Navarre Messenger Index

Living Together - Right or Wrong?
Chuck Northrop

In this time of “live in” boyfriends and girlfriends, it is no wonder that many are confused about marriage. The world has long tried to destroy marriage and justify itself in its evil deeds while Christianity has uplifted marriage to the lofty plain that it deserves. The world has cried that marriage will be defeated and that it will not survive but like all things created and sanctioned by God, marriage is here to stay and is a viable part of society.

Nevertheless, some have chosen to live contrary to God’s law concerning marriage and have advocated that marriage is no longer needed, being outdated. Or by some perverse rationale, they reason: “You wouldn’t buy a pair of shoes without trying them on. So, don’t get married without first trying out your mate.” It is often the case that those who cry such foolishness are the very ones who cry that they do not want to be treated like animals or inanimate objects. Yet, this is the very thing they are advocating. Dear reader, we are not talking about a pair of shoes, we are talking about humanity. Let us never be guilty of treating one we are considering to marry as if they are a pair of shoes!

In 1983, Newsweek reported that only 16% of college students considered it harmful “for a man and woman to live together before marriage” while 61% said it would be “helpful.” With such views, questions concerning “living together” must be answered.

FORNICATION

Fornication is a broad term and means illicit or unlawful sexual intercourse. It would include such things as adultery (sex with someone other than one’s spouse), homosexuality (sex between persons of the same gender), bestiality (sex between a human and an animal), promiscuity (sex with various partners), paedophilia (sex with a child), and prostitution (sex for money or hire). Thus, fornication is sexual activity outside of its proper place–marriage.

Within the proper context of marriage, sexual activity is sanctioned by God. The Bible says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). However, sexual activity outside of marriage is fornication. Listen to what God says about fornication:

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. —Romans 1:29-32

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. —1 Corinthians 6:9

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. —Galatians 5:19-21

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience. —Colossians 3:5-6

Please notice the association that fornication has with other sins. However, the point is clear. Fornicators will not inherit eternal life.

MARRIAGE

When God created man, He created him with certain appetites such as the sexual urges. God, also, originated a way to fulfill those desires. For the sexual desires, God instituted marriage—one man for one woman until death. An examination of the topic of marriage in the Bible reveals that there are four purposes which God ordained in marriage:

COMPANIONSHIP: In the beginning, God decreed that it was “not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Thus, God created an help meet for him—a woman to be his companion. Someone to share his joys and his sorrows.

BODILY SATISFACTION: Sex hunger is as natural and honorable as food and drink hunger if it is kept in its proper place—marriage. The Bible says, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4). Paul wrote, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). In marriage, a man and a woman can be intimate and, yet, remain spiritually and morally pure.

REPRODUCTION: Marriage is where the home begins for God blessed the first union and said, “Be fruitful and multiply...” (Genesis 1:27-28). In this light, “children are an heritage of the Lord and the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psalm 127:3-5).

TRAINING OF CHILDREN: Since marriage is for reproduction, it is only natural that marriage be used for the training of those that are procreated. A home with a father and a mother is the best place to raise children. Thus, Paul exhorts parents to “bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). When raising children with morals and values, we bless our children, ourselves, and the world in which we and they live.

When Jesus spoke of marriage, He taught, “that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female . . . For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6).

The “one flesh” in this passage and others have reference in part to the sexual relationship of a husband and his wife. Sex is fully commended in marriage and fully condemned outside of the marriage relationship.

DOES IT WORK?

If living together or cohabitation is for the purpose of trying out one’s mate, then a natural question would be, “Does it work?”

Psychology Today reported in 1988: “Yale University sociologist Neil Bennett and colleagues found that cohabiting women were 80 percent more likely to separate or divorce than were women who had not lived with their spouses before marriage.” In 1989, the National Survey of Families and Households related: “Unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely to dissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages: 57 percent to 30 percent.”

The very purpose for living together declares its most basic weakness. If its purpose is sexual, then it is opposed to God and morality. If its purpose is a trial for marriage, then it lacks commitment. This lack of commitment causes it to fail from its onset.

Living together sets up a relationship for failure. There is no real or clear commitment. It involves no legal or social responsibilities. There is no public pronouncement nor pledge. It is for the moment while marriage is “until death do us part.”

"Living Together, Right or Wrong?" by Chuck Northrop © 1995 ~  Entire Issue of March 7, 2010

From previous issues...

We Are Simply Christians
by Dale Smelser

Many are growing disenchanted with present religious forms which originated in the middle ages and have become meaningless. There is displeasure with denominational structures and dogma. Some, because of such views, have even decided that Christianity is not relevant today. We believe they have made that decision because they are not sufficiently acquainted with the Scriptures to be able to distinguish between the relevant gospel of Christ and what men over the centuries have attempted to add to it.

If some of these things have troubled you and you have felt a yearning to return to the simple, uncomplicated religion of Christ, stripping away all the nonessential elements of religion and simply abiding by the truths of Christ, truths which transform the soul and bind it to God, let us suggest that it can and has been done.

The Bible, God's word to man, presents Jesus Christ as the Son of God. He was foreshadowed and predicted in the Old Testament which God used to govern His people until Christ should come and establish the New (Jeremiah 31:31-33; Galatians 3:19,23-24). That New Testament reveals the religion of Christ. By studying it we learn all there is to know of the way of Christ.

We learn that among the followers of Christ there existed no denominational organizations whatever. All began at a later time. In the New Testament we see people hearing the gospel and obeying the conditions of God's grace. Being thus saved, they were added to the Lord's people, the church (Acts 2:36-47). As the gospel spread, we find them assembling together in congregations in various localities. Each congregation was under its own elders (Acts 14:23) and no one else on earth. These elders could not make laws and be masters. They were given the responsibility of tending and caring for the congregation as shepherds would a flock (Acts 20:17,28; I Peter 5:1-3). The only headquarters those disciples knew was heaven, where their head, Jesus Christ, was and is (Ephesians 1:22-23).

Their worship was something in which to participate, not something to watch. On the first day of the week, for instance, they would eat the Lord's supper and hear preaching (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29), they would all sing (Ephesians 5:19), they would all pray with various ones leading (1 Corinthians 14:15-16), and they would share in their mutual responsibilities by sharing their prosperity (1 Corinthians 16:1-2). We find no contributions being collected on any other day than the first day of the week and no hierarchy taxing them or telling them how much to give. They had no organizations clamoring for their support. They gave as they individually purposed in their own hearts (2 Corinthians 9:6-7). In all this they were all necessarily involved for each saved person was a priest (Revelation 1:5-6). No one could perform his service or worship for another.

They lived godly lives. They cared for their poor. They taught others. They sent out preachers to teach others in far communities. With simplicity of faith and fervor there was no need of centralization. Without organized machinery, the gospel was preached to the whole of civilization in a short time (Colossians 1:23). These disciples of Christ were known as Christians (Acts 11:26; Acts 26:28; I Peter 4:16). They wore no sectarian names. Their religion was not materialistic or sensual. They did not seek to impress men with pious ceremony, rather, they sought to impress God with the only thing that has ever impressed Him, contrite obedience (2 Samuel 15:22). Their appeal was not social or recreational. They offered the gospel, for they knew it was God's power to save (Romans 1:16), and any other appeal was beneath them.

Many sigh, "Oh, if only such could be today." But it is! Free men and women over the earth have despaired of denominationalism, seeing in it neither necessity nor relevance but only a cause of division. They desire the simplicity of what Christ authored, and their number is increasing. How many have taken such a stand? Who knows! They are related and connected only in Christ and not in some organization with machinery to keep a tally. We will not try to number them. What is important, though, is that a group of such people meet within minutes of where you live.

They are just Christians. They worship and serve God in the same way the early disciples did. Christ is their only creed and the Scriptures their only guide. They are not members of any human organization, they are simply a congregation, or church, of Christ. They, in turn, would like to share Christ with you and with all the world.

You too can be just a Christian and serve God without belonging to any denomination, bound by denominational laws or obligations. If such freedom appeals to you, please contact us. ~ Entire Issue of February 28, 2010

From previous issues...

Infants and Sin
 

"Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 18:3).

This writer's first efforts at debating denominational error was with a Lutheran preacher. The issues were total hereditary depravity and infant baptism. We expected our opponent to argue that little children were only guilty of inborn or inherited sin — not personal sins of their own. So, we were surprised, indeed, when he said that infants were guilty of actual transgressions of their own. He was very insistent that infants needed baptism to remove both kinds of sins—inherited and actual.

He was the first one that we had heard attempt to specify acts of sin that infants and small children commit. I remember his using temper tantrums as one example. We insisted that if those little fellows were sinners, then Jesus would be saying that, "unless you are converted and become as little sinners, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven." If not, why not?

In all the years, since then, we have only heard one or two others openly argue that little children actually commit sin. If they are right, then surely God has some plan for saving infants from their sins. If the wages of sin is death, then they would be lost without some means of pardon. The Lutheran preacher solved the problem by baptizing the little sinners for remission of their sins. A brother, whom we have been reading after lately, has solved the problem by having God continuously forgiving the sinners even as they sin.

We believe that the basic error of the Lutheran preacher and the other one mentioned is their unwarranted supposition that little children sin. It is a conjecture, in both cases, that accompanies other doctrinal positions that they hold. The Lutheran preacher's assumption accompanies his position that infants should be baptized. The other person's assumption goes along with his position that God forgives some people even as they sin.

We believe that to teach that little children sin is, not only without Scriptural foundation, but is contrary to what the Scriptures teach.

There are certain principles taught in the Bible that preclude an infant's being guilty of any sin.

1. The parable of the talents clearly teaches that responsibility before God is contingent upon one's ability. Since infants are incapable of understanding the law of God, they have no responsibility to the law. Not being held accountable to the law, they can have no sin, since sin is lawlessness. (1 John 3:4).

2. Isaiah recognizes that there is a period in a child's life before he is capable of choosing between good and evil: "For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings." (Isa. 7:16).
3. Paul refers to a time in his life when he was alive (spiritually) and without the law (commandment). "I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." (Rom. 7:9). Since the law had existed all of Paul's life, the only possible time for him to have been personally without the law and alive was during that period of innocent childhood before he was held accountable to the law. The time before he transgressed the law and sin entered his life, bringing death.

4. James comments on the nature of sin: "But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires (lusts — KJV) and enticed. Then, when desire (lust — KJV) has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." (James 1:14,15).

Unless an infant can be drawn away by lust and enticed, then he cannot sin. It would be interesting to know the specific lusts that infants are capable of producing. Just what there is to entice an infant to lust and thus give birth to sin.

This should suffice to show that infants or little children are without either law or lust, thus without sin. They are, as we have taught over the years, innocent and safe. If infants have no sins to be washed away, then there is no need to baptize them. If they have no sins, then there is no need for any cleansing of their sins — continuous or otherwise. ~


By Edward 0. Bragwell, Sr.  Entire Issue of February 21, 2010

From previous issues...

Last Will and Testament
 

A feature of common law has come down to us from as early as the Hebrew nation through the Grecian and Roman empires. A man may make a statement concerning the disposition of his estate after death, but such a statement is not of force until there has been the death of him who made it. While living he has the right to do as he wills with his estate, no matter what his statement may have said. This statement is called his last will and testament. Even though it is so called, he may make another, and if it can be shown that there is a later one the former is superseded. This is described as characteristic of what is commonly referred to as the New Testament.

"For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth. "(Hebrews 9:16-17).

While he was upon the earth Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Since the New Testament had not been made effective by his death, he could make any conditions he chose, or could make forgiveness without conditions, without the necessity of abiding by the conditions of his will which would later be effective.

"Son, which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins..." (Matt. 9:2-6).

People fail to see this point which is made so clear in Hebrews. When we are striving to impress upon people the necessity of obeying the will of Christ in being baptized in order for God to forgive their sins, they will respond that Jesus forgave this man without his having to be baptized and that he can forgive them in the same manner. They must be made to realize that the New Testament did not avail while he that made it was alive on earth, but that now it has been made effective by the death on the cross. While he was upon the earth he could command his disciples to "Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt. 10:5, 6).

But the New Testament, which has become effective by reason of his death, positively removes such exclusiveness: "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations... " (Matt. 28:19). This feature is further emphasized by Peter:

"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10:34,35).

The man today can as easily exclude the Gentiles from the gospel as he can teach that a man can be forgiven on the same terms which the Lord used while he was on the earth. Men must learn that now the will of the Lord is in effect and that its conditions must be met in order to obtain the promises.

The most effective misapplication made by people today in this matter is the use of the thief on the cross as proof that they do not have to be baptized to be forgiven of their sins. When the Lord said to him, "Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:42) Jesus had not yet died, making the New Testament effective. He could forgive this man's sins just as he did with the palsied man to which reference has already been made.

We are not saved under the same conditions as the palsied man or as the thief on the cross. He could do as he chose with his powers while he was alive on the earth. But now that his will is become effective by his death, it avails and we will have to be content with and abide by its terms and conditions. It is by this "will we have been sanctified" (Heb. 10:10), and not by the ordinances of the Old Testament, nor by the words of Jesus to the palsied and the thief, nor by his temporary commission to the Israelites only. So much misunderstanding comes from so much failure to handle aright the word of truth. ~

by Robert C. Welch  Entire Issue of February 14, 2010

Depression: Cause and Cure
 

“Anxiety in the heart of man causes depression; but a good word makes it glad” (Prov. 12:25).

According to one recent source, about one in five American adults — that’s over 46 million people — suffer some form of chronic depression, ranging from prolonged sadness to psychosis. Some of these unhappy people are undoubtedly victims of biological imbalances that require medical treatment.

However, in many cases the root problem must be sought in the hearts of the victims. Their depression is simply a state of mind they bring upon themselves by how they choose to think. This proverb points to anxiety as the chief culprit in creating mental gloominess. The Hebrew word means “fear, dread, anxious care.” When a person allows his mind to be consumed with worry over his problems — or potential problems — he is sure to become depressed.

Jesus viewed this kind of mental sickness as a behavioral problem that we can control. He warns us,

“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. . . . Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things” (Matt. 6:25, 34).

Jesus knew that if people would simply change how they think about their possessions and their future, they would be happier. Of course, that’s easier said than done.

How do you obey the command, “do not worry” when it seems that everything in your life is going wrong?

Solomon addresses this in the second half of the proverb: “A good word makes it glad.” We drive anxiety out of our hearts by forcing good words in. Consider some examples:

Bible study provides the best source of good words. Time spent reading and meditating on God’s word can be a tremendous antidote to depressive thinking. Study the wonderful promises God has made to His people. Read the stories of godly men and women who overcame greater problems than ours through their faith in God. A primary purpose of the Bible is to help people cope successfully with life, but that benefit is wasted if we do not study it.

Cheerful companions provide good words. Cultivate a close friendship with mature Christians who have learned how to be happy regardless of their circumstances. Take advantage of opportunities to share their company and conversation. Their words of encouragement will inspire you, of course. But more importantly, their optimistic spirit will rub off on you, and you will learn how to control your thinking to maintain a positive outlook on life.

Prayer generates good words. Verbalize your feelings to God. Let Him know about your needs and fears. The simple trust expressed in such an exercise will warm your soul and lighten your load.

God did not create man to be miserable. If we are, we must deal with the cause within ourselves.

“Be anxious for nothing, . . . and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:6-7). ~   David King  Entire Issue of February 7, 2010

Why The Gospel Is God's Power Unto Salvation

 
By R.L. Whiteside

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth..." (Rom. 1:16a).
In many sermons and articles emphasis is placed on "the" before "power," as if it were the deciding word in this sentence, whereas it is not in the Greek text. It seems odd that we should emphasize a word that Paul could have used at that place, but did not. Perhaps Paul's emphasis may better be seen by reading as follows: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power unto salvation." Paul emphasizes the idea that the gospel is God's power for saving men—not his creative power, but his saving power; not the power by which he created man, but the power by which he saves men. If men are saved at all, God must do it; and if God saves man, he does it by his own power—by his power for saving man. Paul affirms that His power for saving man is the gospel. That cuts off any other power or means for regenerating, or saving, man.

If, then, you would contribute anything toward saving men, bring God's power to bear on them. You are only an agent that God would use in bringing to bear on men his power for saving them. He would not have you to mix or dilute his power, nor to obstruct its full flow. You may enhance your standing with men by flattery, cajolery, and intrigue, and by such small talk and conduct, succeed in baptizing some that you would not otherwise baptize; but all such converts have you in mind rather than the Lord. They have fallen in love with you and your power to attract people instead of falling in love with the Lord and his power to save, and they will not be worth a fig in any effort the church makes till they come around again. Any preacher should be ashamed of himself for making such converts, for he has impressed himself, instead of the Lord, on the hearts of his converts.

"For our exhortation is not of error, nor uncleanness, nor in guile: but even as we have been approved of God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God who proveth our hearts. For neither at any time were we found using words of flattery, as ye know, nor a cloak of covetousness, God is witness; nor seeking glory of man, neither from you nor from others, when we might have claimed authority as apostles of Christ" (1 Thess. 2:3-6).

Paul used no flattery and practiced no deceit; he was not trying to build up a big admiration society. Flattery may be effectually used to cover up the speaker's covetousness, but it accomplishes nothing in the salvation of people. Only the gospel is God's power to save, and on that the preacher should rely.

"And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:1-5).

But why is the gospel God's power to save? Paul assigns the reason: "For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith” (Rom. 1:17). The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, because in it is revealed a righteousness by faith in order to faith. Why this is true will be clearly seen, if we get a clear view of Paul's use of the phrase, "the righteousness of God." By this expression, he does not refer to the righteousness of God as a person. That attribute of God had been known of old, for it had clearly been revealed in the law. "The righteousness of God" may refer either to God's plan of righteousness or to the righteousness to which we attain through that plan. "For being ignorant of God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God." (Rom. 10:3). Paul did not mean that the Jews were ignorant of the fact that God is a righteous being, nor that they were trying to prove themselves to be righteous. The righteousness of God was something to which they could subject themselves and to which they had not brought themselves into subjection. They were ignorant of the gospel, God's plan of righteousness, and were going about to establish a plan of their own. Hence, they had not submitted to the gospel—God's plan of righteousness. The righteousness to which we attain through this plan of righteousness is referred to by Paul as "the righteousness . . . of faith" (Rom. 10:6).

There are only two conceivable ways by which men can be righteous. If a man were to live absolutely perfect, he would be righteous in his own right and by his own works; but no mere man has ever been righteous by the perfection of his own works—all have sinned. As all are unrighteous, and as only the righteous can be saved, what hope is there for any man?

Some plan must be adopted by which guilty sinners can be made righteous, or there is no hope. God has graciously provided that plan. In the gospel, God's plan of righteousness, provision is made for the cleansing and the forgiveness of the sinner. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin. Sins are forgiven, guilt from sin is removed; and the person thus cleansed stands in God's sight as if he never had sinned. He is righteous, and this righteousness is attained to by faith.

The denominational idea, expressed in their creeds and standard works, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, while the sinner's corruption still remains with him, makes God's plan of righteousness weak and ineffective. The creed makers would have us believe that the sinner is not only made righteous, but is only, in some mystical way, clothed with the clean garments of Christ's righteousness, and made to appear clean, though beneath these borrowed garments he is still filthy and sinful. The marvel is that any one could ever believe such perversion. It makes the gospel a very ineffective cleansing agent, discredits the blood of Christ, and puts God in an unfavorable light, for it represents him as counting the filthy man as clean simply because he has dressed him up in clean clothes. No, the gospel is not so ineffective as that; neither does God carry on such a pretense as they would have us believe.

There are two ways for your handkerchief to be clean: one is, for it never to be soiled; the other is, for it, having become soiled, to be carried through a process of cleansing and made clean. Not that the cleanliness of the washerwoman is imputed to it, but she has carried it through a process of cleansing that makes it as clean as if it had never been soiled. The abuse and wear you gave it may have weakened its fabric, but it is clean. Just so with man. If he never became soiled with sin, he would be clean; but since he has become soiled by sin, our Lord can take him through a process of cleansing that makes him as clean as if he never had sinned. The fabric of his moral nature may be weakened by sin, but he is clean; and, like the handkerchief, he may become soiled again, but that does not destroy the fact that he was once made clean and righteous.

Because the gospel thus cleanses from sin and makes us righteous, it is the power of God unto salvation. That is the reason which Paul assigns; and if it did not thus make sinners righteous, we see not how it could be God's power to save. On our part, this righteousness is attained by a living faith. Not only so, but the fact that it does provide a way for guilty men to become righteous is an inducement for sin-burdened men to believe. Hence, I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God's power to save man; and it is God's power of save man because it is God's way of making men righteous by faith. This plan of righteousness by faith is revealed that men may believe. ~  Entire Issue of January 31, 2010

Anointing With Oil

By Wayne Jackson

In the book of James, the inspired writer exhorts: “Is any among you sick? 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 shall save him that is sick,
and the Lord shall raise him up” (James 5:14-15).

The sick are still among us. And virtually no one questions the fact that the church should have elders today, where qualified men can be found. Should elders, then, in connection with their prayers, be anointing the sick with oil?

Though this procedure has not been practiced by churches of Christ in modern times (as a general rule), some are suggesting that it ought to be a part of our ritual. How should this matter be viewed?

First, it ought to be noted that this reference to “anointing with oil” (James 5:14) is extremely abbreviated. Nothing is specifically stated in the context as to the design of the practice.

Second, there are no contextual indications that this anointing with oil had any sort of spiritual basis that would make it universally applicable or perpetually obligatory. If this was to be a requirement for the universal church for all time, it would seem to be a reasonable expectation that some foundation for the practice might have been supplied.

Commentators are sharply divided as to the meaning of the passage. Certainly any view of this text which comes into conflict with other clear biblical information must be rejected.

Several of the ideas that attempt to explain this ambiguous text are as follows:

(1) Some suggest that oil was employed as a daily item of toiletry in ancient times (much like cosmetics are used today). In periods of sickness, or fasting, this casual use of oil was suspended (cf. Ruth 3:3; 2 Samuel 12:20; 14:2; Daniel 10:2, 3; Micah 6:15; Matthew 6:16, 17). It is argued, therefore, that James may have been exhorting the brethren to accompany their prayers with the “anointing of oil,” i.e., the resumption of their normal activities. The oil would serve as a token of confidence in the power of their petition.

While this concept may be possible, it does not readily commend itself to the ordinary expositor. Too, it would not explain why elders would be called to administer the oil.

(2) A number of writers contend that the oil of James 5:14 was merely a medicinal item which, together with the prayer, would be providentially efficacious in the healing process.

It is true that oil has a medical value for some ailments, and that it was employed to this end in ancient times (cf. Isaiah 1:6; Luke 10:34). However, oil, as a physical remedy, would be useless in many sicknesses. Moreover, it would appear rather unusual that “elders” would be sought for the administration of physical healing techniques, when there were good doctors available for that purpose (see Colossians 4:14). One would hardly be inclined to call for elders today for the diagnosis and treatment of physical difficulties.

(3) Some scholars think that the “anointing” referred to by James was simply a refreshing, encouraging act of friendship, much like when Mary anointed Jesus’ feet (John 12:3; cf. Luke 7:46). It is argued that the Greek word aleipho (“anoint”) has to do with mundane rituals rather than a religious ceremony (yet see Mark 6:13). In this sense James’ admonition would be a call for the elders’ prayers, accompanied by the cultural amenity of that day which reflected love and friendship.

If such is the case, that primitive culturalism would have no relevance today; certainly it would not be a practice bound in the modern world.

(4) Most likely the use of oil, as reflected in this passage, was a symbolic act. In Bible times the practice of anointing with oil was frequently representative of God’s approval (see 1 Samuel 10:1; Psalm 89:20). Many biblical scholars are fairly confident, therefore, that the application of oil in James 5:14 was a symbolic act invoked in conjunction with supernatural healing. There are a couple of factors that lend themselves to this view:

(a) There is contextual information elsewhere in the New Testament that associates miraculous healing with the anointing of oil. In Mark 6:13 the record states: “And they [the Lord’s supernaturally endowed disciples] cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” This may be the key verse that sheds light on James 5:14.

(b) Not all Christians in the first century possessed the gift of healing (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-30). It would be most natural, though, that the elders of local churches would be those who were granted the gift in their respective congregations. Ephesians 4:8-11 clearly indicates that some “pastors” (i.e., elders) were given spiritual gifts. If this view is correct, and in this writer’s judgment it is the most feasible, then the act of anointing with oil would not be appropriate today for the simple reason that miraculous gifts are not available to the church in this age (1 Corinthians 13:8ff).

Why, then, are a few today anxious to implement the anointing of oil into modern church practice? It could be that some are very sincere, wanting to do the Lord’s will, yet misunderstanding the nature of this passage. On the other hand, it may be the case that a few folks in the church today are simply looking for a new experience of some sort. Having grown tired of what they perceive as “traditional” service to God, they seek the novel. May we strive to approach the Scriptures in a respectful yet sensible manner. ~  Entire Issue of January 24, 2010