Anointing the Sick with Oil: A Missing Aspect of Pastoral Ministry in the Reformed Tradition
Reformed churches have a strong tradition of elders as officers of prayer and care. Yet one thing has been missing since the sixteenth century. This study works through James 5:14–15 in its context, weighs the medicinal, Roman Catholic, historic Reformed, and Pentecostal readings, and argues that anointing with oil remains a valid ministry for Reformed elders today.
What follows is a paper I was tasked to write sometime between 2000–2002 when the Oceanside United Reformed Church was still a church plant. I have slightly edited it for style and clarity, but the substance remains the same. In other words, it is to be viewed as one preliminary paper researching the topic and not as a definitive statement.
As Reformed churches, we have a strong tradition of the elders in a congregation being officers of prayer as well as care by visiting the flock.[1] That being said, there is and has been something missing from this ministry of prayer and care since the establishment of the Reformed churches in the sixteenth century—the anointing with oil and prayer over the sick according to James 5:14-15.
Described as “one of the most fascinating passages in the whole letter of James, and one which has excited a great deal of difference of opinion and not a little controversy,”[2] James’ words have been an all-too-easily dismissed and overlooked aspect of New Testament ministry within the Reformed tradition. The reason for this, historically, has been polemics with the Roman Catholic Church over the sacrament of extreme unction. This debate also has a contemporary twist in Reformed theology’s difference with Pentecostalism over the issue of the “sign gifts” (e.g., tongues, prophecy, words of knowledge).
The question of why Reformed churches do not practice what James seems to command, was one I was completely unaware of. That was, until a Berean in my parish wrote the consistory, asking us why we did not practice what these verses speak of. I was then assigned the task of researching the history of Reformed exegesis on this text and to bring a report to a future consistory meeting. My conclusion, as one converted and educated within Pentecostalism and later brought to a Reformed understanding of the Faith, is that there is a legitimate use of anointing with oil and prayer as prescribed by James; and this while holding to the classic “cessationist” viewpoint of the finality of God’s spoken Word in the Person of Christ (Heb. 1:1–2, 2:1–4) and inscripturated in the canon of the New Testament (cf. Belgic Confession, articles 3–7).
The purpose, then, of this essay is to demonstrate that what James 5:14–15 describes is a valid, ongoing ministry of the church that we as Reformed churches need to recover. This text will be interpreted in its context by examining the linguistic meaning of “oil,” by interacting with the various viewpoints on the interpretation of the anointing spoken of in this text, and then applying the results of this study to contemporary Reformed pastoral ministry.
James’ Use of “Oil” (ἐλαίῳ)
Our first step in approaching James 5:14, is to get a handle on what exactly the oil James prescribes for anointing. Then we will answer the question of what was James’ purpose for prescribing the use of oil. Generally speaking, in the ancient world, oil had two uses: first, as a medicinal agent, and, second, as a symbolic agent.
The Medicinal View
Because it could be used as medicine, some have concluded that James meant the oil of anointing merely for a healing/recuperative effect. This interpretation is based on three basic facts.
First, common agents such as oil, as well as wine, were used in the ancient world as medicine.[3] Biblically speaking, this use of oil as a medicinal agent goes as far back as Isaiah 1:6. On James 5:14 Robert Gundry emphasizes the fact of oil as medicine, saying, “Since olive oil was a common household remedy, James may have its medicinal properties in mind, as though to say, ‘Treat with medicine and pray for recovery.’”[4] Commonly cited as biblical corroboration is Paul’s famous advice to Timothy, who was suffering with some sort of ailment: “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23).[5]
The second fact that is cited in treating the oil of James 5:14 merely as a medicinal agent is that linguistically, James uses the same Greek word for “oil” that Luke 10:34 uses when referring to oil as a medicine. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke says, “He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine.” We see this view advocated in the study notes on Luke 10:34 in the New Geneva Study Bible, which says, “Oil and wine were common remedies of that time and expressed the Samaritan’s compassion.”[6] As well, appeal can be made to Mark 6:13, in which the apostles went out, casting out demons as well as anointing the sick, who were then healed.
Third, it is sometimes said that James chose the verb ἀλείφω rather than χριω in speaking of “anointing.” The former word is marshaled as meaning “rubbing” oil on a person medicinally, rather than pouring or smearing oil in symbolically. The account of the apostles’ anointing and healing in Mark 6:13 is said to corroborate this view.
Response to the Medicinal View
This interpretive position is historically and linguistically reasonable. Yet, the traditional Reformed response to the view that the oil of James 5:14 was merely medicinal since, is exemplified by John Calvin, who simply said, “I cannot agree with those who think that it was medicine.”[7] Reformed biblical interpreters have followed Calvin in disagreeing with the medicinal view of oil for five reasons:
First, although it is without question that oil was used medicinally in the ancient world, it was not exclusively used for this purpose, as we will see below.
Second, Luke’s reference in the Parable of the Good Samaritan to oil being used as medicine in no way restricts James’ use from referring to another function. Just because Luke uses the word one way does not mean it must mean that in James.
Third, and most importantly, when the use of the word for “oil,” ἐλαίῳ, is considered in its context, it becomes clear that James prescribes its use because there is something more going on than just the healing of the body. James conceives of a link between physical healing (v. 15a) and a “spiritual” healing (v. 16), which is described as the forgiveness of sins (v. 15b), if sins have been committed.
Fourth, if James meant for oil to be used on the sick strictly as a means of healing the body, then why does he say that the elders of the church need to be the ones administering the oil along with prayer? The elders are the shepherds of the spiritual life of Christ’s sheep-pen, not medical doctors.
Fifth, the use of ἀλείφω does not argue against a symbolic anointing, even if it meant only to rub oil upon a person. Neither does the use of this word in Mark 6:13 prove a medicinal view. There Mark clearly shows the healings being “signs of the apostles,” along with the exorcisms, as confirming the unique authority of their preaching.
The Symbolic View
The second major view of the oil mentioned in James 5:14 emphasizes its use in Scripture as a visible sign of something, whether the Holy Spirit or simply consecration to God. This was the position of Calvin, and is that of this author, as James speaks of oil in a symbolic manner. There are two main reasons for saying this:
First, throughout the unfolding of redemptive history in Scripture, oil was used by the faithful primarily as a symbol in order to visibly signify a spiritual reality. As Douglas Moo points out,
Anointing with oil is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament as a symbolic action according to which what is anointed is set apart for God’s service or blessing[…]By anointing the sick person with oil, then, the elders are symbolically setting that person aside for the Lord’s special attention as they pray.[8]
We see this use of oil as a symbol in several representative texts. In Psalm 45:7, the sons of Korah magnify the king, whom “God has anointed[…]with the oil of gladness.” When the New Testament uses this part of Psalm 45, it is of the King, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being anointed with the Holy Spirit (Heb. 1:9).[9] Further back in the revelation of the Old Covenant is Exodus 29:7, in which Aaron and his sons were anointed with oil to symbolize their being set apart for priestly service. Finally, Psalm 133:2–3 describes the pleasantness of “brothers dwell[ing] in unity” with the simile, “It is like the precious oil on the head[…]It is like the dew of Hermon.” Again, the New Testament explains to us that this blessed unity spoken of among the brethren of God’s people, is a fruit of the work of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 4:3). Thus, oil in Scripture is used symbolically for the Holy Spirit, consecration for God’s service, as well as the unity of the family of God which is brought about by the Holy Spirit.
Returning to our reasons for understanding that the oil of James 5:14 is not merely a healing agent, but an outward sign of a spiritual reality, is the second reason. As alluded to above, the anointing in James 5:14 is linked not only to physical healing but spiritual—the forgiveness of sins: “And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven” (5:15).
It is important to note in passing, the pastoral explanation of this text. Note well that James does not link inseparably sickness with sin. There is not necessarily a link between the two, nor an inevitable conclusion to be drawn about a sick parishioner who needs the prayer of his/her elders. All one has to note are the words of our Lord on this matter (John 9:2–3). What James does state, however, is that when a person is healed physically by the means of anointing and prayer, a person is forgiven if he/she has sinned and has confessed that (v. 16).[10]
Truly, something more is going on in James 5 than mere physical healing, which we see in the forgiveness of sins which comes solely from the Lord, not from the oil. The medicinal view cannot account for this aspect of the text. After all, how does ordinary recuperation from a common remedy effect the forgiveness of sins? The oil of James 5:14, then, is not merely medicine, but a symbol of something beyond itself, something mysterious. That “something” is the One we call the Holy Spirit.
What is the Meaning of James’ Symbol?
Since James is speaking of “something more,” the question is, what exactly is the meaning and application of this anointing. There seem to be three major opinions regarding the meaning and ongoing function of the oil in James 5:14 among those who take it as a symbol.
Roman Catholic View
The practice of Rome as we know it today can be traced back in history to several notable occurrences. By the third century A.D., the oil used in anointing had to first be consecrated by the local bishop. Then, as time passed the anointing with oil was solely performed by priests by the tenth century. By the 12th century this anointing came to be called “extreme unction” and was reserved only for those dying. Then in the thirteenth century the “sacrament of the dying” was declared to be one of the seven sacraments.
In Rome’s polemics against Protestantism at the Council of Trent (1545–63), the sacrament of “extreme unction” was said to be “insinuated indeed in Mark, but recommended and promulgated to the faithful by James the Apostle, and brother of the Lord.”[11] Rome’s dogma is that the “oil blessed by a bishop”[12] represents the “grace of the Holy Spirit; whose anointing cleanses away sins, if there be any still to be expiated.”[13] For this reason, extreme unction came to be called “the completion[…]of the whole Christian life.”[14] In this understanding of the anointing prescribed by James, the “raising up” mentioned in James 5:15 is not physical healing, but a strengthening of the soul of “those especially who lie in such danger as to seem to be about to depart this life.”[15] Thus, extreme unction is given so that the sick person can bear “more easily the inconveniences and pains of his sickness; and more readily resists the temptations of the devil.”[16]
Response to the Roman Catholic View
Although agreeing with Rome that the oil signifies something more than physical healing, the arguments adduced by the Reformed polemicist and theologian Francis Turretin (1623–87) compel this Reformed minister against the teaching that this anointing is equated with the Roman sacrament of extreme unction.[17]
First, nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of the institution, substance, and form of administration of this sacrament by our Lord.
Second, the type of healing of James, like that of Mark 6:13 (in which, according to Trent, is “insinuated indeed” extreme unction), speaks of bodily healing, while extreme unction does not.
Third, James commands “anyone among you” who is sick to be anointed and prayed over while extreme unction only applies to the deathly ill.
Fourth, James commands “the elders” to be present when this anointing is administered while extreme unction is administered and attended by only one priest.
Fifth, James’ anointing was for the absolute end of healing and the conditioned end of remission of sins, while extreme unction inverts this.
The Historic Reformed View
It was in the context of polemical theology with Rome that Reformed exegetes came to their position. Reformed exegetes from the Reformation through our day, understand this anointing with oil and subsequent healing as being something that is no longer to be practiced by the Church. This was the position of Martin Bucer[18] (1491–1551), John Calvin[19] (1509–64), Zacharias Ursinus[20] (1534–83), Johannes Wollebius[21] (1586–1629), John Owen[22] (1616–83), Francis Turretin[23] (1623–87), Matthew Henry[24] (1662–1714), and B.B. Warfield.[25] Their reasoning went like this: since the supernatural “sign” gifts of the New Testament apostles have ceased, and since the outward sign of anointing with oil signified not an uncertain healing, but a certain, miraculous healing, therefore, to continue administering the outward sign of oil without the gift of healing would be to lie and give a false testimony to sick, wounded sheep.[26]
Response to the Historic Reformed View
Contemporary Reformed theologians and pastors generally agree with the Reformed exegetical tradition on these verses in rejecting the Roman Catholic application of James 5:14 to extreme unction, in maintaining that the anointing is not medicinal but rather for healing, and in holding to the “cessationist” view of the “sign” gifts of the apostolic age.
This writer disagrees with the conclusion that because of the cessation of the miraculous gifts, the anointing with oil in James is also to cease among us. This author disagrees because James 5:14 speaks not of the apostles doing the anointing, praying, and healing, but of the ordinary,[27] established church leaders—“the elders of the church.” As well, the general context of James 5:13–18 is the “prayer of a righteous person,” which has “great power,” and the specific qualifier James mentions in healing the sick is “the prayer of faith.” To these points we shall return below under our application.
The Pentecostal View
A more recent interpretation is that of Pentecostal or Charismatic churches, which maintain that the gift of healing is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Characteristic of this view is the official doctrinal statement of the Assemblies of God (AG). This carries the same weight that the Reformed confessions do for us:
Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers. (Isa. 53:4–5; Matt. 8:16–17; James 5:14–16)[28]
To this is added the AG’s statements of generally held positions, codified in their “General Christian Doctrines.” While these are not on the same level as the “Statement of Fundamental Truths,” they express the common view of their ministers. The twelfth of which is “Laying on of Hands and Anointing the Sick with Oil,” which reads,
Why does the Assemblies of God follow the practice of laying hands on the sick and anointing them with oil? What greater purpose does this offer over regular prayer? Laying hands on the sick was a common practice in the Early Church. Jesus often laid hands on people before healing them (Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40; 13:13). Paul laid hands on a sick person and he was healed (Acts 28:8). Jesus said concerning His followers, “they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well” (Mark 16:18).
Anointing with oil for many different purposes was commonly practiced throughout the Scriptures. The New Testament mentions it specifically in connection with praying for the sick. On one occasion Jesus sent out the twelve disciples on a mission; they “anointed many sick people with oil and healed them” (Mark 6:13). In a congregational situation, the usual procedure is for a sick Christian to call for the elders of the church to pray over him and to anoint him with oil (James 5:14–16).
In biblical times oil was commonly used as a healing agent (Luke 10:34). But when used by the early Christians for anointing purposes it was merely a symbolic reminder to God’s healing power. Today as then, the anointing oil itself has no healing power. Healing takes place by the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), of whom oil is a symbol (Zech. 4:4–6).
In the Assemblies of God we believe neither the laying on of hands nor anointing with oil is indispensable for healing, for often in Scripture healing takes place without either. But at times the touch of a praying person and the application of oil are an encouragement to faith, and such a practice is enjoined by Scripture (James 5:14–16).[29]
Response to the Pentecostal View
In response, this author assumes that the Scriptures teach that the “sign” gifts of the apostles, among which is healing, has ceased as an ordinary part of New Covenant ministry.[30] But the most compelling biblical response to the view of the AG that healing as “an integral part of the gospel” and “provided for in the atonement,” is that the Scriptures define the nature and purpose of the atonement as the healing of our true and most serious sickness: sin.
Contemporary Application
While we do not agree with either Rome nor Pentecostalism, James’ command that the sick call for the elders of the church to administer anointing with oil accompanied by prayer should continue in Reformed churches today. This conclusion is based on the following.
First, the primary purpose of James’ instructions at the end of his epistle is for Christians to be engaged in prayer. The ancient church historian Eusebius described James himself as a man of prayer saying, “His knees grew hard like a camel’s because of his constant worship of God, kneeling and asking forgiveness for the people.”[31] In the immediate context of the verses at issue here, is the sharp contrast between swearing “either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath” (5:12) with “The prayer of a righteous person[…]in the name of the Lord” (5:16, 14). The anointing with oil and even the healing are peripheral in the flow of James’ argument. What matters is that the elders of the church pray for those who “call” for prayer. We miss this if we emphasize too much on how oil is to be administered, what kind of oil is to be used, how are we going to implement this? What James calls us to is a ministry of prayer we have missed for generations.
Second, James speaks of the one who is “sick” (ἀσθενεῖ), that is, “weak,” and “powerless”[32] in the body and not just “spiritually sick.”[33] As Douglas Moo points out, when this word is referring to some sort of “spiritual weakness,” this is made clear with a qualifying phrase, such as “in conscience” (1 Cor. 8:7) or “in faith” (Rom. 14:1,2).
In the Gospels, which seems to have influenced James the most, this word always refers to physical illness (Matt. 10:8, 25:36, 39; Mark 6:56; Luke 4:40; John 4:46, 5:3, 7, 6:2, 11:1, 2, 3, 6). As well, the verbs “save” (v. 15) and “heal” (v. 16) are used in the Gospels (e.g., cf. Matt. 9:21–22; Mark 3:4; Luke 7:50; John 11:12) to speak of physical restoration.[34] The term for “sick” in verse 14 is related to the word for “the one who is sick” (τὸν κάμνοντα) in verse 15. This second term is only used one other time in the New Testament, in Hebrews 12:3, where it speaks of the one who is weary and worn out. It seems clear, then, that James speaks of one who is too weak to get out of bed and attend public worship; this is why he/she must “call for the elders of the church” to have them “pray over him.”
What this means is that this text prescribes anointing by the elders for all those who are seriously sick. This is in contrast both to Rome’s restriction only to the deathly ill as well as Pentecostalism’s license in having “healing services” for any kind of illness or even just for those who desire to be anointed after a worship service and prayed for. The initiative is on the sick person, not the church to have special times of anointing and healing for anyone with fatigue, stress, or a cold. Practically, this means that the church must be educated on this topic, as well as be made aware of the elders’ practice so that they can knowledgeably call for the elders. This can be done in home visitation, new members’ classes, by way of a standing announcement in the bulletin, as well as through Christian education classes.
Third, it is “the elders of the church” (τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας) whom we are told are to pray over the seriously sick. This group entails not just the minister, priest, healer, or “district elder,” but the entire “presbytery,” or corporate eldership. Therefore, the gathering of “the elders” for prayer over the seriously ill under their care is what is being alluded to here.
It is important to keep in view that James is speaking of the ordinary officers of established churches, as opposed to those with the extraordinary offices of apostle or prophet (Eph. 4:11) or those endued with the gift of healing (1 Cor. 12:9). The New Testament authors use the word “elder” (πρεσβύτερος) fourteen times in relation to the ruling members of the local congregation. They are mentioned as been the fixtures of the church of Jerusalem (11:30, 15:2, 21:18) and having been appointed in the churches of Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:23 cf. 20:17), while in the epistles they are described in more detail (cf. 1 Tim. 5:17, 19; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1). In none of these texts are elders given supernatural power; rather, they are designated as shepherds (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1), rulers (1 Tim. 5:17), overseers (Acts 20:28) and some are even teachers (1 Tim. 5:17). This evidence is important because the gifts of healing and miracles were not tied to the elders in the New Testament, and thus, this practice did not cease when the apostles ceased.
What this means for us is that we need to be aware that being an elder in a Reformed church entails being willing to assemble at a hospital or home over one of our brothers or sisters. The eldership has no place for fear, timidity, or sense of being uncomfortable. Our sheep look to us, and we must lead.
Fourth, the oil James prescribes does not heal magically, nor even does prayer. Only the Holy Spirit can heal. When we anoint with oil, we are setting aside a sick person as especially devoted to the Lord as an object of care,[35] while confessing that it is the Holy Spirit alone, the “Lord and Giver of life” (Nicene Creed) who can raise the sick one up both from physical ailment (v. 15) as well as spiritual depths (vv. 15b, 16).
What is so wonderful is that James’ epistle indicates that God the Holy Spirit does his healing work through the means of “the prayer of faith”[36] of the elders, accompanied by the outward sign of oil.[37] Thus we can answer those who say that healing was a necessary result of this anointing, by saying that James qualifies the “guarantee” of healing with the phrase “the prayer [vow] of faith.” Pastorally speaking, then, when a person is not healed, it is not their lack of faith but in a real sense, even the weak prayers of the elders; ultimately, though, whether the Lord will heal or not is his prerogative and a part of his secret counsel. In view of this we must lift up our eyes in hope and respect.
Lastly, although the apostolic age and the “sign” gifts have ceased, no one can limit or negate the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit throughout the generations. We must recapture our sense and reliance upon the Holy Spirit as Reformed Christians. It was the Calvinists who re-emphasized the work of the Holy Spirit in their writings, preaching, and confessional documents. As Sinclair Ferguson, says,
No right-thinking Christian would deny that God continues to be active in the world, to do wonderful things for his people, and especially to answer their prayers in keeping with his promises. It is still appropriate for the sick not only to consult a doctor but to ‘call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord’. The promise remains that ‘the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up’ (Jas 5:14–15). People continue to be healed by God — through, above and even against means. Indeed, writes John Owen, ‘It is not unlikely but that God might on some occasions, for a longer season, put forth his power in some miraculous operations.’[38]
Thus, it is precisely because we as Calvinists believe in the Lord and Giver of life that we need to add to our elders’ existing ministry of prayer and care, the anointing and prayer over the seriously sick in our day. This is not only exegetically respectable, but also pastorally necessary.
Postscript: A Proposed Order of Prayer
¶ After the sick member has called for the elders, the elders assemble at an appointed time to the place where the sick member is located.
¶ Then, one of the elders leads a reading of the words of James 5:13–18.
¶ A brief explanation of several points in James 5:14–15 ensues:
First, James calls us to be a people of prayer in every station in life, whether we are suffering, cheerful, sick, or in need of forgiveness (other texts such as Pss. 50:14–15, 62:8 may be read).
Second, James calls the elders to be concerned for the well-being of the whole person, spiritually as well as physically.
Third, although the Scriptures do not necessarily link sickness as a result of specific sin, this time of prayer provides an opportunity for the sick to repent of sin and seek forgiveness.
Fourth, the use of oil in anointing is not a sacrament nor a “magical” element, but a sign of setting aside a person for God’s special care. As well, oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, who is the Lord and Giver of life.
Fifth, we must rest, ultimately, in the sovereignty and good pleasure of God, who many times has even better plans for us than to heal us physically.
¶ If the sick person desires to make confession of sins which burden their conscience, the elders are to ask them to confess them at this time, upon which, they are to exercise the keys of the kingdom and declare the promises of God’s forgiveness (texts such as 1 John 1:9 should be read and applied).
¶ After this, the sick person is to be anointed with oil upon their forehead “in the name of the Lord.”
¶ The elders then pray for the sick person.
Notes
1. See article 23 of the Church Order of Dort, as found in The Psalter (Reformation Heritage Books edition; Eerdmans, 1999), 181–82; Psalter Hymnal (Christian Reformed Church, 1934), 118. Cf. the comments upon this article in Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, The Church Order Commentary (Credo Books, reprinted 2003), 107–111.
2. J. A. Motyer, The Message of James, The Bible Speaks Today (IVP, 1985), 189.
3. Douglas Moo cites the second-century physician Galen in this light. The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2000), 239.
4. Robert H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (3rd ed.; Zondervan, 1996), 436.
5. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
6. New Geneva Study Bible (Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1625.
7. Commentaries on the Epistle of James, trans. Rev. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Baker, reprinted 1996), 22:355–56.
8. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Baker, 1989), 1162.
9. Cf. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, trans. Rev. John Owen, Calvin’s Commentaries, 22 vols. (Baker, reprinted 1996), 22:46; John Owen, Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (Banner of Truth, reprinted 1994), 3:171; Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 31–32.
10. The question, then, has been asked, “Does this mean that the sick person is not yet forgiven?” The first thing to keep clear is that there is a difference between our being once for all forgiven when we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone and the ongoing forgiveness that we need as those simultaneously justified and sinful (cf. Matt. 6:12; 1 John 1:9). To this must be added the fact that the New Testament does give evidence that sickness can be linked to public, gross immorality (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:30). Whether or not this still happens, I do not know. All I know is that there is something going on in the New Testament era that is beyond my comprehension.
11. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Fourteenth Session, On the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, chapter I, in The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff, rev. David S. Schaff, 3 vols. (Baker, reprinted 1993), 2:160.
12. Ibid., 2:160, Session 14, chapter I.
13. Ibid., 2:161, Session 14, chapter II.
14. Ibid., 2:159, Session 14, chapter II.
15. Ibid., 2:162, Session 14, chapter III.
16. Ibid., 2:161, Session 14, chapter II.
17. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., 3 vols. (P&R, 1997), 19th Topic, Question 31, XXXII.
18. Martin Bucer, The Common Places of Martin Bucer, trans. and ed., D.F. Wright, The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics 4 (The Sutton Courtenay Press, 1972), 91; cf. Bucer’s Censura on the 1549 Book of Common Prayer in Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, trans. E.C. Whitaker, Alcuin Club Collections No. 55 (Mayhew-McCrimmon, 1974), 124–26.
19. Calvin, James, 22:356; Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Eerdmans, 1997), 4.19.18–21.
20. Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G.W. Williard (1892; repr.; P&R, 1985), 353.
21. Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae in Reformed Dogmatics, ed. J.W. Beardslee (Oxford University Press, 1965), 128.
22. John Owen, A Discourse of Spiritual Gifts, The Works of John Owen, 16 vols. (Banner of Truth, reprinted 1995), 4:465.
23. Turretin, Institutes, 556–58.
24. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Hendrickson, 1991), 2419–20.
25. B.B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (Banner of Truth, reprinted 1976).
26. Thus Calvin, in typical satirical fashion, says of the Papists who continue the outward sign, that they “are not the true followers, but the apes of the apostles.” Calvin, James, 22:356.
27. On the distinction between extraordinary and ordinary offices in the Church see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th edition; Eerdmans, reprinted 1994), 585–87.
28. “Statement of Fundamental Truths,” article 12, Assemblies of God (USA), https://ag.org/beliefs/statement-of-fundamental-truths (Accessed 1 September 2026).
29. “Laying on of Hands and Anointing the Sick with Oil,” Assemblies of God (USA), General Christian Doctrines. https://web.archive.org/web/20030212054637/www.ag.org/top/beliefs/christian_doctrines/gendoct_12_sick.cfm (Accessed 1 September 2026).
30. See O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Banner of Truth, reprinted 1997); Anthony A. Hoekema, What About Tongue Speaking? (Eerdmans, 1966); Richard B. Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost (P&R, 1979); Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (IVP, 1996).
31. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans., Kirsopp Lake (Harvard University Press, 1965), I:170–71.
32. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. & rev. W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker (University of Chicago Press, 1979), 115.
33. Contra C. Armerding, “‘Is Any Among You Afflicted’: A Study of James 5:13–20,” BibSac 95 (1938): 195–201; C. Pickar, “Is Anyone Sick among You?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 7 (1945): 165–74; D.R. Hayden, “Calling the Elders to Pray,” BibSac 138 (1981): 258–86.
34. Moo, James, 237.
35. See G. Shogren, “Will God Heal Us? A Re-Examination of James 5:14–16a,” Evangelical Quarterly 61 (1989): 99–108.
36. Cf. Edmund Clowney, The Church, Contours of Christian Theology (IVP, 1995), 243.
37. Rowland S. Ward believes the phrase “the prayer of faith” is “the sick person’s believing response to the grace of God in confession rather than the prayer of the elders.” Blessed By the Presence of the Spirit: The Authentic Charismatic Church (New Melbourne Press, 1997), 78.
38. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, 234–35.
Related writings:
A Well-Ordered Church: Laying a Foundation for a Vibrant Church [with William Boekestein] (Evangelical Press, 2015)
“Continuing in Prayer,” in Faithful and Fruitful: Essays for Elders and Deacons, ed. William Boekestein and Steve Swets (Reformed Fellowship, 2019).
For another excellent, contemporary Reformed exposition of this passage, see Chris Hutchinson, “The Oil of Gladness: a Neglected Ministry.”
© 2026 Daniel R. Hyde. Permission is granted to reprint this article in full, unaltered, for non-commercial use, provided the attribution below is included and links to the original. For excerpts, translations, or commercial use, see Permissions.
To attribute: Daniel R. Hyde, "Anointing the Sick With Oil: A Missing Aspect of Pastoral Ministry in the Reformed Tradition," https://www.danielrhyde.com/articles/anointing-the-sick-with-oil. Used by permission.