I had mixed feelings about this book. E. W. Kenyon is one of the fathers of the Word of Faith movement, and I have a feeling this book is considered a Word of Faith classic on healing, maybe definitive.
The good I saw in the book is that Kenyon brings out an aspect of Christ's atoning work on the cross which I suspect is often overlooked by theologians. The aspect I'm referring to is related to Isaiah 53, which speaks of the "Suffering Servant." This Old Testament passage provides a remarkable prophetic description of the crucifixion of Christ and its spiritual significance. Typically verses 3-5 are translated along these lines:
3 He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
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;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
(Revised Standard Version)
However, Kenyon points out that in the original language the word translated "sorrows" literally means "pains;" the word translated grief literally means "sickness;" and the word translated "stricken" (v. 4) literally means "plagued." So with these literal renderings, the passage reads more like this (from Young's Literal Translation):
3 He is despised, and left of men, A man of pains, and acquainted with sickness, And as one hiding the face from us, He is despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains — he hath carried them, And we — we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 And he is pierced for our transgressions, Bruised for our iniquities, The chastisement of our peace [is] on him, And by his bruise there is healing to us.
When read this way it appears that these verses are talking about physical sickness and disease rather than emotional grief and sorrow. And the passage says that this Suffering Servant (who Christians understand to be Jesus Christ) has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains, and that the bruising with which he was afflicted brought us healing.
From this fact Kenyon makes the case that in his crucifixion Jesus not only bore the punishment for our sins, but he also bore all our sicknesses and diseases. Kenyon says this is already an accomplished fact, just as the forgiveness of our sins is and, like that forgiveness, it is appropriated by faith in Christ's finished work. Therefore, Kenyon claims, our healing has already been accomplished, we just need to receive it by faith.
Now, Kenyon's interpretation is not without controversy. The Hebrew words in question may also legitimately be translated "sorrow" and "grief" respectively, as they are in virtually all Bible translations of Isaiah 53; the determining factor is the context. Theologians and Old Testament scholars tend to argue that in Isaiah 53 "sorrow" and "grief" make more sense than "pain" and "sicknesses," because nothing in the context indicates that disease or physical infirmity are in view.
Theologically orthodox Protestants view the Bible as God's inspired Word and as such I believe it is packed with meaning. I tend to believe that when words in the original biblical languages have more than one shade of meaning, it's possible that all the various shades of meaning apply. The Amplified Bible attempts to help believers grasp the range of meanings contained in Hebrew and Greek words.
I feel that if Isaiah 53:3-5 literally speaks of the Suffering Servant (Jesus) having born our pains and sicknesses then there is likely an aspect of Christ's atoning work on the cross which deals with this. Since the range of meaning in these words is "pain" and "sickness" as well as "grief" and "sorrow" I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that Christ's crucifixion brought not only deliverance from grief, sorrow, guilt, and sin, but also from physical pain and sickness. Therefore I think Kenyon has done the church-at-large an important service by pointing out this crucial aspect of Christ's atonement.
However, Kenyon goes so far as to say that because our healing is already accomplished through Christ's work on the cross, we don't need to pray and ask God to heal us, nor should we. Instead, we are to stand upon the Word of God and 'demand' our healing from God. Kenyon says we have the right to do this because of our position as sons of God (see Galatians 3:26 - in charismatic teaching both men and women are considered "sons" of God by virtue of the fact that in Bible times only sons received an inheritance from their fathers). In fact, Kenyon implies that it is God himself who invites us to make this sort of demand of him. This is standard Word of Faith teaching. While I appreciate the fact that Kenyon wants to make sure we know who we are in Christ, with all the rights and privileges thereof, I think the idea that we are not to ask God for healing flies in the face of biblical teaching on both prayer and healing.
So, in conclusion, while I think Kenyon brings out a much-needed understanding of healing as an important feature of Christ's redeeming work, I think he goes too far in insisting that Christians must demand healing from the Father rather than simply humbly asking Him for it in prayer.