The “Anointing” and Two-tiered Charismianity
There have been many kinds of two-tiered Christainities. Gnosticism was perhaps the most insidious in the ancient church. It divided the truly spiritual (pneumatics) from the merely bodily (somatics). Medieval Romanism had settled into the sharp division between the priesthood, now referred to as “the Church,” and the laity. Many forms of legalism have done this ever since. There are first class Christians and then there is everyone else. The modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movements have done this in several ways, most obviously in the place given to the supernatural gifts. Sometimes, however, this can happen by misinterpretation of a word or misappropriation of a concept. Such is the case with the idea of “the anointing.”
The Charismatic Idea of the Anointing
When a Charismatic uses the phrase “the anointing,” they are making a reference to the presence and power of God in someone’s life. As with the possession of a particular spiritual gift, so here, many will charitably allow that while all believers are indwelt by the Spirit, not all are filled with the Spirit. As some would say, not all who have been born again by the Spirit have experienced the baptism of the Spirit.
Part of the problem with definition here is that we are dealing with a Christian tradition that resists doctrinal clarity. As a result, such words function more as jargon than as terms with precise definition.
There are also practical consequences, but ones that are so pronounced that we are left with massive clues that this is out of step with the true Christian faith. I refer to the consequences of division, distraction, despair, and pride. Division—because, as already suggested, such a status of having this anointing immediately cashes out into a spiritual caste system of “haves” and “have nots.” Distraction—because such experiential highs in the individual and focus on their talents gets us quickly off the path of the Great Commission and into the tent of the Greatest Show on Earth. Despair—because those who find themselves in the “have nots” will naturally ask “why not,” to which the only natural answers empty out in a secret sin or a lack of faith. At any rate, “something must be wrong with me” turns out to be nothing that the Bible has to say about the matter. Pride—because those who ascend to the “haves” have done just that. They have ascended. They are the special. Their leaders are even, as Paul called them, the “super-apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5).
And these are the very problems of the Corinthian church that prompted Paul to write them. That is really a fifth clue. The texts most often referenced by Charismatics are in fact correctives not only to “excesses” of spiritual gifts, but the Apostle goes all the way down to the root of the understanding the Corinthians had about what these things were. To read 1 Corinthians in its unified corrective context is to cease being a Charismatic, if one has not already so ceased. How this relates to the cessation of those gifts, functioning as unique signs for the apostolic church, I have written about elsewhere. We can only say that it is fair to suspect that the same sort of mistake is being made about the use of this word.
The Biblical Concept of Anointing
The reason that the Holy Spirit is linked to “anointing” is because the act of anointing with oil became a sign of some work of the Spirit throughout the history of Israel. Not only would the prophet signify God’s favor upon the new king with this pouring of oil on his head (1 Sam. 16:1), but other ceremonies linked to purification (Ruth 3:3), burials (Mk. 16:1), and medicine (Lk. 10:34; Jas. 5:14). It is also understandable to associate anointing oil with positive affectionate states, as it was also linked to celebration. Of the Son’s triumph, the author of Hebrews writes that God “has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions” (1:9).
In the New Testament letters, the word shows up a few times in contexts that move from the signs to the substance. Paul says that “it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has anointed us” (2 Cor. 1:21). Who is “us” in this context—all Christians or the Apostles? It is not absolutely definitive, though a case could be made for either. In another epistle:
“But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge … But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him” (1 Jn. 2:20, 27).
The double reference here by John presents us with a double difficulty. The reason is that the same circles that utilize this concept of “the anointing” are also quite opposed to theologizing about such things. We must remember—and remind them when we have the chance—that such “theologizing” is nothing more than reconciling Scripture to Scripture, the same totality of Scripture that has this Holy Spirit as its Author (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). Aside from one more reference in Revelation 3:18 about salve in the eye—an entirely different concept—the word is not further explained. This really puts the burden of proof on the Charismatic, not on the inquirer, to justify such a confident use of something that is better explained as a synonym for a more general act of God.
The irony of the Charismatic appeal to 1 John 2 is the same as the irony of casting their anchor in those passages of 1 Corinthians 12-14. Not only was John correcting the abuse and misuse of an idea: he was addressing yet another two-tiered Christianity emerging. Scholars will debate whether a full-blown Gnosticism existed prior to the middle of the second century. However, it seems undeniable that something like the seeds of Gnostic ideas (some will use the expression “Proto-Gnosticism”) were alive and well as early as the middle of the first century especially in Asia Minor where churches existed in Ephesus and Colossae. That explains Paul’s subtle jab at “mystery” teachers in the third chapter of Ephesians, and his encouragement to those believers that they are perfectly capable of understanding his words—that they needed no secret decoder ring or any other esoteric experience to be enlightened. With that backdrop, and realizing that John’s first letter takes aim at some Gnostic distinctives as well (e.g., those who sin freely because the body “doesn’t matter”), starts to set the words of 2:20 and 27 in a different light. When John tells them that they have “no need” of anyone to “teach” them, was he indeed discrediting all teachers and teaching? That would be an odd thing for John to do when he was a teacher in the act of teaching them. The inward divine Teacher (see John 6:45) works through the means of human teachers (Eph. 4:11-12). What is excluded are “mystery teachers” or esoteric “gurus” who sell mystical experiences that are unaccountable to either the scrutiny of the community of all of the saints or the Word of God that they should all be growing in together.
