She responded, "By His stripes I have been healed. Praise God there is healing in Christ's atonement."

      Immediately I decided that the bookstore was no place for a theology discussion. I didn't want to dampen her joy, nor did I want to rob her of her confidence that somehow God had been involved in her physical restoration. However, her understanding of Isaiah 53:5 and I Peter 2:24 did not accurately describe what she had experienced.

      I wondered where she had learned those proof texts. perhaps she had read or listened to a faith healer's explanation of Isaiah 53. A friend or neighbor may have told her about those verses, and perhaps you have wondered about them too

      Is there healing in the atonement? If there is, what kind? How much? When do we get it? Let's find out.

      Isaiah 53 serves as the heart of healing theology. ¹ The "Magna Carta" of God's healing promises focuses on Christ's sacrificial death at Calvary. The atonement appears first in Leviticus as a part of the Mosaic sacrificial system. On one appointed day of the year, Israel's high priest entered the Holy of Holies, approached the Ark of the Covenant, and sprinkled blood to atone for the sins of Israel.

      Aaron, the brother of Moses, became the first high priest. Leviticus 16:3 tells us that Aaron entered the Holy Place with a bull for an offering. Now was that a sin or a sick offering? Unquestionably, it was a sin offering. Aaron offered a bull for a sin offering-first for himself and then his household (verses 5-6; cf. verses 11,16,21,34).

      Moses instituted the Day of Atonement by the authority of God around 1440 B.C. Hundreds of years later (about 700 B.C.), Isaiah wrote about a coming Servant who would be "the atonement." The atonement ritual that Moses established was later fulfilled by Jesus Christ when He died for our sins—not our sicknesses.

      By studying the book of Hebrews (the "Leviticus" of the New Testament), you can appreciate the unity of Scripture. When the final atonement occurred, Christ served as both the high priest and the sacrifice (Hebrews 9:11-12). Jesus Christ as God incarnate became the Lamb slain for the sins of the world. Hebrews 10 contains several passages that relate to the atonement's fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

      Then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Thy will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all (Hebrews 10:9-10).

      Both Leviticus and Hebrews demonstrate that in God's mind the atonement dealt primarily with sin, not sickness. It had everything to do with our sin problem and the redemption needed to remove sin so that we might stand eternally before a holy God. Christ's atonement paid the due penalty for sin, which involved God's wrath being poured out upon Jesus Christ. Clearly the major emphasis of Isaiah 53 centers on spiritual salvation. ²

      Isaiah 53:4-6 raises the question, What, if anything, does the prophet promise about physical restoration?

      The Hebrew words translated "griefs" and "sorrows" in Isaiah 53:4 can legitimately refer to either physical or mental pain and spiritual problems. Those who say that the language refers only to physical problems should more accurately say that the words may refer to physical problems.

      Fortunately, words are always used in a context and with an intended meaning by the author. Normally, the surrounding context indicates what the author meant by the words he used.

      Note that the word "iniquity" is used four times in Isaiah 53 and identifies the passage's major emphasis. In 53:5, Christ was crushed for our iniquities. According to 53:6, the Lord "has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." He will bear our iniquities (53:11), and He Himself bore the sins of many (53:12; cf. Hebrews 9:28). The primary thrust of Isaiah 53 is on the spiritual and the eternal effects of sin, not on its physical and immediate effects upon the body.

      In Isaiah 53:4 we read that He "bore" our griefs and "carried" our sorrows. Isaiah used these same verbs in verses 11 and 12. As we compare verses 3 and 4 with verses 11 and 12, we see that the primary emphasis again relates to salvation.

      Now let us consider some additional Scriptures that affirm what we have just discovered about Isaiah 53.

      First, our present body is corruptible; that is, it will degenerate until we will die. The physical will ultimately be separated from the spiritual (James 2:26). But the good news for all believers is that one day we will put on the incorruptible—a form that will remain constant, pure, and without sin for all eternity (Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:50-54).

      Second, Christ died for our sins. The gospel is immediately good news about our sin problem, but not so with our physical problems. You can read about that in Matthew 1:2, John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3, and other passages.

      Next, Christ was made sin and not sickness. Second Corinthians 5 talks about His ministry of reconciliation (see verses 18-21).

      Fourth, Christ forgave our sins, not our sicknesses. John says: "I am writing to you ... because your sins are forgiven you for His name's sake" (I John 2:12).

      Fifth, Christ gave Himself for our sins and not for our sicknesses (Galatians 1:3-4).

      Next, the Bible teaches that if a person is truly saved, he cannot lose his salvation (John 5:24; 10:28-29; Philippians 1:6; Jude 24). Now let's carry this thought to its logical conclusion: If physical healing shares in the atonement, as does spiritual healing (redemption), we should not lose our physical health and thus should never die.

      But is that what really happens? No, Scripture says we all must die (Hebrews 9:27). We could look at such godly examples as Abraham, Isaac, Daniel, Paul, and Timothy to show that God's greatest saints endured sicknesses and also eventually died. Therefore we can biblically conclude that while there is a related aspect of physical healing in the atonement, it won't be applied until after death and the redemption of our bodies by resurrection (Romans 8:23).

      Seventh, as true believers we are assured of our salvation but have no guarantee of our physical life or our health. James 4:13-14 tells us we have no certainty that any of us will even be here tomorrow. But there is every assurance that if we place our faith in Jesus Christ, we will be His sons and daughters forever (Ephesians 1:5).

      Next, if healing is in the atonement and if it applies physically today, those who ask by faith for physical healing and are not healed have no logical right to be assured of their salvation. In contrast, God says that if we are saved, we have every right to believe in our salvation. So if physical healing were in the atonement and if we ask to be healed and are not, not only do we lose our assurance of the physical, but we should also lose our assurance of the spiritual. Fortunately, such an unbiblical conclusion can be reached only if we have first taken a wrong approach to what the atonement is really all about-the forgiveness of our sins.

      Ninth, assuming that physical healing in the atonement were to be applied today, eternal life must also be applied today with the acquisition of immortal bodies.

      But death remains our great nemesis and stumbling block to that proposed truth. We are all going to die (Hebrews 9:27). Death will not be abolished in human experience until the eternal state begins. Therefore whatever physical benefits are supposed to be found in the atonement would not be experienced fully until we are in the presence of God.

      Consider this as well: If Christ paid the penalty for our sin and we are still sinning, what ought to be the parallel experience in the physical realm? Total health or impaired health? Just as we have impaired spiritual health, so also will we continue to have impaired physical health until the experience of sin is removed. That won't happen until death or until the Lord comes.

      In reality, Christ paid the penalty for sin but He did not remove sin from the life of the believer. Christ cared for the cause of sickness: sin, which is the cause of sickness in its moral sense. But He did not remove sickness from the life experience of believers because He did not free them from besetting sin.

      Finally, if it is true that Isaiah 53 addresses sin and not sickness, then the New Testament will verify that fact. The Scriptures are marvelously unified and will not contradict themselves.

      As expected, Isaiah 53 has its New Testament counterpart. Philip encountered the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah 53 (Acts 8:28,32-33). When the eunuch asked Philip for an explanation, "Philip preached Jesus to him" (Acts 8:35). Apparently the eunuch invited Christ to be his personal Savior and Lord, because he next asked about baptism. The point we should note is this: Both Philip and the eunuch understood Isaiah 53 to be dealing with sin, not sickness.

      Matthew chapters 8 and 9 record the most concentrated period of healing in the Gospel record. And in Matthew 8:14-17 we find a reference back to Isaiah 53:4—a reference that some people might use to support the claim that physical healing is a part of the atonement:

      When Jesus had come to Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. And He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose, and waited on Him. And 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 ill in order that what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, "He Himself took our infirmities, and carried away our diseases."

      The Greek words translated "took" and "carried" in Matthew 8:17 are different from the corresponding Greek words that are used in the Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of Isaiah 53. Good reasons account for the change.

      The words in Matthew 8 mean "to take away from," not "to bear." (Remember that the words used in Isaiah 53:4 mean "to sacrificially bear"; hence the idea that "He took our sins upon Him.") Matthew is saying that Christ "took away" people's sicknesses. Christ did not "bear" in a substitutionary sense the sickness of Peter's mother-in-law. He didn't say, "Move the fever from her into Me." He just touched her and it was gone. Neither did He bear the afflictions of those who were ill nor the spirits of those who were possessed (Matthew 8:16). Later He would bear sin on Calvary, but at this point in Matthew 8 He had only taken away sicknesses.

      This next thought is important: What Christ did at Calvary occurred several years after His healing ministry at Capernaum as reported in Matthew 8. There is absolutely no effectual relationship between what Christ did in Capemaum and His atonement on the cross at Calvary. Rather, Matthew employed a normal illustrative use of the Old Testament. He found a point of continuity-a point of identity between Isaiah 53 and Christ's healing ministry in Capemaum.

      Here is another way to look at it: Matthew 8 is to Isaiah 53 as Matthew 17 (the transfiguration of Christ) is to Revelation 19. It is merely a preview, just as Matthew 8 is a preview of the coming eternal kingdom that will be free of sin and sickness. One scholar writes:

      Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, Matthew 8:16-17 explicitly connects Jesus' miracles of healing and exorcism with the atonement that had not yet taken place. They serve as foretastes of and are predicated on the cross-work that is their foundation and justifications. ³

      To suggest that there is now no sickness because Christ cared for physical affliction at Calvary is like suggesting that there is now no sin because Christ bore our sins at Calvary. As long as sin exists (which it does), the moral basis for sickness will continue.

      Did Christ die for our sins or for our sicknesses? Some teach that I Peter 2:24, which says, "By His wounds you were healed," is an affirmation that Christ took care of physical sickness on the cross. But the context of the passage demands that we understand that Christ died for our sins.

      A question often asked is, What does the word "wound" mean, or the phrase "by His stripes"? The word translated "scourging" in the NASB, "stripes" in the KJV, and "wounds" in the NIV is best translated from the Hebrew text in Isaiah 53:5 as "wounds from physical abuse." That is exactly how Peter understood Isaiah.

      In context, Peter is not speaking primarily of the scourging that Christ received in a preparatory way at the hands of the soldiers, but rather the totality of excruciating torment He endured at Calvary (Psalm 22:14-17). The beatings and afflictions that He suffered before He was nailed to the cross were nothing in comparison to the agony He suffered at Calvary itself when He bore the sins of the world. First Peter 2:21-24 deals with our spiritual healing and Christ's payment for sin, not with our sicknesses.

      Isaiah 53 refers to the atonement and its redemptive value, not its therapeutic effect in a physical sense. Four lines of evidence support this conclusion:

1. The idea of atonement in Leviticus and Hebrews clearly applies to salvation.
2. The context of Isaiah 53 focuses primarily on the atonement's provision for sin.
3. The theological context of Christ's death and salvation centers on sin.
4. Matthew, Peter, and the Ethiopian eunuch understood Isaiah 53 in reference to sin.

      All the scriptural evidence affirms that Isaiah 53 deals with the spiritual being of man. Its major emphasis is on sin, not sickness. It focuses on the moral cause of sickness, which is sin, and not on the immediate removal of one of sin's results- sickness.

      Recall the question which we asked at the beginning: "Is there healing in the atonement?" My answer is "Yes!" but with this explanation: There is healing "through" the atonement or "as a result of " the atonement, but it is never promised to believers for the present. ⁴ When sin is ultimately removed, physical healing for believers will be in full-but only in the future, when our bodies have been redeemed by the power of God (Romans 8:23; Revelation 21:4).

      Therefore, that the healing is in the Atonement should not be preached on the basis of Matthew 8:16-17 unless it is endorsed by Scripture statement elsewhere. But it is not taught elsewhere, and it certainly cannot be safely adduced solely from Matthew 8:16-17. No, healing for our mortal bodies is not in the atonement. This conclusion is supported at once by the fact that forgiveness of sins and cleansing from guilt are offered through the cross freely and certainly and at the present moment to all who sincerely "believe" whereas healing for all our infirmities and sicknesses is not offered freely and certainly at present to all who believe. Not one of those who have believed for forgiveness and cleansing has ever been denied, but thousands and thousands who have believed for physical healing have been denied. That cannot be gainsaid—for a very pertinent reason. Permitted sin in the present is never a part of God's plan or purpose for us, but permitted sickness often is, as we learn both from Scripture and from Christian testimony... Both Scripture and experience, then, say no; bodily healing is not in the atonement. ⁵

      By 1) looking at the language used, 2) understanding the context in which the above passages are found, 3) seeing the complementary passages in Leviticus and Hebrews, and 4) realizing what was involved in the atonement, we can conclude that the atonement dealt with sin and the need to satisfy the righteous wrath of a just and holy God. Not until death removes sin from our personal existence will you and I have any hope of guaranteed physical well-being. ⁶ When the resurrection adds the full fruit of redemption to the present firstfruits (Romans 8:23), we will know the fullness of physical healing provided through the atonement.

      J. I. Packer eloquently captures the intent of Isaiah 53 with this insightful summary.

      Again it is true: salvation embraces both body and soul. And there is indeed, as some put it, healing for the body in the Atonement. But, we must observe that perfect physical health is promised, not for this life, but for heaven, as part of the resurrection glory that awaits us in the day when Christ "will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself" Full bodily well-being is set forth as a future blessing of salvation rather than a present one. What God has promised, and when he will give it, are separate questions. ⁷

CHAPTER 8—Is There Healing in the Atonement?

1. I have been greatly surprised by the deficiency of attention given to Isaiah 53 by some of the most recent, highly visible volumes advocating a contemporary healing ministry. for instance, Jack Deere, Surprised by the Power of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993) devotes only one paragraph (169) in a 299-page book on healing. John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Healing (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) devote less than four full pages (152-56) out of 269 pages, but use most of the space discussing what men have said rather than what the scriptures teach. Benny Hinn, Lord, I Need a Miracle (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993) provides less than two pages (55-56). Jeffrey Niehaus in The Kingdom and the Power (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1993) devotes less than three full pages (48-50). For a complete exegetical discussion of Isaiah 53, see Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 340- 54.
2. The New Testament consistently presents Christ as the Christian's substitutionary sinbearer in His atonement. See Matthew 20:28; John 1:29; Romans 4:25; 5:6-8; 8:3, 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4; 3:13; 4:4-5; Hebrews 9:28; 1 Peter 3:8; and 1 John 2:2; 4:10.
3. D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987). 156-57.
4. It seems more biblically precise to say, "There willthrough the atonement" rather than, "There is physical healing in the atonement." I agree with Doug Moo, "Divine Healing in the Health and Wealth Gospel," Trinity Journal, 9 (1988), 204: "We would prefer, then, to say that physical healing is one effect of the atoning death of Christ." See also W. Kelly Bokovay, "The Relationship of Physical healing to the Atonement," Didaskalia (April, 1991), 35: "It is misleading for anyone to suggest that healing is 'in' the Atonement without major qualifications; sickness is only dealt with in the sense that it is an effect of sin and its eventual eradication is guaranteed because our sin has been atoned for."
5. J. Sidlow Baxter, Divine Healing of the Body (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 136-37. Baxter minces no words here in utterly denying that the atonement provides any basis for present physical healing.
6. John Wimber and Kevin Springer, Power Healing, 154, cite R.A. Torey, Divine Healing (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, reprinted 1974), 53 (actually on page 43), writing on Isaiah 53 as meaning ". . . that based on what Jesus experienced on the cross we as a consequence may experience one hundred per cent healing here on earth." At best, this is an overstatement of Torrey's discussion (43-46); at worst, a misrepresentation. Let the reader be cautious when reading quotes from other writers, especially when the cited literature is not immediately available for verification.
7. James I. Packer, "Poor health May Be the Best Remedy," Christianity Today (May 21, 1982), 15.