A wrote on this a few years ago and engaged in a helpful discussion.  You can see that previous post and those many comments here.  Yet, for a variety of reasons, I am thinking through this issue again and would welcome your input.  I am painfully aware that I am the guy who wrote Visit the Sick, causing many to believe I am the guy who is supposed to know the answer to this question.  The fact is, I am still wrestling with it.  While teaching through James a few years ago, I was confronted afresh with James’ instruction for, “The elders of the church to come and pray over the sick, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14).  Despite the fact that there is clear instruction from Scripture on the matter, there remains a debate among faithful pastors on whether this is a practice that should remain in the modern church.  In the midst of many positions people take on this issue, I have narrowed the debate down to two positions:

Medicinal Purposes:  Some argue oil was used as a healing balm for those experiencing illness in the biblical context.  Because of this, the anointing with oil was an effort to use modern medical means to aid in the healing process while praying with faith for God to heal.  This position is especially convenient for those who want to argue against anointing with oil today as oil is no longer used to treat sickness.  This position can be summarized in coming to the hospital, supporting the doctor’s efforts to treat the patient with modern medicine, while you still pray in faith for God to heal according to his will.

Spiritual Purposes: This position would argue there is a New Testament connection with the Old Testament anointing of oil as a setting apart of someone for God’s blessing and spirit to come.  Specifically this position in the context of James means this practice should continue today asking God to show his favor upon the sick and bring healing as the elders pray in faith.  Those who hold this position might be found walking through the hospital (possibly with other elders) carrying a small bottle of oil to anoint and pray for the sick.

There are many implications to hold either of these positions.  For now, I wanted to put the question to each of you to see how you are wrestling with the practical implications of this instruction and why you hold the position you do.

Thoughts??

Poziția lui C. H. Spurgeon:â

Given all the time spent in prayer meetings on sick people (what Derek Thomas calls “organ recitals”), I think it is worth noting the intimate, pastoral setting in which the prayer is offered. The sick calls for the elders who come to him. Very different from what most churches do.

++++++

According to Jay Adams, the injunction to apply oil uses the Greek word aleipho which points to smearing or greasing rather than pouring or sprinkling, which latter would signify the unction of the Spirit on prophet, priest or king. What would be the significance for a sick brother or sister of such an anointing? He already has the baptism in/anointing of the Spirit signified by baptism?

In this context aleipho may therefore signify the application/purchase of medicine or the practical care of the sick one in general, which is a very necessary and practical and loving thing for the brothers and sisters of a sick brother or sister to do.  Prayer and practical/medicinal help for the sick shows a living faith that works.

++++++

Not making light in any sense by asking this, for those who do practise this(praying and anointing with oil) how effectual has it been especially with v. 15 in view?

++++++

I’d like to put another interpretation on the table. I preached interpretation while preaching through James about 2 years ago. I won’t say I’m 100% sure of it, but it makes good sense to me. I’m using John MacArthur’s James commentary as a guide for this post, but interspersing some of my own thoughts. Basically, the point is that the elders are performing spiritual ministry to a spiritually weak or exhausted brother.

“Sick” (v. 14) ασθενεω is used 14 times in the NT to refer to emotional or spiritual weakness. This is the more common usage in the epistles. This also fits in with the previous two situations, “suffering” (v. 13), which refers to enduring hardship, and “cheerfulness” (v. 13). Notice the word “healthy” does not make the list.

Then, the action attached to the oil is not “anointing” in the ceremonial sense (which would be χριω) but simply “rubbing” (αλειφω). [MacArthur cites A.T. Robertson and Richard Trench in support.] The idea of giving one oil for one’s head may be hard to grasp in our culture, but it seems to have been a friendly gesture in the NT (Luke 7:46). The idea is present in the OT, where it is part of a host’s provision for his guest at a feast (Ps. 23:5). So, it would seem to refer to showing tangible kindness and hospitality to this person.

More importantly, the Bible says that “the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. Both of the verbs (σωζω and εγειρω) could refer to physical healing or emotional/metaphorical restoration. However, the word “sick” in this verse is καμνω, which can mean physical sickness, but more often means weariness from physical labor. It’s only other appearance in the NT is Heb. 12:3, where it refers to discouragement.

So, the words used throughout the passage seem to be compatible with either a “physical sickness” or “spiritually weary” position. In fact, based on καμνω, one might argue that the spiritual position is a little stronger, but it’s pretty even. Based on the broader context, I think the spiritual position is slightly stronger.

However, there appears to be one insurmountable difficulty with the “physical healing” position. If a group of elders ever did this for a sick person, and the person died, God would be a liar. Remember, the text says God “will raise” him up. The statement God will forgive his sins is also quite alarming. This does not seem compatible with our experience, or with the tenor of the rest of the NT, which does not promise miraculous healing or approve of ex opere operato absolution of sin. Even if you think my reading of the “physical” position is a bit ungracious, you still have to wrestle with the strong indicative future verbs. They seem to say something more than, “Well, we’ve done our part; maybe God will do something now.”

On the other hand, who would deny that God would work through the prayer and kindness of his elders to restore a spiritually weak elect brother, even one who may be in that state because of his own sin? If I am reading this passage correctly, God is saying that this is often his method for combating sin and discouragement in his people’s lives. And on that note, it fits nicely into the next part of James, which talks about bringing back a sinner from his wandering.

Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
M.A. Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Staff, Augustinian Institute, Villanova University
My Blog: Sacra Pagina

++++++++