1. Purpose of Elijah
  2. Example of fervent effective prayer.
  3. Hartin 2003:271, 275; Albl:137; Warrington 2004:364
  4. Of the “weak” and “weary” saint – Amerding “Calling”265.
  5. Edwards 141–142
  6. Johnson, James, 344; Johnson also notes Elijah as a prophet stands over against «“the world,” for whom reality is a closed system.»
  7. Example of righteousness.
  8. Hartin 2003:271; Warrington2004:364 notes that Elijah is called righteous and zealous for the law in 1 Kgs 18:40; 19:10, 14; Sir 48:2; 1 Macc 2:58; j. Ter 4:86c. “James incorporates Elijah to encourage his readers to recognize the power available through prayer and the necessity of a righteous lifestyle to experience it.”{Warrington 2004:365} {David Keith Johnson 317}
  9. Illustration of connection between sin and punishment.
  10. John Christopher Thomas notes that vv 17–18 are wholly consistent with the possibility that James connects sin and sickness. The idea that sickness as punishment can come from God is consistent with deuteronomic theology. “Such an interpretation is in line with the way in which God is acknowledged to afflict as well as bring relief ain vv. 17–18, where through the prayer of Elijah God first withholds rain and later sends it.” {John Christopher Thomas:33 – citing Blaine Charette for this insight}
  11. {Warrington 2004:366}
  12. Will of God in prayer
  13. Citing that James says the drought is caused by prayer when the 1 Kgs narrative states it occurred according to a pronouncement of Elijah’s prophecy (17:1), Warrington asserts that Elijah as an example serves to illustrate the importance of God’s will in prayer for the sick. See also pg. 358, where based on 1:6 and 2:23, Warrington asserts that “the prayer of faith” is “best identified as knowledge of God’s will for a particular situation when no scriptural guidance is available. Resulting from such divinely imparted knowledge, an individual may confidently expect that the outcome, as revealed, will occur. Such a gift comes because of a word from God (Rom. 10:17).” {Warrington2004:358} That the prayer of faith is “knowledge of God’s will” is based on 1:6, where it is promised that God will grant wisdom to the one who asks in faith without doubting. In 2:23, Abraham believed in God’s promises when obeying. Warrington also asserts that Sirach 48:3 emphasizes the word of the Lord, coupled with 1 Kgs 18:1 (the word of the Lord about rain).

(1)Warrington notes that while 1 Kgs speaks of prophecy (17:1; 18:1) that James speaks of prayer. He rectifies this by stating that prayer and prophecy are “secondary” and “in this context, equivalent in value: the will of God is primary” {Warrinton:2004:366} “The determining factor for a positive response by God to prayer or prophecy is whether they were prompted by God.” {Warrington2004:367}

(2)Laws, on the otherhand noe that James “directly altered the course of the original story,” in that for James, Elijah’s prayer effected the drought and rain, but for the OT narrative, the word of the Lord revealed to his prophet preceded the drought and the rain. (Laws, 237)

  1. Dry earth symbol of or analog to sick person
  2. Reicke 62; DavidsNIGTC 197; Moo, PNTC, 248 mentions this, but he also notes that James does not draw out the parallels here if this is the case. He concludes that partly James may be reliant upon Jewish tradition (citing Sir 48:2–3 and 2 Esdr. 7:109).
  3. Prayer and delay of grace/salvation:
  4. Reicke:61 James’ “main interest is to show that a righteous man praying effectively can delay or hasten the saving grace of God which is symbolized by rain, as also in vs. 7.”
  1. From where did James get his story of Elijah?
  2. Uncertain whether or not it is Scriptural or based on Jewish tradition
  3. {Warrington1994:217}
  4. Jewish tradition
  5. Warrington1994:217 cites {Ropes:311}{Mussner1967:228} Ropes remarks that vv 17–18 are based on midrashic tradition in that Elijah prays rather than prophsies for rain (see Tg. Onk. Gen 18:22; 19:27; 4 Ezra 7:109. “That Elijah procured the drought is directly stated in Ecclus. 483.” {Ropes311} The midrashic tradition is also seen in the period of 3.5 years. He cites the text of the Yalkut Shimeoni in Surenhusius, Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, Amsterdam, 1713, p. 681 that states “In the thirteenth year of Ahab there was a famine in Samaria for three years and a half.” {Ropes311} He states that the OT basis for this midrash was 18:1 “after many days…in the third year.” He cites Lightfoot on Luke 4:25 along with the estimation of Ruth Rabbah 1,4 (14 months) {Ropes 311} Ropes also states that Elijah’s second prayer is based on 18:42.

(1)See also Vouga, 108.

(2)Dibelius256 “The Elijah example also originates from Jewish tradition. . . . Here in vv 17, 18 Jas is again following the tradition, not the canonical account.” Dibelius cites 4 Ezra 7:109 and Sir 48:3 where Elijah’s actions in 17:1 and 18:42 are interpreted as prayer or prophecy. He also states that the 3.5 year time period is Jewish tradition. In addition he states that a tradition that the prophets had power over heaven and earth may have lead to James using ἐπί τῆς γῆς in v. 17 and οὐρανός—γῆ in v. 18. {Dibelius 256–257}

  1. De lacy O’Leary, “Rabbinical Illustrations of the Epistle of James,” ExpT 15 (1903–1904): 334–335. O’Leary cites the Jalk. Sim. on 1 Kings 17, « ‘And Elijah the Tishbite said there should not be dew or rain.’ R. Berachia said R. Josa and the Rabbonin dispute about this; one said that God accepted his prayer concerning the rain but not concerning the dew, and the other that he was heard both concerning the rain and the dew.» {O’Leary335}
  1. What and why is ὁμοιοπαθής ?
  2. Suffering

(1){Warrington2004:365} Warrington besides citing the typical areas of Elijah’s sufferings (e.g., 1 Kgs 19:14; 3; 18:17; 19:2) also cites the tradition that Elijah would precede the coming of the Messiah “and in that role would suffer.” He cites Mark 9:12 f.; Hayden265 also cites 1Kg 19.

(2)Warrington1994:224 supports the writers below (Martin Reicke Scaer) citing the OT record that portrays Elijah suffering and discouraged, along with fear (19:3?) and the opposition against him. He also cites Mk. 9:12ff; Rev 11:13ff [sic] and Jeremias, TDNT 939ff

(3)BE SURE TO LOOK UP THE SUFFERING ELIJAH BIT!

  1. Martin, 212; Reicke, 66; Scaer, 134; Vouga, 108.
  1. Neutral
  2. Warrington in his 1994 article points out that homoiopathēs simply means “similar” and the issue of what is similar is determined by context (Warrington1994:224)
  3. Humanity
  4. Windisch, 34; Moo (1985), 188; Davids, 197; Dibelius, 257; Seifrid, 37.To counter the “super man” view of ElijahSeifrid 37, Hartin 2003:271; David Keith Johnson 317 – “just as feeble and frail as any other man”; {Karris new angles 215} –“who had difficult experiences like us.” Laws cites Wis 7:1–7 as an interesting parallel. Solomon describes himself as a human – just like any other. He even “fell upon the kindred earth” (ἐπὶ τὴν ὁμοιοπαθῆ κατέπεσον γῆν;Wis 7:3 nrsv). Hence, according to Wis 7:1–7, any man could ask for wisdom and gain the same result (Laws, 236). Moo, PNTC, 247;
  5. Cantitat 255 – states as well that this is why Jesus is not used as an example of prayer.
  6. Marty, Jacques. L’Épître de Jacques Étude critique.Paris: Félix Alcan, 1935. (p. 218) states that omoiopathes does not need to mean “weak” or sinful, but rather just sharing the same humanity as his readers.
  7. Fabris, 2004:345 states that James takes his cue from Sirach 48:4 “How glorious you were, Elijah, in your wondrous deeds! Whose glory is equal to yours? (τίς ὅμοιός σοι καυχᾶσθαι;)”
  8. Edwards, 142; noting a possible allusion to ch. 19 and Elijah’s flight from Jezebel.
  9. Dibelius, 257 states that it is simply used to counter the “majestic greatness of Elijah which is stressed by the tradition (Sir 48:1 ff).” He notes “One can rule out more subtle distinctions in the expression “with the same nature” (ὁμοιοπαθής); it simply means “a human like us.”

(1)Dibelius asserts that this first clause, Ἠλίας ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁμοιοπαθὴς ἡμῖν functions as a “participle with concessive force” and that καί forms a contrast. “He was just a man, yet he prayed fervently that it might not rain and his prayer was answered.” {Dibelius 257}

  1. Johnson, James, 336 states that «It means, literally, “to be of like feeling/passion” but has the sense of “like nature.”» He also notes that it could very well be taken to counter the “tendency to elevate the status of Elijah” He cites Mal 3:22–23; Sir 48:1–14; Mark 9:2–8; Matt 17:1–8; Luke 9:28–36. He also notes that Elijah’s reputation for prayer was well known (Sir 48:1–11; 2 Esd 7:109; m. Taan. 2:4; b. Sanh. 113a; Est. Rab. 7.13).
  1. Johnson asserts that it does not simply mean that Elijah is not semidivine, but rather “it empowers a community that is itself experiencing the same sort of stress and suffering that Elijah did in his battles with the priests of Baal in the days of wicked King Ahab. Elijah did not pray out of a posture of ostensible strength; he was beleaguered and isolated when he prayed. That is the lesson to readers who see themselves as oppressed by the powerful.” This is teased out as Johnson associates Elijah as the righteous prayer (v. 16) with the murdered righteous of v. 6. “This is the lesson to James’ readers: the prayer that can raise a the sick person and heal the community can also prove triumphant over the powers of evil in the world, for prayer is the openness of the human spirit to the powerful word of God that enables it to work.” (emphasis his) Johnson, James, 344.
  2. “The responsibility of believers in terms of vv. 15b, 16”
  3. Vouga, 144 – but Warrington1994:224 states that this is “unproven.”
  1. proseuchē proshuxato

(1)kai is translated “yet” so that the sense is “even though Elijah was mortal, nevertheless he prayed.” Johnson, James, 336.

  1. “Prayed a prayer” or “simply prayed”
  2. Ropes 312, who denies any kind of intensification in the sense of “ernestness”.
  3. J. H. Moulton, W. F. Howard, N. Turner, Grammar of New Testament Greek, (4 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1985), 4.47-48;
  4. Ernest prayer
  5. Mayor ccxlii; 180, where he states “I cannot understand what should lead De Wette, Hofmann, Huther, Eerdman to deny this intensive force which belongs to reduplication in all languages.”
  6. Wallace, 168–169 on the “cognate dative.” He defines this as a construction where “The dative noun is cognate to the verb either formally (where both noun and verb have the same root) or conceptually (where the roots are different). This is not common.” {Wallace 168} He notes that the purpose of this construction is to “emphasize the action of the verb.” {168} He translates 5:17 as “Elijah . . . prayed earnestly.” Wallace makes no mention of the possible semitic background.
  7. Edwards {142} cites Wallace, 169 and BDF § 198.
  8. BDF § 198 (6) cites this as an example of “the associative dative.” The grammar notes the non-Semitic classical examples and states that it is used to “strengthen the verb.”
  9. Johnson, James, 336; Moo, PNTC, 248
  10. Laws, 235 “he prayed and prayed”
  11. Enduring/persistent prayer
  12. {Kaiser,2006: 269–274} Sigurd Kaiser, Krankenheilung: Untersuchungen zu Form, Sprache, traditionsgeschichtlichem Hintergrund und Aussage von Jak 5,13–18. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 112; Neukirch: Neukerchener Verlag, 2006. (WUANT 112)
  13. Intensification
  14. Dibelius 257 n. 92 “intensification”
  15. Mayor ccxlii
  16. Dibelius states that it has an intensifying effect {Dibelius, 257 n. 92}.
  17. Semitism
  18. Pro Mayor ccxlii; David Keith Johnson, 315.
  19. Con Ropes 26;
  20. Doubtful Dibelius 257 n. 92; Moulton, Howard & Turner 1.75–76, where Moulton , citing numerous examples from classical Greek, states that while it may reflect an Hebraism, it does so because the infinitive absolute is analagous to a similar construction in non-Hebraic Greek. “The Greek translator, endeavoring to be as literal as he could, nevertheless took care to use Greek that was possible, however unidiomatic—a description well suiting the kind of language used in every age by translators who have gained the conscientious accuracy, but not the sure-footed freedom, of the mature scholar.” {1.76.}
  21. Dibelius cites Plato, Symp. 195b: “fleeing old age in utmost haste” (φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας) as an example of a Hellenistic use of the construction. {257}
  22. Davids cites also the unusual τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι rather than ἵνα μὴ βρέξαι along with the use of the καί to connect all six clauses in vv. 17–18 as evidence of strong Semitic background, even “perhaps borrowing from a Semitic source”. {DavidsNIGTC198}
  1. How can James say Elijah prayed in 17:1?
  2. In whose presence I stand
  3. Hartin 2003: 272 by inference from 17:1. He equates Sir 48:3 and Elijah’s effective word with prayer. He also notes the healing and Carmel.
  4. Targum Genesis 18:22; 19:27 - translating "stand" as "ministered in prayer" {Ropes311} Tg. Onk. Gen 18:22 has הואמשׁמישׁבצלוקדםיויrather than the MT's עודנועמדלפנייהוה. The Targum on 19:27 has a similar substitution. {ropes 311}
  5. See also email on this topic.
  6. Omanson, 434 cites that “standing” is the Jewish posture of prayer.
  7. Chaine, 135
  8. b. Ber. 6b «How do we know that our father Abraham had a fixed place [for his prayer]? For it is written: And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood. And ‘standing’ means nothing else but prayer.For it is said: Then stood up Phinehas and prayed.» So, Abraham is said to have instituted morning prayer in Gen 19:27, because he returned to the plache where “he had stood before the Lord” (עמדשםאת־פנייהוה). This is inferred from Psalm 106:30, where Phinehas “stood and intervened/prayed” (ויעמדפינחסויפלל). פללin the Piel, can mean both “judge” or “intercede” (HALOT, s.v.). See also Gen 18:22 ff., where Abraham “stands before the Lord” interceding on behalf of Lot. See parallels in Gen. Rab. 68.9 on Gen 28:11; Num. Rab. 2.1 on Num 2:1; b. Ber. 26b.
  9. Functional similarity between prayer and prophecy
  10. Warrington notes that while 1 Kgs speaks of prophecy (17:1; 18:1) that James speaks of prayer. He rectifies this by stating that prayer and prophecy are “secondary” and “in this context, equivalent in value: the will of God is primary” {Warrinton:2004:366, 1994:225}
  11. David Keith Johnson, 313–314 says that “before whom I stand” “perhaps” indicates his prayer. He cites Lenski, Hebrews and the Epistle of James, 669 “The very way in which Elijah swore that there should be no rain during these years except at his word indicates that he had communicated with God in prayer.” He holds a view similar to Warrington that “Elijah blended his will with the Lord’s will, so that while he was standing before God, he simply prayed what he already knew that weill of God to be concerning the drought (cf. John 15:7). He asked God to work out His already-revealed will.” {DavidKeithJohnson314}
  12. Jewish tradition associated Elijah’s declaration in 17:1 with prayer (Dibelius, 256–257 cites 4 Ezra 7:109).
  13. Johnson, James, 336. ḥay YHWH could be taken as an “oath/prayer” (euchē).
  14. How can James say Elijah prayed in ch. 18?
  15. Head between the knees (Johnson, James, 336); implied by Moo, 248, who states that one can infer from 18:42 that Elijah must have prayed in 17:1. It is not explicit, however, that Elijah prayed in 18:42! (Moo, PNTC, 248)
  16. Why rain and not healing?
  17. Judgment
  18. Allusion to rain earlier and perhaps cry of the harvesters?
  19. «In calling attention to this part of the story, James may be quietly reminding his readers of the efficacy of their cries to “the Lord of hosts,” who shall finally breing judgment upon those who oppress the poor (James 5:4–6).»
  20. Efficacy of God’s word (compare with Witherington)
  21. Seifrid sugests that James recalls Isaiah 55:10–11 and the efficacy of God’s word as compared with the reliability of the snow and rain to produce fruit. {Seifrid37} He does note that “The text of Isaiah that he echoes intimate a new creation, in which heaven and earth experience peace and blessing.” {Seifrid37}
  22. Repentance of God’s people as a result of drought
  23. Seifrid 37-38
  24. To show that 13-18 is not dealing with sickness
  25. Hayden 265 – James “sought to picture fervent prayer in the midst of conflict with sin rather than a prayer ministry for the sick.” – he points to 1 Kgs 19 and Elijah’s weakness.
  26. See also Edwards, 142 n. 164 who cites Hayden and agrees with his view. Edwards states,

(1)“Certainly his prayer in raising the widow’s son from the dead would serve as a better illustration of healing, if that were the point of vv. 14–15. However, the prayer regarding drought and the return of rain was more connected to the faith of the Israelites. The drougth appeared to have been due to idolatry under the influence of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. The rain returned after Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal and the repentance of the people (1 Kings 18). The weather (drought and rain) symbolized the spiritual condition of the people in the time of Elijah.” {Edwards 142–143; 135}

(2)He goes on to say, “It may be that the illustration of Elijah’s prayer regarding the weather is meant, in part, to serve as an allusion to the spiritual condition of the people: drought indicates spiritual distance from God, and fruitful land depicts spiritual restoration.” {Edwards, 143}.

  1. Note pgs. 172–173 in Wendel G. Johnston, “Does James Give Believers a Pattern for Dealing with Sickness and Healing?,” pages 168–174 in Integriety of Heart and Skillfulness of Hands (ed. Charels H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). Johnston remarks that James’s choice of Elijah’s drough was specifically meant to point that sickness can be the result of sin and that repentance will bring healing. The emphasis in 13-15 is not simply healing, but church discipline. Hence the calling of the elders of the church and the mutual confession.
  1. A reference to the tradition about righteous prayer for rain – m. Taʿan. 3:8; b. Taʿan. 24b (Honi the Circle-drawer); Jos. Ant. 14.22 (Onias); Epiph. Haer. 78.14 (James himself – though Laws remarks that this tradition is most likely derived from Jas 5:17–18 itself). Laws, 235.
  1. Heavens gave rain?
  2. God as giver of all good gifts
  3. Hartin 2003: 272; Johnson, James, 337.
  4. Dibelius notes that James’ ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν reflects 1 Kgs 18:1, but in the LXX, God is the subject rather than “the heavens” (δώσω ὑετὸν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς). He also notes the textual variant, where the order of ὑετὸν ἔδωκεν is reversed (ἔδωκενὑετὸν) in אA Ψ 33 1739 {257 n. 94}. The NA27 lists the following witnesses: (א) A Ψ 33. 623. 945. 1241. 1739. 2298. 2464 al latt | txt B P 048vid. 049 m. In any case, the sense is not changed. In (א), the actual variant is ἔδωκεντὸν ὑετὸν. Edwards, 96, notes “It is difficult to tell what the original word order was, but fortunately this presents no problem for understanding the vers. The word order δίδωμι-ὑετός occurs in the LXX, but not the reverse.” He cites 1 Kgs 8:36; 18:1; 2 Chr 6:27; Job 5:10 (96, n. 10).
  5. Note, vid = ut videtur, meaning that the reading in the witness is not absolutely certain | the parentheses around Sinaiticus (א) indicate that it has a very minor variant from the other witnesses, in this case the addition of the article between the two words in reversed order (ἔδωκεντὸν ὑετὸν).
  6. In v. 17, the following variants are given to ✕τοῦ μὴ βρέξαι✖: τ. μη βρ. υετον 323. 945. 1241. 1739 al | ινα μη βρεξη 1505 pc | του μη βρεχειν Ψ.

(1)Edwards, 96 notes that ὑετόν is added to supply an object for βρέξαι in 323 945 1241 1739 al; the present infinitive is supplied in Ψ, and a ἵνα clause (ἵνα μὴ βρέχῃ) is added in a few witnesses (1505 pc).