Annointing the sick?
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
I don't mean to mitigate the church's obligation to minister to the poor in practical ways -- just wondering, if the 'anointing' referred to had more to do with that practical care ministry, would it not be with reference to deacons rather than elders?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Good point.
But it's very interesting that the Greek word is the one for applying ointment rather than the usual word for anointing with oil to symbolise the power of God by His Holy Spirit on those being made ready for offices such as prophet, priest or king.
If it is meant to be oil symbolising the anointing of the Holy Spirit, it is an isolated NT case of such symbolism being applied to the sick, rather than e.g. those ordained for office in the NT Church, about which no oil is mentioned at their ordinations.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
But it's very interesting that the Greek word is the one for applying ointment rather than the usual word for anointing with oil to symbolise the power of God by His Holy Spirit on those being made ready for offices such as prophet, priest or king.
If it is meant to be oil symbolising the anointing of the Holy Spirit, it is an isolated NT case of such symbolism being applied to the sick, rather than e.g. those ordained for office in the NT Church, about which no oil is mentioned at their ordinations.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
The entire context is prayer and life within the body of Christ. A medicinal application makes little sense, nor does a symbol of tthe annointing of the Spirit (though I wouldn't doubt the Spirit as the active agent here). Love shown through the care of the brethern -- lovely.
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
Elders who went to the bedside of a very sick and feeble person and took with them no practical means of assisting them/comforting them would perhaps be missing the fullness of this instruction.
Oil would likely do a whole lot more practical good than many of the modern medicines on offer today.
Oil would likely do a whole lot more practical good than many of the modern medicines on offer today.
No.
Calvin, Institutes 4.19.18:
That no deeper mystery lay under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those external things. Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man, spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing.
But it is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing the praise to the apostles. To designate the Holy Spirit and his gifts by oil is trite and common, (Ps. 45:7.)
But the gift of healing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to us, to whom no such powers have been committed.
Matthew 10:6, "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Verse 8, "Heal the sick." Mark 6:13, "and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them."
James 1:1, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." 5:14, "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
The two examples indicate that the practice was characteristic of the transitional period within which the New Testament church found itself. Both examples are distinctively Jewish and apostolic. There is not the slightest indication that it was intended as a mystical rite to continue in the church until the end of the world.
Last edited:
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
I'm not really with Calvin on this one, as it is not clear from the James passage that any of these elders were supposed to have the supernatural and revelatory gift of healing.
Prayer for the sick, from afar, or at the bedside is something that continues after the Apostolic dispensation ceases.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Prayer for the sick, from afar, or at the bedside is something that continues after the Apostolic dispensation ceases.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
No doubt, but it is ridiculous and reckless to suppose a special privilege in "elders" and a special gift to heal by anointing and laying on of hands, particularly where the cessation of the miraculous gift is presupposed.
Free Christian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I often wondered about that passage and why I never saw it done. But the answer was there all the time right before me. I knew the gift of healing had ceased but never tied the two together.
But is this anointing intended to be anything other than an ordinary work of the church through which God may choose to work? I think you may be reading too much into the passage here. I do not see how the cessation of an apostolic gift would entail the cessation of a particular ordinance of apostolic origin that has no necessary connection with such a gift.
You have an action and a blessing. The action is anointing with oil. The blessing signified by it is miraculous healing by the Holy Spirit. This is obvious in the Marcan account of the apostles' mission. They are intricately tied together and bound to an apostolic function. In the absence of an ordinary institution the "elders" are merely mimicking an apostolic gift and usurping authority they do not possess. Where there is no genuine miraculous healing the pretence of authoritative divine healing is a display of magical power, and the sign is nothing more than a superstitious rite.
Except that James seems to be assuming this as an ordinary institution.
Why do you say "seems?" No institution is founded on an appearance. You either have warrant for it or you do not. If you do not, then there is no institution.
But even your seeming appearance is no appearance at all. The next verse says, "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." It is tied to the miraculous gift.
The context does not seem to indicate gifts beyond what would be known by ordinary church members and their elders -- prayer, praise, caring. Nor does it appear in a worship setting, so it would not be a specific ordinance like the sacraments. I suspect that the elders' being called has to do with their responsibility to the flock -- a member is seriously ill, possibly practical care will be needed as well, coordinated by the deacons or women. But the elders primarily concern would be to bear with that member in his suffering, perhaps even helping to ease the transition unto death, and offering petitions before God. We've all heard variations on the story where a member is ill and doesn't hear from the elders who were never told about the situation. The assumption is given that the elders should simply have known anyway. Nope, this passage puts the impetus on the family to make the need known.
So prayer is no longer used of God as an instrument of healing? News to me. Maybe you consider praying for people in faith is a spiritual gift no longer to be practiced, but that argument stretches the text to its breaking point.
The text speaks of an intermediary for both the prayer and the healing, namely, elders. If it is news to a Protestant that the Lord has not instituted ordinary intermediaries for prayer and healing this only demonstrates that Protestantism has fallen on hard times.
This is less than clear. I do not see anything more or less than the ordinary forms of intercessory prayer, with oil used on some occasions. We do believe that prayer over people on the part of the elders of the church is a biblical practice, don't we?
If one dislikes a conclusion it is not surprising that the reasons appear to be unclear.
First, the anointing is "in the name of the Lord." The phrase occurs one other time in James, and that is in the immediate context, in verse 10, "Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience." That is, in and by the authority of the Lord. As this speech was an immediate and direct speech, so the anointing was an immediate and direct action.
Secondly, "the prayer of faith" is naturally understood as the faith of miracles. Without a word of revelation there is no basis for faith that a person shall be healed. In ordinary circumstances one prays for healing with the condition, If it be the Lord's will.
Thirdly, it shall save the sick. As it is physical sickness, the salvation is physical salvation. It is assured. It is not merely desired.
Fourthly, the Lord shall raise him up. Again, assured physical restoration.
Fifthly, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. A matter of special revelation.
Any attempt to make this an ordinary prayer for ordinary healing destroys the scope and sense of the apostle.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
To clear up any confusion--
It is not the case that Calvin (and the Genevan Consistory) did not believe in the Visitation of the Sick for the purpose of prayer and ecnouragement. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances adopted in Geneva in 1541, in fact, required ministerial notification on the part of anyone taken to their bed for three or more days for that very purpose.
What Matthew cites here from the Institutes has particularly to do with Calvin's rejection of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction that has, since Vatican II, been renamed as the "Anointing of the Sick." Rome bases its sacramental theology of the administration of the so-called last rites on this passage in James and Calvin is zealous to refute that and to argue that there are only two dominical sacraments.
Because Calvin rejects the sacramental sense that Rome gave to the James' passage does not mean that he did not believe in visiting the sick and praying with and for them. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances also assigned special care of the sick, beyond or in addition to the ministerial visitation, to the deacons, acting both as procurators and hospitallers. Calvin and company, in other words, were quite active in caring for the sick, both by prayer and visitation and by active collecting and physical provision for the sick.
Peace,
Alan
It is not the case that Calvin (and the Genevan Consistory) did not believe in the Visitation of the Sick for the purpose of prayer and ecnouragement. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances adopted in Geneva in 1541, in fact, required ministerial notification on the part of anyone taken to their bed for three or more days for that very purpose.
What Matthew cites here from the Institutes has particularly to do with Calvin's rejection of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction that has, since Vatican II, been renamed as the "Anointing of the Sick." Rome bases its sacramental theology of the administration of the so-called last rites on this passage in James and Calvin is zealous to refute that and to argue that there are only two dominical sacraments.
Because Calvin rejects the sacramental sense that Rome gave to the James' passage does not mean that he did not believe in visiting the sick and praying with and for them. The Ecclesiastical Ordinances also assigned special care of the sick, beyond or in addition to the ministerial visitation, to the deacons, acting both as procurators and hospitallers. Calvin and company, in other words, were quite active in caring for the sick, both by prayer and visitation and by active collecting and physical provision for the sick.
Peace,
Alan
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you for explaing the angle of Extreme Unction. Coming from that background it is clear to me that this practice is not to be continued for the reason you cite and also for the reasons Rev. Winzer has pointed out.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Rev. Winzer, is this practice of anointing the sick a common practice in Reformed circles today?
If so, why do you think such is the case?
If not, is it because they generally follow the rationale you and Dr. Strange present here?
Thanks.
If so, why do you think such is the case?
If not, is it because they generally follow the rationale you and Dr. Strange present here?
Thanks.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
Thomas Goodwin in his volume on Government of the Churches of Christ,
is at pains to dissociate James 5:14 from extreme unction and from the
miraculous gifts of healing eg, Mark 6:13. I will précis some of his treatment.
" this is not the anointing of Mark 6:13 which was a miraculous gift, but this is a standing
ordinance.All precepts in the James epistle concern the church for ever. The administration
is by elders, standing officers, which stand for ever. They do not have miraculous gifts.
The sick persons are members of the church, and have curable diseases. Miraculous
healing extended to all a sundry without distinction.
The healing is applied by means, oil, miraculous healing had no necessity ,eg Take up thy
bed and walk. The oil is added to confirm faith and the promise,"they shall be healed."
This is an ordinance to restore health, and forgiveness if there is any temporary guilt of particular sins
that provoked God's chastisement .
Believers should exercise a special faith and dependence in the use of this means for recovery.
This also is proof that only elders are to administer ordinances, as here they only are to anoint.
The elders are to be sent for. " (My addage-----which infers faith by the sick person in reliance
on the promise.)
is at pains to dissociate James 5:14 from extreme unction and from the
miraculous gifts of healing eg, Mark 6:13. I will précis some of his treatment.
" this is not the anointing of Mark 6:13 which was a miraculous gift, but this is a standing
ordinance.All precepts in the James epistle concern the church for ever. The administration
is by elders, standing officers, which stand for ever. They do not have miraculous gifts.
The sick persons are members of the church, and have curable diseases. Miraculous
healing extended to all a sundry without distinction.
The healing is applied by means, oil, miraculous healing had no necessity ,eg Take up thy
bed and walk. The oil is added to confirm faith and the promise,"they shall be healed."
This is an ordinance to restore health, and forgiveness if there is any temporary guilt of particular sins
that provoked God's chastisement .
Believers should exercise a special faith and dependence in the use of this means for recovery.
This also is proof that only elders are to administer ordinances, as here they only are to anoint.
The elders are to be sent for. " (My addage-----which infers faith by the sick person in reliance
on the promise.)
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Mr. O'Neil, would you be kind enough to provide the citation (page number) for that quote? I'd like to read that work further.
Thank you!
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Thanks once again for your insights, Matthew.
I've seen appeal to this passage and a "sure" belief and declaration that the Lord will raise the sick in a couple of relatives of mine of a charismatic bent, who were praying for their sick friends on different occasions. The charismatics rely heavily on this passage and take it to mean the faith of miracles, although they've probably never heard of the expression.
The friends shortly died and went to glory, and we heard no more about it from our charismatic relatives.
I've seen appeal to this passage and a "sure" belief and declaration that the Lord will raise the sick in a couple of relatives of mine of a charismatic bent, who were praying for their sick friends on different occasions. The charismatics rely heavily on this passage and take it to mean the faith of miracles, although they've probably never heard of the expression.
The friends shortly died and went to glory, and we heard no more about it from our charismatic relatives.
reaganmarsh
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you!
- Status
