The problem is, of course, that the passage reads as though it is a guarantee. If you are close to God, if those who pray for you are close to God, you will be healed. Don’t we have to turn to other parts of the NT to justify reading this as less than a guarantee?

I believe that James injunction to pray for healing must, like all of Scripture, be taken within the Scriptural Canon. Jesus tells us that when we pray we are to pray for His will to be accomplished through us. That being said, we are still called upon to come before the church with a faith that believes that God will heal our sickness. This must be a faith without doubting.

I’m a new comer to your blog. Have admired your work from a distance.
As you wrap up your compelling dialogue with James, I make this observation: if the number of comments by posters is any indication, wisdom isn’t worthy of our time. Only the more provocative/controversial posts seem to receive the most attention.
I hear echoes of Paul: “Where is the wise man? . . . Where is the debater of this age?”

Hmmm.
Scot, I think it’s interesting that from your last comment you take “righteous” to mean “close to God”. That seems to imply distance from God. But if “in him we live and move and have our being”, there is no “distance”. To me, that is not helpful. To be sure, there are people who are seem to have God’s ear, so to speak, but the word I would use to describe them would be “holy”… Sometimes these holy people don’t look like what we expect… I wonder if this aspect of the meaning of “righteous” -that which enables a good person to be good- is skirted because it’s so subjective.
Oh well.
Thanks for the series; interesting angles not previously considered.
Dana

Dear Rodney Reeves (#3),
Difficult to know how representative I am as a follower of this blog site, but I may have read every entry re: James but I do not remember commenting once. Why? I find the material too dense, too practical, too convicting for the terse comments that I think are appropriate to this mode. On the other hand, if the next time Scot is in Massachusetts he wants to bring the Cubans, then I’ll supply the Merlot and comfortable chairs (see his essay above) and we’ll chew it over thoroughly!
Peter

Like RJS, I think it’s hard to ignore James’ strong conviction that repentance and faith will produce healing. Of course other parts of the Bible don’t support this apparent guarantee of healing. As an example, Paul (2 Cor 12:7) wasn’t healed of his affliction even though he prayed for this, and few would suggest that Paul was hampered by unconfessed sin. It seems to me that James is overstating the expectation of healing by failing to mention that, apart from lack of faith, there may be other reasons for God choosing not to heal (as is the case in 2 Cor 12). Since I’m not an inerrantist, I have no problem with this. I still appreciate James’ inspired wisdom in encouraging the sick to exclude spiritual causes of persisting maladies.