Answering Objections to Divine Healing In the Atonement

Joined: Jun 27, 2012 Posts: 19 Status: **Offline**

Answering Objections to Healing In the Atonement
There is much confusion among Christians on the issue of divine healing and many say this was not in Christ's atonement or has ceased.

Below is an objection to divine healing in Christ's atonement:

Christ’s bearing our sins and sickness in Isaiah 53:3-4 is a serious miS@pplication of Scripture. Sickness is only one of the many ultimate effects of man’s sin. Jesus took the cause of all of our sufferings, sin, upon Himself at the cross in order to rid us ultimately of all of its effects. It is illogical to affirm that for any or all of the effects to be abolished it would be necessary for Him to bear any one of the effects (such as sickness) along with the cause

Here is why it is not a misapplication:

One reason is the atonement was not a dual work but one complete work. Sickness came into the world through sin and Isaiah 53:4 clearly includes the provision for healing of sicknesses and pains in the context of the atonement. Jesus explains the linkage and His willingness to heal sickness and forgive sin in Matthew 9:1-8. The correct translation of the Hebrew word for griefs is sicknesses and for sorrows it is pains in Isaiah 53:4. The correct translation of these words is given in Matthew 8:16-17 in reference to Isaiah 53:4.

No one will need physical healing in heaven assuming they get there. So logically when might healing be for? Sinners will need it after death but not be able to receive it in the part of sheol reserved for them, or after being dumped in the lake of fire.
Illogical? If one says he bore away sin which is the root of sickness and healing is not needed in heaven then where is the logic? He bore our sins and our sicknesses as a substitute for us. Unless of course one believes as the WOF heretics teach that He became a sinner on the cross not a sinless sacrifice as our substitute. They also say he physically had all diseases on the cross as well!

Another argument against healing in Christ's cross:

Healing in Isaiah 53:4-5 was for sins only.
Isaiah 53 is a spiritual context and theme. It is about Christs intercessory work between God and man it is argued.
In the New Testament they note that Peter quotes this from Isaiah.
1 Peter 2:24
“And He himself bore our sins (not sickness) in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.”

Here is the reality:
Peter is referencing the full atonement when he uses "healed" which includes sin vs. 5 and sickness vs. 4. It says specifically He has borne our sicknesses and pains in verse 4. The Greek word iatros for physician is derived from the Greek verb iaomai Peter used in 1 Peter 2:24. Iaomai is used 22 times in the NT to mean physical treatment/healing. An example is Matthew 15:28. God reveals Himself as Yahweh Rapha in Exodus 15:25 meaning physician, healer of sicknesses.

Here is the view that argues that healing ended with Christ's earthly ministry because it was 'fulfilled':

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.’ Matthew 8:16-17
It is argued that while Isaiah 53:4 does refer to physical healing, its fulfillment was in the healing ministry of Jesus before the atonement, as noted in Matthew 8:16-17 and not provided on the cross or ongoing after His ministry, and therefore it offers no guarantee of healing to us today.

Here is why the above assertion is wrong:

First Jesus is alive and still doing the same "ministry" for His disciples and through them for others. Jesus forgave sin and healed all through the OT and in the NT BEFORE His atonement on the basis of that future atonement. He could do that because the Godhead saw it as finished from the plan of redemption in Genesis 1:3-5; actually before that as the central part of God's Predestined plan Revelation 13:8. So to say Jesus stopped healing after the atonement is to to say He has changed as a result of the actual event happening! It is as logical to say He stopped forgiving sins after the atonement as well which of course is not true. He still does both. Hebrews 13:8.
Matthew used the Greek aorist subjunctive "pelrothe" in both Matthew 8: 16-17 and Matthew 12:17-21 which signifies future events that must certainly come to pass, not the aorist indicative denoting momentary completed past action in referring to the prophecies of Isaiah 42:1-4 and Isaiah 53:4. The Holy Spirit was stating these things meaning all Isaiah said about the atonement and the gentiles coming to Christ before the events happened would surely come to pass and continue.The Holy Spirit did not make a mistake in Matthew 12:17-21 in referring to the gentiles believing as being "fulfilled" by Christ's earthly ministry any more then He did in Matthew 8:16-17; the gentiles are still trusting Jesus.
Christ is still healing by the means stated in Mark 11:24, Matthew 18:19, James 5:14-15, Acts 19:12, Mark 16:17-18 and Matthew 10:7-8. In fact He even heals sinners AND raises them from the dead through "those who believe".
Physical healing is all through the book of Acts so it did not end with Christ's earthly ministry. It is as needed today to confirm the preaching of gospel to sinners and in the church as it was then.