Combox for:
Biblical Evidence For the Sacrament of Anointing
[8 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ment-
of_08.html
Thanks for these, Dave. I find these types of posts interesting and helpful to ponder through.
Peace,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
I'm glad you think they are helpful, BJ. It's always rewarding to me to study Holy Scripture. I always learn something. I love it!
That's why I'm working towards my PhD in Biblical Studies. Good stuff, indeed.
Cheers,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Question on the James 5 passage, though. How do you move from the description there to the Sacramental theology? That was has never been obvious to me.
Thanks,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Well, it is a physical means (oil, laying on of hands) to bring grace to someone in the form of healing and/or forgiveness (implied by proximity). The passages of casting out demons suggest the same thing (because that is in the spiritual realm as well, not just physical).
It's the connotation of laying on hands to heal, using oil, the water of baptism, the Eucharist, etc.: all physical means to obtain grace from God. There is the sacramentality.
Dave,
First, thanks for the response. As always, I appreciate it.
I suppose my question in this instance comes down to how you decide James 5 is a Sacrament, but Acts 5 is not. Why shouldn't we lie in the shadow of the bishops, the Apostles' Successors? Why shouldn't we, say, lower someone through a roof to receive forgiveness? Why isn't touching the bishops' garments a Sacrament?
What I'm saying is that there appear to be many places within Scripture that link physical actions to both physical and spiritual results. How do you decide where to draw the line? It seems that if this were the only criterion, the foot washing could legitimately be called a Sacrament. How do we know that James 5 is a Sacrament, but Acts 5 is not. I harp on James 5 because it is a typical "proof-text" (in the positive sense of the word), and because it uses the means involved in the Sacrament (oil, hands, etc.).
Also, do you not also believe that the Sacraments go back to an ordinance by Christ Himself? What evidence do you have that Unction is traced by to Jesus?
Thanks again,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Good questions. I sought in bringing up all those passages to show how sacramentality in general is a biblical theme.
As to what was decided to be a sacrament, that was up to the Church to decide, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, so that a "mind of the Church" eventually arose that determined these things. One might say that this was a bit similar to the process of canonization: lots of prospects: but only so many make it, as determined by the Church (not the Bible alone).
Also, do you not also believe that the Sacraments go back to an ordinance by Christ Himself?
Indeed we do.
What evidence do you have that Unction is traced by to Jesus?
I would answer in the following way:
Mark 6:12-13 So they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.
Since we know that Jesus sent His disciples out to heal and cast out demons, it is not unreasonable to assume that He also instructed them to anoint people with oil (though that is not explicitly disclosed in Holy Scripture). Otherwise, where would the notion come from? If one accepts this plausible speculation, then the essential elements of the sacrament of anointing can be traced back to Our Lord Jesus Himself.
Anointing and the use of oil for various purposes had long been a feature in Judaism.
Hey Dave,
That seems like a lot of speculation to me 
No argument about the use of oil in Judaism. That's what Messiah means... "Anointed one."
But what do you mean by "sacramentality?" Not exactly a common term within Protestantism. If I had to guess from your context, I'd define sacramentality as, "The state or action of God's graces/blessings through physical means." Am I on the right track?
Peace,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Oh also, how do I find old, but recent posts? I was having a good conversation with Jonathan, but now I can't find it.
BJ
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Hi BJ,
That seems like a lot of speculation to me
Seems like very little to me, and a straightforward, likely assumption, as we make every day in everyday life. So it comes down to logic and plausibility questions. These are usually heavily affected by presuppositions.
But what do you mean by "sacramentality?" Not exactly a common term within Protestantism. If I had to guess from your context, I'd define sacramentality as, "The state or action of God's graces/blessings through physical means." Am I on the right track?
That's exactly right.
Oh also, how do I find old, but recent posts? I was having a good conversation with Jonathan, but now I can't find it.
There are several ways:
1) Click on the bottom-listed post in "Recent Posts & Comments" and then the next set of ten posts that preceded the current ones will come up.
2) Go down to the Archives way down on the sidebar.
3) For papers a few months old, you can look in a topical index page and search for the title if you remember it.
4) Search for the post title in the "Blog Search engine" in the sidebar.
5) Search for the post title in the Blogger "Search blog" function on the top left.
.
Or in this case, you can click the following link:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...-with-
fear.html
Hehehe thanks to you both for the links. Jonathan, I'll get on that ASAP. I had a 2 hour meeting with my advisor, and now I'm shot. I don't even think I have time to write on my own blog! But yours was a thought provoking response to say the least. I don't want to give pat answers.
Dave,
Seems like very little to me, and a straightforward, likely assumption, as we make every day in everyday life. So it comes down to logic and plausibility questions. These are usually heavily affected by presuppositions.
Agreed. There doesn't seem to be anything in Scripture to demand it being a Sacrament then. Obviously for me, that's problematic.
Thanks,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
What you think is not "anything" in Scripture is to me an altogether possible positing, based on what we know. You won't find absolutely explicit evidence for every single doctrine: even stuff that Protestants believe. The canon is one such thing; sola Scriptura is another. I dare say that there is more cumulative biblical evidence for the sacrament of anointing than there is for sola scriptura.
Yet y'all make the latter one of your "pillars" and build everything else on it. Everything depends on a false premise that is never stated in the Bible at all, though the false premise is a generalization about Scripture and what it supposedly teaches about itself and its authority over against Church and Tradition. It's thoroughly, viciously incoherent and self-defeating.
All we're saying is that not everything is explicit in the Bible, nor does it necessarily need to be, and that doctrines develop, and that the Church can authoritatively proclaim on doctrines. But we are consistent in our approach, whereas Protestants are not.
Jonathan, I'll get on that ASAP. I had a 2 hour meeting with my advisor, and now I'm shot. I don't even think I have time to write on my own blog!
Frankly, you're the first Protestant I've encountered who even displayed curiosity about the notion that the aionios in zoe aionios refers not to the mode of the person's possession of that life (i.e., that the particular person would live forever) but the type of life in which the person is participating (i.e., the unending life of the Trinity in Christ). Take your time, because I am very interested to hear a thoughtful reaction to what I am saying from the Protestant perspective. If that takes a while, then suffice it to say that it won't be adding much to the waiting that I have already been doing.
Here's another way to go about advocating the same Catholic (and biblical) point of view:
Jesus tells the disciples after His resurrection: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20; RSV)
Now, do we necessarily know "all" that Jesus commanded the disciples to teach others, based on Scripture? We do not know at all whether this is the case. But these disciples and apostles heard what Jesus taught, whether it was recorded in Scripture or not. The Protestant fallacy is to always tie apostolic authority to the letter of Scripture. But it clearly goes beyond that, according to that same Scripture.
For example, in Mark 6:34, it says "he began to teach them many things". But none of them are recorded in that spot. Cf. Jn 16:12 ("many things"; see also Mk 4:33; Jn 20:30, 21:25).
So now we have the sacrament of anointing: application of oil for physical and/or spiritual healing, by a properly-ordained person (priest or bishop). All of the elements of the sacrament are explicitly indicated in Scripture (most notably: Mk 6:12-13 and James 5:14-15).
It is also explicit that Jesus commissioned His disciples to go and heal people and proclaim the gospel. The only thing we can't trace back to Jesus with explicit Scripture is the application of oil.
But does that mean we shouldn't believe that it, too, came originally from Him? No, not at all, because we have eyewitnesses of Jesus: apostles who can be trusted to remember the teaching they received from Jesus.
Therefore, James writes: "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 will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." (Jas 5:14-15)
Now, this notion of anointing to heal has to come from somewhere. It is altogether reasonable to assume that it came from Jesus Himself, and that James was passing on what he received, as an apostle (which is what they do).
In fact, this is strongly implied in the phrase "in the name of the Lord." (5:14; cf. 5:10).
It's very easy to establish that in other biblical instances of use of the phrase "name of the Lord," those who spoke in that name were carrying out His express commands:
Lk 10:17 demons cast out in Jesus' name (as He commanded: Mt 10:1,8 )
Acts 9:27,29 preaching in His name (as He commanded).
Matthew 28:19; Acts 19:5 baptized in His name (as he commanded).
1 Cor 6:11 justified in His name.
Col 3:17 everything to be done in His name.
Etc., etc.
This is, then, fairly good indication that He commanded the whole thing, including application of oil, since it is all done in His name, and we have the fact of the disciples anointing for healing and the Apostle James reporting how to go about the sacramental rite, in the same way that the Apostle Paul "received from the Lord" that which he "delivered" to others (1 Cor 11:23).
Commenting by HaloScan
