D&C 42:43-55

Doctrine & Covenants > Section 42

Previous (D&C 42:36-40)

Next (D&C 42:46-50)

Questions

Verse 42

• If this verse doesn’t refer to the idle poor (see the lexical notes), to whom does it refer? In the early nineteenth century and in earlier times, what kinds of people would have been idle? How might we “translate” the meaning of this scripture for our own understanding and circumstances? (To see a warning to the poor, see D&C 56:17.)

Lexical notes

Verse 42

According to the 1828 Websters, "idle" meant "unemployed" and "unoccupied with business" as well as "slothful." In fact, "slothful" is the second definition and the other meanings are first.

Exegesis

Verse 44

In context, this verse, like the one before it (and the end of verse 52), is specifically explaining how the church should deal with those who believe and are sick but have not faith to be healed. It is for them that the elders of the church are to be called. Why isn't this direction to call the elders given for all who are sick? It may be that these verses suggest that "all the sick" and "the sick without faith to be healed" are really the same group because everyone with faith is already healed. But is that right--does everyone with faith get healed?

When much the same thing is repeated in verse 48 an additional caveat is added "and is not appointed unto death." This possibility is then recognized--that one may have faith, but be sick because one is appointed unto death. But what of those who are sick, but not with something that leads to death? Is this verse suggesting that all of them are sick because they lack the faith to be healed?

Given how verse 44 ends, we might assume that such sick people aren't at issue. That what is under discussion are those with grave sicknesses--the type where we would expect one to die and this is why the end of verse 44 ends by talking about whether the person lives or dies--not about whether they are healed.

Verses 49-53, however, suggest this isn't so. All of the sicknesses used as examples are specifically not the type we would expect someone to die from (being blind, being deaf, being lame). What then do we make of the end of verse 44, the discussion of living and dying rather than of being healed or not? One interpretation of this is that healing is not spoken of because, in the previous verse, it has already been established that this is a group of people who have not faith to be healed. The problem with this interpretation is that it leaves no place for healing by the laying on of hands. It sees people as either faithful and therefore already healed with no need to call the elders or faithless and beyond hope of being healed. This interpretation goes against both other scriptures and common experience which suggests that healing is provided through the laying on of hands.

In any case, what is clear from the ending of verse 44, is that the important point in this context isn't that the elders are called to heal (though they may do that) but rather that they are called to seal the sick to Christ. Or, to put it another way, to re-affirm the sick's commitment to Christ through prayer and the laying on of hands. As is made clear here, verses 45-47 and 52, this is more important than whether or not one is healed.

We might see these verses as providing some answers to the questions that arise from the facts that on the one hand we have scriptures which promise that those who ask with faith will receive, but on the other hand we see so many good people who ask to be healed but remain sick. In this context these verses a) reaffirm the truth of the statement generally that they would be healed with sufficient faith b) add an additional caveat that some are appointed unto death c) reassure us that not having faith to be healed doesn't mean that one can't become Christ's sons d) remind us that we have a responsibility to care for those who are sick.

Related links

• Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links

---

Previous (D&C 42:36-40)

Next (D&C 42:46-50)