SOUNDING A CALL TO SALVATION, SOBRIETY, WATCHFULNESS, FIDELITY AND BROTHERLINESS IN VIEW OF OUR LORD'S RETURN
 
Menu
 Home
 Webmaster

STUDIES IN JAMES

By Eugene Garner

RESTORATION OF THE SUFFERING

Scripture Lesson: James 5:14 - "is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."

        This passage has been a center of controversy through the ages, and has led some to extremes in both doctrine and practice.
  1. The Roman Catholics hang their doctrine of "Extreme Unction" on this verse - the Douay Version insisting, in a footnote, that this gives "plain warrant of the Scriptures for the sacrament of extreme unction". They change the word "elders" to "priests".

    1. This is a part of Rome's extra-scriptural philosophy of forgiveness through confession, penance, and absolution.

    2. Those who appear to be mortally ill (thus, unable to confess to a priest and secure absolution) the priest anoints with consecrated oil: on the eyes, ears, nostrils, hands, and feet. This oil is declared to be "an effective medium of forgiveness".

    3. To believe that James 5:14 teaches such as they require the sacrificed of one's own intelligence, in favor of religious dogma and superstition - which is nothing short of blatant blasphemy! The whole tenor of James' statement is that the sick person should be "raised up" - not to prepared him for imminent death!

  2. High church Anglicans still hold a view slightly modified from that of Rome regarding the oil as possessing "some sacramental value".

  3. Modern Pentecostals are the real activists in this matter - and that includes the "charismatics" of other denominations. They do not believe that the "gift of healing" was ever withdrawn, but that it still may be exercised by following the instruction of James, with a bit of added "hocus-pocus" that they have improvised over the past 80 years!
        In our study together, I tried to show that, among the Jews (in Biblical times) there was a strong tendency to regard ALL SUFFERING as a direct result of some particular sin - something that the Scriptures do NOT teach. However, there are times when suffering is a direct result of one's sin. Thus when some came to Jesus, seeking healing, He addressed their spiritual need before dealing with their physical afflictions - dealing with the real problem, rather than treating the "symptom"! He forgave their sins, and then healed their bodies - cancelling the effects of sin.

        In writing to his brethren who have been dispersed (scatter abroad) by persecution, James appears to be applying Jesus' principle to their local situations. He is showing how desperately the people of God need the prayers, encouragement and support of each other in the hour of weakness!

        He is well aware that church members sometimes suffer as a direct result of some particular, hidden and unconfessed sin. He is well aware of what happened to Ananias and Sapphira when they attempted to cover their sin, (Acts 5). And Paul mentioned certain sins which, at Corinth, were not only threatening the well-being of the assembly, but threatened immediate judgment on the guilty. Sickness and death had come to some, at Corinth, as a consequence of their misbehavior toward the assembly!

        Against this background, the significance of James' word, for his day, should be quite clear. Any sin that hindered the proper functioning of a New Testament church - either in its worship, or in the mutual fellowship of its members - should be acknowledged. Through confession and prayer, right relationships with God and each other should be restored - the erring one seeking forgiveness, and the church granting forgiveness!
  1. The sick person is responsible to: recognize his desperate need of his brethren, and to deliberately request their aid - admitting his wretchedness without them.

    1. There is at least an implication here that the sick person desires the prayer and fellowship of the whole body.

    2. This passage is definitely not designed to authorize a special "ministry of hospital visitation" - where one systematically goes to impose some legalistic ministration that has not been requested.

  2. "The elders" are but representatives of the congregation; this matter should never be left to them alone.

    1. When the elders respond to such a call, the entire congregation ought to sustain them with earnest prayer - both for the sufferer and for those sent to minister to his needs.

    2. It is the privilege and responsibility of every body-member to become involved where there is any need within the local body of Christ - involving their fellow-body-members.

  3. Such ministry should not be limited to cases or physical illness: requests for help, in any infirmity and in any member; be it of the spirit, the mind, or the body, should be a matter of prayerful concern on the part of the whole church!

    1. There have been occasions, in the history of this church, where one of our members has suffered "in spirit" - being discouraged, despondent, almost without hope - with whom brethren have gathered for counsel, encouragement and prayer to their joyful restoration to wholeness, peace, and usefulness in the Lord's service.

    2. At other times brethren have been called together by one whose sin had so weighed him down that he could bear it no longer; he wanted to acknowledge the error of his way and desire the forgiveness and help of his brethren toward restoration and wholeness. Such requests have never gone unanswered!

    3. What a tremendous privilege, it is for an entire church to unite their hearts in such "prayer of faith" as desires only the will, honor, and glory of their worthy and faithful Lord!
        In our study together we examined a number of passages which mentioned the "hands of Jesus", and how His dealings with men were intimately personal. In many of His miracles the "touch of His hand" was one of the most prominent features.
  1. In Matthew 8:15 is a record of His dispelling the fever from Peter's mother-in-law, after he had "touched her hand"; she then arose to minister to their needs.

  2. Some people seemed to recognize the significance of that "touch" and to desire it, (Matt. 9:18, 23-26).

  3. A leper came beseeching Him, kneeling before Him and saying: "If thou wilt, thou, canst make me clean". Moved with compassion, Jesus put forth His hand and touched him, saying: "I will; be thou clean!" That man was healed immediately, (Mark 1:40-42).

  4. The friends of a deaf man (who also had an impediment of speech) brought him to Jesus, requesting that Jesus "put his hand upon him", (Mark 7:32-35).

  5. At Bethsaida a blind man was brought to Him, with the request that Jesus "touch him", (Mark 8:22-26).

  6. In none of these cases was it necessary for Jesus to touch them in order to heal them; He could have healed, cleansed and restored them with a word!
WHY, THEN DID JESUS TOUCH SOME OF THOSE WHO NEEDED HEALING?
  1. It appears to me (and I will label it as my opinion) that He did this as an aid to their faith.

    1. He regarded their faith in Himself as of far greater importance then their physical restoration.

    2. Therefore, to aid their faith, He added a touch - by which He called forth and strengthened their faith.

    3. Not everyone needed such an aid (Matt. 8:5-13); but, where there was such a need Jesus gave this added TOUCH.

    4. "The Touch of His Hand on Mine"

    5. Faith is a precious gift which some readily receive in great abundance; others, however, hesitate at its very brink - ultimately crying out in anguish: "Lord, I believe; help Thou mine UNBELIEF!"

  2. It, further, appears to me that this "anointing with oil" was designed as a temporary aid to faith for suffering Christians of the first century who had no New Testament; no fully developed church order; and whose knowledge of the Christ Himself was very limited.

    1. There are only two verses in the entire New Testament that make any reference to such an "anointing with oil"; this passage and Mark 6:13.

    2. There is no record of Jesus ever anointing anyone with oil; nor of His apostles' doing so after His resurrection. It is interesting to note their inability to heal a demon-possessed lad at the foot of the mountain where Jesus was transfigured before Peter, James, and John, (Matt. 17:16-20). However, there was no such failure when Jesus sent them forth two-by-two.

      1. 1) Could it be that their own faith was fortified by means of the anointing oil? (Mark 6:7-13).

        2) Could it be that this "anointing oil" was intended, by James, to do the same thing for the "elders" of the dispersion - men who were not apostles, and who did not possess a special "gift of healing"?

    3. It is quite clear that the oil did not possess any healing virtue then, and does not today.

    4. Thus, I have never felt any divine compulsion, or direction to employ "anointing oil" in ministering to the suffering; the New Testament now provides a far greater encouragement to faith than what any mere "symbol" could do!

    5. However, the principle of ministry to the sick and suffering within its membership is a corporate responsibility that is clearly a part of God's order for every local, New Testament assembly today - especially so where there is a specific request for such spiritual aid!

    6. But, let us never forget that the responsibility to recognize his need and to seek the spiritual aid of the church is the responsibility of the sufferer! Presumptuousness, on the part of the ministry in this matter, may do more harm than good!