| Back | Home |

Is Healing Guaranteed for the Christian?

Preamble

It's very difficult to approach this subject without bringing along some baggage. We all have our opinions and presuppositions that sit with us at the table when we have discussions and watch over our shoulder as we read material on any given topic. The doctrine of guaranteed healing for the Christian has no special immunity.

Individual doctrines do not exist in a vacuum but are developed in light of and supported by other teachings gleaned from the Scriptures. If a person concedes to a radical change in one doctrine it will have repercussions on others. It is my belief that the sub-conscious fear of this possibility plays a significant role in sustaining the disparate teachings extant today on this and other subjects.

However, it wasn't God's intent to cause confusion. Confusion is a hallmark of man. God has provided us with His Word, from which evidence can be found to substantiate one view, the TRUTH. My success in this endeavor will have to be judged by the reader. I will strive to deal with the scriptures and their interpretations fairly, relying on what the text actually says rather the opinions of those who argue either position.

There is one presupposition that I've purposely refused to lay aside, and it is this:

God's Word, as originally written, is inerrant. Modern translations, in so far as they faithfully represent and reproduce the sense of the original autographs, share in this distinction.

(For a fuller understanding see: The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy)

If you don't share my views on God's Word, then, possibly, anything I write will be unconvincing, but it is my sure knowledge that given the chance, the promise of Isaiah 55:10-11 will be brought to fruition.

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

Part I - Viewpoints

In personal discussions with those of opposing views and in various writings, great emphasis is frequently placed on two key passages, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4 which I quote from the King James Version.

Matt. 8:17
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses. (KJV)

Isaiah 53:4
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (KJV)

While there is little doubt that Matthew 8:17 is making a direct allusion to Isaiah 53:4a, I believe that many are predisposed to interpret these passages based on what they want them to say rather than expending some effort to test the accuracy of their understanding. Some deny that Isaiah 53: 1-5 has anything to do with physical healing. They would say, "Based on context, and a literal reading of this entire section of scripture, it is obviously a prophetic passage relating specifically to the mission of Christ on earth to deal with our sin debt by becoming the sin bearer and accepting God's punishment in our place. They point to phrases like these below as proof.

He is despised and rejected of mena man of sorrows
acquainted with griefhe hath borne our griefs
carried our sorrows we did esteem him stricken
smitten of God,he was wounded for our transgressions
he was bruised for our iniquities
the chastisement of our peace was upon him
by his stripes we are healed.

Reading these phrases, and keeping in mind that when taken together, they virtually add up to the entire passage of scripture in question, their point may be readily appreciated.

Those on the other end of the spectrum interpret these passages similarly with the proviso that the atonement also addresses and provides for physical healing. They cite that the people in the days of the Isaiah and also during the time of the New Testament saw a direct relationship between sickness and sin. If the sin is forgiven then healing may be obtained. Various scriptures support this:

Luke 5:20-24
"And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

Jesus' statements in verses 23-24 are a clear indication that healing a physical ailment was in this case, equivalent to forgiving sin. He used the healing of the man as evidence that He had the power to forgive sin.

James 5:14-15
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

Once again, we see a relationship between sickness and sin. By faith the man may be healed and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.

Taking the above into account and adding to this the quotes from Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4a and 5c ("and with his stripes we are healed"), their interpretation also has some merit. Some are even so bold as to take license in retranslating Isaiah 53:4a into an amalgamation of the two scriptures in question. (Matt. 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4a) It is changed to read:

"He took up our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses"

rather than....

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows"
(as rendered in the King James Bible)

Both interpretations deal with the problem of sin, but their focus differs. There are many in the ranks of those of the first view that agree with those of the second regarding the provision for healing being a part of what was accomplished on the cross. However, they would not see it as being of primary importance. To them, the problem of sin itself has the greatest significance. Healing is a secondary, minor issue. After all, in the resurrection we will all be healed.

The opposing camp fully understands the importance of the payment for sin Jesus made on the cross, without that understanding, they wouldn't be Christians, but they also tend to look for a temporal, physical expression of that forgiveness. They apply the verses already mentioned and add to them support from various other texts to affirm that indeed physical healing is not only guaranteed but normative for believers today. There are many accounts in the New Testament both during Jesus' ministry and after in which the sick and infirm were healed. Scriptures like the two examples below, add more fuel to the fire.

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

John 14:12 - 14 (NASB)
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Part II (Flies in the Ointment)

However, there are flaws with both these viewpoints. In the remainder of this document, I will address myself to these problems and finally give what I believe to be a more balanced perspective that takes into account the best, valid, arguments on both sides of the debate.

First, for those who would deny that Isaiah 53:4 has reference to physical healing, there is some merit. It is very difficult to find any translation of the Bible that words this passage in such a way as to support physical healing. Even the much beloved KJV fails to render the text in a way that would aid those who advocate healing. Out of thirteen (13) translations I checked, only two (2) used the word sickness and one (NIV) changed the work "griefs" to "infirmities".

Living Bible - Yet it was our grief he bore, our sorrows that weighed him down.
New Living Bible - Yet it was our weaknesses he carried; it was our sorrows that weighed ...
New King James - Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
New International - Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows,
New Century - But he took our suffering on him and felt our pain for us.
King James - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:
Darby's New Translation - Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
American Standard - Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;
Revised Standard - Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;
New American Standard - Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried;
God's Word - He certainly has taken upon himself our suffering and carried our sorrows
Young's Literal - Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains—he hath carried them,
New Revised Standard - Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases;

However, if we are to accord inerrancy to the scripture, then this passage must indeed be referring to physical healing as Matthew 8:17 clearly indicates that Jesus was healing, in the physical sense and that this healing was specifically a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4a.

For those who place great importance on the healing aspect of Isaiah, based on the way the verse has been generally translated, its no wonder that some felt it necessary to retranslate the passage as demonstrated earlier in this paper. But, is it acceptable to make this kind of change in order to more closely align the text with a particular position? Since all scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, it seems obvious to me that great care should be exercised before taking license to modify the text. Possibly it was rendered, as is, to aid us in better understanding some underlying truth.

Four facts may be clearly understood or inferred from the texts in question.
( Matt. 8:17 & Isa. 53:1-5)

First - The physical healing Jesus rendered was prophesied in Isaiah and fulfilled during His earthly ministry.

Second* - This fulfillment was an evidence of His role as the suffering servant, the Messiah that was to come.

Third - The irrefutable fact that the personal, physical-healing Jesus performed in Matthew (and elsewhere) occurred before and separately from His crucifixion on the cross.

Fourth - The accounts in Matthew and Isaiah speak to prophecy and fulfillment; they make no broad claims or guarantees relating to healing beyond the scope of the text.

*Jesus Himself on occasion pointed out His healing ministry as a sign of who He was. One example occurred when John the Baptist's disciples came to him seeking to know if He were the one they awaited.

Matthew 11:3 - 5 (KJV)
And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Jesus may have been making reference to Isaiah 35:5-6b(KJV) where it says:

Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
Then the lame will leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.

Though this passage in context seems to be talking about the Messiah in the coming kingdom, frequently the Old Testament gives prophecies that allude to both near term and more distant fulfillment.

Another example was given when the Jews were seeking to know who He was. Once again Jesus made reference to His works as proof of His person.

John 10:24 - 26 (NASB)
The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

Based on the passages above and others, it appears that a key element in healing was that it served as a sign as to the person of Jesus as the Messiah. Healing performed by the Apostles and others in scripture also had purposes beyond the acts themselves.

I freely admit that, to this point, the discussion is no where near settled. Those who would argue for guaranteed healing have many other scriptures that clearly support their view. However, many scriptures can be brought to light in which the faithful were sick and no miraculous healing was occurred.

In 1 Timothy 5:23 - Paul the Apostle tells Timothy to take wine as a medicinal aid rather than just healing Timothy himself or perhaps calling on the local body of believers to render the healing. Based on the text of the passage it appears that Timothy, a Christian, frequently had health problems.

1 Timothy 5:23
"No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."

Phil. 2:25-27 speaks of Epaphroditus, Paul's brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who fell sick and was near to death. Although, in this case, he recovered, there is no specific mention of Paul performing a miraculous healing. In fact he was relieved that God chose to have mercy on Epaphroditus which spared Paul "sorrow upon sorrow". The use of language here clearly indicates that Paul was under no allusion that healing was guaranteed but was an act of mercy on God's part.

Again in 2 Timothy 4:19-20 - Paul leaves one of his co-workers sick in Miletus. Why didn't he just heal him?

Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.

Based on scriptures such as Gal. 4:13 -16 and 2 Cor. 12:7 - 9, Paul himself seems to have had a malady, possibly relating to his eyes, that God refused to remove from him even though Paul implored the Lord on three occasions. Instead he was told that God's grace was sufficient for him. While some may disagree with my suggestion that Paul had problems with his eyes, based on the promises of scripture that some cite, it is very illuminating that God refused Paul's request.

Beyond the scriptures we all witness in our everyday lives fellow Christians, some with powerful ministries that God has chosen not to heal even when they prayed diligently. One person who comes to mind is Joni Eareckson Tada. I listened to her on a radio program speak of how she used to pray daily to be healed of her paralysis. Even without the use of her limbs, she has managed through the power of the Holy Spirit to build a powerful, vibrant ministry. She has a peace regarding her condition and understands that, like Paul, God's grace is sufficient for her needs. God used her handicap as an impetus to forge a ministry in an area that was largely being overlooked by the Church. With her own life and witness, she reached out to others with physical disorders, many that had previously been difficult to reach through standard evangelism methods. She shares in their suffering, and God has used this to open opportunities for her and the ears of those He desires to reach.

Part III Conclusion

I think that in order to get a proper understanding of verse 4a in Isaiah 53, you must consider what it says, in context with verse 3.

³He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief
^4aSurely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows:

Verse 3 and 4a of Isaiah 53 are speaking to Jesus' earthly ministry. Jesus was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief - he was sorrowful for man's condition (griefs) both in a physical and spiritual sense and spent much of His time ministering to those needs, physically and spiritually.

We don't commonly think like this today, but all sickness is directly or indirectly caused by sin. I say indirectly as there was no disease in the beginning. Sickness is a part of the curse that came about as a result of Adam and Eve's failure to obey God. Common everyday illnesses need not be the direct result of sin but are more likely a consequence of the fallen creation. It is true that God may cause sickness in direct response to sin in a believer's life, sometimes, even death. He has also been known to cause malady "so that the works of God might be displayed..." as written in John 9:2 - 3. Satan is even able to cause sickness. (see Job)

So, when Jesus healed He wasn't just fixing a problem in the flesh, He addressed the root cause of the sickness. If it was the result of sin, directly or indirectly, He forgave the sin and healed. However, God the Father is righteous and just; there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. The penalty of sin must be paid. Therefore, each time the Lord forgave and healed, the debt was laid squarely to His account. His authority to forgive was rooted in His Deity as God the Son and predicated on His coming sacrifice at Calvary. Just as the faithful in Old Testament times looked forward to their future redeemer, so it was for those who Jesus healed during His earthly ministry. Their accumulated debt of forgiven sin/sickness was dealt with on the cross, just a small part of the incalculable mountain of sin for which His death was the propitiation.

Back in Isaiah, the balance of the text, beginning in 4b, prophesied regarding this payment for sin. It describes his rejection and ultimate suffering and death on the cross. He cared for, loved, healed and forgave many, yet these same people rejected Him and crucified Him. He was accursed and smitten of God the Father in their place.

In the New Testament, Peter addresses the purpose of the cross and he directly quotes Isaiah 53:5 in the process. He wrote:

1 Peter 2:21 - 24 (KJV)
²¹For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: ²²Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: ²³Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: ²⁴Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Is healing available today?

Absolutely! Not only do we see examples of healing before the cross by Jesus and His disciples, but also after the cross by the Apostles. There are also instances of healing in response to prayer, without the presence of an Apostle, such as is found in James. (Previously quoted) Add to this the many examples we see in our everyday lives.

In my own family there have been multiple occasions when healing came in a hopeless situation. Of the two most noteworthy, one happened before I was born and the other I personally witnessed.

Doctors told my father that his second son, just a baby, was going to die of pneumonia. He asked for time alone with his child and then offered up a prayer, father to Father. The doctors had given no hope, but in God, hope springs eternal. He was healed and the next morning was found to be free of all symptoms and was taken home from the hospital.

My third oldest brother (of four) offered up his own prayer while lying in a hospital bed waiting to die of cancer. His major organs had already begun to shut down. Barely able to talk, he was gasping for every breath because his lungs were full of fluid, his body, swollen and yellow. Yet in a whispered prayer before fitful sleep, he asked for healing and was answered. He was called from his bed by a voice that directed him to come to the window and take a deep breath. He was then told to pray for all the members of his immediate family, a wife and child, and his extended family. He did so and then ran down the hall at the hospital proclaiming that he had been healed. The next morning tests were run and they found him to be without signs of the disease. His lungs were clear, the swelling gone, and blood chemistry was normal. He was allowed to leave the hospital and came home where he witnessed unceasingly to many, including myself. Several people came to faith in Christ through his sharing of the Gospel, even an administrator at the hospital.

I still vividly remember his earnest, powerful voice as he proclaimed God's truth. I saw both the burning light of the Holy Spirit in his eyes and I also saw his tears of remorse at having wasted a life that could have been used in the service of God.

Not many days later, he had a relapse and was back in the hospital bed as before. He explained that he had been given a respite, an opportunity to witness, especially to his family. He thanked the Doctors and gave the nurses a kiss then laid back and died peacefully. The prayer he had offered up had been for the breath needed to speak and witness for Jesus. It was answered and witness he did!

Is healing guaranteed today?

We have all witnessed fellow Christians who prayed diligently for healing yet failed to receive it. When this happens, the typical response by those who believe in guarantees is that the individual had, too, little faith. According to scripture, this is a possibility, but is this the only conclusion that may be drawn? As we've already seen by Paul's example, sometimes the answer to prayer is NO!

Many who fail to receive healing claim to have "exercised faith" but the Bible makes it, very, clear that the prayer of the faithful will be heard and granted. Is the Bible in error, or do we just have a faulty understanding of faith? What is the true nature and source of faith?

A simple dictionary definition for faith would be: A confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. From a Christian perspective, we believe that God's Word is true and that He can be trusted to perform all that He has promised. Our faith is in God, not in faith. Faith itself has no intrinsic power, rather the power resides with the one in whom our faith is placed.

The Bible uses common language when describing faith, such as "little faith", "great faith", faith the size of a mustard seed, and other terms, however, faith is an abstract concept rather than a physical one. It isn't quantifiable in a literal sense as some might teach. It's not literally a substance. Like love, hope, hate and greed, it can only truly be measured by its effect on the one who experiences it. Its inward presence results in an outward manifestation of its reality.

I've spent much time rethinking and rewriting my conclusions for this subject and finally have come to grips with several truths regarding faith;

True faith is composed of two parts;

Belief (input) on the part of the individual (or others) and
Assurance (feedback) sourced from God.

If either component is missing, true faith cannot be realized. God will not provide assurance when there is no belief and even when there is belief, assurance will not be forthcoming if the belief being offered isn't in concert with His perfect will, with one exception. My personal experience and the witness of others have made it abundantly clear that it is possible to be amiss in your belief, yet still receive assurance. Unlike the assurance in which God ratifies our request, this assurance works to bring about acquiescence to God's will and enables the believer to experience peace.

Belief without God given assurance is not faith and is of the flesh. Belief when combined with assurance from God is true faith and is spiritual in nature. All promises in the Bible regarding the application of faith presuppose true faith.

As I pondered on these truths, suddenly a scripture often quoted came to mind but took on new life and meaning. The verse in question has been the source of much controversy and misunderstanding in regard to faith. I'm speaking of Hebrews 11:1 "

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

This verse, partially because of the wording, has always been a bit cryptic. Only the KJV chooses to use the word "substance" most other translations render the Greek "hupostasis" as confidence or assurance. The last two translations more clearly impart a simple understanding of what is being taught. There is nothing wrong with the use of "substance" if it is rightly understood as the interpreter's attempt to succinctly codify a concept of solid confidence and sense of reality present in true faith.

As I look at the verse now it speaks a simple message that I once missed. Separated into parts it says:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for,"
The presence of true faith is apprehended by God given assurance.

"the evidence of things not seen."
The presence of this assurance is our guarantee or evidence that those things asked will be acted upon. (even if by way of methods unlike our original intent)

Whether in regard to salvation or healing, true faith is always of God. Unfortunately, many falsely rely upon their own pitiful belief, attempting to accomplish their own will. God is sovereign; not man. All requests of God must be in accordance with His will. When it is God's desire for physical healing to occur, He will provide assurance and exercise His power to accomplish the miracle, GUARANTEED!