It all started modestly enough. Hoping to stem the rising tide of socialism in the late 19th century, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck decided to institute a welfare state, the theory being that finding a middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown socialism would blunt the popularity of the latter without unduly interfering with the former. Bismarck convinced the Reichstag to create four programs: accident insurance, old-age pensions, disability insurance, and compulsory health insurance.
The health insurance bill, passed in 1883, provided for cash payments to those temporarily unable to work because of illness and in-kind benefits for their medical treatment. Employers paid one-third of the cost of the program; employees paid the rest. According to Wikipedia, ‚ÄúThe program was considered the least important [of the four] from Bismarck‚Äôs point of view.‚ÄĚ But as we shall see, it...
it would be wise to use essential oils on the sick, that would be what they need, restoration of the body, through restoring what is depleted, instead of splicing and nuking. the sick need prayer and physical help, sure thing.
Jim Lincoln wrote: It was prayer that was needed not the oil.
That's not what I see the verse as saying. The commentator assumes w/o evidence that the oil is ONLY part of a miraculous sign, even though he also admits that oil was considered a non-miraculous curative agent. Since anointing is grammatically conjoined with prayer, you cannot separate the two. If you pray over the sick, you must also anoint (or try some other physical remedy). Please supply evidence proving otherwise.
Neil, if you look at the context of the anointing, in these verses, James 5:14-16, as did Mr. Fausset of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary did. One can really imply the ill person called the elders. It was prayer that was needed not the oil.
I guess all I can say is stay tuned for when Gill's sermons are put up here the last two weeks of evening sermons covered this topic, thoroughly. Gil is always a good example of Principles of Bible Interpretation.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Not really, Neil, this can be for healing of sins,
Just because illness *may be* from sin does not mean that elders attend to sick people any less. So your commentator does not contradict me. And he was correct to point out that anointing oil was a common Near East healing agent; it's just called aromatherapy now. I infer an implicit principle that other, possibly more modern remedies are no less appropriate, where needed.
whoso wrote: Ah Neil this is why one should not reply to rhetorical questions
If I knew it was rhetorical, I certainly wouldn't have answered it!