Anointing With Oil

Among the more questionable practices we find in the Church today is using vegetable or olive oil to anoint the sick, or commission those appointed to positions of authority. The use of oil originates in the Old Testament practice of anointing Priests and Kings in service to God—as a medicinal remedy—and finally to honour guests. None of these uses have spiritual relevance, scriptural support, or medical precedent for today. Continuing to use this type of religious symbolism doesn't convey the power of the Holy Spirit to the recipient, because the New Covenant in Christ replaced any spiritual precedence in the past. Some might believe that oil has therapeutic healing properties, albeit without the science, and some might like to offer it to guests in their homes, but this is not the motive behind its use today and not the point of this commentary.

Many still believe anointing with oil is a direct impartation of the Holy Spirit. This raises questions of religious dualism and the gerrymandering of Old Testament Law with grace. It amounts to “taking the Lord’s name in vain”, by presuming God’s power and authority and using the optics to satisfy our vanities. Some try to suggest that the practice is not used all the time, and if it aids in the faith of believers, why make an issue of it? This type of response is theologically immature, dismissive and completely misses the point. It begs the question, if power can indeed be imparted through the oil, why isn’t it used all the time? I believe it’s lazy Christianity, to encourage, mislead, and embed a false doctrine that has no biblical precedence, just because it’s said to increase faith in those with little. Worse, it misleads those who believe every word spoken across the pulpit.

The type of oil used for any form of anointing today is generally the same. It could be any available olive or vegetable oil because the specific contents of the oil does not appear to be relevant. However, oil used for anointing in Jewish culture had defined ingredients and specific chemistry, given by God. In the Old Testament, two types of oil are used, which gave rise to this debate. First is the “Sacred Anointing Oil”, as found in Exodus 30: 23-33. Second, is an oil used for healing referred to by Jeremiah and other writers. The first was for the consecration of Priests and Kings, and the other as a medicinal balm, with no spiritual connotations. Medicinal oil was used in the same way as we might use a medication cream today. Each of these two oils had a specific purpose, and each was made with exact ingredients, that were specifically stated and clearly understood. The “sacred anointing oil”, it’s power and authority, and it’s relevance under the New Covenant, is the subject of this commentary.

Exodus 30:23-33 22 The LORD spoke to Moses: 23 Take the finest spices: of liquid myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet-smelling cinnamon half as much, that is, two hundred fifty, and two hundred fifty of aromatic cane, 24 and five hundred of cassia—measured by the sanctuary shekel—and a hin of olive oil; 25 and you shall make of these a sacred anointing oil blended as by the perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. 26 With it you shall anoint the tent of meeting and the ark of the covenant, 27 and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, 28 and the altar of burnt offering with all its utensils, and the basin with its stand; 29 you shall consecrate them, so that they may be most holy; whatever touches them will become holy. 30 You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, in order that they may serve me as priests. 31 You shall say to the Israelites, “This shall be my holy anointing oil throughout your generations. 32 It shall not be used in any ordinary anointing of the body, and you shall make no other like it in composition; it is holy, and it shall be holy to you. 33 Whoever compounds any like it or whoever puts any of it on an unqualified person shall be cut off from the people.”

The sacred oil in these verses was intended to set apart, to make things “holy unto the Lord”, including all the items in the sanctuary, along with Aaron and his Sons, who were set apart to serve as Priests. Under Old Testament law, spiritual authority was physical, symbolized, and imbued in the oil. When this oil was used, the objects anointed became holy and were never touched by anyone other than the serving priest of that year. Spiritual authority was demonstrated in setting apart the High Priest himself. Breaking this law came with its consequences and in vs32-33 we find the penalty for misusing or copying the “Holy Anointing Oil”. We might ask, why was oil used for consecration, and where did this practice originate? Unfortunately, the origins are somewhat vague and for whatever, reason God chose to demonstrate his authority and presence in this manner, but this doesn’t justify the context in which we use it today. The spiritual language behind the practice was also prophetic because the oil was a “type”, it pointed to an anointing that was coming upon a future Priesthood of all believers through Jesus Christ, one that set apart believers through baptism (made holy). In so many areas, we embrace the new and combine it with the symbolism of the past. However, we carry it through literally, with the same authority and power as if that were God’s intention, and practice it as New Testament theology. This can also be seen in our misappropriation of water in baptisms. John’s baptism was an Old Testament sign of repentance (our decision) that pointed to a baptism in the Holy Spirit (God’s decision) but the use of water has nothing to do with the salvation it pointed to. Christianity treads a fine line between law and grace, and our proclivity for physical signs draws us back to the law and the ritualism of the past, in the same way as early Christians did with dietary and Sabbath laws.

The OT legal practice of anointing Kings and Priests was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Jesus became the High Priest and King, so temple Priests and Kings ceased to exist. Pastors and Leaders today are not the “Lord’s anointed”, and should never be placed on the same level as Priests and Kings from the Old Testament because it tactfully undermines the “priesthood of all believers” and places a man-made authority between believers and God. It’s clear that the use of oil to set apart, even as a symbolic act is not suggested because the idea of instilling power through “setting apart” is not consistent, supported, or encouraged as a requirement under the New Covenant practice. The authority of a High Priest or King, was replaced by Christ as the High Priest and King. As an aside the “sacred anointing oil” was only ever used to consecrate the Levite Priests, items in the Tabernacle, and Kings, period. However, while the introduction of Kings was tolerated, God regarded the demand for a King as idolatry and demonstrated a “turning away” from himself as Lord. Can a King and Pastor be the same? Sin is not found in the title itself but in the authority it represents. When the “Lord’s anointed” authority is given to “Pastors”, the reverence in which they are held falls dangerously close to the idolatry that requires a “King” to begin with.

Today the use of oil in commissioning, or setting apart leaders for service, is encouraging a false doctrine that overstates spiritual authority and creates the idea that higher levels of authority exist in Churches today. Put simply the anointing of the Holy Spirit replaced any past physical representation of it. The use of oil is inconsistent with the New Testament covenant of a “Priesthood of all believers”, and its composition is nothing like the oil of Exodus 30. Combining a cacophony of OT symbolism and NT grace is not Christianity, but altering, and institutionalizing, the religious authority and practice of the past.

Healing the sick, or honouring guests has nothing to do with the original purpose of the “sacred anointing oil” as found in Exodus 30:30.