Bjcorbin's Blog

Anointed and anointing are relatively ancient terms, used extensively throughout the Old Testament, and to a lesser degree in the New Testament.  For the most part they simply refer to the practice of applying various oils or balms for things like healing, consecration, and/or preparation for burial.  Because there isn’t much modern context for these words, they are easily manipulated to take on a host of other connotations.  To be sure, they have become part of the popular vernacular within charismatic circles.

In the days of the temple, Priests had to be anointed with a specific blend of oils prior to entering the Holy of Holies, lest they perish, and the Kings of Israel were anointed with oil to signify that they were chosen by God and commissioned to His service.  Like the Priests, the failure to uphold this high calling could result in dire consequences for both the King and his family line.

The modern usage of these terms seems to be aimed at this idea of being specifically chosen (or called) by God, along with a sense of being uniquely gifted (or equipped) in one area or another.  But generally, omits the aesthetic of being bound by an oath to faithfully represent its source, or to acknowledge the potential destruction that could accompany its misuse.  Indeed, those who profess to have an “anointing” often appear to be like children, who’ve gotten ahold of their father’s credit card, and don’t realize that he’ll see the billing statement at the end of the month.

Even those who are sincere in their commitment to serve the Lord can fall to the intoxication of consistently watching God work through their gift, and the earthly treasures/accolades that may result from that.  Over time they can become convinced that this has more to do with who they are rather than simply being a byproduct of the Father’s generosity. 

In those moments they need loving brothers and sisters to help them to see their folly.  But within the current Charismatic culture, they would likely be chastened for “coming against God’s anointed ones”.  The implication being that these individuals’ gifts and callings somehow exempt them from being questioned or receiving any kind of reproach.  This, of course, is a profound distortion of that particular passage of scripture, and of what it means to be “anointed” in general.

One of the clearest pictures of what anointing is, and isn’t can be found in the story of Saul and David.

Because we know how the story ends, it’s easy to pass over the details at the beginning.  Saul did not promote himself to the position of king, nor was he nominated by his peers, he was literally picked out of the crowd (1Sam.9:17) and chosen by God (1Sam.10:24).  At that time, he was humble (1Sam.9:21), anointed (1Sam.10:1), gifted (1Sam.10:13), and God had done a work in his heart (1Sam.10:9).  And for a substantial period of time, Saul walked in that calling and anointing (i.e. 1Sam.11), fulfilling God’s purposes in his life.  

But, as previously alluded to, sustained seasons of victory, and the praise of men eventually eroded Saul’s humility to the point that he felt empowered (or commissioned) to make decisions of his own (1Sam.15:9).

It wasn’t as if he stopped wanting to serve God, but his pride and greed caused him to overstep the bounds of his authority. 

God’s response was quick and definitive (1Sam.15:11 & 23), and it’s hard not to see the parallel between his story and the narratives surrounding so many “anointed” (i.e. called, gifted, empowered) ministry leaders who’ve fallen throughout church history, and in the recent past.

At the point David refused to lay his hands on “God’s anointed one” (1Sam.24:10), it was clear to him and everyone else that Saul had been rejected as the king of Israel.  This passage is pointing towards David’s unwillingness to act without specific direction from the Lord, which is a foreshadowing of Jesus’ pledge that He couldn’t do anything without direct guidance from the Father.  It is meant as an advocation of David’s heart, not a defense of Saul’s immutable position or calling.  

Nothing in scripture supports the idea that calling, gifting, anointing… exempts a person from accountability, indeed quite the opposite is true (James 3:1).  Within these stories, we see Samuel soundly rebuke Saul (1Sam.15:17-19), just as Nathan strongly rebukes David for his transgression with Bathsheba (2Sam.12:1-7).  Chastening a king was a dangerous activity, even for a recognized prophet, but it was exactly what God called them to do.

Another related aspect revealed in these stories occurs toward the end of David’s reign, when he wants to build the temple.  When he inquires of the prophet Nathan, he’s told that God is with him, and that he should do as he pleases (2Sam.7:3).  There is nothing recorded that indicates that Nathan inquired of the Lord for this answer, and it appears as to have come from his experience of being alongside David as he wins battle after battle. 

It was a completely reasonable conclusion to draw, and on the surface, it seemed true, as God clearly was with David.  But when Nathan actually takes the time to inquire of the Lord (2Sam.7:4), the answer is much different than he or anyone else expected.

This phenomenon is frequently played out in the modern context, as truly gifted people, who have eyes to see, are blinded by someone’s position, title, resume, success, giftings, callings, anointing…  Like these prophets, they may have been called by God to confront issues, but they defer to what they see with their natural senses, or what they perceive to be a higher authority. 

Nathan’s rebuke of David allowed for him to repent, and to step back into the fullness of his calling.  It’s hard not to believe that God hasn’t extended this same grace to so many other ministers who fell because no one was willing to confront them as they veered off course.  Unfortunately, we have created a culture that struggles to tolerate such an encounter.

Perhaps even more repulsive than simply misusing God’s anointing for our own selfish gain is the ongoing mystification of these gifts in order to create the illusion of an elite religious class of ministry leaders, designed to rule and guide the less gifted working-class sheep (i.e. laity). 

In his letter to the Ephesians (chapter 4), Paul describes a mature body of believers, in which every part is directly connected to the head, and each part supplies something for the greater whole.  The “Five-Fold” gifts described in this chapter are intended to help facilitate this maturing process, not to exacerbate the clergy-laity division that has plagued the church throughout history.  As Paul explained to Timothy (1Tim.2:5), there is only meant to be one intermediary between God and man, and His name is Jesus.

Ultimately, our present use of the phrase “the anointing” is something of a misnomer.  Before Christ, access to the power and authority of the Holy Spirit was limited to a chosen few.  But because of Christ’s sacrifice, all believers have a direct connection to the indwelling Spirit.  All who belong to Him can rightfully be classified as “anointed” (2Cor.1:21, 1John 2:20).

Holy Spirit empowered giftings are not expensive presents that God only bestows upon His favorite kids, they are tools provided to faithful followers, which He intends to use to draw men unto Himself.  An anointing was never intended to be something we could possess.  It is simply a garment, provided by the Lord, which allows us to serve His purposes.  Walking in that anointing will test the depths of our humility.  Like the treasures that the children of Israel carried out of Egypt, it can be our provision, or we can use it to form some sort of lifeless idol.

Read Full Post »