessarily follow the purging of sin—many devout disciples are in danger, or in ill health, or in poverty—yet the purging of sin has a tendency to yield these three.

Now I don't say that “εἰρηνη” never means simply “peace.” It often does. But often it also means total “well-being.” Consider the following passages when “εἰρηνη” is translated as “well-being”:

Mark 5:34 And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in well-being, and be healed of your disease."
Luke 1:79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of well-being."
Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth well among men of good will."
Luke 2:29 "Lord, now let your servant depart in well-being, according to your word;
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has healed you; go in well-being."
Luke 10:5 Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Well-being be to this house!’
John 14:27 Well I leave with you; my well-being I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.
John 16:33 I have said this to you, that in me you may have well-being. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good courage, I have overcome the world."
Acts 10:36 You know the word which he sent to Israel, preaching good news of well-being by Jesus Christ...
Romans 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and well-being from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:10 but glory and honor and well-being for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
Romans 3:17 and the way of well-being they do not know."
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we are made righteous through faith, we have well-being with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and well-being.
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and well-being and joy in the Holy Spirit;
Romans 14:19 Let us then pursue what makes for well-being and for mutual upbuilding.
Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and well-being in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.*****
Romans 15:33 The God of well-being be with you all. Amen.
Romans 16:20 then the God of well-being will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.
1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace to you and well-being from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of well-being. As in all the churches of the saints...
Galatians 1:3 Grace to you and well-being from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ,
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, well-being, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Galatians 6:16 well-being and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.
Ephesians 6:15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of well-being.
Ephesians 6:23 well-being be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Philippians 4:7 And the well-being of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of well-being himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 3:16 Now may the Lord of well-being himself give you well-being at all times in all ways. The Lord be with you all.
2 Timothy 1:2 To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and well-being from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
2 Timothy 2:22 ¶ So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and well-being, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and well-being from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
Philemon 1:3 Grace to you and well-being from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

In conclusion, I wish to affirm that I believe we are saved from sin sickness, and that God is primarily concerned about our total well-being and not merely that we escape hell. Indeed, as George MacDonald wrote, hell may be needed to save a person.

Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him. If hell be needful to save him, hell will blaze, and the worm will writhe and bite, until he takes refuge in the will of the Father. 'Salvation from hell' is salvation conceived by such to whom hell and not evil is the terror.

[dwilkins]

I have very little time this morning, but you didn't mention the most important element of the historical situation that the New Testament writers found themselves in. The nation was coming under punishment for its sins and was about to be destroyed in the first century. Therefore, a good deal of the salvation/deliverance language in the New Testament has to do with salvation from God's wrath against the nation of the Jews. That national entity may or may not have been a foil to explain larger theological issues, but you can't discuss the theology without acknowledging the historical narrative at the time of writing.

Doug

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, I understand your point if you are admonishing the Church for not emphasizing the fact that we were saved so that we could live lives honoring and pleasing to God, I would agree with that

The objective is 'not' to heal this body, the objective is to put this body to death (the penalty of sin)
'Then' we are raised in Him, only now in the Spirit, but 'then' it will be fulfilled in a new body, in the future!
It is a mental decision (repentance) to choose to die to ourselves and the desires of the flesh , accept the penalty (confession), and if we want to live again, then accept His death in our place (Our passover). And by faith, as a bonus (as eternal life is an 'addition' to being forgiven) we can have eternal life with God.

Jesus our Savior saves us from everything bad. Everything bad is the result of sin and the curse of sin that God himself imposed on us, and we know it was God who sentenced us to death.
We have been saved primarily from DEATH.
Death, Hell, whatever we call it, our primary concern would be the LOF, which is the second death.
(At least that seems a logical thing to be concerned with, how will you worship and serve God if you are dead, or extinct?)
So in the Bible, disease and sickness are synonyms and symptoms of everything that leads to death, as a result of sin.
Sickness is a ‘result’ of sin, it is the curse that came about because of mans sin.
Sickness, diseases, plagues, curses are Gods sentence and judgment of mans sin, and like leprosy, all these things speak of Gods ‘primary’ sentence on sin – death.
All sins lead to death, that’s where they all go, that’s where we are all going.
It’s not much different to be; saved ‘from her infirmity, saved from his blindness’, than being delivered, cured, made whole, restored, etc. Thats why references using the word save (or derivatives of sozo) can be rendered heal.

In Mark 5 the man said, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live." (Mark 5:23) If she was not healed she would die, and once made well, she lived!

None of Jesus’ healings reveal that anyone was cured from sinning’. They were all still sinners after they’re healing, and like Jesus said to the man ‘Go and sin no more, otherwise something worse would happen’ Being healed still does not save us from death, nor does living a perfect life does not save us from death, and neither do either of these things save us from being guilty before God in our day of Judgment.

Is Christ's magnificent sacrifice of Himself of Calvary's tree just a means of covering the sinner's sin so that they can escape hell and get to heaven? Or is it a means of providing the grace by which the sinner may be healed of his sin sickness?

Your first response was kind of correct, we are declared righteous if we die to ourselves and we are raised with Him, Death was the penalty and Resurrection is our New life.

Or is He only interested in saving them from hell? If the latter, why doesn't he just do it? Why did Christ have to die?

He ‘is’ interested in saving, the only question is man interested?
He did do it, He died for us. He ‘offers’ eternal life, eternal life is a choice.
But He says we must die first, rather than have God or natural curses put us to death. The command is that we must make a decision to plead guilty, hand ourselves over to His just Judgment, and ask that Jesus blood be on our heads as a covering for our sins. It is by faith that we are saved from the penalty of sin
So the Cross paints the vivid picture of a choice, Christ died in your place, your sentence was put upon Him.
Jesus’ healing ministry is also meant to paint a picture of His healing us from sin, but it does not imply that a man can actually stop sinning, it does mean that we can put our faith in Him, it does mean that He is the Savior, and having been saved, we serve Him out of Gratitude and Love for his Sacrifice.
We will never be cured of sin – unless we die, I know you believe the soul and flesh are one, so in this respect you are right Paidion, we are slaves to our body, falling under it’s temptation, God calls us to cut off the flesh, and no longer be consumed by it’s desires, and this is only possible through being in His body, His resurrected Body. This cant be fulfilled until this body dies, but as Paul said 'consider' yourself dead.

[Paidion]

—that I might win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. (Philippians 3:8,9)

WHAT does the apostle mean by the righteousness that is of God by faith? He means the same righteousness Christ had by his faith in God, the same righteousness which God himself has.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians he says, 'He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him;—'He gave him to be treated like a sinner, killed and cast out of his own vineyard by his husbandmen, that we might in him be righteous like God.' As the antithesis stands, it is rhetorically correct. But if the former half means, 'he made him to be treated as if he were a sinner,' then the latter half should, in logical precision mean, 'that we might be treated as if we were righteous.'

'That is just what Paul does mean,' insist not a few. 'He means that Jesus was treated by God as if he were a sinner, our sins being imputed to him, in order that we might be treated as if we were righteous, his righteousness being imputed to us.'

That is, that, by a sort of legal fiction, Jesus was treated as what he was not, in order that we might be treated as what we are not. This is the best device, according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth,the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures! . . . They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice.

—George MacDonald, “Righteousness” in Unspoken Sermons III

Anyone wishing to read the whole of MacDonald's chapter on "Righteousness", in which he explains what it means to receive the righteousness of God by faith, may want to click on the following link:

http://www.online-literature.com/george ... ermons/34/

[dwilkins]

—that I might win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. (Philippians 3:8,9)

WHAT does the apostle mean by the righteousness that is of God by faith? He means the same righteousness Christ had by his faith in God, the same righteousness which God himself has.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians he says, 'He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him;—'He gave him to be treated like a sinner, killed and cast out of his own vineyard by his husbandmen, that we might in him be righteous like God.' As the antithesis stands, it is rhetorically correct. But if the former half means, 'he made him to be treated as if he were a sinner,' then the latter half should, in logical precision mean, 'that we might be treated as if we were righteous.'

'That is just what Paul does mean,' insist not a few. 'He means that Jesus was treated by God as if he were a sinner, our sins being imputed to him, in order that we might be treated as if we were righteous, his righteousness being imputed to us.'

That is, that, by a sort of legal fiction, Jesus was treated as what he was not, in order that we might be treated as what we are not. This is the best device, according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth,the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures! . . . They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice.

—George MacDonald, “Righteousness” in Unspoken Sermons III

Anyone wishing to read the whole of MacDonald's chapter on "Righteousness", in which he explains what it means to receive the righteousness of God by faith, may want to click on the following link:

http://www.online-literature.com/george ... ermons/34/

That's an excellent example of where I think that dikaiosune should have been translated justification instead of righteousness. No gymnastics are needed if we see the point of Philippians 3 as the same one in Galatians and Romans (i.e., you are justified by faith like Abraham's, not works of the Law that prove you are a member of the Mosaic Covenant). The following is the ESV of Philippians 3 with righteousness replaced by justification (a legitimate option in translation depending on your theological bent):

"3 Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you is no trouble to me and is safe for you.
2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to justification under the law,[c] blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a justification of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the justification from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead."

The above is exactly the same argument that Paul makes in Galatians. He is not justified by fleshly identity in the nation of Israel. He is justified by faith in Christ. As far as what he was being saved from, the members of the nation of Israel who considered themselves to be justified by their fleshly identification with Israel, but who'd skipped actually believing in God or the man he sent, were about to be destroyed in God's wrath. They in fact were within that generation.

Doug

[Paidion]

That's an excellent example of where I think that dikaiosune should have been translated justification instead of righteousness.

It seems odd that the Greek noun "δικαιοσυνη" should have been translated as "justification" instead of "righteousness" when it is merely the nounal form of the Greek adjective "δικαιος" from which it is derived.

What is your opinion about "δικαιος"? Does it mean "righteous" or "justified"?
Did Jesus say, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance"? (Mark 2:17)
Or did He say, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the justified, but sinners, to repentance"?
Which is a better contrast to "sinners"? "The righteous" or "the justified"? Many believe we can be justified without being righteous.
There are many other passages where "righteous" seems to work better than "justified."

Jesus seemed to suggest that sinners are spriritually sick and need to be healed, that is, rendered righteous. Indeed, "δικαιοω", the verbal form of the same word, though usually translated as "justify" might make more sense translated as "make righteous" or "render righteous."

[dwilkins]

In my opinion, most of the time the term should be translated justified, though in some contexts it should be translated righteous. If you want a detailed argument for how the dynamic works take a look at N. T. Wright's "What Paul Really Said."

Doug

[jriccitelli]

Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. (George MacDonald)

Paidion, I guess I should address these questions to Mr. MacDonald;
Wasn’t Jesus the Lamb of God? Didn’t the innocent lamb and other animals die in the place of ‘anyone who sinned’?
Wasn’t Abraham promised that God would provide a ram, in place of Abrahams son?
Wasn’t an innocent lamb slaughtered and eaten, and its blood put above the door so the Angel of Death would pass by?
Mr. MacDonald I believe that we are to keep His Commandments, if we love Him, but we live by grace because we do sin.
You understand that I believe that we are saved so that by His Spirit we can submit to do Gods will and produce good fruit, as servants and obedient slaves of His. But what about the sins we have committed?
God says all sin must be atoned for with blood, Mr. MacDonald; Who’s blood is covering your sins?

So it shall be when he becomes guilty in one of these, that he shall confess that in which he has sinned. 6 He shall also bring his guilt offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin. (Lev. 5:5-6)
We also derive our daily substance on the life of the innocent plant life and animals that we eat, just as Jesus said 'my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink', do you partake of the Lords supper?
Didn’t Jesus say “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends”
Didn’t the high priest Caiaphas prophesy;
"You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish." 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation’ (John 11:49)

And remember God, er Jesus died ‘willingly’.

[Paidion]

You understand that I believe that we are saved so that by His Spirit we can submit to do Gods will and produce good fruit, as servants and obedient slaves of His. But what about the sins we have committed?
God says all sin must be atoned for with blood, Mr. MacDonald; Who’s blood is covering your sins?

Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them does he need to fear remaining unforgiven. The sin in which he dwells, the sin of which he will not come out, is the sole ruin of a man. His present live sins, those sins pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, but to which he clings instead, the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are the sins for which he is even now condemned. It is true that the memory of the wrongs we have done is (or will become) very bitter. But condemnation is not for those. If that in our character which made those sins possible were abolished, remorse would lose its worse bitterness in the hope of future amends. "This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

It is the indwelling badness, ready to produce bad actions, from which we need to be delivered. If a man will not strive against this badness, he is left to commit evil and reap the consequences. To be saved from these consequences, would be no deliverance; it would be an immediate, ever deepening damnation. It is the evil in our being (no essential part of it, thank God!) ---this is that from which He came to deliver us --- not the things we have done, but the possibility of doing such things anymore. As this possibility departs, and we confess to those we have wronged, the power over us of our evil deeds will depart also, and so shall we be saved from them. The bad that lives in us, our evil judgments, our unjust desires, our hate and pride and envy and greed and self-satisfaction ---- these are the souls of our sins, our live sins, more terrible than the bodies of our sins, that is, the deeds we do, because they not only produce these loathsome characteristics, but they make us just as loathsome. Our wrong deeds are our dead works; our evil thoughts are our live sins. These sins, the essential opposites of faith and love, these sins that dwell in us and work in us, are the sins from which Jesus came to deliver us. When we turn against them and refuse to obey them, they rise in fierce insistence, but at the same time begin to die. We are then on the Lord's side, and He begins to deliver us from them.

—George MacDonald, The Hope of the Gospel, Salvation from Sin

[jeremiah]

good morning john,

you said:

The objective is 'not' to heal this body, the objective is to put this body to death (the penalty of sin)

well, yes and no. you seem to be mixing together theology from some abstract metaphorical language of paul and the basic reality of our body of flesh. in my opinion this is the same dangerous mistake the gnostics made long ago who read paul's language of the the body and flesh and imagined they had a friend in paul. i'm not accusing you of being a gnostic. in paul's writings it is not the literal human body nor the literal human flesh that is sinful. he says "that the body of sin...." jesus and paul alike used the language of flesh metaphorically which must retain it's basic definition in the scriptures themselves, before any other conclusions about their intentions are made.

this body of flesh can only receive breath of life, it has nothing in and of itself to sustain life. we must have a continual source, external to ourselves, to continue to breath and remain alive. i believe this is precisely what jesus had in mind in when he said, "it is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profits nothing. the words that i speak to you are spirit and they are life." some have said that all jesus meant here was to tell them he was speaking "spiritually" about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. this is only correct in part, and to end the matter there is to allow the red herring of rome's notion of transubstantiation to ultimately succeed by narrowly focusing our attention on whether jesus wants us to really eat flesh. this statement is simply one more occurrence of the abounding proclamation that mankind is dead in trespasses and sins in desperate need of life from that death. this reality is described in other analogies, some of which are: sleeping needing to be woken up, darkness needing light, slaves of sin needing to be made free, sick needing healing, blind in need of sight. just as God breathed into adam the breath of life and he became a living soul, so too jesus' words of eternal life were given to them, and they recieved life having been otherwise dead.

the new testament scriptures do not say, "put this body to death" paul says,

that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. for he that is dead, is freed from sin

if without God, we are slaves to sin, and with God we are freed from sin, how is that not also seamlessly parallel to a sick man that has been healed. or as peter puts it,

...that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

and paul continued,

likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our lord. let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

it seems clear here that paul does not want us to put the body to death, but yield the members of our body (which are now healed in a sense) as instruments of righteousness unto God. this happens now.

i agree with you about us 'being raised in him, only now in the spirit.' but that is the point i think, of this whole thread. when we focus too much on the fulfillment of our hope of eternal life, we make far too little of the present reality, accessible to all that are in Christ, of the freedom from our former slavery to sin, or our life from the death of sin. in Christ, the grave of sin has no power over us, we've been resurrected from that grave. it is called the gospel, or great news, not the great warning. Christ did not only conquer death, he conquered sin as well. it is a holistic message that we can proclaim to them that are in darkness, not only the hope of eternal life at the last day, but primarily partaking of the eternal breath of God in communion with him through Christ now, and now being taught by him to not only strive against our sin, but also overcome it being exercised in well doing, learning to do this good from patience to patience. i say "primarily', not that i think our sanctification in Christ this side of the resurrection is more important by degrees, but only that it is sequentially primary**, i don't think we can break the gospel up into parts and degrees in that way. but no surprise to you i'm sure, i am a monist after all

you said:

None of Jesus’ healings reveal that anyone was cured from sinning’

none of his healings were concerned with exactly that, but they were above all, demonstrations of what Christ was sent to accomplish. we who were dead, given life. we who were blind, given sight. deaf, made to hear. lame, given strength and made to walk. slaves of sin, made free from sin. we who were sick, healed.

grace and peace to you john.

** i think this is what paidion is basically saying in,

...Of course disciples of Christ are saved from hell, but “primarily” is the operative word here. If we are saved primarily from sin sickness, then salvation from hell is a consequence of our healing