Back in 2006, I posted a brief essay on anointing with oil. I entered into a brief discussion of it recently on Adrian Neal’s blog. A preacher brother there set forth some views against symbolic oil and favoring medicinal oil. Rather than making extended posts there, I have brought most of my rebuttal here to my own blog. The following italicized quotes are from two different posts on Brother Neal’s blog (which can be viewed at the above link).
History seems to show that families did not have every-day pediatricians or family doctors. Instead, their pastors acted in a medicinal sense. Historical references show early church bishops as the family "doctor". Not that he was trained in the arts of medicine (if you can call what they did back in that day medicine). But rather that physicians were not common for people that were not rich. The bishop did often assume this roll, since he was called for when someone was sick.
If you have found some references that show early bishops acting as the family doctor, I have no argument with that. Probably some of them were doctors (consider Luke of NT times, and John Clarke of Rhode Island). Perhaps some were not. Such historical occurrences do not govern the interpretation of James 5:14-15. Ultimately it is the Bible, not history, which is inspired, accurate and authoritative. Were doctors common and affordable? Were doctors reliable? Job’s expression in the reply to his friends (13:4 physicians of no value) implies there were also physicians of some value. Statements such as in Jeremiah 8:22 and Matthew 9:12 also imply that the sick finding a physician – and being healed – was not that unusual. And Jesus surely wouldn’t recommend that the sick need physicians if all physicians in that day were quacks. Surely Luke wasn’t, but was rather a beloved one (Colossians 4:14).
Back then, oils were some of, if not the only, medicines they had that actually helped. Similar to a Vicks Vapor rub, different kinds of oils had different effects. Different herbs were crushed and mixed into the different oils. Thus, when someone was sick, they would call for the pastor. He would pray for them, but also anoint them with the oils for healing.
There were different kinds of oils and oil mixtures used for different purposes. Some soothing of skin, some soothing of muscles, some keeping pests out, some for constant inhalation (like Vicks Vapor Rub today).
If the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is correct, then surely oil is the universal medicine. But again, both history and the Bible show that oil was not the universal medicine, however good it may be. Quacks or no, doctors living in the early New Testament period not only used oils, but even performed surgeries. In an entirely makeshift situation, the Good Samaritan did not use oil alone, but poured oil and wine into the wounds of the man beaten by thieves. As to different kinds of oils, historically I don’t question that different oils and different herbs were used medicinally. That is still true today. But, where, oh where, do we find the different oils and herbs in James 5:14-15? There are no herbs there, and the oil is probably only olive oil, since the Greek word ἐλαίῳ (olive oil) is used.
The pastors carried the oils with them when called. Indeed the sick were healed by the LORD, but it shows that God doesn't disagree with church members relying on Him, and at the same time using soothing medicines. Thus, take a little wine for thy stomach sake, right? If God just wanted people to be anointed with some symbolic oil and wait for healing, then why would He command this of Timothy?
There was and is no argument from me against using medicines. I just don’t believe that medicine is what is in view in James 5:14-15. I do believe the medicinal value of the wine is in view in I Timothy 5:23.
We have no other place in the Bible oil was used for magical healing, or for pastoral prayers.
We find other places where oil was used for anointing; more than where it was used for medicine. One specifically connected to healing is Mark 6:13. And no one has suggested any “magical” healing here – unless you suppose God healing in answer to prayer is “magic”. Does God heal people we pray for, whether or not they use medicine? If not, why do we pray for the sick? Just go to the doctor and be done with it.
This type of interpretation that the oil was NOT medicinal would seem to ALSO take away from the idea that God is the one who heals. As a matter of fact, it would seem to suggest one must have the oil for God to do the healing.
But, in fact, it is only in a medical interpretation that the oil has any effect on healing. In a symbolic interpretation it is only symbolic. It produces no effect. It only answers to simple obedience to a literal reading of the Scripture. This idea which you foist upon my interpretation, I suspect you are not willing to apply to your own. That is, that one must have the oil for God to do the healing. If this logic “must” applies to the text, then you are pierced by the horns of your own dilemma. One must use medicine for God to do the healing. If not, why not?
Why not? Because either way is an anemic look at only one incident in the whole of Scripture. The whole Scripture gives the full look at the subject of God healing. I would sum it up roughly by saying God does not object to the use of medicine (cf. Luke 5:31), but that it is sinful to rely on doctors to the exclusion of faith in God (cf. II Chronicles 16:12).
An interesting observation of the medicinal interpretation of James 5:14-15 is this: Of all those who assert this interpretation, I have not yet seen even one obey it. I do not know of a single Baptist who has asked pastors and come rub oil and herbs on them while they pray for them. Oh, you say, I don’t really believe it means that. Do tell.
[Note: some uses of oil that I find in the Bible – offering, fuel for light, anointing, food/cooking, ointment, gift or payment/barter, product to sell, purification, perfume, moisturizer, medicine. The most references seem to be anointing; there is a lot concerning light, offerings and food – and the symbolic representation of wealth, God’s pleasure on His people – but not that much about medicinal use, it would seem to me.]
14 comments:
The subject of medicine and healing in the Bible has been a paradox which always seems to give way to inconsistencies. Just as you pointed out in reference to a Baptist requesting the annointing of oil.
One who readily stands out is always Oral Roberts. Here was someone who brought the "art" of healing to the masses via the airwaves. Then what does he do? Builds a huge medical facility, even against those advising him who said it was not needed. Of course it closed after only a few years in operation. I guess Mr. Roberts believed not enough money was coming in from the healing ministry, so he needed to come up with another avenue.
I know there have been accounts throughout history of people of different crafts acting as physicians, but I do not believe we have enough evidence that bishops acted as such.
All I have to say to defend myself is:
#1, I never take a translation and add to it or change it into what isn't there. It says oil, not olive oil. Olive oil is one (only one) of the possible translations that can be used here. It wasn't translated as such, so let's leave it at oil.
#2, I do know a great many preachers who DO follow out the command. I advise people to call for me and go to the hospital both. We will prayer, but also allow the doctors to do what they can. If someone has a bad disease, it would be stupid to just pray and not seek medicinal help. It would take a Calvinistic mindset, that "What God wants is going to happen anyway, so there is no sense in visiting the hospitals." If we took this same approach to other aspects of life, all preachers might stop working and expect God will provide. While I have full faith that God WILL provide what He's promised, the limitation is so long as I am in His will doing what He has commanded. Some times, this requires I work a job. Sometimes, this requires I go to the hospital. This is what I see here, A COMMAND to call for the preachers and allow the medicinal practices to take place, coupled with prayer. Prayer to the Creator who can heal, and in today's time, DOES heal via medicines and doctors.
Certainly God CAN heal without medicine or our natural immune systems, but I have no proof, evidence, or scripture suggesting He still does this during this age.
#3 - As to the oil being used to anoint in some way other than medicine, if I'm not mistaken, it was representative of choosing a person for a position.
#4. I see places in the Bible where oil was used for medicine (as you've conceded), but I don't know of ANY where it was used with prayer for a sick person (outside of medicine). I don't understand the symbolism, reasoning, context, or anything in the Bible that would suggest we should anoint our church members with oil while praying.
If I thought this was saying we should do this (and not just saying we should seek medical help as well as pray), then I would do it. I just don't see this as a teaching in the Bible, or historical context.
I'm sorry we disagree, I just don't see what you are saying as congruent with the rest of, or any of, the Bible.
#5 - I do not believe the doctors were quaks. I just believe they used the medicines available to them at that time, and that physicians were very expensive, such as the woman who had spent ALL her living seeking healing for her issue of blood, until she came in contact with Jesus.
Finally, we do know of at least one oil that was used as medicine even up until my parents where young. Canola oil. :-D I've been told it tasted nasty, and was used to heal everything.
Lastly,
Brother James, thanks for stopping by and commenting. For my part I didn't want to possibly extend myself into several long posts on Bro. Adrian's blog.
#1, I never take a translation and add to it or change it into what isn't there. It says oil, not olive oil. Olive oil is one (only one) of the possible translations that can be used here. It wasn't translated as such, so let's leave it at oil.
Yes, let's. It only says oil, not oil with this or that herb in it. So let's leave it at oil. I wasn't disagreeing with that, but with what you had added to the oil.
#2, I do know a great many preachers who DO follow out the command. I advise people to call for me and go to the hospital both. We will prayer, but also allow the doctors to do what they can.
You and I do know people who follow their interpretation of this passage -- pray and call the doctor. I feel certain you do not know any Baptist who calls the church elders to administer oil to them for medicinal purposes. That (elders use oil) is what the text says to do. So this becomes just one of many scriptures we readjust because "we live in different times."
If someone has a bad disease, it would be stupid to just pray and not seek medicinal help.
Some may believe they can only pray and not seek medical or medicinal help. But I have not asserted that. It is not inherent in the text, nor does the Bible condemn the use of medicine. It does condemn seeking the doctors only and not the Lord.
Prayer to the Creator who can heal, and in today's time, DOES heal via medicines and doctors.
Only? Never without medicines and doctors?
Certainly God CAN heal without medicine or our natural immune systems, but I have no proof, evidence, or scripture suggesting He still does this during this age.
Just to be clear and understand -- are you saying that only time/immune system and/or medicine has any affect in healing? Or, asked another way, is it possible that a sick person who prayed and asked God to heal him or her could not be healed if he or she did not take any medicine or just wait for the immune system to kick in?
Had to break this into two posts. Blogger didn't like the size
#3 - As to the oil being used to anoint in some way other than medicine, if I'm not mistaken, it was representative of choosing a person for a position.
Kings, priests, prophets, yes. Others, sometimes, at least in a perfumery sort of way. Other than what you believe about James 5:14, are there any verses that refer to anointing as medicinal? (I'm speaking of the expression 'anointing with oil')
#4. I see places in the Bible where oil was used for medicine (as you've conceded), but I don't know of ANY where it was used with prayer for a sick person (outside of medicine).
Consider Mark 6:13, for example (King James Version) "And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Though it doesn't specifically say "prayer", and though you may not be able to consider it if you've predetermined it can't happen.
I guess if we're going to hold one interpretation to that strict a standard, I should ask if there is ever a case in the Bible where oil is used as medicine in conjunction with prayer.
#5 - I do not believe the doctors were quacks. I just believe they used the medicines available to them at that time, and that physicians were very expensive, such as the woman who had spent ALL her living seeking healing for her issue of blood, until she came in contact with Jesus.
Of course they used the medicines available. But oil was not the only medicine available, which idea is an important one in arriving at the conclusion that the oil means medicine in James 5.
Finally, we do know of at least one oil that was used as medicine even up until my parents where young. Canola oil. :-D I've been told it tasted nasty, and was used to heal everything.
You are probably thinking of Castor Oil. It was nasty and used for a lot of things, but probably the threat of it did more to scare kids out of being sick than anything else! But even then they called on doctors and there was many other kinds of medicine. And I don't think I ever of heard of the preachers being called to give the dose.
Oh, BTW, did any of my comments answer your need for clarification of my point #2 on Adrian's blog? If not, let me know.
I believe issue should be taken with the idea of it being foolish not to seek medical attention and rely on prayer for a bad disease. It seems this philosophy would cover broad ground.
I'm sure we have known of those who were diagnosed with a terminal illness and chose not to seek treatment at the expense of extra suffering among other things. An elderly person with terminal cancer would be someone who comes to mind. The way the medical profession has become, we can never be sure about many things any longer. Especially when you have insurance companies running the ship.
Which brings me to this, if I may carry the topic a step beyond. I believe there is more sickness in our times because we do not live in harmony with God and nature. The 21st Century is just not conducive to it. You have both young and old alike who will burn the candle at both ends, have a steady diet of pizza, burgers, and potato chips, and then wonder what is wrong with them all of the time. We tend to view our health as standard equipment, sort of like the headlights on an automobile. It is just something which goes along with it. Of course in reality, it is not. With sickness, the philosophy is to treat the symptom and not the cause. The same dogma abounds in other areas of life as well.
Out of curiosity, I searched online to see what others have written on the subject. At the top of the Google search, the first hits I got were from the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. The first took a similar position to JamesCharles, writing, "all James was telling the elders to do was make sure the person received proper medical attention." (Brent Kercheville, West Palm Beach Church of Christ, West Palm Beach, FL)
The second was quite different, by Wayne Jackson of the Christian Courier: "Most likely the use of oil, as reflected in this passage, was a symbolic act...Many biblical scholars are fairly confident, therefore, that the application of oil in James 5:14 was a symbolic act invoked in conjunction with supernatural healing. There are a couple of factors that lend themselves to this view: (a) There is contextual information elsewhere in the New Testament that associates miraculous healing with the anointing of oil. In Mark 6:13 the record states: 'And they [the Lord’s supernaturally endowed disciples] cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.' This may be the key verse that sheds light on James 5:14. (b) Not all Christians in the first century possessed the gift of healing (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-30). It would be most natural, though, that the elders of local churches would be those who were granted the gift in their respective congregations. Ephesians 4:8-11 clearly indicates that some 'pastors' (i.e., elders) were given spiritual gifts. If this view is correct, and in this writer’s judgment it is the most feasible, then the act of anointing with oil would not be appropriate today for the simple reason that miraculous gifts are not available to the church in this age (1 Corinthians 13:8ff)."
Both got to the same not for today conclusion by very different reasoning. Just thought I'd pass these along to those who might find it interesting.
Brother (or Sister) Anonymous, you bring up some good points about putting too trust in medicine and medical attention. Whether receiving medical attention or not, we must put our trust in the Lord.
Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but was thinking that much of the strength of the medicinal interpretation lies in the theory of oil being the chief medicine of the day, and that the 1st century reader would have thought "medicine" when he read "oil".
One thing that militates against that, imo, is that a 1st century Christian would have biblical access to knowledge of other medicines, even if the surrounding culture was stuck on oil (not that I'm agreeing that oil was the only medicine understood culturally). If memory serves, the following things are mentioned as medicinal in the scriptures: leaves, herbs, balm, mandrakes, myrrh, anise, rue, cummin, wine, and fig poultice. Ezekiel mentions setting bones. If one needed a bone set, he probably wouldn't want the elders to show up and rub on an herbal remedy.
Another thing I wonder about; if we believe the Bible is inspired, then the words of James come from God. Even if the culture only knew of oil as a remedy, wouldn't God know better?
It is interesting to realize the poultice was still in use in one form or another as late as the mid 20th Century. Many rural families had to concoct homemade remedies out of necessity. If they were able to buy a cold remedy, they felt fortunate indeed.
This subject always makes me think of the Cardui calendar. It was a common sight in rural homes for many years. They are still made, but are in a more condensed form now.
The Cardui calendars were a staple in country homes around here when I was growing up. Don't see them much anymore.
I have an old Cardui bottle in my bottle collection.
Not the chief medicine of the day. The cheap-easy to find medicine. The over-the-counter carried by non-physicians to help out others medicine. Notice the good Samaritan.
Let me say this. If you are right (which I still don't see, even with an open honest reading of it all again and again)... if you are right, then it applied to the early church time of miraculous healing. This was during the time that miracles were still preformed by apostles. We don't live during that time any more.
If we take the Mark reference to those casting out demons and anointing with oil, we see a miraculous act, not the same manner in which God works today. He used miracles to prove the apostles were speaking His words, not their own. We now have the completed Word of God. Such a thing would have no purpose today.
If someone wants to do the oil thing out of their OWN custom and tradition, I'm not going to stop it or speak against it. This is a Christian liberty. I wouldn't speak against someone doing the thing with their hand up down left and right when they pray, if they are using it in conjunction with thanking the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I have again read this over and over with prayer, and I still just don't see or feel any conviction or illumination towards doing this. I'm sorry.
Thanks for the further comments. I am just leaving the house, and will try to read your comments more closely tomorrow.
Brother James, based on your statement above about "chief medicine", I will revise my comment to the following: "Much of the strength of the medicinal interpretation lies in the theory of oils were some of, if not the only, medicines they had that actually helped, and that the 1st century reader would have thought 'medicine' when he read 'oil'."
I'm not interested in quibbling over words. My point is that the readers must have some fundamental idea of "oil = medicine" for the medicinal interpretation to be viable, in my opinion. There must be a foundation for them thinking "anoint with oil" means "apply medicine". I do not find in the Scriptures that there is such a fundamental idea.
If I understand you correctly, you are positing the back-up plan that if the medicinal idea were not correct, then this is covered as not for today because miraculous gifts are not available to this age. Is that correct? That is two very diametrically opposed views; one of which is for today because the oil is medicine, and one which is not for today because miracles no longer happen. The only thing they have in common is that they both oppose the idea of symbolic anointing with oil.
I don't agree with either of those views, but I would certainly see the second reason as more appealing overall. At least it lets stand the text as written in the time it was written.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, we differ on whether or not God heals someone in answer to prayer, without the use of medicine, is miraculous in the sense of the Biblical miracles that were done away.
Maybe I am misunderstaning you. And, even if not, there may be many who agree with you. But from my personal experience, I've never run across any Baptists who thought their prayers for those sick folks mentioned on Sunday morning would do no good unless someone also administered medicine.
Post a Comment