Related Passages

The healing-in-the-atonement discussion does not rest on Isaiah 53, Matthew 8, and 1 Peter 2 alone. Across both Testaments, numerous passages touch on God’s relationship to healing, the experience of sickness among believers, and the future hope of bodily restoration. This chapter gathers the most significant of these passages and notes what each contributes to the discussion.

Every passage is quoted in full from the KJV. For each, a brief note identifies its relevance and which view(s) in the debate it most directly supports.

Old Testament Healing Promises

These passages establish the Old Testament foundation for understanding God as healer and set the context in which Isaiah 53 was first heard.

Exodus 15:26 — “I Am the LORD That Healeth Thee”

Exodus 15:26 (KJV)

And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.

Relevance: This is the first occurrence of God revealing Himself as healer. The divine name invoked here is יְהוָה רֹפְאֶךָ (Yahweh Rophe’ekha), “the LORD your healer.” The root word רָפָא (rapha) — “to heal” — is the same root used in Isaiah 53:5 (“and with his stripes we are healed”). This linguistic connection is significant: the healing promised in Isaiah 53:5 uses the same vocabulary as God’s self-revelation as healer at the very beginning of Israel’s national story.

However, the context is important. The promise in Exodus 15:26 is conditional — “if thou wilt diligently hearken…and wilt do that which is right…and keep all his statutes.” It is a covenant promise tied to Israel’s obedience under the Mosaic Law, not an unconditional guarantee. Whether the new covenant transforms this conditional promise into an unconditional provision is debated.

Views supported: Those who see healing in the atonement point to the continuity of God’s character as healer and the shared rapha vocabulary with Isaiah 53:5. Those who limit Isaiah 53:5 to spiritual healing note the conditional and covenant-specific nature of Exodus 15:26.

Psalm 103:2-3 — “Who Healeth All Thy Diseases”

Psalm 103:2-3 (KJV)

² Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits: ³ Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases;

Relevance: David pairs forgiveness and healing as parallel “benefits” of the LORD. The structure is deliberate:

Forgiveth all thine iniquities
Healeth all thy diseases

The parallelism raises a pointed question: If forgiveness is a genuine, ongoing provision from God, is healing equally so? Or is David using poetic parallelism without intending a precise theological equation?

The Hebrew word for “healeth” is again רָפָא (rapha) — the same root as Isaiah 53:5 and Exodus 15:26. The word for “diseases” is תַּחֲלֻאַיְכִי (tachaluayikhi), derived from חֳלִי (choli), the same word used in Isaiah 53:4 (“Surely he hath borne our griefs [choli — sicknesses]”).

Views supported: Those who see healing in the atonement emphasize the tight parallelism between forgiveness and healing — both are benefits of the Lord, both use the same vocabulary as Isaiah 53. Those who hold the spiritual-only view note that the Psalms are poetry and that parallelism does not require identical theological weight on both sides. Those who hold the already/not yet view see this psalm as anticipating the full restoration God will bring — forgiveness now, complete healing ultimately at the resurrection.

Psalm 107:20 — “He Sent His Word, and Healed Them”

Psalm 107:20 (KJV)

He sent his word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.

Relevance: This verse comes within a broader section (Ps 107:17-22) describing people who were sick because of their sinful ways and who cried out to the LORD for help. God’s response was to send His word and heal them. The connection between sin, crying out to God, and healing anticipates the pattern seen in Isaiah 53, where the Servant bears both sin and sickness.

The healing here is presented as an act of divine mercy in response to prayer — not as an automatic provision but as God’s gracious intervention. The word for “healed” is again רָפָא (rapha).

Views supported: All views can draw from this passage. Healing-in-the-atonement advocates see the pattern of God healing as He forgives. Spiritual-only advocates note that the sickness here was a consequence of sin, and the “healing” may refer to the whole situation being resolved. Already/not yet advocates see God’s healing mercy as genuinely available but sovereignly administered.

Malachi 4:2 — “With Healing in His Wings”

Malachi 4:2 (KJV)

But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

Relevance: This is one of the last prophetic words in the Old Testament, and it is messianic. The “Sun of righteousness” is widely understood as a reference to the coming Messiah. He arises “with healing in his wings” — the Hebrew word for “healing” is מַרְפֵּא (marpe), derived from the same root רָפָא (rapha) found in Isaiah 53:5, Exodus 15:26, and Psalm 103:3.

The imagery is of total, joyful restoration — “ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.” The healing is associated with the Messiah’s appearing and seems to encompass the whole person.

Views supported: Those who see healing in the atonement point to this as a messianic prophecy that includes physical healing. Those who hold the already/not yet view see it as eschatological — the ultimate healing that comes when the Messiah’s work is fully consummated. Those who hold the spiritual-only view read “healing” here as a broad metaphor for the restoration the Messiah brings to those who fear God’s name.

New Testament Healing Passages

These passages show how healing functioned in the early church and what the apostles taught about it.

James 5:14-16 — “The Prayer of Faith Shall Save the Sick”

James 5:14-16 (KJV)

¹⁴ 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: ¹⁵ 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. ¹⁶ Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Relevance: This is the most direct New Testament instruction on what believers should do when sick. Several features are significant for the discussion.

Key Greek Terms

ἀσθενέω (astheneō) in v. 14 — “Is any sick among you?” This is the standard NT word for physical illness. It is used for Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt 8:14), for Lazarus (John 11:1—3), for Dorcas (Acts 9:37), and for the father of Publius (Acts 28:8). In every one of these cases the meaning is unambiguously physical.
σῴζω (sōzō) in v. 15 — “shall save the sick.” This word means both “to save” (in the spiritual sense) and “to heal/deliver” (in the physical sense). James may be deliberately using a word that bridges both dimensions.
κάμνω (kamnō) in v. 15 — “the sick” (ton kamnonta). This word can mean “to be weary, to be exhausted” as well as “to be sick.” It appears only three times in the NT (here, Heb 12:3, Rev 2:3), and the other two occurrences refer to weariness, not physical illness. Some interpreters read this as spiritual exhaustion rather than (or in addition to) physical sickness.
ἐγείρω (egeirō) in v. 15 — “the Lord shall raise him up.” This word is used for raising people from sickbeds (Mark 1:31; Acts 3:7) and for the resurrection itself (1 Cor 15:15). It carries physical connotations — whether recovery from illness or eschatological restoration.
ἰάομαι (iaomai) in v. 16 — “that ye may be healed.” This is the same word Peter uses in 1 Peter 2:24 and the word predominantly used for physical healing in the New Testament.
James mentions forgiveness of sins in the same breath as healing (v. 15b: “and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him”). This intertwining of healing and forgiveness echoes the pattern in Psalm 103:3 and raises the same question: Are forgiveness and healing parallel provisions?

The Spiritual-Only Reading of James 5

Some interpreters argue that this passage is not about physical sickness at all, but about spiritual weakness, discouragement, or the effects of sin. The case rests on several observations:

The ambiguity of kamnō. As noted above, the word translated “the sick” in v. 15 (kamnō) means “to grow weary” in its other two NT appearances (Heb 12:3; Rev 2:3). Classical Greek uses it for exhaustion and fatigue. If James means spiritual weariness, the passage is about restoring a discouraged or sin-burdened believer, not treating a physical illness.
The anointing with oil as spiritual ministry. Oil in the Old Testament is associated with the Holy Spirit’s empowerment (1 Sam 16:13; Isa 61:1). If the anointing is symbolic — representing the Spirit’s strengthening presence — then the entire scene is one of spiritual restoration: elders ministering the Spirit’s comfort to a weary soul.
The prominence of sin language. The passage mentions confession of faults (v. 16), forgiveness of sins (v. 15), and the healing that follows mutual confession and prayer (v. 16). If the entire unit is read as addressing the spiritual condition of believers burdened by sin or spiritual weariness, the logic flows naturally without reference to physical illness.
The broader context of James 5. The surrounding verses address patience in suffering (vv. 7—11), the example of Job (v. 11), and the power of prayer (vv. 16—18). Some interpreters see the “sick” person as one who is suffering spiritually under trial, consistent with the chapter’s overall theme.
The LXX usage of astheneō. Brian Hand of BJU Seminary points out that the Old Testament (LXX) never uses astheneō to mean sickness — every instance refers to weakness. Wisdom passages in Job and Psalms tend to use it for “discouragement, depression, emotional weariness, or indecision.” Since James was among the earliest NT books written, follows OT wisdom patterns, and did not borrow from the later-written Gospels (where astheneō consistently means physical illness), “James 5:14 may refer to spiritual weakness” (Hand, “The Prayer of Faith Will Save the Sick,” BJU Seminary Viewpoint, 2023).
The Elijah illustration. James introduces Elijah as his illustration (vv. 17—18) — but not Elijah’s healing ministry. He points instead to Elijah’s prayer regarding rain, a narrative that ends in the prophet’s discouragement and flight from Jezebel (1 Kings 19:4—14). Elijah was despondent, exhausted, thinking irrationally, and feeling completely alone. God’s response — physical nourishment, spiritual companionship, and correction of wrong thinking — prefigures James’s instruction: anointing with oil (physical refreshment), calling the elders (spiritual companionship), and confession of faults (addressing sin). If James meant physical healing, a reference to Elijah’s healing ministry would have been far more natural. The choice of the discouragement narrative suggests the passage is about restoring the spiritually weak.

John MacArthur develops this reading in his commentary on James. He argues that astheneō should be translated “weak” rather than “sick,” noting that “in all but three of astheneō’s appearances in the epistles it does not refer to physical sickness.” He describes the people James addresses as “the fallen spiritual warriors, the exhausted, weary, depressed, defeated Christians who have tried to draw on God’s power through prayer but have lost motivation.” In this reading, the elders’ anointing with oil is not medicinal but metaphorical — the elders “stimulate, encourage, strengthen, and refresh” those who have been “defeated in the spiritual battle” (MacArthur, James, 2007). MacArthur also notes that the Greek word for “anoint” here (aleiphō) means “to rub” and was commonly used for refreshing and reviving, not for ceremonial anointing.

This is a sincerely held and carefully reasoned position, and it deserves a fair hearing.

The Physical-Illness Reading of James 5

Most interpreters across all three views on healing in the atonement read James 5:14—16 as referring to physical sickness. The evidence for this reading is substantial:

The word in v. 14 is astheneō, not kamnō. While kamnō in v. 15 is ambiguous, the word that opens the passage in v. 14 — “Is any sick among you?” — is astheneō, the standard word for physical illness throughout the Gospels and Acts. It is the word used when Matthew says Jesus “healed all that were sick” (Matt 8:16). It is the word used for Lazarus’s illness (John 11:1—3) and for Dorcas’s fatal sickness (Acts 9:37). James’s choice of astheneō to introduce the passage sets the context as physical illness.
Oil in the ancient world was medicinal. While oil had spiritual associations, it was also the most common remedy in ancient medicine. The Good Samaritan poured oil and wine on the injured man’s wounds (Luke 10:34). When Jesus sent out the Twelve, “they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13). The combination of prayer and oil in James 5 pairs spiritual means (prayer) with physical care (anointing) — a holistic pastoral response to bodily illness.
The word egeirō (“raise him up”) carries physical force. In Mark 1:31, Jesus “took her by the hand, and lifted her up” (ēgeiren) — the same word. In Acts 3:7, Peter “lifted him up” (ēgeiren) and the lame man walked. The promise that “the Lord shall raise him up” naturally describes physical recovery.
The forgiveness clause is conditional, not central. James writes “and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him” (v. 15b). The word “if” (kan, meaning “even if” or “and if”) treats the forgiveness as a possible additional benefit, not as the main point of the passage. If the entire passage were about spiritual restoration from sin, the forgiveness would not be introduced as a conditional secondary outcome — it would be the main subject.
The practical instruction assumes a physical situation. The person is too ill to go to the elders — the elders must be called to come to him. This implies someone bedridden or housebound, which fits physical illness far more naturally than spiritual discouragement.

Views Supported

Those who see healing in the atonement point to James’s instruction as evidence that the early church expected physical healing through prayer and that this healing is connected to the atonement (note the connection to forgiveness). Those who hold the spiritual-only view note the ambiguity of sōzō and kamnō and argue that James may be addressing spiritual restoration, not guaranteed physical healing; some in this tradition read the entire passage as spiritual, as outlined above. Those who hold the already/not yet view see James as teaching that believers should pray for healing with faith while acknowledging that God’s sovereign will determines the outcome (“the Lord shall raise him up” — the healing comes from the Lord, not automatically from the prayer).

The Believer’s Authority Reading of James 5

A distinct interpretation emerges from within the Word of Faith tradition. These teachers affirm that James 5:14—16 is about physical healing — but they view calling the elders as a provision for believers whose personal faith has not yet matured to the point of claiming healing directly.

Kenneth Hagin, widely regarded as the father of the modern Word of Faith movement, presents the passage this way in his Bible Healing Study Course: “Your faith may not be at that level, or perhaps you haven’t been taught along those lines. Then the Scripture also says, ‘Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him.’” For Hagin, the believer who knows their authority in Christ can pray the prayer of faith and receive healing directly; James 5 provides a secondary avenue for those “who cannot act for themselves” (Seven Things You Should Know About Divine Healing, Faith Library Publications).

Andrew Wommack takes this further: “The Scriptures don’t tell us to pray for the sick, in the sense that we are powerless to minister healing to them. It’s just the opposite: Jesus told US to HEAL the sick (Matt. 10:1, 8; Luke 9:1, and 10:9). There’s a big difference between asking the Lord to heal people and healing them” (God Wants You Well, 2010). In this framework, the mature believer exercises authority over sickness rather than petitioning God to act, and James 5 serves as a provision for those who have not yet learned to exercise that authority.

This reading takes the passage seriously as Scripture but subordinates it within a hierarchy of faith. It affirms the elders’ prayer as genuine and effective while maintaining that the believer’s own authority — rooted in the finished work of the cross — is the higher provision. Critics of this view (from all other positions) argue that it introduces a hierarchy that James himself does not establish: James gives a straightforward instruction to the church without qualifying it as a concession for weak faith.

Acts 3:1-16 — Peter Heals a Lame Man in Jesus’s Name

Acts 3:1-10 (KJV)

¹ Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. ² And a certain man lame from his mother’s womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; ³ Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. ⁴ And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. ⁵ And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. ⁶ Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. ⁷ And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ancle bones received strength. ⁸ And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God. ⁹ And all the people saw him walking and praising God: ¹⁰ And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

Acts 3:12-16 (KJV)

¹² And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? ¹³ The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. ¹⁴ But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; ¹⁵ And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. ¹⁶ And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Relevance: This is the first recorded healing in the post-ascension church, and Peter explicitly connects it to “the name of Jesus Christ” and “faith in his name” (v. 16). The healing is undeniably physical — a man lame from birth now walks, leaps, and praises God. Peter’s sermon that follows connects the healing to the same Jesus who was “delivered up” and “killed” (vv. 13-15) — the Servant language of Isaiah 53.

Does Peter see this healing as flowing from the atonement? He does not explicitly say so. But his connection of the healing to the name and person of Jesus — the one who was delivered, denied, and killed — places it within the orbit of Christ’s redemptive work.

Views supported: Those who see healing in the atonement argue that healing “in the name of Jesus” is healing that flows from who Jesus is and what He accomplished — including His atoning death. Those who hold the authenticating-sign view see this healing as a miracle confirming the apostolic message, not as a model for ongoing atonement-based healing. Those who hold the already/not yet view see it as a genuine foretaste of the kingdom’s healing power, available but not guaranteed.

Acts 10:38 — “Healing All That Were Oppressed of the Devil”

Acts 10:38 (KJV)

How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Relevance: Peter summarizes Jesus’s entire earthly ministry in a single sentence, and healing is central to it. Jesus “went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil.” Several observations are noteworthy:

Healing is described as part of Jesus’s messianic mission, empowered by the Holy Spirit.
The phrase “oppressed of the devil” connects sickness to demonic activity, suggesting a spiritual dimension to physical illness.
Healing is presented as an expression of “doing good” — it is part of the character of Jesus’s ministry, not incidental to it.

Views supported: All views agree that healing was central to Jesus’s ministry. The question is whether this ministry-pattern establishes a permanent atonement provision (healing-in-the-atonement view), an authenticating sign of His messiahship (sign view), or an inaugural expression of the kingdom that continues in some form until the consummation (already/not yet view).

Passages on Suffering and Sickness Among Believers

These passages present the other side of the evidence: faithful believers — including apostles — who experienced sickness and were not healed. Any honest treatment of the question must account for these texts.

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 — Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (KJV)

⁷ And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. ⁸ For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. ⁹ And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. ¹⁰ Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Relevance: This is the most frequently cited passage against the view that healing is guaranteed in the atonement. Paul — an apostle who himself performed healing miracles (Acts 14:8-10, 19:11-12, 28:8-9) — prayed three times for the removal of his “thorn in the flesh,” and the Lord’s answer was not removal but grace: “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.”

The Nature of Paul’s Thorn: An Unresolved Question

The text does not identify what the thorn was. This ambiguity is significant: the weight this passage carries in the healing-in-atonement debate depends substantially on whether the thorn was physical illness. Four major proposals have been advanced:

1. Physical illness. This is the most common modern reading. Proposed ailments include:

Eye disease: Galatians 4:15 — “ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me” (KJV) — and Galatians 6:11 — “see with how large letters I have written unto you with mine own hand” (KJV) — have led many commentators to conclude Paul suffered from severely impaired vision.
Chronic malaria or recurrent fever: Paul’s travels through low-lying regions of Asia Minor, where malaria was endemic, and the recurring nature of the thorn (it “buffeted” him, present tense, implying ongoing affliction) support this reading.
Epilepsy: Proposed by some patristic and medieval interpreters, though the evidence is thin.
A speech impediment: 2 Corinthians 10:10 — “his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (KJV) — could indicate a physical condition that affected Paul’s public speaking.

If the thorn was physical illness, the implications for the healing debate are significant: the greatest apostle, whose faith is beyond question, prayed for healing and was told no.

2. A human adversary or persistent persecution. Several early church fathers took this view. Chrysostom (c. 347—407 AD) identified the thorn as the collective opposition Paul faced — “all the adversaries of the word, Alexander the coppersmith, Hymenaeus and Philetus.” The Greek supports this reading in important ways:

The word “messenger” (ἄγγελος, angelos) most commonly means a personal being — an angel or a human messenger — not an impersonal condition. Everywhere else in the New Testament, angelos refers to a personal agent.
The word “buffet” (κολαφίζω, kolaphizō) means “to strike with the fist.” It is the word used for the soldiers striking Jesus at his trial (Matt 26:67). The image is of a person or force attacking Paul, not a disease afflicting him.
The phrase “messenger of Satan” parallels the way Jesus described Peter’s opposition: “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matt 16:23) — a human agent through whom Satan works.

If the thorn was persecution, the passage does not address physical healing at all, and the healing-in-atonement position remains unchallenged by it.

3. Spiritual temptation. Some patristic interpreters read the thorn as an inner spiritual struggle — a persistent temptation to pride. The stated purpose of the thorn (“lest I should be exalted above measure,” repeated twice in v. 7) supports this reading. In this view, the thorn is God’s means of keeping Paul humble, and the “grace” God provides is the strength to resist temptation, not the healing of a disease.

4. The cumulative hardships of apostolic ministry. Paul’s own language in verse 10 is instructive: “I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake.” The word “infirmities” (ἀσθενείαις, astheneiais) appears in a list alongside reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses — all external hardships, not diseases. In this context, astheneiais may mean “weaknesses” broadly rather than “sicknesses” specifically. Paul may be describing the general vulnerability and hardship of apostolic life, not a single medical condition.

The “Infirmities” Word in Context

The word ἀσθένεια (astheneia, “weakness, infirmity”) deserves special attention because it is the same word family Matthew uses in Matt 8:17 (“He took our infirmities”). In many NT passages it clearly means physical illness (Matt 8:17; Luke 5:15; John 5:5; Acts 28:9). But in other passages it means weakness or limitation in a broader sense (Rom 8:26 — the Spirit helps our infirmities; 1 Cor 2:3 — “I was with you in weakness”; Heb 4:15 — Christ was tempted in all points like us, “yet without sin,” but can sympathize with our infirmities). The meaning depends on context. In 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, the context — with its list of reproaches, persecutions, and distresses — favors the broader meaning of “weaknesses” over the narrow meaning of “diseases.”

What This Means for the Healing Debate

The honest conclusion is that we do not know what Paul’s thorn was. If it was physical illness, this passage is the strongest New Testament evidence that God sometimes declines to heal faithful believers. If it was not physical illness, the passage has no direct bearing on the healing question. The weight of this text in the debate depends on an identification that the text itself does not provide.

Views supported: Those who deny healing in the atonement tend to assume the thorn was physical illness and point to this passage as decisive evidence — if healing were a guaranteed provision of the cross, Paul would have received it. Those who hold healing in the atonement argue that the thorn was more likely persecution or opposition (based on the angelos and kolaphizō language), and that using an ambiguous passage to overturn the clear pattern of Jesus’s healing ministry is exegetically unsound. Those who hold the already/not yet view see this as illustrating that healing, while available, is administered according to God’s sovereign purposes — sometimes the answer is grace rather than removal, regardless of what the thorn’s exact nature was.

2 Timothy 4:20 — “Trophimus Have I Left at Miletum Sick”

2 Timothy 4:20 (KJV)

Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

Relevance: A brief but significant detail. Paul, writing near the end of his life, mentions in passing that he left his traveling companion Trophimus sick at Miletus. Paul did not — or could not — heal him. This is the same Paul through whom “God wrought special miracles” (Acts 19:11) and who healed the father of Publius (Acts 28:8). If healing were a guaranteed atonement provision that could be claimed by faith, why would Paul leave a faithful companion behind, sick?

The passage does not explain why Trophimus was not healed. It simply reports the fact. But the fact itself requires any theology of healing to account for cases where faithful believers remain sick despite the presence of apostolic ministry.

Views supported: Those who deny healing in the atonement see this as further evidence that physical healing is not a guaranteed provision. Those who hold healing in the atonement note that the passage does not explain why Trophimus was sick and caution against building a theology of “no healing” on an unexplained detail. Those who hold the already/not yet view see this as consistent with a world where healing is available but not inevitable — the kingdom is present but not yet consummated.

Philippians 2:25-27 — Epaphroditus, Sick Nigh unto Death

Philippians 2:25-27 (KJV)

²⁵ Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants. ²⁶ For he longed after you all, and was full of heaviness, because that ye had heard that he had been sick. ²⁷ For indeed he was sick nigh unto death: but God had mercy on him; and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow.

Relevance: Epaphroditus, a faithful worker for the gospel, became seriously ill — “sick nigh unto death.” He did recover, but notice how Paul describes the recovery: “God had mercy on him.” Paul does not say Epaphroditus claimed his healing as an atonement right. He does not say he exercised faith and was healed. He says God had mercy.

The language of mercy is important. Mercy is, by definition, undeserved favor — something given freely, not something claimed as a right. If Paul understood healing as a guaranteed provision of the atonement, one would expect language of faith and provision, not language of mercy. But if healing is an act of God’s sovereign compassion — sometimes given, sometimes withheld for reasons known to God — then the language of mercy is exactly right.

Views supported: Those who deny healing in the atonement see the language of mercy as confirming that healing is a gift, not a right. Those who hold healing in the atonement note that Paul’s language does not deny the atonement basis for healing — even forgiveness, which is unambiguously in the atonement, is described as an act of mercy (Eph 2:4-5). Those who hold the already/not yet view see this as consistent with their framework: healing comes from God, is grounded in His redemptive work, but is administered according to His mercy and wisdom.

Galatians 4:13-14 — Paul’s Infirmity of the Flesh

Galatians 4:13-14 (KJV)

¹³ Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. ¹⁴ And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Relevance: Paul acknowledges that he preached to the Galatians “through infirmity of the flesh” — because of a physical ailment. The phrase “infirmity of the flesh” (ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός, astheneian tēs sarkos) uses the same root word (astheneia) that Matthew uses in Matthew 8:17 (“he took our infirmities”). Paul had a physical weakness that was visible and potentially off-putting (“my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected”), yet it was not healed.

This is significant because Paul’s astheneia is the very kind of condition Matthew says Jesus “took” in fulfillment of Isaiah 53:4. Yet Paul himself lived with it.

Views supported: Those who deny healing in the atonement see Paul’s ongoing infirmity as proof that not all sickness is addressed by the atonement. Those who hold healing in the atonement argue that Paul’s case may be exceptional or that he had not yet fully understood the provision. Those who hold the already/not yet view see this as part of the “not yet” — the kingdom has come, but its full healing power awaits the resurrection.

The Already / Not Yet Passages

These passages address the future hope of bodily redemption and frame the discussion in eschatological terms. They are essential for understanding the “already/not yet” position, but they also inform all three major views.

Romans 8:22-23 — “The Redemption of Our Body”

Romans 8:22-23 (KJV)

²² For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. ²³ And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Relevance: Paul places physical redemption squarely in the future. Believers who have “the firstfruits of the Spirit” — who are already saved, already justified, already indwelt by the Holy Spirit — still “groan within ourselves, waiting for…the redemption of our body.” The body has not yet been redeemed. Physical wholeness is a future hope, tied to the resurrection and the final consummation.

The word “redemption” (ἀπολύτρωσιν, apolytrōsin) connects the body’s future healing to Christ’s redemptive work. It is a redemption that has been purchased but not yet delivered. We are, as Paul says elsewhere, “saved in hope” (Rom 8:24).

Views supported: The already/not yet view finds its strongest textual support here. Physical healing is grounded in the atonement (it is a “redemption”), but it is not yet fully realized (we are “waiting” for it). Those who deny healing in the atonement use this passage to argue that physical healing is entirely future — it comes at the resurrection, not before. Those who hold healing in the atonement argue that the “firstfruits of the Spirit” include present experiences of healing as foretastes of the coming redemption, even though the full harvest awaits.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 — The Resurrection Body

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (KJV)

⁴² So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: ⁴³ It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: ⁴⁴ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Relevance: Paul describes the transformation that will occur at the resurrection. The present body is characterized by corruption, dishonor, weakness, and mortality. The resurrection body will be characterized by incorruption, glory, power, and immortality. This is the ultimate “healing” — the final, complete, irreversible restoration of the human body.

Note the word “weakness” (ἀσθενείᾳ, astheneia) in verse 43 — the same word family as the “infirmities” Matthew says Jesus bore (Matt 8:17) and the “infirmity” Paul experienced (Gal 4:13). The full resolution of astheneia — bodily weakness and sickness — comes at the resurrection, not before.

Views supported: All views agree that the ultimate healing is eschatological. The question is whether any of that future healing “breaks through” into the present age. The already/not yet view says yes — partially, as a foretaste. The healing-in-the-atonement view says yes — as a provision that can be claimed now. The spiritual-only view says the present benefit of the atonement is spiritual healing (from sin), with physical healing reserved for the resurrection.

Revelation 21:4 — “No More Death, Neither Sorrow”

Revelation 21:4 (KJV)

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Relevance: This is the final word on healing in the biblical narrative. In the new creation, every form of physical suffering is eliminated — death, sorrow, crying, pain. The comprehensive nature of this promise is striking: no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither…any more pain. Total, complete, permanent healing.

This verse establishes the eschatological horizon for the entire discussion. Whatever one believes about healing in the present age, all agree that complete physical healing is the ultimate destiny of God’s people. The only question is the timing and the degree to which that future reality is available now.

Views supported: All three views embrace this passage. Those who see healing in the atonement read it as the consummation of what was purchased at the cross. Those who hold the spiritual-only view read it as the first time physical healing is fully and universally guaranteed — only in the new creation. Those who hold the already/not yet view see it as the “not yet” pole of the eschatological tension — the full healing that believers currently taste in part.

Summary: What the Evidence Shows

The passages gathered here do not settle the question, but they sharpen it considerably. Several observations emerge:

God consistently reveals Himself as healer — from Exodus 15:26 through Malachi 4:2, the Old Testament presents healing as integral to God’s character and His relationship with His people.
Forgiveness and healing are frequently paired — Psalm 103:3, James 5:15-16, and the pattern of Isaiah 53:4-5 consistently place forgiveness and healing side by side. Whether this pairing implies an identical theological status (both guaranteed provisions of the atonement) or a looser connection (both expressions of God’s goodness) is debated.
Faithful believers experienced ongoing sickness — Paul’s thorn (2 Cor 12:7-10), Trophimus left sick at Miletus (2 Tim 4:20), Epaphroditus nearly dying (Phil 2:25-27), and Paul’s own infirmity (Gal 4:13-14) all demonstrate that godliness and apostolic faith did not guarantee freedom from physical illness.
The ultimate healing is eschatological — Romans 8:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, and Revelation 21:4 place the full redemption of the body in the future, at the resurrection and in the new creation.
The early church prayed for healing and sometimes received it — James 5:14-16 provides instruction for praying for the sick, and Acts records multiple healings. The church was not told to simply wait for the resurrection; it was told to pray.

These five observations do not point unanimously in one direction. They create a tension — a tension that is itself theologically significant. The reader must weigh the evidence and determine how these strands come together.

Cross-References

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 — The foundational passage
Matthew 8:16-17 — Matthew’s application of Isaiah 53:4 to physical healing
1 Peter 2:24 — Peter’s application of Isaiah 53:5 to spiritual healing