JAMES 5:13-20 In this section, a series of three questions is asked -- each of which has a natural, logical answer. The first question: "Is any afflicted (suffers ill)? let him pray." Instead of groaning against one another and instead of oaths denying their faith with "mental reservations," in order to escape their tormentors, they should approach God in prayer for His help. The second question: "Is anyone cheerful? let him sing a psalm." That is a natural response to being happy. And, the third question: "Is anyone sick? let him call for the elders of the church..." This last question is not as easily understood as the previous two. In fact, several different positions are postulated on this section (vv. 13-20). Pentecostal people see miraculous gifts possessed by the elders for healing being continued into the twentieth century, though, should that be the case, they do not practice what the passage demands in calling for the elders. Rather, they call their "evangelists." Contrary to the subjective claims of Pentecostal people today about miraculous healings, the special, Holy Spirit given gift of healing was designed for a time when the word of God was being revealed and needed confirmation from God, (cf. Mk. 16:17-20; Heb. 2:3-4; Jno. 20:30-31). Catholics use this passage as justification for the administration of "unction" by the priest and the practice of "auricular confession" by the people to the priests. They use the passage that way, though no priests are mentioned by James and James' command, "confess your faults one to another," would necessitate that the priest confess to the people as much as the people confess to the priest. Macknight's paraphrase of v. 15, says this: "And the prayer of faith will save the sick person from his disease, and the Lord will raise him up from his sick-bed. See Mark i. 31. So that although he hath committed sins, for which that disease was sent on him, they shall be forgiven him by the removal of the disease. (See 1 John v. 16. note 3.)," (Macknight On The Epistles, Vol. V, p. 407). First of all Macknight necessarily assumes, as others do, two things: (1) that all the elders had the gift of healing; and (2) that the gifts were used on Christians for the relief of their physical maladies. And, in conjunction with those assumptions, he adds yet a third; that is, that when Christians in the first century sinned, God was commonly afflicting them with physical diseases. I believe those are assumptions, because I have not been able to find any passage that indicates that ALL elders had the gift of healing, or that elders, as a class, were especially endowed with this particular gift of the Spirit. Neither have I been able to find any evidence to indicate that the gift of healing was commonly used on Christians for the benefit of relieving their physical sicknesses. Contrariwise, the gift of healing in the first century, as noted previously, was a sign which confirmed the word of God. Acts 9:36-43, which records Peter's resurrection of Dorcas, a notable disciple, is not an exception to that rule, for v. 42, says, "And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord." Many disciples who were sick were not healed - note Epaphroditus and Trophimus (Phil. 2:26-28; 2 Tim. 4:20). Why were THEY not healed, if the gifts were designed for the physical benefit of disciples? Macknight refers to 1 Cor. 11:30, as verification of the connection between sins and physical disease as God's punishment for those sins. In this context, the ones who ate and drank in an unworthy manner, as they had done in making the Lord's Supper a time of feasting, did not discern the Lord's body and, consequently, condemned themselves by their participation. The resultant condition "among them" was that many were weak and sick and many slept. Here is where Macknight makes a jump in reasoning so as to make God's condemnation, which truly was His chastening, take the form of making the Corinthians physically weak and sick and even killing a number of them. This conclusion will not fit for, at least, two reasons: (1) the many who were asleep, which according to the position would have to be dead people, were among them but the dead are not numbered with the living; and (2) the intent of God's chastening, as stated in v. 32, was that they should not be condemned with the world. But if God chastened many of them by killing them, then they were condemned with the world! In this context, "weak," "sick," and "sleep" are to be understood as referring to the natural, resulting spiritual condition from their improper behavior, not as a form of God's chastisementmetimes the best cure can be a long talk, $15.00 sugar tablets and a $40.00, Dr.'s fee. Christ was also a physician but not a medical doctor -- he saved sick men from their sins. This very simply illustrates the fact that there are different kinds of sicknesses and healings. Therefore, the problem of the text in Jas. 5:13-20, is trying to determine what kind of sickness is involved, so that we can determine what kind of healing takes place. The first word to be translated "sick" in Jas. 5:13-20, is ""astheneo" (v. 14) -- "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church..." This word means to be weak, feeble or impotent (note both Vine and Thayer). Dorcas was sick and died (Acts 9:37). And Paul had left Trophimus at Miletum sick (2 Tim. 4:20). Each of these passages clearly demonstrates ""astheneo" being used with reference to physical weakness. However, Paul uses the same word in Gal. 4:9 -- "How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" The law was not diseased, but rather was "lacking in power," and could not free men from sin; hence, its elements were "weak" or "impotent." Then Paul described man's condition before Christ died by saying, "For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly," (Rom. 5:6). Paul does not mean that man was diseased physically but rather that there was no power or strength in man to accomplish his own salvation. Note also 1 Cor. 1:27; 4:10; 11:30; and 9:22. The second Greek word translated "sick" is found in v. 5 -- "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick..." Vine defines this word as, "primarily to work, hence from the effect of work, to be weary..." (Vine, p. 27). He thinks that James 5:15, refers to weariness of mind which accompanies physical disease. However, the other time this word appears in the N.T. it does not carry a connotation of physical Sickness. The Hebrew Christians were encouraged to look to Jesus "lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds," (Heb. 12:3b). To save the sick (v. 15) can mean either to save a man from the disease of the soul or rescue him from physical malady. It is entirely within the scope of "sozo" (save) to mean either. For instance, it is used in Matt. 9:21-22, with reference to being made whole physically. But in Acts 2:38,47, it refers to those who were having their sins remitted by repenting and being baptized (v. 38). These were exhorted to, "save yourselves from this untoward generation," (v. 40). "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," (literally, "the ones being saved") (v. 47). But James uses still another word in 5:16, which must be defined to be either physical or spiritual in nature: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." The word "healed" (Gr. iaomai) is used 22 times with reference to being cured from disease. Note Matt. 15:28, as an example. But notice also Matt. 13:15; Jno. 12:40, and Heb. 12:11-13. And, when Peter said, "...by whose stripes ye were healed," (1 Pet. 2:24), he did not have in mind the curing of men's bodies by the death of Christ. He explains what he means in the early part of that verse -- "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness." In conjunction with all of that, notice that the word "anointing" (v. 14) also has several possibilities of meaning. Vine says, "'"Aleipho" is a general term used for anointing of any kind..." (p. 58). This is the word of our text and it is contrasted with "chrio" which is supposed to be more limited in its use. In fact, so general is ""aleipho" that it is even translated "plaster" or "daub" in the LXX -- "And when one buildeth up a wall, behold, they daub it with untempered mortar," (Ezek. 13:10). In the LXX, it is also used with reference to the anointing of priests (Ex. 40:15; Num. 3:3) which involves a religious act of setting them apart for their priestly duties. This shows that Trench's distinction, while generally true, is not an ironclad rule. "Aleipho" appears again in the LXX in Ruth 3:3; 2 Sam. 2:20, and Dan. 10:3, where it evidently means that which is refreshing and beneficial to the body. Compare Lk. 7:38; and Jno. 12:3. "Anointing with oil" (aleipho) is connected with supernatural healing done by the disciples in Mk. 6:13 -- "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Why such an anointing accompanied the healing gives rise to much human speculation -- none of which seems to be of any great value. "Oiling with oil" is Lenski's translation of ""aleipho" in Jas. 5:14. Quite obviously he believes that it was for medicinal purposes. And he offers as proof the practice in Biblical times of using oil as medicine. Isa. 1:6, speaks of wounds that were not "mollified with oil." And the Good Samaritan poured oil into the wounds of his neighbor (Lk. 10:34). It presents another possibility. With those thoughts and definitions in mind, notice how the chain of thought is tied together throughout the context -- a chain that deals with a spiritual condition. Some of these brethren were suffering ill, because the rich were defrauding them (Jas. 5:1-6). They were encouraged to be patient in suffering and the prophets and Job are used as examples (vv. 7, 12). If anyone is afflicted, let him pray; if anyone is weak, let him call for the elders of the church (vv. 13-14). What better men could be called upon than those mature, wise, spiritual men who are concerned about souls? But someone may object and say that v. 15, speaks of "saving the sick" and then also says, "IF he have committed sins..." If this sickness is a spiritual condition, how can these statements be reconciled? Notice carefully that in the definition of the key words of this text that it has been shown that "sick " (kamnonta) in v. 15, means "weariness." The text does not say that the indefinite weak and weary one has committed sin. It is no sin to be afflicted and suffer evil. It is no sin to be weak and weary. However, the condition of weakness and , because of their trials and temptations. This admonition was desperately needed -- we are our brother's keeper. While it is quite obvious that James did not write these words with the specific thought in mind of refuting false teaching, this is one of the best passages to use as a negative argument against the "once-saved-always-saved" doctrine -- truth is amazingly eternal in its nature. Notice that James addresses "brethren," that is, those who are a part of God's family. Then he establishes the fact that one of these brethren can "err from the truth." When he errs from the truth, what is his condition? James says that one who converts (turns back again) the sinning brother from his error SAVES a soul from DEATH. Therefore, if that brother who errs from the truth needs saving from death, then he is, first of all LOST and the condition from which he is saved is spiritual DEATH! Men, once saved, do not, necessarily, persevere. According to James any brother in Christ who ever errs from the truth is lost and needs saving. The intent of the context is to make us aware that some of the brethren do err and that we do have a responsibility to them. This is the only way sins can be covered. James says, "Save your erring brethren."

	Created on 16-Jan-00	Page last updated