Jesus's Teaching on Suffering

The previous section examined what Jesus did — his extensive, compassionate healing ministry. This section examines what Jesus said about suffering. And what he said complicates the picture considerably.

If Jesus’s healings were the only evidence, the case for physical healing as a central atonement provision would be straightforward. But Jesus also taught that his followers would suffer, that suffering can serve God’s purposes, that sickness is not always the result of sin, and that submission to the Father’s will — even when that will includes suffering — is the supreme act of faith. These teachings must be weighed alongside the healing evidence. Any theological framework that accounts for the healings but ignores the suffering-teaching is incomplete. And any framework that accounts for the suffering-teaching but ignores the healings is equally incomplete.

John 9:1-7 — “Neither Hath This Man Sinned, Nor His Parents”

John 9:1-7 (KJV)

¹ And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. ² And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? ³ Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. ⁴ I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. ⁵ As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. ⁶ When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, ⁷ And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

The Disciples’ Assumption

The disciples’ question reveals a theological assumption that was widespread in first-century Judaism — and remains widespread today: sickness is punishment for sin. “Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” The question assumes that someone must be at fault. Sickness must have a moral cause.

This assumption has deep roots. Deuteronomy 28 links disease to covenant disobedience. Job’s friends argued that his suffering must be the result of hidden sin. The retribution principle — that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer — runs through much of the Old Testament wisdom literature, even as it is challenged by Job, Ecclesiastes, and certain Psalms (notably Psalm 73).

Jesus’s Rejection

Jesus explicitly rejects the assumption. “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents.” This is not a denial of the reality of sin or its consequences in a general sense. It is a specific denial that this man’s blindness is a punishment for this man’s sin (or his parents’ sin). Sickness can exist for reasons other than personal sin.

The reason Jesus gives is striking: “but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” The man’s blindness serves a divine purpose — the display of God’s power. The sickness is not random, and it is not punitive. It is purposeful. God has a design for this suffering, and that design includes the healing that is about to occur.

Implications for the Healing-in-the-Atonement Debate

This passage cuts in multiple directions:

For the healing-in-atonement view: Jesus does heal the man. The sickness exists so that God’s works might be displayed — and God’s work, in this case, is physical healing. This supports the view that healing is part of what God intends to do for suffering people.

For the spiritual-only view: If sickness can exist apart from personal sin, then the link between sin and sickness is not as tight as the healing-in-atonement view sometimes assumes. If sickness is not always about sin, is healing always about the atonement?

For the already/not yet view: The passage shows that God has purposes for suffering in this age — purposes that include, but are not limited to, physical healing. Sometimes the purpose is the display of God’s power through healing. Other times, the purpose may be different. The passage does not establish a universal principle that all sickness will be healed now.

For pastoral care: Jesus’s rejection of the sin-sickness equation is directly relevant to anyone who has been told (or who fears) that their illness is the result of their sin or their lack of faith. Jesus himself declares otherwise. Sickness can exist for the glory of God, not because of the failure of the sufferer.

John 16:33 — “In the World Ye Shall Have Tribulation”

John 16:33 (KJV)

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

The Promise of Tribulation

This verse, spoken in the upper room on the eve of the crucifixion, contains one of Jesus’s most direct statements about suffering. The word “shall” (ἕξετε, hexete) is not conditional. It is a statement of fact: “ye shall have tribulation.” Not “ye might have tribulation” or “ye shall have tribulation if ye lack faith.” Tribulation is promised.

The Greek word θλῖψις (thlipsis) means pressure, affliction, trouble, tribulation. It is a broad term that encompasses persecution, hardship, distress, and suffering of various kinds. While it is not exclusively a word for physical illness, it is not exclusively spiritual either. It describes the full range of affliction that believers encounter in a fallen world.

The Other Half of the Verse

But Jesus does not stop at tribulation. He adds: “but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” The Greek νικάω (nikaō) — “to overcome, to conquer” — is in the perfect tense (νενίκηκα, nenikēka), indicating a completed and ongoing victory. Jesus has already overcome the world.

The critical question is what “overcome” means. It does not mean the elimination of tribulation — Jesus has just promised that tribulation will come. It means something else: a victory that transforms the meaning and experience of suffering without removing it. Believers have tribulation and the peace that comes from Christ’s victory. The two coexist.

Implications for the Healing Question

This verse creates a significant challenge for any view that promises believers freedom from physical suffering in this age:

If tribulation is promised to all believers, and thlipsis can include physical suffering, then the expectation of freedom from sickness as a guaranteed atonement right sits in tension with Jesus’s own words.
At the same time, the verse does not say tribulation is God’s final word. Christ has overcome. The victory is real, even if its full manifestation is future.
The already/not yet framework finds strong support here: tribulation now, victory both now (in peace and cheer) and later (in the consummation).

The Cross as Model — Suffering Is Not Faithlessness

One of the most important Christocentric principles for the healing debate is this: the cross itself is the supreme act of faithful obedience — and the cross is suffering. If the most faithful act in human history involved the most intense suffering, then suffering and faithfulness are not opposites.

Matthew 16:24 — Taking Up the Cross

Matthew 16:24 (KJV)

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Jesus does not merely predict that his followers will suffer. He commands them to embrace suffering as the path of discipleship. “Take up his cross” is not metaphorical in the first-century context — the cross is an instrument of torture and death. Jesus is saying that following him requires a willingness to suffer, to deny oneself, and to walk toward hardship rather than away from it.

Philippians 1:29 — Suffering as a Gift

Philippians 1:29 (KJV)

For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, describes suffering as something “given” (ἐχαρίσθη, echaristhē — from the root charis, “grace”). Suffering is a grace-gift, not a punishment. It is “given in the behalf of Christ” — it serves Christ’s purposes. The verb is the same root from which we get “charismatic” — a gift of grace. This is a profound reversal of the assumption that suffering indicates God’s displeasure.

1 Peter 4:12-13 — Participation in Christ’s Sufferings

1 Peter 4:12-13 (KJV)

¹² Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: ¹³ But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

Peter tells believers not to be surprised by suffering (“think it not strange”) and to view it as participation in Christ’s own sufferings. The Greek κοινωνέω (koinōneō) — “to share in, to participate” — connects the believer’s suffering to Christ’s suffering. This is not passive endurance; it is active partnership in the redemptive narrative.

What This Means for the Healing Question

If the cross is the model for discipleship, and if suffering is described as a grace-gift and a participation in Christ’s own experience, then the presence of suffering in a believer’s life is not, by itself, evidence of a lack of faith, an unclaimed atonement provision, or spiritual failure.

This does not mean that all suffering is from God or that believers should never seek healing. It means that the framework “sickness = failure to claim healing” cannot be derived from Jesus’s teaching or from the apostolic witness. Jesus called his followers to suffer. Paul described suffering as a gift. Peter told believers to expect fiery trials. These texts must be integrated into any theology of healing.

The healing-in-atonement view must account for these passages. If physical healing is a guaranteed provision of the atonement, why do Jesus, Paul, and Peter all teach that suffering is a normal, even expected, part of the Christian life? The strongest versions of the healing-in-atonement view distinguish between suffering for Christ (persecution, hardship) and sickness, arguing that sickness is not the kind of suffering the cross demands. But this distinction is not clearly drawn in the texts above — thlipsis, the cross, and “fiery trials” are broad categories that can include physical affliction.

Gethsemane — Even Jesus Asked for the Cup to Pass

Matthew 26:36-44 (KJV)

³⁶ Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. ³⁷ And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. ³⁸ Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. ³⁹ And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. ⁴⁰ And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? ⁴¹ Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. ⁴² He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. ⁴³ And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. ⁴⁴ And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words.

What Gethsemane Reveals

Several features of this passage bear directly on the healing-in-atonement discussion:

1. Jesus asked the Father to remove suffering. “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me” (v. 39). This is not a lack of faith. This is the Son of God, in full communion with the Father, asking for the removal of suffering. If Jesus himself asked for suffering to be removed, then asking God for healing is never inappropriate, never faithless, never presumptuous.

2. The Father’s answer was not removal but empowerment. The cup did not pass. The Father’s will included the suffering. Jesus was not rescued from the cross; he was sustained through it. Luke 22:43 records that “there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him” (KJV). God’s response to Jesus’s prayer was not the elimination of suffering but the provision of strength to endure it.

3. “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” This is the hinge of the passage. Jesus subordinates his own desire to the Father’s will. The supreme act of faith is not claiming a promise; it is submitting to the Father’s purpose even when that purpose includes suffering. This principle — “thy will be done” — is foundational for understanding every prayer for healing. God’s will is the final word, and God’s will may include suffering that serves a purpose the sufferer cannot see.

4. Jesus prayed three times. Persistence in prayer is modeled here. But persistence does not guarantee the answer the pray-er desires. Paul also prayed three times for his thorn to be removed, and God’s answer was “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor 12:9, KJV). The pattern — earnest, repeated prayer met with a divine purpose that includes suffering — appears in both Jesus’s experience and Paul’s.

Pastoral Implications

Gethsemane is one of the most pastorally important passages in the entire healing discussion. It speaks directly to the believer who has prayed earnestly and repeatedly for healing and has not received it:

Asking for healing is not a lack of faith. Jesus asked for the cup to pass.
Not receiving the desired answer is not evidence of God’s absence or disapproval. The Father was fully present in Gethsemane.
Submission to God’s will — “nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt” — is the deepest expression of faith, not a retreat from it.
God’s provision in suffering may be strength and presence rather than removal.

If Jesus himself submitted to suffering he did not desire, believers who suffer despite praying for healing are not demonstrating faithlessness. They are walking the path their Lord walked first.

The Already/Not Yet Tension in Jesus’s Own Teaching

The kingdom of God occupies a central place in Jesus’s teaching. He announces its arrival, demonstrates its power, and describes its future consummation. The way Jesus speaks about the kingdom creates a tension that is directly relevant to the healing question.

The Kingdom Is Present

Mark 1:15 (KJV)

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Luke 11:20 (KJV)

But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Luke 17:21 (KJV)

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Jesus teaches that the kingdom has arrived. It is “at hand” — present, available, operative. When demons are cast out and the sick are healed, the kingdom has “come upon you.” The healings are not merely future promises; they are present realities that demonstrate the kingdom’s arrival.

The Kingdom Is Also Future

Matthew 6:10 (KJV)

Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Matthew 25:34 (KJV)

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

John 5:28-29 (KJV)

²⁸ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, ²⁹ And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

If the kingdom were fully present, there would be no need to pray “thy kingdom come.” The future tenses in Jesus’s teaching about the resurrection, the final judgment, and the consummated kingdom indicate that what has begun has not yet been completed. The kingdom is inaugurated but not consummated.

How This Applies to Healing

The already/not yet tension in Jesus’s kingdom teaching creates a natural framework for understanding healing:

Dimension	Already (present)	Not Yet (future)
Salvation	Justification, new birth, forgiveness	Glorification, full adoption, resurrection
The Spirit	The “firstfruits” (Rom 8:23), the “earnest” (2 Cor 1:22)	The fullness of the Spirit in the age to come
Healing	Genuine healings occur; the sick are sometimes restored	Complete, permanent freedom from sickness at the resurrection
Victory over evil	Demons are cast out; sin’s power is broken	Satan is destroyed; death is abolished (1 Cor 15:26)

This framework explains why the apostles — who had genuine healing power (Acts 3:1-10, 5:15-16, 19:11-12) — also experienced genuine sickness (2 Cor 12:7-10, Gal 4:13-14, 2 Tim 4:20, Phil 2:25-27). They lived in the overlap of the ages: the kingdom had come, but it had not come in full. Healing was real but not universal. The Spirit gave genuine foretastes of the coming wholeness, but the “redemption of our body” (Rom 8:23) awaited the resurrection.

This eschatological framework is not unique to any single theological tradition. Elements of it appear across the spectrum — in Pentecostal, charismatic, Reformed, and Catholic theology. The differences are in emphasis: how much of the “already” do we expect now? How confidently can we pray for healing as a kingdom-present reality? These are questions of pastoral theology and spiritual discernment, not easily resolved by proof texts.

Summary: What Jesus’s Teaching on Suffering Means for the Healing Question

The evidence in this section creates a complex picture that every theological position must address:

What the healing-in-atonement view must explain

Why Jesus promised tribulation to all his followers (John 16:33)
Why Jesus modeled submission to suffering rather than claiming deliverance (Gethsemane)
Why Jesus taught that sickness can serve God’s glory rather than always being something to be overcome (John 9:3)
Why Jesus called his followers to take up the cross — to embrace, not avoid, suffering (Matt 16:24)
Why Paul described suffering as a grace-gift (Phil 1:29)
Why the kingdom’s “not yet” dimension means believers still groan and await bodily redemption (Rom 8:22-23)

What the spiritual-only view must explain

Why Jesus spent so much of his ministry physically healing — not as occasional exceptions but as a central activity (Matt 4:23, 9:35, 12:15)
Why Matthew connects Jesus’s healings to the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 using the strongest available fulfillment formula (Matt 8:17)
Why Jesus uses sozo for both saving and healing, creating a vocabulary that bridges the two
Why the kingdom-present language connects healing to the arrival of God’s reign (Matt 12:28, Luke 10:9)
Why Jesus identifies his healings as messianic credentials that echo Isaiah’s vision of restoration (Matt 11:2-6)

What the already/not yet view claims to do

The already/not yet framework claims to hold both realities in tension:

Healing is real and connected to the kingdom — it is part of the “already”
Suffering is also real and expected in this age — it belongs to the “not yet”
God heals as he wills, giving genuine foretastes of the coming wholeness
Complete freedom from sickness is guaranteed at the resurrection, not before
Faith that submits to God’s will — whether that will includes healing or suffering — is the mature response

The strength of this view is its ability to affirm both the healing evidence and the suffering evidence without requiring either to cancel the other. The weakness is that it can become unfalsifiable: if both healing and non-healing are explained by the same framework, it is difficult to test the framework against reality. This challenge is explored further in the Reality chapter (Chapter 4).

Cross-References

Jesus’s Healing Ministry — The evidence for Jesus’s extensive physical healing ministry
The Atonement’s Scope Through Christ’s Lens — What Jesus revealed about the breadth of his atoning work
Chapter 2 Overview — The Christocentric framework and how it connects to Chapter 1
Related Passages — Chapter 1’s analysis of passages on suffering among believers, including 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 and Romans 8:22-23
1 Peter 2:24 — Peter’s quotation of Isaiah 53:5 in the context of Christ’s suffering as a model