Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:30:05.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Healing in the Epistle of James

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

John Wilkinson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The epistle of James is one of the most Jewish of the New Testament letters, even though it is written in excellent Greek. It is traditionally ascribed to James, the brother of our Lord, and there is no adequate reason for rejecting that view. It must, therefore, have been written before James died in A.D. 62. Various authors give dates between A.D. 40 and 60, and as it was commonly dated in the forties of the first century it was claimed to be the first book of the New Testament to be written. More recently, this claim has been challenged by examination of the epistle to the Galatians.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , August 1971 , pp. 326 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 327 note 1 Plummer, Alfred, Expositor's Bible on St. James and St. Jude (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1891), p. 323.Google Scholar

page 327 note 2 Acts 27.22, 25.

page 328 note 1 Hamack's comment on this verse was that it was ‘a clear proof that all aid in cases of sickness was looked upon as a concern of the Church’ and as a footnote he quotes I Cor. 12.26. See his Mission and Expansion of Christianity (Williams Norgate, London, 1908), vol. I, p. 121.Google Scholar

page 329 note 1 See Moulton, J. H., Grammar of New Testament Greek (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1963), vol. iii (by Nigel Turner), p. 79.Google Scholar

page 330 note 1 Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of St. James (Macmillan, London, 1892), pp. 177–179Google Scholar

page 330 note 2 ‘His “prayer” is in the phrase “before whom I stand”—a life in the Presence, bringing with it an instinctive knowledge of God's will; cf. Amos 3.7.’ Moulton, J. H., Peake's Commentary on the Bible (T. C. & E. C. Jack, London, 1920), 1st edition, p. 907.Google Scholar

page 331 note 1 Plummer suggests that the figure of three and a half years came from Jewish apocalyptic sources (cf. Daniel 7.25, 12.7) in his International Critical Commentary on St. Luke (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1896), p. 128. Other references to this incident are 2 Esdras 7.109 and Ecclesiasticus 48.3.

page 331 note 2 Mayor, J. B., The Epistle of St. James (Macmillan, London, 1892), p. 174.Google Scholar

page 332 note 1 Tasker, R. V. G., The General Epistle of St. James (Tyndale Press, London, 1957). P. 133.Google Scholar

page 332 note 2 Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge University Press, 1957). P. 403a.Google Scholar

page 332 note 3 If this case of the woman with the spirit of infirmity in Luke 13.11–17 is one of demon possession then there are several anomalous features about its description and cure. The description of her condition as a bond of Satan (v. 16) does not suggest that she was possessed by a demon. In exorcism Jesus addressed the spirit, but here he addressed the woman (v. 12). In no other recorded case of exorcism did he lay his hands on the possessed as he did on this woman (v. 13). There is no dramatic casting out of the spirit, but only a statement that the woman was now free of her infirmity (v. 12). Finally, the word therapeuo is used of her healing in v. 14, and this is not the normal word used for exorcism, but for physical healing. In view of all these anomalies, it is at least doubtful whether we should regard this as a case of demon possession and exorcism, and certainly this is not a case on which we may base general conclusions.

page 333 note 1 Rowley, H. H., The Faith of Israel (S.C.M. Press, London 1956), p. 114.Google Scholar

page 333 note 2 Scorer, C. G. certainly overstates this distinction in his article, ‘Another look at the healing miracles’, in In the Service of Medicine (Christian Medical Fellowship, London), no. 41 (April 1965), pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

page 333 note 3 Matthew, 10.8, cf. Luke. 92; Matthew 14.14, cf. Luke 9.11; Matthew 17.18 cf. Luke 9.42.

page 334 note 1 Almost half the occurrences of sozo in Mark refer to physical restoration. See Mark 3.4; 5.23, 28, 34; 6.56; 10.52, which account for six occurrences out of a total of thirteen (or fourteen if 16.16 is Markan).

page 336 note 1 1 Corinthians 12.9, 28, 30. Note especially verse II.

page 337 note 1 The suggestion that the thorn in the flesh was ‘a species of chronic malaria fever’ was first made by Sir William Ramsay, and is discussed in his book St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Hodder and Stoughton, London), p. 94 of sixth edition (1902).

page 338 note 1 So Sugden, E. H. in the Abingdon Bible Commentary (Epworth Press, London, 1929), p. 1337.Google Scholar

page 339 note 1 H. Schlier is incorrect in his statement that ‘In the NT anointing with oil is used on the sick for purposes of both medicine and exorcism’ (see his article in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. I, p. 231). The last two words cannot be substantiated by a careful examination of the facts.

page 340 note 1 Harris, Charles in Liturgy and Worship, edited by Clarke, W. K. Lowther (S.P.C.K., London, 1932), p. 513.Google Scholar

page 342 note 1 Matthew 10.5–8.

page 344 note 1 Johnson, Douglas, In the Service of Medicine (Christian Medical Fellowship, London), no. 52 (January 1968), p. 32.Google Scholar