I Was wondering why in most Churches of Christ the teaching of laying on of hands has not been tought as it is found in James chpt.5 and it is mentioned in Hebrews chpt.6 as one of the foundations of the Church. About five years ago at a mens Bible study we studied on it but the elders refused to teach it to the congreation.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Answers

Chuck.....

I'd be interested in what the conclusion of your Bible study group was. For instance....what did you determine was the "purpose" for the laying on of the Elder's hands??

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Bro.Danny The conclusion of the Elders was that this was New Testament teaching and we as a New Testament Church shuold be practicing it. But we would not teach it to the Church,if any one asked for it it would only be done in private. As for the purpose it is pretty clear when James said if there be any sick among you let them call for the Elders.In 1995 my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer,at the Church we were attending she went up front the Elders annointed her and prayed the prayer of Faith not the prayer of doubt or un belief but of Faith.The next day she went to the hospital they ran there test and said the tumors were gone.It is my belief that her obeying the Word produced her healing Your Brother in Christ Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Just as I thought Chuck....your group wrongly interpreted the healing there as referring to "physical sickness." A closer examination of the text, including an exegesis of the Greek language shows....this passage has nothing to do with physical sickness.

I'd like to try and get Scott Sheridan to address this question. If not.....I'll deal with it when I get a chance.

Be patient.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Scott has an excellent paper on this subject ... I think at an old web site ... he can post the web address when he sees this.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

I dont have a lot of time at the moment to post a lot so I thought I would cheat a little and post an article I wrote many years ago. Danny, if you don't want the article posted, just delete it. You won't hurt my feelings.

James 5:13-20

by

J. Scott Sheridan

On Sunday evening November 8, 1992, at five minutes before 7 p.m., Edgar Gray died of cancer. Ed had been an elder for many years. It had only been a few weeks before that he was informed about his cancer and that it was throughout his body.

Shortly after Ed's funeral I received a telephone call from one of our other two elders wanting to know why it happened. What I didn't know at the time was that the two elders had obeyed James 5:13-20 to the letter and expected Ed to regain his health within the next few days of their visit. The phone call lasted a couple of hours and I was quite frustrated because I had no good answers to give to the questions put before me. Questions like "Why does God tell us these things ("and the prayer offerred in faith will restore the one who is sick") if He does not respond to them?" and "If we can't trust the Bible here, where else should we not trust it?"

The only answer I could think of at the time was that since James was one of the earliest letters to be written , possibly this had reference to the apostolic age and therefore was not for us, even though there is no suggestion of that in the text. This was the beginning of a long study for me.

I believe the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God. However, translations of that inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God are not inspired, inerrant, nor infallible; which is where my problem stemmed.

A key to understanding this section of Scripture is paying close attention to the word sick. What follows is a phrase by phrase analysis of the text at hand.

Is anyone among you suffering? The word kakopathei generally means suffering misfortune. This may be a bad circumstance, an injury or an illness; any physical or emotional problem. Let him pray. If you are suffering, sick or hurt, you yourself need to pray concerning the circumstance.

Is anyone cheerful (literally feeling good)? Let him sing praises. Psallo is used here. It literally means to sing with a harp.

Is anyone among you weak? Although this word gets translated as sick in most translations, a cursery study of other passages with the same word will give you a slightly different meaning. The Greek word used is asthenes and it is used quite often in the New Testament. Here are three prime examples:

I Cor. 11:30 - For this reason many among you are weak (asthenes) and sick (arrostoi) and a number sleep.

Rom. 4:19 - And without becoming weak (astheneo) in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old...

Acts 20:35 - In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak (astheneo) and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

In these three examples we see asthenes (or it's verb form) used refering to spiritual weakness, weakness in faith, and financial weakness, respectively. The word means weakness in general, so the context of the passage must determine the kind of weakness that is being discussed. It may indeed mean bodily weakness, and often does, but the context must determine what kind of weakness it is. In First Corinthians 11:30 we see a word that more generally means sick: arrostoi and it is not used in the James 5 passage (it is used in Mt. 14:14; Mk. 6:5, 13; 16:18). Another word that means sick or feeling bad is the word used in verse 13; kokos. What James seems to be dealing with in verse 14 is a spiritually weak brother; a backslider. Possibly someone who has yielded to the temptations James spoke of in chapter 1. If anyone has become weak in this way, Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him,

If you have a physical problem (kokos), you pray. If you have a spiritual problem, you call for the elders and have them pray for you. The elders are the overseers and shepherds (pastors) of the church. It is their responsibility to deal with the spiritual problems of the individual members of the church. That's all part of shepherding. Also, if a spiritually weakened person calls for the elders, this is an indication of repentance. Therefore the elders should pray for restoration.

Understanding this also reinforces the fact that the elders are to be the spiritual leaders of the church. Too many times the elders spend too much of their time concerned with the leak in the roof that they never notice the spiritual growth, or the lack thereof, of those within their flock. Elders need to be (1) men of prayer, for prayer is what brings us to the throne of God and (2) men of concern for those they shepherd, for what kind of shepherd would allow their sheep to roam and not do anything while watching over them? People need to know their elders are concerned for them before they will call them for help. And elders need to be (3) men of priorities; how many times have we majored in minors and minored in majors. I dare say that the majority of time in the last elders' meeting, in most of our churches, was spent on the mundane things of everyday church life rather than whether Bro. Joe Schmoe was developing into the Christian he ought to be.

annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; There are two words used for annointing in the New Testament. The first is chrio which is the official ceremonial annointing (see Lk. 4:18, Acts 4:27; 10:38, II Cor. 1:21, Heb. 1:9). This is what Samuel did with Saul and David. However, this is not the word James uses. He uses the word aleiphein which would be the anointing a person might get when he visits someone's home or the kind of annointing that might be used to clean a wound or to clean someone's hair.

and the prayer offered in faith will save the weary one, the word translated as save is the word sosei which means save (which is how the KJV translates it). The NASB translates it as restore which is acceptable because it fits the context of the passage. The word weary however is translated as sick in both the NASB and KJV as well as most other translations. The word used here is not arrostos nor is it asthenes, but is a word used only three times in the New Testament: kamno. The word James uses is kamnonta . Here are the other two passages:

Heb. 12:3 - For consider Him who has endured such hostility by sinners against Himself, so that you may not grow weary (kamete: second person, plural, second aorist, subjective of kamno) and lose heart.

Rev. 2:3 - and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary (kekopiakes: second person, singular, perfect, indicative, active of kamno).

The only other use of the word kamno in the New Testament is in James 5:15 and for some reason is translated as sick when it should be translated as weary. If we place the word sick in either of the other two passages that “weary” (kamno) is used, it loses all meaning.

The rest of the book of James deals with restoring a backslider, which is only natural for that is what he has been dealing with since verse 14.

and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. A backslider certainly has sins to repent of and now he has the elders of the church to help him in his repentance and also to pray with him and for him.

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, It's hard to backslide when you confess to someone else and they know your sins and also what it is that tempts you.

so that you may be healed. This word healed could also be translated as delivered or restored. It is often translated in the Gospels as healed meaning restored to health.

The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, Elijah was not super-human, he was tempted by his circumstances, tempted in many ways to backslide and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. James says all this to demonstrate the power of prayer, for it is prayer and repentance that restores the backslider. And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit.

My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth, and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death, and will cover a multitude of sins. James concludes his short letter by telling of the nobility of trying to restore the backslider. He does not give us some magic formula for healing a person on their deathbed. He instead tells us how to deal with a person who is headed for eternal death because they have given up on the God of life.

If the church is to regain her backsliders and see continued growth, instead of constantly trying to replace the people we lose, we need Biblical elders who know the power of prayer, the people they lead, and what's important as opposed to what's not.

Well, there's the article. It lost it's formatting when I copied it over. Hope this helps some.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Oh, thanks Darrell. I was busy copying while you posted your last one.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

...and Chuck,

I'm not trying to belittle your experience, but in 1994 while my wife was pregnat with my daughter, Mary, she too was diagnosed with tumors. She was sent to a specialist and there was nothing there except the first doctors ignorance of reading ultra-sounds. It turns out my wife only has a few cists on her ovaries and the only "tumor" was my little girl.

Maybe that has bearing on your experience, maybe not. I am not the one to say yes or no. But I do not believe the conclusion drawn by yourself and your elders concerning James 5, is the correct one.

And btw, I do not take prayer lightly nor try to "explain it away." But I do try to be honest with the text.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Bro. Scott I thank you for your insite on this matter,could it be that because there were Elders joined together in faith that the Lord healed my wife? I also understand your possition I don't find fault with it. I also believe in Elders laying on of hands to restor a fallen Brother, but I can't limit God to the extent that he can't heal the physical body to.I myself was crushed by a tree on a logging job and was told I would never walk again, my wife called and they laid hands on me I now walk and cut timber again.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Bro. Scott I forgot something didn't Jesus when he healed someone also say thy sin's be forgiven,so he restored the Spiritual and the natural.Just a thought not to get off track.

-- Anonymous, March 18, 2002

Chuck,

I don't think anyone here would deny that God can and does bring about great things (including healing grave illnesses) even today. But using James chap. 5 as a text for proving it is just not feasable - because for every person healed after being prayed over by the Elders, there are probably at least 5 others who died. So if this text dealt ONLY with physical illness, then God lied to us as the text says they WILL be restored.

So, going from a "thus sayeth", Biblical prespective, James can be properly taught as Scott did above; and one can even allude to the fact that it "might" work in the case of physically healing as well - but to teach it as a guarantee for physical healing is just not Biblical or even historical.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Hi,

If the laying on of hands in James 5 is referring only to deliverance from sin, I have a few questions:

1) Why is it needed at all? Can't the person simply confess to God? 2) Why in v. 15 are two different types of healing mentioned: both a physical healing ("make the sick person well") and a spiritual healing ("he will be forgiven")? 3. Why is the example of Elijah given? Just to demonstrate that there is power in prayer, or to give an example of the kind of prayer that God will answer, or to demonstrate the necessity of faith, or all of the above? 4. If it is to demonstrate the faith necessary, why would our forgiveness be dependent upon the faith of another?

IHS,

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry.....

Did you even bother to read Scott's article?? If so....did you read it in detail or because of preconceived ideals did you just scan it?? Have you studied the Greek words??

The reason I ask is....every one of your questions is answered in detail in his article.

Based upon your answer to the above....Scott can then clarify any "fine" details....but I find it hard to figure out why he would need to.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Danny,

Yes, I did read Scott's article. I don't think any of the questions I asked were addressed in detail. That's not Scott's fault, he wasn't writing the article to me. In addition, I don't have any preconceived notions about this at all, just asking some honest questions.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

(That's not Scott's fault, he wasn't writing the article to me.)

Barry.....he wasn't writing the article to anyone....it's an article.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

By the way....Scott and I see "eye to eye" on this suject. However.....I want him to have the opportunity to carry it through.

It's good for him!!

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

BArry

The word translated as "sick" should not be. He's not speaking of physical healing at all. The word "sick" in the first instance should be translated as "weak", i.e., spiritual weakness; and in the second instance as "weary." NOWHERE does it imply a physical healing because he's not speaking a physical sickness.

Your whole post above is a straw man. I never said it was dealing with deliverance from sin. It has to do with restoring a backslider. It is more than just forgiveness - it is restoration. What we see in James 5 is the Church doing what it's supposed to do such as encouraging one another and stimulating one another to love and good deeds )ala Hebrews 10:24,25. It's seeing elders doing what they supposed to be doing, i.e., pastoring.

As far as Elijah's prayer, it was a great example of the power of prayer. Look what happened when Elijah prayed having faith. If something like that can happen, surely God can forgive whatever sin the backslider has committed. It's not dependant upon the faith of the elders. This whole circumstance is the result of the backslider calling the elders. He is demonstrating his repentance in the fact he called for them. This fits with I John 1:9.

I hope this post makes sense. I'm writing it in a hurry. Barry, read the article a little more closely. I dealt with about everything you asked about already.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott,

First, let me say that your general understanding of this text is the same one I've held for a number of years, so I'm not the enemy here.

Secondly, the more I consider this text the more I see that it could imply both physical and spiritual healing.

I've studied the Greek on this also, and by no means is your translation conclusive. In fact, to accept your translation I have to reject every other translation that I'm aware of. I'm sure you have some good language skills, but I don't know that I'm willing to accept them in view of every other biblical translator!

There is no doubt that in this context James refers to sinfulness. My view is that James is possibly referring to someone that is physically ill due to sinfulness in his/her (TNIV appropriate) life. Look at v. 15 again:

(James 5:15) And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.

It would appear that James is speaking of two different events here: 1)The sick being made well; 2) the sinner being forgiven. To take your view (and my former view) I would have to say that James is simply repeating himself, which is of course, a possibility.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Uhhh....Danny....,

I know that, that is what I said....Geez man...lighten up

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry....

Don't put so much stock in "translators!"

Keep in mind the way they translated..."baptizo"....or should I say.....didn't translate it.

The only "authorized" and "authoritative" version is the original languages.

Everything else is subject to the whims....often the "Calvinistic" whims of the translators.

And Barry....your interpretaion lends itself to the belief that all sickness is the result of sin.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Danny wrote: And Barry....your interpretaion lends itself to the belief that all sickness is the result of sin.

Well, I guess it could, but that isn't what I'm saying. SOME sickness is the direct result of sin. Just because people might misinterpret it, doesn't make it untrue.

Do you think it is possibly the correct interpretation, or are you dismissing it out of hand?

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Danny,

Thanks for being concerned about my well-being. ;o)

Barry,

First, there are certain passages that translators are afraid to touch. For example, every translator knows that batizo means immerse, yet why do they continue to transliterate? Because there would be lots of yelling and boycotting if they changed it. The same is true of several other passages and this is one. I actually wrote the the translation committee of the NASB about this passage and their response was, in summary, you're correct but it's our translation and we decided to go with the traditional translation. I still have the letter in my files. BTW, I have already had a hand in getting certain phrases changed in a major translation because of preference in translation over accuracy.

I do not know what translaton you are using, but it is terrible and interpretive. The text says in v. 15 "the prayer offered in faith will SAVE (Gr: sosei - from sozo) the one who is weary (Gr. komnonta - from kamno)."

Let's break this down,

(the prayer offered in faith will SAVE the one who is weary) This fits right into I John 1:9, only in this instance the elders are there with him. (and the Lord will raise him up) Not only is his backslidden state resolved but Christ will restore him as part of the Church (and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him) The word if is a big word. If he has sinned during this time outside of grace, they too will be forgiven.

V. 16 (Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be restored.) The NASB uses healed instead of restored, but he has been talking about restoring someone back into the fold the whole time. Nowhere is there mention of physical healing of disease in this text.

The last two verses of James are conclusive. We are dealng with a backslider wanting to be restored into the Church.

And Chuck,

The passage I believe you are refering to in Matthew 9. Jesus never said that the man's sin is what caused his paralysis. His friends brought him to Jesus, Jesus said, "Your sins are forgiven." The man did not ris eup and walk at that moment. The Jewish leaders began accusing Jesus of blasphemy and Jesus asked "which is easier, to say your sins are forgiven or to say get up and walk?" It's easier to say your sins are forgiven because you cant see that. And if Jesus was not the Son of God, then He was speaking blasphemy. Jesus made this man ise up and walk to demonstrate that He was the Son of God, and since He was, this man's sins were also forgiven, because He said so. Mark 2:10 (the same event) says, "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."

Nowhere does it say the man was paralized because of sin.

Anyway, hope this helps

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry,

Technically, ALL disease is the result of sin - because we live in a sin-tainted universe. James 5 does not give us a cure for disease or sickness.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Chuck,

concerning your accident: Please dont interpret this as meanness, but do you have a limp? and was it instantanious or did you get better over a period of time?

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott,

asthenes can refer to spiritual weakness as you have described, but normally this is noted by the appearance of a qualifier such as "in faith" (Rom. 4:19). The absense of a qualifying phrase lends support to James speaking of physical weakness here. This exact same word is used to refer to physical sickness in John 11:2-3; John 4:46; and Acts 9:37.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott,

BTW, I was quoting the NIV.

In addition, while I understand why some translators (unfortunately) back off of baptizo, I really doubt there is any fear in translating the James passage literally.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry,

You keep giving further evidence that you didn't really pay much attention to the article. I quote, "The word means weakness in general, so the context of the passage must determine the kind of weakness that is being discussed. It may indeed mean bodily weakness, and often does, but the context must determine what kind of weakness it is."

If you put aside your preconceived notions, is there any reference to any kind of physical healing? There is a reference to a physical problem in verse 13 (suffering- Gr. kakopathei), but James says that YOU are to pray about it yourself. If you're feeling good, praise God. If you're weak, call the elders.

Look at the context before 13. It's all about remaining steadfast and faithful. He even uses Job as an example of endurance. Nowhere in this entire letter is there any mention of a wondrous way of getting rid of disease. That's not the issue. Remaining strong in the faith is the issue.

As far as translations go, there are some noble minded translators who will do their best to translate accurately becuae they want an accurate translation. But then comes the committee who tweaks with it here and there to make sure it will sell and is not too extreme. Yes, Barry, there is a fear of translating certain passages accurately. But it is usually on the part of the committees, not the translators themselves.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott,

Exactly! There is no qualifying phrase to support your view. As I stated before, I have no preconception with this passage. I used to hold your view entirely. But now I see I was allowing my preconceived ideas about physical healing to keep me from actually allowing the text to speak for itself.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Bro. Scott To answer tour question my recovery was not instant, I at times have a slight limp.Also I learned a valuabl lesson when I had my accident I thought I was the one providing for my family, but the Lord took better care of me and my family than I ever could.It took 9 months for me to recover,my accident was Apr.11 amd on Aug i2 my wife came down with meningitis.She also was diagnossd with cancer at the same time a tumor the size of a small apple on her heart it was inoperable she is now free of cancer.We had no insurance,but the Lord provided all our needs.

Scott please forgive me I was not trying to imply that the man Jesus healed and told his sins were forgiven was a result of his sin,but only that Jesus cares about all our needs,physical and Spiritual.Sorry for the confusion.

Scott thank you for your thoughts I have been able to look at this from a differnt veiwpoint now.

Barry not all sickness is a result from sin remember the man born blind.The disiples asked who sinned this man or his parrents Jesus said neither,but that the works of God be made manifest.We would not need a healer if none were sick or a Savior if none were lost.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry -- I would have to disagree with you on one point. I believe there would be a great upcry if translators worked the James passage this way. So many denoms ,,, and not just the pew jumping pentacostals ,,, believe in elders laying on hands and anointing with oil that they would boycott a translation that handled the James passage this way. Maybe not, but I believe it would.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Barry,

You must of have picked up the phrase "qualifying phrase" from a book somewhere. As I have said, the context determines which kind of weakness is being discussed - the word means "weakness", that is all. Your "qualifying phrase" only tells us what kind of weakness it is.

There is NO indication of ANY kind of physical healing in this passage. If it were to be physical healing then you would have your "qualifying phrase". But since there is not, it is to be understood in the context which is laid out throughout the entire 5th chapter. Your preconceived beliefs are the ONLY way physical healing gets brought into this text.

Chuck,

Thank you for sharing. I'm glad to see God has worked things out for you and your wife. However, the reason I asked is because if your recovery were the result of the laying on of hands, it would have been instantanious and complete. That's the way it is in every instance where Jesus or an apostle healed someone.

Please dont misunderstand what I am saying. God works in our lives today and God answers prayer. I just dont think you can use James 5 to support miraculous healing, that is, not without misrepresenting what is actually said. I sincerely appreciate your candor.

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott I have had some Church of Christ Ministers sit at my tabie and try to tell me that there is no healings or miricles anymore.I am very glad to see that there are some that do still believe.It is hard to see some things differnt at times when we have done them so long but I am trying.The absolute truth in God's word is what we need most.I understand what you have said and I will not use the text to just teach physical healing.I still will have elders who I know to be elders to Pray for me,though I may teach the text differnt now.I have been an eye wittness to some instant healings I saw a sister who had a growth on her neck the size of a golf ball and when a evanglist laid hands on her it dissapeard,she was a sister I personaly knew,but in light of what I understand now it is because of there Faith not the using of James chpt.5 Iam just glad Jesus Christ is still the same miricle worker he always has been.Thank you Chuck Williams

-- Anonymous, March 19, 2002

Scott I have also expieranced instant healing I had pneumonia and ear infection in both ears,I had been to the doctor 3times in 3weeks and was no better.When I had the elders lay hands on me instantly my lungs and ears were clear.Last night after thinking on this more and praying about this matter I can conclude that Jesus takes care of both physical and spiritual. One point to make is that there is spiritual law and natural law. Natural law there has to be 3 things to have fire heat,oxygen,and fuel.Remove any one thing and you have no fire.Likewise you have spiritual law ,the one in need has to call on the elders not the elders call the sick,they also have to be elders indeed not just old men who have been in Church 40 years but real spiritual leaders,then they must Pray over the one annointing with oil,and Pray the prayer of faith not the prayer of doubt or unbelief.If we would be totaly honest we can't say we have never doubted but there hav been times we have all been week in faith.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2002

With apologies to all true Greek scholars, may I squeeze in a word or two? Thanks.

If what we need is a Greek "expert" to understand Scripture correctly, than all of us are in for a lot trouble as only a small percentage claim to have expertise in the language. By a simple process of elimination, we can readily see how absurd this idea can be.

1. If God requires that we know Greek and Hebrew to truly ascertain His perfect will for our lives, than we might as well give up now. 2. As one who is fluently bilingual, I know that it takes a considerable amount of skill in a language to really claim to have any expertise in it, much less give an accurate translation. 3.Even the Greeks, who new the Greek language better than any of the so-called "Greek experts" of today, managed to misinterpret Scripture. Evidently knowing Greek is not a fool-proof guarantee of an accurate understanding. 4. Far too many Greek "experts" are not really experts at all. They just think they are and would love to have us believe that they are as well. In my lifetime, I have only met one man that could claim familiarity with the Greek language. His name was Harvey Beard, a former professor at Pacific Bible Seminary. He was one of the most unpretentious and humble men I have ever met - quite unlike most Greek "experts" of today. 5. We know for a fact that most modern English translations are based on Wescott & Hort's corrupt Greek text. Therefore, I put very little stock into what these adulterated versions say.

Enough for now.

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2002

Philip,

Just curious...by what standard do you judge Westcott and Hort's work as "corrupt". Did you come to that conclusion on your own, or did you rely on someone claiming to be a Greek or textual scholar? If we can't trust any of them in translation, how can we trust any of them in dealing with textual criticism? Or, being consistent with your statements, you can really have no idea whether WH or the TR are correct since you would be reliant on others who have no idea what they're talking about to give you that information?

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2002

Phil.....your latest post is truly sad....because it screams out...."I have my mind made up...don't confuse me with the facts"...a sentiment quite prevalent in a culture drowning in biblical ignorance.

The basic thesis of your argument is...."English is all we must know in order to understand God's word."

Well....let's carry your argument all the way through!!!

If someone in Latin America wants to understand God's word....they are in tough shape if they can't understand English!!! Same goes for the Chinese, the Korean, and every other culture that does not have English as their primary language. So says Phil...."Learn English...or you're out of luck!!"

Whether you like the facts or not Phil....the facts are.....God's word was reveleled and recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in two principle languages.....Hebrew and Greek.....with even a little Arabic and Chaldeen thrown in.

With that FACT in mind....another FACT is....we speak none of those languages....therefore....we have no choice but to translate.

Another FACT is that no one depends on just one source for their translation...contrary to your post. In my office alone I have no less than 4 or 5 different sources for looking up the meanings of words. Ears need to perk up when these sources all agree.....as they do in Scott's presentation of his argument.

Now....let's briefly look at your arguments one by one....

(1. If God requires that we know Greek and Hebrew to truly ascertain His perfect will for our lives, than we might as well give up now.)

No....it is simply required that SOMEONE took the time to know it. Fortunately......many...not few....have given their lives to the study of it. And....when it comes to Hebrew....we are talking about a "living language" that is still used today. Both languages are far from the esoteric, mysteries that you would like to convince people they are.

(2. As one who is fluently bilingual, I know that it takes a considerable amount of skill in a language to really claim to have any expertise in it, much less give an accurate translation.)

I have checked and rechecked the thread....and I for one cannot find one person who suggesested they were an expert. A wonderful straw man!!! Again...the fact is....that we can thank God for the many, many men and women who have invested considerable amounts of needed time and energy to become experts in the field of linguistics.

(3.Even the Greeks, who knew the Greek language better than any of the so-called "Greek experts" of today, managed to misinterpret Scripture. Evidently knowing Greek is not a fool-proof guarantee of an accurate understanding.)

Evidence???? You are an expert at this Phil...i.e., making blanket statements and then never backing them up with evidence. I'm still waiting (months later) for the long list of Restoration fathers who did not support the "they" being the "apostles" view that you promised to give us.

(4. Far too many Greek "experts" are not really experts at all. They just think they are and would love to have us believe that they are as well. In my lifetime, I have only met one man that could claim familiarity with the Greek language. His name was Harvey Beard, a former professor at Pacific Bible Seminary. He was one of the most unpretentious and humble men I have ever met - quite unlike most Greek "experts" of today.)

Another straw man!! (Do you have a contractor's license....because it seems you make a living doing this.)

(5. We know for a fact that most modern English translations are based on Wescott & Hort's corrupt Greek text. Therefore, I put very little stock into what these adulterated versions say.)

Evidence?? And so what......we are not talking about the "English translation".....we are talking about the original meanings of words.

You sadden me Phil. Someone, such as Scott.....makes a valid presentation. It is obvious if anyone invests the time and energy to look up Scott's sources....they would find him right on the money.

Your answer?? Attack the sources.

You would make an athiest proud!

-- Anonymous, March 23, 2002

Barry,

Allow me to clarify - I am not a Greek scholar if that is your question. I am not the one who judges Westcott and Hort's work - it is the Greek scholars themselves who judge W & H work. Furthermore, Jesus said that we would know them by their fruits. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to readily observe the fruits of W & H, namely a myriad of modern versions who even contradict each other. It is a historical fact that W & H were far from being true believers in Christ. Anyone with an unbiased agenda can easily trace W & H work and fruits and come to their own conclusion.

Barry, my impression is that you would have us believe that any Greek scholar who would dare question W & H ability to accurately compile the Greek Text, or that dares to place more stock in the TR than in Nestle's Greek Text has to be dishonest from the get go. By what standard do you judge the TR or Majoraty Text to be corrupt, or at least innacurate when compared to the "earlier manuscripts"? Just curious.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

Philip,

I am not the one judging any manuscript family -- you are, and you're doing it by trusting in some "scholarly" source, which you seem to disdain.

From your logic we can discard the KJV since King James was a known homosexual.

-- Anonymous, April 02, 2002

Barry,

Why is it that when you and I agree on something we get along fine, but when you disagree with me on anything you seem so pejorative in your rhetoric? You seem to be quite inconsistent in your attitudes and approach.

Just because I called into question the credibility of modern so- called translations you accuse me of being a King James-only freak. Was I addressing the King James Version of the Bible? Did I even mention it once? You jump to conclusions all too quickly and jump all over me in the process. If you want proof of the corrupt nature of the W & H text, there is plenty out there if you are willing to deal with it – but do it on your time not mine. I am not going to waste any effort to convince someone who is obviously not willing to be confused with the facts.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Danny, You say: “Phil.....your latest post is truly sad....because it screams out...."I have my mind made up...don't confuse me with the facts"...a sentiment quite prevalent in a culture drowning in biblical ignorance.” Far from being “sad”, I find it to be quite liberating to tell you the truth. Is a person Biblically ignorant because he or she does not master Greek? Well, let’s face the facts. If it is true that we must master Greek to become fully mature believers in Christ, as your statement seems to imply, which Greek manuscripts or text family are you going to follow? The TR (Majority Text), or the W & H via Nestlé’s compilation? Furthermore, which edition of W & H are you going to believe? In addition, if mastering Greek is essential for our spiritual maturity, why did the Greeks [who happened to know Greek better then you or I] have so much trouble following the teachings of the New Testament? If mastering Greek is essential for our spiritual maturity and enlightenment, why are not all the Greek professors true believers in Christ? Once again, Danny, you doctrine of Biblical preservation is flawed. God can use any language to communicate His will to us as much as He can use Greek. Our problem is one of obedience not one of languages. You say: “The basic thesis of your argument is...."English is all we must know in order to understand God's word." That is not what I said at all!!!! You have totally misquoted me and put words in my mouth to boot!! My thesis is this: English [or Spanish, or whatever language the Scriptures are in] is all that we NEED to know in order to understand God’s WILL for our lives. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE!!! If the indigenous people of New Guinea, who do not know Greek must master it to understand God’s will for their lives, than they are without hope altogether, along with billions of other people around the world. The fact is that God will judge them according to the light they have received, as surely as we shall be judged by the light that we have received. By the way, you who claim to master the Greek language will undergo a greater judgment according to the light you have received, if in fact knowing Greek has allowed you have access to that greater understanding of God’s Word. You say: “Whether you like the facts or not Phil....the facts are.....God's word was reveleled and recorded by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in two principle languages.....Hebrew and Greek.....with even a little Arabic and Chaldeen thrown in.” I will take your word for it Danny J! Seriously, I don’t know what you are trying to prove with the previous statement. It is rather redundant, don’t you agree? You Say: “With that FACT in mind....another FACT is....we speak none of those languages....therefore....we have no choice but to translate. Another FACT is that no one depends on just one source for their translation...contrary to your post.” Did I imply that they did? Hardly! Did W&H depend exclusively on the “older manuscripts”? Of course not! But they did give them more authority than the TR, and even added or deleted a bit here and there to make things connect where there existed obvious contradictions, additions, or omissions. You say: “In my office alone I have no less than 4 or 5 different sources for looking up the meanings of words. Ears need to perk up when these sources all agree.....as they do in Scott's presentation of his argument.” Your 4 or 5 sources may or may not agree with Scott’s presentation, but that hardly proves a bloomin’ thing. They could have just as easily been copying from each other or from some other primary source, as is often the case regarding commentaries. I generally trust Strong’s as well as other universally reputable reference books. You say: “Now....let's briefly look at your arguments one by one.... (1. If God requires that we know Greek and Hebrew to truly ascertain His perfect will for our lives, than we might as well give up now.) No....it is simply required that SOMEONE took the time to know it. Fortunately......many...not few....have given their lives to the study of it. And....when it comes to Hebrew....we are talking about a "living language" that is still used today. Both languages are far from the esoteric, mysteries that you would like to convince people they are.” What is it required for Danny? Is it required for salvation? For sanctification? For what? You have missed my point entirely… You say: (2. As one who is fluently bilingual, I know that it takes a considerable amount of skill in a language to really claim to have any expertise in it, much less give an accurate translation.) I have checked and rechecked the thread....and I for one cannot find one person who suggesested they were an expert. A wonderful straw man!!! Again...the fact is....that we can thank God for the many, many men and women who have invested considerable amounts of needed time and energy to become experts in the field of linguistics.” It’s true that no one made a claim to being an expert in Greek. I never said that anyone did make such a claim. Once again, you are misquoting me and putting words into my mouth. What I inferred was that, if we need to know Greek in order to understand God’s clear command in James, than we have no right to expect the New Guinea indigenous believers to obey it as they understand it in their own language. What is the point of even translating the Scriptures in the native tongues anyway? Is it not for the purpose of placing GOD’S WORD in the hands of the people so that they might know it and obey it? If anyone has constructed a straw man it is you Danny! You have built a house on sand based on an elitist mindset that seems to think that knowing the original languages makes someone more spiritual, more knowledgeable, or even more willing to obey God’s commands. Your attitude is no different from that espoused by the Roman Catholic curia who think that only their doctors in theology are capable of accurately interpreting the Scriptrues. You say: (3.Even the Greeks, who knew the Greek language better than any of the so-called "Greek experts" of today, managed to misinterpret Scripture. Evidently knowing Greek is not a fool-proof guarantee of an accurate understanding.) Evidence???? You are an expert at this Phil...i.e., making blanket statements and then never backing them up with evidence. I'm still waiting (months later) for the long list of Restoration fathers who did not support the "they" being the "apostles" view that you promised to give us.” I don’t what the “list” has to do with this thread, but here it is: SCHOLARS FOR SPIRIT BAPTISM FOR ALL CONVERTS Following is a list of scholars who believe we receive Spirit and water baptism together when we obey the gospel. A more extensive investigation than my limited research would doubtless reveal many more. Some of these men are of our own religious persuasion; some are not. Included are noted scholars, elders, preachers, writers of commentaries, editor-.., professors, and others whose vocations I do not know: N.J. Aylsworth Thomas Langford William Barclay Moses E. Lard Albert Barnes Donald McGavran J. Vernon Bartlett Robert Milligan G.R. Beasley- Murray C.F.D. Moule Donald Bridges Richard Oster Frederick D. Bruner David Phypers Adam Clarke Michael Ramsey James D.G. Dunn Robert Richardson Charles R. Erdman Gay Robinson Harry Robert Fox J. Wheeler Robinson Leroy Garrett J. Oswald Sanders J.H. Garrison W. Graham Scroggie Billy Graham Ray C. Stedman Charles Hodge John R.W. Stott Oliver S. Howard R. B. Thieme, Jr. Warren R. Howard J. Harold Thomas J.B. Hunley Leslie G. Thomas A.B. Jones Craig Watts You say: “(4. Far too many Greek "experts" are not really experts at all. They just think they are and would love to have us believe that they are as well. In my lifetime, I have only met one man that could claim familiarity with the Greek language. His name was Harvey Beard, a former professor at Pacific Bible Seminary. He was one of the most unpretentious and humble men I have ever met - quite unlike most Greek "experts" of today.) Another straw man!! (Do you have a contractor's license....because it seems you make a living doing this.)” Ok, Danny, I’m not even going to touch that one. You say: (5. We know for a fact that most modern English translations are based on Wescott & Hort's corrupt Greek text. Therefore, I put very little stock into what these adulterated versions say.) Evidence??” The evidence is plentiful and available, yet too large to handle in this thread as you very well know. You say: “You sadden me Phil. Someone, such as Scott.....makes a valid presentation. It is obvious if anyone invests the time and energy to look up Scott's sources....they would find him right on the money.” Why? Just because he agrees with you? What about all the other sources who disagree? Are they all wet too? You say: “Your answer?? Attack the sources.” Now there is a straw man if there ever was one! “You would make an athiest proud!” Anyone who truly knows me knows better than to make a statement like that. Of course, you don’t know me so I guess that explains you elititism.

-- Anonymous, April 04, 2002

Since I have not received a rebuttal to my last post for quite some time, I hereby declare this issue resolved thusly:

While knowledge of the original Biblical languages is most useful in ascertaining the intent of the authors in order to search for a more accurate rendering in the vernacular, it is neither required for salvation, sanctification, or obedience to God's Word. Therefore, one reading the instructions in James concerning the laying on of hands might understand it and obey it as it is found in the vernacular.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2002

Regardlesss, of the opion in this room is, the principle in this passage is applied to physical healing. I have seen many healings when James 5 is applied not only by just the elders (in Greek indicates mature Christians not the office) but any Christian. I have also seen firsthand when a person is anointed with oil and you pray over them and for them, demonic manifestations come to the surfice of the person being prayed for. Healing has many different facets as well as deliverance. Also if you pray for someone's healing and they die- they have been healed. If they are in the Lord then they left the body of suffering to be with the Master.

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2002

So, I guess Jesus unhealed Lazerus??? So maybe we could reword Rev 20:14 "Then healing and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second healing, the lake of fire." Maybe Paul really meant to say "O Healing where is your victory, O healing where is your sting."

I understand your sentiment (i.e., to live is Christ, die is gain), but to claim the curse of sin as a healing is ludicrous. What Biblical example do you have of someone dying and the family being told he had been healed?

-- Anonymous, May 08, 2002

This time I will have to agree with Scott up to a point.

Unfortunately my brother Kelly seems to be intensely influenced by the modern deliverance movement. That no mention of demon possession is even mentioned in this passage of James (much less the idea of a progressive healing or deliverance culminating in death) doesn't even phase him one bit.

As to his rendering of "elders" as "mature believers", I personally believe that he is stretching the meaning to fit his own theology instead of allowing the passage speak for itself. If "mature believers" is the intended meaning, why would they have to be "called on"?

The Bible either stands as a whole or it falls as whole. We must not let our personal theological hang-ups get in the way of the teaching of the full-counsel of God's Word. In this respect, 1 John 5:13-16 is just as much in the Bible as James passage, and I have no problem obeying both. As elders, we are to pray for the sick, laying hands on them and anointing them with oil (that is our part). God's part is to respond to those prayers according to His perfect will - period, end of story.

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2002

Philip, you accused me of being caught up in the deliverance movement. If casting out demons through a prayer of faith and laying on of hands with anointing oil on my fingers makes me caught up then the answer is yes. I have personally used the formula in James 5 to anoint the sick- have I seen and witnessed healings?yes! Have I personally seen demons manifest in people, even in Christians? Yes.

Our job as Christians is the same job as Jesus in Luke 4:18ff. and our job to anoint the sick both physically and spiritually still stands. James 5:14ff does and can apply to deliverance. Yes the Lord heals but we are given all authority by Christ to heal and deliver Mark16:16ff. There is a line between theory and practice. It is fine to theorize until theory is never applied.

Scott, your interpretation of James 5 does not hold water. I have been that route. Until the words of the scripture came alive. We are living in Acts today that is why it is unfinished. Also, if you are in Christ, and you are sick in body then you die- is not being with Jesus a healing?

The Greek word for well (sozo)can be also translated save or made whole. It applies to both physical and spiritual.

Can I apply James 5:14ff and use it in a deliverance ministry and still be biblical?yes!

-- Anonymous, May 09, 2002