Annointing with oil for the sick...

That may very well be but the oil in James was medicine.

 

It appears you are determining the context of "oil" based on "confession", "prayer" etc. while ignoring the common use of oil at that time. Further you only have this one single passage to support this. My suggestion is that you take some time and study the use of oil for medicinal purposes during this time.

I will also state again that the symbolism of the HS by use of oil is unnecessary because we are indwelt.

Now there is no doubt that the "spiritual" is in the passage. But that does not imply that no attention to the physical should be made. Do you not take medicine for illness? Do you not see a physician? Or do you only go to the elders and get anointed with oil and prayer?

 

I understood that. My questions were rhetorical to make the point that just as we do this today they did it then as well.

 

The medicinal qualities would have most likely came from ingestion, not topical usage.

The OT set the table in how annointing with oil should be viewed. Those annointed were set apart for God's purpose and to signify His divine favor. The same should be viewed in the NT, so Ann is right...it is spiritual and symbolic. Now that doesn't mean it should or shouldn't do it today (no command to.

 

Says who?////

 

In just one of a number of sources Robertsons Word Pictures suggests:

 

The idea that because the reality has come means that nothing needs to be done symbolically means that we don't baptize people because the reality of salvation has already come when the person trusted Christ. Or we don't do the Lord's Supper because Christ's death has already happened.

These symbols have been commanded. The same way the symbol of anointing with oil is commanded.

 

You tell me, it's your claim to be medicinal. Not sure how pouring a vile over someone's head would heal internal illnesses. They weren't witch doctors, and while thy may have been limited in medical knowledge, they weren't lacking in common sense. Fact is the OT sets the standard (in an early church made up of primarily jews who would understand the significance), not ancient medical practices.

 

Luke 10:34
and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him.

 

Anointing with oil and Baptism are of two different natures. Baptism is about identifying with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. It is a public confession and an ordinance of the church.

 

With all due respect you are speaking on something you have no real understanding of. Just because you are "not sure" means nothing to the facts.

 

Those are injuries...not illnesses, and there was no "annointing" taking place.

 

I'm well aware and cognizant of the usage of oil in annointing. What are your qualifications on the medicinal usage that appear to be superior?

 

You said:

He just showed you otherwise.

 

A well written article...


Exegetical Brief: James 5:14—“Anoint Him With Oil”

David P. Kuske

The command "anoint him with oil" cannot be an apostolic command that applies to all Christians of all time since there is no command of Jesus that this be done, nor did the apostles do it in any of the many healings that we read about in the book of Acts.

Is the use of the Greek verb a0lei/fw instead of xri/w or muri/zw significant? Not necessarily. The verb xri/w is never used in the New Testament to speak of anointing with oil as a physical treatment. The verb muri/zw refers to rubbing an ointment or oil on the body. James apparently does not use this verb since this is not the kind of application of oil he is speaking about. So it may be that a0lei/fw is used by James since it is the broadest term when olive oil is applied to the body.

In the context, the important thing is prayer. That is evident from the fact that this whole section from verse 13 to verse 18 is about God's powerful answer to prayer. The fact that the verb "anoint" here is an aorist participle modifying the main verb "pray" also indicates this. As an aorist participle it indicates an action that is to precede the prayer ("after you anoint with oil, pray"). If it were an action that is to accompany the prayer, it would have been a present participle. The main action is in the main verb. A secondary action is indicated by using a participle. The next verse (v15) confirms this. It does not say the anointing with oil will heal the person. Instead it says: "The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well."

Is this meant to be a healing use of olive oil? That olive oil was used at times to help in healing is evident from various sources. Josephus (Antiq XVII, 172, vi 5) indicates King Herod was given a bath in oil when he was near death in the hope it would bring about a cure. Philo speaks about oil being used for healing (Som II, 58). Likewise the papyri have such references, and in rabbinic literature there are examples of oil being used in the treatment of bodily pains, skin diseases, headaches, and wounds (Str—B 1, 249). The well-known physician Galen said oil was the best of all remedies for paralysis (De Simplicum Medicamentorum Temperamentis 2.l0ff). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament also has numerous references to healing in the discussion of the verb "anoint" (a0lei/fw). The problem with having James' words refer to medical treatment is that it is the elders of the church who are to do this anointing. Why would such medical treatment be something James tells the sick person to ask the elders of the church to do and not also members of the family or friends?

Is it a soothing use of olive oil? That olive oil was used for a sooth¬ing purpose is clear from such passages as Psalm 55:21, Isaiah 1:6, and Luke 10:34. But again, the question arises why would this be something the sick person would ask the elders of the church to do and not also family members or friends?

Perhaps the best explanation is that this was a custom among the Jews that brought with it the symbolism of God's blessing. Sev¬eral things point more strongly in this direction than any other. Vis¬iting the sick was a custom the Jews practiced regularly (Mt 25:43). In addition, it was a custom that the elders in a Jewish community visit the sick on behalf of the whole community. James is writing to Jews (1:1). He urges the sick person to summon the elders "of the church" (5:14), not the elders of the community. So James is appar¬ently encouraging his readers that the common Jewish practice be continued in their Christian congregation. In the Old Testament wine, honey, and olive oil were often referred to as symbols of God's blessing and of the joy and peace that blessing brings (Is 61:3, Mic 6:15, Ps 23:5, 45:7, 92:10, 133:2, Eccl 9:8, Mt 6:17). Obviously, only olive oil was used for anointing. James says the elders are to anoint with oil "in the name of the Lord." This, too, points to this anointing being done with the thought of God's blessing in mind. Acting as leaders of the church, the elders by anointing with oil in the name of the Lord would be indicating to the sick person the confidence of the church that God is the source of all healing and that God's healing power would be brought to bear on the illness at hand. This anoint¬ing was then followed (cf. comments on the aorist participle above) by the elders' prayer that God would heal the sick person. Several comments made by church fathers suggest this was the meaning of the anointing with oil and so this custom was later practiced not just among Jewish Christians but in the church at large. Hilary (367) writes in his introductory Tractate on the Letter of James (PL Supp. 3.81): "The custom mentioned here is followed even today, for the grace of mercy is symbolized by oil." Oecumenius (6th century) says in his Commentary On James (PG 119:508): "The apostles did this even during the time when our Lord was still on earth. They anointed the sick with oil and healed them." The passage to which he is referring is Mt 6:13. Bede (735) in Concerning The Epistle Of St. James also includes a reference to this passage as he writes: "Just as he already advised the person who has been injured, so now James gives his advice to the one who is ill. In order to prevent the foolishness of complaining, he told the injured person to pray and sing, and now he tells the person who is sick (either in body or in faith) to call the elders . . . James does not advise this person to call the younger members of the church because they are less experi¬enced in such matters and run the risk of saying or doing something which will make matters worse. We read in the New Testament that the apostles did this sort of thing, and the custom is retained in the church, that the priests will anoint a person who is ill, invoking the name of God over him, and pray for his healing." Note two of these quotes refer to this as a "custom" in the church, not an apostolic command. Note also that the implication in the anointing is under¬stood as being symbolic of God's mercy and help.

 

If you can show where Jerome's passage is dealing with "annointing" you may have a point.

In addition the wine would have been the medicinal property (alcohol being the disinfectant), not the oil. The oil would be to soothe mainly, but could have some healing properties like creams we use today on wounds to assist in healing. Can't see how this aids illnesses, though.

 

Do you even know who this guy is or did you just search the internet real quick to find someone who agrees with you? You might want to research him.

 

Irrelevant. Care to refute the bolded portion instead of attack the source? Also, still waiting on your qualifications that appear to trump my understanding...