Within the church today, perhaps no word is more chronically misunderstood and misused as the noun “anointing” and its verb “anoint.” Rarely do we hear these words used correctly in their biblical sense and purpose. Our understanding of who the Messiah is and what He does for us as we participate in Him is often obscured around these words.

What is the Anointing?

Let me explain. In a state conference of church leaders the word “anointing” was frequently used, especially in prayers. The prayers generally referred to the anointing in this way:

O Lord, anoint the speaker today. Give the singers a special anointing as they lead us in praise. May our praise of you be anointed. Anoint the reading of the Scripture. Anoint the spoken Word. And when all is done and said, may your anointing fall on all of us here in this meeting. We desire to experience your anointing today. Give us a fresh anointing so we can move into a greater anointing than we’ve ever had before. In Jesus Christ’s Name, Amen.”

Or the speaker may say: “The anointing is heavy in this place right now.” Or, “I can feel the anointing coming on …” Or, in explaining the anointing, he or she may say that “there’s all kinds of anointings depending on the person, calling and need.”

Sound familiar? None of the expressions listed above for the anointing are used in the biblical sense. They speak more of our spiritual “pop” culture’s vocabulary than of biblical, kingdom reality. Of course, even in the misuse of the word, something is meant, but it is ill-defined, leaving behind a fuzzy concept.

One keynote speaker addressed another delegation of pastors and church leaders. By choice, he spoke on the topic of the anointing. Then he said, “I don’t really know what it is, but I know what it’s not.” As he moved through his message from point to point, he kept repeating this refrain. I heard the refrain spoken by ministers after the meeting ended. In affirmation, they were using it now, “I don’t really know what it is, but I know what it’s not.”

Words Matter

One humid evening I stood before an audience in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in West Africa to preach the gospel. Though they spoke a dialect called Creole English, I was compelled to use an interpreter. Differences in accents, sounds and word combinations were troublesome. Creole English has much fewer words in its vocabulary than typical English. I could barely understand what was to me a clipped, cryptic form of the English language. Without an interpreter to rephrase and reduce my vocabulary to local expressions my audience would never understand my message from the Word of God. So I got an interpreter.

Morris Williams, late missionary statesman and author, introduced me to the audience: "I am delighted," he said, "to have with me today my esteemed colleague from the United States. He is visiting several African countries."

My interpreter began the interpretation in English Creole: "Me gladdy, gladdy, gladdy to have fine, fine buddy here in black man land." All the flowery words used to introduce me were summed up in the words gladdy, gladdy, gladdy and fine, fine. I chuckled within, caught off guard by the highly abbreviated paraphrase.

Quickly my wry smile was replaced with concern. How well would my message be interpreted? Translating from one language into another is hard enough. But how do you translate a rich vocabulary into a very limited one having few words? Key concepts easily, and likely, would be distorted with inaccurate and, possibly, unpleasant results.

An old story is told among missionaries living there that one of them once tried to teach about Noah's flood. He began to describe the variety of animals boarding the ark. After a moment the missionary paused, taking note that his interpreter translated every animal as beef. "Two more beef," he said, describing a twosome of elephants. "Two more beef," he gave for giraffes. And so on it went without any distinction. “Two more beef,” he said for the monkeys. To his amazement this extremely localized language did not classify animals into species. All, it seemed, were just classified under one heading--beef.

Obviously, this distinction between animals leaves something to be desired. You well imagine the question that pops in your mind when sitting at the dinner table. You ask what kind of meat is being served. Pork, beef, chicken, pigeon, squirrel, rabbit, cat or rat, or that delicacy of West Africa bushmen simply called “the grasscutter?” Just to be told you are eating beef may not reassure your appetite.

Words do matter. And they matter, of course, in the way we talk about the gospel of Yeshua the Messiah—Jesus Christ, i.e., the gospel of the Anointed One.

Language Gradually Changes

Words, phrases, details and concepts over centuries take on peculiarities not intended in the original, God-inspired words of the Bible. Some meanings are reinterpreted and, in some cases, reinvented to fit contemporary views. We have tendencies to add to the meanings of key concepts. Worse, we may neglect the truth originally given in the Bible to our loss. As a result, we drift away from truth unwittingly.

Some believers, however, express a richness of truth in explaining the Word and ways of God. They are devout students of the Bible, seekers of original meanings and values. Like peelers of onionskins, they carefully pare back the layers of time and cultures to get to the kernel of truth intended when the Bible was originally spoken or written. Like the Bereans, they search the Scriptures to see if these things be true.

Yet many others—perhaps we've all been guilty of this—use pet phrases and terms out of the Bible that puzzle our listeners by the way we use them out of context. We don't take time to study out—to peel the onion back to original meanings and values. We take somebody else's "insight" or "revelation" in trust and fail to do the hard work ourselves.

The apostles Paul, Peter and John would raise their eyebrows at the way we use some of their basic concepts and phrases because of our departure from the original meanings and their historical and cultural contexts. Of course, one such set concept is the word “anointing,” and perhaps even more the words “Anointed One.”

Three Questions for Self-Evaluation

Everyone today in church circles has heard the word “anointing.” First, we should ask ourselves, “Can I properly, biblically define the word?”

If we do not properly understand and speak the biblical meaning of “anointing,” a second question should be asked. How can we comprehend the meaning of the primary title given to Yeshua (Jesus)—“the Anointed One,” or, in Hebrew, the Messiah [HaMashiach], or in Greek, the Christ [Christos]?

The issue is that the meaning of the word “anointing” is too little understood and too often misinterpreted and misapplied in our conversations that it renders the word impotent in our lives. Instead, we are prone to use it as a catchword for anything (1) mystical in our spiritual experiences, (2) emotional in experiencing God or (3) phenomenal, i.e., unusual or unexplainable in the realm of God’s mighty acts.

Root Sources of the Confusion

Several sources causing confusion in how we use the words “anoint” and “anointing” may be cited, notwithstanding our study and learning habits. Two key root sources, mirrors of each other, draw our apt attention. First, is the lack of use of the ancient Hebraic biblical hermeneutic, namely PaRDeS, for interpreting the Bible, Old and New Testaments. Because this subject is considered at length in my article, Hermeneutics of the First Century (see article on this website, www.ed-nelson.com), we will not develop it further here.

Second, the flipside of the Hebraic interpretative method is our interpretative dependency on the Greek language text and culture lying beneath our English New Testament. This second source of confusion is so ordinarily the practice of biblical interpretation that to suggest it is a cause of corrupt interpretation may seem strange. After all, wasn’t the New Testament written originally in Greek? The answer to that question is, “Was it really?” And even if it were true, at least in part, after all, wasn’t it written by Hebrew and Aramaic speaking Jews using Hebraic concepts?

To put these two root sources of confusion into a simple question it would be this: Do you depend on the Greek language of the philosophical pagans to explain the New Testament or the Hebrew language understanding of its Jewish writers? More simply put, do you think Greek or Hebrew when you interpret the Bible? You do think one or the other. Likely you have a Greek mindsdet, for our English culture is an extension of the Greek, not Hebrew, worldview.

Neglecting the Semitic Vorlage, or “Undertext.” With this Greek way of thinking and interpreting Scripture in mind as being predominant in the English-speaking world, we discover that a main reason for the confusion in understanding and expressing biblically the word “anointing” is the language translation factor. Our English New Testament is a translation of the Greek New Testament rather than a Bible translation that gives serious consideration to the Hebraic and Aramaic terms underlying the Greek words. This Semitic undertext in German is called the Vorlage, literally, “that which precedes the act of laying down.” Ignoring the Hebrew and Aramaic words and concepts underlying every word and concept written in Greek leads to all kinds of false assumptions, including a misunderstanding of the meaning of “anointing.”

What does this mean, but simply this. If in our Bible study we spend our time studying root meanings of Greek words of the New Testament to interpret the Bible we will delve into Greek history, language and philosophy as our primary source of understanding the New Testament instead of the pragmatic worldview of the Hebrew people, their history, language and culture. If we neglect the Hebrew concept and its history in the mind of the Jewish writer of the New Testament text we will depart from his original intention for understanding. We will develop a Greek-minded, and wrong-minded, interpretation.

Anointing: do your rub it on or pour it on? For example, a majority view held by well-read Bible students is that the word “anoint” comes from a Greek root meaning “to smear oil,” or “to rub on ointment” instead of “pour.” According to this view, an oil or oil-based ointment is smeared or on the forehead to “anoint” a person, like a king, priest or sick person.

What do you think a study of the Hebrew language shows to be the meaning of anoint? To smear the forehead or pour on the top of the head like found in Psalm 133:

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head, coming down upon the beard, Aaron's beard, coming down upon the edge of his robes. It is like the dew of Hermon, coming down upon the mountains of Zion. For there the LORD commanded the blessing—life forever.

To do justice, let’s examine the three Greek words translated into the word “anointing” or “anoint” in our English Bibles. Then we will evaluate the Hebrew words in the same manner.

Three New Testament "Word Sets"

We begin by examining the three Greek words for anoint and anointing in the New Testament. In verb form, the Greek words are aleipho, murizo and chrio. Each verb and its corresponding noun is a “word set.”

Our reason to begin in the New Testament is simple. We want to work backwards in time from the most recent usages in the Bible—the Greek language where most of our ideas derive—to the earliest usages in the Hebrew tongue. This way we work towards the original words, cherishing revealed truth while casting off spurious ideas along the way. It's like peeling an onion. You remove one layer at a time to get to the kernel. So we begin by peeling off the Greek layers to get to the heart of the matter in the oldest language of the Bible, Hebrew.

Here are the three Greek "word sets" of verbs for "anoint" and corresponding nouns:

• aleipho ("to anoint") aleimma (anointing)
• murizo ("to anoint") muron (ointment)
• chrism ("to anoint") chrisma (anointing), christos (anointed one)

Don't let these unfamiliar words throw you. We will carefully explain each one as we go along.

The first two Greek “word sets” we shall examine are: (1) aleipho (ah-lay-pho) and aleimma (ah-lame-ma) and (2) murizo (moo-reet-zo) and muron (moo-rohn). Later we shall examine the remaining “word set”—chrio and chrisma—the most important words in the New Testament describing our Lord Yeshua (Jesus).

Heard About the Blind Javelin Thrower?

You may recall the story of the blind javelin thrower. He wasn't very accurate, but he always caught the attention of the crowd. It's the same with this word aleipho. It isn't accurate at all, but in Bible times it was the popular, utilitarian word for anything oil does to someone or something.

Used only eight times in the New Testament, this all-inclusive word denotes any kind of anointing oil or fatty substance smeared or poured over a person or object for any purpose. Greek scholars refuse to give it a more significant meaning than simply to smear, to rub or to pour.

The source for aleipho may be soft animal fat, including from pigs like lard, vegetable oil, perfume or any other liquid. It may be derived from the sap of succulent plants like aloe, known for its healing properties. Or olives. Or balsam. Or whatever animal or plant produces oil or fat.

If you apply sunscreen to your body at the beach you would use the word aleipho to describe the action. If you use penetrating oil to loosen a corroded bolt with a wrench, you would use this same word. Because aleipho is so inexact it may mean virtually anything you do with an oil base, fatty tissue or other liquid. It may mean to texturize your skin to protect it from chapping in blustery, winter weather. Or to apply cream for use as a tanning lotion or skin softener. Or to lubricate a leather glove to keep it from drying and cracking. Or to paint a house with an oil-based paint. Or to pour liniment on the wound of a person or farm animal. Or to rub bug repellent on one's skin. The word is unspecific.

How the Greek New Testament Shows Yeshua (Jesus) Using this Word

Look how the Greek text attributes toYeshua (Jesus) the use of the word aleipho in Matthew 6:17-18:

But when you fast put oil (from aleipho) on your head and wash your face so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting.

In some English Bible versions, the phrase put oil is translated as “anoint.” Yeshua (Jesus) is talking about putting oil on the skin of one's face as a cosmetic lotion. Its purpose is to cleanse and smooth the skin to give it a cheery luster or brightness when one is fasting so the person does not appear to be doing so.

Yeshua (Jesus) taught that when you pray, get into your prayer closet and pray where you are not seen. He says his Father will reward you openly for what is done in secret. It's the same here. When you fast and appear in public, do not appear as one fasting. Do it in secret. Use cosmetic lotion to improve your look. Our Lord gives no hint at any spiritual value except to mask the knowledge that one is fasting.

An ancient tradition of the Jews was to forbid those who fast from washing any part or the whole of their bodies:

But if it be defiled with dirt or dung, let him wash according to the custom, and let him not be troubled. It is also forbidden to anoint a part of the body, as well as the whole body: but if a man be sick, or if a scab arise on his head, let him anoint himself according to the custom” (John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Press, 1997, p. 155; reprint of original published by Oxford Press, 1859).

Lightfoot cites the tractate Yoma (fol. 77.2) of the Babylonian Talmud as his source. So when a person was fasting, both washing and anointing was forbidden with these notable exceptions. Yeshua (Jesus) taught differently from these Rabbinic teachers that no one should appear to be fasting. Use oil to shine and cheer the face, Yeshua (Jesus) taught.

Translators of our English Bibles should avoid using the English word “anoint” here and simply say it like it is: rub oil, or smear ointment on your face to hide any duress you may have as a result of your fasting. Keep your fasting secret behind the glow of your face.

An impartation of God’s presence or power in this kind of anointing is not intended. Any Bible teaching or doctrine should not be made of it.

Thankfully, the verb aleipho and its corresponding noun aleimma are not the Greek words singled out in the New Testament to describe Yeshua (Jesus) as “the Anointed One” of God. It would be very confusing and imprecise as to what was meant. We do well not to build spiritual concepts based on facial lotions, bug repellents, tanning creams and glove oils.

Let's take a closer look at how this word aleipho is used elsewhere in the New Testament. It has other purposes as well.

You May Skip Your Bath

Five of the eight times the word aleipho appears in the New Testament it is used in a ceremonial context to honor a guest. Droplets of a perfumed solution, often with an oil base, are smeared upon the guest’s forehead upon his or her arrival (Luke 7:38, 46; John 11:2; 12:3).

Such perfumed honor of the living was also conveyed to the newly dead (cf. Mark 16:1). Corpses of loved ones were anointed, that is, rubbed with fragrant lotions and spices. Perfumes for honoring the living and dead were made from myrrh, balsam and other spices highly prized.

Again, we should not draw any spiritual significance in this usage outside of the plain meaning (the pashat) of the burial custom. This type of anointing whereby oil is smeared or rubbed on another was not of divine origin. Its sole intent was to honor another who had died. Let us not infer spiritual meaning where it does not exist.

Why does this kind of anointing give honor?

Water was disease infested. Body odor, a present problem plaguing nearly all in ancient times, was best removed with water. But it was hazardous to one’s health to take frequent baths. The poor bathed more often than the wealthy. The wealthier abstained from baths as long as possible by using expensive perfumed ointments. This practice continued until the 20th century, especially with royalty.

Among Jewish people, baths were more frequent because of their regard for the body being made in God’s image. From ancient times, Jews honored the approaching Sabbath by bathing on Fridays. While Gentiles may go longer than seven days up to a year between baths, Jews did not. Only seven days passed between baths. Perfumed oil was necessary to stave off body odor during the week. To be honored with an anointing of perfumed and spicy oil was a sign of high esteem. Loosely, it meant the one anointing you was declaring, “You now smell so good you may skip your bath. We don't want you getting sick on our water.”

Such sweet-smelling anointings have no spiritual significance apart from attributing dignity and honor to another. We should not build a doctrine about the word aleipho which gives you the excuse to skip your bath.

Anointed for Burial

Half a century ago, an America missionary, accustomed to wearing men's cologne each day, was befriended by a West African pastor. The pastor was puzzled by this peculiar practice of the missionary. His curiosity got the best of him. So he tried to figure out how to ask his new American friend why he splashed his cheeks with fragrant lotion. It was a delicate moment, but the pastor finally put the question this way, “Why, my brother, do you like to smell like death every day?”

Such aromas in his culture were reserved for honoring the dead.

Likewise, in Bible times to anoint the dead was to give honor as a last, loving gesture. Expensive perfumes were amply applied to the whole body to quell the stench of decomposition. These aromatic lotions were so potent that their very release filled the room with sweet-smelling aroma, masking the dread smell of death's victim. Thus, Mary the mother of Yeshua (Jesus), Mary Magdalene and Salome “bought spices so that they may go to anoint (aleipho) Yeshua’s (Jesus’) body” after he died (Mk. 16:1).

Anticipating a Funeral

In a most extraordinary way, Yeshua (Jesus) was anointed for burial before his impending death on the cross. This was a prophetic act. A woman, sensing his last days were full, broke custom by anointing his head while He was yet alive. When she finished, the room smelled of a funeral.

To the woman's insensitive critics, it was an apparent waste. But Yeshua (Jesus) pierced through the veneer of their values. “She has done a beautiful thing to me,” He rejoined. “When she poured this perfume on my body she did it to prepare me for burial” (cf. Mat. 26:6-13). Poured in this verse is from the verb aleipho.

In Mark's Gospel (14:8) the same story is told, but with slight alteration. Mark introduces the word murizo instead of using aleipho to describe the application of the prized fragrance. It is the only time this word is used in the New Testament. If it has a more narrow meaning it would be to rub perfumed ointment on someone.

In a similar way, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, “took a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume” and anointed Yeshua’s (Jesus’) feet, “filling the house with the fragrance of the perfume.” Yeshua (Jesus) said to those who denounced her lavishness, “Leave her alone. It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial” (John 12:7).

Both of these costly anointings--one upon his head and the other upon his feet--were acts to honor and give dignity to the Lord in the face of his impending, shameful death on a Roman cross.

Neither anointing was an anointing of faith anticipating his resurrection. Instead, they were final acts of love to bring closure to his life on earth and to hide the stench of anticipated rotting flesh to come. Anointings for burial are hardly faith-provoking. These anointings do not expect a resurrection in three days. We shouldn't build a doctrine here either.

Anointing the Sick With Oil

Interestingly, the verb aliepho is the word used in the New Testament to describe the anointing of the sick. While this all-purpose word sometimes means to honor and other times to rub cosmetic oil to the face, it has a variety of other usages. Basically, its meaning is determined by its context of usage.

Why would this same word used for applying cosmetics, house paint, insect repellent, perfume, massages and fragrance for the dead be the word used for anointing the sick? Because aleipho is an all-purpose, imprecise word. It referred to the application of oil-based products in general to whatever or whomever. It would be the wrong word to describe the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon Yeshua (Jesus) because of how it could be misconstrued easily. Gladly, it is not the word for Yeshua’s (Jesus’) anointing.

Plant oils were the most common medicines in ancient times. All kinds of emollients were thought to have medicinal value and were commonly used to treat diseases by rubbing or ingesting.

Within the ancient church, olive oil and other unguents like aloe were commonly accepted as agents of healing. Oil was smeared on the head as a sign to the sick and observers that a healing was expected by faith. The oil was not, in these instances, a dressing for a wound or something swallowed as medicine. It was to be smeared or rubbed on the forehead as a sign of faith that healing would occur by faith in answer to prayer.

When someone was anointed to be healed, a common oil was used, not the unique oil reserved for anointing priests (cf. Exodus 30:32-33). What is said by this action is this: “We have used oil for our health in the past. But now we use it as a sign of the power of our heavenly Father’s desire to restore health through faith in his Son, Yeshua (Jesus) our Lord.”

Healings, of course, come in the Name of Yeshua (Jesus) through prayer and faith, not anointing oil. Oil, because of its direct association with good health, served as a converging point for faithful people to believe the sick person will be healed. It was a sign that healing in the Name of Yeshua (Jesus) will occur.

Snake Oil Cures and Magic Powers

Witchcraft was commonly associated with anointing oil. The general word for “anoint” identified with witchcraft and the occult was aleipho. Magic potions for special powers and healing of diseases were ordinary in pagan societies.

Common in Bible times was the use of aloe for sunburns, olive oil for digestive ailments, liniments for wounds and bug repellent, and other oils for treating all sorts of diseases. Among pagan Gentiles, these oils were tied to superstitions, magical formulae and the work of witchdoctors who plied their trade on the basis of the latest concoction of oils.

You may conger up in your mind the snake oil salesmen of the wild, wild West of the 19th century. Purporting claims of cures from gout, rheumatism, melancholy and “whatever ails you,” they hyped their slick oils in quick, fly-by-night sales to gullible people. Of such chicanery and superstitions were their anointing potions.

Among pagan nations, anointing oils were linked to folklore, demons, superstitions and magic. Idols, for example, were anointed by their makers and priests to induct them into godhood. Likewise, pagan priests anointed people, usually for a fee, to ward off evil spirits, gain fertility, accrue prosperity, overcome illness and be enlightened in the mysteries of occultism.

The idea of magic powers being released through anointings was prominent among soldiers as well. Military weapons were rubbed with oil to give them supposed magical powers and superiority in battle. Pagan armies fought their wars and, upon winning, claimed the superiority of their gods and their related anointings.

“We Had To Stop Using Oil in Zambia”

Arnold Gause, former director of Bellwether International, a mission to unreached people groups, once served as a missionary in Zambia, Africa. He told me:

When I lived in Zambia we could not anoint people with oil. Anointing oil was associated with witchcraft and was used by witch doctors in their healing rituals. A woman, for example, took the anointing oil from the church and drank it, supposing it had magical powers to make her powerful. Some believers in Yeshua (Jesus) thought it was okay to practice witchcraft. They explained that the church practiced witchcraft too, because of the oil. So we had to stop using anointing oil to anoint the sick to distinguish the church from the prevailing paganism.

This is a fit description of the way the Gentiles used the word aleipho. Again, this mundane word often associated with superstition and the occult is repulsive for describing our Lord Yeshua (Jesus) or ourselves as spiritually anointed.

Besmeared With False Doctrine!

One more use of this word is worth citing. Let's look one generation past the time of Yeshua (Jesus) into the second century. One of the immediate successors of the twelve apostles was an overseer of churches in Syria. His name was Ignatius. In his letter to the Ephesians he warned them not “to let oneself be besmeared with filth” by accepting doctrines contrary to the apostle's teaching (1 Ephesians. 17:1).

You guessed it. Besmear is the same word as aleipho. Here it is used by the early second century church to disapprove of those who were smeared or rubbed by the oil of false teachings. You can see the disfavor the church had for this word by its identification not only with paganism but false teaching. Heretics and pagans had a worldly, inferior, even demonic, counterfeit anointing that besmeared them with the filth of the world. It was represented by the Greek “word set” aleipho and aleimma.

You will not find anywhere in the Bible where your anointing by the Holy Spirit is likened unto these worldly type of anointings. Let us be very careful not to compare our anointing with the usages of these words. Our anointing is eternally different.

Our Anointing Isn't Temporary

How do we apply what we’ve learned? First, don't put value on that which doesn't have validity in the face of eternity. Second, don't carve out theology from inferior stuff. The kinds of anointings listed above, obviously, if they have any merit as to honor someone or to rub cosmetic oil on the face or to lubricate leather, it is only temporal. They evaporate, loose their sheen and require repetitive applications. Thus, they are common types of anointings, variable and repeatable, but not enduring as is the anointing of the Messiah.

Of course, we will have nothing to do with that which is occultic. Nor will we associate Yeshua’s (Jesus’) anointing to any such pagan notion. His anointing is holy and perfect, totally apart from the Greek world view. It is Jewish in concept and application, rooted in Hebrew understanding and purpose.

Some folks in the church teach a recurring or repetitive anointing of the Spirit. It isn't so. This view gets its theological basis out of the temporal Greek word aleipho, a contrary word to the truth of the genuine anointing that comes through Yeshua (Jesus) to us. When we are anointed by the Spirit of Yeshua (Jesus), the anointing remains (cf. 1 John 2:27). It is eternally lasting, not ebbing like the tide, and not transitional or temporary in value. We need to rid ourselves of these notions strangely borrowed from wrong words to describe the Spirit's true anointing upon us who believe.

If we express the nature of our anointing by the Holy Spirit on the basis of these mundane words in the Greek world, we weaken our understanding of the dynamics of God's anointing. Paganism sheds no light on the true anointing. Our true anointing comes from the Hebraic world view.

We must guard ourselves, in this light, when we talk of the true anointing. We should be caution to employ non-biblical adjectives that tend to show variability and temporality like fresh, new, heavy, strong, more powerful, special, or unusual. We shall see later that the Old Testament teaches permanence and endurance of the anointing, not variability and temporality.

The paganized, Greek world view would have us measure or guage our anointing in the Spirit along uncertain, vacillating lines. This is an unbiblical, non-Hebraic corruption.

Behold the Human Factor

Our errant views that the anointing comes and goes, ebbs and flows, rises and falls is borne out of non-Jewish, extra-biblical teachings. The first century church’s leaders would be chagrined to know that we have adapted the Greek “word sets” of (1) aleipho (ah-lay-pho) and aleimma (ah-lame-ma) and (2) murizo (moo-reet-zo) and muron (moo-rohn) to explain the nature of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) anointing. This ought not be. The ancient church worked hard to expunge all such notions when they spoke or wrote about the anointing. So should we.

We should beware borrowing from pagan philosophy the notions of temporality and variableness about the anointing. We should also avoid speaking of the Spirit's anointing as if its nature was comparable to an elixir, leather polish or medicinal oil. Though such teachings may befit a mood, play well on ears or speak out of a gut theology, the truth is that the anointing we receive from the Lord is uncommon and superior to any and every other anointing.

We are anointed by the Holy Spirit who comes upon us and in us when we repent of our sins and receive Yeshua (Jesus) as our Lord by faith. Our anointing is holy, unique, unrepeatable and lasting, utterly independent of the vicissitudes of life.

Hardly are aleipho or murizo words to describe the anointing of Yeshua (Jesus) or your own anointing by the Holy Spirit. Let us agree to avoid characterizing the true anointing of the Spirit with the traits of these inferior attributes.

We have better and accurate words in the Greek language—chrio and chrisma—from which springs Yeshua’s (Jesus’) title, the Christ, among the Greeks. His anointing is the linchpin of revelation knowledge. It brings the power of his heavenly kingdom to us. You shall see as we explain this unique “word set” to describe the true anointing in Part 2.