James 5:14 has been the focus of much controversy throughout the centuries that the church existed, and it would be unlikely that we could settle the controversy once for all at this point in time. But we can certainly inform the church as to the various positions and interpretations that have prevailed, examine the Biblical case for the practice and allow the thoughtful reader to decide as the Lord gives His children insight. As I said, this subject has been controversial for centuries with some holding the practice even to the level of mandated sacrament (formal religious requirement ordained by Christ). The Catholic Church has held on to this practice in the form of extreme unction, but Protestants have pretty much rejected such sacramentalism throughout the church age. But that does not mean that Christianity as a whole discarded the practice, for indeed, the practice thrives among many denominations and sects today. The fundamental question is whether or not the Bible teaches that we are to use anointing with oil in our ministry to the sick and ailing. That is what we will examine in this brief space. First, we must ask the question, "What is the purpose of anointing with oil in James 5:14? "While this to some may seem quite simple ("It says it, doesn't it?"), the fact is that there is not much actually said about such anointing in the New Testament. In fact, there are only two other in the New Testament texts that make mention of such practice, including Mark 6:13, where the writer of the Gospel mentions that the disciples "...cast out man demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them." Another relevant text is Luke 10:33-34, commonly known as the Good Samaritan discourse. That text is not often referred to, though, by those who support the practice, for there it is solely and specifically for medicinal purposes, having no religious or symbolic meaning whatsoever. Thus, the only texts that seem to address this issue among the disciples of the apostolic period are the two mentioned above. Some modern authorities have taken sides on this issue, such as Spiros Zoghiates, the author of the much-admired and used "Complete Word Study of the New Testament." His entry on this word (anointing) states that the word interpreted at James 5:14 means" "...to rub, to cover over, to besmear... in the case of sick persons and also the dead, they rubbed the whole body... In James 5:14, the word is used in the aorist participle ALEIPSANTES which means that the rubbing with oil was the medicinal means applied prior to prayer." (Page 119) But other commentators are not so certain, and especially those who see some religious significance to the anointing provided by the words "in the name of the Lord." That suggests that in some way, the act had some religious significance ot the disciples at that point in history. [By the way, some think the letter written by James is the earliest of the New Testament documents, so we are talking about the early part of the apostolic era.] There are, for the most part, two main views that are held by other than the Catholic Church. The first view holds that oil was indeed used in the apostolic days to symbolize the healing power of the Holy Spirit. But even that view holds that it is not the oil that heals, but the prayer of faith. For those who hold this view, the practice was used to provide some sort of religious symbolism, but did not have any miraculous power itself. This is roughly the view of Reformed theology. They believe that anointing with oil was used to attend the gift of miraculous healing (in the James text, there is the sense that there can be no failure to cure the ill person) in the apostolic era, but once the gift (of healing) ceased, so also did the practice of anointing become moot. Any continuation of the rite without the gift of healing itself would be crass superstition. The other view is that anointing with oil during the New Testament era was an act of devotion and kindness, and/or a ubiquitous medicinal/hygienic practice common to all the Eastern Mediterranean peoples. It is still practiced in many Mediterranean and Mid-Eastern nations to this very day. Most who take this medicinal/hygienic view point to the Good Samaritan discourse to support their case, and secular literature is replete with examples of such anointing in the pre-scientific centuries. For those who hold this view, the continued practice of anointing with oil would be almost a silly, nostalgic holding on to ancient practices for little more than symbolic reasons. As one writer I read said, "Even unlearned Baptists get caught up in this nonsense." Biblical argument and principles There is much to be said about the argument for anointing with oil, but we will have to limit our discussion to some fundamental principles which point us to the correct understanding of this apparently common practice in the apostolic age. For instance, this is one of the only two texts that even mention the practice, and that does not work to support a case for the continuation of such a practice. If the disciples did use anointing, as I think they did, it is also true that they healed without oil as well. In fact, of all the miraculous healings in the New Testament, we find not one example of such anointing. This would seem to be an immense oversight if it were intended to continue throughout the church age. Jesus never demonstrated a single instance in which He used such anointing. He did, however, use a variety of actions in HIs own helaings, including spitting. Yet I know of no sect or denomination that would incorporate such spitting into their sacramental life! Though humorous, the point is well taken: just what level of mandate must we have to make a thing a practice in our day? Therein is the rub. It is a basic rule of Biblical interpretation and theology that one cannot build a doctrine a mere mention or single text of scripture. This rule would seem most certainly to apply here. To make it a requirement by way of sacrament or obligatory practice would seem to be unwarranted, and an undue stretching of the scriptures to justify a practice. For instance, since there are far many more examples of healings without anointing, and only a couple with anointing, should we not logically conclude that healing without anointing is the Biblical norm? In any case, you can see the problem with the interpretation of this passage. In summary, I do not wish to be dogmatic on this narrow issue. Our church has no offical position on this practice (and I hope we do not have to take one!), and this the practice is one of Christian liberty. If you wish to "rub, cover over," or "besmear" the sick, we will not subject you to discipline. You might want to carefully limit your claims for justification of such a practice, for we may well admonish and chastise you if we feel you have violated Biblical principles and are proceeding along grounds of superstition or mere tradition. And you might just want to ask permission of the sick person, too! In any case, it is the clear teaching of the Bible and the accepted opinion among even our Penetcostal brothers that it is not the oil that heals, but the prayer of faith. it is also apparent that healing is commonly accomplished through the "fervent prayes of a righteous man," and thus there is evident proof that the practice is not manadatory. We believe that the miraculous gift of healing given to individual during the apostolic era has ceased, and that healing now is a matter of prayer and devotion of God's children everywhere. God continues to heal and restore, and has chosen the prayers of the saints to be the instrument of such healings. Thus we ought always pray for those who are sick among us. |
| Anointing the sick with Oil Biblical or Superstitous? by Victor Edwards |
 |