The following quotes show that some 'Christians' believe physical healing is provided for through the atonement:
Ken Copeland The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary
Benny Hinn God is not going to heal you now—He healed you 2,000 years ago. All you have to do is receive the healing by faith…there will be no sickness for the saint of God…not a headache, sinus problem, not even a toothache—nothing
Jerry Savelle When the Devil tries to put a symptom of sickness or disease on my body, I absolutely refuse to accept it…I’m healed by the stripes of Jesus
Ken Hagin A person seeking healing should look to God’s Word, not to his symptoms. He should say, ‘I know that I am healed because the Word says that by His stripes I am healed.”
Both from these quotes and general observance, we learn that the basis for this doctrine is a particular understanding of Isaiah 53:5. In this verse, some say they find the teaching that physical healing was purchased at the cross and is, therefore, available to us 24/7 by faith. Let's take a closer look:
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We must first observe that these are Hebrew couplets. The first two lines have identical meaning (Jesus suffered for our sins). In my opinion, lines three and four have identical meaning as well (His suffering restores us to God). Those who believe the word 'healed' refers to physical healing have missed the context of Isaiah and the prophets as a whole. The focus is 'spiritual' healing. God wants to:
Bind up the brokenhearted
Cure you of backsliding
Heal their waywardness
Those are not medical conditions. They are spiritual conditions. 'By his wounds we are healed' is simply another way of saying that through his punishment we have peace. Since the cross is a fact of history, spiritual healing is available 24/7 through faith. But this verse contains no such promise regarding physical healing.
What's more, Peter practically quotes Isaiah 53:5 in the following way: 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." Peter was addressing this to slaves who may have had fresh (physical) wounds from their masters. And yet, he still suggests that they've accessed the promise of 53:5 in that they have returned to the shepherd (spiritually)!
24/7 physical healing is not provided for by the atonement. If it were, then the quoted men above would be right when they blame a lack of healing on a lack of faith. But since it is this teaching, not necessarily the faith of the sick, that is deficient, many who have been left feeling like faithless failures are potentially vindicated. Each time this false teaching seeps into our understanding of God, it results in feelings of failure (either we are failing in faith or God is failing to fulfill His promise). But this is unncessary since God simply didn't promise to physically heal on demand.
If the above arguments are true, then we have removed the condemnation from the still-sick members of Christ's body. Nevertheless, they are still sick. Not being obligated by the work of Christ on the cross, we must wonder if God still in the business of miraculous physical healing? That's the question for tomorrow when we look at the doctrine of cessationism.
15 comments:
hi matt,
i agree with your critique of the healing on demand folks, but cannot agree (wholly) with your interpretation of Isaiah (or atonement). punishment and wounds are different and simply don't mean the same thing; they both give perspectives of the benefit of the devastation the anointed one would suffer. this is peripheral, though.
what is more important is separating spiritual and physical healing. only in our context does this mean anything. we medicate people without seeing what relationships they are in. (the physical healing people make the same mistake, just from the other side: physical healing is available regardless of human relations.) Isaiah's point (hence all the 'we' language) is communal benefit and restoration of individuals in community and communal restoration by individuals. this, of course, will result in healing (both physical and spiritual). the intention of so many healings of Jesus in the gospels and the disciples in Acts is to bring people back into community and to show the church her responsibility: to be the community of healing. spiritual and physical healing go hand in hand, both benefits of the work of Christ.
Hey, yeah, I agree that the first disagreement is peripheral since we're both saying that lines 3 & 4 of the verse describe our benefit from his devestation.
As for the latter, I am certainly not denying that physical healings are a work of Christ. I just disagree that they are promised on demand, or referred to at all in Isaiah 53:5.
Physical healings during Jesus ministry were the fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4 (see matthew 8:16-17). They were performed to show that true spiritual restoration, which is invisible, was being performed.
The early Christian community did not experience better health than the pagan world around them. And this fact did not damage their faith since they didn't believe God had promised them physical health.
Frankly, instead of viewing physical ailments as a wicked thing urging elinination, they tended to view them as stepping stones toward greater Christlikeness.
I get these verses a lot as well and heard a message preached on them at the Hillsong Church:
Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
Psa 103:3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
hey matt,
i think our disagreement lies in how we connect spiritual and physical health. in my opinion, you need some more nuance as you move between forms of healing (spiritual and physical). by this i mean that they are interrelated and one need not believe in 'healing on demand' to think so.
first, i would argue that the early Christian community did experience better health in some ways--though, to be honest, it's an unprovable thesis. to say that they didn't is to say that relationship has nothing to do with physical illness, which has been disproved time and again. (i'll mention one article: "The Body Remembers" by Parin Dossa, International Journal of Mental Health 32:3.) i could say the same thing for myself: being raised in a Christian home brought me better health than if my family had not been Christian: not because God protects Christians, but because relationships founded on Christ have holistic effect. it's impossible to prove, though, as i would need a verifiable double of myself to measure our health, with same diet, etc.
if our physical well being is associated with our relational well being, then being brought into relational well-being in the community of Christ is very appropriate to our view of atonement. remember the isaiah passage is part of the second large chunk of isaiah (40-55) which starts with, "Comfort, comfort my people / says your God. / Speak tenderly to Jerusalem..." (40:1) and that the writer has Jerusalem as a community in mind the whole time. there is a deep connection between sickness and sin in the OT. this is not to say that all sickness is the result of specific sin, but that some sicknesses required atonement (Lev 12, 14, 15) as they separated people from community. james follows this up in the NT (James 5:13-16). (personally, i think part of the healing is in the confession act itself with some of the benefits that come from verbalizing sin and having a listener.)
it's a false dichotomy between wanting illness eliminated and wanting Christlikeness. i think Christians (early ones included) want both: but they understand that sickness is not the most serious issue; sin is.
so, i just don't think you can separate physical and spiritual well-being as easily as you do. does this mean that Christians will get sick? sure. does this mean good relationship will keep some illness at bay via the work of Christ in establishing relationship? absolutely. does this mean that we can expect the health of some to improve as they find new relationship? yep.
thanks for the dialoge AP
Admittedly, I have a tendancy to compartmentalize issues before I put them back together.
I actually agree that spiritual and physical health are inter-related to some extent. But my purpose in this post is to refute the idea of 'healing on demand;' the idea that Christ's suffering guarantees that God wills for us to be healed right now and that we simply have to have enough faith to enact this promise.
Such a use of 53:5 is mistaken in my (and I'm quite sure both of our opinions). While I am sure to be lacking in some nuance for someone hoping to see a more holistic dealing with physical and spiritual health, it just isn't my aim here.
I can only go by what I believe the early church to describe about themselves when it comes to their levels of physical health. For instance, Cyprian:
"It disturbs some that the power of this disease attacks our people in the same way it attacks the pagans. As if the Christian believed in order to have the pleasure of the world and the life free from illness, instead of enduring adversity here and awaiting a future joy. As long as we are here on the earth, we experience the same fleshly tribulations as the rest of the human race, although we are separated in spirit...We have eye diseases, fevers, and feebleness of the limbs the same as others."
I don't think that quote, or my own thoughts, deny the idea that spiritual health can and does benefit spiritual health in various ways. I'm not so much attempting to separate them 'easily' as I am seperating them in a blog post, which may account for the lack of thorough holistic thought.
My purpose remains to prove that Isaih 53:5 does not mean that Christ healed all illness at the cross and we just need to access that healing by faith. I'll be addressing the James passage in the next days of this topical discussion.
Kirk, I will address those verses shortly. I would have included them in the post itself, but blogs are meant to be short. Even what I posted is only a small piece of what I originally intended to say.
hey matt,
of course you cannot address everything in a post. i only intend to show where there is a connection between healing and atonement (even in Is 53) that need not be a healing on demand consideration. i think it is important to mention.
(re: Cyprian: his experience is the same as ours, and i wouldn't expect him to be aware of relational wholeness and its connection with physical wholeness, when writing as a pastor to sufferers.)
you might also mention augustine in your next teaching on this. check out Gil Meilaender's "Between Beasts and God" from First Things. there is a great section on augustine encouraging Christians to suffer in their illness and refusing to use amulets (which worked in healing disease) because they used supernatural powers not from Christ. far from thinking Christ had healed their diseases, they suffered in pride, serving Christ in spite of their disease.
peace.
Kirk quoted 2 more key passages that are used by 'healing on demand' guys quite often (though in my observation Isaiah 53:5 is definitely the 'most' utilized)
Deu 7:15 And the LORD will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
A few points in response:
1. This verse being part of the OT, doesn't relate to the issue of whether physical healing is provided for 'on demand' because of the cross, which such teachers depend on.
2. Besides, another good case can be made that the 'healing' spoken of here and Ex. 15:26 isn't directly about physical healing. When the story is re-told in Hosea 11:1-4 the 'healing' (v. 3) is spiritual, not physical healing.
3. What diseases were placed on Egypt? They were plagues of judgment. God could simply be saying that if they kept His covenant He wouldn't come in judgment. It's not about individuals and there sickness so much as it's about the spiritual health of the body of Israel.
Psa 103:3 Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;
1. Once again, this doesn't touch the issue of whether healing is provided for in the atonement, but only that God is able to heal physically.
2. Nobody is denying that God will heal all the diseases of His people. The verse simply doesn't argue for 'on demand' healing provided for in the past by the cross and available through faith instantly.
Not carefully worded, but those are my thoughts on those passages
also, in regards to those verses, it should be noted that the responses were 'defensive' in nature. The biggest problem for 'on demand' healing doctrine is the thorough offensive argument FOR the existence of sickness among people of faith. I think that will be included in part 3 of my discussion.
i really enjoyed reading this edifying dialogue, and i have to say that i agree with what Aaron has said 100% on this. it is very VERY important to make the nuance in explanation of how the physical and spiritual world are deeply related and intertwined and how beings created for community suffer physically when they are not participating in knowing and being known.
i really enjoyed reading this edifying dialogue, and i have to say that i agree with what Aaron has said 100% on this. it is very VERY important to make the nuance in explanation of how the physical and spiritual world are deeply related and intertwined and how beings created for community suffer physically when they are not participating in knowing and being known.
That the physical and spiritual worlds are inner-related is not disagreed upon by anyone here. The question is, and has been, whether God 'healed' physical diseases by the work of His Son on the cross, thus making experience of physical healing available on demand (by faith) just like spiritual healing can be available on demand (by faith). In my opinion it is inconsistent logic to say spiritual AND physical healing were covered by the cross and then say only 1 is available on demand by faith.
We would never tell someone that they can't be at peace, spiritually, with God until they die. Why? Because the cross provides for peace with God at any moment one puts their faith in its work.
In stark contrast, we can't tell someone that they CAN experience physical healing right now b/c of the cross and be correct. Why? Because the cross does not provide for physical healing at the moment a person puts faith in its work.
May God heal at that moment. Sure. But that is, obviously, not usually His choice.
There is a danger in wanting everything to say everything in that you can end up making everything say nothing.
I think Healing on demand falls apart mainly because it provides us with a consequence free world. The Bible teaches more of a cause and effect doctrine. If you do this, this will happen. If you don't do this this won't happen or this will happen because of your lack of obedience. Obedience brought blessing. Disobedience brought the curses. For on demand healing to work it would mean that the consequences of how we have treated our bodies mean nothing. Do we really believe if you smoke 3 packs a day knowing that that habit leads to cancer that God is obligated to remove the consequence of our actions. Or if we have a high refined sugar diet as the majority of North Americans do and it leads to cancer, stroke, heart disease, or diabetes. (top 4 leading causes of death in North America) we have the audacity of claiming that God has to remove our sickness. Don't even get me started on exercise. We bring the curse of sickness on ourselves more often than not. I do believe God sometimes miraculously heals all of the above situations I've mentioned but most of the time He doesn't nor should He as we caused the sickness.
hey i've been serious a lot lately. poop
hi matt. i think this will be my last word, but i'm not sure. my opinion is not limited to the way you have framed the question, and this is why i chimed in as i did. against the HOD people, we agree, but i didn't think that meant we could not discuss the relation of healing and atonement (and Is 53). this is not wanting you to say everything, just presenting you with an alternative view.
your last mention of the connection between the physical and spiritual and being "on demand" *might* show where our disagreement is coming from. i would never say that any kind of healing, even spiritual, is available "on demand" by faith. faith itself is a gift, as i'm sure you agree. saving faith is available to anyone, but not at any given moment. to paraphrase some Wesley scholar, "Anyone can be saved, but not anytime they want." i'm not sure there is any healing available on demand, physical or spiritual.
Kirk, good comments regarding consequences. If I were teaching/preaching this subject that'd certainly be an aspect I'd want to discuss.
AP, of course you're free to discuss anything on my blog :) It just seems like sometimes you have a way of saying things I mostly agree with, but are just off-topic enough to make my original thoughts seem to be saying something they really aren't.
Though my 'on demand' language is mostly just a catchy title, I am sure we do have some concrete disagreement on some of the issues involved. For instance, I'd reckon we differ as to what degree 'faith' can be called a 'gift' as you describe. Perhaps we have differing understandings of Ephesians 2:8?
And I'm not sure if you are saying that a person can't repent and express their faith at any moment, but if you are we disagree on that too (not that there aren't other ingrediants present at that time).
Thanks again for the discussion
Post a Comment