Healing in the Atonement

There is an ongoing argument between different camps of Christians about the extent of healing in the atonement. The extremes of the camps dominate the conversation, although there are nuanced positions that lean toward each extreme. I don't think either of the extremes is correct. While this is surely oversimplified, the controversy centers on one text:

4 Surely he has borne our griefs

and carried our sorrows;

yet we esteemed him stricken,

smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;

he was crushed for our iniquities;

upon him was the chastisement that brought

us peace,

and with his wounds we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned-every one-to his own

way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:4-6, ESV)

One extreme camp says that when you read this in context it only means "wounds" brought about by sin. It is simply talking about "peace" with God that is fixed by Christ's atoning for our sin on the cross. And, in context, I would agree partially. Verse five clearly equates these "wounds" with sin using words like "transgressions" and "iniquities". This view says there is no physical healing in the atonement. That is where I think they are wrong. Other translations treat "griefs" and "sorrows" from verse four differently. We'll look at that later.

The other extreme camp says that physical healing is guaranteed in the atonement and we just have to appropriate it by faith and we will be healed. What they get right is that there is provision for physical healing in the atonement. We'll talk about that in a moment. What they most assuredly get wrong is the guarantee. Healing is not guaranteed in the atonement. The text makes no mention of physical healing or a promise from God that if you simply have enough faith you will be healed.

I think the correct view for physical healing, I think both extreme camps and everyone in between agrees that our sin is healed on the cross, in the atonement is a nuanced position between the extremes. One apostle in particular, Peter, can help us out.

14 And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he

saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.

15 He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and

she rose and began to serve him. 16 That evening

they brought to him many who were oppressed

by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word

and healed all who were sick. 17 This was to fulfill

what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took

our illnesses and bore our diseases." (Matt 8:14-17, ESV)

This little anecdote about Peter's mother-in-law in Matthew's gospel quotes Isaiah 53:4 at the end. Where the ESV says "griefs" and "sorrows", apparently the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT from about 300 BC) says "illnesses" and "diseases". Other translations also indicate this is a possible translation. The HCSB says "sicknesses" and "pains". The NIV says "pain" and "suffering". The ESV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, and NASB all translate this as "griefs" and "sorrows". On the other hand, the Matthew passage is translated most often as "infirmities" and "diseases". What does this tell us? There is a provision for healing in the atonement. While clearly the purpose of the cross was to deal with sin, physical healing is a part of it. In order to say that there is no physical healing in the atonement, you have to ignore the connection that Matthew is making by quoting from Isaiah. Notice, however, what is not said in Matthew's passage. There is no mention of a guarantee or a promise that you will always be healed. This notion is easily done away with when we consider Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor 12:7-10) that the Lord refused to take away. Did Paul have too little faith?

24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree,

that we might die to sin and live to righteousness.

By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you

were straying like sheep, but have now returned to

the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Pet 2:24-

25, ESV)

Peter himself quotes from Isaiah 53:5. In this instance, it has nothing to do with physical healing and everything to do with sin. Verse 24 says directly that Christ "bore our sins" and then connects that to the "wounds" that are healed. In one instance (Matthew) Christ's sacrifice is directly connected to physical healing. In another (1 Peter) Christ's sacrifice is directly connected to spiritual healing. The position that seems most likely to make sense of all this is that both spiritual and physical healing are part of the atonement. Spiritual healing is guaranteed and was the primary focus of the cross. Our sins will be forgiven us forever if we repent and believe in Jesus Christ by faith. Physical healing was a secondary focus and is not guaranteed. Our illnesses and diseases may or may not be healed by God when we pray in faith. Many times, and this is a great example, going to one extreme or the other on controversial theological positions will lead you into mistaken assumptions that hinder the "renewal of your mind" (Rom 12:2) as you try to walk with Christ.