The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum James 5:13-20

What is your interpretation of this text? I have several specific questions:

1. Some would argue that the anointing/prayer for the sick was only for the apostolic age. What is the basis for this belief? Is it problematic to this position that this command is given to elders and not apostles?

2. Obviously the healing of the person is not due to a lack of faith on their own part. It's a matter of the sovereign will of God. But is this "prayer of faith" a certain assurance God gives the elders that this particular church member will be healed?

I am hearing this from a Reformed person (I won't go into details since this is a public forum). This person says that this "prayer of faith" will always result in healing, though it is not something a person can muster up. It is a special assurance that only God gives, just as faith in general is a gift from God. He says that if the elders believe they have been given this faith at a certain time, and then the person they pray over is not healed, that they were mistaken that God had indeed given a prayer of faith. So God gets the glory either way, and no one will be chastised for "lack of faith."

I will have to read R. Kent Hughes' commentary on James, but apparently Hughes agrees with this position too.

Thanks!

Marie,

I have always and must understand James' words here in light of 1Jh 5:14, with particular emphasis upon "according to His will". Secondly, it cannot be denied that even the apostles' best efforts did not result in the healing of those who they prayed for, (cf. Melitus in 2Tim 4:20) and even Paul himself was not healed of a bodily affliction after praying three times that it be removed. (2Cor 12:7, 8; Gal 4:13, 14)

Robert Johnstone, in his commentary on James ('Geneva Series', Banner of Truth, pp. 412-413) wrote:

A difficulty occurs to every mind, connected with the universal unconditional terms of the promise given here that the result of the prayer of faith, under the circumstances described, will be bodily healing. It is plain that the words had primary and peculiar relation to an age of miraculous powers; but we have no reason to believe that even the apostles healed or could heal all the sick in whom they were interested. We know, indeed, that it was not so. ‘Trophimus,’ Paul tells Timothy, he ‘left at Miletus sick’ (2 Tim. iv. 20). The same difficulty presents itself in the promise of Christ regarding the ‘signs’ which were to ‘follow them that believe’ — ’They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover’ (Mark xvi. 18); and in the yet wider promise, ‘What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them’ (Mark xi. 24). The explanation of the difficulty is no doubt to be found in the fact that in all such promises the condition is implied, ‘in so far as accords with God’s will.’ The Christian heart feels this, and therefore the condition need not always be expressed. Putting the same thing in a slightly different form, indeed, we may truly say that the ‘prayer of faith’ is always answered, either by the bestowal of the specific object asked for, or by the gift of something better. We have every reason to believe, therefore, that in the first age many sick persons were, in answer to prayer, restored to health, often in the way of obvious miracle. We have equal reason to believe that the same occurs now, as really by the gracious action of the Divine Hearer of prayer, though without that startling suddenness and absence of ordinary means which constituted a healing miraculous. All who have been ‘taught of God’ will have no doubt, moreover, that in every age of the church, whenever true prayer has been offered by the sick, either alone or in conjunction with ‘the elders of the church’ or other brethren, ‘healing,’ ‘quickening,’ has certainly been granted in answer, though it might not be for the body.

In His grace,

I like what B.B. Warfield said in his book, [u]Counterfeit Miracles [/u]

...But we see no indication in the passage that "a peculiar miraculous faith" is intended; no promise of a healing in a specifically miraculous manner; and no command to exclude medicinal means, or proof of their exclusion. If we read the passage with simple minds, free from preconceptions, I think we shall find in it nothing but a very earnest exhortation to sick people to turn to the Lord in their extremity, and a very precious promise to those who thus call upon Him, that the Lord will surely hearken to their cry."

Have you read this? Miraculous Healing by Henry Frost? It's a goodie! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />