If you read several of the most popular English Bibles side by side—the KJB, GNT, NIV, and NLT—you will notice something immediately. When James speaks to the sick in James 5:14, the wording changes from one translation to another. Some say “let them call the elders,” others “let him call for the elders,” or “they should send for the church elders.” The meaning is similar, but the force of the instruction varies.
Then I noticed something unexpected.
The 1977 New American Standard Bible used the same wording as most others: “let him call.” But when the NASB was revised in 1995, the translators made a deliberate change—based not on English tradition, but on James’ original language. The verse was properly changed to:
“Then he must call for the elders of the church.”
That mattered to me.
This was not a stylistic update. The 1995 NASB did not present this action as advice, permission, or encouragement. It presented it as a command—a requirement placed upon any Christian who is sick: he must call for the elders to pray and anoint him.
One group of translators, after reexamining the original text, chose to strengthen—not soften—the force of James’ instruction, even though it meant departing from both popular English translations and their own earlier wording.
So, of all the Bibles I have access to (over 100), ONLY THE TRANSLATORS AND PUBLISHERS OF NASB, AMP, AND LEGACY HAD THE COURAGE TO PRINT THE TRUTH OF WHAT JAMES REALLY WROTE.
Thirty years later, none of the churches I have attended—or directly questioned—have taught or practiced this command. That raises an unavoidable question: why has the Church not accepted what God, through James, commanded the sick Christian to do?
And it does not stop there. James 5:14 also places responsibility on the elders themselves—to pray and to anoint. These, too, are commands, not options. Yet most Christians remain unaware of either obligation. The truth has been perverted!
Why Would God Command the Sick to Call for the Elders?
Commands in Scripture are never arbitrary. When God issues a direct instruction, it is not merely to regulate behavior, but to protect life, preserve faith, and prevent loss. Scripture is clear that God knows His people will suffer illness. But it is equally clear that He desires that none should perish.
Scripture warns that when people are perishing—when fear of loss and death presses in—they become especially vulnerable to deception. Paul describes a time when false signs and promises would deceive “those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth that would save them” (2 Thessalonians 2:10). God’s command in James 5 protects the sick from that very moment—by keeping healing, forgiveness, and trust anchored in His truth rather than in substitutes that merely promise survival.
Therefore, James does not merely describe what elders can do for the sick. He commands what the sick must do when illness strikes—because sickness is not spiritually neutral. It is a moment of vulnerability, fear, and weakened resolve, when trust can easily be misdirected.
If calling for the elders were the natural response of believers, no command would have been necessary. Scripture rarely commands what people already do willingly. Commands exist because human nature tends to choose a different path—especially under pain, urgency, and uncertainty.
That is why this instruction had to be explicit.
God was not only concerned with physical recovery. He was safeguarding the sick from being isolated, from acting independently, and from placing their hope in another authority at the very moment their faith was most at risk. Calling for the elders ensured that sickness would be addressed within the covenant community—where repentance, forgiveness, restoration, and healing remain joined together.
In short, God commanded this not because He expected His people to get sick—but because He did not want them to be lost when they did.
That raises the deeper question: what path was James preventing the sick from taking, and why was that path so dangerous?
The Behavior the Command Was Designed to Prevent
When people become sick, frightened, or weak, they instinctively seek immediate relief, visible expertise, and human reassurance. Even among believers, suffering tends to shift trust away from unseen promises toward tangible solutions.
James was writing to real communities, not ideal ones. He understood that sickness creates urgency, fear, and desperation. Left to themselves, the sick naturally:
- seek private remedies
- consult familiar authorities
- act independently
- avoid spiritual examination or confession
The command to call for the elders was designed to interrupt that natural instinct.
It slows the response, removes secrecy, and it places illness back inside the covenant community.
The written command (God’s prescription for the sick) must prevent the sick from managing illness on their own terms.
Why This Had to Be a Command
James presents this process not as one option among many, but as the covenantal way illness is addressed among believers. Calling the elders ensures that sickness is treated not merely as a physical problem, but as a spiritual, relational, and covenantal matter.
This also explains why the command is addressed first to the sick, not the elders.
God does not assume the elders will insert themselves. He commands the sick to submit themselves.
Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (James 5:14 NASB)
Why the Responsibility Does Not Rest on the Sick
At this point it must be stated plainly: the failure to obey James 5:14 cannot be laid at the feet of ordinary believers.
We now know the command was given to the sick—but the knowledge of the command was entrusted to teachers.
If Christians were never told that God commanded the sick to call for the elders, their failure was not rebellion; it was the predictable result of their silence.
This silence did not come from Scripture.
It came from those entrusted to handle it.
Throughout church history—whether in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism—the same pattern emerges: human authority is permitted to temper, supplement, or override the plain sense of God’s Word.
In the Roman Catholic system, Scripture is only one source of authority, alongside tradition and ecclesiastical teaching. In practice, the written Word may be subordinated to councils, theologians, or papal pronouncements. Once again, human words are granted interpretive priority over what God has plainly spoken.
Protestantism formally rejected that structure, yet often reproduces the same outcome by different means. Pastors decide what is preached. Elders decide what is practiced. And translators—though claiming fidelity to the original languages—may decide how forcefully God’s commands are rendered.
When a clear command is softened, reframed, or treated as optional, the result is inevitable. The sick will do what seems natural. They will seek help elsewhere.
This is not coincidence. It is what happens whenever Scripture is no longer permitted to speak with final authority. Once human judgment is allowed to moderate God’s commands, obedience becomes conditional—and silence becomes policy.
When Silence Leaves Only One Way Forward
For most Christians, the consequences of ignoring James 5:14 appear insignificant. They became sick, sought medical care, recovered, and moved on. From their perspective, nothing bad happened.
And that is precisely the problem.
When a command is never taught, disobedience does not feel like disobedience at all. It feels like normal life. Going to the doctor was not perceived as an alternative to God’s instruction—it was understood to be God’s provision, affirmed by culture and left unchallenged by the Church.
They did not reject God’s way. They were never told there was another way. Silence does not leave people neutral – it forces substitution.
What the Bible Actually Promises
This is where clarity matters most.
God’s prescription in James 5:14–16 is not partial or symbolic. It is complete. God requires the sick among His people to be made whole—forgiven, restored, raised up. And He adds physical healing as a promise.
Scripture states plainly: “the prayer of faith will heal the sick one.”
Let me be clear: God’s requirement is not mere symptom relief. He requires wholeness—salvation, forgiveness, restoration—and He promises physical healing as part of that covenant response.
Medical science and its practitioners are neither equipped nor authorized to do what God requires. Yet there are some denominations who profess a belief in medical science.
But James wrote the only prescription that will fully accomplish what God demands. Yet the Church of this age has hidden much of it from those who needed it most.
That silence has had a very high cost.
What Happens to Faith When Trust Is Placed Somewhere Else?
When God’s prescription was withheld—through silence, softening, or omission—believers were denied more than information. They were denied a covenant promise. With no knowledge of God’s way, they sought healing elsewhere, often at far greater cost and risk than they realized.
And it did not stop with verse 14.
The mistranslation and softening of God’s prescription occurred across multiple passages related to healing, faith, and authority—quietly redirecting trust toward a counterfeit system that promises relief without repentance and cure without displaying covenant faithfulness.
I know this not as theory, but as a personal confession.
For years, I participated in that system. I wrote over one hundred thousand prescriptions—believing I was helping, never realizing I was reinforcing a deception Scripture warned about long ago. I unwittingly helped Satan seduce God’s children.
The full account—how this happened, why it went unquestioned, and what the Bible actually says about healing and obedience—is laid out in my newly released book, I Gave Them the Wrong Prescription.
What was hidden for centuries is now visible.
What was silent can now be heard.
And what was replaced by a counterfeit can still be restored.
Leave a Reply