Anointing With Oil

Among the more questionable practices in the Church today is the use of vegetable or olive oil to set apart or commission those appointed to positions of authority—it's also used to anoint and heal the sick. The use of oil originates in Old Testament practices: the anointing of Priests and Kings in service to God, its application as a medicinal remedy, and its use in honouring guests. However, as it concerns the Church today, none carry any direct spiritual relevance, clear scriptural mandate, or medical necessity in the way they are often presented. Continuing to employ this form of religious symbolism does not convey the power of the Holy Spirit, because the New Covenant in Christ has fulfilled and replaced the spiritual framework in which such practices once held meaning. While some today may attribute therapeutic properties to oil—despite limited scientific support—or use it to welcome guests, these are not the motivations that typically motivate its use in the Church today, nor are they the focus of this commentary.

Many still hold that anointing with oil constitutes a direct impartation of the Holy Spirit. This assumption introduces a form of theological dualism, blending elements of Old Testament Law with New Testament grace in a manner that lacks coherence. It risks, in effect, “taking the Lord’s name in vain” by presuming divine power and authority in the oil and employing symbolism to satisfy inward expectations. Some argue that the practice should not be overly scrutinised because it's generally used sparingly and appears to strengthen faith. Such reasoning is theologically simplistic and fails to engage the core issue. If oil truly mediates divine power, its inconsistent use becomes difficult to justify. More concerningly, the practice can foster a passive and somewhat uncritical acceptance of questionable doctrine–encouraging belief in practices that lack a clear biblical foundation, while potentially misleading those who trust what is taught from the pulpit.

In practice, the oil used for anointing today is typically generic—any available olive or vegetable oil suffices, because its composition is regarded as inconsequential. By contrast, the oil prescribed for anointing in ancient Israel was precisely defined, both in its ingredients and its preparation, as given by God. The Old Testament presents two distinct uses of oil that inform this discussion. The first is the “sacred anointing oil” described in Exodus 30:23–33. The second is oil used for healing, referenced by Jeremiah and others, functioning as a medicinal balm without inherent spiritual connotation. The former was reserved exclusively for the consecration of priests, kings, and sacred objects; the latter served a practical, therapeutic purpose analogous to modern medicinal treatments. Each type of oil had a clearly defined role and composition. It is the sacred anointing oil—its authority, its purpose, and its relevance under the New Covenant—that's central to this commentary.

In Exodus 30:23–33, the sacred oil is designated as a means of consecration—to set apart persons and objects as “holy unto the Lord.” It was applied to the furnishings of the tabernacle, as well as to Aaron and his sons, who were ordained to serve as priests. Within the Old Testament framework, spiritual authority was imbued and expressed through physical symbols, and the sacred anointing oil functioned as a representation of God's holiness and presence in the objects to be consecrated. Objects anointed with it were set apart for exclusive use in the service of God. Likewise, the high priest was distinguished through this act of anointing. The text also makes clear that misuse or imitation of this oil carries severe consequences, underscoring its unique and restricted purpose.

The origins of this practice are not fully explained, yet its theological significance is evident. The anointing oil functioned as a present reality and as a type—it pointed beyond itself to a future reality. It anticipated a future anointing, fulfilled in Christ, through whom a new priesthood would be established: a priesthood comprising all believers. In this sense, the oil symbolised a greater spiritual reality ultimately realised through the work of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. However, a typological corruption arises when elements of Old Testament symbolism are carried forward into New Testament practice without recognition of their fulfilment. The result is a literal continuation of practices intended to be prophetic, provisional, and anticipatory.

A similar pattern can be observed in the treatment of baptism. John’s baptism served as a type — a sign of repentance—an outward expression of human response—pointing forward to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a divine act. While water continues to be used as a visible element in Christian baptism, it was never intended to be an ongoing sacrament in this fashion or imply that water is the source of salvation. In both cases, there is a tendency to conflate symbolism with substance. This reflects a broader tension within Christian practice: the pull between law and grace, and the inclination to return to tangible forms and rituals, much like the Apostles who continued to acknowledge dietary laws, circumcision, and isolation from the Gentile world.

The Old Testament practice of anointing priests and kings finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, who alone embodies both offices as the ultimate High Priest and King. Consequently, the institutional roles that once required such anointing no longer function in the same capacity. Contemporary church leaders—pastors and ministers—are not equivalent to the “Lord’s anointed” in the Old Testament sense. To ascribe such a status to them risks undermining the doctrine of "the priesthood of all believers" by reintroducing hierarchical distinctions that place intermediaries between God and His people.

It is therefore significant that the New Testament does not prescribe anointing oil as a means of imparting spiritual authority or setting individuals apart in a manner analogous to Old Testament consecration. The authority once symbolised through anointing oil is fulfilled and superseded in Christ. As an aside, it's worth noting that the sacred anointing oil of Exodus 30 was restricted to specific uses: the consecration of Levitical priests, tabernacle furnishings, and kings. Even the monarchist approach of having a King, though permitted, was not God's ideal, reflecting Israel’s desire for a human ruler and, in doing so, a departure from God’s direct lordship. This raises important questions regarding authority structures within the Church. While titles themselves are not inherently problematic, the authority and reverence often attached to them can produce functional idolatry when they replicate the dynamics of kingship.

In light of these considerations, the contemporary use of oil in commissioning or setting apart leaders risks promoting a theological framework that overstates spiritual hierarchy and introduces distinctions inconsistent with New Testament teaching. The anointing of the Holy Spirit has replaced prior physical representations, rendering such practices unnecessary and potentially misleading. Moreover, modern anointing practices bear little resemblance to the composition or purpose of the sacred oil described in Exodus 30.

Ultimately, the blending of Old Testament symbolism with New Testament grace, without regard for fulfilment in Christ, distorts the nature of Christian doctrine and practice. It risks reintroducing forms of religious expression that belong to an Old Testament Covenant context, thereby reshaping the authority and identity of the Church in ways that are neither warranted nor beneficial.

Healing the sick or honouring guests, while valid in their own contexts, bear no direct relation to the original purpose of the sacred anointing oil described in Exodus 30:30.