From: A Torah
Commentary on James 3-5 Return to Home
By Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2014
[Page 462]
Chapter 5D:
Problem Texts—Verses 11-20
That this is the point can be seen in the introductory words to the
verse, “Indeed, we count them blessed who endure.” It is in the context of “endur[ance]” that
Job is described as patient. Hence it is
better to replace the “patience of Job” with language such as the “perseverance
of Job” (NKJV and New American Bible) . . . or his “endurance” (Holman, ISV,
NASB, NRSV,
[Page 463] A few retain the KJV’s
“patience” or substitute “patient” (CEV, TEV).
Yet the type of patience described--those “who endure”—argue that
this misses the intended point.
As he is pictured in the Old
Testament book given his name, the last thing Job seems to be is patient. He is upset, indignant, and in inner turmoil
over his fate. To the extent that he was
patient, it was surely not a happy patience. He remained faithful and loyal not because it
made him feel good, but because he knew it was the right thing to do.
Yet, even so, he is
patient in at least two senses. Compared
to others he exercised remarkable restraint. Could many of us today endure what he did
without either repudiating God or--to be blunt--committing suicide? That is not a rebuke of our own character,
but a grim recognition of our own limits and how far Job’s strength was tested.
Job was also patient in the sense
that he never permitted the hurts and pains to destroy him. He had, if you will, the patience of
spiritual stubbornness. He never
denied the experiences hurt and were devastating. He was in both physical and mental anguish
because of them.
Yet in spite of all the pressure his reliance on God was never
ultimately broken. Patience in the sense
of persistence--that was Job. Regardless
of what God was doing, he had committed to loyalty and he would not betray it.[1] An accomplishment not to be mocked by those
who have endured only a fraction of he did but with sometimes far grimmer
results on our own interpersonal and spiritual lives.
[Page 464] This characteristic of Job is
obvious even on a superficial reading of the text. Some verses, however, hit more directly on
the element of his perseverance. For
example
He was convinced that even though he was beyond understanding how in
the world God could be acting in this manner, that it would be utter hypocrisy
on his own part to be willing to serve God only on condition of good coming his
way. He had trusted God this far;
he would trust Him all the way.
Not only does this refusal to verbally strike out fit in well with
James’ emphasis on successful endurance of hardship, it is doubly appropriate
because of the earlier stress that James laid on the control of the tongue.
If one insists upon sticking with the translation of “patience,”
however—and we noted that some still retain it--one has to deal with how that specific
term fits Job. We have noted some ways
the expression can be expansively glossed to fit the events in a more
appropriate manner, but what if we attempt to retain anything close to the narrower
usage of the word?
As Robert W. Wall asks, “The Job of the Hebrew Bible (MT) is hardly an
exemplar of patience nor is he usually thought of as one of ‘the prophets who
spoke [Page 465] in the name of the
Lord.” ” Hence some scholars argue that
the Job being referred to is the Job of the Testament of Job rather than
the Job of the Bible.[2] (Wall’s own answer is the conjecture that in actuality both the Testament
and James’ remark are built upon remarks found in the LXX and not in the Hebrew
text.)[3]
Two issues are involved here.
First to consider is whether Job is being
presented as one of the prophets. One could take the “suffering and
patience” of the “prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord” of verse 10 as a
generalization and verse 11 as a specification of one particular prophet,
Job. Although Job might in a very loose
sense be called a prophet—having set forth a defense of God’s character even
when he himself was suffering—it is not a characterization one would normally
expect.
That he could be presented in contrast to “the prophets” of
verse 10 would make a great deal more sense:
“the prophets” were persecuted because they kept loyal to God in times
and places that washed their hands of Him; Job’s adversity came directly from
the hands of Satan with the tacit permission of God.
If you will, the difference would be that Job suffered repression not because
he was faithful to God but in spite of it. Although the result was pain and anguish in
both cases, the underlying causes were still radically different.
Furthermore there is no direct statement that those in James are
suffering because of their faith. It has
nothing directly and visibly related to their faith. The factor could have been present, but
James does not see the need to bring it to our attention the way we would
expect if it had been a/the primary motivation.
[Page 466] As we saw in the last chapter,
certain of the rich could easily have taken it as a “two-for:” a chance to show their contempt for both
the poor and their moral character as “just” individuals. Perhaps or perhaps not for their Christian
faith in particular as well, but definitely for the moral standards that
governed their lives and which were spurned by the amoral and immoral wealthy.
The same distinction is true when comparing the prophets as contrasted
with Job. The prophets of the Old
Testament were explicitly being targeted for their faith in God and His law and
their plea that others be loyal to it as well.
In contrast, Job had been singled out by Satan because of his “just”
character and behavior, like these first century Christians.
However one judges this particular
matter, some very conservative individuals have no problem with applying the
label of “prophet” to Job and since it is a subject rarely discussed, some
attention should be devoted to it.
There are two external references
taken to prove the point:
1.
James speaks of the example of the “prophets” (
2.
Then there is the way he is discussed by Ezekiel when discussing whether
it would be possible to save a dying land if such men were present: Ezekiel 14:14: “ ‘Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and
Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness,’
says the Lord God. 20 ‘Even though Noah,
Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘they would deliver
neither son nor daughter; they would deliver only themselves by their
righteousness.”
[Page 467] Daniel unquestionably was a
prophet. We don’t often think of Noah as
such, but the label certainly fits—as he built the ark and explained why . . .
was he not foretelling the future? Indeed,
2 Peter 2:5 describes him as “a preacher of righteousness.”
In light of this, arguing that Job
is intended to be described as a prophet would not be illogical. A prophet not necessarily in the sense of foretelling
but in the sense of forthtelling--as in 2 Peter 2:5, “a preacher of
righteousness.”
Of course the key problem is that
Ezekiel avoids using the term “prophet” to describe any of them, even
Daniel. That opens the door to an
alternative explanation—that they are chosen not because of prophetic
credentials or lack of them, but to them being exemplars of faith.
The
argument for being a prophet in the narrow sense of foretelling
is grounded in Job 19:25-26: “For I know
that my Redeemer lives, and He shall stand at last on the earth; and after my
skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God.” As one individual stresses, “Was this not a
‘prophecy’ of Christ the Messiah? Does
this prophecy not constitute Job as a ‘prophet’?”[4]
It would not seem an abuse of the
wording, however, if we take it as meaning that Job would physically see either
the manifestations of God acting as “Redeemer” in restoring his welfare
or, perhaps, would see the angelic manifestation of God at some point.
I have no aversion to taking it as a
prediction of his own ultimate physical resurrection, however—in fact I would
much prefer it if that is the intent.
But if we [Page 468] take it as
a prophecy of the still future, isn’t it odd that this seems the only
prophecy in a book that is so very long?
Do we have any other example of a designated “prophet” giving so little
prophecy?
In short, we seem to land up with Job being “technically” a prophet but
is James really referring to “prophets” with such a narrow meaning? Though Job may well prophesy, he isn’t likely
to have done enough of it for James to lump him in that category.
There is
also the broad argument that since he spoke truth in contrast to his critics
that he meets the criteria of being a forthteller of truth, a key
role of being a prophet. In Job 42:7,
God rebukes Job’s critics, “And so it was, after the Lord had spoken these
words to Job, that the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘My wrath is aroused
against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right,
as My servant Job has.”
Since his teaching is endorsed by God, we know that it must be, at the
minimum, reliable and, at the maximum, that inspiration surely underlay it in
some form or fashion. As Stephen Garrett
puts it, “These words should settle all debate about the correctness of Job’s
theology, about the truthfulness of what he said about the nature and workings
of God in his dialogues with his ‘friends.’ ”[5]
But does the role as “forthteller” of truth require us to raise him to
the level of prophet as well? When we
teach God’s truth, are we also automatically prophets as the result?
[Page 469] The
second issue is whether Job was actually “patient.” We have already presented some arguments that
he was, unconventional though the idea is from the attributes that we
usually give the term. But now let us
go back and consider the question from the standpoint of whether the concept
came not from the form of the book we have in the Hebrew but from its Greek
translation.
In the Hebrew language text of 2:9-10, Job is challenged to give up and
die. His refusal to do so surely implies
patience with his situation—unhappiness, of course, but determination to
stay the course in spite of it. In the
NKJV this reads:
9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still
hold fast to your integrity? Curse God
and die!” 10 But he said to her, “You
speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God,
and shall we not accept adversity?” In
all this Job did not sin with his lips.
For whatever reason, the LXX expands
this considerably and it takes verses 9-15 to cover the matter--making even
more emphatic that there had to be an
element of “patience” buried in his stubborn loyalty for his behavior to make
sense:
9 When a period of time passed, his wife
said to him, “How long will you hold out, saying, 10 ‘Behold, I will
wait a little longer, looking for the hope of my salvation’? 11 Listen, your memory is wiped out from the
earth: your sons and daughters, the
pangs and pains of my womb, which I suffered in vain and with hardships. 12 You yourself are sitting down, spending
the nights in the open air among the rottenness of worms; 13 and I go about as
a [Page 470] wanderer and a handmaid
from place to place and from house to house, waiting for the setting of the
sun, so as to rest from my labors and pains that now beset me. 14 But say a word against the Lord and die! 15 Then Job looked at her and said, “You have
spoken as one of the foolish women speaks.
If we accepted good things from the Lord’s hand, shall we not endure
evil things?” In all these things that
happened to him, Job did not sin with his lips against God. (Saint Athanasius Academy translation of the Septuagint)
The LXX brings out a point that we
often forget—that what was happening with Job also affected his
wife. We often pass over her in silence
or with little comment. But when Job
asks, “Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not
accept adversity?,” presumably that plural “we” allowed the Septuagint to do a
little editorializing—unless the text actually be more accurate here than the
Hebrew—and express the suffering that Job’s wife was going through and which
she felt would somehow be over with if her husband died. Just as with Job, both had accepted
“good from God” and now both should “accept adversity” for however long it
lasted.
The element of patience is brought
out more firmly than in the Hebrew: “I will
wait a little longer, looking for the hope of my salvation.” The NETS rendition of the text puts it a
little more colloquially but with the same overtone of patience: “Look, I will hang on a little longer, while
I wait for the hope of my deliverance.”
Hence it seems clear that the
Septuagint presents Job’s attitude in terms of patience and James could well be
picking up on the concept from that source.
[Page 471] The non-Biblical work called
the Testament of Job (26:5) makes it explicit, “Let us be patient until
the Lord, in pity, shows us mercy.”[6] In it he declares that “patience is better
than anything” (27:6-7).[7] James may have been acquainted with this
source, assuming it was in existence at the time. (Dates for its origin range from 100 B.C. to
200 A.D.)
The picture of Job as “patient,” however, is far more likely to have
originated either from the rendering of the LXX or from the logical deduction
from the Hebrew that if he persisted as long as he did, he must have been “patient.” Hence the explanation of the imagery requires
no borrowing from a non-Biblical source, fascinating as such references can
be.
The rendering “end” (KJV) or
“purpose of the Lord” (NRSV) has been utilized to prove that the final “end” =
triumph of Jesus over death is under discussion instead of Job. This seems far less likely. Medieval commentators felt understandably
drawn to this interpretation because it is admittedly odd that Job should be
cited as an example of endurance or patience and the even greater and more
immediate example of Jesus be omitted.[10]
[Page 472] On the other hand, the lead in
to this comment (verses 1-9) has emphasized the illegitimate obtaining and use
of wealth and how the prophets had rebuked it (verse 10). In the context of earthly wealth, the
example of Job fits beautifully because he was an example of the proper
use of wealth yet was one who went through great loss and torment--and yet came
out of it re-established in his well being due to his moral steadfastness. In contrast Jesus could hardly be cited as an
example of one who had great wealth (cf. Matthew
The minimal interpretation that can be placed upon James
[Page 473] The “above all . . . do not
swear” is not an elevation of the teaching to the status of supreme law of
Christian behavior. Rather it is a
continuation of the thought of maintaining patience (James 5:7-11): “above all” in your effort to faithfully
persevere in spite of adversity, don’t let the pressures you are under and
the impatience you feel cause you to say things you ought not.
This could come in several
forms. For example idle, unthinking
oaths (promises) to God that if He will just do such and such then you will be
“forever faithful.” It’s a fine
sentiment but not if one does not fully mean it; then they are idle words. Is it desperation speaking or sincerity?
Then “swearing” could mean oaths
of revenge. “I will get even.” A fully understandable sentiment, however
much it falls beneath the New Testament ideal.
But just how do you propose doing that without getting yourself into
even worst trouble than you are already undergoing? And if others have heard you, how will you
escape humiliation if you don’t carry out the threat—but if you do
act on your verbal rashness how can it possibly make the situation better? You have merely compounded the sin of others
in making your life difficult or miserable by your own additional sin.
Taking this one step further. Especially in the 50s and 60s of the first
century, sporadic “bandit” and even revolutionary groups exploded into the
regional spotlight in geographic
[Page 474] Yes, the rich often deserved
it. But what did the “rebels” deserve
when judged for their own failures?
It was hardly a “career path” that encouraged idealism, restraint, and
self-control! And to make it worse,
these were rarely “Robin Hoods” who would carefully pass by the goods of the
poor if the takings were otherwise slim.
Although it is common to stress that the text is not actually talking
about our modern use of the terms “swear” and “oath” as off-color, vulgar, and even
obscene language . . . that seems to be only partially true. The invoking of God’s or Christ’s name for any
worthless purpose seems core to his direct point.
Does any one believe for a second that when faced with a cruel
oppressor, that even retaliatory oaths avoided describing the enemy in such
language? Especially “throw away lines”
like “I’ll be [fill in the obscenity] if I don’t [fill in the blank] to that
old [fill in the blank].” Does not the
very nature of such spontaneous oaths / imprecations virtually demand
the worst insult we can think of?
Invoking our sexuality, our digestive wastes, or the worst other
derogatory language we can imagine?
Yet if James would clearly have rebuked such language even in the
severe context of genuine physical oppression—the whole thrust of his argument
is for self-control—how much more upset he would surely have been if the
language was used as today: idle
chatter not even provoked by gut animosity but simply because our vulgar
spouting friends expect it of us or because we’ve had too much to drink? So such usage does, indeed, seem to be
covered by the passage—but at the edges of its application rather than as its
main point.
. In
other words we drift back to what was suggested in our overview chapter, that
the thrust has comparatively little to do with legal style (i.e., court) oaths
of truth telling and everything to do with the abusive use of the tongue in any setting. [Page 475]
It is (though not intentionally) reflected in that second half of the
twentieth century truism advising people to adhere to the KISS principle—Keep
It Simple, Stupid! And “Yes, yes” / “No,
no” are as concisely “simple,” direct, to the point, and clear cut as anyone
can make it.
As to
oaths representing solemn affirmations of truth being under consideration,
rather than just the empty (or threatening) rhetoric that James condemns, these
still do not fall into the type of language James rebukes. This can be seen in the New Testament usage
of de facto oaths to guarantee the truthfulness of what is said and these are
presented as occurring in different verbal formulas:[12]
When Caiaphas commanded him, “I charge you
under oath by the living God: Tell us if
you are the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63) then Jesus answered and said,
“Yes, it is as you say.” And in His
speaking, and in the letters of the apostle Paul to those who were quite
outside the Jewish constituency, they both employed emphatic statements which
went far beyond a simple yes or no. Think of the words of Jesus, “Verily verily
I say unto you” or “I tell you the truth” (compare Matthew
Then the apostle will summon God as his
witness and will place himself before the face of God: “I assure you before God that what I am
writing you is no lie” (Galatians
[Page 476] We
even read of an angel in Revelation 10 verses 5 to 7 who with uplifted hand,
swore an oath to God. So we take those references
and we conclude that whatever James is saying he is not teaching that every
swearing of an oath is prohibited.
In the Old Testament, not
unexpectedly, we find a variety of oaths or oath equivalents.[13] The New Testament continuation of such practices
argues strongly that neither Jesus’ nor James’ admonitions about oaths were
intended to prohibit ones of this type.
Double “yes” and double “no” as an oath or
oath equivalent? Let us see
how this would work, if embraced. James
5:12 has it, “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by
earth or with any other oath. But let
your ‘Yes,’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No,’ lest you fall into judgment.” This has often been viewed as prohibiting all
oaths, but could not the impact be equally fairly glossed “but let your only
oath” be the yes or no—or, at most, a double yes or a double no?
Jesus’ own command would then
similarly amount to don’t swear at all “except by your ‘yes’ or ‘no.” There was certainly a strain in Jewish
thought that considered a double yes or no as an oath—or at least as the
effective equivalent of one, though others clearly affirmed that saying it
only once was quite adequate,[14]
This [double affirmative / negative] opinion
is supported by the Rabbinic tractate Shebouth 36a which discusses the question
whether Yes and No are oaths and finally decides that if they are repeated
twice, then they [Page 477] are
legitimate oaths: “R. Eleazar said, ‘No’
is an oath; ‘Yes’ is an oath . . . Said Raba:
But only if he said ‘No! No!’
twice; or he said ‘Yes! Yes!’
twice.” Furthermore in the Mechilta 66a
on Exodus 20:1-2 the Israelites swear an oath in response to their reception of
the commandments, “The Israelites answered, ‘yea, yea’ and ‘nay, nay’ to the
commands at Sinai.
Even more direct due to its
(theoretical) early origin of no later than 70 A.D. is 2 Enoch (Slavonic Enoch)
49:1,[15]
I swear to you, my children, but I swear
not by any oath, neither by heaven nor by earth, nor by any other creature,
which God created. The Lord said: “There is no oath in me, nor injustice, but
truth.’ If there is no truth in men, let
them swear by the words ‘yea, yea’ or else ‘nay, nay.’ ”
Multiple problems occur here: the text is only found in the longer version
of Second Enoch; there are multiple indications of Christianized text; the surviving
manuscripts, unfortunately, are from no earlier than the 16th
century.[16]
It should also be noted that if this
approach is taken, then we have the oaths under consideration as clearly including
court ones. Yet more would still
be included because binding oaths were taken in many other social contexts
as well. Hence the application would
still only include court oaths rather than it being the sole topic of
consideration.
[Page 478]
James may be referring to usage of the book of Psalms in particular
since an ethnic Jew would doubtlessly utilize many of them because of their familiarity
and obvious applicability. In Ephesians
Standing alone, by itself, however, it could be interpreted in either
an exclusive or an illustrative sense, i.e., Psalms only or as an
example of the type of material to be utilized in Christian singing:
(1) “Psalms”
as synonymous with the Biblical psalms and them alone. In its more extreme application, the singing
of anything else is viewed as a heretical development. After surveying the use of psalms in the New
Testament record, J. Kortering argues[18]
This same tradition was carried over to the
post-apostolic period of the early church. Dr. Phillip Schaff, in his History
of the Christian Church, makes the point that during this period there were
no hymns in the church, [Page 479] only
Psalms. Drawing from the excellent
article on Psalmody from the McClintock
and Strong Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Cyclopaedia, we learn
that Chrysostom, the church father of the fourth century, in his sixth homily
on Repentance, extolled the Psalms above the rest of Scripture to be sung by
all classes of men, at all places, and on all occasions.
During this same period, the heretics
introduced the singing of hymns into the churches. The Gnostics, the Arians,
and the Donatists all began to introduce songs other than the Psalms. This led
to the decision of the Council of
He concedes that hymns have, indeed, been of great spiritual benefit to
believers. He argues, however, that such
should be confined to home or school use and worship singing be limited to the
Psalms.[19] However, James
Either way, this would leave us with the problem of why Paul—in both
Ephesians
[Page 480] But, of course, not all
agree. Kortering provides this analysis
of how Psalms “only” and Psalms “plus” advocates have made distinctions between
the three expressions,[20]
First, there are those who teach that three
different subjects are intended (the view of Jerome and other church
fathers): Psalms deal with subjects of
an ethical nature; hymns deal with the subject of God's divine majesty; spiritual
songs are concerned with nature and the world.
Others suggest that three different forms
are intended (the view of Augustine and Hilary): Psalms are to be chanted with music; hymns are
for the voice alone; and spiritual songs are to be shouted with short bursts.
Finally, there are those who suggest that
three different sources are intended (the view of Beza and Grotius): Psalms are Old Testament collections; hymns
are collections of various songs such as Song of Mary and Song of Zacharias;
and spiritual songs are premeditated compositions prepared for singing.
Kortering himself take the three terms to simply mean the Psalms
themselves and takes the second and third descriptions given by Paul as
categories within it, “It is generally understood that ‘Psalms’ is the broadest
category and are reflective, expressing God's greatness and our response;
‘hymns’ lift up the souls of God's people in praise to Him; ‘spiritual songs’
articulate what God means to us in all areas of our lives.”[21]
[Page 481] Although the Psalms, from a
conservative perspective, are properly viewed as Christ-prophetic we still only
grasp their full intent from their New Testament fulfillment. If singing is limited to Biblical Psalms
alone, how can the full abundance of Christ’s greatness be celebrated when the
Psalms could only partially touch what we now know to be the fuller reality?
(2) “Psalms”
as intended to cover any appropriate song of encouragement.[22] Presumably this understanding led to the
broader translation of the wording in a clear majority of modern
translations. The BBE substitutes in
James
The Nature of the
“Singing:”
With or Without
Instrumental Music?
The Greek term for “sing Psalms” is psallo, rendered (in
the KJV) “sing unto thy name” (Romans
Patrick J. Hartin, an able Roman Catholic commentator, has provided
this useful medium length analysis of the history of the word and its shifteing
meaning:
[Page 482]
This verb means “to sing songs of praise,
with or without instrumental accompaniment” (Walter Bauer, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd
edition; Chicago:
As time went on the connection with a
musical instrument diminished and the word was used to designate the human
voice or human heart that sings praise to God without any accompaniment (e.g.,
“I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing
praise [psallo] with the spirit, but I will sing praise [psallo]
with the mind also” [1 Corinthians 14:15] and “as you sing psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, among yourselves, singing and making melody [psallontes]
to the Lord in your hearts” [Ephesians 5:19]).
The terminology has often gotten wrapped into the controversy about the
propriety of using instrumental music in the worship of believers, with the
contention being that the New Testament carries over its Old Testament
connotation of instrumental accompaniment.
Of course that has always carried the inherent difficulty that if
everyone is to psallo then, logically, everyone must also be
using a harp or other musical instrument while doing so.
[Page 483] However, one resolves that in
regard to congregational worship, here the emphasis is on the individual
outside the worship service. The
one who is to “sing” because he is in an upbeat and happy mood—not because he
or she is at worship.
Do we really believe that all Christians were to use an
instrument in these private moments of happiness? Do we really believe that all Christians—even
most--could do so? Most today
don’t play instruments after all.
Not to mention that their ancient economic limitations likely hindered gaining
such equipment and talents as well.
Unless we give different meanings to psallo in its alleged
congregational usage and its “private” settings (and for what reason?), this
“carry over” seems essential or deducing instrumental usage from being inherent
in the word needs to be abandoned.
However one resolves that dilemma, this much should be
inescapable: one thing that all
individuals had was a voice. It might
not be a “good” voice, but any voice was quite adequate to do what James
instructs. In clear contrast, not all
would have instruments.
The word “praise” that is utilized
inherently describes something expressing joy.
Hence Christian hymnology was to be happy, uplifting, and represent the
natural expression of a heart that is in a cheerful and upbeat mood—or wishes
to be.[23] In the case of Paul and Silas singing songs
during their imprisonment after being beaten (Acts
[Page 484] Although
there is certainly nothing wrong with “serious” and even “somber” songs--in
some cases the subject matter of the songs requires such an approach--uplifting
and upbeat hymns are not only appropriate but essential as well. This is a central abiding lesson from James’
teaching on the subject.
But what, then, is the meaning of
the entire phrase “in the name of the Lord”?
We use the phrase “in the name of the law,” which we understand to mean
“by the authority of the law.” That is
the concept here as well: the sick are
anointed because Jesus has provided authority to do so and they will be healed
because He has promised the healing.
The “name of the Lord” may even be invoked verbally during the
anointing to remind the sick person and the participants of whose strength and
authority lies behind what is being done.
Although verbalization of the expression is not demanded (any more than
in the prayer mentioned in verse 16) it would be a quite natural action.
What is being promised to the
person being anointed and why is it needed?
Although this can easily lead one into many related issues we will
attempt to keep the discussion relatively limited. Some aspects of what we discuss will be
referred to more than once since it will logically and properly fit under more
than one of our divisions of the subject.
[Page 485]
Some
make the person as suffering from world-weariness, psychological / spiritual
exhaustion—perhaps even physical manifestations from non-physical roots. This would certainly explain the add on, closing
remark of James: “if he has
committed sins, he will be forgiven” (
J. O. Hosler outlines the case for
this being under discussion:[25]
The heart of the problem lies in just what James meant when he referred
to the “sick.” Actually there is no
reason to consider “sick” as referring exclusively to physical illness.
a. The word asthenei literally means
“to be weak.” Though it is used in the Gospels for physical maladies, it is
generally used in Acts and the Epistles to refer to a weak faith or a weak
conscience (cf. Acts
b. That it should be considered “weak” in
this verse is clear in that another Greek word (kamnonta) in James
i. The only other use in the New Testament
(Heb. 12:3) of that word clearly emphasizes this same meaning.
c. James was not referring to the bedfast,
the diseased, or the ill. Instead he wrote to those who had grown weary, who
had become weak both morally and spiritually in the midst of suffering.
i. These are the ones who “should call” for the help of “the elders of the
church.” The early church leaders were
instructed (1 Thessalonians
[Page 486]
This would also tie in perfectly
with the spiritual illness concept that can reasonably be found in verse
16: “Confess your trespasses to one
another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.” “The reader does not have to search for some
shift to make sense of the verses, but rather they complement each other,”
argues Edwin Crozier.[26] He also notes that the recurring theme from
early in the first chapter (
In this approach, the anointing with
oil is simply to prepare the individual to go about his or her daily
business. To the extent it has a
symbolic function at all it is to tell the person that God will provide them
the strength and encouragement they need and that they can release the psychological
/ spiritual burden they have been carrying.
One of the biggest problems with
this approach is that it far better fits the modern world than the
ancient: We have the “luxury” of being
sick psychologically far more than the vast bulk of ancients. They had to get up and be about their
daily business except in the most extreme cases—or they would starve.
It should also be noted that a
person who has suffered a significant bout of [Page 487] physical illness will often have this
“depressed / discouraged” mind frame as well.
Though the terminology may well fit the spiritually weary, it also fits
well those suffering from the psychological fatigue that goes with significant
or prolonged physical difficulties as well.
A major interpretive problem also seems
present in regard to why oil would be involved in a purely spiritual
affair. Appeal is made to Jeremiah
30:12-17 (“healing medicines,” [30:13]) and how sin is presented in disease
terms; in “her” case there was no one to aid her (30:14), while with Christians
there are those who will do so. It is
that intervention—describing a spiritual matter in physical terms—that is said
to be under discussion in James 5.[28]
In Jeremiah 30 the sin element in
the description is crystal clear: The
text refers to “the multitude of your iniquities” and how “your sins have
increased” (30:14), descriptive terms that are repeated in verse 15. In James 5, the presence of sin is only a
possibility rather than a certainty: “if
he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”
Some believe that the text promises a
miracle.[29] We read of the apostles’ traveling and
preaching the message of Jesus during His ministry, “And they cast out many
demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them” (Mark
[Page 488] Yet
in James the “elders” are to be called--not the apostles or a man (or woman)
who might possess the gift of healing.
It is not to a recognized miracle worker they are to go to, but to the
“elders” of the local congregation. To
those with leadership . . . the leadership responsibility. Unless one is to assume that all
“elders” were automatically possessors of such a supernatural gift (and
there are no Biblical grounds for doing so), there is no proof that a
miraculous manifestation was expected.
Indeed in 1 Corinthians
Wayne Jackson finds it most unusual if the healing gift were not present, however, arguing that, “It would be
most natural that the elders of local churches would be those who were granted
the gift in their respective congregations.
Ephesians 4:8-11 clearly indicates that some ‘pastors’ (i.e., elders)
were given spiritual gifts.”[32] But can that reasonably be considered a
uniform or even normal pattern in the brotherhood at large: by his own admission the text speaks of what
“some” would have rather than “all” or “most”—of elders or any other
subgrouping within the congregation.
Actually, I think this is a far more generous concession than is
actually appropriate. Read the entire
text for yourself: In the passage, is
not the “gift” that of the office itself rather than a miracle working
power?
Embracing the miraculous interpretation of the healing, that would
still leave three further questions to be resolved.
[Page 489] First,
healing is presenting as if an assured result of the anointing and laying on of
hands. The text seems to leave no way out of
this: “And the prayer of faith will
save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will
be forgiven” (James
Hence if this practice is one that
continues today, how is there any room for any failures? But it is obvious that many undergo what is
claimed to be the same “ritual” today—and nothing like this happens.
We have stressed, as James 5 does,
that the anointing was by the local elders.
Elders may or may not have had miraculous powers. There is no reason to assume it was common
among them since the evidence for it (see above on Ephesians 4:8-11) is far
from convincing.
But, unlike elders, the apostles clearly had the miracle working
power which is assumed to be operative in James 5. We read, for example, of how they “preached
everywhere” and were “confirming the word through the accompanying signs” (Mark
In light of having the miracle
working power and in light of how such was connected with anointing with oil
(allegedly) in James 5, we would naturally expect that Paul would heal in a
similar manner. There is no hint of
such. Nor in that of the apostolic
community in Mark 16.
[Page 490] As David Reagan argues, “He
gave a medical prescription to Timothy (1 Timothy
Although the epistle is written to Jewish Christians, they were
“scattered abroad” (James 1:1), i.e., it was written to all such individuals
scattered around the Roman world. Hence
the teaching coming in contact with Gentile believers was inevitable. Since there is no textual indication that it
is the “Jewish” part rather than the “Christian” one that is the dominant
element, wouldn’t both groups have interpreted it as equally applicable to
themselves? Especially since the themes
of the abuse by the wealth, favoritism for the rich, and injustice to laborers
were “world wide” themes and not just meaningful in a purely Jewish context.
Hence Paul’s case argues that not all the sick were healed and, if they
weren’t, can we safely interject such an absolutist position into the meaning
of James 5?
Second,
there is the question of why an anointing was necessary if the healing was
going to be miraculous to begin with.
Although the New Testament contains many accounts of miraculous cures in the
gospels, only Mark 6:1 mentions any anointing occurring in any way
connected with such. Hence it would be
far easier to explain James 5 as a miracle than to explain why an anointing
would be mentioned in connection with it.
[Page 491] Its usage in a “natural,”
every day health context or recuperation would be a different matter. But then you’d have the anointing—but no
miracle, giving up the assumption that miraculous intervention has occurred.
It’s been suggested that an anointing was a symbolic way of showing
God’s approval and acceptance of an individual.
The examples of both king Saul (1 Samuel 10:1) and David (Psalms 89:20)
have been cited as evidence.[35] First came the anointing and then the
office.
Reasoning from such precedent would presumably give us something like
this: The anointing would be a visible
affirmation that God was not against us but acting on our behalf. The miracle of healing would be a visible
proof of that.
Yet there still seems to be a profound difference between being
anointed as part of taking an official office and anointing as a preliminary
for healing. Do we really feel
comfortable in equating an anointing given to very, very few--as preliminary
for holding the unique office of king--and that given presumably to many and
leading to their healing? Indeed isn’t
the result (office holding versus healing) so profoundly different, that it
seems a “stretch” to make the comparison?
Finally, there is the issue of whether such
anointings and healings are relevant to today’s church practice. If one
believes that miracles are still being performed today, then this text would
provide an obvious precedent for a combination of anointing and miracle in our
world. If one argues that the age of [Page
492] miracles has ended—and 1
Corinthians 13:8-10 does point to an expectation that they would—then
the question would be the timing beyond which miracle producing anointments
would no longer occur.
Although commonly interpreted as a reference to miracles ending when
Jesus returns, everything after that event is clearly miraculous: the return itself, the physical resurrection,
eternal life, etc. Hence it must refer
to something that occurs in the current world before that terminus
event. The completion of the New
Testament would seem the most logical—probably the only logical—“break
point” in such a reconstruction.
Taking the miraculous interpretation
would still rule out all ceremonial and non-miracle anticipating usage. For example, that of the Roman Catholic
Church’s “extreme unction.”
Another approach to the exegesis of the
text is to see the anointing as a practical act to assist in the physical
healing.[36] It has been contended that we do not have
here the normal word for a ritual anointing.
Instead of that we have is aleipsantes, which properly means to
smear or daub a substance on another.[37]
Scot McKnight notes that there is an element of formality and ceremony
to the usage of the term that should be taken into consideration in deciding
what James is driving at:[38]
[Page 493]
Anointing . . . was sometimes done as an
action of consecrating, dedicating, or purifying—it is not always clear which—an
object, as when Jacob anointed a pillar (Genesis 31:13), Ezekiel anointed a
wall (Ezekiel 13:10-12), Ruth washed her body (Ruth 3:3; cf. Esther 2:12;
Judith 16:7), or David did the same to his body (2 Samuel 12:20; cf. also 2
Chronicles 28:15; Matthew 6:17). It was
also done in consecrating a person to service (Exodus 40:15; Numbers 3:3. . .
. And dead bodies were anointed (Mark
16:1).
Be that as it may, the two
testaments certainly provide adequate precedent for the use of oil to help in natural
healing or curing as well. We read of
the good Samaritan using oil to help heal the injured traveler in Luke
10:34: “So he went to him and bandaged
his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought
him to an inn, and took care of him.”
In Isaiah 1:6 we find Old Testament precedent for such usage as well: “From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it, but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores; they
have not been closed or bound up, or soothed with ointment.” The KJV puts
“oil” as a marginal note and it is the main text reading in the BBE, CEV, JPS,
NASB,
Outside the Biblical context, the preeminent early physician Galen
spoke of oil as “the best of all remedies for paralysis.”[39] Both Philo and Pliny and various ancient
papyri texts also refer to the medical use of oil.[40]
James R. Strange provides a useful summary of the specific location of
these and other ancient sources related to the subject (and we include them in
case the reader should wish to pursue them further):[41]
[Page 494]
Among texts predating and roughly
contemporary to James, the most commonly cited are the use of oil to treat a
festering leg wound in Menander, Georg. 60;’
Pliny’s treatment of various oils in Nat.
23.39-50;
Hippocrates, Vict. (= RegimenA)
II, 6 (DC);
Philo’s praise of the benefits of simple
olive oil over costlier unguents in Somn. 2.58;
Josephus’s account of the desperate and
apparently extreme prescription that Herod Antipas immerse himself in an oil
bath in A.J. 17.172/B.J. 1.657;
Celsus’s prescription of anointing after
inducing vomiting in De Med. 4.26.4-5;
Galen’s praise of oil’s ability to cure
paralysis in Med. Temp. 2.10 (DC);
the use of salted oil to treat illness in T.
Sol. 18.34;
the quest for “the oil of life” to treat
the dying Adam in L.A.E. 36.2 (= ApMos 9.3) and 40.1-41.2 (ApMos
13.1-2);
and the priestly anointing of the sick with
a consecrated mixture of oil and “the waters” in T. Adam 1.7.
Against
the natural healing interpretation being all that is involved, is the obvious
objection: Why specify elders; why
couldn’t anyone else have done it?[42] On the other hand the act—coming from
elders—could be construed as a kind of ceremonial consecration / purification preparing
the body for healing rather than being viewed by the participants as having
anything directly causative of the cure.[43]
[Page 495] Those
intervening to assist you are not merely your neighbors. Not merely your friends. But the leaders of the congregation,
the most important members of the group—showing that their best wishes,
prayers, and assistance are there to help you as you recuperate. You do not stand alone.
Others see the anointing of oil as a ritual. In a secular
context, Samuel anointed Saul as part of the proclamation of him as king (1
Samuel 10:1). Elisha did the same in a
much later generation (2 Kings 9:1-6).
In a religious context, Aaron’s appointment included such a ceremony
(Exodus 29:7). In these types of
situations, it was an outward act to symbolize to both recipient and
audience the seriousness and importance of what was being done. Presumably that idea is also present in the
anointing James has under consideration.
In a context of healing, the
anointing is viewed as symbolic of the anticipated removal of disease:[44] just as the physical anointing of oil was
utilized as part of every day medicine to help the person get well, this
anointing was intended to point the mind of the sick person to a similar
confidence in getting well. This might
be called the “minimalist” ritual interpretation. In its most elaborately developed form--in
the Catholic Church--the idea has led to “extreme unction” for the dying.
Either version should be approached
with the greatest caution for James very conspicuously does not use the
language normally associated with ritual behavior. As Charles R. Swindoll presents the case:[45]
[Page 496]
The Greek language has two words that apply
to the customary use of oil in the ancient world, aleipho and chiro. The latter most commonly refers to the
ceremonial anointing used to signify God’s special blessing upon someone. For instance, the word “Christ,” which means
“anointed one,” comes from chiro.
James could have chosen this term but he
elected to use aleipho. This
particular term has more to do with the pragmatic, therapeutic use of oil, such
as rubbing or massaging with it for medicinal purposes. Various herbs and extracts were added to
olive oil in ancient times. The mixture
was applied to the body to aid with a number of afflictions.
The case for the Roman Catholic approach is rooted in the assertion of
the[46]
substantial identity of what James
is here recommending with the sacrament
of Anointing of the Sick in the Church:
the distinction from mere charist-matic healing (1 Corinthians 12:9, 28,
30), as evinced by the cultic role of the
presbyteroi; the anointing with olive oil; the invoking of the
name of the
Lord and the prayer of faith; the ensuing recovery and forgiveness of
sins.
The evaluation of the power of
these similarities will obviously depend upon one’s opinion of the inherent
authority of the institutional church (assuming it has any) and the degree of
permissible elaboration of what appears to be a very simple “ritual” into something
far more complex as to intent and benefit.
Describing it as “the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick” stresses the
possibility of recovery and is, effectively, a partial attempt to “delink” the
rite with its traditional Roman Catholic usage—preparation for dying.
[Page 497] For better or worse, in actual
practice the ritual has become irrevocably linked in the public mind as a
preparation for death. Admittedly, there
has been a determined effort to shift the perception away from a strict “last
rites” connotation, but it has far from supplanted the traditional
understanding. In contrast, the
anointing James advocates does not even hint at the possibility of death but
only of a recovery (James
Furthermore our text explicitly tells us that it is “the prayer of
faith [that] will save the sick” (
In the Roman Catholic version of the ritual (and probably the bulk of
others), it is not just oil that is used—it is blessed oil. Certain preset prayers are given over the oil
to set it apart for the special use that is about to occur.[48] This element is totally alien to James
5. The terminology is “pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord” (
The promise in
[Page 498] However if the “raise him up”
refers to being raised up from the sick bed (as in Mark
What
else does the oil represent (if anything) beyond the physical item itself? The oil is commonly viewed as having the
symbolic role as representative of Divine power or the eschatological,[50] but
this has no roots in the text itself. It
is a grafting onto the passage of a symbolism to explain the ritual’s
importance and significance and to enhance the respect to be given to the
procedure.
It unquestionably is a quite old
usage, however. Cyril of
Wayne A. Grudem[52]
defends the oil being representative of the Holy Spirit in this way, “The
anointing with oil in James 5:14 should be understood as a symbol of the power
of the Holy Spirit, not simply as medicinal, because oil would not be
appropriate as a medicine for all diseases.”
No, but it would be appropriate for any [Page 499] first century Jew preparing himself to go
out and resume normal daily affairs: A
step that would manifest confidence that he or she would now be able to do so.
More significant, perhaps, is Grudem’s
next argument,[53]
“Moreover, if its use were just medicinal, it is hard to see why only the
elders should apply it.” The initiative
in the text is on the side of the sick person, “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.” If you are going to call for
someone “from church” who more appropriate than the leadership? And if they are there already, who
more appropriate to do something symbolic or helpful to your recovery? The Good Samaritan acted because he
was present; the elders act because they are present.
Furthermore if the deduction that “only the elders should apply it”
rules out a medicinal purpose (or the resumption of daily activities scenario
suggested above), would not the reference to prayer mean that only the
elders could pray for him? That only their
prayers would do any good? If that leads
one down a clearly inappropriate path, might not the initial argument itself be
ill considered?
Most relevant are Grudem’s proposed proof texts, “Oil is frequently a
symbol of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament (see Exodus 29:7; 1 Samuel
Let us examine these passages:
[Page 500]
Exodus
29:7: “And you shall take the anointing
oil, pour it on his head, and anoint him.”
And exactly what proves this is symbolic of the Holy Spirit?
1 Samuel
16:13: “Then Samuel took the horn of oil
and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the
Lord came upon David from that day forward.
So Samuel arose and went to Ramah.”
Here the Holy Spirit is mentioned
but the presence of the Spirit is distinguished from the anointing. If there is a linkage at all, would it not be
that the anointing was to symbolize that he was about to literally receive the Spirit? The Spirit’s involvement was definitely not
merely symbolic and was not equated with the anointing itself.
Psalms
45:7: “You love righteousness and hate
wickedness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of
gladness more than Your companions.”
Here the oil is symbolic of happiness
(“gladness”) not the Holy Spirit. A
symbolic use—but not of anything supernatural.
This precedent might be relevant in James 5 because the sick
person’s confidence that he was about to resume his daily affairs would cause
it to be regarded as an “oil of gladness,” laying the preparation for him to do
so.
This brief collection of texts may be conclusive to some of the Holy
Spirit = anointing with oil scenario, but my personal judgment is that they
fall badly short of raising the interpretation from conjectural to
probable. God gave the Spirit—probably
better: gave gifts (plural) of
the Spirit since they varied from individual to individual. (At least in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians
12:7-12.)
[Page 501] We have no better luck when
consulting the list of texts provided by Charles C. Odem.[55] All omit the vital linkage being attempted to
be proved, that the gift of the Spirit was via the anointing with oil. There is a link only in the case of 1 Samuel
16:13, which we examined above. We have
already noted that even that doesn’t make the “equating linkage” that is sought. He apparently assumes the connection in all
the other passages as well.
To return to the act of anointing itself, yet
others see it as a constructive substitution for unchristian healing activities. In particular
it was “to keep the Christians from restoring to heathenish incantations and
superstitious practices (cf. Acts
Whether preserving Christians from unbelieving “quack cures” is the
intent is far more speculative. It could
well be the result, but does that make it the original
intention—especially the sole original intent?
Finally, there is the approach that takes
the anointing to be a preparation for once again beginning one’s regular daily
activities. It was an act of confidence that the restored
health had been / was being granted and now it was mainly a matter of getting
up, resting, and preparing to return to normal daily life.
[Page 502] This approach would fit well
with what we know about the use of oil in Jewish society. The application of it was part of one’s
regular everyday activity. For example,
it could be used on the hair: “let your
head lack no oil” (Ecclesiastes 9:8).
Think of it as a kind of ancient equivalent of hair tonic.
It was used on the face and body for cleanliness, ointment,
cosmetically, or simply because it felt good.
As such, it was routinely used after a bath: “So David arose from the ground, washed and
anointed himself, and changed his clothes; and he went into the house of the
Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his
own house; and when he requested, they set food before him, and he ate” (2
Samuel
Its use was part of making a
good impression: “Therefore wash
yourself and anoint yourself, put on your best garment and go down to
the threshing floor; but do not make yourself known to the man until he has
finished eating and drinking” (Ruth 3:3).
It does not specifically mention “oil,” but what else would it be? (Some, interpreting rather than translating
the text, specify “perfume,” but the poverty of Ruth was hardly likely to have
allowed for anything beyond normal inexpensive ointments.)
Furthermore access to such was counted a Divine blessing and if you
didn’t use it there could easily be an implication you were not being blessed
by God. “[God gives] wine that makes
glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread which strengthens
man's heart” (Psalms 104:15). Indeed,
the inability to have oil to put on oneself was threatened by God as a
punishment (Deuteronomy 28:40; Micah
To not utilize such a resource could also be an indication of
despair: “Please pretend to be a
mourner, and put on mourning apparel; do not anoint yourself with [Page
503] oil . . .” (2 Samuel 14:2). Similarly it was in the context of (genuine)
“mourning” (Daniel 10:2) that we read, “I ate no pleasant food, no meat or wine
came into my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were
fulfilled” (10:3).
In other words, under normal
circumstances it would be an expectation of society that you would
utilize oil on a routine basis as you prepared to go about your daily
activities. Jesus’ admonition to
“wash your face” even when fasting has been interpreted as a reference to such
usage as well (Matthew
Perhaps most directly relevant to James’ example of endangered health,
it was used as a way to help clean up the person who could not do it for
themselves. Ezekiel 16:9: “Then I washed you in water; yes, I
thoroughly washed off your blood, and I anointed you with oil.” The modern parallel would be helping a
person wash up and change from their hospital gown into their regular
clothes: the individual may not be fully
well, but it indicates a confidence that the worst is over and one is ready to
return to regular life.
In this approach, the “anointing” has the practical role of
preparing the person to resume his or her regular schedule. It is done not to heal but because
one is healed or about to be healed; out of the confidence that recovery is so
certain that virtually all one must do is get up and about.[59]
Even when a miracle was unquestionably intended such an anointing might
well be carried out for the same reason.
This seems to be the case in Mark
[Page 504]
The illness and its treatment
raise several issues above and beyond the nature and purpose of the anointing
in James 5. Whatever interpretation is
put on the words, it should not be overlooked that the text does not claim
that the anointing itself will save the person. Rather it is “the prayer of faith [that] will
save the sick” from his or her physical disability (James
Disassociation of the text from the assumption
that the illness was punishment for sin / that the anointing was to forgive
sin. It should be noted that
the text distances the disease or affliction from the moral state of the
individual, “And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (James
This ambivalence represents the
attitude manifested during Jesus’ ministry as well. On the one hand, Jesus could say to a
paralyzed individual, “Son, your sins are forgiven you” (Mark 2:5). This certainly argues that he had unforgiven
sin though it does not explicitly claim a cause-effect linkage with the
disease. Yet when spoken in a context of
healing, this would be the most natural probability.
Yet the connection was far from
invariable. When faced with a blind man
and the query whose sin was responsible for it, Jesus denied a linkage,
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned . . .” (John 9:3). Here there is no question whether a
cause-effect relationship between sin and ill health exists—it is denied. At least so far as the specific individual
being discussed.
[Page 505] As to the sickness being a
spiritual sickness, the remedy in both testaments is direct and to the
point: a change in behavior accompanied
by seeking forgiveness. An anointing with
oil is unheard of as a necessary, essential, or even desirable element of
personal repentance.[61] This is but one of several major difficulties
if we are taking the illness to be spiritual illness rather than physical:
(1)
If James is speaking about
spiritual illness, what does oil have to do with any of this? If we are looking at someone who is not
physically infirmed whatsoever, but simply is a Christian who has turned away
from the Lord, why would oil be physically placed on the person?
(2)
But let me take it a step
further and encourage you to carefully read this text. Who is to take the first
step? The elders do not take the first
step and go to the ailing one. Rather, the person who is sick is to call for
the elders. A spiritually sick person
will not call for the elders, except in a rare instance. . . . In Jesus’
parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15, the shepherd has to go find the lost one,
the lost sheep does not seek after the shepherd.
(3)
The context in the previous
verse is about physical toil--“is anyone among you suffering? Is anyone cheerful?” The context is not dealing with spiritual
problems.
(4) The end of verse 15 becomes a problem by
saying “if he has committed sin.” There would be no question if the person had
committed sins if we are talking about spiritual sickness.
[Page 506]
Note the wording of the announcement
in 1 Kings 17:1, “And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of
In the Targums, “standing” is the
standard posture of prayer. For example,
Tg. Onq. Gen. 18:22 interprets “he remained standing before the Lord” as
“he was ministering in his prayer before the Lord.”[63] Similarly Genesis
[Page 507] 18:42 is a more clear-cut
allusion to what we of our age would have anticipated as to posture: “And Elijah went up to the top of Carmel;
then he bowed down on the ground, and put his face between his knees” and the rain
came the same day (18:44-45). Since
Elijah sent his servant to check for rain and it had not yet come, what else
could he possibly have been doing but praying that it would?
Prayer seems such a natural act for
the God fearing, that prayer preceded the drought makes full sense even if no
explicit mention is made. Likely for
this reason, the matter of prayer before and at the end of the drought has
produced little controversy among exegetes.
This is in vivid contrast to the issue of the length of the
drought, where one is faced with a puzzling difference in the statements found
in the two testaments and which interpreters have had no choice but to wrestle
with. At first reading, 1 Kings would
leave the impression it lasted three years; James comes down quite explicitly
for a three and a half year duration.
Interestingly Jesus Himself gives
the duration as the same as James, “I tell you truly, many widows were in
Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six
months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land” (Luke 4:25). The fact that both Jesus and James cite the
same duration is probably good evidence that this was a traditional (though
not necessarily the only) contemporary interpretation of the length.[65]
But how does one fit such a length
with the claim in the Old Testament that it lasted just three years? Or does the Old Testament actually make such
a claim? In promising / threatening the
drought Ahab is merely warned that “there shall not be dew nor rain, these
years, except at my word” (1 Kings 17:1).
The expression is “these years” (NKJV, NRSV, New American Bible, etc), not
“three years.” The [Page 508] implication is that it is not going to rain
again, ever--until Elijah asked for it to occur. That was actually far more ominous than
predicting a three year drought for it left the stopping point undefined.
Where we get to three years as the
drought’s ending in where we read that at an unidentified time in the
third year, Elijah is told that the rain would begin again (1 Kings 18:1). We don’t know at what point that was. If it means at the end of the third
year, that means that some time beyond three years passed before it
ended.
The amount of time can not be pushed very far, however, since the text
presents Elijah as heading off to speak to Ahab (18:2ff) and the natural
reading is that this took place not many days later. In other words we get to an approximately
three year duration after all. But even
that is inferential and not due to an explicit statement, as so often assumed.
Furthermore, we do not know at what
point the supernatural intervention in stopping the rain is assumed to have begun. If Ahab was warned during the dry season before
rains could be expected, then a number of months passed before the
drought became obvious. Would you date
the length of the drought from the time of the threat or the time when it was
no longer possible to deny it was happening?
Does anyone really believe that Ahab was going to concede that the
prophetic threat had turned real any sooner than he absolutely had to? Either the assumption of additional months at
this stage or after the announcement of the ending of the drought to Elijah, could
easily have led to the figure of a three and a half year shortage referred to
by both Jesus and James.
[Page 509] Another way of adding an
additional number of months would make the initial period involve a normal
period of dryness, perhaps miraculously intensified beyond normal. William Varner argues it this way:[66]
Earlier in the chapter James displays his
knowledge of Palestinian agriculture with his reference to the early and later
rains (5:7). After the later rains in
the Spring, there is a six month drought before the early rains in the Autumn
commence. If the announcement of the
drought was at the end of the half-year dry season, the additional three years
of drought would then provide the total length mentioned by James and Jesus.
This has several things to say for
it. It provided Ahab the opportunity to
dismiss the prediction as idle prophetic arrogance: It wasn’t supposed to be raining any
time soon! One can easily imagine Ahab
dismissing Elijah as a crackpot (at the best) in this time scenario--allowing
him to leave unhindered (perhaps even having him chased off as a nuisance).
God’s instruction to flee (17:2) comes immediately after the prediction
of no rain is delivered (17:2), it is true, but was God likely to tell Elijah
this in the very presence of Ahab? In
fact, would Ahab’s unbelief have even made such hiding an immediate necessity?
Yet if the prediction came as true as God had promised, Elijah was
going to need a place to hide for he was going to become an extremely
unpopular individual at the royal court!
Hence this scenario provides plenty of time for Elijah to go somewhere
temporarily and for God to give him hiding instructions and to take full
advantage of them.
[Page 510]
Eric Lyons effectively argues that the invoking of the three year
chronology in 18:1 to prove only a three year drought improperly omits the
preceding context.[67] In those days before chapter divisions, 18:1 would
be immediately read as the continuation of the preceding chapter. That involves the healing of a mother’s
dangerously sick son in Zarephath (
In other words, “in the third year” of being where he was at, in
Zarephath—not necessarily the third year of the drought.
He quotes in passing but does not note the significance of 17:7:
[Page 511]
2 Then the word of the Lord came to
him, saying, 3 “Get away
from here and turn eastward, and hide by the Brook Cherith, which flows into
the
In other words, the prophet was at the brook Cherith for an extended
period before being sent to Zarephath.
The creek was hardly likely to dry up overnight or why would the Lord
have sent him there in the first place?
Hence we can fairly add weeks or months before the move to
Zarephath. That pushes us up over
three years and the longer over, the more understandable the generalization
“three years and six months.”
[Page 512] Many
modern Protestant and Catholic commentators are convinced, however, that the
reference is to the person who convinced the individual to return to
faithfulness.[68] In this interpretation, both the soul that is
saved and the “multitude of sins” that is forgiven are those of the person convincing
the reprobate. This is open to the
fundamental objection that it is extraordinarily odd that the “self-benefiting”
aspect should be exclusively mentioned while any benefit received by the repenter
goes totally unnoticed.
This omission is resolved by those
who take the text to refer, in part, to both parties.[69] In this approach there is a double
salvation: by one’s success one “will
save a soul from death” (that of the reprobate) while simultaneously
“cover[ing] a multitude of (presumably future) sins” of oneself. We internalize the lesson we’ve taught them
and are protected from walking in the same path they had.
However there seems a
disproportionate emphasis on what the teacher gets in such a scenario. Especially when it is given greater
emphasis: You are benefited by
“covering a multitude of (your) sins” while it is only a more
ambiguous (and more limited?) number of sins that the transgressor is
forgiven. He is, perhaps, forgiven
little . . . whether he or she is or not, you still know that . . . you have
a huge future benefit coming your way.
The maximizing emphasis on the teacher’s own benefit seems unlikely when the thrust of the text seems
clearly intending to emphasize how much the repenter is benefited by their
change in life.
Furthermore would it not seem odd
for the point of reference to be shifted so abruptly and in so few words if
such is actually being done? As Patrick
J. Hartin argues, we do not have “any reason to explain why James would
suddenly jump in [Page 513] the course
of this brief verse from one referent to another. The logic of the sentence requires a
consistency that conforms to James’ usual stylistic way of expression, which
regularly features parallelism (see the frequent use of it in 4:7-9).”[70]
Several deuterocanonical and early post-New Testament writings can be
cited to point in the direction of how the teacher’s own advantage being gained
is under discussion—for example, the conviction that charity will purge away
the giver’s own sins.[71] Even so, it is still an interpretive “reach”
to go from the broad generalization that one saves oneself by one’s own behavior
to the conclusion that being the human intermediary in the salvation of others
somehow secures one’s own redemption as well. A few second or third century writings may,
however, have the concept in mind.[72] The concept becomes explicit in the writings
of Origen during the third century.[73]
As to Biblical evidence, 1 Timothy
Restoring the person to the faith, however, is not presented as the
basis of one’s own salvation (as claimed of James 5), but one’s perseverance
in the faith (“continue in” the “doctrine”). This motivates one to both remain faithful personally
and to convert the reachable as well. It
isn’t that their salvation saves you, but the fact of your behavior
caused by your salvation ultimately leads to their redemption.
The watchman imagery in Ezekiel
3:17-21 is more promising.[75] It is concluded with the promise,
“Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin,
and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took [Page 514] warning; also you will have delivered
your soul” (verse 21). Here,
however, it is not the fallen away who is converted, but the “righteous”
individual who is encouraged not to drift away in the first place. Or to restore his or her soul to its proper
condition before the temporary aberration becomes a lasting lifestyle.
An intertestamental echo of Proverbs
That what is being done in
interceding for the sick is an act of love is to be granted, though James
chooses to stress that it is being done rather than the motive. This is probably because James is centered on
the recipient of assistance and not the giver.
Since that is the case, wouldn’t it be more proper to seek in the one
being helped—James’ point of emphasis—the beneficiary of the forgiveness? Whether “cover a multitude of sins” refers to
gaining forgiveness for past sins or discouraging future ones from occurring,
the value of the contribution would still be vast since “a multitude” would be
dealt with.
Furthermore, it is difficult to
take the concept of our converting work saving ourselves and fit it in well
with other Biblical principles. If it
refers to past transgressions then “you” gain forgiveness by getting
someone else to change their way of life--it has nothing to do with a change in
your behavior; it seemingly exists regardless of what you
do. Either that or it is an additional
prerequisite without which all the pangs of guilt and reformation still do no
good. So the New Testament message is really
“believe, repent—and get someone else to repent—and you will be forgiven”?
[Page 515] If it refers to your future
transgressions being forgiven, then it seemingly means that for each person
restored to faithfulness “you” have a “multitude” of future sins that God will
forgive you in exchange for that effort.
(Or a “multitude” of past ones.) Why
then should we have to repent of them?
It inescapably seems to provide an almost blank check to rationalize
away whatever sins one selects.
Obviously this is not the intent of the interpretation, but it is hard
to see how the result can be avoided.
Perhaps the best response would be that there is a difference between a
person being rewarded and a person abusing that reward—or trying to. How convincing that explanation will be is
another matter. Doubtless God will
remember the work one does to redirect the misguided; but there seems a world
of difference between this and directly making it a means of our own personal
redemption.
Such difficulties are avoided if
one refers the forgiven sins to the past acts of the person who has been
convinced to repent. Two results are
specified as the result of convincing that wayward believer to correct his or
her lifestyle errors: the person who
does so “will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of
sins.” The most “natural” reading (at
least in this commentator’s judgement) is to view the two statements as
different ways of expressing the same truth: the repentant is saved “from [spiritual] death”
because the “multitude of sins” that have been committed have been
forgiven.
The person being described does not
seem to be your petty ante sinner who has done this wrong or that wrong. The picture is one who “wanders from the
truth” (verse 19) and has to be turned back to it. The person is an apostate--it not in a formal
sense, certainly in the practical sense of turning the back on the
previously acknowledged standard of life.
[Page 516] Virtually by definition
that type of person has wandered so far that he or she will have a “multitude
of sins” that needs removal. At least a
“multitude” in contrast to the more typical situation of a person who has merely
“sinned” rather than “wander[ing]” away from the faith as well.
Notes
[1] McKnight, James, 421.
[2] Wall, 255.
[4] Stephen Garrett, “Job the Prophet: Job’s Theology.” Posted
[8] Mitton,
190.
[9] Brent Kercheville, “Patience:
Practicing Godliness.” At: http://westpalmbeachchurch ofchrist. com/ godliness/patience.html. [July 2012.]
[11] Geoff Thomas, “James
[15] As
quoted by Ibid., 137.
[16]
[17] Moo, 236.
[18] J. Kortering, “Psalm Singing: A Reformed Heritage.” Part of the Protestant Reformed Churches
website. At:
http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_37.html. [July 2012.]
For those seeking an in-depth defense of the “Psalms only” approach,
this article is highly recommended.
[22] Cf.
Mitton, 196.
[23] Reicke,
57.
[24] Nystrom,
305. For a survey of the texts that make
Jesus—rather than the Father—being the most natural “Lord” under discussion,
see McKnight, James, 440.
[25] J. O. Hosler, “What about Anointing with Oil?” At:
http://www.napierchurch.org/ pdf/articles/bible_study/anointing_with_oil.pdf. [July 2012.]
[26] Edwin Crozier, “Should We Anoint People with
Oil? James 5:14.”
[27] Ibid.
[29] Dibelius, James,
252; 252; Williams, 138. For a detailed
presentation of the case for this approach see Gloag, 105-108.
[30] Wayne
Jackson, “Anointing with Oil—James
[31]
[32]
[33] David Reagan, “Anointing with Oil.” Part of the Learn the Bible website. At:
http://www.learnthebible.org/anointing-with-oil.html. [July 2012.]
[34] Ibid.
[36] Colson,
85; Palmer, 37.
[37]
Burdick, 204. Cf the similar remark of
Lenski, 660.
[38] McKnight, James, 439.
[39] As quoted by Burdick, 204.
[40]Ibid.
[41] James R.
Strange, The Moral World of James:
Setting the Epistle in its Greco-Roman and Judaic Environments (
[43] Ibid.
[44] Leahy,
377.
[45] Charles
R. Swindoll, Jesus: The Greatest Life
of All (
[47] Brent Kercheville, “Anointing with Oil: Explaining James 5:14-15.” 2006.
At:
http://westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/diff_quest/anointing-with-oil.html. [July 2012.]
[48] For a
discussion of the blessings in Catholic usage, see Lizette Larson-Miller, The
Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick (
[49] On the Migration of Abraham, 124, as quoted by
McKnight, James, 441.
[50] For
some examples of such, see Larson-Miller, 38.
[51] Charles C. Oden, Classic Christianity: A Systematic Theology (New York: HarperCollins, 1992), 536.
[52] Wayne A.
Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994), n. 30, unumbered page EPub
Reader Format.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid.
[56]
[57]Ibid.
[58] Kercheville, “Anointing.”
[59] I came
across this approach in the 1990s in an old church publication stuck in a then
75 year or more old book. It lacked any
reference as to the author, name of the original periodical, or its date.
[60] Cf.
Nystrom, 306.
[61] Kercheville, “Anointing.”
[62] William
Varner, “Did James ‘Massage’ the Elijah Story?”
At: http://dribex.tumblr. com/post/10803789699/did-james-massage-his-elijah-story. [July 2012.] For an examination of the
nature of rabbinic exegesis via a study of their treatment of the drought see
Barclay, 132.
[Page 520] [63] As
quoted by James M. Darlack, Pray for Reign:
The Eschatological Elijah in James 5:17-18 (Master of Arts in the
New Testament thesis.)
[64] As quoted by Ibid.
[65] Leahy,
377.
[66] William Varner, “Elijah Story.”
[67] Eric
Lyons, “Elijah and the Drought.”
2007. Part of the Apologetic
Press website. At: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1444. [July 2012.]
[68] Songer,
139.
[69] For
example, Nystrom, 320.
[70] Hartin, James, 286.
[71] For
quotations of Sirach
[72] For quotations of Barnabas 19:10 and Didache 4:6 (which come the closest but still seem to fall short of this being their clear intent), see Mitton, 215.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Davids,
James: A Commentary, 200-201,
refers to the usage but does not adopt it.
[75] Again Ibid.
refers to the usage but does not adopt it.
[76] Witherington , 549.