A Living Faith Evidenced in Prayer – Part 2 (James 5:13-18)
In the previous post we began laying out two interpretations of James’ meaning in James 5:14–16 regarding prayer for sickness. In this post we’ll critique those interpretations. But first, why do most find it difficult to decide between interpretations 1 and 2?
- Lexically: the words can be taken as literal or metaphorical, and the contextual clues as to which way the words should be taken are mixed since there are both physical and spiritual matters at play in this context.
- Grammatically: the relationship of the phrases can be taken in different ways.
- Theologically: one could make a good argument either way.
The doctrinal position is tertiary—people in the same church may disagree ,and it shouldn’t affect the church’s mission, overall teaching, or fellowship; two pastors/scholars can come from the same doctrinal tradition, be well studied and renowned for good exegesis, and may disagree.
You really have to splice hairs in your analysis, which can only tilt you towards the probability of one interpretation over the other. None of the decisions can be proven absolutely without question with clarity, which is why it is a tertiary doctrine.
Why might one tilt toward the physical sickness interpretation?
- Lexically, the hermeneutical principle to follow would be to stick to the plain sense of words unless the metaphorical sense can be proven by context. Most commentators are unconvinced that James indicates a metaphorical use of all these terms (sick, save, raise up).
The usual view, adopted in virtually all modern English Bibles, that James is speaking here of physical illness, is overwhelmingly likely. When astheneo refers to spiritual weakness, this meaning is made clear by a qualifier (“in conscience” in 1. Cor. 8:7; “in faith” in Rom. 14:1, 2) or by the context….More importantly, in the NT material that has exercised the greatest influence on James’s vocabulary and theology (the Gospels), astheneo always denotes physical illness (Matt. 10:8; 25:36, 39; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 4:46; 5:3, 7; 6:2; 11:1, 2, 3, 6).”1
- Anointing with oil, even when taken as a symbolic consecration rather than a medicinal use, has precedent for commonly accompanying physical healing in the Gospels—it seems to have been the standard practice of the apostles according to Mark 6:13. James is the earliest epistle to be written, very closely following the time of the Gospels.
- One might assume that the guarantee of healing would be limited to the miraculous age of the apostles when they had the power and authority to heal those who were qualified to receive such (1 Cor. 12:9, 28). If this is the earliest epistle, then one would expect such healing to be going on. One might also assume that the guarantee of healing is related to physical chastisement directly connected to sin so that if one repented from sin, the chastisement is guaranteed to be removed.
- Grammatically and logically, the situation seems to call for elders to come and pray over someone so as to raise him up; if this were simply a spiritually weak person why couldn’t the person go to the elders?
Among those who hold to the physical sickness position, several possible interpretations are possible for the purpose of the anointing with oil:
- Hygienic (for cleaning)
- Cosmetic
- Medicinal
- Symbolic
The symbolic interpretation seems most convincing.2 The most common Old Testament use of oil was for symbolic consecration and representative of the Spirit’s work. Mark 6:13 seems to be the closest parallel to this passage in James. In Mark 6:13, it is clear that the oil was not the cause of healing; the cause of healing was the miraculous work of God empowering the disciples. And it is most likely the oil was used in a symbolic way of the Spirit’s role accompanying that miraculous work—consecrating people to God.
What was the purpose of the anointing, and is it necessary?
Two different words for anointing are used in the Bible (chrio and aleipho). Both words are used for physical/spiritual purposes (never for medicinal purposes except in secular sources cf. Luke 10:34 poured oil). However, the word most used for physical purposes is used here (aleipho), but that could refer to the physical act that is still symbolic.
More importantly, anointing with oil is the attendant circumstance — the command is to call for the elders to pray; the oil seems to accompany as a symbol rather than the cause of healing (Mark 6:13). Thus, the prayer is prescriptive for us today. But the anointing is descriptive of what was practiced as symbolism of the Spirit’s miraculous work and may not be strictly necessary especially if the symbolism was connected to the Spirit’s miraculous work during the apostolic age. (God can do miracles today, but we are not in the apostolic age as instruments bringing about gifts of healing.)
In the next post we’ll return to the main concern of the passage.
Kevin Collins has served as a junior high youth leader in Michigan, a missionary in Singapore, a Christian School teacher in Utah, and a Bible writer for the BJU Press. He currently works for American Church Group of South Carolina. He also blogs at his other two sites, Gospel in the Marketplace and The Fire and Hammer.