James Chapter 5 — Commentary on Verse 14

    Isanyoneofyousick?Heshouldcalltheeldersofthechurchtoprayoverhimandanointhim with oil in the name of the Lord.

    Having given general directions, James now comes to particulars, giving the example of one special kind of affliction, sickness.

    (1)      He suggests the case as likely to be frequent among them: Is any one of you sick?

    (2)      He states the duty:

    a.      Of the sick Christian: He should call the elders of the church.

    b.      Of the elders, which is twofold: one ordinary and immutable: to pray over him, and the other temporary and appropriate to the gifts of those times: andanointhimwithoilinthenameofthe Lord.

    This verse has caused much controversy. I shall therefore first explain the phrases, then clear up the controversy, then give you the notes.

    Isanyoneofyousick? The word means, “Is any weak?” or “without strength?” In the next verse the apostle changes the word: the prayer of faith will save thesickperson—literally, “him that labors under a disease.” From this change of the word the Roman Catholics conclude that extreme unction is not to be administered except to those who are mortally sick; but Cajetan, one of their cardinals, well replies that James does not say, “is any sick unto death?” but “is any sick?” It is true there is something in the change of word; it shows that the elders must not be sent for upon every light occasion but only in grievous cases where there is danger and great pain. It is an abuse by the Roman Catholics to interpret this as meaning extreme danger threatening certain death.

    Heshouldcall. The initiative coming from from the sick person is a call we cannot withstand.

    Theeldersofthechurch. The word “elders” is used in all sorts of ways. Sometimes it means our ancestors and those who lived before us, as in Matthew 15:2; but it cannot mean that here. Sometimes it is used for elders in years and wisdom, as in 1 Timothy 5:1. Thirdly, there are elders by office. The main meaning here is the order of elders who are elsewhere called “bishops,” whether ruling or teaching elders, chiefly the latter. When we are sick we call in the best help, and presumably the best gifts are to be found in those who are called to teach in the church. To add the greater seal to their ministry and to supply the need for physicians, many of them were endued with the gift of healing.

    Notice that James says theelders, in the plural, because, according to Grotius, in those eastern countries seven elders were usually called to serve in this role. Certainly in the early days there was great love in the different churches and societies of the faithful, and many elders would go to one sick person.

    Toprayoverhim. Here is the first duty of the elders. Some people say that overhim means “for him,” but the Greek does not easily bear that construction. It may imply the ancient rite of covering the diseased body with the body of the person praying, as Elijah did with one child (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha with another (2 Kings 4:34). Paul did this with Eutychus: “Paul went down, threw himself on the young man,” praying for life (Acts 20:10)—a rite that expressed great fervency and a desire that the dying person might, as it were, share his own life. Or it may mean laying hands on the sick, which was practiced by the apostles in curing the ill (see Mark 16:17-18). Thus Paul healed the father of Publius by laying hands on him.

    Andanointhimwithoil. There is only one other place in the Scriptures that speaks of using oil in the healing and cure of diseases, and that is Mark 6:13, “They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.” Among the Jews, oil was a common symbol of divine grace, and so it was appropriate to use it as a sign of the Spirit’s power and grace revealed in miraculous healing. It was an extraordinary sign of an extraordinary and miraculous cure. Aretius was wrong to think the apostle meant some medicinal oil. Before him, Wycliffe believed the oils in Palestine were excellent and medicinal and that they were used for this purpose. But this, I say, is a mistake, for oil was not used as an instrument but as a symbol of the cure. The apostle does not mention what kind of oil it should be; it was probably olive oil.

    InthenameoftheLord. That is, either by his authority, calling on him to operate by his power according to the outward rite; or in his place, as his ministers; or to his glory, to the honor of Christ, who is meant by the term Lord here, for that is his proper title as mediator. All these miracles and cures were effected in his name: “In my name they will drive out demons” (Mark 16:17); “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk” (Acts 3:6); “It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him” (Acts 3:16).

    Having explained the phrases, I now come to explain the controversy about whether this anointing with oil is a permanent ordinance in the church. The Roman Catholics make it a sacrament, which they call the sacrament of extreme unction. Others in our day want to revive it as a permanent ordinance for church members, expecting some miraculous cure. Therefore I must deal with both. I know that the intricacies of dispute are unpleasant to the ordinary person, so I shall not go over the whole argument but will briefly put forward some ideas that may prevent both the error of the Roman Catholics and the innovation of those who want to revive this rite today.

    (1)      In the apostles’ time, when it was most in use, it was not absolutely necessary nor instituted by Christ. Some Protestants, I confess, say that it was instituted by Christ as a temporary rite, which is denied even by some of the Roman Catholics such as Lombard, Cajetan, and Hugo, who all base it on apostolic practice. For my part, I think it was only approved by Christ and not instituted, and that it was taken up as a normal practice among the Jews. As I recall, Grotius, in his commentary on the Gospels, proves that this was a normal rite among that people, for it was their custom to express everything inward and spiritual by some visible symbol; therefore God condescended to appoint various rites and symbols suited to the spirit of that nation. Therefore, when they prayed for the sick they would anoint them with oil as a token of the relief and joy they would obtain from God. This rite was initiated by the apostles and the early Christians with such precision and constancy that they would never give or take any medicine without anointing people with oil, so that I think in fact it was nothing but an imitation of a Jewish rite that Christ approved but never instituted. When Christ sent the apostles out and so solemnly conferred the power of healing on them, we hear of no such commands about anointing with oil. He told them to heal sicknesses but did not prescribe the manner.

    You will at least grant that it never had the solemn ratification “till the Lord comes,” which other permanent ordinances have. The apostles seldom used oil; they healed by touch, by shadow, by handkerchief, by laying on hands, by word of mouth, etc. So the rite the Lord approved was one that they might choose to use to reveal his power. Why then does James press the elders to anoint with oil? It was so that they might not neglect the grace of God, which in those times was usually dispensed together with this rite. As long as the gift remained in use, the customary rite and symbol might be used. But you will say that he couples it with a moral duty—with prayer, which is an act of perpetual worship. I answer, it is not unusual in Scripture to couple an ordinary duty with an extraordinary rite—for example, prayer and laying on of hands, or baptism and laying on of hands. Similarly, prayer here is linked with anointing with oil. But you will say, God honored it with a miraculous effect. But then, so he did with the water of Siloam to heal the blind (John 9:7), the pool of Bethesda to cure the diseased (John 5:2), Jordan for Naaman’s leprosy, etc; and yet these cannot be set up as sacraments and permanent ordinances.

    (2)      In the apostles’ time this was only used with great prudence and caution, for the apostles only anointed those they were assured by the Holy Spirit would recover. Here James seems to restrict it to cases where they could pray in faith. He who gave the faith always indicated when to use it; with the power, he gave discretion, so that they would not expose the gift to scorn by using it all the time. Our learned Whitaker was wrong to say that anointing was a symbol of health that had already been recovered and that the apostles anointed only those who were on the way to recovery. However, it is true that they anointed only those they were persuaded would recover; otherwise the apostle Paul would never have left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Timothy 4:20) or sorrowed so much for Epaphroditus’ sickness (Philippians 2:27) if he could so easily have helped it by anointing with oil. But now among the Roman Catholics it is only given to those who are half dead or at the point of death.

    (3)      In its more common use afterwards, not all of those who were anointed were healed. God gave out his grace and power as he saw good, for the effect did not depend on anointing but on the prayer of faith. God worked then as he works now, by ordinary means—sometimes blessing them, sometimes leaving them ineffectual, all depending on his free pleasure and operation.

    (4)      When this ceased, we cannot tell; why it should cease we may easily judge if we will only understand its nature and purpose. The rite ceased when the gift ceased, which God has taken from the world after the early generations of believers. Gifts of healing are coupled with other miraculous gifts in Matthew 10:8, Mark 6:13, and 16:17-18; and healing ceased when the other gifts ceased. On the first mission of the apostles to win the world, Christ invested them with these gifts. Just as a newly planted tree needs watering but afterwards we stop watering it, these dispensations ceased after a while. Miracles would not have been miracles if they continued; they would have been regarded as ordinary effects. He still provides for his own but not in that supernatural way; and he heals as he sees cause. When people can restore the effect, let them restore the rite; otherwise, why should we maintain a mere ceremony? Thus we see when it should cease; but when miracles did actually cease is not easy to define. If the story in Tertullian is true, they continued for some two hundred years after Christ, for he speaks of one Proclus, a Christian, who anointed Severus and healed him.

    (5)      Roman Catholic anointing, or extreme unction, is mere hypocritical pageantry. It must be prepared by a bishop, heated with so many breathings, enchanted by uttering so many words. The parts of the body anointed are the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and, to be really complete, the kidneys and feet and, in women, the navel. The form of words is, “By this holy oil, and his tender mercy, God forgive you whatever you have sinned by sight, hearing, smell, touch.” To make the blasphemy more ridiculous, Aegidius Conink, a schoolman, says the words “by his most tender mercy” may be left out. The administrator must be a priest and may be a bishop; the object must be a person believed to be at the point of death. The purpose of it, they say, is to expel the remains of sin, healing the soul and helping it against temptations and against Satan, in combat with the powers of the air. To state these things is to refute them, for even the most ignorant person must see the great difference between a miracle and a sacrament, between curing the body and the expulsion of sin.

    Notes on Verse 14

    Note1. Isanyoneofyousick? Christ’s worshipers are not exempt from sickness, any more than any other affliction. God may chasten those he loves. John 11:3 says, “Lord, the one you love is sick.” Those who are dear to God have their share of miseries. Augustine asks, “If he were loved, how did he come to be sick?” In the externals of life God does not make any distinction. Usually those who have God’s heart feel God’s hand most heavy. I have noticed that God’s children never question his love so much as in sickness; such thoughts come to us when the weakness of the body upsets the mind and deprives us of the free exercise of spiritual reason. Mind and body feel everything keenly. Besides, in sickness we do not have the explicit comfort from Christ’s sufferings that we have in other troubles. It greatly helps our thoughts when we can see that Christ went through every miserable condition we are exposed to. Christ endured want, nakedness, trouble, reproach, injustice, etc., but not sickness. But he had such passions as hunger, thirst, and weariness, with which his body was afflicted. Christ knows from experience what it is to suffer pain and bodily inconvenience.

    Even if we do not have the example of Christ, we have the example of all the saints. Paul had a wracking pain, which he expressed as “a thorn in my flesh” (2 Corinthians 12:7-9), and he was able to have no other answer but “My grace is sufficient for you.” He alludes to the sort of punishment meted out to slaves for great offenses: they sharpened a stake and pointed it with iron and put it in at the slave’s back until it came out at his mouth; and so with his face upward he died miserably. And so the apostle’s expression means some bodily illness and wracking pain—maybe gout, internal ulcers, the stones, or some similar disease. Certainly Paul speaks about such infirmities in which he would glory because of the grace that is given with them and such as were likely to cure pride; so it cannot meant sin or some prevailing desire, as commentators usually say. Therefore comfort yourselves: God’s dearest saints may experience the sorest sicknesses; and if God afflicts you with an aching head, you will have abundant reward if he gives you a better heart with it. If he makes your bones sore, bear it if he breaks the power of your corruptions by it.

    Sicknesses are not tokens of God’s displeasure. Job’s friends were foolish to judge him by his calamity. People usually attack with the tongue when God has attacked with his hand. Alas, the children of God have bodies of the same make as others! Hezekiah, Job, David, and Epaphroditus were all corrected but not condemned. The Roman Catholics maliciously upbraided Calvin with his diseases. “You can see what he is,” they said, “by his sicknesses and diseases.” He was an indefatigable man but with a sickly, weak body. The same has happened to many of the Lord’s precious servants.

    Note 2. He should call the elders. Note that a sick person should chiefly be thinking about his soul. If anyone is sick, the apostle does not say, “He should call the physician” but the elders. Physicians are to be called in their place but not first, not chiefly. Asa made the mistake that “even in his illness he did not seek help from the LORD, but only from the physicians” (2 Chronicles 16:12). Sickness is God’s messenger to call us to meet with him. Do not do as most people do and send for the bodily physician and then, when they are past all hope and cure, for the minister. Alas, how many people do this, and before a word of comfort can be administered to them, they are sent to their own place.

    Note3. Heshouldcall. The elders must be sent for. Someone who has continued in opposition is loath to submit at the last hour and to call the elders to his spiritual assistance. Aquinas says that this last office must only be performed for those who request it. Possidonius, in his biography of Augustine, says that Augustine used of his own accord to visit the poor, the orphans, and the widows, but he never visited the sick until he was called. It is indeed consistent with true religion to “look after orphans” (1:27), but the sick must call for the elders. Truly sometimes I have been afraid to prostitute the comforts of Christianity to people who foolishly neglect their own souls. We confess Christ sometimes where we know our company will not be unwelcome, and in some other cases we may go without being called, in order to learn from our Master and be “found by those who did not seek me” (Isaiah 65:1).

    Note 4. The elders. For our comfort in sickness it is good to call in the help of the guides and officers of the church. They excel in gifts and are best able to instruct and pray. They can comfort and instruct authoritatively and officially; the prayers of prophets are especially effective. Thus God said to Abimelech, “he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live” (Genesis 20:7). This was the special work of the prophets—to pray for the people, and they had more solemn promises of success: “If they are prophets and have the word of the LORD, let them plead with the LORD Almighty” (Jeremiah 27:18). Those who speak God’s Word to you are the best people to commend your case to God. So then, do not despise this help.

    Acts done officially have a more solemn assurance of blessing: “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven …” (John 20:23). They can give comfort authoritatively. It is not false theology to say that God will hear their prayers when he will not hear the prayers of other people: “My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly” (Job 42:8). Though Job’s comforters were good men, God wanted to hear Job; therefore in Ezekiel Job is mentioned as a praying prophet. Use their help, then—it is help that has been ordained; and then you may expect a blessing all the more. When Hezekiah was sick, Isaiah the prophet came to give him faithful advice (2 Kings 20:1-2).

    Note5. Theelders. Visiting the sick should be done jointly with the church officers; it is an important task and needs many workers. The diversity of gifts for prayer and discussion seems to call for this; it is the last office we can perform to those of whom the Lord has made us overseers.

    Note6. Topray. One necessary thing in visiting is commending sick people to God, and this prayer must be offered by them or over them, so that their sight may work on us better, and so our prayers may work on them.

    Note 7. And anoint him with oil. The first preachers of the Gospel of Christ had power to do miracles. The doctrine itself, being so rational and satisfactory, deserved to be believed; but God wanted to give a visible confirmation, to encourage our faith all the more. When Christ had ended his sermon on the mount, he performed miracles; before, signs and wonders had been lacking. “We know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him” (John 3:2). This was the satisfaction God wanted to give the world concerning the person of the Messiah. Now these miracles have ceased, for Christ has demonstrated a fair claim to our belief, so that we might not be left in uncertainty. The devil can do remarkable things, though nothing that is truly miraculous; and therefore, lest we should be deceived, Christ has foretold that we can expect from Antichrist only “counterfeit miracles” (2 Thessalonians 2:9); “false Christs … will … perform great signs” (Matthew 24:24).

    Note 8. Anoint him with oil. The miracles done in Christ’s name were wrought by power but ended in mercy. In the very confirmation of the Gospel God wanted to show its benefit. The miracles tended to deliver people from miseries of soul and body, from blindness, and sickness and demons; and so they were most appropriate to the Gospel, which gives us promises of this life and that which is to come. These miracles were a fitting pursuance of Christ’s doctrine—not only confirmations of faith, but instances of mercy and love; not miracles of pomp, merely to evince the glory of his person, but miracles of mercy and actions of relief, to show the sweetness of his doctrine, and also to teach us that in the Gospel God wants chiefly to reveal his power by showing mercy.

    Note9. InthenameoftheLord. All the miracles were to be performed in Christ’s name. The apostles and early Christians, though they had such an excellent trust, did not abuse it to serve their own name and interests but Christ’s, teaching us that we should exercise all our gifts and abilities by Christ’s power for Christ’s glory: “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise” (Psalm 51:15). That was a right aim. To desire life for our own glory is simply like the man who lit his candle at one of the lamps of the altar to steal by, or to beg heaven’s aid for the service of hell. The name and form was used by the sons of Sceva but for their own ends, and therefore to their own ruin (Acts 19:13-16). To do things in Christ’s name—that is, by abilities received from him—with a pretense of his glory when we intend our own will bring us ill success, as that attempt did to Sceva’s sons. Christ wants to be honored with his own gifts and in dispensing every ability looks for our praise in return.