Healing in the Bible
Image via WikipediaThe restoration of health (Ps. 41:3), the making whole or well whether physically, mentally, or spiritually. The Bible indicates that God’s highest will for man is for him to “enjoy good health … even as your soul is getting along well” (3 John 2).
Healing is a prominent topic in the Bible.
Sickness is cured by the supernatural intervention of God with or without the use of earthly means.
God himself proclaimed, “I am the LORD, who heals you” (Exod. 15:26), and Scripture clearly teaches that God heals all of man’s diseases (Ps. 103:3).
In the OT the word used most commonly to denote healing is rāpāʾ, in the LXX iaomai frequently stands for rāpāʾ, and in the NT healing is normally expressed by the words therapeuō and iaomai.
The Bible presents two basic views concerning healing and sickness.
1) In the OT Yahweh alone was the source of healing, just as he was considered the source of sickness. Summarizing the basic OT attitude concerning sickness and healing, Deuteronomy 32:39 portrays God as the direct dispenser of sickness and disease as punishment for man’s sin (see also Num. 12:9–15; 2 Chron. 21:18–19; 26:16–21), while healing is a reward for obedience, a manifestation of God’s forgiveness, mercy, and love (e.g., Gen. 20:17; Ps. 41:5).
This applied not only to individuals but also to entire nations (e.g., Exod. 23:22–25; Lev. 26:14–21; Num. 16:47; Deut. 7:15).
2) The second view of healing and sickness is not as prominent in the OT, although it is demonstrated in the book of Job, in certain healing stories, and in the Psalms. It is the motif upon which Jesus based his teachings. This view accepts sickness as the consequence of the universal corrupt nature of man caused by original sin (Gen. 2:17; 3:19; Rom. 5:12–21).
Thus as a result of the fall of man through Adam, mankind became naturally susceptible to disease. In the NT sickness and Satan continue to be closely related (Matt. 12:22–28; Luke 13:16; however, Jesus’ teachings, like the book of Job, demonstrate that sickness is not always divine punishment for man’s individual sins (although this remains possible, John 5:14), nor is it normative for God to use sickness as punishment.
Before Jesus healed a blind man his disciples asked, “ ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned,’ said Jesus, ‘but this happend so that the work of God might be displayed in his life’ ” (John 9:1–3; cf. 11:4).
Yet God does work through sickness to discipline and chasten his children (Heb. 12:6; Prov. 3:7–8, 11–12) and even to assist in developing faith, humility, and character, as in the case of Job and Paul (Job 40:4; 42:6; 2 Cor. 4:17).
Nevertheless, sickness is basically an evil that contradicts and hinders God’s will and desire for man.
In the healing ministry of Christ faith was a dominant factor. Normally faith on the part of the sufferer or by someone on his behalf was a prerequisite for healing and was assumed to be present, not initiated, by the healing itself (e.g., Matt. 8:13; 9:2, 22, 29; 15:28).
Illustrating this, Mark 6:5–6 and Matthew 13:58 expressly record that Christ could not heal in Nazareth due to the people’s lack of faith, and in Matthew 17:20 a healing was delayed because of a lack of faith. James 5:15 emphasizes that it is the prayer of faith that brings healing.
The most controversial theological aspect of divine healing is its relationship to the atonement. One view maintains that the privilege of physical healing is governed by the will and sovereignty of God—i.e., God heals whomever he wills. Most supporters of divine healing, however, believe that physical healing, like salvation, is an inheritance of every believer through the atoning death of Christ.
Using Matthew 8:16–17 to interpret Isaiah 53:4, this view concludes that Christ bore man’s bodily as well as his spiritual suffering on the cross. Thus one receives his physical healing by faith just as he receives his salvation.
Because of faith’s integral part in divine healing, some supporters of the doctrine believe the use of medical means and the supernatural are mutually exclusive. Since the root cause of sickness is sin and the only cure of sin is spiritual, they believe the only cure for sickness is spiritual.
Any medical attempt at helping would imply a lack of faith in God’s healing power. John Alexander Dowie’s 1895 sermon entitled “Doctors, Drugs and Devils; or the Foes of Christ the Healer” illustrates this view that medical means are Satan’s instruments to defeat the believer’s exercise of true faith.
The Bible, however, does not support this radical position. In both the OT and NT the medical means of the day were utilized (e.g., 2 Kings 20:2–11; Luke 10:34; 1 Tim. 5:23) unless they were connected with paganistic practices (e.g., Asa sought a physician who was the equivalent of a pagan magician, 2 Chron. 16:12).
The Jews of the dispersion believed “the Lord created medicines out of the earth, and a prudent man will have no disgust at them” (Sir. 38:1–15). Matthew 9:12 shows that Christ himself considered it normal for people to consult physicians.
The healing ministry of Jesus was continued through his commissioning and sending out of the twelve (Matt. 10:1–5; Mark 6:7–13; Luke 9:1–6) and the seventy (Luke 10:9). The book of Acts and the epistles provide clear evidence of the continuance of divine healing throughout the apostolic church, and James 5:14–16 placed the healing of the sick through the prayer of faith as a permanent provision and promise of the “righteous man.”
There is also abundant evidence through the early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Origen, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Augustine) to verify the continued widespread practice of divine healing after the time of the apostles. Pope Innocent I described anointing and prayer for the sick as a right which every sick believer should expect.
By the ninth century a significant decline in the practice of divine healing had begun. During the pre-Reformation period the practice of healing continued, but only in isolated instances, as with Bernard of Clairvaux or the Waldensians.
Luther and the English Reformers renewed the practice in their ministries, and in the post-Reformation period such groups as the Brethren, Mennonites, Quakers, Moravians, and Wesleyans practiced the doctrine.
In the nineteenth century a healing revival exploded in Europe under the leadership of Dorthea Trudel, Otto Stockmayer, Johannes Blumhardt, and William Boardman.
In America during the nineteenth century the Holiness Movement began a distinctive divine healing ministry with such leaders as Charles Cullis, Carrie Judd Montgomery, A. B. Simpson, A. J. Gordon, R. A. Torrey, and John Alexander Dowie. Divine healing also became a major doctrine of the modern Pentecostal and charismatic movements.
From Genesis to Revelation, from the early church to the twentieth century, the record demonstrates that physical healing by divine intervention has been the experience of many of God’s people.
Elwell, W. A. (2001). Evangelical dictionary of theology: Second Edition (539–540). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
