JAMES 5:10-20 TEXT: v14-15 [ANY SICK?]
Although not one of the major debates/Bible, yet this part of James
raises disputes even where Christians generally agree with one another
It lies outside the more general debates within schools of thought
It is neither a Calvinist debate nor an Arminian debate
Strictly speaking, it does not separate even the Pentecostals (arguing
for the retention of the gifts) from the non Pentecostals, because some
non Pentecostals who hold to cessationist views practice this anointing
of the sick with oil when requested by the sick themselves
(As far as I know, there are FPC occasions of it's use)
Yet it is still disputed
I am indebted here to John Blanchard for these views which I think are pretty reasonable and so I'll basically re-echo his thoughts
3 main thoughts:
1) THE PARADOXES WHICH ARE SO CONFUSING!
There are at least two paradoxes found here:
A/ James gives us clear instructions as to what should happen when
someone is ill, yet they are practically ignored in the church
(We do not ignore the two preceding commands: Pray/sing)
Yet this command is as much from God's mouth as the command to break bread/drink wine in the Lord's Supper
Yet we cannot claim that equal weight is given to them
Objection: The tremendous increase in medical knowledge/ability
And surgery etc., has more or less made this verse redundant
Answer: Sickness has not been eradicated and some of God's people
still die, long, lingering and distressing deaths because of illness
There are still sickness out there for which there is no known cure
Paradox 1: Bible is offering a straightforward solution to one of man's
biggest problems and the church (of all people) practically ignores it
B/ Second paradox is not so much the use/disuse but the very clear and unambiguous language which is used:
The prayer of faith shall save the sick
The Lord shall raise him up
No "ifs" or "maybes" here is there?
Is this the universal testimony? No!
While some immediate and unexpected healing does take place, yet
often the healing has been so slow and gradual as to hardly be
identifiable with the scriptural act here prescribed
Other times, the patient continues to deteriorate and dies
Leaving us to say:
"The Bible is true, but when we obey it, it does not always work"
Think of the theological implications of that
Especially when it comes to the salvation of the soul
These are the two paradoxes that are so confusing
2) THE PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE SO CONFLICTING:
This passage has become a veritable hodgepodge of many differing
opinions - some of which are completely off the wall, others imbibed by
good sound men
A/ Rome uses them to boast up her doctrine of extreme unction
Yet they necessarily exclude this teaching which Rome has elevated to the status of a sacrament
[i] Rome herself did not introduce the sacrament in its present form
until the 12th Century - 1,000 long years after these words/James
[ii] Rome only administers this when the soul is at the point/death!
There is no mention/expectation of healing in Rome's actions
New name/old sacrament: Sacrament of Reconciliation i.e. where the soul
is getting ready to depart to meet God in the experience of death
This could not be further away from James 5 than it is
James encouraged his readers to expect a raising up in health
B/ Used by those who believe that they are faith healers
Big tents with so called healing ministries etc.,
Apart from obvious charlatans like Benny Hinn etc.,
yet even the more sincere lads have got it wrong
[i] Passage says nothing about faith healing as a ministry
The elders are spoken about and their role is described in Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Another key verse re: the elder is given in Titus 1:9
Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
We have no where else in the Bible where the elder was required to be a faith healer in the modern concept of the word
[ii] Furthermore, James has in mind here a domestic church situation and not a big campaign coming to town with publicity
It is intimate and personal
C/ Cessationist argument (normally used for tongues etc.,) but applied
here also to this passage i.e. that it was only for the apostolic church
Held by many good men who are spiritual giants in the church:
Calvin: "As the reality of the sign continued only for a time in the church, the symbol must have been only for a time."
Matthew Poole said that the rite was only relevant while the gift of miracles lasted "but the gift ceasing, it is vainly used."
John Trapp: "an extraordinary sign of
an extraordinary cure" and said: it was only used "as an outward symbol
and sign till miracles ceased."
John Howe (Puritan) Limited the use of this passage to the age when it was "necessary that frequent miracles should be wrought for the confirmation of Christianity."
Matthew Henry: "When miracles ceased, this institution ceased also."
Very definite words…but are they true without any qualification?
Has the time of miracles ceased altogether?
[Granted…they do not occur regularly, but are blanket statements called for with such definite emphasis?]
Can we be so sure that they have passed on?
[Again…there are differences here on this matter between people
who agree that tongues and the other Apostolic gifts have ceased]
D/ That this is the one and only means to have sickness healed
There are extreme holders of this view out there who think hospitals and medicines etc., are of the devil and are to be avoided
This is a dangerous imbalanced view that relies totally on the miraculous to work every single time
[i] It rules out the idea that God uses means to achieve His will
[Just as we evangelise to see God's elect brought in and vote to bring
God's appointed rulers/country into power etc., so we take
medicine…]
Furthermore, such despises the idea that every healing can be
attributed to God - who gives the medicines their healing propensities
and who guides the surgeon's hands, even if the surgeon is unaware
[ii] Such a view goes against the rest of Scripture:
Not least: Matthew 5:31 They that are sick need a physician
The activities of Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14)
Exhortation to take a little wine for stomach's sake (1 Timothy 5:23)
Why did Paul not tell Timothy to call for the elders and the oil?
E/ Another view: That no Christian should be sick because (it says)
there is healing in the atonement - based on Matthew 8:17 and the
alternate reading from Isaiah 53:4
Answer: While every sickness/sorrow will be removed from the Christian
who will have a body like unto Christ's glorious body, yet this need
not be immediate or even on this earth
Death too will be banished…but Christians still die
Furthermore: Several cases of Christians sick/Bible
Trophimus (2 Timothy 4:20) Epaproditus (Philippians 1:27)
Possibly Paul (2 Corinthians 12:9)
Evidently it is not always the will/ God to heal His children immediately
3) THE PRINCIPLES THAT ARE SO CONVINCING:
A/ The complaint: sick lit: without strength denoting serious illness
(Suggested by the sending for the elders - not able to go himself)
B/ The call: Emphasis is on the sick to call for the elders
The initiative starts there and the elders respond
There is no place for elders running round seeking the initiative
C/ The commands
[i] Let the elders pray over
A very strong pastoral thrust - not merely institutional element
They are to mourn with those who mourn (Romans 12:15)
[ii] Let them anoint with God
Nothing magical in the oil - it seems to be a symbolic matter
The power of healing is always seen to be entirely from the Lord
D/ The consequences - which are twofold
[i] Promised healing [ii] Promised forgiveness for sins
What is the reality here? Some people thus anointed still die
Reject any spiritualising of these words which sound so corny
But still…we must face reality…Christians thus anointed do die
E/ The conditions- which are again two fold (The turning point)
[i] Must be with the prayer/faith [ii] In the name/Lord
IOW: It will be if the Lord's will i.e. if it is His sovereign will to do so
Nothing automatic about this - must be a submission to the will/God
It is the Lord, let Him do what seemeth Him good (1 Samuel 3:18)
We cannot dictate to God what he is going to do in any given situation
We may therefore pray in faith (1:8) and surrender to His will
Conclusion: The main thrust/passage is spiritual rather than physical
"The disposing of the welfare of a
child of God cannot be left with greater confidence anywhere else than
in the Father's hands, nor can any solution of the plight be more
fitting, beneficial and glorious than that which he has in mind." (Alec
Motyer)
THE END