The Circumstances
It is generally assumed that this letter was written by James, the Lord’s brother, who became the leader of the Jerusalem ecclesia, and was martyred in AD62 as James the Just, a well-known figure in the Jewish world. There is fairly good inferential evidence for this conclusion, which is presented in a concise form by N. Smart, The Epistle of James, pp.9-18.
The main elements of this evidence are
- that James, the Lord’s brother was definitely a prominent figure in the Jerusalem ecclesia at an early date (Gal. 1:19);
- probably it was the same James who figures as an ecclesial leader and president in Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:19; Gal. 2:9;
- it is appropriate that a prominent Jewish Christian such as he was should have written this letter addressed to Jews in the Christian era (Jas. 1:1);
- there are alleged similarities of expression between the epistle and the speeches of James at the Jerusalem Conference;
- and finally, the marked parallels between the letter and the Lord’s sermon on ethics in its most Jewish form (Matt 5-7) suggests an intimate knowledge of the Lord’s teaching and personal words. The relationship of brother would well account for such a knowledge for one not included in the original twelve.
But as strong as these pointers may be there is no certain proof and for all we know the author of this epistle may not be mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament.
The letter is from a servant of God and the Lord Jesus to the twelve tribes of the Jewish dispersion. We should not too readily assume that the letter is addressed to the Christians within that category alone. Parts of it are reminiscent of the prophets of Israel (e.g. 5:1-6 compared with Amos 3:10; 5:11; 8:4; Isa. 5:8; 33:1; Jer. 4:8) and there are echoes of the prophetic utterances of John the Baptist (Mt. 3:12 cf. 5:3) and Jesus (Luke 23:28 cf. 4:9). Could it be that James here is addressing all his Jewish brethren, Christian and non-Christian? Obviously, for one who has known the power of Christ’s resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7) all religious experiences comes to perfection in Christ, but, allowing that the Christian faith is what James is really talking about throughout, the epistle has nevertheless been framed in terms calculated to strike at the heart of any Jew. There is the familiar ground of the synagogue (2:2 “assembly” = “synagogue”, A.V. margin), the need for an active faith (2:18-26), and the Lord of Sabaoth (5:4), the lawgiver and judge (4:12), and even the name of Jesus Christ has been limited to but two references (1:1 and 2:1), as though James did not want to immediately lose his “hostile” Jewish reader.
What is the significance of James’ role as a prophetic spokesman in determining whether Jas. 5:14-16 (or any other passage in the letter) is applicable today or not? Like the prophets (Jer. 7:25) James is God’s servant to deliver His message to the people. Like the prophets generally his words have specific application to his immediate audience in their immediate situation, a fact we too easily forget. But also like the prophets much of what he says has a larger meaning than to be restricted to the immediate circumstances. Embedded in God’s specific messages to a particular age we find eternal principles and promises (e.g. Num. 14:21).
So with James. His words undoubtedly had special relevance to the unstable Jewish commonwealth of the middle and late first century. Perhaps some passages have their prime meaning only in that context (e.g. synagogue customs, 2:1-7; the faith/works justification controversy, 2:10-26; internecine squabbling, 4:1-3; the condemnation of rich oppressors (5:1-6). But equally there are passages with more far-reaching meanings: the classical statement of the nexus between desire, temptation, sin and death (1:13-15) ; living the perfect law of liberty (1:22-27); the real basis of fellowship (3:13-18). That these are subject to no temporal or circumstantial constraints will be universally admitted.
The difficulty then in the passage before us is to resolve whether the promise of a direct healing power from God (there is no doubt the passage speaks of this, see Believer, Jan.-Feb 1972, p.4-6) in response to faithful prayer assisted by ecclesial eldership is limited in its application, wholly or in part, to James’ immediate audience. Some of us presently say there is no limitation, others affirm there is, and both to varying degrees. This is the nub of the problem.
What can exegesis tell us? Before we broach this task, we should remind ourselves how difficult it is to resolve such a question. None of us can be in a position of absolute knowledge. Exposition, like statistics, can give elaborate yet conflicting answers to the same question. The honest Bible student will admit that there is often more than one interpretation of a passage. Further, we should remind ourselves that what we are discussing here is the boundless power of the Supreme Being, the Vital Force behind the Universe, God Almighty — we who with all our learning do not even understand the basic principle of life, let alone the miraculous. So let us clothe ourselves with a little humility at the outset. “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”, Jas. 4:6.
The context
| 4:13-17 | A warning to the proud who imagine they control their destiny. Their life is but a vapour. |
| 5:1-6 | A warning to the rich who prosper at the expense of their fellows. |
| 5:6-9 | The judgement of the last days comes, The coming of the Lord is near, so |
| 5:10-11 | Be patient, brethren. Patience, of which prophets and job examples, |
| 5:12-13 | Involves suffering affliction In affliction, do not swear – but pray In joy – sing |
| 5:14-15 | In the affliction of sickness call the elders to pray |
| 5:16-18 | Prayer with confession is effectual for sickness and sin Elijah an example of prayer |
| 5:19-20 | Save your brother from sin |
It is evident from the above arrangement that the section is loose-knit, ranging over the subjects of the second coming, patience, afflictions, prayer and sin, each section being related to the next. Note the abrupt finish, again suggestive of a prophetic utterance.
Exposition 5:14-16
14. Sick: A special case of affliction, vv.l0, 13; astheneo discussed in Believer, Jan.-Feb., p.4.
let him call: The responsibility is here placed upon the sick one to initiate the act of supplication. The natural reaction is, however, for the sick one rather to withdraw into himself, there being a reluctance to share one’s burdens with one’s brethren. To compensate for this the elders are told that visiting the sick is a responsibility of theirs (Acts 20:35, where “the weak” are astheneo, “sick”), a responsibility which became more clearly defined in sub-apostolic times when it was “the duty of deacons, as the eyes of the bishop, to inform the congregation of all cases of sickness, in order that they may visit the sick and give such assistance as the president may think fit.” (Mayor, ad. loc.)
the elders of the church: See article Believer, March-April, pp.7-9. A few terms and their Greek equivalents need to be understood here:
| English | Greek |
|---|---|
| elders | presbyteroi |
| bishops | episkopoi |
| deacons | diakonoi masters |
| teachers | didaskaloi |
| church | ekklesia |
| assembly | synagoge |
1). The question of the organization of the early church is one of the most tantalising of New Testament scholarship. The problem is that the ecclesial world was in a state of flux in this period. There was no uniformity with time or from place to place. We know that at the outset there were first apostles, second prophets, third teachers (didaskaloi) (1 Cor. 12:28). But this was a passing although dynamic phase, and with the gradual disappearance of men charismatically endowed, the organization eventually in the second century settled down to a system of bishops and deacons constituting the presbytery. So the inspired writers of the New Testament document the initial transient phase quite well. Likewise the non-inspired early Christian writers, the “fathers”, document the stabilized phase quite well, but can give us no authoritative guidance. The crux of the problem is what the inspired New Testament writers mean when they refer to elders, bishops and deacons. Are they walking about the offices as they subsequently developed, or are they (more probably) talking about some intermediate phase? Is presbyteroi just another name for episkopoi or do they also include the diakonoi? Were these men Spirit Gifted in the apostolic sense? If so to what extent? Was this a qualification of their office? Then there is another complication. Patterns of organisation in the ecclesia tended to follow the varying patterns of organisation customary in different parts. Thus Jewish Christians would follow the synagogue pattern (Jas. 2:2) with the teachers or masters (=didaskaloi = rabbis; Jas. 3:1). The Hellenistic ecclesias would model their organization on the assembly (ekklesia) of the Greek city state. The Italian and African ecclesias would in time as they became more Roman in character tend towards a monarchical bishop corresponding to their Imperial system of administration. The question is canvassed at length in The First Century Ecclesia, by Bro. J. B. Norris. There is also a useful and concise discussion in M. R. Vincent’s Commentary on Philippians, pp.36.51. However, we should beware of drawing generalized conclusions; they may not be possible.
2.) Several passages are often advanced as evidence that elders (presbyteroi) and bishops (episcopoi) are titles for one and the same group of people. In Acts 20:17 Paul calls for the elders (presbyteroi) of the Ephesian church, and then proceeds to tell them “the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers (episcopoi)” (v.27).But all this really proves is that the bishops (if Paul was using the term episcopoi in its titular sense, as there is also the possibility he may be using it purely functionally without wishing to designate any particular office) belong to the class of elders, not that all elders are necessarily bishops. Likewise the similarity of the list of qualifications for bishops (episcopoi) in Tim. 3:1-7 and elders (presbyteroi) in Titus 1:5-9 is advanced to prove the identity of the two names. But again all Paul is instructing Titus to do is to appoint from the class of elders (v.5) those who will be bishops (v.7). In Phil. 1:1 only the bishops (episcopoi) and deacons (diakonoi) are mentioned and hence it is argued the elders must be incorporated in one of the terms in this verse. But why could not the elders embrace both terms and others as well outside of those two specific designations? In fact nowhere in the New Testament are the three classes, bishops, elders and deacons mentioned in the same phrase. This is in contrast to the three-fold ecclesial hierarchy of the monarchical bishop, his two elders followed by the deacons mentioned by Ignatius in his epistle to the Magnesians (2,6,7) at the close of the first century. Obviously ecclesial organisation is developing and changing rapidly in this period, and we can hardly make any dogmatic assertions as to the complete identity of the elders and bishops.
3). It is also claimed that the elders were appointed by the Holy Spirit. Acts 20:28 appears to give some support to this, but we must ask how the Spirit operated in this case. No doubt, as elsewhere, through the agency of Paul (Acts 14:23) or his envoy (Titus 1:5). Does this mean that when the direct manifestation of Spirit guidance is withdrawn the elders cannot be appointed? Hardly! The word translated “ordain” in Acts 14:23 literally means “to choose or elect by raising the hand”. Now as used in that passage the derived sense of “appoint” is the dominant one, but the same word is used in the Didache, possibly the oldest Christian writing outside the New Testament, when the ecclesial members are advised, “You must choose for yourselves overseers and assistants” (15:1). The elder was well known throughout ancient society (Believer, Apl/May, ’72, p.8) in both a general and official sense, because of the universal experience of the wisdom of age being generally the centre of sound government. Thus Israel had its formal elders from Moses to Gamaliel (Ex. 17:5; Acts 4:5; 22:5); in the Greek states the presbytes (from which comes presbyteroi) was an ambassador of state, the word presbys merely signifying an old man; in Rome the senator, a member of the governing body, drew his name from senex, an old man; even in English our alderman is related to the word elder. So the idea of selecting elders for office by the customary methods was nothing strange to the people who constituted the first century ecclesia. In that God is with His people, He influences the decision by His Spirit, whether through the agency of His apostles or otherwise. There is no New Testament warrant for denying God’s influence today in ecclesial election and government.
4) . Were the elders charismatically endowed with the Spirit, i.e. did they possess the Holy Spirit gifts as experienced in the apostolic era? Many of them must have. It is inconceivable that in an age when gifts were freely given the ecclesial leaders should not be so endowed. But it cannot be demonstrated that it is a qualification of office; rather it is an accident of time. Assuming that the bishops (possibly also the deacons) of the Pastoral Epistles are the appointed elders, there is no requirement that the Spirit gifts be in evidence (1 Tim. 3, Tit. 1), as was the case earlier in the first flush of the Church’s development when the Spirit abounded (Acts 6:3).
5). It seems clear from both New Testament notices and from early post-New Testament sources that the apostles foresaw the need for a stable, essentially non-charismatic government in the ecclesia as the influence of the gifts diminished. For each term applied to these officers there is a titular and a general/functional meaning. Thus, an elder is firstly just that (Titus 2:2,3), an older, more experienced and wiser member, then perhaps a general term for all holding positions of prominence in the ecclesia, and finally in sub-apostolic times a specific office in the ecclesia. No doubt the title was taken from the original function, but eventually accumulated around it a wider range of functions. So, bishops were probably originally people who were overseers of practical matters, particularly finance if the stress on money matters in the qualification lists is any guide (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7). Likewise the deacons were those who rendered practical service (Matt. 20:28). The general line of development is clear, but precision as to each office and the apostolic intent is not. In view of the foregoing extended discussion and the line of argument presented in the last issue of the Believer, that the eldership is in fact continuous through the ages, it would appear to be beyond the warrant of Scripture to deny that “the elders” in our midst today cannot perform the function of this verse on the grounds that there are no elders of the ecclesia.
let them pray over him: Prayer is the operative element in this whole process (v.16). The elders, the oil, the manner of their assembly for prayer “over” the sick, are all merely supplementary to the central activity of supplication in the Lord’s name. This is emphasised by the example James uses in verses 17 and 18, where none of these supplementary elements are involved. The only common element is the “prayer of faith”. The elders are called for prayer, not because they of themselves confer any sanctity, but because as the most spiritual in the body their prayer will be presumably the most effective.
Over, as discussed previously has a whole range of meanings. “The worthy name by which ye are called” (2:7) is literally “the worthy name which has been called over you”, perhaps reminiscent of the baptismal act. The precise application of “over” in the whole process can hardly be important as to the outcome of the prayer anointing him with oil: See Believer, Jan./Feb., p.5 for the widespread use of oil both medicinally and ritually. To that might be added the testimony of Galen, one of the greatest physicians of antiquity, that oil was the best of all remedies for bodies that were dried out and emaciated. That it was involved in patently miraculous cures is seen from Mk. 6:13. But again it was not an essential adjunct to miraculous cures as is seen from Mk. 16:18; Acts 19:12; 28:8 where other symbolic actions are involved and from the absence of its mention in 1 Cor. 12:9.
In the absence of any clear statement that the oil symbolises the Holy Spirit, or is a sign of consecration, or joy or is in fact just a medicinal or customary application, the reference to it cannot be used to restrict the whole passage to the first century any more than it can to support the abuses to which it has given rise.
The Roman Catholic practice of Extreme Unction (the last anointing) has its origin here. As prayer became less effective attempts were made to add fresh virtue to the oil by having it specially consecrated or by combining it with relics of “saints” or ecclesiastical furniture. When this too proved ineffective for healing the whole practice was “spiritualised”: the anointing could only be administered by a priest to those at the point of death for the purpose of curing their souls; what was originally an appendage (forgiveness of sins) to the main purpose (bodily healing) of the activity, became its essence. The danger of concentrating on the details rather than the basic elements of faith could hardly be better illustrated.
in the name of the Lord: It is in the name of Jesus that the apostles work their cures, Mk. 16:17; Acts 3:6.16; 4:10; 16:18. In fact all God’s works are done in the name of or in the authority of Jesus Christ (John 14:13) since Jesus has been declared Lord (Phil. 2:9-11, Matt. 28:18, 20).
The construction of the sentence is slightly ambiguous. The main verb is “let them pray” while “anointing” is an aorist participle which implies strictly that the anointing took place prior to the prayer. The expression “in the name of the Lord” could therefore apply only to the main verb without involving the anointing, although the word order is possible in favour of taking it as applying to both the prayer and anointing. Our interpretation will depend on whether we take the anointing to be ritual or medicinal.
15. the prayer of faith: The prayer which has its origin in faith and proceeds naturally from faith (1:6). Anything less than this will not be effectual prayer, being defeated by the doubts of the supplicant. James has some hard words for the man who wavers when asking of God. “Unstable in all his ways”. There will be few who can say their faith has never wavered, especially in a time of trial, or felt the inadequacy of their faith to the situation, expressed so poignantly in the distraught cry of the demoniac’s father, “I believe; help my unbelief.” (Mk. 9:24). Surely this natural weakness to which we are all heir does not demand the condemnation, “unstable in alI his ways”? It is possible that James has in mind here an attitude of persistent cynicism in one’s life before God. If this be so we should be particularly cautious in our consideration of the passage under our notice to avoid developing either in ourselves or our brother such an attitude. How we finally interpret and apply these words is a personal matter between us and God, without denying in any way the mutual strength which can be derived by sharing of faithful prayer among those of like mind. But to return to the words in 1:6, one is left with the suspicion that a particularly high standard is being required here, one that should make us all search our hearts.
Save … raise: Normal words for recovery from illness in the physical sense (Mt. 9:21, 22; Mk. 6:56; 5:41; Acts 3:7; 4:9), but pregnant with meaning for Christians as they are also the words for spiritual salvation and its ultimate physical consummation, resurrection the sick: See Believer, Jan./Feb., pp.4,5 for discussion.
the Lord: Here is where the centre of gravity should be in this consideration. We can pray. We can have faith. The elders can pray, performing all or none of the rituals James mentions. But God alone through Jesus Christ can heal. The decision is finally His, not ours. We should be particularly cautious of prescribing any constraints on His freedom of action. We may feel the verses do not have application today. Well and good then. It is proper that we refrain from prayer, which could only be unbelieving prayer. But let us not constrain the action of God when there is no clear warrant from Him to do so, and let us not be guilty of inducing an attitude in others which amounts to cynicism in their case although not in ours. On the other hand, if we believe the practice of prayer for the sick in the manner prescribed here is applicable today let us not force our views on those of opposite persuasion, especially when they are distressed, so that their faith is weakened rather than strengthened. It is not for us to judge each other’s faith, but sufficient, nay more than sufficient, for us to take cognizance of our own.
and if: One word in Greek (by crasis) which can fairly be rendered “and if” or “even if”. In both cases this element is still an appendage to the main purpose of prayer. Translating “even if” suggests the idea that the prayer of faith can have an even greater effect than physical healing, namely, forgiveness of sins. The rendering “and if” suggests that although the author has added this as an appendage there is nevertheless some connection to be seen between sickness and sin. Perhaps in view of other Scriptures this is the more likely meaning.
he have committed sins: Mayor rightly remarks on this passage that “there seems to be a certain want of consecutiveness in the language of St. James.” (p.235). Bro. Smart takes up Alford’s idea that the use of the perfect tense in the original for the word “committed” means that the man is in a state of having committed sins. From this is introduced the suggestion that his sickness is possibly connected with some specific act of sin. But this will not altogether hold up. The perfect tense in Classical Greek is quite distinctly the present state resulting from a past action, and is much closer to our English present than our perfect. But in the New Testament period the perfect had begun to take on the function of the aorist (roughly equivalent to our past simple tense) and in so doing it committed suicide (A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III, p.68, N. Turner). The form does not survive in Modern Greek. Hence not too much weight can be placed on the old perfect meaning here, although it is just possible that some of it is retained.
So for all our attempts to accommodate it, the want of precise logical relationship persists. In reality it goes much deeper than the level of language to one of the great unresolvable questions of religious life, the relationship between sin and physical suffering and disease. That there is a relationship in Scripture is beyond doubt. Disease and blight were a direct result of Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:17-19). An almost quantitative relationship between sin and physical suffering is described in Deut. 28 in the terms of the covenant; however, we might note that it didn’t quite work out that way unless we take a very long view over centuries. Jesus consistently forgives the sins of those he heals (Matt. 9:2-5; John 5:14) in line with the current Jewish saying “No sick man recovers from sickness till his sins have been forgiven”. The apostles not only forgave sins (John 20:22, 23), but they could inflict physical suffering for sins (1 Cor. 5:5; Acts 13:11) and even death (Acts 5:1-11). Paul draws a direct relationship between the ailments of the Corinthian ecclesia and its spiritual state (1 Cor. 11:30). We are told that God chastens His sons (Heb. 12:6-8).
And yet against this the case of Job warns us not to equate affliction directly with specific sins. Likewise, on at least two occasions Jesus cautioned against assuming there was a direct relationship between calamity and sickness and specific sins (Luke 13:1-5; John 9:3). What conclusions can be drawn? There is a direct relationship between sin, disease and death on a universal level. There can be a specific connection between sin and sickness in some cases. This connection, however, follows no principle revealed in the Bible, and makes it virtually impossible to decide except perhaps in one’s own case when it is operating.
they shall be forgiven him: Impersonal. It is not the elders who forgive the sins but God. This assumes that the sick one confesses his sin, and leads James on to the slightly different situation of mutual confession.
16. Confess therefore your faults one to another: James now begins to sum up the section by widening the ground of activity from the elders acting in a specific circumstance to the whole brotherhood. Presumably as the sick one must confess his sins to be forgiven and make them known to the elders in order that they may effectively pray for him, so all have to engage in confession. Perhaps there is benefit we have yet to tap in mutual confession to sympathetic and likeminded brothers and sisters. That is, providing we avoid the excesses and abuses which prevail in this matter in some quarters.
and pray for one another: So the responsibility devolves not only on the elders to pray for the sick, but upon all the congregation.
that ye may be healed: Probably both physical and spiritual, coming as it does at the end of a composite phrase.
The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much: ‘Tremendous power is made available through a good man’s earnest prayer.’ (Phillips). Here is one of those timeless utterances such as we find embedded in the prophets’ messages to particular generations. An idea which we meet repeatedly in the New Testament. God answers prayers. There are those in our own midst who can testify that God answers prayer, even if we cannot draw on our own experience. But it is also human experience that God does not always give what we ask in faith and sincerity, the apparently absolute statements to the contrary in the Bible notwithstanding, e.g. Matt. 7:7, 8. We do not doubt Paul’s faith or sincerity, yet his request was refused (2 Cor. 12:7-9). On a lesser plane of faith some of our requests are granted and some are refused, often without us being able to clearly understand why. We develop a philosophy by which we avoid despondency or account for inconsistencies by saying that God’s answer was no, or that our faith was insufficient, and to some extent this can be the case, but equally to some extent it begs the question. Let us front the issue. God’s ways remain imponderable except where He chooses to reveal Himself. This is disturbing, but let us accept it humbly and continue to pray, remembering that He does hear prayer and that He can and does answer.
An attempt has been made to resolve the issue in this very verse. A possible rendering is “The prayer of a good man is powerful when it is energised”. The implication is that it is only when the Holy Spirit joins our petitions that any result follows, that is, the person praying must be inspired. While this interpretation is possible, it is hardly likely that James would have given us this whole passage from verse 14 without mentioning the Holy Spirit if it was interwoven throughout. It seems more natural to take the whole on its face value. See Believer, Jan./Feb., p.6 for further comments on the applicability of these verses today.
Conclusion
The aim of this treatment of the passage has not been to reach a conclusion one way or the other so much as to show that two points of view, two interpretations are possible on a fair assessment. Those who believe that the application of this passage requires the manifestation of Spirit gifts will find their reasons here as discussed above. If further they believe these gifts are absolutely withdrawn in our time then for them these verses cannot have application today. Those who do not see any special charismatic gifts involved will not find anything in the passage that precludes its application today, the details perhaps varying with time and place.
That is the current position in the Australian brotherhood, more or less. What has been attempted in the foregoing is to show that neither position is incontrovertible. What is needful for each one of us is to find OUR personal answer for OUR spiritual well-being. But in the process let us not forget our brother. Let us respect his opinion with due humility, and do our best to help him in his hour of need.
Reflections on the Potter and the Clay