When it comes to divine healing we don’t get our theology from anything but the Word of God. It can be tempting to adjust our theology to suit our experience; but I want to remind you afresh today that all we believe as Christian’s is based in the authority of Scripture. And it should be the Scripture we look to for guidance in all matters of life and faith.
What follows is a study I have prepared on this issue and I feel it might benefit you. It will focus on the aspect of divine healing with respect to the atonement. I will only be able to cover some of the angles but I do hope to provide an examination of the issue to demonstrate that prayer for the sick and divine healing are both sound biblically and theologically and maybe provide a foundation of faith for those of you who have doubts over this issue.
It’s a detailed study, so if you don’t have time to examine the whole article right now I want to provide the conclusion at the outset for a quick overview and you can revisit the whole article when you do have time:
Conclusion
The position taken within this article is that divine healing is a benefit of the atonement for all humanity. Jesus in His atoning work on the cross paid for sin and all it’s effects, which includes sickness. The qualifications to this statement are similar to the classical Pentecostal position that one should not presume upon the sovereignty of God, i.e. we can’t assume all healing will be automatic and God retains the element of Sovereignty in respect of this issue. Our healing theology does not exclude the medical profession. God can and does use medical doctors to heal people.
It should be noted that one should not adjust ones theology to suit circumstances. In addition one should be careful that this doctrine of healing in the atonement should not be enforced in a dogmatic manner. It is essential to find truth and allow that truth to bring freedom to the hearer, however one should not bear down heavily upon the hearer, if they are not seeing immediate visible manifestations of the this truth. Jesus ministered with love and grace, we should follow his example and do likewise.
Introduction
Did the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ include the provision for divine healing; or is divine healing merely a separate issue? I will attempt to answer this question and will consider the following additional questions: Did the early church believe divine healing was inherent in the atonement; and if it did, has this belief continued throughout the history of the church? Are there differing views within the modern church with respect to the provision of healing within the atonement? What does the bible reveal with respect to the issue of divine healing within the atonement?
Biblical / Theological Background
Before examining the issue of healing it is important to understand what it is with respect to the human condition which requires healing. Sickness arose as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. There are many differing forms of illness and disease, and many times we can be tempted to think that it is solely physical healing that people need.
It is important to remember that there are many forms of emotional pain which also require healing. Brown for example argues that there are many women in our contemporary culture “victimized by childhood sexual abuse” and that we must listen carefully in order to “hear in their cries of anguish the voice of a crucified Christ.”(1)
He also argues that contemporary culture has become desensitized to the pain of others. He argues that people are “tyrannized by a technologically-controlled consumer culture where the market decides and people are programmed. First World inhabitants disassociate themselves from their own pain. More critically, they numb themselves to the pain of others, especially women, children and disenfranchised men.”(2)
Healing of many kinds is required by people in a hurt, broken and fallen world. God sent his only Son, Jesus to bring healing to hurting humanity. The gospel accounts reveal to us by way of God’s special revelation that Jesus came into this world by means of the miracle of incarnation. His life and ministry reflected the miraculous. His death, resurrection and ascension all clearly reflected the miraculous intervention of a loving God who sent his only son to redeem a fallen world.(3)
Jesus earthly ministry was characterized by his compassion for the sick, and his willingness and ability to miraculously heal the sick. From scripture it is clear that Jesus’ ministry included divine healing; however, one needs to question whether it can be said that this ministry forms part of his overall mission to redeem mankind from the effects of sin through the atonement.
Those who argue for this dual ministry of Christ and his mission point to the scriptural passage Mark 2:9-11,(4) which states: “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise take up your bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins’ He said to the paralytic ‘I say to you arise, take up your bed and go to your house.’
The above scripture seems to imply a link between Jesus’ ministry to redeem humanity from sin and his desire to redeem them from the effects of sickness. Other scriptures which seem to suggest a more explicit link between healing and the atonement are Matthew 8:17, 1 Peter 2:24, and Galatians 3:13-14.
Although theologian’s dispute the meaning of these passages, they do seem to suggest that with his torture, crucifixion and death, Jesus paid a price to bring healing to sick humanity. Matthew 8:17 says: “This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”
1 Peter 2:24 says:””He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” Both refer to the Old Testament passage in Isaiah 53, which describes Jesus bearing our sicknesses and healing our sicknesses with his stripes. Galatians 3:13-14 states that Jesus has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse on our behalf.
The curse of the law includes sickness and the curses resulting from disobedience to God are detailed in a number of places in the passage Deuteronomy 28:15-44. Scripture does seem to point to healing as being part of the atoning and redemptive mission of Christ, however there are differing viewpoints within the body of Christ as to how these passages should be interpreted. I will specifically consider the third-wave, Eastern Orthodox and the classical Pentecostal perspectives.
Theological positions
Third wave
The third wave movement as espoused by John Wimber teaches that healing is not strictly in the atonement, but that it is through the atonement. This distinction is necessary according to Wimber because if healing is considered to be through the atonement, then it does not necessarily have to be automatic as is the case with salvation. (5) Wimber argues that Pentecostals hold the view of healing in the atonement and that the failure to appropriate healing can be considered to be the result of a flawed faith on the part of the recipient. He argues his view mitigates the extremities of this type of teaching. (6)
Eastern Orthodox
The Eastern Orthodox view holds that salvation includes health and well-being. One of the key understandings within this view is that through the incarnation Jesus accomplished a saving work. Jesus took on our fallen nature and in so doing, he restored the original image of God in fallen nature. (7) Another Orthodox view of the atonement is the “Christus Victor” view that Christ conquered death and its effects through the cross and therefore restored humanity to its original state – i.e. without sickness. This “Christus Victor” view is the unifying theme of Orthodox Christianity; however, it does not ignore other themes. The methods for appropriation include the administration of the sacraments and visiting of healing shrines, which differ from the more modern approaches.
Classical Pentecostal
There are a number of differing views within the classical Pentecostal tradition with respect to healing and the atonement. According to Wright, the traditional view has been that healing is in the atonement. Wright quotes a number of scholars: Gee, Jeter, Purdy and Fee. Gee, Jeter and Purdy all consider healing to be in the atonement, however, they dispute as to how equal healing and salvation are within the atonement. They believe that healing is not necessarily automatic and instant, a belief held by some Pentecostals. Gee argues one needs to guard against the extremes of presuming on God’s sovereignty and “assuming that all divine healing occurs outside of a doctor’s office.” (8)
According to Wright, Fee argues that scripture does not explicitly refer to healing in the atonement. He argues that 1 Peter 2:24’s reference to Isaiah 53 is metaphoric rather than literal and that Matthew does not have the cross in mind when he refers to Isaiah 53 (Matthew 8:17). (9)
Fees’ interpretation of Matthew 8:17 is supported by Warrington who argues that Matthew’s reference to Isaiah 53 is in respect of Jesus ministry not his death. He argues it is only a small minority of Pentecostals who believe that the atonement “guarantees healing from sickness in this life to the same degree as salvation from sin.” (10)
The Classical Pentecostal position therefore can be divided into two camps. Firstly those who believe healing is in the atonement, with some qualification and those who deny healing is in the atonement altogether. I will now attempt to develop a view from the above and then defend that view from a biblical, theological and historical perspective.
My view
My view is consistent with the classical Pentecostal and Orthodox perspectives that healing is in the atoning work of Christ. There are a number of qualifications in respect of that premise, particularly from a theological and historical perspective. I’m not entirely comfortable with the third wave theology of healing and the atonement and this will become apparent as the various defenses are presented.
Biblical defense
As noted in the background section, there are a number of scriptural justifications for holding the view that healing is in the atonement. Miller argues that the Old Testament links healing to the atonement using the passage in Numbers 8:19. The passage refers to the Levites and their offering atonement for the children of Israel so that “there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.” According to Miller, this atonement is a shadow of the atonement, which would come through Christ. (11) Reichenbach argues that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament left sickness and death untouched and it was not until the coming of Christ that the fallen human condition in it’s entirety was addressed. (12)
Isaiah 53, which points us to Christ, is used to argue for the link between sin, suffering and sickness. Reichenbach argues that as humans we are “diseased, suffering from our sins. We find ourselves unable to cure ourselves. So we turn to God the Healer, who through his Servant / Jesus our Physician heals us. There is a healing act: Isaiah’s Servant / Healer, in his voluntary and uncomplaining suffering and ultimate death, takes up our human predicament, thereby removing the illness and the resulting judgment of uncleanness.” (13)
Throughout scripture, we see that the purpose of Christ was to bring salvation to humanity. It is interesting to note that the Greek word for save, ‘sozo’ the word which is often used in relation to the healing of the sick in the synoptic gospels, is also the word which Paul used when he referred to the goal of his missionary endeavors.
Friedrich states “The choice of the word leaves room for the view that the healing power of Jesus and the saving power of faith go beyond physical life.”(14) It seems the gospel writers were not careful to try and distinguish the healing and saving aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, they were both regarded as being part of the same thing. Where modern theologians differ is in the reality determined to a large extent on how they perceive their theological position measures up to their view of reality.
Theological defense
It is my view that for number of reasons, possibly more practical than theological, that some theologians have taken theological positions to reconcile their theology with reality as they perceive it. I contend that this has created a ‘catch 22’ scenario. One ‘waters down’ ones’ theology to match reality and therefore ones’ theology does not challenge reality. Jesus’ teachings were often about stretching the faith of the hearer, to ‘move mountains.’ Therefore, even if one develops a theology which challenges the current reality and stretches the faith of the hearer one must not necessarily be wrong.
As an additional consideration, it is worth noting that in today’s postmodern culture, many ideas of reality have changed dramatically. Brown argues that the current post modern culture may have lost it’s sense of the presence of God. Healing is understood by post modern culture in psychodynamic or physiological terms and according to Brown this world-view may in fact have become an idolatrous substitute for the saving grace of God. (15)
He also argues that the usage of words has changed and that much of the power of words has been lost due to post-modern thought. The over analysis of the usage of words and their meaning seems to have rendered them powerless. Postmodern culture therefore is permeated with unbelief and substitutes for God’s power. Christian theology should challenge the presuppositions and beliefs of postmodern culture with theology that is unashamedly spiritual and supernatural.
Reichenbach argues that contemporary society prefers to view sickness in purely physiological terms. He argues that this view is inadequate as is the view that human illness is merely the result of a psychological or spiritual condition. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Humans need healing which can extend beyond physical and mental symptoms, serious sickness can have deeper roots. For healing to occur it must often assume a deeper spiritual dimension which can only be ministered to by the living Christ. (16)
Wimber has developed his theology to argue healing is through the atonement. It seems this view has been in part with a view to protecting believers from being labeled as having ‘faulty faith.’ This is a clear illustration of this ‘Catch 22’ scenario. If people are taught healing is through the atonement rather than in the atonement, one could argue the person’s faith would be lower than if they were taught healing was in the atonement.
The danger is that as soon as truth begins to be ‘watered down’ for the sake of compensating for reality and is therefore compromised, the believer is not in a position to receive the spiritual truth and begin to act upon that spiritual truth with their faith. While I sympathize with Wimbers’ position, possibly a better way of doing the same thing would be to argue that healing is in the atonement, and qualify the belief with the fact that sometimes God does not heal and we don’t always know the reasons.
With respect to those Classical Pentecostals who do not believe healing in the atonement, according to Wright, Fee argues there is no connection between healing and the atonement. Unfortunately in my opinion his arguments are inconsistent. Matthew 8:17 refers to Isaiah 53 as does 1 Peter 2:24.
With respect to Matthew 8:17 Fee argues it is not referring to Christ’s death and therefore his redemptive work and 1 Peter 2:24 for some reason Fee argues the passage should not be interpreted literally.
My feeling is it seems clear Matthew 8:17 refers to Christ’s death and 1 Peter 2:24 should be interpreted literally. My view is that Fee is simply trying to get scripture to agree with his theological position, rather than let it speak for itself.
Historical defense
The Biblical defense of this article mentioned the possibility that the writers of the gospels and therefore by association, the disciples and Jesus himself saw no real distinction between the saving and healing aspect of Christ’s redemptive work. Dawe supports this view. He states Jesus’ “healing activity was pursued on the premise that the Heavenly Father willed health of soul and body. Thus it was no mere adjunct to his redemptive mission, for the power with which he healed and the power with which he saved were one and the same thing.” (17)
He argues the disciples of Jesus continued in the same vein, proclaiming this Kingdom and it’s spiritual power to save and to heal. Dawe contends that over time the spiritual power of the church declined due to a number of factors such as “theological conflict, lack of persecution, worldly ease and aggrandizement, and human frailty.” (18)
Because of a decline in spiritual power the church’s theology began to reflect the reality of this decline in spiritual power. Darling argues that it wasn’t until the beginnings of the reformation that the church began to challenge this theology and move from a cessationist position with respect to healing. He argues the factors involved in this transition were “(1) public access to the Bible, (2) the development of individual freedom under law, and (3) the evolution of religious tolerance.” (19)
It seems that the theology of the church with respect to divine healing has tended to mirror the reality of the age of the church. However one could argue that it could have been partially a change in theology which resulted in a decline in spiritual power over time, hence the importance of holding to the original doctrine of Jesus and the early disciples with respect to healing in the atonement.
Conclusion
The position taken within this article is that divine healing is a benefit of the atonement for all humanity. Jesus in His atoning work on the cross paid for sin and all it’s effects, which includes sickness. The qualifications to this statement are similar to the classical Pentecostal position that one should not presume upon the sovereignty of God, i.e. we can’t assume all healing will be automatic and God retains the element of Sovereignty in respect of this issue. Our healing theology does not exclude the medical profession. God can and does use medical doctors to heal people.
It should be noted that one should not adjust ones theology to suit circumstances. In addition one should be careful that a doctrine of this nature should not be enforced in a dogmatic manner. It is essential to find truth and allow that truth to bring freedom to the hearer, however one should not bear down heavily upon the hearer, if they are not seeing immediate visible manifestations of the this truth. Jesus ministered with love and grace, we should follow his example and do likewise.
Endnotes
(1) Charles E. Brown “The Atonement : Healing in Postmodern Society,” Interpretation 53, no. 1 (Jan 1999):35, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004).
(2) Brown, 35.
(3) John 3:1.
(4) David Miller, Healing and Christ’s Atonement (Florida: Inn Glory, 1987), http://innglory.org/library/healing.htm, accessed 10/10/2003.
(5) James Wright, “Profiles of Divine Healing: Third wave theology compared with classical Pentecostal theology,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2, No.2 (July 2002): 275
(6) Wright, 283
(7) Penelope Johnstone, “Health and Medicine in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: Faith, Liturgy, and Wholeness,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 33 (Spring 1996): 223, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004.
(8) Wright, 283
(9) Wright, 284
(10) Keith Warrington, “The Path to Wholeness,” Evangel 21, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 46.
(11) Miller, 1.
(12) Bruce R. Reichenbach, “By His Stripes We Are Healed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, (December, 1998): 554, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004).
(13) Reichenbach, 558.
(14) Gerhard Friedrich, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 990.
(15) Brown, 34.
(16) Reichenbach, 554.
(17) Victor Gladstone Dawe, “The Attitude of the Ancient church toward sickness and healing” (Doctor of Theology diss., Boston University, 1955), 210.
(18) Dawe, 212.
(19) Darling, Frank C., The Restoration of Christian Healing (Boulder, Colorado: Vista Publishing, 1992), 3.
Works Cited
Brown, Charles E. “The Atonement : Healing in Postmodern Society.” Interpretation 53, no. 1 (Jan 1999): 34-43, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004).
Darling, Frank C., The Restoration of Christian Healing. Boulder, Colorado: Vista Publishing, 1992.
Dawe, Victor Gladstone, “The Attitude of the Ancient church toward sickness and healing.” Doctor of Theology diss., Boston University, 1955.
Friedrich, Gerhard, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1971.
Johnstone, Penelope. “Health and Medicine in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition: Faith, Liturgy, and Wholeness.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 33 (Spring 1996): 221-237, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004).
Miller, David, Healing and Christ’s Atonement. Florida: Inn Glory, 1987. http://innglory.org/library/healing.htm , accessed 10/10/2003 – Reichenbach, Bruce R., “By His Stripes We Are Healed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, (December, 1998): 551-560, available from Academic Search Elite [database on-line]; http:/search.epnet.com (Boston, MA.: EBSCO Publishing, accessed February 14, 2004).
Warrington, Keith, “The Path to Wholeness.” Evangel 21, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 45-50. – Wright, James, “Profiles of Divine Healing: Third wave theology compared with classical Pentecostal theology.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 2, No.2 (July 2002): 271-287.
If you enjoyed this word of encouragement, please feel free to sign up for future words of encouragement and updates of our ministry endeavors, by joining our mailing list on the top right hand side of this page.
