The Narrow Path Ministries

I was just listening to Steve's lectures on word of faith doctrines regarding healing. Steve refuted the point made by many that Isaiah 53:5 suggests that the stripes of Jesus paid for our sickness, therefore making it a part of the atonement package.

While I agree with Steve's interpretation of that verse, that it is talking about spiritual healing, I think you can still logically arrive at a theology where healing is a part of the atonement.

I'll start with a few points - whether or not you agree with them may influence your overall agreement with my thoughts.
1.) Sickness was the result of the fall.
I don't believe Adam and Eve were originally created to be susceptible to illness. Genetic degradation leading to infirmity happened after corruption entered
the world.

2.) The cross was the sole legal basis for God to bring restoration to the earth from all the effects of sin.

I'll start with the most obvious effects of sin - separation from God/need for forgiveness. Romans 3:25,26 indicate that if not for the cross God would not have been able to overlook sin in the OT and justify the sinner. Without the cross, justification in the OT would have been unjust. Therefore, when God justified sinners in the OT, he was looking forward to the cross. He was borrowing - in a sense - from a payment that was yet to be paid - and in some eternal sense the debt was as as good as paid since Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world."

So, yes, God could forgive sins before Jesus died, but it was still based on the cross.

Some have noted that healing wasn't a part of the atonement because God healed before the cross. I would use the same logic, that God's ability to issue all types of restorative graces instead of punishment (in this case healing from sickness) was based on the future death of Jesus. From the beginning of the Bible to the end, God's grace and mercy towards us is legally given through the doorway of the cross.

Furthermore, as Steve noted, the atonement spiritually reconciles us to God. In this, God becomes our inheritance - as was promised to Abraham. We inherit the Healer. This isn't to say that God is our genie to do our bidding - but I'm convinced that healing is God's will for us. God is Jehovah Rapha our healer - that is his nature. God dished out sickness as punishment for sin, but in Christ we are treated according to the righteousness of Jesus and are on the receiving end of his healing, not his punishments.

I think we get a clear picture of God's attitude towards sickness in the life of Jesus. Steve mentioned that Jesus did not heal everybody who was sick. But, he did heal all who had faith for healing (and even some who didn't). Jesus didn't go around forgiving everybody's sins either - but does that mean that Jesus had a laissez-faire attitude toward sin? Not once did Jesus or one of his disciples tell a sick person "God's grace is sufficient for you in this sickness - be joyful about it." No, Jesus "went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil." (Acts 10:38) In the gospels, sickness was routinely associated with demonic influence. Sickness is the the tool of Satan to oppress people. Jesus was anointed to bring "recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed..." (Luke 4:18)

Outside of a few debatable examples, sickness is nearly always portrayed as the work of sin or Satan - not as a signature of God's kingdom. We are to pray for and expect God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil - therefore I can conclude that it is Jesus' desire to heal sickness.

Now, if you don't get healed when you pray, then what? Were 99% of the cases of sickness in the Bible contrary to God's kingdom but apparently 99% of the cases of sickness are God's will in today's Christendom (as it seems that so many who pray for divine healing don't get healed)? Or is there something else at play?

Why is it so wrong to say that if people aren't healed it is because they don't have faith for healing? Jesus rebuked people for their lack of faith. The only time Jesus could not heal as many people as he normally did was because the town did not have faith. It seems to me that the idea that healing is not always God's will (but instead sickness is) has arisen to account for the fact that so many people who pray for healing don't seem to be healed.

Steve indicated that a tragedy of the doctrine that healing is a part of the atonement is that it could leave people wondering if they are really saved. If their lack of healing indicates that they don't have the faith for healing, how can they be sure they had faith for salvation??

You could apply this errant thought to other areas. I know it is God's will that all his children live free from sin, yet if I'm failing to walk in complete faith and obedience to live free of sins, does that mean I should worry if I had faith for salvation in the first place? No. While it is true that if I'm living a lifestyle of sin, it should cause me to stop and think if I'm really born again - it is also true that every Christian who is reading this has had issues with sin from time to time. Does your failure to live free from sin cause you to wonder if you really had faith to be truly born again? I think most Christians have the sense to know they are born again even if they are living below God's standards in some area of their life.

So, is it harder for God to heal people then it is to save them from sin? (as Steve rhetorically asked) No. But is it harder for people to believe for healing then it is to believe for salvation? Maybe. Sometimes our physical senses can be the biggest hindrance from experiencing spiritual realities. Salvation is a spiritual reality - one that may or may not be accompanied by any physical sensations. We can believe for salvation and receive it without feeling a thing. If we don't feel anything, we aren't necessarily discouraged or swayed because we understand that our born again experience has its roots in a dimension we can't see, touch, or feel. Physical healing, on the other hand, is something we perceive with our senses - even though it too has its roots in the spiritual dimension. If we don't immediately "feel" healed when we pray for healing, we will either wonder if we didn't have enough faith for healing or if it's not God's will for us to be healed. When we base our faith for healing on our physical senses, we can be deceived as to the true spiritual reality. We know that we must not waver in faith when we ask for something. If we are discouraged by a lack of physical evidence when we pray for healing, we may begin to waver in our faith, and therefore forfeit our rightful inheritance that could be ours if we remained in faith.

Hi Aaron-

I appreciate what you wrote. I am honestly on the fence with this issue. It is one of those debatable points that has excellent arguments for both sides.

I think the primary problem people have with the idea that physical healing is part of the atonement is that healing is therefore "guaranteed" if a person has faith.

I am not sure if one necessarily follows the other; i.e. it seems that even if physical healing is a part of the atonement, it does not necessarily mean that every person who has faith is guaranteed to be healed. The strong proponents of healing as part of the atonement cannot allow this because it makes total faith impossible (i.e. if there is a thought in the back of a person's head that "if it might not be God's will to heal every time, he might not heal me.")

The church I currently attend does teach that God wants us well, and that sickness etc is not something that God puts on people. Of course, we don't see every person prayed for miraculously healed.

So there is a tension between what is believed, and what is experienced.

However, in general, I do believe that God prefers that people not be sick. I know many on this forum will disagree with this. Since Jesus is the exact representation of the Father, I believe that God wants to heal, as Jesus demonstrated. Jesus only did what the Father told him to do, and Jesus went about healing the sick.

TK

Outside of a few debatable examples, sickness is nearly always portrayed as the work of sin or Satan - not as a signature of God's kingdom. We are to pray for and expect God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil - therefore I can conclude that it is Jesus' desire to heal sickness.




Would you say that sickness often can neither be from Satan or directly from God, just a consequence of the "death" inheritence from Adam? Also in Mark 11.24 Jesus says to "doubt not" which i think is different from a lack of faith in that we can have faith yet let doubt creep in if we don't get fast results. Lastly what would you say to the fact that Paul apparently was not aware of healing in the atonement?

I think the teaching that physical healing is part of the atonment is dangerous for the following reason.

People believe they are saved from hell through faith because of Christ's death on the cross. Now if they later come to believe that they are saved from sickness though faith because of Christ's death on the cross, and then become ill, it could lead to a crisis in faith. Their thinking might be, "I had faith in being saved from sickness through what Christ did for me, but I became sick anyway. Now I'm not sure whether I'm really saved from hell, even though I put my faith in Christ and His atoning work. It might only work in some cases."

Further, many people who believe in constant health through the atonement, tend to consider a person who becomes ill, as lacking in faith.

steve7150 wrote: Would you say that sickness often can neither be from Satan or directly from God, just a consequence of the "death" inheritence from Adam? Also in Mark 11.24 Jesus says to "doubt not" which i think is different from a lack of faith in that we can have faith yet let doubt creep in if we don't get fast results. Lastly what would you say to the fact that Paul apparently was not aware of healing in the atonement?

I certainly wouldn't say that every sickness is because of Satan. There are cancers that can come as a result of a genetic mutation I inherited from my parents. This doesn't take a demon to incite - it's just my body acting out of line from what is normal. I'll get sick if I stuff my face with sugar and Drano - and not because of any supernatural forces.

I agree that it isn't always a matter of faith or no faith. I think we can have faith, but still have doubts at the same time - as the father with the sick child said "I believe, help my unbelief."

Perhaps it is like a sort of tug of war, where our faith is pulling in one direction and doubt is pulling in the other direction, and whichever side is stronger wins out.

What do you mean that Paul was not aware of healing in the atonement? Because he never came out and said it like that? I wouldn't necessarily say that healing was in the atonement. I think it's better than that - we are united with the Healer because of the atonement. Just as forgiveness of sins wasn't the ultimate purpose of the atonement - fellowship with God apart from the barrier of sin was the purpose of the atonement.

I think that Paul spoke clearly about the blessings that come to the believer - the blessing of Abraham. If we are to inherit the earth, can we do it if we are prematurely dying from sickness?

Paidion wrote:I think the teaching that physical healing is part of the atonment is dangerous for the following reason.

People believe they are saved from hell through faith because of Christ's death on the cross. Now if they later come to believe that they are saved from sickness though faith because of Christ's death on the cross, and then become ill, it could lead to a crisis in faith. Their thinking might be, "I had faith in being saved from sickness through what Christ did for me, but I became sick anyway. Now I'm not sure whether I'm really saved from hell, even though I put my faith in Christ and His atoning work. It might only work in some cases."

Further, many people who believe in constant health through the atonement, tend to consider a person who becomes ill, as lacking in faith.

I addressed this some in my opening statement. We can know we are delivered from Hell - but we still might not live in the fullness that Jesus provided for us. If I have a hard time believing for peace when I know that Jesus gave me peace, do I begin to panic and wonder if I'm really saved?

I personally don't know anyone who would say that becoming sick is because of a lack of faith. There is still an adversary out there who wants to steal and kill. He may try to sneak up and steal something from us that is rightfully ours. But, a lack of faith could be shown if we let him run away with what is ours - not believing that God is more powerful - or that we have the healer living inside us.

Would you be right in saying that a Christian who still flounders in sin is lacking in faith?

I think that Paul spoke clearly about the blessings that come to the believer - the blessing of Abraham. If we are to inherit the earth, can we do it if we are prematurely dying from sickness?










Psalms says the meek shall inherit the earth, nothing is said about their health. It's true if we are in Christ we are Abraham's seed and through Abraham the nations will be blessed but right now we are in "this present evil age" and Christians get sick as much as others, so there seems to be a disconnect. Additionally Paul told Timothy to drink
some wine when he was sick, he did'nt claim healing in Jesus name.
So if we should as believers be physically and spiritually healed, what do you think the disconnect is?

Aaron,

I think you began with a flawed premise. The real issue is not sickness; the issue is death. Sickness is a means of death and "the wages of sin is death". We are all going to die. If we are healed it is only a reprieve.

Aaron wrote:
I think that Paul spoke clearly about the blessings that come to the believer - the blessing of Abraham. If we are to inherit the earth, can we do it if we are prematurely dying from sickness?

I'm not sure I follow. The blessing of Abraham Paul speaks about is being justified by faith. Nowhere does it state anything about healing. Nor does dying of sickness have anything at all to do with inheriting the earth, since this will be done after we are raised from the dead with glorified bodies.

Aaron wrote:This isn't to say that God is our genie to do our bidding - but I'm convinced that healing is God's will for us. God is Jehovah Rapha our healer - that is his nature. God dished out sickness as punishment for sin, but in Christ we are treated according to the righteousness of Jesus and are on the receiving end of his healing, not his punishments.

God dished out death as a punishment for sin:
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So by your logic we shouldn't die either, unless it's ok for God to still dish out death...just not sickness. I'm not sure that makes much sense.

Aaron wrote: Why is it so wrong to say that if people aren't healed it is because they don't have faith for healing? Jesus rebuked people for their lack of faith. The only time Jesus could not heal as many people as he normally did was because the town did not have faith. It seems to me that the idea that healing is not always God's will (but instead sickness is) has arisen to account for the fact that so many people who pray for healing don't seem to be healed.

I think it's wrong because it's never a clear teaching. Healing could have been one of many sign gifts manifested to unbelievers to get their attention. Why is it that we read of Paul healing people "so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them" and then at other times we read:

2 Corinthians 12:7 Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

The word "weaknesses" is astheneia. The same word translated infirmities here:

Matthew 8:17
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: “ He Himself took our infirmities And bore our sicknesses.”

1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.

Interesting. If plain water was causing Timothy "frequent infirmities" (as is not uncommon) why not just have faith in God to keep himself well? Why wine instead?

Paul also said:
2 Timothy 4:20 I have left in Miletus sick.

Why didn't Paul heal him? Why was he sick in the first place?

Philippians 2:25 Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need; 26 since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick almost unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

I'm not sure why Paul doesn't mention that Epaphroditus should have been more faithful or walking in the Spirit so his sickness would not overcome him? If in fact that's all that would be required to prevent sickness. Paul at other times points out why people are falling short, and he tells them how to overcome this. But here Paul seems powerless and leaves it all up to God to have mercy. An interesting word if in fact healing is just another part of our guarantee in Christ.

Aaron wrote: Steve indicated that a tragedy of the doctrine that healing is a part of the atonement is that it could leave people wondering if they are really saved. If their lack of healing indicates that they don't have the faith for healing, how can they be sure they had faith for salvation??

You could apply this errant thought to other areas. I know it is God's will that all his children live free from sin, yet if I'm failing to walk in complete faith and obedience to live free of sins, does that mean I should worry if I had faith for salvation in the first place? No. While it is true that if I'm living a lifestyle of sin, it should cause me to stop and think if I'm really born again - it is also true that every Christian who is reading this has had issues with sin from time to time. Does your failure to live free from sin cause you to wonder if you really had faith to be truly born again? I think most Christians have the sense to know they are born again even if they are living below God's standards in some area of their life.

I don't think Steve's logic is in error. The bible never promises sinless perfection as part of the atonement, but does promise a struggle against our flesh that can be won by walking in the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit mentioned by Paul does not include a promise of healing.

The atonement does not promise sinless perfection but does promise forgiveness of sins. If Isaiah 53 means we are both forgiven and free from sickness based on our faith then it does stand to reason that if we are sick then we are also not forgiven. Your example of walking free from sin is never mentioned as a guarantee in the atonement either. By walking in the Spirit we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh, but during our struggle as a Christian we are always fully atoned for and forgiven by faith. Our growth as a Christian is progressive but the forgiveness we have in Christ is not! We are justified (our sins are covered) by faith. Sinless perfection is not a sign we are saved, faith is. Our justification (by faith) is complete in a moment, but our growth in the form of good works is ongoing.

Sean wrote: I'm not sure I follow. The blessing of Abraham Paul speaks about is being justified by faith. Nowhere does it state anything about healing. Nor does dying of sickness have anything at all to do with inheriting the earth, since this will be done after we are raised from the dead with glorified bodies.

The main point I was trying to make was that justification by faith is the doorway to living in fellowship with God and receiving the blessings of sonship. God told Abraham He was his great reward. We inherit God - and God is a healer.

God dished out death as a punishment for sin:
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So by your logic we shouldn't die either, unless it's ok for God to still dish out death...just not sickness. I'm not sure that makes much sense.

But physical death is not the punishment for sin. Death also refers to separation from God - which is the eternal punishment for the unbeliever. If physical death were the punishment for sin, then that punishment would be fulfilled once an unbeliever's body expires, and then that person would be free to go to heaven since he paid the price for his sins with his physical death.

I understand the point you are making and I haven't completely thought through it - but God's pronouncement in Genesis 6:3 that man's days wouldn't exceed 120 years wasn't issued because of Adam's fall, so perhaps it is not undone by the second Adam, and if not for this pronouncement, we would be saved from physical death once the curse of Adam is lifted from us. I'd also say that death is not punishment for the believer, but is a promotion ("to die is gain"). I can hear you asking why sickness if bad then if it might lead us to receiving our reward a little quicker. I think the balance is in the fact that we have a mission here on earth while we are alive that God does not want us to prematurely exit from - cause once we are gone, we can no longer influence this important battle.

The word "weaknesses" is astheneia. The same word translated infirmities here:

I'd like to write a separate post on 2 Cor 12:7. The word "infirmities" can mean several things. Most of the major translations don't translate astheneia as infirmities in that verse - and I think there is good reason not to.

1 Timothy 5:23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities.

Interesting. If plain water was causing Timothy "frequent infirmities" (as is not uncommon) why not just have faith in God to keep himself well? Why wine instead?

The indication is that he kept getting sick and then kept recovering. Who is to say Timothy didn't receive supernatural healing from God each time he got sick from drinking the water? There is no indication that he didn't keep praying for healing each time he got sick. But, there is also room for wisdom. If adding wine to his diet would prevent him from getting sick in the first place, wouldn't that be more in line with God's will instead of him continuing to get sick and continually needing to get healed? I know the following example doesn't perfectly fit - but that is like allowing a tempting thing to remain in your life, and then asking for forgiveness each time you enter into that temptation - when God would rather you cut that tempting thing out of your life so you don't keep falling into it.

Being saved doesn't mean we are invincible. We can still get sick if we are dumb and drink a glass of bacteria infected water. That's not a consequence of the fall - that's just the way the natural world works. Adam could have broke a leg if he fell from a cliff - he could have gotten ill if he drank poison (IMO). There are natural consequences for things - but in Christ we inherit a supernatural healer, so that even if we do experience the consequences of natural negative reactions, God can overcome them in us.

It is 100% clear that Paul does not tell Timothy - "this infirmity is your cross to bear." No, Paul is clearly against it and wants Timothy to be forever free from it.

Paul also said:
2 Timothy 4:20 I have left in Miletus sick.

Why didn't Paul heal him? Why was he sick in the first place?

You can make a lot of that verse that it might not be saying. Paul could have prayed for Miletus' healing the day before Paul left on his next journey but the healing may not have come until after Paul left. I have heard of cases of people getting prayed for by someone but not receiving their healing until sometime after. Even with Jesus, a group of lepers were not immediately healed when he prayed for them - but they were healed during their journey to the priest.

Philippians 2:25 Yet I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, fellow worker, and fellow soldier, but your messenger and the one who ministered to my need; 26 since he was longing for you all, and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick almost unto death; but God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

I'm not sure why Paul doesn't mention that Epaphroditus should have been more faithful or walking in the Spirit so his sickness would not overcome him? If in fact that's all that would be required to prevent sickness. Paul at other times points out why people are falling short, and he tells them how to overcome this. But here Paul seems powerless and leaves it all up to God to have mercy. An interesting word if in fact healing is just another part of our guarantee in Christ.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that people with perfect faith will never get sick. As I said, there are natural consequences for exposing ourselves to germs - and there are also attacks of sickness that the devil will still try to hurl at Christians. The benefit is that the Christian is united to a God who can overcome the natural and supernaturally inflicted sickness. We are not immune to the devil's attacks when we become a Christian. God does not hold the devil at bay from us. In fact, the responsibility to resist the devil is placed on us. We resist the temptations that come our way - and I believe we should resist sickness as well.

We don't know Epaphroditus' story. He may have been severely beaten for his faith and received wounds that became badly infected. There is also no indication that Paul tried praying for him, but was unable to bring healing. His healing was by God's mercy - as is the case with all miraculous healing. Would Paul's response have been any different if Paul commanded the sickness to leave and his friend was restored? Do you think Paul would have said "I prayed for him and he was healed" or do you think Paul would still have given God all the glory - that through God's mercy healing is available even for the most worst of sicknesses. Once again though, the example is one of God fighting against sickness in the believer. It isn't an example of "rejoicing" in sickness as a cross to bear - but of coming against it as unwanted.

I don't think Steve's logic is in error. The bible never promises sinless perfection as part of the atonement, but does promise a struggle against our flesh that can be won by walking in the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit mentioned by Paul does not include a promise of healing.

The atonement does not promise sinless perfection but does promise forgiveness of sins. If Isaiah 53 means we are both forgiven and free from sickness based on our faith then it does stand to reason that if we are sick then we are also not forgiven. Your example of walking free from sin is never mentioned as a guarantee in the atonement either. By walking in the Spirit we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh, but during our struggle as a Christian we are always fully atoned for and forgiven by faith.

The point I was trying to make is that sickness is no more God's will for a Christian then sin is. I wasn't trying to say that healing is instant and automatic once we are saved any more than future sinlessness is instant and automatic - but that just as it is God's will for a Christian to live free from sin, it is God's will for a Christian to live free from sickness - and he gives us the tools to do both. In both cases, even if we don't see it fully realized, we can still rest assured in our salvation.