Faith and Healing in the Atonement

The doctrine of healing in the atonement is based on three chief passages of scripture:

ISAIAH 53:4-5“Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.”

MATTHEW 8:16-17“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. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.’”

1 PETER 2:24“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.”

• Contemporary faith teachers all believe that healing is a provision of the atonement, as was taught among the early Pentecostals and early Holiness groups.

• Kenyon believed that all sickness is spiritual and must be healed spiritually. “As long as we think our disease is purely physical we will not get our deliverance.”

• Kenneth Hagen Jr. considers healing in the atonement as absolute declaring healing, “a forever settled subject. . . . Jesus Christ settled it--and healing is the will of God.” The implication is that God makes no exceptions, and that if healing does not come it cannot be that it was not God’s will.

Contemporary Faith Teaching

• Usually comes in one of two ways:

• Denial that healing is provided for in the atonement of this life

• Criticism of contemporary faith interpretation of the doctrine

• MacArthur in Charismatic Chaos and Hanegraaff in Christianity in Crisis write against the doctrine of healing in the atonement as if it is a cult misrepresentation of Scripture by the charismatic faith teachers.

Criticism of Contemporary Faith Teaching

• McConnell is concerned about the contemporary faith interpretation and application of the doctrine, which deviates from classic Pentecostalism.

• “Contemporary faith leaders,” he claims, “teach that diseases are healed by Christ’s spiritual atonement in hell, not his physical death on the cross.” Further, McConnell asserts that contemporary faith teaching is parallel to metaphysical New Thought: “Both systems of thought deny that disease has any physical or organic causes, teaching instead that disease is entirely the physical effect of a spiritual cause.

Criticism of Contemporary Faith Teaching

• Presbyterian/CMA, Spurgeon:Isa. 53:4-5, “The earth is full of souls healed by our beloved Physician.”• Keith Bailey, (Healing, the

Children’s Bread)• German Lutheran, Stockmayer • Baptist, AJ Gordon• Congregationalist, Torrey• Princeton Scholars• A.A. Hodge• J.A. Alexander • Franz Delitzsch, Hebrew professor

at the University of Leipzig, Germany

• Chambers and Murray, in Reformed covenant theology. • Hanegraaff criticizes Copeland for

the same assertion.• T.J. Crossman’s Book, Bodily Healing

and the Atonement is an in-depth study of the Greek and Hebrew passages in defense of healing in the atonement.• Additional scholars are cited in

support of the interpretation: Young, Leeser, MacLaren, Gaebelein, and Calvin.

Classic Faith Teaching:Evangelical Leaders who Believe in Healing in the Atonement

• Carter’s, The Atonement for Sin and Sickness, took a more radical viewpoint, however, Faith Healing Reviewed After 20 Years, moderated his earlier position, disavowing that doctrine means that all will be healed, and that medicine from doctors should not be used.

• Chambers taught “but we have to remember the Atonement works under God’s dispensational sovereignty.” He believed that the Atonement is only efficacious for healing when God sovereignly deemed it so, not as absolute law. (Like Election for Salvation)

Classic Faith Teaching:Healing in the Atonement - Not an Absolute

• While these Evangelical leaders believed in healing as a provision of the atonement, in contrast to contemporary faith teachers, they did not consider it a given in all circumstances.

• From the view of Simpson and the C&MA: “Mr. Simpson has always allowed that one’s time may come and the faith mot be given, but the point here is that practically the position [of the C&MA] has been one of special answers in the Will of God, not a broad atonement for all at any time.


Torrey believed that physical healing is in the atonement, but also recognized it is not automatic or absolute, saying:

“While we do not get the full benefits of the body secured for us by the atoning death of Jesus Christ in the life that now is but when Jesus comes again, nevertheless, just as one gets the first fruits of his spiritual salvation in the life that now is, so we get the first fruits of our physical salvation in the life that now is. We do get in many, may cases of physical healing through the atoning death of Jesus Christ even in the life that now is.”


Most classical faith leaders do not appear to espouse the “spiritual atonement of the devil,” but, as McIntyre’s research shows similar concepts were not totally absent from classic faith teaching. Many would hold that Christ’s atonement was both physical and spiritual in nature, including Calvin, Luther and Spurgeon.

• There may be similarities to New Thought metaphysics in Kenyon’s teaching, McIntyre shows that there are even closer affinities to some of the classic faith leaders with whom Kenyon had contact.


Wimber:Confusion and misunderstanding of healing in the atonement have caused some charismatic leaders such as Wimber to back off from the teaching, preferring instead to call it “Healing through the atonement” or “an outcome of the atonement.” Wimber does acknowledge, “not all of those who believe physical healing is in the atonement conclude healing is automatic and immediate.”

• Examples of this statement would be:Simpson, Murray, Torrey, Carter, Chambers and Gordon

Reflections and Conclusions

Wimber misinterprets Torrey’s statement on healing in the atonement.

Torrey also declared “...If the conditions are met; but it is not always God’s will to heal... it is not always possible to pray ‘the prayer of faith,’ only when God makes it possible by the leading of the Holy Spirit.”


C&MA theologian and historian G.P. Pardington:

• Many who died in the first twenty-five years of the C&MA, died of illnesses, yet there is no claim that they were sick or died from disobedience or lack of faith. Rather they are regarded as “Our Honored Dead.”

• He also wrote with insight of some who have not received divine healing, but receive strength in their infirmities.


• Healing is provided for in the atonement - not all receive the fullness of healing in this life. Many times it is a partial healing, or a supernatural enabling that is imparted from God in the midst of weakness.

• Classic faith leaders view healing in the atonement as a provision that begins in this age, but is not fully consummated until the age to come. This maintains the “already, but not yet” principle of Cullman and Ladd and strikes a balance between these two polarities. Already but not yet, as propagated by Wimber and the Vineyard.


• I would conclude, like Murray, Simpson, Carter, and Torrey, that it is valid to consider healing as a provision of the atonement in this life, but not as automatic or complete healing in this life. Nor is it through an “atonement of the devil.”

• As the classic faith leaders believed, it is generally God’s will to heal, but there may be exceptions. God’s sovereignty rules over all his promises and provisions. We can pray expectantly for healing, but leave room for God’s greater purposes, which are higher and greater than our understanding.


Documents

Faith and Healing in the Atonement