Chapter 6. Is Healing in the Atonement?

Chapter 6. Is Healing in the Atonement?

Some Christians say, Yes.” Others say, “No.” Which group is right? And does it matter?

 The answer to the first question: “Which group is right?” boils down to a question of semantics. The fact is that there are two different definitions of the word, “Atonement,” and it is the failure to realize that there are two definitions that leads to each group yelling at the other and not making any headway. Each group is assuming that there is only one definition of “atonement” and that the one they know is right. It is as if each group was speaking in a different language – which, to some degree, they are.

The group which says, “Healing is in the atonement” is using the following definition (or words to this effect): “The atonement is the work of Christ and all of its effects.” This, we may say, is a general definition and we may find it in a secular dictionary (though not the Oxford because it knows better!). Thus it follows for them that any blessing we receive from God through Christ is provided through the atonement whether it be deliverance from sin, financial provision, physical healing, deliverance from evil powers, etc. Thus to them “healing is in the atonement.”

The problem is that the Bible never uses the word “atonement” in this sense – the word the Bible uses to mean, “The totality of the work of Christ and its effects” is redemption, not atonement.

In some Pentecostal writers it is clear that they are using the two words atonement and redemption as synonyms (T.L.Osborne is a good example of this, but many others do it too including Derek Prince and F.F. Bosworth.)

The second group derives its definition of “atonement” from the Bible. They note that the Old Testament uses the word atonement (Hebrew root: kaphar = to cover) so it literally means a covering (for sin). A similar word was used of the pitch that Noah used to cover the cracks on the ark. There was only one essential thing required to make the ark a means of salvation - the pitch. Jesus is our ark. We passed through the waters of baptism into a new covenant and a New World. The atonement is the pitch. If we take away the pitch there is no salvation.

The sacrifices of the old covenant never really dealt with sin, but just covered sin for another year. Every year they had to cover them again. The atonement was only valid for the year. Instead of dealing with sin, the sacrifices really only served to be a reminder that sin hadn't really been dealt with. The sacrifices were a covering, a bit like an IOU. By the time Christ came the pile of IOUs was stacked so high Israel couldn't see how to pay it. But Jesus on the Cross, settled all of these once for all.

This covering of sin led to Israel being members of a covenant relationship with God hence, when the Israelites translated the Old Testament into Greek (the Septuagint, or LXX) they translated it with the katallage word group, which has the root meaning of “reconciliation” showing that the root idea in Hebrew thought was “the restoring of relationship (with God) by the removal of the barrier to relationship (i.e. sin).”  The New Testament writers thus use the katallage word group and it is translated “reconciliation” in most translations. This is, of course, the root meaning of the word “atonement” which derives from the old English form: at-one-ment, meaning “to make at one,” or “to reconcile.”

Thus for this second group they see the Bible definition of atonement as “the removal of the barriers to relationship with God by the sacrificial death of Christ and the consequent restoration of (covenant) relationship.” This is a more limited definition but it has the advantage of being strictly scriptural. The other consequences of Christ’s work are seen as outgrowths of this and are included in the word “redemption,” which is a broader concept. Redemption includes not only the restoration of man to relationship with God but also everything else God has provided including the final redemption and recreation of the physical universe (in which there will be no need for healing!).

Thus it follows that, for this group, “healing is not in the atonement.”

And on a point of technicality they are right. I personally believe that the Bible is inspired by God and that the very words he used in particular places are Divinely inspired because he wants to convey a particular meaning at a particular point. If we are lazy readers and don’t care about the exact meanings of words that’s our business, but we should never blame our laziness when it comes to thinking by implying that God is a lazy writer. He is not!

Note: Those that deny healing is provided in the atonement are not necessarily denying that healing is available today nor that it was purchased for us by Christ (though some are denying these). What they are specifically denying is that Healing is provided for IN THE ATONEMENT – because they hold to a narrower definition of the word which they perceive to be the correct Biblical understanding. Many of them would argue for healing being made available through the redemptive work of Christ.

So what is the relationship of healing to the atonement?

It is probably better illustrated by some explained diagrams:

1. Using mathematical set theory:

 

 In this picture the circle represents redemption, the totality of God’s provision in Christ. The atonement, removal of sin and the restoration of relationship through the New Covenant are at the heart of Redemption. The other benefits of redemption are outgrowths from the heart, but are not the heart itself.

Derek Prince uses the analogy of a wheel to describe the relationships, which is very similar to this idea of a heart and circle. For him the hub of the wheel is the atonement, the spokes of the wheel are the provisions of God that are available to us based on the atonement and the rim of the wheel is our personal experience or appropriation of those provisions. He then says, “Everything depends on having the hub in its right place fulfilling its right function. The atonement makes God and the sinner at one and restores the broken fellowship. Out of this renewed fellowship we can partake of the provisions of Christ’s work.” Then having described the hub (or heart) of the wheel as the atonement he continually uses the word “atonement” in a loose sense to define the whole wheel. I hold he can’t have it both ways as it is confusing to the hearer or reader when a word is used in two different ways in the one context.

2. The root and the fruit.

 

 

By contrasting the two states in the above way it is probably easier to see the relationships.

In the first diagram sin is the root, sin is the human problem. Sin broke the relationship Adam had with God, and thus we were all placed in the position of being covenant breakers, fallen from covenant relationship. As a result of being in the state of being out of covenant relationship we came under the curse – and this includes sickness, poverty, defeat, etc. “Curse” is a “covenant” word, it means to receive evil (judgment) for having broken the covenant relationship. According to Deut 28 all sickness is a curse.

In the second diagram we see our new state in Christ. Sin has been atoned for – covered -so the root problem has been dealt with. As a result we have entered into a New Covenant with God. Now that we are again in covenant relationship we receive the good things that the covenant brings, or blessings (blessing is another “covenant” word).

Conclusion: Is healing in the atonement? Actually the answer is “No!”

It is scripturally correct to say the following: “Both atonement and healing are provided for us in the redemption that Christ has bought – along with many other blessings. All these are received by faith.”

Does it matter? Only in that if we are inaccurate in our explanation of scripture:

(i)                   We can cause offence and alienate other Christians.

(ii)                 Wrong doctrine usually will lead to wrong practice, which in turn can hurt people.

In the practice of a healing ministry it makes little difference, in that we can generally expect God to heal when asked in faith, in the name of Jesus.

However by placing healing in the redemptive work of Christ, rather than in the atonement, one error is avoided.

The crucial difference between the atonement and the redemptive work of Christ is this: The work of Christ in atonement is complete so can be fully appropriated now in our experience. The work of redemption, however, is not yet complete. The price of redemption has been paid but the restoration of the redeemed possession has not yet taken place – it does not happen until the Second Coming. Thus we still have our mortal, physical bodies and this earth is subject to corruption (Rom 8).

Because of this difference, on the one hand we can guarantee to every sinner who comes to Jesus for forgiveness that he will be forgiven and justified if he receives Jesus – no exceptions – because atonement is complete. On the other hand redemption is not fully complete so we cannot give the same “cast iron” guarantee that every person who asks for healing will be healed. This earth, and our sinful flesh, is still subject to corruption. So Christians can get sick – just because we live in a fallen world.

The big danger in confusing atonement with redemption is that atonement is complete so its provisions are guaranteed to all whereas redemption is not so its provisions are not guaranteed to all. Some healing ministries make the mistake of giving guarantees concerning healing that are not yet operational in God and as a result people get hurt.

This may seem pedantic, or an exercise in semantics, but there is quite a difference theologically speaking, and has meant that many have had difficulty accepting healing as valid because of a faulty explanation of words by Pentecostals and other healing ministries.  It in no way lessens the reality of healing, or it's availability for us, in fact it explains why healing is also possible for those who reject the atoning work of Christ, i.e. non Christians.

If healing were part of the atonement, then logically these things would follow:

1. Healing would only be available to those who had first been made "at-one" with God. Clearly experience shows this is not so. Non Christians would not be healed by Christ, but they are, and often. Rather what we see is a provision of healing for the mankind in spite of their willingness to be reconciled to God.

2. Healing would be received in exactly the same way as forgiveness of sins – by faith alone. Thus the charge that the sick one “does not have enough faith” would be justified. But how can we argue this if non Christians get healed? They don’t have faith at all!

3. On receiving the atonement, i.e. reconciliation with God, healing would be the automatic consequence and all converts would be immediately healed, which clearly is not the case.

When we recognise that healing is part of the REDEMPTIVE work of Christ we can see why healing is not always immediate or automatic.  Redemption is a process and takes time.  The process is now at work, and in God's plan we who are Christ's have been redeemed in our spirits.  Our souls are undergoing redemption, and at the Second Coming our bodies will be redeemed.  Until then our bodies are still under the domination of sin and death, and therefore there will be occasions when, in the plan of God, it is better not to heal than to heal if the sickness can serve a higher purpose.

Bosworth in his book asks the question: Did Jesus redeem us from our diseases when he atoned for our sins? Here he shows his tendency to identify redemption with atonement as if they were identical. Then he argues as follows: “Rom 5:12 – ‘by one mans sin, sin entered the world and death through sin.’ Disease – incipient death – entered into the world by sin. Since disease entered by sin the remedy must be found in the redemption of Christ. Since disease is part of the curse its true remedy must be the Cross for who can remove the curse but God and how can he do it except by substitution?”

His conclusion is that healing is available in the same way that forgiveness is: “Disease is the physical penalty of iniquity but Christ has borne in his body all our liabilities on account of sin and therefore our bodies are judicially free from disease.”

He then gives the following parallel:

The inner man	The outer man
Adam by his fall brought sin into our souls	Adam by his fall brought disease into our bodies.
Sin is therefore the work of Satan	Sickness is therefore the work of Satan.
Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil	Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil
Jehovah Tsidkenu refers to his redemptive provision for our souls	Jehovah Rapha refers to his redemptive provision for our bodies
On Calvary Jesus bore our sins	On Calvary Jesus bore our sicknesses
He was made sin for us	He was made a curse for us
The spirit is bought with a price	So is the body
Is sin the way to glorify God in your spirit?	Is remaining sick the way to glorify God in your body?
Since he bore our sins how many people must it be God’s will to save?	Since he bore our sicknesses how many people must it be God’s will to heal?
He bore our sins so we might not bare them	He bore our sicknesses so we can be healed.
Faith comes by hearing	Faith comes by hearing
Ordinances – believe and be baptised	Believe and be anointed.
Lords Supper – wine is in remembrance of his death for our sins	Lord’s supper – bread remembers his death for our bodies.

But the point is no one denies that sickness came through sin and is incipient death. Nor is it denied that the remedy is found in the redemptive work of Christ. Nor is it denied that this is achieved through substitution. What is denied is that the words atonement and redemption mean the same thing and this is where Bosworth is unclear.

Atonement is a completed act, redemption is a process that is not yet complete but will be when Christ returns. Therefore though, in principle, Christ has provided for our sicknesses and pains so we may be healed, in practice the unfinished programme of redemption may mean that healing is not manifested in this life.