Skip to content
Lemma v1.1

Areas of Agreement

The debate about healing in the atonement can feel like an all-or-nothing contest between irreconcilable camps. But after four chapters of careful examination --- exegeting the Hebrew and Greek, studying Christ’s ministry and teaching, surveying the ancient witnesses, and weighing the lived experience of each theological position --- a striking amount of common ground has emerged. The agreements are not trivial. They are substantial, foundational, and pastorally significant.

Before mapping the tensions that divide, it is worth standing on the ground that all share.

1. God Is Compassionate Toward the Sick

Section titled “1. God Is Compassionate Toward the Sick”

Every major position in this study affirms that God’s heart is moved by human suffering. This is not a disputed point. The healing-in-the-atonement tradition emphasizes God’s compassion as the motivation behind a guaranteed provision. The spiritual-healing-only tradition emphasizes God’s compassion as the basis for sovereign, gracious intervention. The already/not yet tradition sees God’s compassion expressed in both present healings and future restoration.

The scriptural foundation for this agreement is deep. In Chapter 2, we saw that compassion was one of the primary motivations for Jesus’s healing ministry:

“And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.” --- Matthew 14:14 (KJV)

The Greek word splanchnizomai --- “to be moved with compassion” --- describes a visceral, gut-level response to human pain. Jesus did not heal from detached theological principle. He healed because suffering moved him.

The Psalms confirm the same truth about the Father:

“The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” --- Psalm 34:18 (KJV)

No responsible interpreter --- from Warfield to Murray, from MacArthur to Gordon Fee --- denies that God cares about the sick. The debate is about the mechanism and timing of God’s response, not about whether He responds at all.

2. Christ’s Atonement Accomplishes Something Regarding Human Wholeness

Section titled “2. Christ’s Atonement Accomplishes Something Regarding Human Wholeness”

All three major views affirm that the cross addresses more than a legal transaction. The Servant’s suffering in Isaiah 53 produces shalom --- the comprehensive Hebrew word for peace, wholeness, soundness, and well-being:

“The chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” --- Isaiah 53:5 (KJV)

As Chapter 1’s word study demonstrated, shalom (H7965) is one of the richest words in the Hebrew language. It does not mean merely the absence of conflict. It encompasses total well-being --- physical, spiritual, relational, and material. Every major position acknowledges this breadth, even if they differ on when and how it is realized.

The healing-in-the-atonement view says the atonement provides present access to this wholeness. The spiritual-healing-only view says the atonement’s primary address is the spiritual dimension, with full wholeness at the resurrection. The already/not yet view says the atonement has inaugurated this wholeness, with foretastes now and fullness later. But all agree: the cross does something for the whole person. The disagreement is about timing and scope, not about whether the atonement touches human wholeness.

3. Prayer for the Sick Is Biblical and Commanded

Section titled “3. Prayer for the Sick Is Biblical and Commanded”

This is not debated by any serious interpreter. James’s instruction is clear, and it is addressed to the church without qualification:

“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)

As Chapter 1’s analysis of related passages noted, this instruction intertwines healing and forgiveness in a single pastoral directive. The word iaomai (“that ye may be healed,” v. 16) is the same word Peter uses in 1 Peter 2:24. James does not indicate that this practice is temporary or limited to the apostolic age.

The manner and expectation of the prayer may differ between traditions. Pentecostal churches pray with bold expectation of miraculous healing. Reformed churches pray in submission to God’s sovereign will. But the practice itself --- praying for the sick, with anointing, in the name of the Lord --- is universally affirmed. No faithful tradition tells its people, “Do not pray for the sick.”

4. God Can and Does Heal

Section titled “4. God Can and Does Heal”

All three positions affirm that divine healing is real. This point deserves emphasis because the debate can create the impression that cessationists deny healing altogether. They do not.

As Chapter 4’s presentation of the spiritual-healing-only view made clear, the best cessationist pastors are careful to distinguish between “God doesn’t heal anymore” (which they do not teach) and “healing is not a guaranteed provision of the atonement” (which they do teach). God’s sovereignty means He can heal anyone, at any time, for any reason.

From the other direction, the healing-in-the-atonement tradition affirms the same divine power, grounded in the same God. The already/not yet tradition, as articulated by scholars like Wayne Grudem and Craig Keener, documents genuine healing testimonies from the global church while acknowledging that not every believer is healed.

Justin Martyr, writing in the second century, acknowledged that Christians healed in his day --- even while he did not connect that healing to Isaiah 53. Origen acknowledged healing in the third-century church. The Apostolic Tradition recognized gifts of healing among the laity. The early church practiced healing without grounding it in atonement theology. The God who heals is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the theological framework that explains why and when He does so.

5. Ultimate Bodily Healing Is Guaranteed at the Resurrection

Section titled “5. Ultimate Bodily Healing Is Guaranteed at the Resurrection”

This is perhaps the most important area of agreement, and it is unqualified. Every major view --- Pentecostal, Reformed, charismatic, cessationist, and everything in between --- affirms that complete, permanent, irreversible physical healing is the certain destiny of every believer:

“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.” --- Revelation 21:4 (KJV)

Paul describes the transformation in 1 Corinthians 15:

“It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” --- 1 Corinthians 15:42—44 (KJV)

And Romans 8 frames this as the completion of what the atonement has begun:

“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.” --- Romans 8:23 (KJV)

The word “redemption” (apolytrosis) connects the body’s future healing directly to Christ’s redemptive work. The body will be redeemed. This is not a wish but a certainty, purchased at the cross and guaranteed by the resurrection of Christ himself. For the believer who is not healed in this life, this is not a consolation prize. As Chapter 4’s pastoral considerations section stated, it is the main event --- the certain, unshakable hope toward which all of redemption is moving.

6. Isaiah 53 Is Messianic and Fulfilled in Christ

Section titled “6. Isaiah 53 Is Messianic and Fulfilled in Christ”

No Christian interpreter in this study disputes that Isaiah 53 finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. The earliest post-apostolic writers --- Clement, Barnabas, Polycarp --- all read the passage christologically. Justin Martyr argued it at length against Jewish objections. Even the Targum Jonathan, which systematically removed the Messiah’s suffering from the passage, preserved the messianic identification: “Behold, my servant the Messiah shall prosper.”

Chapter 3’s survey of the rabbinic evidence demonstrated that the messianic reading is ancient --- attested in the Targum, in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b), and arguably in pre-Christian sources. The corporate-Israel reading, while textually defensible, became dominant only after Rashi in the eleventh century, partly in response to Christian apologetic use of the passage.

For the purposes of the healing debate, this agreement matters: if the Servant is the Messiah, and the Messiah is Jesus, then the question “what does the Servant’s suffering accomplish?” is the question “what does the cross accomplish?” That question is at the heart of this study, and all Christian interpreters address it by looking to Christ.

7. The Early Church Practiced Healing Prayer

Section titled “7. The Early Church Practiced Healing Prayer”

Chapter 3 documented a consistent pattern: the early church believed in and practiced healing, even as its theological reflection on Isaiah 53 focused on sin-bearing rather than physical restoration.

Justin Martyr testified that Christians in his day healed the sick and cast out demons “in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.” Origen acknowledged “marvellous” cures performed through the name of God and Jesus. The Apostolic Tradition (c. 215 AD) included specific provision for those with gifts of healing in the community.

The critical observation from Chapter 3 is that the early church could affirm both that God heals and that healing is not an atonement provision. These are not contradictory positions. All three major views in this study can point to the early church’s practice as consistent with their own convictions --- the healing-in-the-atonement advocate sees continuity of practice, the cessationist sees sign gifts still operative in the early centuries, and the already/not yet advocate sees foretastes of the kingdom. The practice itself is shared ground.

8. Suffering Is Not Necessarily a Sign of Sin or Faithlessness

Section titled “8. Suffering Is Not Necessarily a Sign of Sin or Faithlessness”

Jesus himself settled this question:

“And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” --- John 9:2—3 (KJV)

As Chapter 2’s analysis of Jesus’s teaching on suffering demonstrated, Jesus explicitly rejected the equation of sickness with personal sin. The man’s blindness was not punishment. It existed so that the works of God might be displayed.

Chapter 2 also examined Paul’s teaching that suffering can be a grace-gift:

“For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake.” --- Philippians 1:29 (KJV)

And the rabbinic tradition’s concept of yissurim shel ahavah --- “chastisements of love” --- offers a parallel framework in which suffering is purposeful and beneficial rather than punitive (Chapter 3).

All three major views affirm this truth, even if their pastoral applications differ. The healing-in-the-atonement view at its best distinguishes between suffering-as-persecution and sickness-as-condition. The spiritual-healing-only view builds a robust theology of purposeful suffering. The already/not yet view holds that God works through both healing and suffering according to His sovereign purposes. But none of them --- at their most careful --- tells the sick believer that their illness is their fault.

9. The “Already/Not Yet” Tension in the Kingdom Is Real

Section titled “9. The “Already/Not Yet” Tension in the Kingdom Is Real”

This is not a position unique to one camp. Elements of the already/not yet framework appear across the entire theological spectrum.

Chapter 2 documented the tension in Jesus’s own teaching. The kingdom is present:

“But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” --- Matthew 12:28 (KJV)

And the kingdom is future:

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” --- Matthew 6:10 (KJV)

The healing-in-the-atonement tradition acknowledges that not all kingdom blessings are fully realized --- believers still die, still age, still face the “not yet” of glorification. The cessationist tradition acknowledges that the Spirit is at work in the present age, even if it limits the scope of miraculous gifts. The already/not yet tradition makes the tension its organizing principle.

Oscar Cullmann’s D-Day and V-Day illustration, discussed in Chapter 4, captures what all three views implicitly recognize: the decisive battle has been won at the cross, but the full victory has not yet been manifested. Believers live between the ages. That tension shapes how every position --- whether it admits it explicitly or not --- understands the Christian experience of both healing and suffering.

Why This Common Ground Matters

Section titled “Why This Common Ground Matters”

The areas of agreement listed above are not minor concessions. They represent substantial theological convictions shared across the full spectrum of the debate. When believers from different traditions stand together on this common ground, they discover that their disagreements, while real, are narrower than they often appear.

The question is not whether God heals. He does. The question is not whether the atonement matters for the body. It does. The question is not whether believers should pray for the sick. They should. The question is not whether suffering indicates faithlessness. It does not.

The real disagreements --- the ones that matter for pastoral care, personal faith, and church practice --- are narrower and more specific. They concern the timing, the mechanism, and the certainty of physical healing in this present age. Those are the tensions examined in the next section.

Cross-References

Section titled “Cross-References”