An evaluation of the extent to which healing is part of the atonement as drawn from Isaiah 53:4-5, Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24.
Edited from an essay by Brian Mulheran
Throughout the centuries, records of miraculous healings have challenged skeptics and inspired despairing sufferers with hope of the same deliverance. The birth of the healing movement ignited a worldwide interest in the supernatural. People claimed to be healed en masse. Multitudes were swept by the fervour into the “new found” church age of the miraculous. Churches multiplied across the world. The visible signs of God “in our midst” sparked hope for the disconsolate and passionate debate for the critics.
This tidal flood of healing and miracles encouraged preachers to inspire the sick and infirmed to seek God for their healing. Messages directed the hearts of the needy toward verses of scripture that instilled faith. Many claimed to receive healing, while others seemingly waited in vain. As the doctrine has developed and debates raged, many of those who were still seeking healing either, suffered without medication, or were accused of not having faith, or were accused of having some form of sin.
Although the doctrine has ensured positive results, the frequent devastation and disillusionment suffered by many that are not healed implores a re-evaluation. Questions such as: “Why are some healed and others not?”, “Is it God’s will to heal all?”, “Is God a respecter of persons?”, “Are the claimed miracles valid?”, “Is the miraculous for today?”, have provoked a plethora of scholarly investigation and argument. This paper while not able to discuss all issues relating to Divine Healing will endeavour to evaluate the foundations of the doctrine in light of those who are not healed. An examination of the doctrine, the history and the three primary texts used by advocates will seek to evaluate the extent to which healing is in the atonement. Other key eschatological elements will be investigated with the endeavour of formulating a correct understanding of the extent of Divine Healing. This will been seen to be essential for the church to perform its duty in its ultimate responsibility to love and care for the people.
The heart of the controversy concerning the doctrine resides in who can be healed and when can it be expected. Extreme advocates suggest that because healing is in the atonement it is as readily available to all as forgiveness is to all and it is to be received by faith. Less extreme advocates believe healing is available at present, but not all will be healed until the consummation of the age. The doctrine in essence can be understood by examining the fundamental aspects of what exponents emphasise are central to the doctrine, these include the nature of sickness, the nature of God and the nature of the atonement.
How proponents connect healing to the atonement is essential to understand how they view sickness. A. B. Simpson declares that both the body and the soul were equally affected by the Fall. He states that sin affects the soul while sickness affects the body. Vincent Cheung agrees that all sickness may be traced to its original source with the entrance of sin. By further stressing that not all sickness is a result of specific sin, Cheung cites Jesus’ acknowledgement that no specific sin was the cause for the blind man of John 9, and hence the link is made to the Fall, not to the individual. This inference adds weight to the Representative Head argument that sickness is not isolated from, but resultant from, the first transgression and therefore can be dealt with at a representative level – one for all.
Sickness is further linked to Satan as the one who caused the Fall, and also the one who’s works Jesus came to destroy. In the OT sickness is also stated as a result of the curse whereas healing is a result of the blessing. Blessings in the OT were conditional because of the Old Covenant whereas all the promises of God according to advocates are unconditional in Jesus through His sacrificial death. G.P. Duffield stresses that Jesus in redeeming us from the curse of the law, in fact bore the curse our sicknesses on the cross. This strong link of sickness to sin and the curse has led proponents to deduce that the atoning work of Christ must have included healing as well as forgiveness.
Proponents of the doctrine declare a plethora of scripture concerning God’s nature to heal. They promote the God who puts “none of these diseases” (Ex 15:26, Deut 7:15) upon the people and the God “who forgives all iniquity and heals all diseases” (Ps 103:3). Hugh Jester in describing the “Seven Redemptive Names of our Lord” refers to the “often forgotten” Jehovah-Rapha, “the Lord who heals” (Ex 15:26).  Proponents also declare that God’s nature is seen in Jesus who healed “all” (Acts 10:38). Because God is a God who never changes, advocates of the doctrine believe that healing is inevitably received from God because He is always true to His character and nature.
Although, advocates for the doctrine would agree that the essential object that mankind was redeemed from was sin, they promote that because sickness resulted from sin and that it is God’s nature to heal, that redemption from both was provided for in the atonement. Based on the three primary texts Isa. 53.4; Mt. 8.17; 1 Pet. 2.24 proponents are insistent that the interpretation of the relevant words in each text implies that physical healing is integral to the atoning work of Christ and therefore as readily available to all through faith as forgiveness of sins.
Exegesis of the main Bible passages used in support of this doctrine
Three main passages Isaiah 53:4-6, Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24 lead to the doctrine of healing in the atonement. An exegesis of these passages explores the extent to which healing is part of the atonement.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.” [Isaiah 53:4]
1 Peter 2:21-24
21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; [Isaiah 53:9]
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed.
The identity and work of the Isaian Servant are integral to the interpretation of both God’s expiatory sacrifice for mankind and its extent.
According to C. Hassell Bullock the quest to identify the Isaian Servant of the Lord has fallen into five different hypotheses: “(1) an anonymous individual of Isaiah’s time; (2) the prophet himself; (3) the collective theory; (4) the mythological; (5) the Messianic.” Others such as Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III acknowledge in particular the work to categorise the Servant into either the individual or collective theories. They cite attempts of others to nominate the Servant as an individual, for example, Messiah, or Messiah as Jesus, or an historical individual such as Cyrus, Ezekiel, Jehoiachin, Moses, Uzziah, Zerubbabel, a leper or the prophet himself. With respect to the collective theories, they cite others who have included both the Nation of Israel and the faithful remnant. Although they acknowledge these works, they concluded that it is not possible to limit the identity to categories, but suggest that it requires a combination of both – as one theory never satisfies each representation of the Servant. William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard and Frederic William Bush also acknowledge the vastness of opinion that other scholars offer in trying to identify the Servant. However, they agree with Dillard and Longman not to limit the Servant to an individual nor a nation, but to identify a number of Servants. Although it is acknowledged that the identity of the Servant can be variously applied it will be deduced that the Servant’s identity has an ultimate fulfillment in a person, the Messiah.
It appears that through the views reflected in the works of Dillard and Longman, and LaSor et al. and others, one may deduce that God was looking for a Servant to perform His work in complete obedience (Isa 42:23, Ezek 22:30). Israel who is identified as the Servant in 41:8, 44:1,21 and 49:3 falls short of obedience and is deemed “blind” and “deaf” in 42:19. The identity of the Servant seems to progress from the whole nation of Israel to the faithful remnant and then to the individual who would ultimately suffer for the benefit of the whole. In identifying this individual, George Smeaton stresses that the NT authors in quoting Matthew 12:18 put beyond doubt that Jesus Christ is none other than the embodied Isaian 53 Servant and Messiah.
And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all. 16 Yet He warned them not to make Him known, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
18 “Behold! My Servant whom I have chosen,
My Beloved in whom My soul is well pleased!
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He will declare justice to the Gentiles. [Isaiah 42:1]
J. Barton Payne also forcefully implies that the NT aptly portrays Jesus as both Messiah and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. His strong words equate those who refuse to see Jesus as the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 with Jesus’ words to the two on the road to Emmaus, fools who are slow to believe the prophets concerning Him (Luke 24:24,25). It is also well documented that many Rabbinic scholars suggest that the Servant is Messiah.
An interesting Jewish concept concerning the Messiah that arose from their ranks was that of the dual Messiah. Since the Lord had anointed two kings to rule over Israel, namely Saul and David, they believed that there would also be two Messiahs. The first “Messiah ben Joseph,” like king Saul, the warrior, who suffered and died in battle and the second, “Messiah ben David,” like king David, the conqueror, who would resurrect the smitten Messiah and triumph over his enemies. The first Messiah is said to recruit disciples and make course to Jerusalem while gaining temporary triumph over his enemies. He is claimed to then humbly surrender to suffering and being slain by them. The second Messiah then ushers in the covenanted eternal Kingdom of peace and prosperity after raising the first Messiah from the dead and fully triumphing over the enemy. According to Levi Khamor, the Zohar infers that the two Messiahs are indeed one and the same.
This tradition may be worthy of further investigation with respect to the topic at hand by asking several questions. (Assuming that Jesus is the Messiah.) Is it possible that the two Messiahs speak of the First and Second Advent? If so, could the suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53, although triumphing through suffering, actually only provide partial/temporary triumph for His vicarious recipients until death (or the Second Advent)? Then at the death/resurrection of the vicarious recipients, could the second Messiah imply the actualisation of the complete and realised work of the Servant/Messiah for His recipients, resulting in total victory for the recipients in His everlasting and all conquering Kingdom? This reasoning adds weight to the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ theory associated with ‘healing in the atonement’.
The work of the Servant is both broad in scope and unfathomable in depth. To perform a comprehensive evaluation of the complete work of the Servant in this paper is not possible. However, this section will seek to specifically focus on evaluating the extent of the healing and atoning work of the Servant.
Charles L. Holman describes the mission of the Servant in three aspects: The Servant of Yahweh receives the anointing of the Spirit to accomplish His tasks; The Servant’s scope is worldwide being a light to the Gentiles and a Covenant to His people; and The Servant vicariously suffers for His people. Payne classifies the Servant’s work into the categories of Prophet – the proclamation and demonstration of the testament, Priest – the sacrificer and sacrifice of the testament to make atonement for and put an end to sin, and King – the executer of the testament, bearing the government and instigation of His Kingdom and rule. Bullock suggests that the work of the Servant is ultimately that of redemption and in particularly His saving acts. In each account the Servant is said to be personified in the person of Jesus Christ and realised through His acts.
According to Smeaton, to be the Servant of Yahweh implies one who yields to the direction and rule prescribed to him in complete obedience. Smeaton identifies this in the person of Jesus Christ, who not only did all that the Father asked Him (John 15:31), but thought it not robbery to be equal with God, who took on the form of a servant and was obedient to suffer death (Philippians 2:6-8). Hence the work of the Servant as seen through Jesus Christ, according to Smeaton, should be seen as the ultimate fulfillment of the Servant’s responsibility and work. The Servant was in part to be approved by God (Isa 42:1, 53:12, Matt 3:17), rejected by man (Isa 53:3, Matt 21:42, Mark 8:31) , to abstain from violence and sin (Isa 53:9,11, 1 Peter 2:22), refrain from speaking guile (Isa 53:9, 1Peter 2:22), heal the brokenhearted, preach the gospel, heal the sick,(Isa 61;1-3, Luke 4:18), bear our sins and be smitten by God (Isa 53:4,5,8,10,11, 1 Cor 15:3).
As Holman suggests it was when Jesus was baptised and endued by the Holy Spirit that His work was evidenced with power – through His miracles of healing and deliverance (Matt 3:16, 4:23), through the authority of His message (Luke 4:18-32), and through His offering of Himself as the supreme atoning sacrifice (Heb 9:14). When John the Baptist asked Jesus if He was the Servant, the Messiah, Jesus referred him to His works to prove His identity, specifically the works of healing and His message (Matt 11:2-5). Taking up Smeaton’s point of obedience, Jesus’ work can be summed up in what He did in obedience to the Father (John 6:38). During His ministry, Jesus on at least three occasions refers to His work as being in obedience to the will of the Father: while preaching the gospel (John 4:34), healing the sick (John 5:1-30), and offering up His life as the atoning sacrifice (Matt 26:42, Heb 10:7-9). The ministry of Jesus as the Servant of Yahweh is clearly evidenced by His miracles, His message, and His sacrificial atoning death.
16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick, 17 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
“He Himself took our infirmities
And bore our sicknesses.” [Isaiah 53:4]
The subject of the authorship of Matthew’s Gospel has been one of rigorous debate for many years. Norman Perrin, Robert G. Gromacki and others have contested the issues of anonymity suggesting it protected the writer or proved the author’s genuineness. Other debate has raged around Papias’ suggestion that Matthew’s work was written in Hebrew and then translated by as many who had means into their respective languages. While others such as D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris argue the support of the early church Fathers to trace the authorship of the Gospel back to Matthew. Further arguments such as those which debate Matthew knowledge of the customs systems, and the non-Jewish, non-apostle and multiplicity of authorship warrant further investigation, but are unable to be expounded in the present study. Suffice to say is that much debate has ensured that no decisive conclusion can be reached as to a definitive author. However, as Carson et al. state, neither the message nor the authority of the Gospel is altered by the standing of the author. What is brought into question is the perspective of evaluation which shall be discussed directly.
Clarifying the Matthean Community has particular relevance to the topic at hand in determining the meaning of “Matthew’s” interpretation of both the identity and work of the Isaian Servant. The discovery of a Jewish perspective is paramount in validating the author’s intent to shed light on the fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy that would ultimately have consequences for both Jews and Gentiles alike.
Carson et al. counteracts the proponents of the anti-Jewish perspective of Matthew’s account by mentioning various passages in the Gospel which are by nature parochially Jewish. Namely, Jesus being only sent to Israel and His restriction of the disciples to do likewise while they were with Him. Alan Cadwallader also gives credence to the Jewish perspective of the gospel listing such marks as: Sabbath and special days, food and dietary regulations, economics/taxes, Patriarchs, Laws, worship/temple, group identity, proselytising and appeal to populace. John Drane points out that Matthew meticulously used OT citations to map the life of Jesus as both the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel and as an antitype of Israel’s experience. But in no way does he appear to compromise his conviction in his riposte of the Jewish religious leaders of the day and those who rejected Christ. Matthew seems to address key elements concerning the Jewish community and their proper perspective, however, he does balance his work to reach both Jews and Gentiles. Luz suggests that the Greater Church embraced Matthew’s Gospel as the chiefest, because of his inclusiveness of both peoples and establishing the worth of the Gentiles by including Gentile mission to his community’s mandate.
By Matthew having a strong Jewish perspective, although not an exclusive one, it can be suggested that the interpretation of historical Jewish tradition and prophecy kept their integrity. The strength that the author shows in balancing the communication of love and grace to the responsive Jews and the adverse rebuke toward self-righteous Scribes and Pharisees also attests to the integrity of his purpose in the Gospel.
The Kingdom of God is principally where God rules and reigns as King. Drane suggests that the terms used by authors such as Matthew (basileia) and possibly Jesus Himself in Aramaic (malkutha) were not so much implying territory as they were implying stately activity. Humanity could then be said to have had a dearth of the Kingdom, as God’s rule is fundamentally, boundless in time, in space, in authority and in substance. History verifies the Kingdom’s absence which has often been described as not yet and futuristic, for example: one which is at hand (Matt 3:2, 4:16), not far from (Mark 12:34), waiting for (Mark 15:43), and to be inherited (Matt 25:34). Although Jesus stated that the Kingdom had also come (Matt 12:28).
Due to the enormity of the scope of the Kingdom, this section will narrow the context to examine principally the relationship of physical healing to the Kingdom and the coming Kingdom. In terms of the coming Kingdom, Drane suggests it may be expressed in a number of segments: The coming of Jesus, the coming of the Holy Spirit/Church, and the coming of the eschatological Kingdom. Firstly, in Judaism there was the concept that even though God was King, there was also the reference of God becoming King, which according to Ladd implied the manifestation of His kingship amongst humanity. Inevitably we see this as the coming of Jesus. D. Matthew Allen in quoting D.A. Carson and R.T France concurs with the first segment suggesting that the Kingdom had come in some preparatory way with Jesus and was clearly evidenced by His message and ministry. Secondly, Jesus spoke concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit that was to be imminent upon His return to heaven (John 16:7, Acts 1:8). This occurrence could also be suggested as the coming of the Kingdom, for the Kingdom is said to be righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). Futuristic eschatology, which is mostly credited to the highly controversial pioneering theologian Albert Schweitzer correctly implied that Jesus had an expectation like the Jews that the Kingdom was imminent. However, contrary to Schweitzer’s false claim of Jesus’ despair in not seeing the fulfillment of His mission, he was correct in suggesting Jesus’ work would be a climax of history (to usher in the Kingdom). Thirdly, with respect to the eschatological Kingdom, Jesus also inferred to it being be fully realised and inherited at the consummation of the ages (Matt 25:34).
Whilst distinctly different, the first and second segments appear to be somewhat identical in scope. What Jesus did as king in the first segment, can be said to be seen and done by the church through the delegated power and authority of the Holy Spirit (John 14:12-18, Matt 28:18-20, Acts 1:8). According to John Wilkinson, Jesus Himself identifies His healing ministry as the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies and the coming of the Kingdom. Wilkinson cites a number of Isaian passages which Jesus was possibly refering to in response to John the Baptist question concerning His Messiahship, namely: Isaiah 29.18-19; 35.5-6 and 61.1.  Jesus’ response was that He primarily healed. According to Ladd, Jesus made it known after performing an exorcism that His authority to heal and cast out devils was a result of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 12:22-30). Ladd suggests that the very essence of Kingdom theology, and the coming of the Kingdom, is found in Jesus’ inference of binding of Satan, and plundering of his goods (Matt 12:28,29). The binding of Satan by Jesus and giving power to the church to bind him imply the Kingdom has come (Matt 12:28,29, 16:18,19). The ultimate realisation of the Kingdom’s coming is the plundering of all his goods which is yet future at the end of the age (1 Cor 15:24-28, Eph 1:15-23, Heb 2:1-10).
Matthew has been accused of contextualising Old Testament verses to his contemporary society especially those who bear credence to coetaneous events. This method of scriptural analysis is known as pesher. Lee Campbell heavily defends the Matthean work against it being branded pesherian especially in relation to the “fulfillment” verses such as Isaiah 53:4. Campbell argues that the author some fifteen times doesn’t merely refer to Christ fulfilling the precise prediction of OT passages, but to Him superabundantly fulfilling the anticipated redemptive purpose, which both significantly surpassed their immediate interpretation and was not hidden from the OT authors. Warren Carter in citing works by Lars Hartman, R. France and J.M. Foley agrees with Campbell’s implication of Matthew’s “fulfillment” citations. The Matthean passages, according to Hartman, were invoked by the author to: employ their authority; worded with the former author’s preferred words; or to point to the fulfillment of a greater purpose. Hence, it would appear that it was Matthew’s intent to neither manipulate the original intent of the passages nor minimise their extent, but rather to bring focus to the greater picture of the original intent in its fulfillment.
Foley, from a linguistics perspective, suggests that the oral culture within the Matthean community traditionally engaged the citations as portions which also echoed the larger tradition. Such an understanding of the Isaian 53 passage would presume that the Matthean Community had a firm tradition of the suffering Messiah and the work of the Messiah. Ladd would argue together with J. Jeremias that the tradition of a suffering Messiah was in fact pre-Christian, but only in the context of fighting one’s enemy, not to make atonement. However, Martin Hengel suggests that the idea of a vicarious sacrificial atonement by a man for the sins of others was debatably absent from the pre-Christian era. He suggests that even though there were isolated cases of such a notion, he infers that the suffering Messiah of Isaiah was not a popular perception of Old Covenant Judiasm. Carter’s suggestion that the earlier quotations from Isaiah, without specifically naming the prophet, adds weight to the argument that the Matthean community were familiar with the earlier traditions. However, as the citation in 8:17 is prefaced by the prophet’s name this may mean that the community did not hold a strong traditional view of the suffering of Messiah or His work. With Matthew’s intent to cite OT quotations with the purpose of seeing them fulfilled in their ultimate form, it could be seen that he was actually bringing clarification and understanding to his community concerning the Messiah’s healing work that wasn’t strongly traditional.
Taking into consideration the identity and work of the Servant of Isaiah and the content, context and purpose of Matthew one could interpret 8:17 as both confirming that Jesus is the suffering servant of Isaiah and also identifying a portion of His work as physical healing – which is both a partially present and wholly future in reality.
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
22 “Who committed no sin,
Nor was deceit found in His mouth”; [Isaiah 53:9]
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:18-25)
George Eldon Ladd agrees with the strong tradition that the epistle was written by the Apostle Peter by the hand of Silvanus (Silas). Gromacki agrees also with the Petrine authorship and suggests that it has not been flaunted with any serious challenge. He cites some of the early Church Fathers and the historian Eusebius to support his evidence and adds weight by strongly evidencing references to Peter within the epistle in 1:1, 5:1,2,5. Although, Carson, Moo and Morris also agree with the authorship by the Apostle they do acknowledge some of the recent challenges to Peter’s authorship including, the “excellent Greek” argument which suggests that an unlearned Galilean could not have written the epistle. However, as Carson et al. suggest, the accusation against Peter being an unlearned man was in the context of rabbinical learning and as a result the inference that Peter was uneducated in other respects is unfounded. Other arguments such as the kinship with Pauline Theology and the lack of primary events of Jesus’ life are confidently contested, however, there is no strong evidence that supports a turning from the traditional belief of the Apostles authorship.
The major purposes of 1 Peter according to Carson et al. include four major headings: theological (God); sufferings of Christ and the believers following example; the atonement; and the ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ theory.  Gromacki outlines ten purposes of Peter’s epistle including: the enduring of trials in the light of God’s salvation, charges to holy and godly living, submission to authorities, masters and husbands, attitudes to suffering, and ministerial guidelines for elders. Ladd describes eleven purposes somewhat distinct from Gromacki, however, they agree on human suffering and the Christian living. Ladd also included purposes such as atonement, eschatology, temporal dualism, Christology and God. Perrin and Duling suggest seven purposes stating those inclusive of Gromacki and Ladd, and in addition include: baptism homily and salvation as fulfillment of prophecy. Hence three of the major purposes identified that warrant investigation in this study are suffering, the atonement and temporal dualism. These three appear to be intrinsically related and will be discussed accordingly.
Carson suggests strong evidence of the ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ in Peter’s writing, citing the present purification of the believers (1:22) in contrast to a salvation which is resultant at the end (1:5). This observation concerning this present age and the Age to Come is also picked up by Ladd. However, Ladd presents the concept in such a way that the theory can function with a dual role in this present age. Whilst acknowledging the theory from our present perspective, one could also suggest the prior application of the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ in Jesus’ age. Once Jesus’ atoning sacrifice was complete and prophecy fulfilled, the then ‘not yet’ of the pre-messianic age commenced the ‘now’ of the age which was to come. This seems to imply that those who live in the present age are open (at least in part) to receive the ‘not yet’ of the pre-messianic age. Taking this concept further may suggest a greater benefit is available for those who live in this end age as ‘already’ receiving the ‘not yet’ of the pre-messianic age, yet Peter still infers there is both a ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ even of the messianic or end-time believers (1:10). Further investigation to discover the extent to which the benefits of the ‘now’ messianic age compared to the ‘now’ of the pre-messianic age could prove interesting in light of this study.
The pivotal point to usher in the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ of the Kingdom was the death of Jesus, which inseparably linked the sufferings of Christ to the eschatological glory. Jesus, Himself saw both the ‘already’ sufferings and the ‘not yet’ of the glory, prior to the cross (Hebrews 12:2). Peter in addressing one of his primary purposes instructs his readers not to seek deliverance or freedom from tribulation but contrarily to embrace and imitate the sufferings of Christ. This appears to suggest that partaking and enduring of the ‘now’ is working toward the glory of the ‘not yet’. Hence the epitome of salvation seems to be the enduring of suffering resulting in glorification as seen in Jesus and exhorted by Peter. This may have considerable implications for not only enduring and suffering persecution, trials and testings but also sickness and infirmities.
Although, amazingly comprehensive in its scope, the epistle is distinctly quiet on matters concerning sickness and healing. It appears that the only mention of ‘healing’ is in 2:24 and in context, seems only to relate to the atoning work of Christ with respect to enduring suffering. However, the usage of the word will be examined more adequately in the subsequent section. Peter appears to suggest that the atoning work of Christ set the example to triumph through trial rather than receive deliverance and freedom from it (1:6,7, 4:12).
In the Dialogue of Justin, the Petrine usage of ‘healed’ is employed no less than six times. In each case where exposition is given, the reference appears to infer healed from sin. However, “healed/healing” are also referenced to believer’s operating in the gifts of the Spirit, in particularly healing, and also to Jesus’ healing ministry. A portion of the dialogue that followed the reference to Jesus’ healing ministry is worthy of note.
“Yet He [Jesus] wrought such works, and persuaded those who were [destined to] believe on Him; for even if anyone be labouring under defect of body, yet be an observer of the doctrines delivered by Him, He shall raise him up at His second advent perfectly sound, after He has made him immortal, and incorruptible, and free from grief.”
The author by employing the phrase: “for even if,” initially implies that Jesus healed believers with defects of body and that healing is still possible for them in the present time. However, the implication is not in line with the extremist view of the doctrine which states that healing is available to all and is to be presently realised. Yet the strong implication is that those who do not receive healing ‘now’ will none the less receive it ‘yet’ at the resurrection of the body.
Pentecostal scholars such as Duffield and Van Cleave are adamant that iaomai used by Peter cannot refer to spiritual healing. They base their claim by stating that the verb is always used in the NT for physical healing. Other scholars such as Wilkinson are confident Peter is referring to bearing of sin not sickness, due to the past tense referring back to the passion, not to physical healing, being available at present. A balance of the differing views can be see by Michael L. Brown, commenting on J.R. Michael’s understand of Peter’s usage of iaomai. He suggests that Michael’s and others like him oversimplify the salvation metaphor to the exclusion of the broader context. Brown contests that studies that focus on interpreting the prophetic references concerning healing of sickness purely on a figurative basis with respect to Israel’s “sin-sickness” fall well short of the total meaning. According to Brown, Israel’s condition was a complete and resultant condition of a spiritual disease which comprised of spiritual, emotional, physical, social, and national consequences and hence required a complete healing. In exploring Jesus’ healing capacity as Saviour (sōtēr) Brown notes four instances in His capacity to save (sōzō) within the space of two chapters in Luke’s gospel. He cites people being saved from sin (7:50), from demons (8:36), from sickness (8:48), and death (8:50). From here Brown portrays Jesus as the complete sōtēr who “forgives, delivers, heals, and resurrects, both temporally and eternally.”
Although Peter’s usage of iaomai in context appears to indicate spiritual healing as suggested by the likes of Justin and Wilkinson, Brown’s all inclusiveness theory may be more suitable. An overview of the terminology used for healing in the NT tends to indicate a great deal of fluidity between terms, hence the possibility for both terms to be used interchangeably or at least concurrently. Examining the Petrine counterpart in Matthew 8 reveals that within three verses the author equates both healing terms therapeuo and iaomai in the sense of physical healing with the Isaian quote. Hence in the broader interpretation of Peter’s usage of the term, physical healing is both plausible and appropriate.
Mankind due to his sin was separated from God and destined to face righteous judgement. However, God compelled by His love sought a way to reconcile mankind back to Himself, through the offering of His Son as an atoning sacrifice.
La Sor et al. in acknowledging the difficulty of defining atonement suggests it means, “to cover” the sins of the penitent and make them “at one” with their Creator. Archibald Alexander Hodge suggests that Christ’s atoning work, through His sacrificial death, satisfied the requirements of the law and secured humanity’s reconciliation to God. Richard Mayhue stresses that from Leviticus 16:3-34 and Hebrews 10:9-14 the atoning sacrifice was for “sins” not for sickness. Payne argues that since the fall of man sacrificial atone for his sin has been God’s plan, stating that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (Lev 17:11, Matt 26:28, Heb 9:22). Hence to make atonement kipper for “sins” for the people to God appears to be the most dominant form of atonement suggested in both the Old and New Testaments.
Throughout the NT the dominant theme relating to the atonement is the vicarious nature of Jesus’ sacrificial death that He suffered by the shedding of His own Blood for the sins of humanity. Jesus was said to be the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). His name was called Jesus because He would save His people from their sins (Matt 1:21). His Blood was to be shed for the remission of sins (Matt 26:28). The church was purchased through His Blood (Acts 20:28). His Blood was the propitiation for our sins which God has passed over (Rom 3:25). Only two NT passages, that of Matthew 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24 appear to possibly link atonement to another aspect other than sin. Hence a narrow definition of the atonement could be stated as: The vicarious nature of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ who bore the sins of His penitents and shed His Blood for their forgiveness and covering in order to make propitiation on their behalf to the Father.
Smeaton suggests that the atoning work of Christ was not limited to the Cross or extended to the period of His passion, but to Christ’s entire life. Before the culmination of the curse on the cross, Smeaton believed that Jesus had already been bearing the curse from conception. He cites in particular the primeval curse of labour which he states Jesus bore while he was a carpenter (Mark 6:3). Initially, Smeaton’s theory seems plausible due to the fact that scholars dispute where to draw the line of demarcation for the atonement – in the garden, at the examination, at the whipping pole or the death on the cross. However, in no instance, either before or after the curse being ultimately born by Jesus on the cross is the result of the curse of labour ever lifted from man. On the contrary he is instructed that he is worse than an infidel if he doesn’t work (1 Tim 5:8). Smeaton’s theory, if plausible, could have been seen as the most comprehensive definition of the atonement which provided remedy for every aspect of every curse that mankind has been effected by.
In general the only broadening of the definition with respect to the atonement that seems plausible to many conservative scholars is that of including healing in the atonement. As noted in chapter 1, sickness and disease have been intrinsically related to the sin which resulted in the fall of mankind. Recent and older advocates for the doctrine including Jay N. Forrest and Simpson have suggested that not only do Matt 8:17 and 1 Peter 2:24 imply healing is part of the atonement, but they cite many OT passages and symbols as well. They convincingly suggest that the Passover (Exo 12, Ps 105:37), the bronze snake (Num 21-6), the plagues stopped by atoning sacrifice (Num 16:46, 2 Sam 24:10-25), God’s redemptive name Jehovah Rapha (Exo 15:26), sickness which is included in the curse has been redeemed (Deu 28, Gal 3:13), and sickness as a work of the devil has been destroyed (1 Jn 3;8, Lk 13:16, Acts 10:38) are all examples of association of healing and the Atonement. Even staunch opponents of the divine healing doctrine such as Mayhue, who believe that miracles ceased through men at the end of the apostolic age, believe that healing is in the atonement all-be-it to be realised at the redemption of the body. Hence the narrow definition of the atonement as stated above can be rightly broadened to include healing as part of the wholeness of redemption.
Conservative scholars agree that the ultimate fulfillment of the atonement will result in both the resurrection of the body and eternal sinless perfection for the soul. Simpson, however, stresses that the atonement will not only be fully realised at the end of the age, but that it has also brought a victorious life now both to the soul and the body. He states that this does not mean that the body is free from pain and sickness all the time, just as the soul is not free of temptation at all times, but Jesus gives us victory over them. Robert Dickson, on the other hand is adamantly opposed to the extreme views of both Holiness and Healing doctrines. He suggests that one cannot expect complete physical health for the body in this life nor sinless perfection for the soul until the day when our mortal body will be resurrected into immortality and our corruptible soul will put on incorruptibility. Whereas some of the proponents of the extremist view argue that just because some people aren’t saved now doesn’t mean that salvation is not both provided for in the atonement and fully available now. However all aspects of the atonement are given to us in a promissory note which is only fully realised at the consummation. Scripture indicates that salvation, although in promissory manner at the point of belief, is only actualised upon “receiving the end of your faith” (1 Peter 1:9) and is “nearer than when we believed” (Rom 13:11). Hence, caution is needed in the seeking of physical healing at present because of its partial and temporal nature. The danger of disillusionment is caused by false expectations. A proper understanding both of God’s will and His grace are needed to avoid false hopes.
The Apostle Paul sought God three times for the “thorn in the flesh” to be taken away. Paul pursued God for deliverance and then kept pursuing until he heard otherwise. God’s response to Paul was not to deliver him from the thorn, but to reveal to him a greater purpose of suffering that of building humility and trust. Dickson states that individuals like Paul who do not receive their expected answer, while waiting for the final hope, can confidently approach the great High Priest who is able to sympathise with humanity’s infirmities and pour out grace which is sufficient in times of need. Ladd sees this conquering over evil with God’s grace as part of His will till we come into His new immortal age. Hence a proper understanding of triumph through suffering while waiting for the eschatological hope emphasises the need for both an appropriate doctrine of suffering and a focus to trust God’s grace and His will.
Because healing at present is both partial and temporal the question needs to be asked, is it God’s will and time to heal? According to Matt 8:3, Mark 1:41, Luke 5:13 and Rev 21:4 the answer is an undeniable yes both now and in the future. Yet reality implies that for the future will of God to be achieved the temporal will must be abated. Being healed and not being healed both ultimately fulfill God’s will to heal. In Matthew 5 while Jesus is talking about the Kingdom He makes two statements concerning the body and sin (Matt 5:29,30). He appears to prioritise the profitability of losing one part of the body in preference to losing the whole body in hell. A hierarchy seems to be prevalent in Jesus’ thinking concerning what He wills. Ironically, the only way to enter into the ultimate of healing and the power of an endless life is through death like Christ. It must be concluded that God’s will may not be healing as in the case of Paul, (Gal 4:13) or Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20) because of a greater purpose. Wimber suggests with Ladd that although healing is secured through the atonement, it is to be sought by praying God’s will to be done and receiving whatever healing comes.
It is evident that a definitive statement can conclude that the atoning work of Christ not only provided for the sin of the penitent but also healing for the body. The ultimate redemptive purpose of God will be actualised when He has changed the corruptible and the mortal to be both incoruptible and immortal, both in body and soul at the resurrection. In this regard the extent of healing is complete within the atonement. With respect to the present, the extent can only be said to be both partial and temporal in accordance with the greater will of God which is to be pursued by faith and that those who do not receive healing now will be sustained by His grace. According to Dickson, God’s ultimate solution for healing is death itself. C.S. Lewis aptly describes death as the great enemy and the great friend, our supreme hope and our greatest disgrace. In death is the consequence of sin and the entrance into eternal life. Ultimately the death that we are trying to avoid through healing will usher in our total healing.
While Divine Healing is available through the atoning work of Christ and will be ultimately received at death, God has also provided other means for healing. As noted earlier, Dowie, Simpson and Seymour would strongly opposed such a belief and considered it as belittling the atonement. However, Wesley who believed that healing was a part of God’s grace and experienced divine healing, also believed that God healed through surgery and medicine. George Jeffreys, pioneer of the Elim Pentecostal Church also advocated the use of means as well as prayer for healing from seeing scriptures backing of means in the case of Paul giving advice to Timothy to drink wine for his stomach’s sake (1 Tim. 5.23). The anointing oil as referred to in James 5 is also said to have medicinal purposes. Other means which God has provided include the body itself and more recent means such as counselling. Although divine healing is available to the church and should be sought by faith, God has also provided other means in aiding humanity with their needs and these should be appropriated where necessary.
The thrust of the study was to evaluate the extent to which healing is part of the atonement according to the primary texts used by advocates. It was concluded that the formation of the doctrine was strongly linked to the advocates of the Holiness movement. This gave reason for the doctrine in its extreme form, which appeared to come out of the same motivation that was behind the expectation of sinless perfection and hence gave notion that the body should also expect to be perfectly whole. The doctrine as a result was discovered to have implications that were as positively disastrous as they were blessings.
A brief exegesis of the main texts revealed that healing was altogether provided for in the atonement both in the future as an ultimate realisation, and in present as a partial and temporal taste of the hope to come. Subsequent exploration was sort to obtain key elements to maintain and accentuate the positives and at the same time stem the adverse affects that the extremities had on lives.
Two key elements that warrant further consideration are the doctrine of suffering and the will of God. A correct appropriation of these doctrines together with the doctrine of healing could well stem the tide of much guilt and condemnation. Additional investigation into these areas could strongly support the original intent of the church to love and care for the hurt and broken of our community.
Brown, M.L., Israel’s Divine Healer, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.
Bullock, C.H., An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.
Carson, D.A., Moo, D.J., and Morris, L., An Introduction to the New Testament, Leicester: Apollos, 1992.
Dayton, D.W., Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, 3rd ed. Metuchen: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.
Dickson, R., Does God Heal Today, Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995.
Dillard, R.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament, Leicester: Apollos, 1995.
Drane, J., Introducing the New Testament, Oxford: Lion Publishing Place, 1986.
Duffield, G.P., and Ban Cleave, N.M., Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. San Dimas: L.I.F.E Bible College, 1983.
Greig, G.S., and Springer, K.N., eds. The Kingdom and the Power, Ventura: Regal Books, 1993.
Gromacki, R.G., New Testament Survey, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.
Hengel, M., The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.
Hodge, A.A., The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1974.
Jester, H., By His Stripes: A Biblical Study on Divine Healing, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1977.
Khamor, L., The Revelation of the Son of Man, Petersham: St. Bede’s Publications, 1989.
Ladd, G.E., A Theology of the New Testament, Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1994.
LaSor, W.S., Hubbard D.A., and Bush, F.W., Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992.
Mayhue, R., Divine Healing Today, Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.
Payne, J.B., The Theology of the Older Testament, Grand Rapids: Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962.
Perrin, N., and Duling, D.C., The New Testament: An Introduction 2nd ed. Ferm R., gen. ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1974.
Simpson, A.B., The Gospel of Healing. Harrisburg: Christian Publications Inc., 1915.
Simpson, A.B., The Lord for the Body, Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc. 1959.
Smeaton, G., The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979.
Taylor, V., The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, London: Epworth Press, 1954.
Turner, M., The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts: Then and Now, 2nd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.
Wilkinson, J., The Bible and Healing, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1998.
Wimber, J. and Springer, K., Power Healing, 4th ed. Dunton Green: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd. 1986.
Kay, W. K., “Approaches to Healing in British Pentecostalism,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Issue 14. (April 1999), 113-125.
Synan, V., “A Healer in the House?” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, Volume 3, no. 2 (July 2000), 189-201.
Theron, J.P.J., “Towards a Practical Theological Theory for the Healing Ministry in Pentecostal Churches,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Issue 14, (April 1999), 49-64.
Wilkinson, J., “Physical Healing and the Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly, Volume 63, no. 2, 1991, 149-167.
Allen, D.M., “The Kingdom in Matthew,” Internet on-line. Available from http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/mat/kgdm.htm [21 February 2003].
Cadwallader, A., “Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel.” 31 October 2001. Internet on-line. Available from <http://www.ministry-development.org/pdfs/intromatthew.pdf> [12 February 2003].
Campbell, L., “Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament: A preliminary analysis.” 2000. E-Journal on-line. Available from Xenos Christian Fellowship <http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mttotal.rtf> [12 February 2003]. 1-39.
Carter, W., “Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7-9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15-16” in Journal of Biblical Literature 119/3 (2000). E-Journal on-line. Available from http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL_119.3/6carter.pdf [12 February 2003]. 503-520.
Cheung, V., “Lectures on Biblical Healing,” 2001. 4. Internet on-line. Available from <www.rformationweb.com/books/healing.pdf> [16 January 2003]
Dialogue of Justin: Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter LXIX, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2. Internet on-line. Available from Christian Classics Ethereal Library < http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm>. [11 February 2003]
Forrest, J.N., “Is Healing in the Atonement?” 2002. Internet on-line. Available from Jay Forrest Ministries <http://www.jayforrest.org/healinginatonement.htm> [6 January 2003].
Holman, C.L., “Isaiah’s Servant of Yahweh and Christian Mission in Luke-Acts,” (2000). Internet on-line. Available from Regent University < http://home.regent.edu/charhol/word/acad/Isaiah.doc>
Longman Jr. R., “Pre-Pentecostalist History,” (12 August 2001). Internet on-line. Available from <http:/www.spirithome.com/histpent.html> [25 February 2003].
Shetler, T., “Holiness and Missions: The Impact of the Sanctification Message on World Missions,” 7,8. Internet on-line. Available from <http://www.gospelcom.net/bcom/Resources/FacultyForum/Papers/TomShetler_HolinessandMissions.PDF>
Wesley, J., Wesley’s Journals: Chapter 6, Wesley’s Chancery Bill. Internet on-line. Available from Christian Classics Ethereal Library < http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/journal.all.html>. [11 February 2003].
 Simpson, A.B., The Gospel of Healing. (Harrisburg: Christian Publications Inc., 1915), 7. See also Duffield G.P., and Ban Cleave, N.M., Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. (San Dimas: L.I.F.E Bible College, 1983), 366.
 Simpson, The Gospe…, 7. See Also Jester, H., By His Stripes: A Biblical Study on Divine Healing, (Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1977), 31.
 John Wimber held this view see Power Healing 165.
 See Acts 10:38, 1 John 3:8, Luke 13:16 as discussed in Cheung’s Lectures…,
 Cheung, “Lectures…, 4,5.
 Duffield, Foundations…, 389,390.
 See Simpson, The Gospel…, 9-12; Cheung, “Lectures…, 5-7; J. Niehaus, “Old Testament Foundations: Signs and wonders in Prophetic Ministry and the Substitutionary Atonement of Isaiah 53.” Quoted in The Kingdom and the Power, ed. Greig, G.S., and Springer, K.N., (Ventura: Regal Books, 1993), 120.
 Jester, By…, 36. See also Cheung, “Lectures…,
 Theron, J.P.J., “Towards a Practical Theological Theory for the Healing Ministry in Pentecostal Churches,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, Issue 14, (April 1999), 51.
 Bullock, C.H., An Introduction to the Old Testament Prophetic Books, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 153.
 Dillard, R.B., An Introduction to the Old Testament, (Leicester: Apollos, 1995), 278.
 ibid., 278.
 LaSor, W.S., Hubbard, D.A., and Bush, F.W., Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1992), 393.
 Franz Delitzsch, O.T. Allis and J.A. Alexander as cited by Bullock in An Introduction…, 154. Also Payne, J.B. The Theology of the Older Testament, (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 255.
 Smeaton, G., The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement, (Winona Lake: Alpha Publications, 1979), 73.
 See Payne, The Theology…, 255-257. Especially footnote 30 on page 255 and the conclusion on 257.
 ibid., 257.
 Khamor, L., The Revelation of the Son of Man, (Petersham: St. Bede’s Publications, 1989), 173,174.
 ibid., 174.
 ibid., 175.
 Although this speculation is not invited by the chapter at hand (Isaiah 53). It may not be speculative with respect to the actual healing ministry of Jesus. Jesus’ ministry on earth could be deemed as partial in the sense that He did not heal all those who were upon the earth at the time e.g. the cripple at the gate beautiful. And it could also be deemed as temporal in the sense that the raising of Lazarus from the dead offered him only relief until death ultimately took Lazarus into the eternal Kingdom to die no more.
 Holman, C.L., “Isaiah’s Servant of Yahweh and Christian Mission in Luke-Acts,” (2000). Internet on-line. Available from Regent University < http://home.regent.edu/charhol/word/acad/Isaiah.doc>
 Payne, The Theology…, 271-184.
 Bullock, An Introduction…,156.
 Smeaton, The Apostles’…, 73.
 Perrin, N., Duling, D.C., The New Testament: An Introduction 2nd ed. R. Ferm gen. ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1974). 264. See also Gromacki, R.G., New Testament Survey, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974). 68. And Carson, D.A., Moo, D.J., and Morris, L., An Introduction to the New Testament, (Leicester: Apollos, 1992). 66.
 It is unsure if Papias is referring to the work known as the Gospel of Matthew or some other works. It is also dubious whether Papias’ statement is being accurately translated. Gromacki suggests that it has be read as “Matthew composed oracles” and also “Matthew collected oracles”. Perrin himself is also in doubt as to the correct translation noting it as “Matthew put together” and also the alternative “Matthew wrote”. See Gromacki, New Testament Survey, 68. And also Perrin, The New Testament an Introduction, 263.
 Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Origen.
 Carson, An Introduction…, 66-74.
 ibid., 74.
 Matthew 15:24
 Matthew 10:5-6 See also Carson, An Introduction…, 74.
 Cadwallader, A., “Introduction to Matthew’s Gospel.” (31 October 2001) Internet Online. Available from <www.ministry-development.org/pdfs/intromatthew.pdf> [12 February 2003].
 Drane, J., Introducing the New Testament, (Oxford: Lion Publishing Place, 1986), 190.
 Luz, Commentary on Matthew 1-7. 87. quoted by Cadwallader, “Introduction…,
 Drane, Introducing…,113.
 ibid., 120. See also Ladd, G.E. A Theology of the New Testament, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1994), 56. Ladd suggests that the majority of scholars believe in the Kingdom as both present and future. It would not be incorrect to break this interpretation into three segments as Ladd finally does (see 67.) to suggest the Kingdom: has come (in Christ), is present (through the Holy Spirit), and is future (at the consummation of the ages).
 Ladd, A Theology…, 58.
 Drane, Introducing…,116.
 ibid., 116,117.
 Wilkinson, The Bible…,104.
 Wilkinson, The Bible…,104.
 Ladd, A Theology…,63.
 Campbell, L., “Matthew’s Use of the Old Testament: A preliminary analysis.” (2000). E-Journal on-line. Available from Xenos Christian Fellowship <http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mttotal.rtf> [12 February 2003]. 2.
 ibid., 6.
 Carter, W., “Evoking Isaiah: Matthean Soteriology and an Intertextual Reading of Isaiah 7-9 and Matthew 1:23 and 4:15-16” in Journal of Biblical Literature 119/3 (2000). E-Journal on-line. Available from http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/JBL/JBL_119.3/6carter.pdf [12 February 2003]. 505-506.
 ibid., 506.
 Ladd, A Theology…,154.
 Hengel, M. The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 57-59
 Hengel, The Atonement:…,59
 Carter, “Evoking…, 509.
 Ladd, A Theology…,641.
 Gromacki, New…,349.
 Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Polycarp and Tertullian.
 Gromacki, New…,349.
 Carson, An Introduction…, 422,423.
 ibid., 422.
 ibid., 422,423.
 ibid., 428-430.
 Gromacki, New…,352.
 Ladd, A Theology…,641-648.
 Perrin, The New…, 377-379.
 Ladd, A Theology…,641.
 ibid., 641, 642.
 ibid., 642
 Dialogue of Justin: Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter LXIX, Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2. Internet on-line. Available from Christian Classics Ethereal Library < http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm>. [11 February 2003]
 Duffield, Foundations…,391.
 Wilkinson, “Physical…,161.
 Brown, M.L., Israel’s Divine Healer, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 185.
 ibid., 85,186.
 ibid., 212,213
 ibid., 213.
 It is acknowledged at this point that Peter specifically refers to the crucifixion to produce spiritual healing (inferring the atonement), where as the Matthean quote refers to the ministry of Jesus and may not (according to some scholars) be associated with the atonement.
 LaSor, Old…,156.
 Hodge, A.A., The Atonement, (Grand Rapids: Baker House Books, 1974), 33.
 Mayhue, R., Divine Healing Today, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 44, 45.
 Smeaton, The Apostles’…,135.
 Smeaton, The Apostles’…,138.
 Most scholars from both sides of the Divine Healing debate consent that healing is in the atonement, the ultimate questions are by who, to whom, when and how much.
 See also Wilkinson, “Physical…, 167.
 Mayhue, Divine…,53.
 Simpson, A.B. The Lord for the Body, (Harrisburg: Christian Publications, Inc. 1959), 142.
 Dickson, R., Does God Heal Today, (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1995), 56.
 Duffield, Foundations…, 415.
 It is noted that the thorn in the flesh has been the subject of many debates. Whether physical, material or spiritual the thorn, here, only serves as an illustration of seeking God and answer to prayer.
 Dickson, Does…,56.
 Ladd, A Theology…, 67.
 Wimber, Power…,169.
 Dickson, God…, 117.
 Lewis, C.S. as quoted in Dickson, God…, 117,118.
 J. Wesley as quoted in Dickson, Does…,12.
 Kay, “Approaches…,116.
 Dickson, God…, 117.
BLOGS INDEX 1: REVIVALS (BRIEFER THAN REVIVALS INDEX)
BLOGS INDEX 2: MISSION (INTERNATIONAL STORIES)
BLOGS INDEX 4: DEVOTIONAL (INCLUDING TESTIMONIES)
BLOGS INDEX 6: CHAPTERS (BLOGS FROM BOOKS)
BLOGS INDEX 7: IMAGES (PHOTOS AND ALBUMS)