The gospel lectionary reading for Trinity 6 in this Year B is Mark 6.1–13, and is yet another example of Mark’s highly concise storytelling that is packed with theological narrative significance. Once more the lectionary does us a slight disservice; the reading combines the story of those taking offence at Jesus in his home town with the first half of the sending out of the disciples in pairs, so we might then miss the fact of the ironic intercalation of their sending and return as the ‘bread’ of the sandwich whose ‘filling’ is the beheading of John the Baptist. Yet our passage itself is sufficiently full of ironic contrast so we have enough to work with.
The lectionary is perhaps led astray by our chapter divisions; Ben Witherington (in his socio-rhetorical commentary on Mark) sees Mark 6.6 as the end of the section of ministry which began with the calling of the Twelve at Mark 3.13, and the sending out of the Twelve starting a new section which runs to the confession at Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8.38. He sees the first half of Mark as in three main sections (Mark 1.16–3.12, 3.13–6.6 and 6.7–8.26) each of which opens with story about the disciples and closes with a negative response to the ministry of Jesus.
Earlier scholars (most notable Rudolf Bultmann in his History of the Synoptic Tradition) believed that the incident in Nazareth was an ‘ideal scene’ created by the gospel writer as a setting for the closing proverb. But there are two key reasons why this could not have been an invention of the early church—the suggestion that Jesus’ power was in fact limited, and the highly unflattering picture of his immediate family, particularly his mother Mary and brother James, who later were significant figures in the early church.
The introductory comment that Jesus ‘left there’ forms yet another part of Mark’s low-key but consistent references to geography that we have seen before. Jesus crossed the lake and met the Gerasene demoniac, and crossed back where he healed the woman and raised the girl, which must have happened near the lake, so he needs to ‘leave’ to climb into the hill country to reach his ‘home town’ of Nazareth. He is making the reverse journey to that made by his family in Mark 3.21, and we should read the two accounts together. Mark does not mention the village by name, in contrast to the parallel in Luke 4.16, and in fact only mentions Nazareth once in his whole gospel (at Mark 1.9).
Mark notes (superfluously?) that ‘his disciples followed him’. They have accompanied him throughout the previous chapter, and not contributed much beyond being sceptical that he could know that the woman touched him in Mark 5.31. But they have witnessed the miracles, and are about to be sent out themselves to continue the ministry of Jesus.
In those days, Nazareth was a small, insignificant village, so Jesus was a ‘small town boy’. The synagogue was probably the only place to hold a meeting in the village, and it would be natural to invite a visiting personality to speak—Jesus clearly has established a reputation by now. We might infer from ‘and he began to teach…’ that his message was interrupted, as Luke 4 suggests, but Mark often uses this phrase to introduce a narrative development (‘he began to teach by the lake…’ Mark 4.1).
I don’t think the grammar makes it clear whether ‘many heard him, and were astonished’ or ‘many of those who heard him were astonished’—but either way, there is great irony here. The verb ekplesso in the passive means ‘to be filled with amazement to the point of being overwhelmed’ (BDAG), and has elsewhere been used of the crowds in response to Jesus’ remarkable miracles. But where, at other times, the amazement is one of being impressed, here is signals utter scorn. Where previously the disciples asked ‘Who is this…?’ in wonder, now the people ask ‘Who is this?’ in the sense of ‘Who does he think he is?’
The term ‘carpenter’ translates tekton, τέκτων, meaning a person skilled in the artisan craft of working with wood, though also occasionally used more broadly to refer to a skilled builder, or even a physician; Jesus was good with his hands. The parallel in Matthew 13.55 amends this to ‘carpenter’s son’, and it is certainly the case that Jesus, as the eldest son, would normally take over his father’s business. (This, incidentally, lends a significant dimension to our addressing God as Father when we pray for his kingdom to come; we are seeking to continue our Father’s business.) This was a respectable, even important and central role in any village; their scorn is not concerned with the lowliness of his occupation, but the fact that they knew him well. (There was no shame for Paul, as a typical rabbi of his day, to be engaged in manual work as a tentmaker, and he encourages the Thessalonians to ‘work with your hands’ in 1 These 4.11 as a reflection of the esteem with which this was held.)
This is the only place where the phrase ‘son of Mary’ occurs. Some suggest either that this reflects the esteem in which Mary is held, or the sense of disrepute with the notion that Joseph (not mentioned at all in this gospel) was not Jesus’ true father, and possibly that Jesus was illegitimate (compare John 8.41 ‘We were not born of immorality…’) The problem with the first is that Mary is not highly esteemed in Mark, and the problem with the second is that there is no hint of it in the text. The fact that Joseph is mentioned neither here nor in Mark 3.21, when as the head of the household he would be expected to lead, strongly suggests that he has already died. The fact that Jesus has abandoned his family to engage in ministry, rather than taking on the role of head in succession, would add to the rift reflected in chapter 3.
The detailed listing of Jesus’ brothers together with the mention of his sisters does two things. First, it portrays Mary as mother of an ordinary Jewish family, who gave birth to other boys and girls after giving birth to Jesus; the suggestion that the adelphoi and adelphai are step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph, or more distant relations, is without any foundation at all. The whole point of the comment is to show what an ordinary family Jesus comes from. Secondly, it is remarkable that Jesus’ biological family were of such relative unimportance in the early Jesus movement. Mary was amongst those gathered in the upper room at Pentecost (Acts 1.14) but she plays no special role; James became the leader of the Jerusalem church, and was likely the author of the letter of James; Judas is possibly the author of the letter of Jude. (All the names here, including Jesus, were very common amongst Jews in Israel at the time; the sisters are never named.) Otherwise the family have no special roles—though 1 Cor 9.5 does suggest that the whole family eventually became believers.
The verb ‘to take offence’, skandalizo, has huge theological importance. Paul’s preaching of Christ crucified is a skandalon to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks (1 Cor 1.23), and 1 Peter 2.6–8 brings together the cornerstone of Is 28.16 with the stone the builders rejected of Ps 118.22 and the stone of skandalon of Is 8.14. Even those who met Jesus in the flesh could stumble because of him.
The proverb ‘A prophet is not without honour, expect in his hometown’ has parallels in Greek and Roman literature, and this might be reflected in the smoothing out of Mark’s double negative in Luke 4.24. We have our own parallel in the saying ‘Familiarity breeds contempt’. Jesus elsewhere is happy to accept the title ‘prophet’ (Mark 6.15) even if that did not tell the whole truth about him (Mark 8.27f). But Jesus expands the saying to specifically include his ‘relatives and his own household’, reflecting again the incident in Mark 3.21f and adding to the negative portrayal of Mary and the rest of the family.
Mark is, as usual, happy with paradox: Jesus ‘could do no miracle there’ but he did heal some people, a contradiction Matthew once more smooths out (‘he did not do many…’ Matt 13.38). Rather than having supernatural knowledge of their attitude as elsewhere, the human Jesus here is ‘amazed’ at their lack of faith, ironically a term thaumazo usually used of the crowd at Jesus’ teaching and miracles. Just as the ‘overwhelmed’ at wonders becomes a sign of cynicism, the ‘wonder’ at miracles becomes astonishment at lack of faith.
Jesus therefore leaves Nazareth and goes to the villages ‘around’ (literally ‘in a circle’), practising what he is about to teach the disciples to do (‘if any place does not receive you…’) and suggesting that the scepticism was in Nazareth alone.
Two remarkable things flow from all this. First is the power of familiarity to make us sceptical. It is a curious thing that a visiting speaker who comes from elsewhere can appear to speak with more authority than someone we know from our own context—and conversely it is sometimes easier to minister ‘away from home’.
Secondly, it is clear that Jesus never imposes himself where he is not welcome. Here is a narrative that stands against both universalism and the idea of ‘meticulous providence‘. These people stand face to face with Jesus; they have heard his teaching, and have heard of his remarkable miracles; yet they are allowed their astonishing unbelief. It appears that God is willing to curtail the reach of his sovereignty to give room for human freedom, despite the consequences.
Jesus had called the Twelve in Mark 3.13 to be with him, and now he calls them to be away from him, in fulfilment of the original intention (Mark 3.14). This is Jesus’ consistent plan; he calls us close to him so that we can then go and be close to others, and bring the power and presence of Jesus to them. Once more, we see the inceptive ‘he began to send them out…’ indicative a new narrative episode.
Sending the disciples out ‘two by two’ doesn’t appear to make any connections with the animals entering the ark, and does not have any obvious OT precedent—except the requirement for two witnesses to agree for their testimony to be accepted as true (Deut 17.6). But it is a common sense practice, where each can give each other encouragement and support (Eccles 4.9–10), and establishes a pattern both for tasks later in this gospel (Mark 11.14, 14.13) and in the approach to mission all through Acts. The only place where Paul does not establish a community of faith is when he is on his own in Athens in Acts 17. Leadership, whether pastorally or on mission, is always plural in the New Testament.
They now receive the authority which had earlier been promised and (at the end of Matthew) is proclaimed anew by the risen Jesus (Matt 28.18). Although Mark only relates the sending of the Twelve, rather than a wider group of 72 as in Luke 10, and on their return designates them (for the only time) as ‘apostles’ (Mark 6.30), there doesn’t appear to be an intention to limit this to a defined group. Others also become disciples, and might expect to be sent in a similar way.
The list of prohibited items causes some problems, and is often cited as a classic challenge to the harmonisation of the gospel accounts. In Mark, Jesus prohibits the Twelve from taking the normal provisions, including a second tunic which would give protection if they had to sleep outdoors in the case of having no house to go to, but allows for the carrying of a staff—travelling anywhere without one would be almost unthinkable. Matthew 10.10 prohibits both staff and (apparently) the wearing of sandals; Luke 9.3 prohibits the staff, but not the sandals. There are some variations in vocabulary, such as the two different words for ‘sandals’ (though only one kind of footwear was known in the region for that period), and surely Matthew is prohibiting a second pair of sandals, as it is unlikely Jesus is calling them to go barefoot. Yet the differences remain, and Dick France comments that ‘the disagreement about the staff remains unresolved’. Do add your suggestions in the comments below!
The offering of hospitality was expected as a matter of course in the Middle East at the time, as it still is in many places today. Luke makes the dynamic here more explicit: the disciples offer those they visit the gift of the good news, along with deliverance and healing; and in return those who receive them offer hospitality and the meeting of their practical needs. This is a very different pattern from most modern approaches to mission, where the offering of practical help goes with the gospel, rather than in exchange for it. But the challenge is less to trust those the disciples are sent to, but rather to trust in God for provision.
‘Shaking the dust of your feet’ doesn’t appear to have any OT precedent (I thought I remembered one, but cannot find it anywhere; again, suggestions in the comment welcome!). But it was a common rabbinical practice, to shake the dust from their feet when they had been outside the territory of Israel, so that nothing Gentile would pollute the Holy Land. It then comes to be a sign of judgement, signifying that the people are outside God’s plans and purposes, as practiced by Paul and his companions on the ‘first missionary journey’ in Acts 13.51.
But this action also has Christological significance. Those who reject the message of the good news about Jesus and the kingdom are accorded the status of Gentiles, in contrast to those who receive it who are now the true Israel. The people of God are already being redefined not in relation to the promised land but in relation to the promised messiah.
It is striking that Mark summarises their message as ‘the people should repent’; apparently this is good news! We should probably assume that their message include other elements of the coming kingdom, but this summary aligns them as much with John the Baptist as Jesus—which makes it fitting that their sending and return is wrapped around the long narrative about John’s death.
The exorcising of demons or unclean spirits is, as elsewhere, quite clearly distinguished from the healing of the sick. Anointing with oil for healing is only mentioned here in the gospels, and whilst oil had medicinal qualities its use here appears to be symbolic rather than practical. Jesus is never recorded using oil (though he does make other symbolic gestures) but James 5.14 shows this was an early practice of Jesus’ followers.
So we have found that, amazing and confounding though both Jesus’ teaching and miracles were, on their own they do not produce faith. Familiarity can breed contempt, even (perhaps especially) for those closest to Jesus. And if Jesus is refused, he will move on until he finds places where his demanding message of repentance and costly good news will be received. If all that was true for him, it will be true for his disciples—and yet they are to preach, deliver and heal just the same.
Come and join James and Ian as we discuss all these issues—in our new format video!
Buy me a Coffee
On the question of “the staff” see
Bengel’s Gnomen
Matthew 10:9. Μὴ κτήσησθε, κ.τ.λ., do not procure, etc.) Thus they were taught apostolic contentedness.[457] They were permitted to use what they already possessed, but not to procure any thing new.—χρυσὸν—ἄργυρον—χαλκὸν, gold—silver—brass) i.e., money, large or small.—εἰς τὰς ζώνας, into your girdles) which served also for purses.
[457] “Sic didicere αὐτάρκειαν apostolicam.” The word αὐτάρκειαν, implies not merely the patient endurance of penury or privation, but such a state of mind and habit of acting and judging as would actually render the individual sufficiently fed, clothed, etc., and fully satisfied with that which would not meet the exigencies of another. The sense of Independence, so frequent in the classical writers, is not wholly abandoned.—(I. B.)
Faith and Unbelief
Are fundamental concepts. All believers, prophets and priests at some time experience “the trial of their faith”
Which Peter regards as precious.
[God] “I brought you[Israel] into this wilderness to try you,
to know what is in your heart whether you would worship me or no”
Similarly, The Spirit drove him [Jesus] into the wilderness.
George Verwer of Operation Mobilization used to sign his letters “Yours in His Grip”
How often have we felt “I cannot go on, or I am losing my grip on God”
Thus is the faithfulness of God He never relaxes His grip.
We have had a number of instances in Mark of people having an issue with Jesus:
– his mother and siblings do not understand (3:31ff)
– his stilling of the storm leads to fear in the disciples (4:41)
– his explusion of the demons leads the locals to ask him to leave
– his appearance in his home town leads to them taking offence.
We sometimes say that if only we could have seen Jesus in the flesh, performing his miracles. I believe that Kierkegaard commented that it could be harder for those who met him in the flesh to believe. Here was an ordinary looking bloke, who was tired, hungry, thirsty, ate, drank, had the same bodily functions as others, probably smelled etc. In a way we are privileged to see him in the eyes of the evangelists, who had the benefit of hindsight when they wrote.
What a fabulous insight.
I hope you are joking because if you aren’t you have no understanding of Jesus at all. There was nothing ordinary about Jesus. There was innate goodness and kindness which emanated from him and he would have certainly understood that cleanliness is next to Godliness You and David Wilson are a disgrace.
There was everything ordinary about Jesus insofar as his nature of humanity was ordinary humanity – and there was everything extra-ordinary about him in so far as his nature as God far transcends the ordinary. Both ordinary and extraordinary, both God and Man.
Where does it say that cleanliness is next to Godliness in the scriptures? You won’t find it.
Cressida has a point… Fearful people smell. Overactive hormonal people smell. Indulgent people smell. Teenagers smell. It seems completely possible that Jesus was fragrant. Alexander the Great smelt of violets apparently. A sign of his self assurance, confidence?
Another thought came to my mind. We know that it seems Jesus’ mother was at least ambivalent about him, but was at the cross and among the believers afterwards. Did she remember Simeon’s words and so recoil from the course Jesus was taking? What was here state of mind as she stood at the foot of the cross watching her son die? How did her understanding of Jesus change, perhaps particularly over Holy Week and after the Resurrection?
However, one encouragement is that it seems she did change. Grace is possible. Did any from Nazareth similarly come to follow Jesus?
Thanks for this blog, Ian. Re the range of meanings of tekton, τέκτων, one small cultural parallel from my experience in south Cumbria. Some of the local family funeral directors had started out as the village carpenters and builders and then taken on arranging funerals for the local community because they could make coffins. So the same family could mend the church windows, build an extension and organise a funeral!
I wonder if Jairus had many of the same skills Jesus had before he took on the office job of Operations Manager at the synagogue?
Thanks.I think I knew that, but it is a good reminder. The same thing used to happen with barbers as surgeons—hence the red and white on the barber’s pole!
‘If all that was true for him, it will be true for his disciples—and yet they are to preach, deliver and heal just the same’.
Preaching yes, deliver and heal not so much. The latter only happens sometimes, regardless of requests being made. That’s reality. Different from Jesus, not the same.
Why? It wasn’t for the apostles…
Most people would agree the apostles were unique (referring to the Twelve). But it’s not on that basis I think there’s a difference, but rather the experience of the church today. If today’s experience was the same as Jesus, people would be being healed left, right and centre. But theyre clearly not. I think it was John Wimber who once said (happy to be corrected) that only about 10% of people who asked for healing were healed, either partially or fully. That does not seem to be Jesus’ experience while on earth.
PC1 – I agree entirely. My understanding of the New Testament is that Jesus had a 100 percent success rate – in the sense that whenever he attempted to heal somebody, there was complete healing. Jesus really would have had egg on his face if he had called ‘Lazarus come out’ and nothing had happened.
Any ‘healing’ which does not work like this has ‘fake’ written all over it and is not of God. If it is not of God, then it is of the devil and I’d better stop here – or I might receive opprobrium from those who think that John Wimber was a fine Christian gentleman.
I would suggest it is because the apostles had the gift of ‘healing on demand’ – as in ‘pick up your bed and walk.’ The last time I mentioned this somebody got cross – but that is how it is described in the literature.
In other words in this as in other things the apostles were seen to have a unique ministry.
Colin – yes – their ministry was unique. On the other hand, there isn’t anything in Scripture to suggest that these sign miracles have necessarily ceased. But we do know what to look for – and if someone says ‘pick up your bed and walk’ and then the person on the bed finds that they simply cannot pick up their bed and walk, then this is not of God. If it is not of God, then it is of the devil and the person trying these counterfeit miracles is a servant of the anti-Christ.
I personally have heard of an awful lot in terms of ‘healing ministry’ which had ‘THIS IS A FAKE’ written all over it – and I confess that I haven’t heard of anything contemporary which is actually convincing. I do know that the anti-Christ speaks with a smooth and gentle tongue, sounding reasonable, sounding genuinely hurt if they aren’t accepted (Revelation 13:11 – the key to understanding this is to go back to the serpent of Genesis 3, who spoke with a smooth and beguiling tongue) – and I also know that the world contains huge numbers of authoritarian followers – i.e. fake Christians who hearken to the beast. Revelation 13:14 tells us that counterfeit miracles are the modus operandi.
I think a lot of healing ministries get their inspiration from James as they await someone with the healing gift. It is an opportunity for people with a particular problem to come to receive prayer (and perhaps some oil). Not a guarantee of being healed.
Kyle – true, but it seems to me more-or-less a different topic, since Ian Paul was pointing to the healing that Jesus did (where if he attempted a healing there was a guarantee of success) – and which was the basic model for the healing that the disciples carried out.
But I have seen – and am not at all impressed with – the sort of ‘healing ministry’ that you are talking about -where the people who come forward seem to be more in need of psychological healing and one suspects that their aches and pains are psychosomatic. I’m aware of people who say they feel better as a result, but I’m not aware that it works on people who are psychologically coping and resilient, who have a physical condition.
Furthermore, I’ve never seen ‘healing’ of any description work on somebody with advanced dementia – so even if we give ‘healing ministry’ the benefit of the doubt, it seems to be enormously selective about what it can and cannot deal with.
So I’m also seriously unconvinced by the type of healing ministry that you describe.
Hi Jock
I think youre more cynical than me, and that’s saying something!
I think some genuine healings do occur today through ‘healing ministries’, even if the number of such actual healings are relatively small. My main frustration is that with Jesus (though not with the apostles) it appears he healed anyone who came to him for healing, but today that simply is not the case. But we just have to accept that he is unique and led a unique ‘mission’ whilst on earth. And the fact of the unrealised kingdom.
I also think you have to distinguish between those who pray for the healing of others who are genuine Christians but where healing only sometimes occurs, and those who are just making money from their ‘ministries’ (as in give me your money and youll be blessed nonsense) or who are actively leading people away from Jesus due to their false teaching.
Just my thoughts.
Peter
Peter – yes, you’re right, I’m very cynical about this. In fact, I think that the so-called ‘healing ministry’ that Kyle describes can be strongly associated with the safeguarding problems that churches have had.
With the starting point that people who are looking for someone with a ‘healing gift’ tend to be more psychologically needy, we see that the whole business attracts the ‘authoritarian follower’ mentality – and not only that, builds up the dependency mentality. It is then very easy for unscrupulous people to put on an angelic Christian face and exploit this ….. A recipe for disaster.
What an interesting and subtle link to meticulous providence, which opens up a a swage of systematic teaching, over the Sovereignty of God, determinisism and providence. which has been prominently aired in the back and forth exchanges between Olsen and Piper.
As Ian has at other times seemed to support the theological work of Olsen, is the link now an invitation delve into systematic, sciptural theology? While I have freely downloaded Piper’s tome, Providence, I’ve not read it!
However, intial thoughts on the linked article, are that it seems to isolate the sovereignty of God, from the whole person of God, yes indeed God’s goodness,(and the whole a vexed question of human suffering) but his goodness which cohers in all his divine attributes, which are not mentioned in the article. Another point is that the author is drawing from his teacher David Bentley Hart, who for a time seemed to be something of a rising star in some sectors of Christian scholarship, but over time has been significantly critiqued.
But back to the passage, it is record in the gospels that the people were astonshished at Jesus, but I have read that this is the only place where it is report the Jesus was astonished at the people!
Do we now therefore dive into the question of God’s sovereignty, foreowledge, without first considering the dual divine And human nature of Jesus? Particularly at this point.
David Wilson does this strongly, referencing Kierkegaard.
Craig Keener points out:
1. “The Olf Testament often reiterates the principle of the prohet without honour: Jeremiah, Moses, Joseph and so forth; subsequent Jewish tradition emphasized this concept even more.
2. “That Jesus is ‘unable’ to do works because of their unbelief presumes a limitation not of his power But of his Mission;..
3. ” To heal without morally directed faith would be to act like the pagan magicians of antiquity.”
Craig S Keener: The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament.
Genesis 8:6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.
8:7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.
There have always been counterfeit miracles.
God is not a blessing machine, He is not beholden to us,
He does not do miracles on demand; “He does what He pleases in the armies of Heaven”
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
2 Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created
The Christian life is replete with the miraculous and the pleasure of God
In fact, if we read of all the miracles recorded in John; Jesus only appears when the situation
appears beyond help, hopeless, for one purpose only that His Father may be glorified.
May it please God to open to us “the scriptures concerning Himself” our eyes, ears ,hearts and understanding [Lydia].
May it please God to “reveal His Son in me”/us [Paul]
Amen.
I dont think anyone would view turning water into wine as ‘beyond help and hopeless’. It seems he used his power and authority as he chose.
My main point above was that whilst it appears anyone who came to Jesus for healing was healed, that is not the case today, and hasnt been since he physically left. Ive yet to see anyone put forward an argument against that, except those of the ‘name it and claim it’ brigade who blame non-healing on a lack of faith by the sick person – utter nonsense of course.
PC1 – I’m in complete agreement with you here.
As far as Alan’s comment goes – well, with the turning water into wine, they were basically wanting to have a good party – and that required far more wine than they actually had. Although the gospel does not inform us of the local licensing laws (and whether or not the local off-license would be open), we can probably infer that the situation was actually beyond help and hopeless if only natural solutions were considered. In this sense, Jesus did indeed step into a situation that was beyond help and ‘hopeless’ and the miracle did indeed show forth that he was who he said he was and the purpose was that the Father be glorified.
You’re absolutely right about the ‘healing’ brigade – and I can state categorically that (having mistakenly done so in the past – and having understood that I was looking at the dark side of the moon) I would never ever darken the doors of a church where there was a ‘healing ministry’ of the sort that Kyle indicated earlier – where they await someone with a healing gift.
If there is such a situation then it is completely clear that a dependency culture is being created and some unscrupulous vultures will step in – and before long there will be a major safeguarding problem. Don’t expect any vetting procedures to improve the situation – narcissists know very well how to put on an angelic sanctimonious face and hence they’ll get through any vetting procedure.
Kyle – per your comment above, the problem I have with the James passage is that the language does imply the sick person ‘will’ be healed if the elders do as instructed. I doubt this is many people’s experience today, particularly as the passage may indicate that it is a very ill person who is bed-ridden, given the elders seemingly have to come to them.
Of course many will argue that the person will only be healed if it is ‘God’s will’ but I would argue James seems to think that was a given, that it was God’s will to heal the sick person. But was James wrong?
On ‘Shake the dust off your feet’ cf. Neh. 5:12b-13a: ‘ 12… I summoned the priests and made the nobles and officials take an oath to do what they had promised. 13 I also shook out the folds of my robe and said, “In this way may God shake out of their house and possessions anyone who does not keep this promise. So may such a person be shaken out and emptied!” ’