Anointing, among Regular Baptists

When writing about the practice of anointing with oil in his Customs of Primitive Churches, Morgan Edwards's appeal to the German Baptists suggests that the practice must have been falling into disuse among the Regular Baptists at the time of his writing (1768). Here are a couple of examples of the practice among the Regulars.

Owen Thomas was a member of this church [Rhydwilim]. He was born at Gwrgodllys, Cilmanllwyd parish, county of Carmarthen, in 1691. He went to America in 1707, and took the pastoral care of the church at Welsh-tract, after the death of Enoch Morgan; in which office he continued until 1748, when he resigned to go to Vincent, where he died in 1760, aged sixty-nine. He left behind him the following manuscript :

"I have been called upon three times, to anoint the sick with oil, for recovery. The effect was surprising in every case, but in none more so, than in the case of our brother, Rynallt Howell. He was so sore with the bruises which he received, by a cask falling on him from a waggon, that he could not bear to be turned in bed : the next day he went to meeting." 

-- History of the Welsh Baptists, from the year sixty-three to the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy, J. Davis, Pittsburgh, PA: D. M. Hogan, 1835, pp. 110-111

"Some years before his death he [pastor Hugh Davis] had a severe pain in his arm, which gradually wasted the limb and made life a burden. After trying many remedies he sent for the elders of the church to anoint him with oil, according to James v: 14-17. The effect was a perfect cure, so far that the pain never returned. One of the elders concerned (from whom I had this relation) is yet alive [1770], and succeeds Mr. Hugh Davis in the ministry, viz, Rev. John Davis." 

-- Materials Towards a History of the Baptists, Vol. I, Morgan Edwards, p. 28

A review of available records reveals a strong affinity toward anointing among the Welsh Baptists (as opposed to the English Baptists), of whom Edwards was one.

Customs of Primitive Churches, Anointing with Oil

XXXIV. Of anointing the sick

XXXIV. Anointing the sick is a rite of divine original and perpetual obligation. The end is, the recovery of the sick. The administrators are, ministers. The manner is, the sick to send for them; make confession to them; they to pray over him; anoint; and absolve him. The unction is to be as universal as is seemly.

A citation of the following passage is a proof of the chief parts of the above proposition. We presume the oil was olive, because we read of none other. The german baptists anoint only the head, except one part of the body be specially affected, then they anoint both. We prefer a more universal unction. 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: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. Jam. v. 14-16.

Here follows are example of the manner in which the rite has been performed. The sick sent for the ministers of his church. Expressed his desire to be anointed. The ministers recited to him the case of some who were, in a judicial way, afflicted for some particular sins, 1 Cor. xi. 30. Desired him to reflect, and confess if he were conscious or suspicious of any such thing in his case. The sick did so very frankly and honestly, and desired the ministers to pray that his sin might be forgiven him. Then one of the ministers kneeled, and prayed in some such words as these.

“Look upon us, O Lord, for behold we pray! Look upon us, for we pray over the sick. A sick brother. A sick friend. A sick penitent who hath faith to be healed. Who hath a grievous sin to be forgiven. And grace to confess, and give glory to God! Look upon us, for we are come to anoint him with oil in they name! He hath faith in the rite, he hath called for the elders of the church to give him the unction. He hath faith in the efficacy of the fervent prayer of the righteous man, for he crieth, Brethren, pray to the Lord for me that I may be forgiven! We, with him, depend on the promised annexed to the ordinance. We believe it shall be even as thou hast said. Our prayer is the prayer of faith. Our doing as thou hast commanded in obedience to faith. His calling for us is of faith. Therefore heal him, O Lord! O Lord raise him up! Forgive a penitent, good Lord! Good Lord let him be loosed from the sin he confesseth! Let our prayers avail much! Let the unction avail much. even so Lord Jesus, Amen.”

Then the minister poured the oil on his own hand and anointed the sick, saying these words.

“We anoint with oil in the name of the Lord Jesus that thou mayest be healed : By that name be thou made whole every whit : He woundeth and he healeth : He slayeth and he maketh alive! In the name of the same Lord Jesus and by the power of the keys committed to us, we declare unto thee, being penitent, the remission of thy sin, and loosing from this bond. Even so Lord Jesus. Amen.”

When the unction was over the other elder prayed in words to this effect.

“Now Lord we have done as thou commandest, and yet there is room : Let that room be filled with the Lord's doings, and the work shall be accomplished. We have harkened to the voice of a sick and penitent brother; and have anointed him with oil; and prayed for him in thy name. We again call over him thy name that he may be healed. Let it please thee, O physician of value, to make him whole every with. We again most fervently pray to thee that his sin may be forgiven him, and he loosed from his bonds of affliction and lifted up. We are agreed, O most merciful Jesus, two of us are agreed on earth as touching what we shall ask of thee, firmly depending on thy promise. Let it be done for us of our father who is in heaven. The healing and raising up of a sick brother we implore of thee on our bended knees. The absolution of penitent brother we most earnestly crave. Heal O God. Forgive O God. Raise up O most merciful Lord our God. Is not this the time for thee to work? Speak the word, Lord, and the desire of our hearts will come. The anointing will be effectual. The prayers will avail. The name of the Lord Jesus be surely magnified. We rejoice. Our brother relieved. And we, and he, and thy church have fresh occasion to ascribe honours to our God, and sing worthy is the lamb forever. Amen.”

The event answered our expectation. We have heard of many signal cures attending it among the german baptists, with whom the rite is in common use, and much veneration.

From Customs of Primitive Churches, Edwards, pp. 94-95

Unction From the Holy One

“But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,” I John 5:20

The word translated ‘unction’ here is ‘anointing.’ John reminds his readers of an anointing they have from the Holy One (Christ). This is not some ‘Second Blessing’ anointing that they were to seek upon conversion to Christ, but a blessed anointing they had already in, by, and through Him. Of what anointing is he speaking?

1. This is primarily a term that pertains to Christ himself. The title ‘Christ’ means ‘The Anointed One,’ Isa. 61:1; Acts 4:27. God the Father chose Him and set Him apart as Prophet, Priest, and King. In the Old Testament, such men were set apart by anointing. In Christ, all three offices converge. God speaks to no one in saving mercy but through His Son, THE PROPHET, Acts 3:22. God receives no sinner in any other way than Christ’s work and sacrifice as THE PRIEST, Hebrews 8:1. God causes all sinners, for whom Christ gave His life as a ransom, to bow to Him as KING, Rev. 15:3.

2. To have an anointing from Him as the Holy One means that the righteousness that He worked out as THE ANOINTED One of God, was imputed to everyone for whom He died, WHEN He died, Rom. 5: 9, 10. Christ is that Holy One in whom, by whom, and for whom His people were chosen, redeemed, justified, and sanctified, I Cor. 1:30. Because of His finished work, accepted of the Father, His people enjoy ALL spiritual blessings in Him (Ephesians 1:3).

3. They ‘know ALL things,’ not that they don’t need to be taught, but in that the Spirit of God having revealed Christ in them, causes them to see in HIM and His finished work, all things fulfilled pertaining to their forgiveness and justification before God. They are contrasted with those who walk away from the truth (v.19) by following their own fleshly devices, or a doctrine contrary to Christ, either by adding to, or taking away from salvation full and complete in Him. Their anointing is that when He died and rose again, they were in Him, therefore His anointing is theirs. In time, the Spirit brings them, by faith, to enjoy the blessing of this anointing they have already from Christ, by grace. Even as He is the complete satisfaction of the Father for them, so He is their complete satisfaction before the Father. Believers neither need nor want anything more!

-- Ken Wimer, in Shreveport Grace Church Bulletin

The poor and a feet wiping

"A rich perfume on Jesus’ weary feet"*

John 12:1-8 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. 8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Mary
Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus seemed to get herself in trouble at family get-togethers. On one occasion it was criticism from her sister Martha for sitting at Jesus' feet rather than helping serve. On this occasion it was from Judas Iscariot for wasting what might have helped the poor. On both occasions Jesus defended her. On these occasions and in John chapter 11, we see Mary loved her place at the feet of Jesus.

Before the Passover  Lazarus, Martha, Mary, Jesus and the disciples got together at the house of Simon the leper (Cf. Mark 14:1-9) for a supper with Jesus as the guest of honor. While Martha served and Lazarus supped, Mary brought out an alabaster box with a pound of costly ointment and anointed Jesus. She anointed his feet, and from Matthew & Mark we know she also anointed His head. The ever-vigilant always-pragmatic and not-so-honest Judas took time to notice and to criticize. His criticism was a facade, and yet Jesus took notice of its failure to meet the test.

The feet wiping
Jesus as the guest of honor had great honor bestowed upon Him by Mary. The ointment was costly -- Judas estimated 300 pence -- but she spared none. She poured it all on Jesus. She also did not spare herself, but made her own lovely hair the rag with which to wipe Jesus' feet. Perhaps she did not even fully understand the import of the act as Jesus expresses it -- she presupposed His death and burial and anointed Him in preview. Even the most hard-hearted would not deny the cost of anointing for burial.

The poor
Judas proposed the poor as the reason to avoid such waste, while surely salivating to secure that sum for his scrip. Jesus answer does not discourage helping the poor, but encourages us to get our priorities in the right place. Within a few days He would be dead. The poor would be around always, and "whensoever ye will ye may do them good." If we are not doing the poor good when we can, do not use them as an excuse not to do what we should.

Jesus said Mary had "done what she could." May we, by God's grace, do what we should to bestow a sweet smelling offering upon Jesus our Savior who died for us.


When Mary poured a rich perfume on Jesus’ weary feet,
Her caring filled that humble room; the fragrance there was sweet.

*from the hymn "When Mary poured a rich perfume" by Carolyn Winfrey Gillette © 2001

Edwards and Whitsitt

Directly opposite of Morgan Edwards, who lamented that the kind of reasoning used to deny anointing the sick with oil would lead Baptists to discontinue every positive rite, Whitsitt believed the abandoning of things like feet washing and anointing the sick with oil should lead Baptists to abandon immersion and strict communion as well.

"The crowd this evening filled aisles and gallery, and the Baptists must receive a position in the respect of the citizens such as they have never held before. I am half disposed to look with better favor upon them, although I can perceive no good reason why they should retain either immersion or strict communion. Still they do retain them, and it would be destructive to say aught against either of them. The time is coming, far off perhaps, when both will be abolished.

"Both of them are according to the Apostolic model--at any rate immersion is beyond any question the Apostolic mode--but so are foot washing, the holy kiss, the anointing of the sick with oil and numbers of other items that have fallen into disuse in deference to changes in time & season. Why hold to those when these are rejected?" – From Whitsitt's diary (1886), Vol. 2, pages 10-11, as cited in W. H. Whitsitt: the Man and the Controversy by James H. Slatton, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009

Anointing with oil, reprise

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.]

Anointing with Oil - James 5

James 5:14-15 - "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: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up..."

A quite popular interpretation among Baptists is that the oil here in James 5 refers to using medicine in conjunction with prayer. I see this as a pragmatic and possibly fright-driven interpretation -- because of faith healers and charismatics we flee to the opposite extreme.

I do not believe the oil here is application of medicine because: (1) it would make physicians of the elders; (2) it would recommend oil as a universal remedy for sicknesses; (3) it is the prayer, not the oil, that is credited with healing power; and (4) it is the Lord, not the oil, that raises the sick from his bed.

If so, how would this be practiced? James is not turning the church gathering into a charismatic healing meeting. "Let them call." If a believer calls for the elders, then the elders go and anoint with oil and pray over him/her. The symbolism of oil in the Bible is associated with the Holy Spirit and also setting apart.

What think ye?