Divine Healing In The Health And Wealth Gospel

By Douglas J. Moo

[Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois]

The health and wealth gospel differs from evangelical Christianity generally in its emphasis on the physical blessings that believers can — and should — experience in this life. Salvation is for the whole person. Yet traditional Christianity has short-changed this truth by focusing almost exclusively on the soul and on spiritual blessings. So argue prominent health and wealth gospellers such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth and Gloria Copeland. And they are determined to right this imbalance by making Christians aware that God has provided in Christ for their material and physical well-being — if only they will reach out and claim these blessings in faith. Most of the proponents of this movement do not seek to downplay the significance of spiritual salvation. What they believe about the basic doctrines of the faith is well within the parameters of orthodoxy. If, indeed, theirs is “another gospel,” it is so not because any basic doctrines have been subtracted, but because certain questionable doctrines have been added.

As the popular name for this growing but amorphous movement suggests, the promises of financial prosperity and physical health are the two pillars of this “gospel.” And, whatever Hagin, the Copelands, and others in the movement may say about their ministries in their more guarded statements, these promises of material well-being loom large in their literature and broadcasts. Other essays in this fascicle are taking a critical look at the “wealth” side of the movement; in this article, we will examine the “health” component.

The focus on physical well-being and healing in the health and wealth gospel — hereafter HWG — has its roots in a century and a half-old tradition. Key figures in this tradition were the “Irvingites” in early nineteenth century Scotland, the Blumhardts in Germany and A.J. Gordon and A.B. Simpson (founder of what came to be the Christian and Missionary Alliance) at the end of the century in America. Divine healing was prominent in Pentecostal circles and in those step-children of the Pentecostals, the charismatics. Oral Roberts is perhaps the best known representative of the charismatic healing movement.[1] More recently, the Vineyard movement, associated with John Wimber, has highlighted divine healing as one of those “signs” that should accompany and witness to the present-day manifestation of the kingdom of God in the church.[2]

While having in common with these movements and individuals the conviction that God does heal miraculously at the present time, advocates of the HWG differ from most of them in their claim that good health should characterize every believer. Ken Blue, for instance, a representative of the Vineyard movement, thinks that it is God’s will to heal all believers. Yet, because of the continuing opposition of Satan to the rule of Christ during this period of human history, God’s will to heal will not always be accomplished.[3] The health and wealth evangelists, on the other hand, make it clear that a failure to be healed can be ascribed only to ignorance or lack of faith. The provision is there for every believer — but we must step out in faith and claim it. Faith means that we should not add “if it be thy will” when we pray for healing — while very pious-sounding,’ this only indicates doubt in the promise of God. And, after praying, it is important that a “positive confession” be made: thanking God for the healing that has taken place, even if the physical symptoms remain. For faith must rise about the physical evidence, resting secure in the promises of God in his Word.[4]

The teaching about divine healing in the HWG rests, then, on two main contentions: that God has promised physical well-being in this life to every believer; and that only ignorance or lack of faith can prevent this promise from being realized. The former is shared with many other advocates of divine healing, but the latter — while not unique to the HWG — is what gives to the movement its distinctive and extremist flavor. Several key Scriptural and theological arguments are used to support these two key contentions: and we examine these in what follows. Our focus will be on the HWG, but the similarities in teaching about divine healing between the HWG and other movements means that our analysis will inevitably touch on these other movements also. Many authors cited in the notes, then, are not in agreement with all the tenets of the HWG.

I. Jesus’ Healings And Ours

The evangelists narrate thirty three miracles of Jesus. Of these, seventeen are healings and four are exorcisms that involve healing. In one of several similar summaries of Jesus’ ministry, Matthew tells us that “Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every infirmity” (9:35). The healing of people who were sick, incapacitated or handicapped was characteristic of Jesus’ ministry; and nowhere is Jesus seen turning away a person who sincerely wishes to be healed. It is only unbelief that prevents Jesus from healing (Mark 6:5–6). If, then, Jesus is “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8), he must be willing and ready to heal all now who come to Christ, through the church, in faith.[5]

But we have more than this (somewhat dubious) a priori argument to go by: for Jesus passes on to his followers the power and responsibility to continue his own ministry of healing. The charges to both the twelve (Matt 10:l=Luke 9:1; cf. Matt 10:8) and the seventy (Luke 10:9) include the command to “heal the sick,” a charge that is renewed by the resurrected Christ, who commands the disciples to “lay their hands on the sick” with the promise that “they will recover” (Mark 16:18). And Luke records the fulfillment of this command and promise: Peter heals the lame man at the Temple (Acts 3:1–10), Aeneas in Lydda (Acts 9:32–35) and even brings a woman back to life (Acts 10:36–43). Paul, not to be outdone, also heals a lame man in Lystra (Acts 14:8–10), the father of Publius on Malta (Acts 28:7–8) and restores Eutychus to life at Troas (Acts 20:9–12 — although it is not entirely clear whether Eutychus was dead). Both Peter and Paul heal indirectly (Acts 5:15; 19:11–12). Luke, in fact, is at pains to show that “signs and wonders” accompanied the preaching of the early Christians (Acts 5:12) and were no small reason for the success of their evangelism.

Should not the church today be characterized by the same “signs and wonders”? As disciples of Jesus Christ are we not recipients of the Scriptural privilege — nay, command — to “heal the sick”? Does not Jesus himself promise that we will accomplish “greater works” than even he (John 14:12)? And, since both Jesus and the early Christians (cf. Acts 5:16) healed all who came to them, should not a biblically-faithful church today have a similar track record?

This argument for divine healing is repeated again and again in the literature and in the teaching of the HWG. One could, of course, quibble about details — Mark 16:15 is almost certainly not part of inspired Scripture[6]; the charges to the twelve and to the seventy cannot without careful qualification be made applicable to the church at large; and John 14:12 is probably not promising that disciples will perform greater miracles than Jesus, but that the coming of the Spirit will enable them to enroll people from the entire world on the lists of those members of the Kingdom of God[7] —but the argument as to the situation in the early church is sound enough. The question, of course, is the significance of this situation in the early church for the church today.

Suspicious of Roman Catholic claims that their miracles accredited their doctrines and their Church, the Reformers argued that these “signs and wonders” were strictly confined to the apostolic age.[8] They were used by God to accredit the bearers of revelation; that revelation being closed after the death of the apostles, no more such miracles can be expected. We should point out, by the way, that this view in no way dismisses the supernatural from playing a role in the life of the church, including physical healing: the question, rather, is whether God supernaturally heals through the “suspension” of the “laws of nature,” e.g., miraculously. The position of the Reformers is argued cogently and with skeptical analysis of many reported phenomena to the contrary by B.B. Warfield in Counterfeit Miracles.[9] And this view resembles in important ways the “cessationist” view espoused by many dispensa-tionalists.[10] Its advocates can make a pretty good case. The relevant promises of Jesus are all made to the apostles, or to those who could be regarded as acting in the capacity of apostles (e.g., the “seventy”). All those who perform miracles in the Book of Acts are apostles. Moreover, standard hermeneutical procedure dictates that Christian doctrine and practice should be based primarily on teaching passages — and the epistles have very little to say about healings.

The Reformers are right to raise questions about a willy-nilly application to the contemporary church of what was true for the apostolic church. As the plan of God unfolds in time, different periods are characterized by different elements and emphases: and what God chooses to do in one period or epoch cannot necessarily be assumed to be what he will do in another. We would, in fact, expect that there would be features unique to the apostolic age. Most Protestants would agree, for instance, that the mediation of divine inscripturated revelation is confined to this period of time — and associated particularly with the apostles themselves. Similarly, the apostles play a unique role in salvation history as the “foundation” for the church (Eph 2:20; cf. Matt 16:18). These differences between the apostles and any Christian in our day, and, therefore, between the apostolic age and our’s, cannot be glossed over. And this means that it is simplistic to argue that because Jesus and the apostles performed miracles of healing, the church in our day can. Particularly is this so if we view the miracles as having the purpose of accrediting individuals. For if anyone is capable of wielding miraculous powers, the miracles cease to have any value in marking off individuals as in any way distinctive. Warfield puts the point this way: “If miracles came to be common, every-day occurrences, normal and not extraordinary, they cease to attract attention, and lose their very reason for existence.”[11]

Evangelists for the HWG, as well as many other advocates of miraculous healing, frequently fail to take seriously enough the discontinuities that are the product of salvation history. We cannot imitate everything Jesus did; there were features unique to the apostolic age; Peter, Paul, and the other apostles had an authority and position not held by anyone since their day. Moreover, Luke does appear to attach the working of miracles closely to the persons of the apostles: “Many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles” (Acts 5:12); when Tabitha dies, the local Christians do not bring her back to life, but send for Peter (9:38); again, in Ephesus, Luke affirms that it was “by the hands of Paul” that “extraordinary miracles” were performed. Luke’s presentation of miracles in Acts is debated, but a good case can be made for thinking that he views “signs and wonders” as having particular relevance in the accrediting of the apostles. And note also 2 Cor 12:12: “the signs of a true apostle were performed among you in all patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” All this lends plausibility to the argument that we should not expect miracles to be as pervasive in the church in our day as it was in the days of Jesus or the apostles.

We are not, however, convinced that the Reformers are right to deny the possibility of miraculous healing after the apostolic age. First, while the evidential value of miracles cannot be gainsaid —and the HWG is to be faulted for downplaying or ignoring this —the miracles of Jesus and the apostles have a significance beyond the evidential (see the following section). This being so, there is no reason to think that miracles could only be done by Jesus or the apostles. Second, the possibility that God will heal miraculously in the continuing life of the church appears to be implied by Jas 5:14–16. Here, it is not the apostles, but “the elders of the church” who pray and anoint with oil with the purpose of bringing physical healing. This makes Calvin’s view (cf. Institutes 4.19.18) that this power to heal was confined to the apostolic age untenable. Warfield, on the other hand, finds “nothing miraculous” in the circumstances of the healing.[12] But the simple assertions that the prayer of faith will “save” — e.g., heal — the one who is sick, and that “the Lord will raise him up,” point to a healing that occurs outside the sphere of natural physical healing or medical therapy. Third, there is no reason to think that the “gift of healing” mentioned by Paul in 1 Cor 12:9 and 28 has been withdrawn from the church.

Other points will arise in the course of this discussion that follows; but it suffices for now to say that we find no reason to rule out the possibility of miraculous healing after the age of the apostles; and some reason to expect that such healings would continue to occur. While critical of the hermeneutical naivete by which their conclusions are reached, we agree, then, with the HWG that miracles of divine healing can still occur. Indeed, the openness in this movement to the possibility of miraculous interventions of God may be more “biblical” than the skepticism that too many of us unwittingly share with our materialistic culture. When, however, the HWG argues that the healings of Jesus or the apostolic church give reason to think that all Christians should be healed, they have gone far beyond the evidence. To be sure, Jesus and the apostles are never seen to have “turned away” a person who came to them for healing; but neither are they said to have healed all the sick they came into contact with. A “multitude” of sick people lay by the Pool of Bethzatha; Jesus, as far as we are told, healed only one (John 5:1–9). One could argue, of course, that it was only this individual who had the faith to be healed, but we are then importing an element that is not mentioned in the text. The point is that the actual healing practices of Jesus and the apostles provide us no evidence at all about how widespread we should expect miraculous healing to be in our day.

II. Signs Of The Kingdom

The miracles of Jesus and the apostles had evidential value —that is, they were, as John calls them, “signs” of something else, pointers to the truth that Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God and the apostles his accredited representatives. Nevertheless, as recent scholarship has particularly — and in some cases in too one-sided a fashion — emphasized, the miracles had other purposes than this. When Jesus is asked by John the Baptist whether he is the “one to come” or not, he sends back the reply: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached them” (Matt 11:4–5). Jesus’ point is that he is accomplishing those things that the prophets predicted would occur at the coming of the Kingdom, in the Messianic age (his language reflects several texts from Isaiah: cf. 29:18, 35:5–6, 42:18). Similarly, Jesus claims that his exorcisms indicate the presence of the Kingdom (Matt 12:28). Jesus’ miracles do not just prove who he is, but reveal the presence the kingdom. Their evidential value lies not in their being pointers to the kingdom, but in being signs of the kingdom. The miracles of Jesus are not “external” signs, but “internal” signs, part of the reality to which they point. When the reign of God is established, Satan is vanquished, the dead are raised, illness is no more. Jesus’ exorcisms, raisings of the dead and healings give evidence that the kingdom of God is at work in his ministry.

The implications of this for divine healing in our day can be formulated in a simple syllogism: where the kingdom of God is present, the healing of diseases is present; the kingdom of God is present in and through the church in our day; therefore the healing of diseases must be present in and through the church in our day. To be sure, one could quarrel with either of the premises. The second, for instance, is denied by advocates of the “postponed kingdom” theory: that Jesus offered the kingdom to the Jews, only to have it rejected, and so “postponed” until his second coming. On this view, held by many dispensationalists, we should not necessarily expect divine healing in our day because the kingdom is not, in fact, present. But this view of the kingdom appears to be losing ground; and a pretty good consensus of evangelicals from various theological persuasions hold to some form of “inaugurated” eschatology, whereby it is held that the kingdom of God has been inaugurated through Jesus’ first coming, but will be “climaxed” or fulfilled only at this second. On this view, the kingdom is indeed present in our day, and we should expect to see signs of that kingdom.

But there is more reason to question the first premise. Granted that the miraculous healing of diseases was part of the kingdom’s power in Jesus’ day, can we say that it is a necessary part of the kingdom? That wherever the kingdom is, the miraculous healing of diseases must be taking place? This is not clear. Nowhere does the NT make this equation; and the paucity of references to healing as part of the life of the church in the epistles suggests that the insistence on such an equation is not in keeping with the biblical emphasis and perspective. What can be said, it seems to us, is that the presence of the reign of God in and through the church makes miracles of healing possible, but not necessary. Biblical balance is best preserved if Christians remain open to the exercise of miraculous healings, but do not insist on them. While the evidence is notoriously difficult to evaluate — and many in the divine healing movement have been far too quick to identify “miraculous” healings — there does seem to be reason to think that God has bestowed miracles on one time and place and withheld them from others. Error on each side is perilously easy: to expect miracles so eagerly that natural or at best ambiguous circumstances are labelled miracles; and to be so closed to the possibility that unbelief stifles miracles or prevents them from being recognized when they do occur. Scripture and history suggest that God bestows miracles in sovereign freedom; and we would do well not to force the evidence one way or the other.

But the understanding of physical well-being as a sign of the kingdom has another important implication for the HWG. As we have seen, proponents of the movement proclaim that God’s will is to heal all believers in this life. But such a view buys into what many scholars have labelled “over-realized eschatology” — the mistake, probably the root of the problem at Corinth, of thinking that God’s kingdom has already arrived in its full and final state. If this were so, we would indeed expect healing to be available for everyone; indeed, we would expect there to be no need for healing, because there would be no disease or physical incapacity of any kind — we would all enjoy transformed bodies. But God has not chosen to bring the kingdom into existence in its final state at this point in time. As the parables of Matthew 13 and other passages teach, the kingdom, which was inaugurated at Jesus’ death and resurrection, has not come in its fullness. Jesus will come again to eradicate sin entirely, vanquish Satan and restore the unchallenged reign of God. The believer in this life lives in the “already-not yet” tension of this salvation-historical framework. And to expect physical well-being and divine healing to characterize every believer is to ignore the “not yet” side of this tension. Only in the final state of the kingdom has God promised to remove all disease and physical incapacity; in Jesus’ miracles, in the apostles’ miracles, and in those miraculous healings that still take place, God graciously “anticipates” for some individuals this final state. But to expect physical ailments to be eradicated from the church in this age is just as foolish as to expect physical death to be removed, natural disasters to stop occurring and the power of sin to be destroyed. The HWG is right to proclaim that God has promised to remove all our physical infirmities; but they are wrong to claim that we can expect this to take place in this life. As Adrio König puts it, “If the prosperity gospel is an accurate reflection of the gospel, one might ask whether we still need a new earth?”[13]

Finally, without denying that miracles can be used of God to point people to Jesus Christ and to the message of the gospel, we should not lose sight of Paul’s teaching that God’s strength is often made known in “weakness” (cf. 2 Corinthians 10–13). It is not always the spectacular, or the comfortable, or the triumphant that manifests the kingdom; often it is the quiet, the suffering and (apparent) defeat.

III. Suffering, Sickness, And Divine Sovereignty

Is it ever God’s will for a Christian to experience illness or physical incapacity? No, answer advocates of the HWG; God wants every believer to be healthy, and makes health freely available — all we have to do is ask in faith. No, answers Ken Blue of the Vineyard movement — God wants every believer to be healthy, although in addition to this purpose being defeated by ignorance or lack of faith on the part of Christians, Satan also has the power to prevent healing from occurring.

We are not so sure that this answer is correct. The question is a tricky one. The phrase “God’s will” conceals a crucial issue: do we mean God’s “decretive” will or his “permissive” will? And at some point along the line we run up against the insoluble issue of the relationship between God’s sovereignty over all things and the existence of evil. How can God exercise such control of all the circumstances of life such that “all things work to our good” (Rom 8:28) and yet be untainted by evil? This is not the place, nor does this writer have the competence, to deal adequately with these larger issues.[14] But one thing is clear: however we explain it, the Scriptures make clear that God is, in some sense, “behind” all things —even evil things, although he is, of course not responsible for, or the cause of, that evil. Anything less than this makes God less than the God of the Bible, the God who sovereignly disposes all things according to his will. God judges his people through the evil of human greed and violence (the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns against Israel) and through the evil of sickness and death (1 Cor 5:5, 11:29–30). To argue that Satan inflicts the suffering of physical illness on believers against God’s “will” — however we finally define it — comes close to an unbiblical dualism.

If this is so, we cannot exempt sickness from the NT statements about the purpose and value of suffering. Such a distinction is made by a number of writers who want to avoid the idea that sickness may be a divinely-”allowed … trial” intended to strengthen the faith of the believer.[15] According to these authors, the suffering that Christians can expect in this life and which they are to endure patiently as a faith-refining experience is confined to persecution, “suffering for Christ.” But this will not do. To be sure, the word πάσχω (“suffer”) and its cognates often refer specifically to persecution in the NT (e.g., Phil 1:29; 1 Thess 2:14; 2 Thess 1:5; 1 Peter passim), but the word group is not limited to persecution. “Suffering with Christ” (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10) or “for Christ” is a broad concept that includes all those difficulties and trials that befall a Christian in this age of warfare between God and Satan. Note that “suffering with Christ” in Rom 8:17 is described as the “sufferings of this present age” (τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ) in 8:18 —and the context allows no restriction in the scope of those “sufferings” (see v 35, where trials such as “famine,” “nakedness” and “peril” are mentioned). Even more to the present point is 2 Cor 1:3–11, where the “sufferings” Paul has endured (v 6) are narrowed specifically to the “affliction” (θλίψις) he experienced in Asia (v 8); and the description of this affliction in vv 9–10 best fits a physical illness.[16] In the same way, the assurances in Rom 5:3–4 that “tribulations” (θλίψεις) and in Jas 1:24 that “trials” (πειρασμοί) will have beneficial spiritual results for the believer cannot be confined to the situation of persecution. Neither word is so restricted in the NT. θλίψις refers to mental distress in 1 Cor 7:28 and Phil 1:17, to the various difficulties experienced by Joseph in Egypt in Acts 7:10, and to the physical sufferings resulting from famine in Acts 7:11. And πειρασμός refers specifically to a physical illness of Paul’s in Gal 4:14.

This is probably the place also to look at one of the most debated biblical texts about sickness and divine healing: 2 Cor 12:7–9, where Paul describes his “thorn in the flesh.” If Paul refers here to a physical illness, we would have conclusive biblical evidence both that God does not always remove sickness from faithful believers and that God has a positive purpose in allowing his servants to suffer illness. Advocates of the HWG, along with most evangelists for “divine healing,” deny that the “thorn” is a physical illness. The word translated “thorn,” σκόλοψ, is used in the LXX to denote adversaries of Israel who oppress and scorn Israel (Num 33:55; Ezek 28:24), and this has led many to argue that the word is an idiom for oppression. This is certainly not true: we have far too few occurrences of the word with this connotation to justify calling it an idiom. But the LXX evidence does allow this interpretation; and there is no doubt that Paul has a great deal to day about “false apostles” who are contesting his apostleship and sincerity toward the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians. Moreover, the use of the dative τῇ σαρκί — rather, than, e.g., the prepositional phrase ἐν τῇ σαρκί — may suggest that the “thorn” was not a difficulty “in” Paul’s body, but a trial “to” himself (σάρξ in the general sense of “person”).[17] Yet, three considerations suggest the reference might be to a physical ailment of some kind. First, the style of the text resembles certain Hellenistic literary forms in which physical weakness was usually the subject.[18] Second, Paul goes on in the text. Yet “weakness” in Paul refers to the incapacities and corruptible aspects of life in this age before the final redemption (Rom 6:19, 8:26; 1 Cor 2:3, 15:43; 2 Cor 11:30, 13:4 — in Gal 4:13 and in 1 Tim 5:23, it refers to physical illness or incapacity). This fits a reference to physical incapacity much better than a reference to oppressors or opponents of the gospel. Third, the way in which Paul ascribes his thorn both to God (“it was given”) and to Satan (“a messenger of Satan”) resembles other texts in which physical incapacities are described (1 Cor 5:5; cf. Job 2:1–10).[19]

We think that Paul’s “thorn” was most likely an unidentifiable physical incapacity.[20] If so, several conclusions result. First, we see that illness is something that can be described both as “given by God” (the implied agent of the passive verb ἐδόθη is God) and as a “messenger of Satan.” We could ask for no clearer expression of the tension between the ultimacy of God and the agency of Satan in suffering than this. Second, unless we are prepared to fault Paul for lack of faith, it is clear prayers offered in faith do not always bring physical healing. Third, and the point of most relevance to our present discussion: we have a clear indication that God brings physical suffering on his people with the purpose of improving their spiritual lives. Paul’s thorn had the purpose of curbing his pride; and God may both bring and allow to remain physical difficulties in the lives of other believers to accomplish similar spiritual good. Nevertheless, we cannot be certain that Paul is speaking here of a physical malady; and the issue is clouded enough to make it necessary to use this text only with caution in the case we are building. We therefore prefer to use it only to corroborate points based on texts elsewhere rather than to use it as the primary basis for an argument.

What we want to argue in this section is that physical illness cannot be excluded from those sufferings that Christians can expect to experience in this life and from the assurances God gives that such sufferings will be used by God to bring spiritual benefit to the Christian who responds to them in the right way. This is not to say that physical illness is a divine visitation that must always be passively accepted. Nor are we suggesting that sickness is a “blessing”; for sickness, whatever God’s ultimacy in relation to it, is always an evil, one instance of that tragic disruption in God’s creation that has resulted from the fall. But the texts we have examined do show that sickness can bring blessing; and that the Christian who has come to accept his or her sickness as a divinely-allowed trial that is not going to be removed and who seeks to grow and learn through and because of that sickness is by no means taking an unbiblical position. Indeed, accepting as God’s will and living triumphantly under a physical disability may evidence a faith far stronger than a “name and claim it” attitude that demands healing from God.

IV. Healing And Salvation

Partly due to the influx of eastern modes of thinking in the last decades, the western world has awakened to the interrelationship of mind and body. In the medical profession, this has brought an increasing emphasis on the psychical and emotional causes of physical disorders. In Christian circles, emphasis has been put on “wholistic healing.” To the extent that this approach gives due recognition to the biblical perspective on human beings an integrated wholes, and on salvation as affecting the body as well as the soul, this is welcome. Advocates of the HWG and of divine healing generally are justified in criticizing the church in the west for too often unintentionally fostering an unbiblical anthropological dualism by confining God’s concerns to the human soul.

Nevertheless, certain distinctions are important. First, we must distinguish the obvious fact that living according to God’s guidelines can often foster good health from what the HWG is saying. To the extent that a Christian, following biblical precepts and principles, refrains from excessive consumption of alcohol, the taking of unnecessary drugs, and sexual promiscuity, and maintains a positive mental attitude as a result of the security and joy in knowing Christ, he or she can be expected to avoid illnesses that those who do not refrain from these things will often suffer. On the other hand, the most scrupulous adherence to these biblical guidelines in the world will not keep the believer from getting multiple sclero-sis, becoming disabled as a result of an auto accident or developing a brain tumor. Right living can help us avoid some diseases: but not all, or even most diseases. The HWG insists that the Christian can avoid disease by “claiming” the promise of perfect health from God by faith. The “wholistic” or “mental” or “spiritual” health movement must, then, be carefully distinguished from the HWG.

Our evaluation of the HWG’s teaching on this matter also requires some distinctions. First, while agreeing that the body and the soul cannot ultimately be separated, and that God’s salvific promises refer to both, we must ask whether there are not distinctions to be made in the nature and the timing of the salvation God has promised the soul of man on the one hand and the body on the other. That a distinction in timing is necessary is suggested by the salvation-historical “already-not yet” tension we elaborated above. A key element in the “not yet” part of the Christian’s salvation is the transformation of the body. Not until death or Christ’s return in glory will the bodies of believers be “redeemed” (cf. Rom 8:23) through resurrection (for those who have died) and transformation (for those who are alive at Christ’s return). Until then, Christians “groan” in limited and sin-prone bodies (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 5:2); “earthen vessels” in which “death is at work” (2 Cor 4:7–12). Without suggesting that the “already-not yet” tension is equivalent to a “soul-body” distinction — for that is clearly not the case — it remains true that the physical body is clearly said not to have participated fully yet in the salvific benefits of Christ’s death. Advocates of the HWG admit, of course, that Christians live in bodies that will die; but can we distinguish between the death of the body and the illnesses that afflict and often bring about the death of the body? Indeed, is not aging itself, with the limitations in physical abilities that it brings, a type of that physical incapacity of which illness is another type? Once again, the HWG has committed the error of “over-realized eschatology” in claiming that the benefits of salvation can be claimed for the body in this life the same way in which they can be claimed for the soul.

But a distinction must also be made in the nature of the salvation that is experienced by the body on the one hand and the soul on the other. To be sure, to speak this way is in itself rather unbibli-cal: for it is the person — a physico-spiritual unity — who is saved. But what we have in mind is what seems to be a necessary distinction between the immediate and mediate affects of Christ’s salvific work. Christ died “for our sins”; and when we believe, we are saved from both the penalty and the power of sin. Salvation from sin is the immediate purpose for which Christ died; and this salvation, because it ultimately works to undo all the effects of sin, eventually brings transformation of the body as well. But the latter is a mediate rather than an immediate effect of Christ’s death.

This distinction raises questions about the popular belief that there is “healing in the atonement.” The classic text to which appeal is made for substantiation of this belief is Matt 8:17. The evangelist here claims that Jesus’ healing of diseases fulfills Isa 53:4: “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases” (αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἠμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόμους ἐβάστεσεν). This same verse is quoted in 1 Pet 2:24, but with reference to Jesus’ vicarious “bearing” of our sins (Peter, like the LXX, describes Christ as bearing our “sins” [ἁμαρτίας] rather than our “diseases”). And later in this same verse, Peter also cites Isa 53:5, “by his wounds you have been healed,” also with reference to spiritual rather than physical “healing.”[21] The argument is then that Jesus atoned for our sicknesses in the same way that he atoned for our sins; and the one, like the other, may be claimed through faith.[22] Even if this were true, it would not lead to the conclusion that God will heal all diseases of all believers in this life; for, as we have seen, the application of Christ’s redemptive work takes place over a period of time — and the NT makes clear that we cannot expect the transformation of our bodies in this life. But, to ask the prior question, can we claim on the basis of Matt 8:17 that “there is healing in the atonement”?

The problem is that Matthew says nothing in this context about Jesus’ death. Matthew may not, then, have Jesus’ death in mind at all as he cites Isa 53:4: the verse, in the Hebrew text that he appears to use, may simply have presented itself to him as a useful OT “prooftext” for the healing ministry of Jesus.[23] But we may question whether Matthew would have used this verse without regard for its context. For he, like other NT authors, applies Isaiah 53 to the vicarious death of Christ (Matthew uses Isaiah 53 with reference to Jesus’ suffering and death in the “passion predictions” [17:22, 20:18, 26:2] and in 20:28 and 26:28). This makes it more likely that Matthew considers Christ’s bearing of diseases to have reference to the cross.[24] This being the case, we are justified in concluding that Matt 8:17 implies that Jesus’ death is the basis for his healing of physical disease. But we should probably refrain from speaking of healing being “in” the atonement. For, as Warfield points out, “atonement” has to do with the cancellation of guilt, and should be directly applied only to sins.[25] We would prefer, then, to say that physical healing is one effect of the atoning death of Christ.

This being the case, and the effects of Christ’s death being applied to people through a process of time, it is specious to claim that the believer must have deliverance from sickness in the same way and to the same extent that he or she has deliverance from sin. The atoning death of Christ provides for the healing of all our diseases — but nothing in Matthew or in the NT implies that this healing will take place in this life. Indeed, as we have seen, the NT gives reason to think that triumph over physical disease, like triumph over physical death, will not come for most believers until the future “redemption of the body.”

V. Faith And The Promises

In a thought-provoking essay, C.S. Lewis explores the NT teaching on petitionary prayer.[26] He finds two apparently conflicting patterns. One, exhibited by Christ in Gethsemane, lacks specificity, leaving things up to God — “let your will be done.” Such a pattern suggests an attitude of self-doubt and humble dependence. Not being able to know and discern God’s will because of our present “weakness” (Rom 8:26), we must qualify even our specific requests with an “if it be thy will.” The other pattern of prayer, however, is one of bold confidence that God will give us whatever we ask. It is taught in Mark 11:23–24, where Jesus tells his disciples

Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (RSV)

Lewis himself does not resolve the conflict between these two patterns, but Kenneth Hagin, a prominent exponent of the HWG, argues that the former is to be used only in prayers of “consecration,” while the latter is the appropriate pattern for prayers of petition.[27] Indeed, Mark 11:23–24 is a key passage for the HWG, substantiating two of their key tenets: that faith is the means of getting whatever God has for us; and that a “positive confession” — “believe that you have received it” — is necessary to secure an answer from God.

To be fair to the preachers of the HWG, while they are not always as careful to state the qualification as they might be, they hold that the believer has the right to “name and claim” only those things that the Bible has promised the believer. But once the believer realizes that he or she has been promised what he or she is praying for, qualifying the prayer with an “if it be thy will” is unnecessary. Worse, it is harmful, because it suggests an attitude of doubt toward what God has promised; and a prayer uttered in such doubt is not likely to be answered.

The nub of the issue, then, is whether God has promised healing in this life to every believer. If He has, then bold, unqualified petitions requesting that healing are entirely in place — and we may confidently expect God’s answer. We have already suggested that God has not, in fact, made such a promise to believers; but we need now to look at a text that appears to suggest the contrary, and to analyze further the place of faith in divine healing.

Jas 5:14–16 is perhaps the most important text in the NT on the topic of divine healing, for it is the only prescriptive text that appears to apply to the church at large. It therefore deserves careful consideration here.

Is any among you sick? 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 will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. (RSV)

A few scholars have claimed that the text is not about physical illness at all; that the “weakness” referred to (the word translated “sick” by RSV in v. 14 is ἀσθενία is a spiritual problem or an interrelational problem.[28] But this is most unlikely, for the vocabulary of the passage resembles very closely narratives of physical healings in the gospels. There is also, of course, great controversy over the reference to “anointing with oil.” Some take this to be a sacramental action, a means by which God’s healing grace is conveyed to the person who is sick.[29] Others insist that the use of oil has purely medicinal purposes. We know that oil was widely used as a medicine in the ancient world (cf. Luke 10:34); and James’s choice of the word ἀλείφω rather than χρίω to describe the action of “anointing,” or “rubbing,” may suggest that he has in mind a physically- rather than a religiously-oriented action. An implication of this view that renders it very attractive is the clear biblical endorsement it would give to the use of medicine and other appropriate medical remedies on the part of believers. To be sure, the HWG is not generally characterized by the extreme position of a Hobart Freeman, who counseled his church members not to use any medical remedies at all. A more typical view in the HWG is that medicine and doctors should be used by anyone who is not absolutely certain of having the faith necessary for healing.[30] Still, this easily leads to abuse, and the interpretation of “anointing with oil” in Jas 5:14 as a medical remedy would affirm the use of medicine in divine healing, and in conjunction with the faith of the believer, and would severely damage the HWG’s case.

Nevertheless, this interpretation is probably not correct. Nothing from the ancient world would lead us to expect that oil would be an appropriate remedy for any sickness; yet this is what would seem to be implied on this view. Moreover, it is peculiar that James would make the elders of the church responsible for the administration of medical remedies. The best interpretation is that the anointing with oil is a symbolic action, intended to assure the sick person that he or she is being singled out for special attention from the Lord. Anointing has this significance in both the OT and the NT; and James probably uses the word ἀλείφω because the action, though symbolic, is nevertheless, a real, physical action.[31] This does not, of course, mean that James would discourage the sick person from seeking appropriate medical help; indeed, we may surmise that he, and other NT authors felt about doctors as did the second century B.C. Jew who wrote

Honor the physician with the honor due him, according to your need of him, for the Lord created him; for healing comes from the Most High, and he will receive a gift from the king. The skill of the physician lifts up his head, and in the presence of great men he is admired. He created medicines from the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them. (Sirach 38:1–4)

The element in the text that is directly relevant to our present purpose, however, is the promise of v 14: “the prayer of faith will save him.” James does not qualify this assertion; and it appears to support the HWG in their claim that God will heal everyone who prays for healing in faith. We can avoid this conclusion, of course, by taking the promise to mean simply that God will, sometime, heal the person who is sick — although not, perhaps, until Heaven. But the promise then becomes a truism; and James appears to be promising more immediate results. Nevertheless, the claims made for this verse by the HWG are not without their difficulties. Two qualifications, one minor, one major, are needed.

The minor qualification is that, since it is the elders whom James counsels to pray in v 14, the faith that backs up the prayer in v 15 must also be the faith of the elders’ — not the faith of the person who is sick. Technically, then, this verse gives no support at all to the contention that the person who is sick can be healed by his or her faith.

The major qualification has to do with the nature and origin of the faith exercised in the context of this prayer. The HWG advocates assume that faith is a sort of emotion that one can build up by one’s own will power. Hence the constant encouragement to have “enough” faith to claim God’s promise of healing. Yet this view of faith appears to be less than biblical. Faith is God’s gift — and while human beings are responsible to exercise that faith, it cannot be manufactured by a human. We can often stifle faith by closing our minds and our spirits to God’s work; but we may question whether we can get faith apart from God’s will and work. This being the case, James’s addition of the word “of faith” (πίστεως) to the word “prayer” in v 15 may express not a condition that can be met on man’s part, but a condition that can ultimately be met only by God. In other words, we may question whether the faith to pray effectively for healing can be present unless it is God’s will to heal. As H. van der Loos puts it,”… faith, forgiveness and healing are all three in essence dispensations of the grace of God. This implies that the relations between these three are not governed by the law of causality but by the will and intention of God.”[32] At times God may grant us the insight to see that it is, indeed, his will to heal: and we can pray in the consciousness that we have the faith to grasp this promise of God. On the other hand, perhaps most occasions — as Rom 8:26–27 suggests — will be characterized by ignorance on our part about God’s purpose to heal. We pray sincerely that God would bring healing; and with the faith that God can heal. But, not knowing the will of God for this specific circumstance, we cannot know whether the faith to tap into God’s healing power is present or not.[33]

On the view we are suggesting, then, faith is given the place that James accords it as an instrument in divine healing, but we avoid the implication that is unavoidable with the view of the HWG: that a failure to be healed must be due to people who have failed to exercise faith — whether the failure is that of the person who is sick, the “elders” who pray, or the church at large. As Barron puts it, the HWG at this point appears “to be following Job’s friends into theological error.”[34] On our view, a failure to be healed may be because of unconfessed sin (see v 15) or because someone stifled the faith that God had made available for the accomplishing of the healing, but it will perhaps more often be because God has not chosen to heal at that time.

This is not to devalue the importance of faith in divine healing. While faith is not always explicitly present when Jesus heals,[35] it is often prominently mentioned — cf. Jesus’ frequent assertion that “your faith has made you well” — and Mark 6:1–6 implies a close relationship between Jesus’ healing and belief (and cf. also Acts 14:13). The issue, rather, is how this faith is conceived, and how it is related to the sovereign purposes of God. It is just at this point that the issue raised by C.S. Lewis at the beginning of this section comes home to roost. For the issue he raises is ultimately the question of how the prayers of human beings interact with the sovereign purposes of God. No facile answer — and perhaps no logically satisfactory answer at all — can be given to this question. But what does seem clear is that the HWG loses biblical balance on this matter by giving too much place to human faith and too little to the sovereign, and sometimes mysterious, ways of God. As one critic has put it, “When faith becomes a ‘condition’ rather than the empty hands with which we receive God’s gift we are dealing with a man-centered gospel: God is there for the sake of supplying our needs.”[36] Praying “conditionally” — “if it be thy will” — is not a sign of doubt or unbelief but of humble recognition of our inability to know the mind of God. And Scripture does not suggest that cases of physical illness will be exempt from these uncertainties.

When properly regarded as a condition rather than as a cause, then, we can agree with the HWG that “faith gains whatever God has promised.” The crucial question is: what has God promised? No biblical or theological basis can be found for the HWG contention that God has promised physical well-being to every Christian in this life;[37] and several of the texts we have examined in earlier sections suggest, in fact, the contrary.

Much more could be said about the HWG teaching about physical healing; and far more needs to be said on the larger question of physical healing in general. We close, however, with a final observation. We may — justly — criticize the HWG for its excesses and for its obsession with the things of “this world” — material prosperity and physical well-being. Yet is not the HWG simply a symptom of a much more widespread disease: a preoccupation with personal material well-being? a preoccupation that is eating into western Christianity like a cancer? The HWG deserves, and requires, criticism. But we should not criticize it without stopping to consider whether we, too, are guilty of similar misconceptions and imbalance. Do we give material things and physical health the place in our prayers, in our work and in our priorities that corresponds to the biblical worldview? Are we as willing to sacrifice material and physical ease for the sake of bringing others to know Christ as was Paul? Until we answer these questions positively, we must be sure to include in our criticisms of the HWG a healthy dose of self-criticism as well.

Notes

1. Brief surveys of this history are found in Paul G. Chappell, “The Birth of the Divine Healing Movement in America,” Healing in the Name of God (ed. Pieter G.R. de Villiers; Pretoria, South Africa: C.B. Powell Bible Centre, 1986) 60–78 and in Bruce Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987) 35–60.
2. Cf. e.g., Ken Blue, Authority to Heal (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987).
3. Authority to Heal 37–8.
4. Barron claims that the teaching of “positive confession” is the third key belief — after “health” and “wealth” — of the HWG (Health and Wealth Gospel 71–3).
5. Cf., e.g., Edwin Howard Cobb, Christ Healing (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1933) 1–7.
6. Despite recent arguments to the contrary, the textual evidence is decisively against the inclusion of 16:9–20 in the original text of Mark’s gospel.
7. E.g., Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 645–6; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (2nd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) 460.
8. E.g., Calvin, Institutes 4.19.18.
9. London: Banner of Truth, 1972 (=1918).
10. Cf. Richard Mayhue, Divine Healing Today (Chicago: Moody, 1983) 77–9.
11. Counterfeit Miracles 193.
12. Counterfeit Miracles 169–73.
13. “Healing as an integral part of Salvation,” Healing in the Name of God 92.
14. Cf. D.A. Carson, Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 201–22 for some suggestions toward a biblically-balanced statement of the issue.
15. E.g., Blue, Authority to Heal 21–40.
16. Murray J. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 322.
17. E.g., R.V.G. Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958) 173–7.
18. Victor Paul Furnish, lI Corinthians (AnBib; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 548–50.
19. Harris, “2 Corinthians,” 396.
20. J. Wilkinson provides a full discussion of the medical alternatives; he leans toward malaria (Health and Healing: Studies in New Testament Principles Practices [Edinburgh: Handsel, 1980] 112–42).
21. Some divine healing advocates appear to think that Peter is speaking here of physical healing: but this is manifestly not the case.
22. Cobb Christ Healing 23; T.L. Osborn, Healing the Sick (Tulsa, OK: T.L. Osborn Evangelistic Association, 1961) 27–8.
23. Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (London: Macmillan, 1928) 107–8.
24. Cf., e.g., D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (ed. Frank E. Gaebelein; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 205–7.
25. Counterfeit Miracles 175–6.
26. “Petitionary Prayer: A Problem without an Answer,” most conveniently found in Christian Reflections (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 142–51.
27. Cf. Barron, Health and Wealth Gospel 107–8.
28. E.g., M. Meinertz, “Die Krankensalbung Jak. 5, 14f, ” BibZeit 20 (1932) 23–36; C. Amerding,”Is any among you afflicted? A Study of James 5:13–20, ” BibSac 95 (1938) 195–201; D.R. Hayden, “Calling the Elder to Pray,” BibSac 138 (1981) 258–86.
29. The Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction is based on this view.
30. Cf. Barron, Health and Wealth Gospel 83–6.
31. For substantiation and more detail, see Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 177–81.
32. The Miracles of Jesus (NovTSup 9; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 263.
33. Again, see Moo, James 183–7 for more detail.
34. Health and Wealth Gospel 83.
35. See the surveys in Johann Engelbrecht, “‘The Blind can see, the lame can walk, the deaf hear … ‘: Miracle Workers and their Miracles in the New Testament,” Healing in the Name of God 40; König, “Healing,” Healing in the Name of God 91.
36. Henry Lederie, “Models of Healing: A denominational charismatic Perspective,” Healing in the Name of God 131.
37. Two other texts are sometimes cited by the HWG in support of this universal promise, but neither is applicable. 3 John 2 — “I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in health” (ὑγιαίνειν) — is not a promise from God, but a prayer, or “wish” of John. And Rom 8:11 — “the Spirit … will give life to your mortal bodies” — plainly refers to eschatological transformation, not to physical well-being in this life.