Healing Is in the Atonement View

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” --- Isaiah 53:4—5 (KJV)

This section presents the position that physical healing is included in Christ’s atoning work — that when Isaiah says “with his stripes we are healed,” the healing encompasses the body as well as the soul. This view is presented as its best advocates would present it: with its strongest arguments, its most compelling evidence, and an honest acknowledgment of its challenges.

Historical Roots

The theological conviction that physical healing is provided through the atonement did not originate with Pentecostalism. Its roots run through some of the most respected figures in 19th-century evangelical Christianity.

A.J. Gordon (1836—1895)

Adoniram Judson Gordon was a Baptist pastor, author, and the founder of what would become Gordon College and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. His 1882 work The Ministry of Healing was one of the first systematic theological treatments of divine healing in the English-speaking world.

Gordon argued that Christ’s atonement includes provision for the body as well as the soul. He was careful and scholarly in his approach, grounding his argument in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53 and the New Testament’s use of that passage. Gordon was no fringe figure — he was a respected Baptist minister and educator, and his theological influence continues through the institutions that bear his name.

Gordon’s central argument was straightforward: if Christ bore our sicknesses (Isa 53:4, as quoted in Matt 8:17) as truly as He bore our sins, then both provisions are available through faith. He did not teach that healing was automatic or that medicine should be rejected, but he did teach that the church had largely neglected a genuine provision of the gospel.

A.B. Simpson (1843—1919)

Albert Benjamin Simpson was a Presbyterian pastor who became the founder of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA). His personal experience of divine healing — after years of chronic illness — led him to develop a theology he called the “Fourfold Gospel”: Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King. Physical healing was not an appendix to his theology; it was one of four central pillars.

Simpson’s major work on the subject, The Gospel of Healing (1915), presented healing as a provision of Christ’s redemptive work. He distinguished his view from mere “faith healing” (which he associated with mind-cure movements) and grounded it firmly in the atonement. For Simpson, the same faith that receives forgiveness can receive healing — because both flow from the same cross.

The Christian and Missionary Alliance, which Simpson founded, became one of the most significant missionary organizations in the world. His theology of healing fueled an evangelistic and missionary vision that continues to this day.

Andrew Murray (1828—1917)

Andrew Murray was a South African pastor, author, and one of the most widely read devotional writers in Christian history. His 1884 work Divine Healing argued that sickness is part of the curse of sin and that healing is part of the atonement’s provisions. Murray’s approach was deeply devotional — he placed healing within the context of a life of prayer, surrender, and trust in God.

Murray’s argument was rooted in the connection between Exodus 15:26 (“I am the LORD that healeth thee”), Psalm 103:3 (“who healeth all thy diseases”), and Isaiah 53:4—5. He saw a continuous thread: God revealed Himself as healer in the Old Covenant, and Christ fulfilled that revelation by bearing both sin and sickness on the cross.

Murray was neither a Pentecostal nor a prosperity preacher. He was a Reformed pastor in the Dutch Reformed tradition, a man of deep personal piety, and his books on prayer and the spiritual life remain in print more than a century after his death.

The Modern Movement

The theological convictions articulated by Gordon, Simpson, and Murray entered the 20th century and found expression in several major movements.

The Pentecostal Movement

The Azusa Street Revival (1906—1915) in Los Angeles, led by William J. Seymour, is widely recognized as the birthplace of modern Pentecostalism. From its earliest days, the Pentecostal movement held healing as a central tenet of the faith. The Assemblies of God, the Church of God in Christ, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), and other Pentecostal denominations all include divine healing in their statements of faith.

For Pentecostals, healing is not a secondary doctrine. It is part of the “full gospel” — the conviction that the gospel addresses the whole person and that the power of the Holy Spirit is available to the church today just as it was in the book of Acts. Healing services, prayer lines, and the anointing of the sick with oil are standard practices in Pentecostal churches worldwide.

The Charismatic Renewal

Beginning in the 1960s, the charismatic renewal brought Pentecostal experiences — including healing prayer — into mainline Protestant and Roman Catholic congregations. Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Catholic believers who had never considered themselves Pentecostal began praying for the sick with the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, and testifying to healings.

The charismatic renewal demonstrated that belief in divine healing was not limited to a single denomination or tradition. It was an experience that crossed every ecclesiastical boundary.

The Word of Faith Movement

Kenneth Hagin (1917—2003), often called the “father of the Word of Faith movement,” taught that healing is a covenant right of every believer. Drawing on the writings of E.W. Kenyon (1867—1948), Hagin taught that faith is a force, that words have creative power, and that believers can “claim” healing by confessing God’s promises. Kenneth Copeland, Frederick K.C. Price, Creflo Dollar, and others carried this theology to a global audience through television, books, and conferences.

An important distinction must be made here. The Word of Faith movement represents one expression of healing-in-the-atonement theology, but it is not the only expression — and it is not necessarily the most faithful to the original position. Gordon, Simpson, and Murray would not have recognized all of the Word of Faith movement’s teachings as consistent with their own. The distinction between “healing is available through the atonement” and “healing is guaranteed to every believer who has sufficient faith” is theologically significant, and responsible advocates of healing in the atonement make this distinction clearly.

This section presents the healing-in-the-atonement view at its strongest — which means presenting the position as it was articulated by its most careful advocates, not reducing it to its most extreme expressions.

The Theological Argument at Its Best

Advocates of healing in the atonement build their case on several interlocking biblical arguments.

Isaiah 53:4—5 Includes Physical Sickness

As the detailed word study in Chapter 1 demonstrates, the Hebrew words in Isaiah 53:4 are genuinely capable of referring to physical illness:

חֳלִי (choliy) — translated “griefs” in the KJV, but the word means “sickness, disease, illness” in its primary usage throughout the Old Testament (Deut 7:15, 28:61; 1 Kgs 17:17; 2 Kgs 1:2, 8:8; 2 Chr 16:12, 21:15).
מַכְאוֹב (makob) — translated “sorrows” in the KJV, but the word refers to physical pain and suffering (Job 33:19; Jer 30:15, 51:8).

The healing-in-the-atonement advocate argues that these words are not metaphors for sin. They are the ordinary Hebrew words for sickness and pain, and they appear in a passage about the Servant bearing what belongs to others. Just as the Servant bears “our transgressions” and “our iniquities” (verse 5), He also bears “our sicknesses” and “our pains” (verse 4).

Matthew 8:17 Applies Isaiah 53:4 to Physical Healing

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

Matthew is not ambiguous. He quotes Isaiah 53:4 in the context of Jesus physically healing the sick, and he uses unmistakably physical language — ἀσθένεια (astheneia, “weakness, infirmity”) and νόσος (nosos, “disease”). As noted in Chapter 1’s analysis of Matthew 8, nosos is used exclusively for physical disease in the New Testament. Matthew understands Isaiah 53:4 as a prophecy that the Servant would bear physical sickness, and he sees that prophecy fulfilled in Jesus’s healing ministry.

For the healing-in-the-atonement advocate, this is decisive: an inspired New Testament author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, applies Isaiah 53 to physical healing. To limit Isaiah 53 to spiritual healing is to override Matthew’s own interpretation.

Psalm 103:3 Pairs Forgiveness and Healing

“Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.” --- Psalm 103:3 (KJV)

David places forgiveness and healing in deliberate parallel. If “forgiveth all thine iniquities” is a genuine, ongoing provision from God, the advocate asks, on what basis do we limit “healeth all thy diseases” to metaphor? The same root word for “healeth” (רָפָא, rapha) appears in Isaiah 53:5.

James 5:14—16 Instructs Ongoing Healing Prayer

“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.” --- James 5:14—15 (KJV)

James connects physical healing and the forgiveness of sins in a single pastoral instruction. This is not an apostolic sign gift that expired with the first century — it is a directive to the church. The healing-in-the-atonement advocate sees this as confirmation that physical healing and forgiveness of sins are both available through faith in Christ.

Galatians 3:13 and the Curse of the Law

“Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” --- Galatians 3:13 (KJV)

This is one of the strongest arguments in the healing-in-the-atonement tradition. The logic runs as follows:

The law’s curses explicitly include disease. Deuteronomy 28 lists the consequences of disobedience: “The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee” (Deut 28:21, KJV), “The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation” (Deut 28:22, KJV), “every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law” (Deut 28:61, KJV). The Hebrew word for “sickness” in Deuteronomy 28:61 is choliy --- the same word Isaiah uses in 53:4.
Christ redeemed us from the curse. Galatians 3:13 states this without qualification: Christ became a curse for us, purchasing our freedom from the law’s curses.
Therefore, redemption from the curse includes redemption from disease. If the curses include disease, and Christ redeemed us from the curses, then the conclusion follows: believers have been redeemed from the disease-curses of Deuteronomy 28.

Derek Prince, in Blessing or Curse: You Can Choose (1990), developed this argument with particular clarity. Prince traced the curse from Genesis 3 through Deuteronomy 28 to Galatians 3:13 and concluded that every curse listed in Deuteronomy 28 --- including disease, poverty, and barrenness --- was reversed by Christ’s work on the cross. T.L. Osborn, in Healing the Sick (1951), made a similar argument: the diseases listed in the law’s curses are comprehended in the atonement’s provisions.

A fair counterargument must be noted: Paul’s context in Galatians 3 is justification by faith, not physical healing. The “curse of the law” that Paul is addressing is the curse that falls on those who try to achieve righteousness through law-keeping: “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal 3:10, KJV, quoting Deut 27:26). Reading the full scope of Deuteronomy 28’s disease-curses into Paul’s argument may expand it beyond his intent. Furthermore, Paul himself experienced physical suffering (2 Cor 12:7—10; Gal 4:13—14) and did not appeal to Galatians 3:13 for relief.

The Curse and Redemption section in Chapter 1 treats this argument in full, including the Genesis-to-Revelation curse arc and the three interpretive options.

The Logic of the Atonement

The overarching argument, drawing all these threads together, is this: if Christ bore our sins and our sicknesses on the cross (Isa 53:4—5), and if He redeemed us from the whole curse of the law including its disease-curses (Gal 3:13; Deut 28), then both forgiveness and healing are provisions of the atonement. Just as we receive forgiveness by faith, we can receive healing by faith. The cross addressed the whole curse --- sin, sickness, and death --- and the benefits of the cross are available to believers now.

Real-World Strengths — What This View Produces at Its Best

Genuine Healing Testimonies

Millions of Christians across traditions and continents report real physical healings in response to prayer. These testimonies span every culture, denomination, and century of church history. Craig Keener’s two-volume study Miracles (2011) documents hundreds of cases from the global church, many with medical documentation. Whatever one’s theological framework, these testimonies cannot all be dismissed as psychosomatic, fraudulent, or coincidental. Something is happening when the church prays for the sick.

A Robust, Active Faith

The healing-in-the-atonement view produces believers who expect God to act. Prayer is not a formality or a last resort — it is the first response. There is a confidence and boldness in this tradition’s approach to God that echoes the faith of the centurion who said, “speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed” (Matt 8:8, KJV). At its best, this is not presumption; it is trust in a God who has revealed Himself as healer.

Continuity with the Apostolic Church

The New Testament church clearly practiced healing. The book of Acts records healing after healing. Paul lists “gifts of healing” among the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:9, 28). James instructs elders to pray for the sick. The healing-in-the-atonement view claims continuity with this apostolic pattern — the same Spirit who empowered the early church is at work today.

An Integrated Gospel

This view offers a gospel that addresses the whole person — body and soul, physical and spiritual. In a world where people suffer from disease, disability, and chronic pain, the message that God cares about the body as well as the soul resonates deeply. The gospel is not merely a ticket to heaven; it is the power of God at work in every dimension of human existence.

Global Mission and Growth

Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity is the fastest-growing segment of global Christianity. By most estimates, there are over 600 million Pentecostal and charismatic Christians worldwide, and that number continues to grow rapidly, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Much of this growth is fueled by healing ministry and the testimony of signs and wonders. Whatever critique one brings to the theology, the missionary fruit is undeniable.

Honest Challenges — Where This View Faces Difficulty

Every theological position must face its hardest questions honestly. The healing-in-the-atonement view faces several.

The Problem of the Unhealed Faithful

This is the most difficult pastoral challenge for this view. What happens when a sincere, faith-filled believer prays for healing and is not healed?

If healing is a provision of the atonement — available to all who believe — then the unhealed believer faces an agonizing question: What is wrong with me? Is my faith insufficient? Have I sinned? Has God abandoned me?

Some advocates of this view have answered that question in ways that cause profound spiritual harm. When a believer suffering from cancer is told that their tumor is evidence of insufficient faith, the theology has moved from the realm of encouragement into the realm of cruelty. When parents of a child with a disability are told that their child’s condition reflects their lack of faith, the pastoral damage is real and lasting.

It must be said clearly: the best advocates of healing in the atonement do not blame the sick for their sickness. But the theological framework, when applied without wisdom and compassion, can produce this result — and it has, in countless documented cases.

Paul’s Thorn in the Flesh

“For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” --- 2 Corinthians 12:8—9 (KJV)

Paul prayed three times for relief. God said no. Whatever the “thorn” was — and interpreters disagree — God’s answer was not healing but grace. The apostle Paul, whose faith cannot be questioned, was told that God’s purposes would be accomplished through his weakness, not through his deliverance from it.

Healing-in-the-atonement advocates offer several responses: the thorn was demonic opposition, not sickness; the thorn was a specific exception for apostolic purposes; or Paul’s experience does not establish a norm. These are thoughtful responses, but they require the advocate to explain why the apostle who wrote much of the New Testament did not receive what the theology says is available to all believers.

Trophimus Left Sick

“Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.” --- 2 Timothy 4:20 (KJV)

Paul — who had healed the sick through the power of the Spirit (Acts 19:11—12) — left his companion Trophimus behind because he was ill. No explanation is given. No lack of faith is mentioned. Paul simply left him sick. For the healing-in-the-atonement advocate, this is a difficult verse to account for within a framework that sees healing as a universally available provision.

Epaphroditus Nearly Died

“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.” --- Philippians 2:27 (KJV)

Paul attributes Epaphroditus’s recovery to God’s mercy — not to faith claimed, a promise confessed, or a right exercised. The language is that of sovereign grace, not covenant entitlement.

The Extremes and Their Consequences

The Word of Faith movement’s more extreme forms have produced documented harm. Believers have died refusing medical treatment. Parents have withheld medicine from sick children. The sick have been told their suffering is their own fault. While these are the actions of the movement’s most extreme fringes, they are real consequences of a theology that, taken to its logical extreme, treats every instance of unhealed sickness as a failure of faith.

The connection between some healing-in-the-atonement teaching and the broader prosperity gospel has further complicated matters. When the promise of healing is packaged alongside the promise of wealth — “God wants you healthy and rich” — the credibility of the healing message suffers in the eyes of many. The conflation of healing theology with financial prosperity theology has been one of the most damaging developments for the healing-in-the-atonement tradition.

These critiques must be stated honestly. But they must also be stated fairly: the excesses of a movement do not invalidate the theological position on which it was built. Gordon, Simpson, and Murray taught healing in the atonement with great care and pastoral sensitivity. The question is whether the view can be held responsibly, not whether it has sometimes been held irresponsibly.

What the Best Advocates Say

Thoughtful Pentecostal and charismatic theologians — scholars like Gordon Fee, Craig Keener, and Sam Storms — navigate the tension between faith and sovereignty with care.

Healing Is Available, Not Guaranteed

The most responsible advocates of healing in the atonement distinguish between availability and guarantee. They teach that Christ’s atonement has made healing available — it is a real provision, grounded in the cross — but they do not claim that every believer will be healed in this life. The “already/not yet” dimension of the kingdom means that some benefits of the atonement are fully realized only at the resurrection.

This is a crucial distinction. It preserves the theological conviction that healing is in the atonement while creating pastoral space for the reality that not all believers are healed.

Faith and Sovereignty Are Not Opposites

The best advocates reject the false dichotomy between human faith and divine sovereignty. They teach that believers should pray with bold faith and trust God’s wisdom when the answer is not what they expected. Faith is not a mechanism that forces God’s hand; it is a relationship of trust that includes both expectation and surrender.

Moderation Over Time

Many healing-in-the-atonement traditions have moderated their positions over the decades. The Assemblies of God, for instance, affirms divine healing in its statement of faith but also affirms the legitimacy of medical care. Many Pentecostal and charismatic pastors today are far more careful in their language than their predecessors, avoiding the “blame the sick” trap and emphasizing compassion alongside faith.

This moderation does not represent a loss of conviction. It represents a maturation of pastoral practice — holding the theological truth while handling it with greater care.

Cross-References

Chapter 1: Isaiah 52:13—53:12 — The Hebrew word study — The detailed analysis of choliy, makob, and rapha that underlies this view’s scriptural argument
Chapter 1: Matthew 8:16—17 — Matthew’s application of Isaiah 53:4 to physical healing
Chapter 1: Related Passages — Psalm 103:3, Exodus 15:26, James 5:14—16, and other texts central to this view
Spiritual Healing Only View — The contrasting position that limits Isaiah 53:5 to spiritual healing
Already / Not Yet View — The mediating position that many healing-in-the-atonement advocates have moved toward
Chapter 1: Curse and Redemption — The full treatment of the Genesis-to-Revelation curse arc and Galatians 3:13
Pastoral Considerations — The pastoral impact of this view when applied well and when applied poorly