The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The use of "oil" in Old and New Testament

Dear Stucco:

I am a little reluctant to repy to your questions, not because I don't think they are excellent, because I do, but because I fear having what I said microdiscected and misinterpreted, mischaracterized and then when I attempt to respond/defend myself to have the discussion abruptly cut off, but be that as it may, I will attempt to respond as best I can as follows:


I recently read J. Adams discussion on this subject in his Competent to Counsel and as I understand his interpretation, I believe he would answer yes to both questions, with an emphasis, in Adams opinion, on the natural rather than the supernatural use of the oil. Oil being a base for a variety of medicinal salves, ointments and preparations in the time of James writing. Again if I understand Adams correctly, and I don't have him on line so I can't quote without typing out what he said word for word, but if I understand his position correctly he believed the elders were to assist with the natural treatment as well as to pray for healing, which is the answer that he seems to be giving for a modern application as you addressed in the the following question:


I agree with Adams' approach for the most part, but he doesn't leave a lot of room for the prayer of faith being answered supernaturally, which the context of the verse seems to clearly imply, as it refers to Isaiah's prayer for rain being withheld and then fulfilled in a supernatural way. I agree that this must be handled very carefully and that we are to resort to the means that God has provided in the Medical community, but the temptation is to rely more on science than on God in that process, at least in my view. It must also be remembered that James wrote in a time where the miraculous was more common, and more needful, as medicine, which the Lord has provided as a means, for those that can afford it that is, is a more modern provision of the Lord's providential hand.

My own view is that the Lord most often uses extraordinary means according to the need of the situation and ultimately He is absolutely Sovereign in this as in all things. For example, I believe He uses extraordinary means to teach lessons that can't be learned other ways or He wants to make a particular point, or He may use extraordinary means when the medical means are not available.

He will not, however, ever use extraordinary means to promote error, or anything that contradicts the plain teaching of scripture, nor will He use such means frivolously, or for whim, casual interest or (the word disgusts me in this context) entertainment sake ("they sought a sign") for His holy actions in these areas are in my opinion, just that, Holy, Sacred, Precious and never to be trivialized but held in the highest respect and reverence. Likewise all such actions, in my opinion, always, and invariably, point to the source, to Him, as the ultimate and only objective, and it is His Love and His Glory that is primary, not the actions themselves.

One of the most interesting parts of Adams discussion on this subject was his drawing connections scripturally to sickness and sin. He points out that scripture clearly does not indicate that all sickness is due to sin, and in fact it denies such an assertion. He goes on to make a very cogent case for the fact that scripture clearly does connect sin and sickness in many cases however, and he points out how this is rarely mentioned in the church today, nor explored as a possible source of sickness. Very helpful balanced approach in my view.

I think it is our natural tendency to go to the MD (medical diety) first and then if that fails, or to augment this, to seek God, all the while telling ourselves that we are trusting God. But perhaps we have the order reversed, or at least out of balance.

In Him,

Gerry