What Does James 5:14 Mean?

(14) **The elders of the church**—*i.e., *literally, *the presbyters.* The identity of “bishop” (*episcopus*) and “presbyter” in the language of the apostolic age seems conclusive. Such is the opinion of Lightfoot (*Epistle to the Philippians, *93-97; see also his *Dissertation on the Christian Ministry, ibid., *180-267), and few may hope to gainsay it. In fact, the organisation of the early Church was much more elastic than theologians always suppose; and names and terms were applied less rigidly than the schoolmen of the Middle Ages have so stoutly declared. But, on the other hand, no man who has read the *Patres Apostolici* can deny the reality of Church government as enforced by them, nor base on their authority any defence of Congregationalism or the rule of a mere presbytery. The theory of development must be maintained, though not on the lines of Dr. Newman. (14, 15) **Anointing him with oil**.—Or, *unction.* The use of some precious and mysterious ointment, on solemn occasions, obtained in most of the ancient nations, specially the Eastern. The Jews themselves were by no means originators of the habit, although they carried it to its highest ceremonial and significance. Apart, too, from the regular performances of the rite, as upon the accession of a king, or the consecration of a high priest, it often occurred in private cases, and some striking instances are recorded in the Gospels:—the spikenard, costly and fragrant (Luke 7:36-50), wherewith the Saviour’s feet were anointed by “a woman which was a sinner;” and that, again, which Mary, of her grateful love, poured upon Him six days before His death (John 12:3-9). These were not unusual acts, but chiefly worthy of note because of the persons concerned. It was not remarkable for women to make such offerings to a famous rabbi, but that our Lord should be so treated, carried a deeper meaning. Nor, again, was it a new ordinance with which the Apostles were first commissioned, in pursuance whereof they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them” (Mark 6:13). “Here,” observes Bishop Harold Browne, “unction was evidently an outward sign, similar to that used by our Saviour, when He made clay, and put it to the blind man’s eyes. It was connected with the miraculous power of healing.” This connection only, this use of a known form with a diviner import, was the cause of astonishment; and clearly it was to such a practice, with simply its common intention, that St. James refers. Nor can we refrain from saying, however undesirous of controversy, that all which unction now implies to the Romanist is quite opposed to whatever force and value are given it in Holy Writ. There unction is enjoined “with the special object of recovery;” its purport was a present bodily one, and in no way applicable to the future of the soul. “The prayer of faith shall save the sick”—*i.e., *shall *heal* him: the faithful prayer shall be that which God will answer, and so “*raise up*” the sufferer. But, it is urged, the next clause has a different force: “If he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” Such is only apparent in our own version, and not in the original. The grammatical sense infers that the sick man is abiding under the consequence of some committed sin, which is “presumed to have been the working cause of his present sickness.” So Alford, and Bede similarly: “Many by reason of sins done in the soul are compassed by weakness: nay, even death of the body.” And the former theologian again: “Among all the daring perversions of Scripture, by which the Church of Rome has defended her superstitions, there is none more patent than that of the present passage. Not without reason has the Council of Trent defended its misinterpretation with anathema; for indeed it needed that, and every other recommendation, to support it, and give it any kind of acceptance. The Apostle is treating of a matter totally distinct from the occasion and the object of extreme unction. He is enforcing the efficacy of the prayer of faith in afflictions (James 5:13). Of such efficacy he adduces one special instance. In sickness let the sick man inform the elders of the church. Let them, representing the congregation of the faithful, pray over the sick man, accompanying that prayer with the symbolic and sacramental act of anointing with oil in the name of our Lord. Then the prayer of faith shall save (*heal*) the sick man, and the Lord shall bring him up out of his sickness; and even if it were occasioned by some sin, that sin shall be forgiven him. Such is *the* simple and undeniable sense of the Apostle, arguing for the efficacy of prayer; and such the perversion of that sense by the Church of Rome.” Not that we should think this and other like cases are wholly intentional twistings of God’s word. The Latin Bible is in many places a faulty—though not deliberately unfaithful—rendering of the Hebrew and Greek; and half our differences with Rome arise from such misinterpretations. Allowing the beginning of mischief to have been oftentimes a wrong translation, religious opinions engendered from it, we can understand, would be hardly cast aside, more especially when advantageous to their possessors. Little by little the change of doctrine drew on, and most probably thus:—The aim of the apostolic anointing was bodily recovery, and (again we quote Bishop Browne) “this exactly corresponds with the miraculous cures of early ages; . . . so long as such . . . powers remained in the Church, it was reasonable that anointing of the sick should be retained.” But these powers ceased, in the wisdom of God, after awhile; not so, however, the ceremony to which men’s minds in distress had been accustomed. It was retained in affection when its true force had departed. But since no outward result remained visible, fervent and mystical teachers could not well avoid searching for the invisible; and thus the area of operations was removed from the flesh to the spirit. The words of Holy Scripture would, with a little straining, bear such a colourable translation: and so was laid the foundation of that belief now current in a great part of Christendom. The Greek Church still practices unction, but rather in memory of a venerated custom, wherein God’s mercy was aforetime present; the Latin, unfortunately, is bound by its Council of Trent (*Sessio* xiv.) to believe “extreme unction to be a sacrament, instituted by Christ, conferring good, remitting sins, and comforting the infirm.” Its authorised manual of devotion—*The Crown of Jesus* (p. 710)—says, “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in His tender solicitude for those whom He has redeemed by His precious blood, has been pleased to institute another sacrament, to help us at that most important hour on which eternity depends—the hour of death. This sacrament is called Extreme Unction, or the last anointing.” And further explains, “The priest, in administering this sacrament, anoints the five principal senses of the body—the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the lips, the hands and the feet—because these have been employed during life in offending God. At each anointing he pronounces these words: ‘May the Lord by this holy anointing, and by His own most tender mercy, pardon thee whatever sin thou hast committed, by thy sight, hearing,’ &c. . . .” Notwithstanding this lamentable departure from right exegesis, some divines think it wise and well to reflect how far with profit the ancient ceremony could be revived; while others would rather let it slumber with the past. “When miraculous powers ceased, it was reasonable that the unction should cease also.” Still more reasonable is it that even the form or memorial, however touching and beautiful, should be abandoned, rather than we should seem by it to be at one with the changed—alas! the false—teaching of that Church of man’s tradition, Rome.