Dear Marty Hollis,
Part of the context in which Scripture needs to be considered is the perspective from which the original recipients of divine revelation would ordinarily have understood it. In this case, the primitive church, during which times true miracles were operative, probably would have understood the citation you note in the context of miraculous healing. Two circumstances, physical illness and spiritual illness, are observed in James 5:14-15. The latter is secondary references in verse 14 to miraculous healing.
Therefore, since the miraculous age of the church has ceased, it is inappropriate and unwise to continue to employ the accompanying symbols (anointing with olive oil) of miraculous healing. Besides, anointing with olive oil is not part of contemporary American culture and sustains no significance beyond its place as an accompanying symbol of miraculous healing.
Consideration of sinfulness in verse 15 is essentially an addendum to the context established in verse 14. Whereas the former (miraculous healing) has concluded, the latter (prayer–for physical and spiritual sickness) is still very much in order.
I concur with the observations of commentators Guy N. Woods and Burton Coffman, some of whose comments appear following.
The context would suggest that it is literal sickness inasmuch as it is mentioned in connection with literal suffering, praying, cheerfulness, and singing. In verse 15, below, it is clearly shown that the illness contemplated here is physical in character, in view of the fact that it is mentioned in connection with, and in addition to, spiritual illness. . . . the act of anointing was to be performed either before the prayer, or in connection with it. . . . Olive oil was used both medicinally and symbolically in Biblical times. . . . It appears quite clear here that the use of the oil was symbolic, and not medicinal . . . Elders, not doctors, were to be sent for. . . . and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him–. . . This is promised in addition to the healing of his body. . . . From foregoing considerations, it must be quite obvious to the discerning student that this passage was applicable to the period of miraculous gifts in the church and limited to it. [Guy N. Woods, A Commentary of the Epistle of James, Nashville, Gospel Advocate Company, pp. 300-303.]
James in this remarkable paragraph plainly has under consideration the charismatic gift of healing, one of the special gifts that attended the early propagation of Christianity for the purpose of confirming the word of God. As Tasker succinctly put it:
It is probable that the mention of oil in this passage is to be regarded as one of the accompaniments of that miraculous healing which was no infrequent occurrence in the apostolic age . . .
Punchard’s quotation from Bishop Browne follows this same line of interpretation, thus:
The aim of the apostolic anointing was bodily recovery, and this exactly corresponds with the miraculous cures of early ages . . . so long as such powers remained in the church, it was reasonable that the anointing of the sick should be retained. (Burton Coffman)
I hope this proves useful for your further reflection.
Yours in Christ,
Louis Rushmore
