Healing in
Redemption
By
Joe McIntyre
The church has been divided over the subject
of divine healing for many years. Various opinions exist within
the community of Bible believing Christians. People who hold to
orthodox belief on all the essentials of the Faith can be divided
over the question of divine healing. In this article I want to
examine this controversy and suggest some reasons why it exists.
I want to present a case for divine healing being provided in
Christ’s atonement and therefore available to God’s
covenant people. I want to conclude with some reasons I believe
we don’t see more divine healing in the Church and why I
believe that this will change.
Pentecostal Opinion
It is interesting to note, that while many
have defended the idea of healing in the atonement, it is
primarily the Pentecostal denominations that have formalized this
view into their doctrinal statements. The statement of faith made
by the Assemblies of God in 1916 concerning divine healing reads
“In the Atonement full provision is made for our physical
healing.”[i]
In Foundations of Pentecostal
Theology, Guy Duffield and N.M. Van Cleave comment,
“The most positive answer to the question concerning
God’s will with regard to healing today, is found in the
relationship between Divine Healing and the Atonement. No doubt
is entertained regarding Christ’s ability to heal, but the
heart of the matter centers around the question: Did Christ make
special provision for the healing of the body? Is this blessing
included in the Atoning Sacrifice which He made on
Calvary’s Cross? We believe that the Bible teaches that
this is so.”[ii] Duffield and Van
Cleave write as scholars in the Foursquare movement.
A truth that seemed to have been emphasized
in the light of the Pentecostal outpouring that led to the
establishment of the Pentecostal denominations, was that healing
was in Christ’s atonement. Although this truth was being
proclaimed in the Faith-Cure movement in the latter part of the
nineteenth century by many voices, few denominations embraced
this idea. It was, however, part of the Christian and Missionary
Alliance fourfold gospel. (Jesus as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer
and Coming King). The CMA was not initially a denomination but
rather a fellowship of like-minded believers from many
denominations. CMA founder A.B. Simpson wrote, “Divine
healing is part of the redemption work of Jesus Christ. Its
foundation stone is the cross of Calvary.”[iii]
The Influence of
Cessationism
Until the late nineteenth century, most
scholars were, for the most part, cessationist. While defending
the miracles of the Bible, they did not believe that these things
were for the Church today. Jack Deere notes, “The Reformers
argued that the primary purpose of New Testament miracles was to
authenticate the apostles as trustworthy authors of Holy
Scripture. How would this argument prove that miracles were
temporary? Because after the apostles had written the New
Testament, miracles would have fulfilled their purpose and
would no longer be necessary, for now the church would
possess forever the miraculously attested written Word of God.[iv] (Deere’s italics)
When seeking to understand the prejudice against healing in the
atonement, we have to consider the weight of the influence of the
great cessationist scholars of the past on today’s
expositors. It is not a pleasant task to go against opinions that
have been esteemed for hundreds of years.
Dualism
Another hindrance to the idea of healing in
the atonement is the influence of Platonic Dualism on the Church.
An increasing number of scholars are challenging our Western
presuppositions and noting that we are viewing reality through a
Greek influenced lens, rather than a Hebrew perspective. Marvin
Wilson says that we “have often found ourselves in the
confusing situation of trying to understand a Jewish Book through
the eyes of Greek culture.” [v] One of the ways in which we
are guilty of this mistake, according to Wilson, is viewing our
world dualistically, instead of as a “dynamic
unity.”
Unlike the
ancient Greek, the Hebrew viewed the world as good. Though fallen
and unredeemed, it was created by a God who designed it with
humanity’s best interests at heart. So instead of fleeing
from the world, human beings experienced God’s fellowship,
love and saving activity in the historical order within the
world. According to Hebrew thought there was neither cosmological
dualism (the belief that the created world was evil, set apart
and opposed to the spiritual world) nor anthropological dualism
(soul versus body). To the Hebrew mind a human being was a
dynamic body-soul unity, called to serve God his Creator
passionately, with his whole being, within the physical world.[vi]
Timothy Smith notes, “The Hebrew
sensibility, as contrasted with that of Hellenic Platonism,
stressed the wholeness of human beings, the unity of their
psychic and physical existence, and the bonds that link social
experience to inward spirituality.” [vii]
I am suggesting that the reason many
scholars want to limit the work of the atonement to our spiritual
needs (forgiveness of sin) is rooted in the dualism pointed to in
the above quotes. The most natural way for the Hebrew mind to
read Isaiah 53 would be holistically, applied to the total man,
not just the soul.
Semitic scholar Michael Brown observes,
“In our contemporary occidental mentality, we tend to
separate the concept of ‘healing’ and
‘forgiveness.’ Yet. When the psalmist prayed,
‘LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have
sinned against you’(Ps.41:4/5), he recognized that
his sin was the source of his sickness, and that God’s
‘healing’ would make him whole again in body
and spirit. The ‘either physical or spiritual’
dichotomy often seen in comments on OT verses with rapha
[the Hebrew word for healer/healing] is extremely faulty.
In fact, regardless of one’s understanding of the
etymological origin of Semitic rapha, OT usage insists
that references to the Lord as Israel’s rope
[healer] be taken in the broadest possible sense.”[viii]
As Brown points out, we tend to separate the
physical from the spiritual because of our often unrecognized
presuppositions, but this is not the Hebrew view of life and
reality. Our Greek-influenced thinking downplays the importance
of the physical in a way that the Hebrew mind would never
embrace.
Hebrew View of Life
George Eldon Ladd tells us that in the OT
concept of Life, “There is no antithesis between physical
and spiritual life, between the outer and inner dimensions in
man, between the lower and higher realms. Life is viewed in its
wholeness as the full enjoyment of God’s gifts.”[ix] Ladd goes on to mention
physical prosperity, productivity, a long life, bodily
health/well-being and physical security as aspects of Life as the
OT portrays God’s will for his covenantally obedient
children.
Commenting on
the Hebrew concept of life, the Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament states, “The OT speaks of life as
the experience of life rather than as an abstract principle of
vitality which may be distinguished from the body. This is
because the OT view of the nature of man is holistic, that is,
his function as body, mind, spirit is a unified whole spoken of
in very concrete terms. Life is the ability to exercise all one's
vital power to the fullest; death is the opposite. The verb "to live" involves
the ability to have life somewhere on the scale between the
fullest enjoyment of all the powers of one's being, with health
and prosperity on the one hand and descent into trouble,
sickness, and death on the other.”[x]
This is not the way many Western Christians
view life and spirituality. The controversy over healing and
prosperity in the Church today certainly underscores this
conflict. Whatever may be said about the motives and styles (and
exegesis) of some who preach healing and prosperity, it must be
acknowledged that the Scriptures show God to be concerned with
all aspects of our life. Our tendency to downplay healing and
God’s promises for productivity and physical blessings is
not derived from a truly Biblical worldview. It is quite possible
for these areas to emphasized in a balanced and healthy way.
While an overemphasis on these truths is unbalanced, an
underemphasis on them in not fully Biblical.
Covenant Thinking
Physical healing can be shown to be
something Semitic people (in general) would have sought in their
covenant relationships with their gods. Since blessing and
cursing in all areas of life was attributed to some deity,
pleasing or appeasing the ‘gods’ was an important
part of their lives. When the God of Israel told the Jews that he
would care for them in all the areas of life, he was claiming his
superiority over all “rival” gods. To claim less
would have been to acknowledge inferiority to the pagan gods who
claimed the power to bless and to curse. This may seem simplistic
to us, but, as Ladd suggests, “a profound theology
underlies it. Life… can only be enjoyed from the
perspective of obedience to God and love for him.”[xi] Their cultures already saw
life as the outworking of covenant issues, so the God of Israel
entered into covenant with them and promised to be the source of
every blessing. In this way he was “weaning” them
from the temptation toward polytheism to look only to him.
Our dualistic view of life causes us to
separate the spiritual from the physical and we think God thinks
like us! To think as a Hebrew seems carnal to us. Perhaps God
really cares about things like our health!
Part of the difficulty may be the question
of priorities. Certainly in the eternal scheme of things, our
spiritual well-being is more important than our physical health
or happiness in this life. No one would question this premise.
Yet, while holding to this priority of values, can one also
deeply care about other issues? Indeed, does God deeply care
about the other issues of our lives? The Biblical witness seems
to say he does. And further that he has made provision for
it.
If our presupposition is that the spiritual
dimension is God’s primary concern it will be very
difficult to boldly approach him about the other areas of life -
even if we have promises in his word that cover those other
areas. Our Greek worldview tells us that this life is basically
evil and should not be blessed. Someday we will
“escape” this flesh and real life will begin in
heaven. While it is certain that life in heaven will be
wonderful, it is doubtful that we will need to claim God’s
covenant promises there. They are for here and now.
This over-prioritizing of the spiritual is
not the teaching of Scripture. The bodily resurrection is a
necessity because man was created to inhabit a body. The body is
important in the eternal scheme of things. And it’s a lot
easier to get things done in this world with a healthy body!
Covenant Promises and
Divine Disclosure
In his dealings with Israel, (and with the
Church) God is always the initiator. This is not to say that the
prayers of the God’s people don’t influence him, but
that God alone determines what he will do for his people. No one
ever sent a delegation to God and said, “Here’s what
we would like you to promise us.” God reveals himself and
makes promises as he chooses, not as men wish. So if God reveals
himself in a particular way it because he desires to be known in
the chosen manner. “Basic to ancient Hebrew religion is the
concept of divine revelation. While God is conceived of as
revealing his attributes and will in a number of ways in the OT,
one of the most theologically significant modes of divine
self-disclosure is the revelation inherent in the names of
God.”[xii]
So when the Lord revealed himself to Israel
at Marah (Ex. 15:22-26) this is a significant revelation of how
God desires to be known to his people. As Keil and Delitzsch
point out, “it was intended to impress this truth upon the
Israelites, that Jehovah as their Physician would save them from
all the diseases which He has sent upon Egypt, if they would hear
His voice, do what was right in His eyes, and keep all His
commandments.”[xiii]
To a Jew, the Pentateuch was the foundation
of everything. The Law stated the terms of Israel’s
covenant relationship with God and the Prophets confirmed it. But
the first five books were esteemed above all else. So if a truth
was established in the Law, it was, for Israel, beyond dispute.
It was also important that things be established in the mouth of
two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6; 19:15)[xiv]. The apostle Paul refers
to this in 2 Corinthians 13:1: “by the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word shall be established.”
God had chosen to reveal himself by the name
of The Lord our Healer in Ex. 15:26. In Ex. 23:25 he says he will
take sickness away from [his people’s] midst. In Deut. 7:15
he affirms that he will take away from them all sickness.[xv] This threefold witness
would forever establish God’s will to a Hebrew believer.
Healing, health and long life were to be expected for the
covenantally obedient.
It is often assumed (with some truth) that
Jesus healed to validate his ministry as the Messiah. Yet Paul
makes it clear that Jesus was, in his earthly ministry,
confirming the covenant with Israel. “Now I say that Jesus
Christ has become a servant to the circumcision for the truth of
God, to confirm the promises made to the
fathers.”(Rom. 15:8 my italics).
The Blessing of
Abraham
The covenant blessings were actually
promised to Abraham and his seed. The Law (and its curse) was
added later until the Seed, (Christ), should come to whom the
promises were made. Sickness was part of the curse of the broken
Law. As Paul tells us in Galatians 3:13, “Christ has
redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for
us… that the blessing of Abraham might come upon
the Gentiles in Christ Jesus…” As pointed out above,
health and provision, protection and victory were aspects of
covenant provision among all Semitic people and their gods. The
God of Israel promised to provide all that the other gods offered
their devotees, if they would serve him alone.[xvi]
As New Covenant believers we may claim for
our inheritance in Christ, “all the promises of God,”
because they are “Yes and Amen in Christ”(2 Cor.
1:20). Paul, here, is referring to the Old Covenant promises.
This would include Ex. 15:26, 23:25, Deut. 7:15.
Isaiah 53
The basis for the idea that healing is in
the atonement is derived from the literal Hebrew rendering of
Isaiah 53. Most English translations of Isaiah 53:4 interpret
the two key Hebrew words relative to this discussion in ways that
obscure rather than clarify their healing content.
Isaiah 53:3-5,10a
KJV
3 He is despised
and rejected of men; A man of sorrows and acquanted with
grief.And we hid as it were our faces from him; He was
despised and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath
borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we did
esteem him stricken of God and afflicted.
5 But He was
wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our
iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His
stripes we are healed.
10 Yet it pleased
the Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief.
The words in bold represent the most
important Hebrew words. (These words are translated identically
in the NASB. The NIV translate sorrows and
suffering in verse 3; infirmities and
sorrows in verse 4; and cause him to suffer in
verse 10)
Now compare these with Young’s Literal
Translation:
3 He is
despised and left of men, a man of pains and acquainted
with sickness; And as one hiding the face from us, He is
despised, and we esteemed him not.
sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains – lo,
he has carried them; And we – we have esteemed him plagued,
smitten of God, and afflicted.
4 Surely our
sicknesses he hath borne, and our pains he hath carried
them
5 And he is
pierced for our transgressions. Bruised for our iniquities, the
chastisement of our peace is on him. And by his bruise there is
healing to us.
10a And
Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him; He hath made him
sick
Our popular English
translations, (other than Young’s) tend to soften the
language regarding sickness and healing. The Jewish Publication
Society, however, translates
3 A man of
pains and acquainted with disease
4 Surely our
diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried
5 And with
his stripes we are healed
10 Yet it
pleased the Lord to crush him by disease.
Translators
with no prejudice against healing see no reason not to translate
these terms in their usual sense. We will now examine the Hebrew
words used in these verses.
The word translated sorrows in the
KJV, NASB and NIV and translated pains in
Young’stranslation is holi
in the Hebrew. (In the KJV, even with its prejudice against
healing, is translated
disease 7x; grief 4x; sickness 12x; be
sick 1x.) It is a general word for pain, whether
physical or psychical. “Both physical pain and psychic pain
are entailed, but no precise distinctions are drawn…
Neither dimension of pain, however, can be eliminated from
consideration in any text, given the understanding of the human
as a psycho-physical totality.”[xvii] The Theological
Wordbook of the Old Testament suggests sickness, disease,
illness as the basic meanings of the word, noting, “The
word is translated ‘griefs’ in Isa. 53:3-4, although
it may be better translated ‘sickness,’ whether
physical or spiritual.”[xviii]
The word which is translated grief(s),
suffering and infirmities in our common English
translations is makob. The
word is used 16 times in the Old Testament, of which at least 11
have to do with mental suffering.[xix] These meanings are not
really debated. What is debated is whether they are really saying
that Christ in His atonement bore our physical and mental
sufferings as well as our sins. If He did, then there is a basis
to believe a provision for physical and mental healing is in
Christ’s finished work.
The word translated healed in verse 5
is rapha and is
the standard word for healing. It is used over 60 times in the
OT. The KJV translates it: cure 1x; heal 30x;
make whole 1x; physician 5x; be healed 6x;
be made whole 1x; cause to be healed 1x;
heal 6x; repair 1x; be healed 1x; be
healed 1x. Brown, Driver and Briggs translate it to heal,
to make healthful. Semitic scholar Michael Brown prefers
restore, make whole as the true meaning.[xx]
The words used in the original text are
broad enough to include spiritual, mental and physical healing.
This is not really debated. But because of the prejudice against
healing (and the prejudice against the physical aspects of
God’s covenant provision in general) the Hebrew words are
taken in their narrowest possible way instead of the broad way
which, as Brown suggests, would be normative for a Hebrew.
Metaphor?
It is often suggested that these words are
merely metaphors for sin. The atonement, in the minds of many,
has to do with sin, and sin only. There are cases in the OT where
the words for sickness can be clearly seen to be metaphors for
sin. (See Is. 1:5-6, for example). But even in these examples it
is possible to read an unnecessary dualism into them. If what I
have been suggesting about the Hebrew worldview is accurate,
sicknesss, whether physical or spiritual, would have been seen as
the outworking of covenantal judgment. Physical sickness was the
curse of the broken Law and could not be seen as a unrelated,
non-covenantal issue.
Avon
The Hebrew word for iniquity avon, is used
3 times in Isaiah 53. In verse 5, “he was bruised for our
iniquities.” In verse 6, “the Lord laid on him the
iniquity of us all.” And in verse 12, “for he shall
bear their iniquities.” In the light of the relationship
between sin and sickness that the OT reveals, the meaning of this
important word to the atonement of Christ is underlined
dramatically. “the usage of avon includes the whole
area of sin, judgment, and ‘punishment’ for sin. The
Old Testament teaches that God’s forgiveness of
‘iniquity’ extends to the actual sin, the guilt of
sin, and God’s punishment of the sin.”[xxi]
The Theological Wordbook of the Old
Testament, further explains, “as the above references
indicate, it denotes both the deed and its consequences, the
misdeed and its punishment. Both notions are present, but
sometimes the focus is on the deed (“sin”), and at
other times on the outcome of the misdeed
(“punishment”), and at other times on the situation
between the deed and its consequences
(“guilt”)…. The remarkable ambivalence between
the meanings ‘sin as an act’ and
‘penalty’ shows that in the thought of the OT sin and
its penalty are not radically separate notions as we tend to
think of them.”[xxii] Brown,
Driver and Briggs give iniquity, guilt, or punishment of
iniquity as the basic meanings of avon. This source
also states that Isaiah 53:11 “He shall bear their
iniquities” should be translated, “the
consequences of their iniquities he shall bear.” [xxiii] All of this is
consistent with what was suggested above, namely that the Hebrews
would not have separated sin and its punishment or forgiveness
and healing the way it is commonly done in Protestant theology
and scholarship.
Robert Young, to cite one more example,
translates Isaiah 53:6 “And Jehovah hath caused to meet on
him the punishment [avon] of us all.” Young clearly
saw Jesus as bearing the consequences of our sin in this
verse.[xxiv] Sickness and disease were
the curse promised to those who broke the Law. (Deut.
28:59,60,61). They were the punishment for covenant breaking.
Matthew 8:17
The two primary references to Is. 53 in
regard to healing that are quoted in the New Testament are
Matthew 8:17 and 1 Pet. 2:24. It is important to examine these
verses in the light of the above discussion.
Matthew 8:16-17 NKJV
16 When evening had come, they brought to
Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits
with a word, and healed all who were sick,
17 that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying: "He Himself took our
infirmities and bore our sicknesses."
Delitzsch’s comment from Is. 53:4 is
interesting in the light of this discussion. “In Matthew
(viii. 17) the words are rendered freely and faithfully…
Even the fact that the relief which Jesus afforded to all kinds
of bodily diseases is regarded as a fulfillment of what is here
affirmed of the Servant of Jehovah, is an exegetical index worth
noting. In [Is. 53:] 4a it is not really sin that is spoken of,
but the evil which is consequent upon human sin, although not
always the direct consequence of the sins of the individual (Jn.
ix. 3).
“[The Hebrew word translated
borne in Is. 53:4, Verily He hath borne our diseases
and our pains; He hath laden them upon Himself (Delitzsch
translation)] signifies to take the debt of one’s sin upon
one’s self, and carry it as one’s own i.e., to look
at it and feel it as one’s own, or more frequently to bear
the punishment occasioned by the sin, i.e., to make expiation for
it, and in any case in which the person bearing it is not himself
the guilty person, to bear sin in a mediatorial capacity, for the
purpose of making expiation for it.
“But in the case before us [Is.53:4]
, where it is not the sins, but “our diseases” and
“our pains” that are the object, this mediatorial
sense remains essentially the same. The meaning is not merely
that the Servant of God entered into the fellowship of our
sufferings, but that He took upon Himself the sufferings which we
had to bear and deserved to bear, and therefore not only took
them away (as Matt. Viii. 17 might make it appear), but bore them
in His own person, that He might deliver us from them. But when
one person takes upon himself suffering which another should have
had to bear, and therefore not only endures it with him, but in
his stead, this is called substitution or
representation…”[xxv]
Clearly Delitzsch saw healing in the atonement and even points
out that Matthew’s translation into Greek fails to
encompass the full substitutionary aspect that the Hebrew
original brings forth.
Some have suggested that Matthew was stating
that the healings in the earthly ministry of Jesus were the
fulfillment of Is. 53:4. Matthew was not writing his gospel
during the earthly ministry of Jesus. His gospel was written
many years after Christ’s resurrection when the application
of Is. 53 to Jesus was accepted in all parts of the Church.
Jesus, in his earthly ministry, both forgave sin and healed
disease based on His coming atonement. To suggest that His
fulfillment of these verses in His earthly ministry exhausted
their application would be as unlikely as suggesting that His
forgiving of sins while on earth exhausted the atonement as far
as forgiveness is concerned. Just the opposite is true! These
attempts avoid the implications of healing in Is. 53 strike me as
the fruit of the dualism and cessationist presuppositions
mentioned above.
1 Pet. 2:24
The other New Testament verse that divine
healing advocates frequently cite as a ‘proof text’
is 1 Peter 2:24:
who Himself bore our sins in His own body on
the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for
righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed. (NKJV)
This is usually objected to by stating that
the context is not about healing but sin. D. Edmond Hiebert, for
example, states “The context indicates that the reference
is not to the healing of physical sickness or disease. The
passage cannot be used to teach that bodily healing is available
in the atonement as salvation from sin is found at the
cross.”[xxvi] This comment is
typical of most conservative, non-Pentecostal (and some
Pentecostal) scholars. But is it a valid view?
If what I have been offering above as
reasons for the prejudice against healing in general and healing
in the atonement in particular has merit, then Hiebert’s
argument is really a perfect illustration of the dualism and
cessationist presuppositions referred to above. And there is
another difficulty with Hiebert’s (and those who follow
this logic) interpretation.
Most people, scholars or otherwise, would
agree that our spiritual experiences greatly color how we
interpret the scriptures. The unregenerate scholar sees the new
birth as a metaphor. Because the new birth is outside of his
experiential knowledge, he must explain it in a way that is
supported by his worldview. The conservative evangelical scholar,
however, can never look at the new birth as a metaphor unrelated
to experience.
Those who receive the gift of tongues can
never wonder if “ tongues are for today?” Their
experiential knowledge of Biblical truth determines, at least to
some degree, their interpretation. That’s why we have
Evangelical and Pentecostal scholars.
So when we read Peter, what well of
experience and what worldview would he be drawing from? Western
dualism and a cessationist bias? Hardly. Would he separate
forgiveness from healing and consider them two entirely unrelated
categories like so many scholars do today? I don’t think
so. Peter would think like a good Jew!
As to healing, what would his experience
have taught him? He had spent 3 and a half years participating in
the healing ministry of Jesus. He saw multitudes healed, many
whom he prayed for along with the other disciples. After the day
of Pentecost, he saw multitudes healed through his ministry and
the ministry of the others around him. When he wrote 1 Peter 2:24
was he inclined to speak of healing as a metaphor for
forgiveness? If so, that would be entirely inconsistent with
both his worldview and his experience. He would be more likely,
given his experience and worldview, to feel a need to explain his
use of healing as a metaphor than to assume that his readers
would take it that way. His readers were part of the community
that had witnessed a tremendous amount of healing. It should also
be noted that his ministry was primarily to the Jews, the part of
the community that shared his worldview and presuppositions.
Why Isn’t There More Healing?
If what I am saying is correct, the question
might be asked, “Why then don’t we see more healing?
You say Christ has provided it, then why do so many not respond
to prayer?”
An illustration: There have been seasons in
the history of the Church when the Church failed to preach a
gospel of regeneration. The new birth was not proclaimed and
therefore only a few entered into that experience. Other ideas
were substituted for the teaching concerning regeneration. Faith
comes by hearing the word of God. When the word is not preached
clearly, people have no basis for faith. Given the prejudice
against healing and the influence of Greek thought to downplay
the importance of the physical it is no wonder that many fail to
appropriate healing. No basis for confidence in the will of God
concerning healing has been given to most of the Church. We can
only trust God for the things we know He wants us to have.
Traditions have muddied the waters around healing.
Those who have proclaimed healing in the
atonement the loudest have sometimes burdened the sick ones with
more guilt about being sick. In their zeal to defend what they
perceive to be an important Bible truth, they have offered no
comfort to those who, for whatever reason, are not healed. This
of course, is not helpful. But neither is maintaining an
incorrect view of the scriptures in order to justify our
experience. So often God’s sovereignty is offered as the
answer when we don’t experience the things promised by the
word. “God is sovereign over His sovereignty” someone
said. (Whatever that means!) Charles Spurgeon said “Before
he pledged his word he was free to do as it pleased him; but
after he has made a promise, his truth and honour bind him to do
as he has said. To him, indeed, this is no limiting of his
liberty; for the promise is always the declaration of his
sovereign will and good pleasure, and it is ever his delight
to act according to his word; yet is it marvelous condescension
for the fee spirit of the Lord to form for itself covenant bonds.
Yet he hath done so”(my italics).[xxvii]
Critics of divine healing often phrase the
debate in terms that don’t reflect the nature of the
debate. “These people who teach that healing is
guaranteed by the atonement… many of them are sick,
etc. etc.” Healing is not guaranteed by the atonement, it
is provided by the atonement. Overcoming the obstacles to
receiving is another whole subject. We could ask “is
sanctification guaranteed by the atonement? Is forgiveness of
sins guaranteed by the atonement?” We would have to respond
that yes, they are provided by the atonement (ideally), but that
is no guarantee that all will appropriate them. Does God will us
to appropriate the forgiveness and sanctification that His Son
has provided? Undoubtedly. But walking in forgiveness and living
a holy life involve many factors. The fact that God has provide
these things in Christ and his finished work is a great starting
place upon which to look for further light in regard to
forgiveness and sanctification.
In regard to divine healing we must first
settle the question as to it being provided in the atonement.
That will give us a basis for further understanding. What is
provided for by the atonement is the will of God. Then we can
move on to the question of a healthy approach to growing in faith
to receive the provided healing.
[i] Bible
Doctrine, P.C. Nelson, (Gospel Publishing House, Springfield,
Mo., Revised ed. 1962) p.123 Thomas Zimmerman points out in the
introduction to the revised edition, that these beliefs have
remained the same since they were adapted in 1916.
[ii]
Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, Guy P. Duffield and
N.M. Van Cleave, (L.I.F.E. Bible College, Los Angeles, CA. 1983),
p.338.
[iii] The
Fourfold Gospel, A.B. Simpson, (Christian Publication, Camp
Hill, Penn. Revised ed,, 1984) p. 47.
[iv] Surprised
By the Power of the Spirit, Jack Deere (Zondervan Publishing
House, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1993) p. 101.
[v] Our Father
Abraham, Marvin R. Wilson, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., and Center for Judaic-Christian
Studies, Dayton, Ohio, 1989) p.167.
[vii] Timothy L.
Smith, “Evanglical Christianity and American
Culture.” In A Time to Speak: The Evangelical-Jewish
Encounter, ed. A. James Rudin and Marvin R. Wilson (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1987) p. 71, quoted in
Wilson, p. 178,179.
[viii]
Israel’s Divine Healer, Michael L. Brown,
(Zondervan, Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1995) p.
30-31.
[ix] The
Pattern of New Testament Truth, George Eldon Ladd, (Willima
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1968) p.
32.
[x] :
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird
Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke, editors (Moody
Press, Chicago, 1980) Two Volumes; Vol. I, p. 279. Hereafter:
TWOT.
[xii]
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Walter A. Elwell,ed.
(Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1984) p.464.
[xiii]
Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch, Vol.
I, The Pentateuch (Eerdman’s Publishing Co., Grand Rapids,
Mich. 1983), p. 59.
[xiv] These
references refer primarily to witnesses against someone when
brought before the governing leaders for judgment. Paul seems to
extend the principle to a broader application.
[xv] It
might be noted that Israel’s inability to walk consistently
in covenant obedience and thus experience God’s provision
does not in any way nullify the intent of God to keep his people
healthy. As he mournfully says in Duet. 5:29, “Oh, that
they had such a heart in them that they would fear me and always
keep My commandments, that it might be well with them and their
children forever.”
[xvi]
Gleason L. Archer, Jr. comments, ”the covenant constituted
a divine announcement of God’s holy will to extend the
benefits of his unmerited grace to men who were willing to
receive them, and who by entering into a personal commitment to
God bound themselves to him by ties of absolute
obligation… this signifies that God unreservedly gives
himself to his people and they in turn give themselves to him and
belong to him.” Art. “Covenant” in
Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, Everett F. Harrison,
ed., (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich. , 1960) p. 144.
[xix]
TWOT, Vol.I, p. 425.
[xx]
Israel’s Divine Healer, Michael Brown, p.29.
[xxi]
Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, W.E.
Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr. editors. (Thomas
Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Camden, New York, 1985) Art.
Iniquity, p.122.
[xxiii]
The New Brown-Driver-Briggs Gesenius Hebrew-Aramaic
Lexicon,(Christian Copyrights, Inc.[no city given] 1979) p.
730,731,
[xxiv]
Delitzsch also argrees with this interpretation. “ How
could He have made expiation for sin, if He has simply subjected
Himself to its cosmical effects, and not to have directly
subjected Himself to that wrath which is the invariable divine
correlation of human sin? And what other reason could there be
for God’s not rescuing Him… who had presented
Himself to Him as though guilty Himself, to taste the
punishment which they had deserved.” Commentary on
the Old Testament, Vol. 7, Isaiah, p. 321.
[xxv]
Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah, p.315,316.
[xxvi]
First Peter: An Expository Commentary, D. Edmond Hiebert,
(Moody Press, Chicago, 1984)P. 178
[xxvii]
Charles H. Spurgeon, According To Promise, (Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1964) p.43. The point so often
raised in discussions of God’s promises and God’s
sovereignty is that God’s sovereignty allows him to decide
when and if he will keep his promises. After all, God is
sovereign. But is that a valid statement? Is the fact that
God is sovereign his “exception clause” for not
keeping his promises? Spurgeon well exposes the error of such an
idea. The promises of God are an expression of his sovereignty
and cannot be in conflict with his “sovereign” will.
There are many reasons on the human side why men don’t
receive the promises, and some we may not be able to fully
understand. But to suggest that God enters into covenant with his
people and then decides whether or not he will keep his covenant
is to suggest that God’s sovereignty is a ‘higher
law’ that his covenant integrity. In fact this type of
thinking actually strips believers of the basis to grow in faith.
We are not thereby allowed to base our faith on God’s
covenant word, but must have a special revelation from God
concerning his will before we can boldly claim the promise of God
for healing. We end up praying something like, “Lord, I
know you promised healing in your word, but you are sovereign so
you don’t have to keep your promises unless you feel
inclined. So if you could send me a special revelation about my
healing, please, I would appreciate it.”
The above (facetious) prayer is an
example of a failure to appreciate the meaning attached to blood
covenants in the scripture. God was under no constraint to
promise all the things he has promised in his word. These
promises are given so we might know with assurance what God
does will to do for his people. Confident faith in God
cannot be exercised where there is no clarity as to God’s
will. The idea that God’s sovereignty can be in conflict
with his covenant promises strips his promises of their ability
to create a faith that receives God’s graciously offered
provisions. It is no arrogance to expect one’s covenant
partner to keep his covenant promises. It is faith in the truest
sense of the word. There are many things that because of our
human limitations, we may not understand. But the covenant
promises are given by God with the intent of clarifying for us
the things that God is committed to doing for his covenantally
faithful children. As Moses says in Deut. 29:29, “The
secret things belong to the Lord our God but the things that are
revealed belong to us and our children forever.”
After many years of reflecting on this
issue I have become convinced that in addition to cessationist
influences and Platonic dualism, a lack of understanding of the
nature of covenant and an unhealthy view of God’s
sovereignty are responsible for a tremendous amount of unbelief
in the Church. Spurgeon, a Calvinist, apparently does not accept
this widely taught idea, which I believe, undermines the faith of
so many.
Sometimes it is said by healing
advocates that we have a “right” to healing. Many
react strongly to this idea. If by this we mean that we, because
of who we are in ourselves, can demand God to do something for us
that he hasn’t committed himself to do, the objection to
this idea is valid. But if we mean that because God has committed
in his freely chosen covenant revelation to offer us healing and
we are coming to him to receive his freely offered covenant
mercy, then it would be accurate to say we have a
covenantal right to healing.