Healing
in the Atonement
by Sam Harper
I. Introduction
Healing theology can be broken into three major categories: 1. the belief
that God no longer heals today, 2. the belief that God can and does heal today,
and 3. the belief that healing is guaranteed under the atonement. In this
article, I will be arguing for the middle view, that God can and does heal
today, but that healing is not guaranteed in the atonement.
First I want to make a clarification about the phrase, "healing in
the atonement." Christ's atonement provided us with a means to obtain a
resurrection to eternal life with no more sickness, death, or suffering, so in
that sense, yes, healing was provided for in the atonement. What I will be
discussing is the popular teaching of healing in the atonement which teaches
that the realization of all the benefits of the atonement belong to us in the
here and now. That means that all Christians ought to be completely free of
sickness, disease, and any kind of physical malady. The only thing standing
between a Christian and perfect health is sin or a lack of faith, because
healing is the privilege of all believers. In this article, I will argue that
though Christ's atoning sacrifice provided a way for all of us to be free from
sickness, pain, death, and sorrow, the realization of these provisions will not
come until the resurrection, which Paul calls, "the redemption of our bodies."
(Romans 8:23)
This discussion will touch on several peripheral issues such as the
perpetuity of spiritual gifts, the source of sickness, holiness, the word of
faith (i.e. "name it and claim it" or "positive
confession") teaching, original sin, and the believer's assurance of
salvation (i.e. whether or not you can lose your salvation). It's necessary to
discuss the peripheral issues, but it would take a book to treat them in any
kind of detail, so I'll try to stay focused on the main point and only discuss
the peripheral issues to a minimum extent.
There are many different versions of the "healing in the
atonement" doctrine, so not everybody who believes in it will believe
every aspect of it that I discuss. I want to cover as broad of a range of understandings
of it as I can without the article becoming too diluted to be able to follow. I
probably won't cover the different versions exhaustively or in much detail. If
you happen to believe that physical healing in the here and now is guaranteed
in the atonement, please don't be put off by the fact that you don't believe in
everything that I attempt to refute in this article. I'm not attempting to
erect a straw man in order to tear it down. I'm trying to cover as many
versions of the teaching as I can. If one of the points of the teaching I try
to refute seems to you to be a misrepresentation of what you believe, it's
probably the case that I'm not representing your belief at all, but somebody
else's, and the fact that what I am refuting does not apply to you does not
mean that physical healing is provided for in the atonement. It merely means
that that particular argument does not apply to you. Failure to prove one thing
does not prove the opposite thing.
I want to make a clear distinction between healing in the atonement and
healing in general. I believe that God can and does heal people today. I
believe in the perpetuity of the gift of healing. God may heal people in answer
to prayer, and he may empower some with the gift of healing. What I am arguing against
is the idea that physical healing is guaranteed. Too many people mistakenly
assume that if a person doesn't believe in healing in the atonement that the
person doesn't believe in healing at all, and that's just not the case.
II. History
The only passage in the New Testament that explicitly ties healing with
Christ's suffering is 1 Peter 2:24, which says, "by his wounds you have
been healed." As I will show later in this article, the healing referred
to in this passage is spiritual, not physical, so there is no explicit evidence
that "healing in the atonement" was ever taught in the first century.
From the first few centuries of the church, any evidence that even
remotely addresses the question at hand is scant, so it seems that the concept
of healing in the atonement was rarely if ever even considered. I was only able
to find two references.
"Consequently, therefore,
though disease, and accident, and what is most terrible of all, death, come
upon the Gnostic, he remains inflexible in soul,-knowing that all such things
are a necessity of creation, and that, also by the power of God, they become
the medicine of salvation, benefiting by discipline those who are difficult to
reform; allotted according to desert, by Providence, which is truly good."
Clement of
Clement believed that sickness, disease, old age, and death were a
natural part of being human whether one was a Christian or not, and that it was
fitting for people to see a doctor if they got sick, but that such calamities
also have refining qualities.
"But nevertheless it
disturbs some that the power of this Disease attacks our people equally with
the heathens, as if the Christian believed for this purpose, that he might have
the enjoyment of the world and this life free from the contact of ills; and not
as one who undergoes all adverse things here and is reserved for future joy. It
disturbs some that this mortality is common to us with others; and yet what is
there in this world which is not common to us with others, so long as this
flesh of ours still remains, according to the law of our first birth, common to
us with them? So long as we are here in the world, we are associated with the
human race in fleshly equality, but are separated in spirit. Therefore until
this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal receive
immortality, and the Spirit lead us to God the Father, whatsoever are the
disadvantages of the flesh are common to us with the human race. Thus, when the
earth is barren with an unproductive harvest, famine makes no distinction;
thus, when with the invasion of an enemy any city is taken, captivity at once
desolates all; and when the serene clouds withhold the rain, the drought is
alike to all; and when the jagged rocks rend the ship, the shipwreck is common
without exception to all that sail in her; and the disease of the eyes, and the
attack of fevers, and the feebleness of all the limbs is common to us with
others, so long as this common flesh of ours is borne by us in the world."
Cyprian (c. 250), Treatise
VII On the Mortality, 8
Cyprian clearly believed that sickness and disease were just as common
among Christians as among unbelievers. He didn't believe we should be immune as
long as our bodies were mortal. He believed the joy of perfect health was
reserved for the future when our bodies would be resurrected. I could not find
anybody from the early church who disagreed with Clement of Alexandria and
Cyprian. So the only evidence concerning healing in the atonement from the
early church shows that they did not believe in healing in the atonement, and
they seemed to hardly even think about it even though they did believe in the
gift of healing as late as the 4th century.
From then on, there is no evidence at all I'm aware of that healing in
the atonement was ever taught until the beginning of the 20th century at the
dawn of the charismatic renewal movement. There were a few people teaching that
healing was guaranteed in the atonement from about 1901. Among them were
Charles Parham, and a disciple of his, William Seymour, who founded the
III. The fall and the restoration
The first thing we have to recognize is how this world got into such
bad shape. Then we will look at God's plan for restoring the world to its
original perfection. Regardless of whether you interpret the Genesis story
literally or figuratively, it seems that the entire world, including our
bodies, became cursed as a result of sin. God said to Adam,
"Cursed is the ground
because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your
life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants
of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return
to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you
will return." (Genesis 3:17-19)
Since then, we have lived in an imperfect world. The ground has been
cursed. We continue to bear the stain of the original sin. The results of the
original sin include both natural and moral evil. Because of it, we ourselves
have sinful natures. We are all born predisposed to sin. Nobody ever has to
teach their children to be selfish or to lie. They are born concerned about
their own self-gratification, and they figure out on their own how to lie and
manipulate to serve their self-gratifying natures. We try to teach them not to
live according to their sinful natures. Likewise, we all sin against God
because of our fallen human natures. We have also all become susceptible to
sickness and death.
"Therefore, just as sin
entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned." (Romans 5:12)
It would seem that Satan succeeded in destroying a creation God once
called "good," (Genesis
"For we do not have a high
priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has
been tempted in every way, just as we are-yet was without sin." (Hebrews
4:15)
Because Jesus was able to live a sinless life in the midst of a fallen
world, he was able to become a perfect sacrifice on our behalf. He paid the
pentalty for our sins by dying on the cross, and then he also defeated death by
rising from the dead.
"For what I received I
passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the
third day according to the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
For those of us who put their faith in this gospel, we too will reap
the benefits of Christ's victory over sin and death since it was for us that he
won this victory.
"For since death came
through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in
Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians
15:21-22)
The realization of this victory will begin at the resurrection when
Christ returns, and will culminate 1000 years later in new heavens and a new
earth free from the curse that resulted from the original sin.
"Now the dwelling of God is
with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself
will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes.
There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of
things has passed away." (Revelation 21:3-4)
At the resurrection, our bodies will be changed. They will no longer be
susceptible to sickness and death, but until then, they still bear the scars of
the fall.
"So will it be with the
resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised
imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in
weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a
spiritual body." (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
Paul makes it very clear that though, when we are saved, we are sealed
by the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14; 4:30) who is a deposit guaranteeing what
is to come (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5), we have not yet attained it. It is
something we hope for, and nobody hopes for what he already has.
"We know that the whole
creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the
present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the
redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen
is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what
we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently." (Romans 8:22-25)
Physical healing, therefore, is not guaranteed in the here and now. God
has never promised that our bodies would be free from the consequences of
original sin until the resurrection. If he had, we would never die because
dying was part of the curse. If any Christian had perfect health, he would not
be blind, he would not have any missing limbs, he would not have to wear
glasses, he would never lose his hearing, his body would never deteriorate, he
would never get old, and he would never die. In the Bible, however, we find
that, "man is destined to die once." (Hebrews 9:27) Not only that,
but we also have Christians who, while commended for doing good, nevertheless
became sick.
"In Joppa there was a
disciple named Tabitha (which when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing
good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and her
body was washed and placed in an upstairs room." (Acts 9:36-37)
We also find that Paul, who said, "Therefore, I urge you to
imitate me," (1 Corinthians
"As you know, it was because
of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness
was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you
welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done
so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me." (Galatians
4:14-15)
Proponents of the "healing in the atonement" doctrine deal
with this scripture in one of two ways. They either say that (1) Paul became sick
as a result of some personal sin, or they say that (2) Paul was not sick at
all, but that his illness (literally "weakness" in the Greek) had
more to do with opposition and persecution. I will examine both of these views
individually.
A. Paul became sick as a result of some personal sin.
Some people believe Paul had something wrong with his eyes because he
said, "if you could have done so, you would have torn out your eyes and
given them to me." I personally think that's a little speculative, but the
exact physical ailment he had is irrelevent in this discussion. There are
several problems with this view. The most frequent explanation given by healing
in the atonement proponents for why all Christians do not enjoy perfect health
is because of sin. In this view, when a person sins, he comes out from under
the covering of the blood of the atonement and becomes vulnerable to sickness.
All sickness, therefore, is a result of personal sin. The argument can be
summarized this way:
(1) Sin causes a person to come
out from under the blood of the atonement.
(2) If a person is not covered by the blood, he will be vulnerable to sickness.
(3) Therefore, all sickness is a result of personal sin.
There are three major problems with this argument.
1. If healing is guaranteed in the atonement only when we do not sin,
and everybody sins, then nobody's healing is really guaranteed. In summary:
(1) Perfect health is guaranteed
for the believer unless he sins.
(2) Everybody sins. (1 John 1:8)
(3) Therefore perfect health is not guaranteed for any believer.
It would be quite the cruel joke for God to dangle something in front
of us knowing we could never have it. Some will argue that an isolated sin now
and again is not enough to cause a person to come out from under the blood of
the atonement, but rather, if a person habitually sins, he will come out from
under the blood of the atonement and become vulnerable to sickness. The problem
with this argument is that the person making it has to defame Paul's character,
making him out to be a habitual sinner. But we have already shown that Paul was
an exemplary Christian, urging people to imitate his way of life. (1
Corinthians 4:16) We have also seen that the disciple, Tabitha, was commended
for always doing good, rather than being condemned for habitually sinning. The
only alternative is to go with the second argument, that Paul was not
physically sick at all. Of course, we can't use that with Tabitha because we
know she was physically ill. She died from it.
There are some churches who are consistent in their view of sin and
sickness. The "holiness" churches believe that a Christian can live a
sinless life. Some of them go so far as to say that if a person is saved, he
will never sin at all-not even an isolated sin. Because holiness is such a
major debate, it would require a seperate article for me to adequately refute
this view, so I'll just let it go for now, and maybe if I ever write that
article, I'll add the link to it right here.
2. If healing is guaranteed in the atonement, and a person is not
healed, then he is not covered under the blood of the atonement. Healing in the
atonement proponents will agree with me on this point. The argument goes like
this:
(1) Healing is guaranteed in the
atonement.
(2) Bob is not healed.
(3) Therefore, Bob is not under the blood of the atonement.
Now watch what happens when we replace Bob with the Apostle Paul.
(1) Healing is guaranteed in the
atonement.
(2) Paul was sick.
(3) Therefore, Paul was not under the blood of the atonement.
This should immediately look peculiar to you, and I will tell you why.
The blood of Jesus is what saves us. Jesus shed his blood on the cross for our
sins, as I showed above. That's what the atonement covers. So if a person is
not under the blood of the atonement, then that person is not saved. Jesus
atoned for our sins. That's what atonement is. In summary:
(1) If a person is sick, then
they are not under the blood of the atonement.
(2) If they are not under the blood of the atonement, then they are not saved.
(3) Therefore, if a person is sick, then they are not saved.
Most of you should immediately see the problem with this view. You want
to reject (3) because it seems unreasonable to think that Paul lost his
salvation, and worse, that he was evangelizing the Galatians as an unsaved
person. But if the two premises are true, then the conclusion logically
follows. So the only way to reject (3) is to reject (1) or (2). (2) is
obviously true. Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. Nobody goes to the
Father except by him. Nobody will be saved if he rejects the gospel that Jesus
atoned for sins by dying for them, and that he rose from the dead. The only
option is to reject (1). Therefore, not every sick person is sick because he
came out from under the blood of the atonement.
There actually are people who would agree with the above argument on
the basis that (1) a person can lose his salvation, and (2) a person can live a
sinless life. People don't come in and out from under the blood of the
atonement because of sin. The blood of the atonement cover sins. That's
what it's for. I completely reject the notion that a sick person is an unsaved
person because we find in the Bible that several Christians got sick, and some
even died. Paul's conversion experience was marked by blindness. (Acts 9:3-9)
Paul became ill in
There are a few people who believe that a person may be sick and yet be
under the blood of the atonement. In this view, an otherwise healthy Christian
commits a sin, comes out from under the blood of the atonement, gets sick,
repents from the sin, becomes covered under the blood of the atonement again,
but the person may have to reap the consequences of that sin for the rest of
their life. In other words, if a person gets sick as a result of sin, he may
have to continue being sick for the rest of his life because of that sin even though
he has repented and come back under the blood of the atonement. The problem
with this view seems obvious. If this theory is true, then healing is not
guaranteed for the person in this situation. That's essentially what this view
is. That means that healing is guaranteed for everybody who gets saved, but if
they get sick even once as a result of sin, then for the rest of their lives,
their healing will not be guaranteed. (Are there many of us who have not at
least suffered from a cold or a headache?) In that case, it makes no sense for
them to say that healing is guaranteed in the atonement. If healing were
guaranteed in the atonement, then they ought to be healed immediately upon
repenting from the sin that caused their sickness and upon placing faith in
their healing.
3. The scriptures do show that sickness can be the result of sin. Jesus
warned the man he healed at the pool of
"His disciples asked him,
'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither
this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the
work of God might be displayed in his life.'" (John 9:2-3)
Some will argue that this scripture doesn't mean that all sickness is
not a result of sin because even though him and his parents may not have
sinned, one of his ancestors may have. At the least, Adam sinned. All sickness
ultimately had its roots in Adam's sin. Hopefully the person making this
argument will realize that in doing so, he has refuted his own belief that
healing is guaranteed in the atonement. If a person can get sick, not as a
result of his own sin, but as a result of Adam's sin, then none of our healings
are guaranteed because getting sick would not require us to commit a personal
sin. Adam has already committed one for us. To remain consistent with the
belief in guaranteed healing, one must argue that only personal sin can cause a
person to get sick, because otherwise, nobody's healing would ever be
guaranteed. But Jesus has told us otherwise. The man was not born blind because
of personal sin.
Likewise, we find that Job's many afflictions had nothing at all to do
with sin. Repeatedly, the book of Job says that Job was, "blameless and
upright." (Job 1:1) It was because Job was blameless and upright
that Satan requested permission to test him by killing his family, removing his
wealth, and striking his body with a disease of the skin.
"Then the LORD said to
Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him,
he is blamless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still
maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without
any reason.' 'Skin for skin!' Satan replied. 'A man will give all he has for
his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he
will surely curse you to your face.' The LORD said to Satan, 'Very well, then,
he is in your hands; but you must spare his life.' So Satan went out from the
presence of the LORD and afflicted Job with painful sores from the soles of his
feet to the top of his head." (Job 2:3-7)
B. Paul was not sick at all.
This is the minority view for obvious reasons. First of all, this view
is highly speculative. Second, practically all Greek scholars agree that Paul
was physically ill, which is why all the Bible translations translate Galatians
1. The Greek of the passage.
The word used for Paul's illness is "asqeneian,"
transliterated, "astheneian," which literally means
"weakness." This is the most commonly used word in Greek to refer to
physical illness, though it is sometimes used figuratively to mean inadequacy,
impotence, etc.
"769. asqeneia astheneia;
gen. astheneias, fem. noun from asthenes (772), weak, sick. Weakness, sickness.
In the NT, this word and related words, asthenes (772), weak, sick, and
astheneo (770), to be sick or weak, are the most common expressions for illness
and are used in the comprehensive sense of the whole man. However, it can also
refer to a special form of bodily weakness or sickness. Figuratively, astheneia
can mean general impotence, weakness (Rom.
"NT. Disease is normally described by the Gk. nouns astheneia
(weakness), malakia (misfortune)-used three times in Mt. only, or the Verbs
astheneo` (to weaken) or kako`s echein (lit. 'to have badly') and once (Jas.
In a footnote, I have gone through all the uses of
"astheneia" and its variant forms in the New Testament to see how it
is used. [1]
Although "astheneia" is used to refer to inadequacy, imperfection,
corruptibility, and actual sickness, it most often refers to physical illness.
Nevertheless, it should be defined by the context in which it is used, which is
different from place to place.
In Galatians, Paul tells us the specific kind of astheneia he was
suffering from. He uses the phrase, "asqeneian thV sarkoV," which literally means
"weakness of the flesh." So it was a physical weakness, which again
is why the NAS calls it a "bodily illness," and why just about every
other translation calls it a sickness, an infirmity of the flesh, or some kind
of phrase implying that there was something physically wrong with Paul.
2. Internal evidence
One of the reasons people have differences in opinion over the meaning
of certain scriptures is because certain words or phrases can be used in
different ways, and people disagree on the way it's used in a particular
passage because they insist on using it in the same way it's used in a
different passage. The best way to determine how a certain word or phrase is
being used in a particular passage is to consider the immediate context. In
Galatians 4:13-14, Paul says,
"As you know, it was because
of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you. Even though my illness
was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you
welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
What has happened to all your joy? I can testify that, if you could have done
so, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me."
As I said before, the last sentence has caused some to speculate that
there was something wrong with Paul's eyes. That may be possible, but I do not
believe it's necessarily true. There are a few things to note about this
passage:
(1) Paul's astheneia was the
reason he first preached to the Galatians.
(2) Paul's astheneia was a burden to the Galatians.
(3) Paul was welcomed with open arms in spite of his astheneia.
(4) Paul's astheneia was temporary.
All of this leads us to the inescapable conclusion that there was
something physically wrong with Paul. His astheneia (in this context) was not
mere mortality, because it was temporary. His astheneia was not opposition
because he was welcomed with open arms. Just as the apostles wrongly assumed a
man born blind was so because of sin, so also most people during those days
believed that any kind of physical malady was the result of sin. It is for that
reason Paul acknowledged that they did not treat him with contempt or scorn.
They might have rejected his message due to their assumption that he was a
sinner, but they didn't. He likely got stuck in
God has often used sickness to manifest his Glory. This was the case
with Tabitha.
"In Joppa there was a
disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always
doing good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and
her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. Lydda was near Joppa; so
when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and
urged him, 'Please come at once!' Peter went with them, and when he arrived he
was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and
showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was
still with them. Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his
knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, 'Tabitha, get up.'
She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and
helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and
presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people
believed in the Lord." (Acts 9:36-42)
Just as God used blindness to manifest his glory in one person's life
(John 9:3), and he used sickness and death to manifest his glory in another
person's life (John 11:4), God also used Paul's sickness as an opportunity to
spread the gospel. Likewise, God continues to use sickness to draw people to
him today.
IV. Scriptural Arguments
The doctrine of healing in the atonement rests primarily on the words,
"by his stripes we are healed," so I want to continue this discussion
by having a look at Isaiah 53. I recommend reading it before continuing, and
then following along as I discuss it. Isaiah 53 is one of the most
comprehensive prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament. It talks about
each stage of his life. This is how I would break it down:
His childhood. Isaiah 53:2
His rejection by his fellow Jews. Isaiah 53:2-3
His healing ministry. Isaiah 53:4
His suffering for sins. Isaiah 53:5-7
His death. Isaiah 53:8
His burial. Isaiah 53:9
His resurrection. Isaiah 53:10-11
His exaltation. Isaiah 53:12
What I want to focus on now is Isaiah 53:4 and Isaiah 53:5. If you'll
notice above, I made a division between these two verses. Verse 4 is about the
healing ministry of Jesus, and verse 5 begins his suffering for sins. This
distinction becomes more clear when these two scriptures are quoted as proof
texts in the New Testament. Verse 4 says,
"Surely he took up our
infirmities and carried our sorrows."
It's clear from Isaiah 53:4 that it is talking about physical ailments,
but it's even more explicit when Matthew quotes it.
"When evening came, many who
were demon posessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a
word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the
prophet Isaiah: 'He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.'"
(Matthew 8:16-17)
Since Matthew is using Isaiah 53:4 as a proof text for Jesus' healing
ministry, it's obvious that Isaiah 53:4 has physical healing in mind. This
scripture, however, cannot be used to support the doctrine of healing in the
atonement because this prophecy was fulfilled during Jesus' healing ministry
before the atonement ever took place. Since it is not associated with the
atonement, it cannot be argued from this scripture that our healing is guaranteed
because of the atonement.
Starting with Isaiah 53:5, the author begins to strongly emphasize the
suffering of the Messiah for sins by saying the same thing over and over in
several different ways. Four times, he says he suffered for our sins. Then
twice he says everybody sins, and then one last time, he repeats that he
suffered for our sins.
"But he was pierced for our
transgression,." [i.e. He suffered for our sins.]
"he was crushed for our iniquities;" [i.e. He suffered for our sins.]
"the punishement that brought us peace was upon him," [i.e. He
suffered for our sins.]
"and by his wounds we are healed." [i.e. He suffered for our sins.]
"We all like sheep have gone astray," [i.e. We are all sinners.]
"each of us has turned to his own way;" [i.e. We are all sinners.]
"and the Lord has layed on him the iniquity of us all." [i.e. He
suffered for our sins.]
It would be quite odd and out of place if there, in the middle of these
lines, the author had physical healing in mind when he said, "by his
wounds we are healed." The pattern makes it emphatically clear that the
author has in mind spiritual healing from sin, transgression, iniquity,
waywardness, etc. The Hebrew word for "healed," in that passage is
"raphah," which is used metaphorically many times in the Old
Testament to indicate things such as healing [purifying] water (2 Kings
2:19-22), healing [sending rain on and restraining locusts from] land (2
Chronicals 7:13-14), and healing [changing] people's backsliding and
waywardness (Jermiah 3:22, Hosea 14:4), which is the way it's used in Isaiah
53:5. When we see how it is used in the New Testament, it becomes even more
clear that the author has spiritual healing in mind.
"He himself bore our sins in
his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness;
by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but
now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." (1
Peter 2:24-25)
Here, Peter says that we were backsliding (like sheep going astray),
and that Jesus bore our sins on the cross so that we might stop sinning, live
for righteousness, and return to the shepherd and overseer of our souls, and
his proof text is Isaiah 53:5. Peter uses the scripture the way it was intended
in Isaiah to mean spiritual healing from sin and waywardness. It could not be
more clear, and yet this is the primary scripture that gets used to support
physical healing in the atonement by isolating it from it's context and reading
into it what people want to hear.
There are several other approaches used to prove that healing is
guaranteed in the atonement. One reasons that since Jesus died for sins, and
all sickness results from sin, then Jesus must've also died for sickness. By
the same principle, Jesus died for anything that sin causes. The argument goes
like this:
(1) Jesus died for sins.
(2) Sickness results from sins.
(3) Therefore, Jesus died for sickness.
In a manner of speaking, this is true. All of the ills of the world
came about somehow because of the original sin. Sin entered the world through
one man, Adam, and the entire world, including Adam's descendents, were cursed
as a result. We live in a fallen, sin-stained world. Jesus died to free us from
it, and eventually, both our bodies and the cosmos will be renewed to their
original perfection. That time, however, has not yet come. It won't come until
the resurrection. So while it's true that in a manner of speaking, Jesus died
so that we could be free, not only from sickness, but also from death, pain,
and sorrow, these benefits of the atonement will not be realized until the
resurrection. By the same analogy as the above argument, one could say that
because "Christ died for sins," (1 Corinthians 15:3) and, "the
wages of sin is death," (Romans
(1) Jesus died for sins.
(2) The wages of sin is death.
(3) Therefore Christians should not die.
This argument fails because the benefit of immortality comes at the
resurrection, and not before. Likewise, perfect health is not guaranteed until
the resurrection. One might argue:
(1) Jesus healed during his
ministry.
(2) Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Hebrews 13:8)
(3) Therefore, it is not God's will that any should be sick today.
The conclusion does not follow from the premises. It would be more
accurate to conclude that God still heals today, which I would agree with.
Again, the absurdity of this argument can be shown by taking it to its logical
conclusion.
(1) Jesus raised people from the
dead.
(2) Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
(3) Therefore, it is not God's will that any should die today.
Again, it would be more accurate to say God raises people from the dead
today, which is rare if it happens at all. We know that everybody, Christian or
not, dies once, therefore, this reasoning cannot be valid. When Jesus raised
people from the dead, he did not raise them immortal. They would still have to
die. So those raisings were only a taste of what was to come. Jesus will raise
us to immortality in the resurrection. Likewise, Jesus' healings were only a
taste of what was to come at the time of the resurrection. At the resurrection,
we will all enjoy perfect health, but not until then. In the meantime, God will
heal people for his glory, as in the case of Lazarus and Tabitha, or because of
his mercy, as he healed Epaphroditus.
"But I think it is necessary
to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker and fellow soldier,
who is also your messsenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs. For he
longs for all of you and is distressed because you heard he was ill. Indeed he
was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but
also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow." (Philippians 2:25-27)
Paul goes on to tell the Philippians to "honor men like him,"
because he risked his life and almost died for the work of Christ when he was
sent to help Paul. Paul seemed to hold him in high regard, rather than blaming
his sickness on personal sin. We should not, therefore, assume that a person's
sickness is the result of personal sin. God healed Epaphroditus because of his
mercy, and not because his healing was guaranteed.
The absurdity of many of the arguments used to support healing in the
atonement can be shown by taking them to their logical conclusions. If
everything Jesus died for means that we should enjoy the privileges of them
today, then Christians should already be immortal. Yet every single person, Christian
or not, will die. "Man is destined to die once." (Hebrews 9:27) We
will not enjoy all the priviledges of the atonement until the resurrection when
our bodies are changed from perishable to imperishable, and from mortal to
immortal.
The belief in healing in the atonement leads to the belief that Satan
is always the author of sickness and that God never causes sickness. The
argument comes from the idea that if healing is in the atonement, then it must
always be God's will to heal, and if it's always God's will to heal, then it is
never God's will to inflict sickness, so if people are sick, it must be because
of the devil. Sin is what makes a person vulnerable to Satan's power to make
people sick. First, I will look at some of the scriptures used to support these
ideas, and then I will show from the scriptures that these ideas are false.
"When evening came, many who
were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a
word and healed all the sick." (Matthew 8:16)
The argument goes like this:
(1) Jesus healed all the sick.
(2) Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
(3) Therefore, it's is Jesus' will to heal all the sick today.
This argument fails because premise (1) is not true. The word
"all," does not necessarily mean every single person. Take Mark 1:5
for example. It says, "The whole Judean countryside and all the people of
Furthermore, by the same kind of reasoning as above, one could conclude
that God inflicts sickness on his own people.
(1) God inflicted sickness on his
own people in the past.
(2) God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. (Malachi 3:6; James 1:7)
(3) Therefore, It is God's will to inflict sickness on his own people today.
Many people deny premise (1), so I am providing examples in a footnote.
[2]
There are several Old Testament scriptures used to support the idea
that healing is guaranteed for today. To be brief, I will just mention two of
the more popular ones. By analogy, what I say will apply to the rest of them
that I haven't listed here.
"Worship the LORD your God,
and his blessing will be on your food and water. I will take away sickness from
among you, and none will miscarry or be barren in your land. I will give you a
full life span." (Exodus 23: 25)
"Praise the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits-who
forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases." (Psalm 103:2-3)
There are three problems with using these scriptures to indicate that
healing is guaranteed, that it is always God's will to heal, and that Satan is
always the author of sickness.
1. These scriptures do not guarantee perfect health for everybody. They
are general principles. They merely indicate that God heals, which I agree
with, but they don't guarantee healing. If these scriptures were meant to be
taken in an absolute sense as if it were a guarantee, there would be no
exceptions. Yet we find in the scriptures that Solomon noticed an exception.
"In this meaningless life of
mine I have seen both of these: a righteous man perishing in his righteousness,
and a wicked man living long in his wickedness." (Ecclesiastes 7:15)
In general, if we live wisely and obey God, we will enjoy better health
and longer lives because the things God requires of us are in our best
interest. Also, if we live holy lives, God is going to be more favourably
disposed to grant our requests. In the scriptures, we find that, "If anyone
turns a deaf ear to the law, even his prayers are detestable." (Proverbs
28:8)
2. These scriptures were written well before Jesus' atonement, so they
cannot be used to support healing in the atonement. If these scriptures did
guarantee healing, it would not be because of the atonement. We can especially
see that Exodus
3. As I showed above, God was frequently the author of sickness in the
Old Testament and the New Testament, even on his own people. For the Old
Testament examples, proponents of healing in the atonement will agrue that
"that was under the old covenant. We're under a new covenant now."
This is a popular argument used to diffuse almost any kind of disagreeable
doctrine supported by Old Testament scriptures, but the same people who use
this argument will gladly quote from the Old Testament when there's a scripture
to support their view. If healing in the atonement proponents really want to
use this argument, then they can't use Exodus 23:25 and Psalm 103:2-3 to
support the guarantee of perfect health today since they are also under the old
covenant. They can't have it both ways.
Some people have recognized the inconsistency between healing in the
atonement and the fact that people deteriorate and die. To account for it, they
usually say that wearing glasses and having rickety bones is a natural part of
the aging process. Many of them also admit that Paul's vision was likely
failing him in his older years, but that this does not contradict healing in
the atonement. I beg to differ. If God intends for us to live in perfect health
until we die, that includes poor vision, poor hearing, blindness, deafness,
diseases, stomach problems, headaches, deformities, arthritis, and any kind of
physical malady whether you can technically lable it as a disease or not
because anything short of that is not perfect health. Some people seem to think
healing is guaranteed in the atonement provided you neither sin nor get old. It
seems that healing is not guaranteed for old people. Some people actually admit
this, and they use Psalm 90:10 as proof.
"The length of our days is
seventy years-or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble
and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away." (Psalm 90:10)
It is argued that since God only gave us seventy years to live, then we
come out from under his covering once we reach that age. I submit this as proof
that a two-legged creature will believe anything. This scripture is only making
an observation about the extent of the Israelites' lifespans, and there is
nothing in the Bible to hint that God protects people from sickness who are
younger than seventy and not those who are older. If seventy was a fixed
number, it wouldn't have said, "or eighty, if we have the strength."
Clearly, there is no fixed number for how long people live. We see in our own
experience that some people have the strength to live a hundred years.
Everybody has to die of something whether it be heart failure, stroke, lung
failure, or whatever. Some part of the body has to give out and stop working.
Everybody dies of something. Aging itself is the primary human disease from
which we all suffer, regardless of how holy we live or what religion we belong
to.
Noticing the above inconsistencies, other's have attempted to make
distinctions about what kinds of physical maladies are covered under the
atonement. What I usually hear is that only infectious diseases caused by
viruses or bacteria are covered, and that deformities and abnormalities, such
as poor vision, poor hearing, and missing or deformed limbs are not covered.
This distinction, however, is nowhere found in the Bible. People in the ancient
world were unaware of viruses and bacteria. They made no distinction between
different kinds of physical ailments. Jesus healed every kind of problem people
had, including physical deformity. He even raised people from the dead and cast
out demons. If Jesus' healing ministry is any indication of what kinds of
healings are guaranteed in the atonement, then we should expect to find that a
Christian who is under the atonement will never be missing an arm, a leg, or
even a finger or toe, and he can put his glasses and his hearing aid away. But
if Jesus' healing ministry is irrelevant to what is covered under the
atonement, then proponents of healing in the atonement should not use his
healing ministry as a pretext to support healing in the atonement.
V. How do people take advantage of healing in the atonement?
There are three different views in answer to this question. I'm sure
there are more, but these seem to be the basic categories.
A. Instant upon salvation
If healing is provided for in the atonement along with forgiveness of
sins, and if a person becomes saved immediately upon accepting the gospel, then
people also ought to be completely free of physical maladies as soon as they
become saved. According to this view, whenever a person gets saved, his entire
slate is wiped clean. All past sins are forgiven, and all former ailments are
eliminated as a result of coming under the healing blood of the atonement. The
view further says that any future sins will be dealt with individually. Though
a person who is saved should have a clean slate, he is able to
"dirty" his slate later on. Any sin he commits could make him
vulnerable to sickness again, and he may have to reap what he has sown for the
rest of his life, which means his healing would never again be guaranteed.
Ideally, if everybody lived like a Christian after they got saved, there would
be no need for the gift of healing. In this view, the gift of healing seems to
be a provision to restore fallen Christians.
B. Gift of healing
According to this view, a person who gets saved still may be oppressed
by a demon or a sickness resulting from a generational spirit, a generational
curse, or the effects of past sins. The person need only be delivered from
whatever is ailing him, and he will from then on be immune to future sicknesses
provided he doesn't return to a life of sin. The major problem with all of
these views is that none of them have any basis in scripture. These are
speculations people have to make to accomodate the inconsistencies in their
theology. If a person believes in this teaching, then he can't use the argument
that because Jesus died for sins, and sins cause sickness, that Jesus died for
sickness, because it would not make sense that if both sin and sickness were
covered under the atonement, that a person would have one thing immediately,
and the other thing would require some additional means of grace to obtain. If
a person is delivered from a physical malady by the gift of healing, then it
was not the atonement that caused it.
C. Positive confession
This view is based on the scripture that says, "by his stripes we
are healed." Because it says, "we are healed," many believe that
once they are saved and under the atonement, they are already healed despite
evidence to the contrary. Consequently, their apparent illnesses are only lying
symptoms which are a ploy of the devil to rob a person of his joy and make a
person doubt his healing. They believe that all one need do is "positively
confess," that they are healed, and the healing will manifest itself. If
people are going to use the fact that "we are healed," is written in
the present tense to mean they are presently healed, then they would be led to
the illogical conclusion that Christ atoned for their sins before he ever came
to earth, because this scripture comes from Isaiah in the Old Testament, and
it's written in the present tense in Isaiah as well. While it's true that
having a positive attitude can have a great effect on a person's healing, words
cannot create reality. Denying reality is nothing short of self-delusion. In
many cases, the symptom itself is the disease. Can you imagine a person having
lying symptoms of blindness but not actually being blind? That's absurd! If a
person can't see, he's blind. The symptom is the disease. The Assemblies of God
wrote an excellent position paper on positive confession called, "The
Believer and Positive Confession," so rather than go into the positive
confession teaching, I'll defer you to this document. I highly recommend it.
VI. Emotional arguments
When scriptures fail to convince people of what they want to believe,
they almost always resort to emotional arguments. Afterall, it's because of
their emotions that they usually come to bogus doctrines in the first place.
"For the time will come when
men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,
they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their
itching ears want to hear." (2 Timothy 4:3)
People believe what they want to believe, and the use of emotional
arguments gives them away.
A. Refuting healing in the atonement destroys faith.
It seems true that people who believe in healing in the atonement often
show more faith in their healing than other people. Should this be a good
enough reason to believe in healing in the atonement? Of course not! If we
believed things on the basis that they make us feel good, then our religion
would be nothing more than a placebo. While some people are content to be fat,
dumb, and happy, such an attitude convinces others that Christians are
irrational, self-deluded nutcases. Christianity should not be a blind leap into
the darkness, but rather, a step into the light, as Hank Hanegraaff often says.
If a thing is not true, then we should not believe in it. The fact that an idea
makes us happy has no bearing on whether or not it is true. Mormons use this
same reasoning to defend their belief that people will continue to be married
for eternity. Telling a sick person their healing is not guaranteed is no worse
than telling a Mormon that their marriage is going to end at death, or telling
a child who just lost a tooth that there's no tooth fairy, or telling people
who are worried about their dead loved ones that there's no spaceship behind
commet Hail Bopp. If ever there is a right time to tell a person the truth, it
would be when they have placed their hope in a false promise and entrusted
their welfare to a false doctrine.
The question I most often hear is, "What is to be the basis of our
faith in healing if not the guarantee of healing in the atonement?" I find
it puzzling why anybody would need a guarantee before placing their faith in
something. The Bible doesn't promise rain, and yet we pray in faith for rain.
The atonement certainly doesn't guarantee our freedom from persecution, and yet
we can pray in faith that we will be spared. The atonement doesn't cover our
automobiles, and yet we pray in faith for a safe journey. Of course this is the
very reason you hear about people "pleading the blood of Jesus," over
inanimate objects. They want the object to be covered under the atonement as
well. Just because we don't know what God's will is in every situation, it
doesn't mean we shouldn't pray in faith for the things we need and want.
Tabitha got sick and even died, but God raised her from the dead in answer to
Peter's prayer. We have every reason to pray in faith for our healing even
though it's not guaranteed, because we have a merciful God who is often willing
to heal. Some proponents of the Word of Faith teaching say that to pray,
"if it be your will," indicates a lack of faith and that it mocks
God. On the contrary, praying, "if it be your will," is an act of
humility. It acknowledges that God is sovereign and that he knows what's best
for us better than we do. It means that we are subjecting ourselves to his will
rather than our own, just as Jesus did.
"This is the confidence we
have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he
hears us. And if he hears us-whatever we ask-we know that we have what we asked
of him." (1 John 5:14)
The Bible has example after example of God healing people, so there is
every reason for us to pray in faith that God will heal us. Nevertheless, we
must pray according to God's will, and his will is not to heal in every
situation. Even in the case of healing, we have Biblical precedent for praying,
"if it is your will."
"A man with leprosy came and
knelt before him and said, 'Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.'
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. 'I am willing,' he said. 'Be
clean!' Immediately he was cured of his leprosy." (Matthew 8:2-3)
We don't always know what God's will is in every situation, which is
why, contrary to the word of faith teaching, the Bible tells us that we should always
say, "If it be your will."
"Going a little farther he
[Jesus] fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is
possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you
will." (Matthew 26:39)
"But as he left, he promised, 'I will come back if it is God's
will.' Then he set sail from
"But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing."
(1 Corinthians 4:19)
"Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or
that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why, you do
not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that
appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it
is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that.'" (James 4:13-15)
We don't boss God around, and it's really a good thing that we don't
because some of the things we ask for are not in our best interest. Garth
Brooks wrote a song where he adequately illustrated why, "some of God's greatest
gifts are unanswered prayers." The more we grow in wisdom, knowledge, and
spiritual maturity, the more clear God's will becomes to us (Romans 12:2), but
none of us will ever know God's perfect will in every situation. Thankfully, we
don't have to because the Holy Spirit intercedes for us. Paul said,
"In the same way, the Spirit
helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the
Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he
who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit
intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will." (Romans 8:26-27)
Ironically, though some say that refuting healing in the atonement
destroys faith, often times, just the opposite is true. The teaching of healing
in the atonement has destroyed the faith of many, and has prevented others from
ever coming to faith. If healing were guaranteed in the atonement, we should
expect the average Christian to be healthier than the average outsider, but that
is not the case. From an outsider's point of view, Christianity is bogus
because Christians believe things that aren't true. On average, believers are
no healthier than unbelievers. They're about the same.
Most of us don't suffer from serious illnesses. At most, we suffer from
colds, sore muscles, ulcers, and things like that. Since having a positive
attitude can help these sicknesses, it's easy for a person to maintain belief
in healing in the atonement amists these minor illnesses. But for quadraplegics,
and those who suffer from other serious illnesses, having a positive attitude
is not enough to bring about healing. When they are not healed, they undergo
radical discofirmation. They are forced to believe either that healing was not
guaranteed afterall, or that God doesn't exist. Unfortunately, many choose the
latter. Some will argue that they probably didn't have enough faith to be
healed. Such cannot be the case when we examine the fruit. A person's faith is
evident in the actions he takes in support of that faith. If people throw away
their medicine because they believe they are healed, we should not doubt their
faith. But what are we to think when they subsequently die? Some condemn them
as miserable sinners who refused to repent. It's easy for an outsider to say
that somebody else is a miserable sinner without any faith, but for the person
in the situation, it can fill them with dispair since they know better. Since
we all sin, anybody can scratch up some sin that might've been the cause for
their sickness, but if that's the route you take, then you can't say healing is
guaranteed since we all sin. So the person has to be a habitual sinner needing
to repent. This teaching leaves many in dispair, not realizing that "there
is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1) It
destroys them emotionally, and it often destroys them spiritually.
B. A loving father would want his children to be well.
This is about the most fallacious argument there is. The idea is that
since God is a loving father, then he would do everything any loving father
would do, and he would not do what any loving father would not do. God is just
like us. He thinks like us, reasons like us, and shares our worldly point of
view. To show the fallacy of this reasoning, I will show how it is used in
other contexts.
1. Prosperity teachers use this argument to say that Christians ought
to be rich and healthy and prosperous in every way. Since we would want the
best in every situation for our children, God would also want the best for us,
his children, in every situation. The problem is that what we think is best for
us is not necessarily what God thinks is best for us. The Bible clearly shows
that "money is the root of all kinds of evil," (1 Timothy
"How hard it is for the rich
to enter the
For some people, wealth could be more of a curse than a blessing.
Surely God wouldn't put a stumbling block in anyone's path.
"When tempted, nobody should
say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt
anyone." (James 1:13)
Likewise, "the Lord disciplines those he loves," (Hebrews
12:6) and just as he did so in the Old Testament, we have no reason to think he
wouldn't use the same method today. A psalmist wrote that "in faithfulness
you have afflicted me." (Psalm 119:75)
2. Universalists use this argument to say that everybody will
eventually be saved. They argue that since none of us would send our son or
daughter to hell for eternity and disown our children forever with no hope of
reconciliation, then surely God would have more mercy than we would and would
therefore always leave the door open, and eventually, everybody will be saved.
Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarian Universalists use this argument to say that
hell doesn't even exist. They argue that surely no loving father would banish
his own son or daughter to such vile torture as hell, and certainly not forever
when the person committed only a lifetime of sins.
3. Atheists use this argument to say that God doesn't exist. They
reason that any loving father would spare his children hardship if he could. If
God is all powerful and all good, then evil should not exist. Since evil does
exist, then God must not exist.
The reason all of these arguments are fallacious is because God is not
like us. He's a lot smarter than we are.
"'For my thoughts are not
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the LORD. 'As the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my
thoughts than your thoughts.'" (Isaiah 55:8-9)
God did not promise us a rose garden. On the contrary, he promised us
suffering. There is no logic in thinking God would spare us one kind of
suffering on the basis that he's a loving father while not sparing us another
kind of suffering for the same reason. In truth, God is often willing to
deliver us from any kind of suffering, be it sickness or persecution, but there
is no guarantee in either case. God delivered Peter from prison (Acts 12:5-11),
but he did not deliver Stephen from being stoned. (Acts 7:59-60)
C. We should be known by our good health.
The question is often put to me, "Why would anybody desire to be
Christian if they saw that we had no advantage over them? How are we to be set
apart from the world if not by superior health?" Somehow, this makes them
reason that God must want all Christians to enjoy perfect health. Contrary to
such reasoning, the Bible tells us explicitely how we are to be known by the
world.
"By this all men will know
that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34)
We are to be known, not by how prosperous and healthy we are, but by
how we live our lives.
"Make it your ambition to
lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just
as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so
that you will not be dependent on anybody." (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12)
"In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may
see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matthew 5:16)
Rather than being known for how God pours out material blessings and
health on us, we are to be known by the joy we have in spite of our suffering.
"But the fruit of the Spirit
is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and
self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23)
"I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have
plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation,
whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want."
(Philippians 4:12)
My dad is a shining example of how God can use a person's sickness to
draw people to him. My dad did not always walk his Christian faith, but when he
got cancer, it changed his life. His perspective changed from earthly to
heavenly. He grew closer to God and was able for the first time in his life to
continuously walk in repentance. Not only that, but because of his sickness, he
had the opportunity to draw several people to Christ. They saw the joy and the
hope he had in spite of his sickness, and that's what they wanted. Likewise,
Joni Erickson Tada is a shining example of how sickness can be used to God's
glory. She has been a quadraplegic for around thirty years, and through it has
become an inspiration to thousands of others. The thorn in Paul's flesh is what
kept him from boasting. (2 Corinthians 12:7) A psalmist wrote that "Before
I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word....It was good for me to
be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees....in faithfulness you have
afflicted me." (Psalm 119:67,71,75)
Sometimes, it is God's will that a person be sick because affliction
brings about refinement.
"My son, do not despise the
LORD's discipline and do not resent his rebuke, because the LORD disciplines
those he loves, as a father the son he delights in." (Proverbs 3:11-12)
"Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought
best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness.
No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it
produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained
by it." (Hebrews 12:10-11)
VII. Why I wrote this article.
The teaching of healing in the atonement does real damage to real
people.
A. Judgemetalism
If healing is guaranteed in the atonement, then the only reason for any
Christian to be sick is because he is either a miserable sinner or because he
hasn't got enough faith. This causes people to associate the healthy with the
spiritual, and the sick with the depraved. Naturally, some become arrogant and
judgemental, while others become subject to reproach. Such judgementalism hurts
both the person being judgemental (since any sin is harmful to us), and the
victim of the judgement (since suffering from sickness is bad enough without
also having to suffer the reproach of one's fellow brothers and sisters in
Christ). If proponents of healing in the atonement are to be consistent when a
loved one dies of a serious illness, they should condemn them as miserable
sinners unwilling to repent, and possibly even unsaved since if they didn't
have enough faith in the atonement to be healed, then they possibly didn't have
enough faith in the atonement to be saved either. Judgmentalism is an
inevidible by-product of healing in the atonement.
B. Grief
As I mentioned above in the part about the emotional argument that
refuting healing in the atonement destroys people's faith, quite the opposite
is true in many cases. Now most of us are relatively healthy, so we don't see
the immediate dangers of this teaching in our own experience. But for those who
suffer from serious diseases, this doctrine can be deadly. Some die because
they had enough faith to give up medicine. Others undergo radical
disconfirmation. It throws people into dispair because of not being able to
identify and repent of some secret sin. They think as long as they are sick
that God must be forever displeased with them. It is my prayer that Christians
will learn to be content in every situation. The spiritual fruit of joy is not
conditional upon our situations.
C. Faith
Healing in the atonement destroys people's faith as I also mentioned
above in the same section under emotional arguments. When the belief in healing
in the atonement is radically disconfirmed, people are forced to reject either
the teaching or God. If they have been thoroughly convinced that the Bible does
teaching healing in the atonement, then they are forced to believe the Bible is
untrue, and that God must not exist. Some people never come to faith at all
because they believe that if Christianity were true, and healing in the
atonement is what Christianity teaches, then Christians in general ought to be
more healthy than the rest of the public. Since they aren't, then either
healing is not in the atonement, or Christianity is not true. If all these
people have been exposed to are people who believe in healing in the atonement,
then these people will reject Christianity as untrue.
VIII. Conclusions
In conclusion, I just want to reiterate a few points I made in this
article. God does heal people (James
For more information on this topic, I recommend the following sources.
"Healing: Does God
Always Heal?," by Elliot Miller
Christianity in Crisis, by Hank
Hanegraaff
NOTES
1. These are the
various ways "astheneia" is used in the New Testament.
"In the same way, the Spirit
helps us in our weakness [astheneian]. We do not know what we ought to pray
for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot
express." (Romans 8:26)
The context suggests that it means general impotence, inadequacy, etc.
"When evening came, many who
were demon posessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a
word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the
prophet Isaiah: 'He took up our infirmities [astheneias] and carried our
diseases.'" (Matthew 8:16-17)
In this context, the word strictly refers to illnesses. Matthew quoted
from the Septuigint which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
The word for diseases here is "nosous." The physical weaknesses
result from the diseases. That's why "astheneia" almost always means
physical illness. To be physically weak is an illness, or a symptom of an
illness.
"When the sun was setting,
the people brought to Jesus all who had various kinds of sicknesses
[astheneia], and laying his hands on each one, he healed them." (Luke
4:40)
"If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness
shown to a cripple [asthenes] and are asked how he was healed, then know this,
you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man
stands before you healed." (Acts 4:9)
Here, "asthenes" is translated as "cripple" because
the context proves that this is what was wrong with the guy. (See Acts 3:1-10)
"Is any one of you sick [astheneo]? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the n