When Jesus Heals—& When He Doesn’t: A Theology of Healing

Divine healings feature frequently both in the Old Testament and the New, and there is no lack of testimonies of healing throughout Christian history.¹ Alongside his teaching ministry, Jesus of Nazareth was an itinerant healer and exorcist. He sent his disciples to do the same. In the book of Acts, healings and other miraculous actions continued as an integral part of the church’s regular work and mission.

Jesus’s healings and deliverances point to the all-encompassing, holistic vision of Christian salvation. A biblically based way of expressing this is the Old Testament term שָׁלוֹם (shalom), which includes reconciliation and well-being in all its aspects, including physical, mental, and social health and integrity.

The prominence of healings and deliverances in his ministry raises the question as to why did Jesus heal. And related, whether there are any conditions or promises to it.

1. Why did Jesus heal?
2. Is there healing in the atonement?
3. What is the role of faith in healing?
4. How should we pray for healing?
5. What about when healing does not happen?
6. How should we live in-between “already” and “not yet”?

Theology

We begin by considering several of these theological questions.

Why did Jesus heal?

In light of the New Testament testimonies, there are two interrelated reasons behind Jesus’s healing ministry.

First, healings were occasioned by compassion: “When he went ashore, he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion for them and cured their sick” (Matt 14:14 NRSV). The Greek word σπλαγχνίζομαι (literally, “to be moved as to one’s bowels”) means a thoroughgoing physical-mental reaction to the despair of the suffering person.

Second, the New Testament also forges an important connection with the kingdom of God. As is well-known, the whole focus of Jesus’s coming, his ministry, and his proclamation was the coming kingdom established by his Father. Importantly, healings, deliverances, and forgiveness of sins heralded the coming of the kingdom.

Yet, until the kingdom appears in its fullness, every healing, every cure, every raising from the dead is not yet final, only anticipatory. Those healed would sooner or later catch another disease. Those raised from the dead would encounter death again. But at the final coming of the kingdom, all sicknesses, frailties, and even the threat of death will be overcome. Every opening of the eyes of the blind points to the coming of the glory too bright for human eyes to see. Hence, in the meantime we live in the dynamic between the “already” and the “not yet.”

So far, most theologians and ministers probably agree. But disagreements and questions emerge as soon as we introduce the following two questions.

Is there healing in the atonement?

Christian theology affirms the close link between the atonement and healing based on OT testimonies (Isa 53:4–5) and their creative use in the NT (Matt 8:17; 1 Pet 2:24).

With the rise of the modern healing movements, the so-called “healing in atonement” principle was established. It argues that as surely as there is atonement for sin, there is also a universal provision of healing for all by virtue of the cross.

But how exactly are the two—atonement and healing—linked theologically? It is instructive to see how Matthew 8:17 applies Isaiah 53:4–5 to Jesus’s healing ministry: “He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.” Matthew makes no reference to the cross here; the passion comes much later in the narrative. And even if later Christian theology makes the connection to the cross, there is no justification to do so in the manner that the technical contemporary phrase “healing in the atonement” claims.

Even less can that formula be supported in the context of 1 Peter’s use of Isaiah’s passage. Both in the context of the epistle as a whole and in the immediate context, it appears that Jesus’s suffering provides encouragement for Christians to follow Jesus in suffering and patient discipleship.

Living as we are now between the “already” of the coming of the kingdom and the “not yet” of its consummation, healings serve as signs affirming for us the final victory.

Furthermore, like salvation in general, healing “now” is a foretaste of the coming eschatological fulfillment (discussed above). Living as we are now between the “already” of the coming of the kingdom and the “not yet” of its consummation, healings serve as signs affirming for us the final victory. The raising of Lazarus makes the point succinctly: Having been resuscitated, he died again because the defeat of death and decay has not yet been finalized.

What is the role of faith in healing?

There are healing evangelists and others who not only make faith the necessary condition for the healing to take place but have also devised a “faith formula”—that is, a certain type of faith that automatically, without exception, leads to healing and deliverance. They speak of faith in terms of “claiming” God’s promises and assign an almost magical power to “positive confession.” Faith in that case is like a signed check to be redeemed!

It is exactly here that the so-called faith healers fail—and at times make the sick sicker! Why? Because they do not acknowledge the “already/not yet” dynamic of the coming of the kingdom of God. Thereby, these Christian teachers make faith—the faith of the recipient of the healing—the condition for the cure. The logic is simple: no cure, no authentic faith. How merciless, how compassionless!

This criticism is not to undermine the importance Jesus placed on faith but rather to put it in proper perspective. On the one hand, the Gospels show an integral link between faith and healing. Jesus attributed some healings to faith (e.g., Mark 5:25–34; 10:46–52; Matt 8:5–13; 15:21–28; Luke 17:11–19). At times, he rebuked people for their lack of faith, with the obvious implication that a stronger faith would have made a difference (Matt 14:30–31; 17:19–20; 21:21). Finally, upon returning to his hometown of Nazareth, it is said Jesus could do “no mighty works there” but only healed “a few sick people” on account of the Nazarenes’ lack of faith (Mark 6:5–6; Matt 13:58).

On the other hand, a closer look at the Gospels reveals a more complex link between the two. A number of healing incidents make no mention of faith (Mark 3:1–5; 7:32–35; Luke 4:38–39; John 9:1–7). While in some cases the healed person’s faith plays a role, at other times the faith of others is credited. For example, Jesus forgives the sins of the paralyzed man after he sees the faithfulness of his friends (Mark 2:1–12; Matt 9:1–8; Luke 5:17–26). Another time, he heals a servant because of the faithfulness of the servant’s master, the centurion, whom Jesus declares to have greater faith than any Israelite (Matt 8:10).

At times, faith seems to precede healing (Mark 5:36; Matt 8:10; Luke 7:50), and at other times, faith emerges as a result of healing (Matt 11:4; Luke 24:13–35; cf. John 12:37), though sometimes Jesus heals and no faith results (see Luke 17:11–19).

Application

Important conclusions follow from the above theology.

How should we pray for healing?

First, while faith and healing are related in some way, the relationship is ambiguous and cannot be made into a formula. Thus, there is no “automatic” formula or method. Even Jesus himself used various ways to perform his miracles, from touch, to laying on of hands, to healing from a distance, to using materials, such as saliva mixed with clay (Mark 7:33; 8:23; John 9:6).

Second, although the link between faith and healing is dynamic—so that one can lead to the other, but neither necessarily nor inevitably leads to the other—prayer for healing still matters. Christians who hope for the divine touch of healing pray for divine “intervention.” Again, while healing may also happen without prayer, the biblical testimonies clearly encourage praying. As the American Lutheran scriptural scholar Frederick J. Gaiser succinctly puts it: “God does not become a God of love and healing because of our prayer. But our prayer opens us to the God of love, who desires our healing.”²

Third, although sickness and healing are personal matters, faith community plays a significant role. Recall James’s recommendation (5:13–16) that a sick person invite the elders of the church for prayer and anointing with oil. After all, healing ministry is an integral part of the church’s daily life and ministry.

Finally, healing can be experienced in a variety of ways. Some focus on a “healing evangelist” or “pastoral healer” paradigm.³ Healing can be instantaneous or gradual. It may be attributed mainly to prayer and spirituality or at other times to medical expertise. And so forth.

What about when healing does not happen?

But what about the lack of healing and the continuation of suffering? This is the other side of any theology of healing and restoration.

Whereas some well-meaning Christian healers claim the right to total health (and material prosperity) already in this life, we know both from the Bible’s teaching and human experience that this is hardly the case. While acknowledging the presence of suffering should not become a pretext not to pray for healing, theological reflection on suffering, pain, and lack of healing remains an important task for the church.

Jesus’s own destiny manifests the presence of both health and suffering in human life. Yes, he was the healer, but he was also wounded for our wounds and pains. Yes, he was the fountain of water (John 4:10–14), but he also thirsted on the cross (John 19:28–29). Yes, he was the harbinger of resurrection hope (John 11:25–26), but he also faced death on the cross. Hence, rather than a mere sympathetic neighbor, as it were, the Healer is also the “suffering servant” (see Isa 53) who shares our suffering.

As mentioned, healing now is always provisional, as later in life other sicknesses will come. At the same time, we retain the assurance of the final consummation in the coming of the kingdom. While it may not console a dying cancer patient on their deathbed, the hope for a final cure in the kingdom of God is sure and guaranteed. Ultimately, all of us, even those who experience healing, await the final resurrection and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth.

Ultimately, all of us, even those who experience healing, await the final resurrection and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth.

Therefore, alongside faith we must maintain hope for God’s continuing care amidst suffering, and display love for those who are not healed (1 Cor 13:13), remembering that “God’s power is as near to us in sickness and in death as it is in healing.”⁴

How should we live in-between “already” and “not yet”?

A Christian theology of health and flourishing acknowledges sickness and suffering as a “natural,” although not hoped-for, part of creaturely experience. Indeed, ordinary human life in the quotidian is always ambiguous and vulnerable. There is no expectation of perfect health or immunity to suffering. Health is a gift of God and should not be made an idol. “Only what can stand up to both health and sickness, and ultimately to living and dying, can count as a valid definition of what it means to be human,” writes Jürgen Moltmann.⁵

This is not to deny that a healthy life is preferred to a sickly one. Of course it is. Rather, as Moltmann continues: “Love for life says ‘yes’ to life in spite of its sicknesses, handicaps and infirmities, and opens the door to a ‘life against death.’”⁶

Martin Luther speaks to the same dynamic with his famous distinction between God’s “proper” and God’s “alien” work, at times called his “right” and “left” hand work.⁷ The proper work of God includes healing, restoring, and raising hope. The “alien work” refers to his striking with sickness, causing despair, and taking away hope. Both of these come from the one and same God, acknowledges the “theologian of the cross.” As opposed to the “theologian of the glory” who only embraces God’s work of glory, power, and splendor, the theologian of the cross is willing to follow in the footsteps of the suffering Messiah on the way to Calvary.

A sound theology of healing reminds us of the fact that the flourishing that takes place in our lives is one of mixed experiences. Human life in the quotidian is all we have at the moment, a life of health and sickness, a life of light and darkness, a life of success and failure. But that is not all. We also have a powerful hope for final consummation. Yet in the meantime, we live our lives between the times, as it were.

Conclusion

Allow me to conclude with an experience from my own life.

Among my four siblings, my late youngest brother Mika was born with severe Down syndrome coupled with a heart condition and other deficiencies. Mika was the “star” of my childhood family. He passed away before his first birthday. Despite many prayers, he was not cured.

His life was precious and valuable. On the index of “total health,” he was a failure. But on the index of the values of God’s kingdom, he is among the greatest.

I do not mean to glorify sickness or suffering. There is nothing noble about any of it. But we must acknowledge our lives in the quotidian: a life with both health and sickness, happiness and sadness, joyful and downcast spirit.

In all of this uncertainty and questioning, Jesus’s compassionate ministry of caring and healing carries us forward towards God’s righteous and loving will in the coming consummated kingdom.

Resources for further study

Related content

• Cessationist or Continuationist: Have Some Gifts Ceased?
• Is Your Definition of Salvation Too Small? The Bible’s Full Teaching
• The Kingdom of God: The Great Unfolding Drama of Salvation
• Every Exorcism Is Eschatological: The Words of Demons in the Presence of Jesus
• What Is Faith Like a Mustard Seed?

1. This essay borrows from the following writings of mine: “Epilogue: Flourishing life in Health and Sickness: Jesus’ Compassionate Healing Ministry for the Fractured World of the Third Millennium,” in Re-Visioning the Mission of Health: A Global Invitation to Heal and Thrive in Crisis, ed. Kirsteen Kim and Alexia Salvatierra, Theology and Mission in World Christianity (Brill, 2025), 247–53; Spirit and Salvation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, vol. 4 (Eerdmans), 375–85. Hence, I have kept documentation to a minimum.
2. Frederik J. Gaiser, Healing in the Bible: Theological Insights for Christian Ministry (Baker Academic, 2010), 55.
3. For an important study, see Pavel Hejzlar, Two Paradigms for Divine Healing: Fred F. Bosworth, Kenneth E. Hagin, Agnes Sanford, and Francis MacNutt in Dialogue (Brill, 2010).
4. Ken Blue, Authority to Heal (InterVarsity, 1987), 49.
5. Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (Fortress, 1993), 273.
6. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Fortress, 2001), 86.
7. See Robert Kolb, ed., The Alien and the Proper (New Reformation, 2023).