Samuel, the Prophet

To do justice to this topic, I would have to know a great deal more about the Old Testament, early Christianity and sacramental theology than I presently know. The following should be considered in that light, as ideas from someone who is not expert in any of those areas.

Samuel is the prophet who anointed the first kings of Israel. His action is the background for all subsequent development of the idea of anointing and of the Anointed. Since he lived before any of the Old Testament was written, he probably affected the idea as developed there. The 'earlier' stories, found in Genesis and the other books of the Torah, may be based on traditions that were handed down, but they were written down only after the time of Samuel and David. These form the basis for introducing the idea of a King into Israel. The stories of Jacob and Aaron give priority to the anointing of priests and temple, and to the role of judges and prophets as descendants of Moses,. over the anointing of the King, This plays a critical role in establishing the structures of power in ancient Israel.

The Anointed is the bridegroom of Israel.

In the stories of Samuel anointing there is an interesting contrast. When Samuel goes to anoint Saul it is a woman at a well who points out Saul. Saul is described in terms of sexual charisma. These features echo the stories of Rebecca and Rachel. Isaac find his wife when his servant encounters the servant of Rebecca at a well, Jacob meets Rachel for the first time at the same well. As Israel met his bride, so did the King of Israel meet the people of Israel in their prophet Samuel. The imagery suggests that Saul is married to Israel.

This imagery is difficult. Israel is Yahweh's bride, not the King's. In the anointing of David, the imagery shifts from the bridal to the pastoral. The tall handsome sons of Jesse are rejected in favor of the undersized David. "People judge by appearances, but God looks at the heart." is the word God speaks to Samuel. David is found tending the sheep. He cares for Israel as a shepherd, not as a spouse. This is in line with the priority of prophet and priest over the King and probably distinguishes Israel from her neighbors.

The tensions of this are worked out throughout the Old Testament. Israel belongs to God. Kings claim it as their own, but always Israel is God's. David, serving Israel, brings the tabernacle to Jerusalem, but cannot build the temple because God must build the house. When Solomon does build the Temple, it is clear that he is , like his father, caring for the people of Israel and encouraging their relationship with God.

There are tensions as the Kings of Israel claim for themselves the privileges of the kings of the surrounding nations. The scriptures stand against such attitudes, though it is easy to imagine that the political reality did not always reflect the point of view of the authors of scripture.

The anointing of Jesus was not sacramental

This is the background for the New Testament understanding of anointing. Israel expected a new Messiah. These expectations expressed their understanding of the role of David and his descendants. They reflected dissatisfaction with the descendants of David who held the throne, sometimes even with the priests who worshiped in the Temple. One of the less honored descendants of David would restore the glory of the temple.

When Jesus came, he reinterpreted the meaning of Anointing. By connecting the anointing of Kings with funeral anointings, he generalized the blessing bestowed. "Instead of the Few, many will be anointed" is a refrain found in Chrysostom and in Ephrem the Syrian. This reinterpretation laid a foundation for respecting the least as the holiest. The Beatitudes, beautiful expressions of this basic idea, came to capsulize the teaching of Jesus. And the name Christ came to represent the man who accepted death so that he might be highly exalted.

Mark wrote a gospel to explain the application of this title to Jesus. During the time of his teaching, Jesus constantly corrects the impression that he is a Messiah in the expected sense, constantly pointing to death and suffering as the meaning of the Anointed. When the gospel reaches its climax, after the crowds have acknowledged him, a woman comes and anoints Jesus. Jesus speaks of it as being for burial. At this point the gospel turns to the Passion Narrative, a description of Jesus suffering and dying that reveals him as the savior.

The story of the woman who anointed Jesus was among the best known of the stories of Jesus; all four gospels tell it in some form, while John makes it clear that his readers know this story better than the confession of Martha or the resurrection of Lazarus. This may be because every Christian was anointed, and this story was told as a way of associating the anointing of the Christian with that of Christ. Early references to Baptism regularly used the terminology 'baptized into Christ.' This evokes a ritual that includes both water and unction, immersed in the anointed. (We have difficulty seeing this since we are so used to using Christ as a proper name.) St Cyprian called baptism a'kind of double sacrament' because of this dual nature.

This tradition continued in the East, where chrismation still follows baptism. In the West it was more complicated. As theology moved out of the hands of pastors and into the schools, the consideration of the sacraments changed. Focusing on symbols, rather than ritual experience, scholastics discerned two symbols, water and unction. Baptism came to mean immersion in water, while confirmation was applied to the anointing with oil. This shift in the meaning of the word baptism, coupled with the understanding of Christ as a proper name, affected the understanding of scriptural passages about baptism.

This distortion was supported by the denial of ordination to women. Where Paul clearly links 'baptism in Christ' with burial, the natural instinct is to turn to the 'anointing for burial.' The ritual of anointing became dissociated from the story of the anointing.(This may have been less so among the pastors and liturgists. The Holy Thursday liturgy included references to anointing that parallel the story's placement in Mark.)

Sacramental anointing is not scriptural.

This dissociation set the stage for the Reformation. Anointing was largely dismissed as unscriptural. Confirmation dropped the sign of anointing altogether in most churches, if the sacrament survived at all. It became more of a rite of passage looking back to baptism rather than a completion of the baptismal ritual, even in the Catholic Church. Disagreements about the other sacraments of unction reinforced the differences. Confirmation was associated with bishops, so for those whose theology argued against bishops, anointing was dismissed easily.

Anointing was not significant to some early disciples.

In our own century we can see the difficulties persisting. Some scripture scholars have suggested that Q, the non-Markan source for Matthew and Luke, was written by a group that did not associate the title Christ with Jesus. That title is not used on the Q, and the material often reflects a different idea of Jesus. If Mark is an explanation of the title, hat would go a long way toward explaining why the evangelists left that title in the Markan passages. More importantly, when we look at the story of the anointing we see themes that figure prominently in Q. "Blessed are those who weep, for they shall laugh." The beatitudes in their many forms sound like a litany for an anointing that signifies both kingship and death.

These several developments can be expressed in a series of statements:

The Anointed is the bridegroom of Israel.
Women cannot be anointed as priests.
The anointing of Jesus was not sacramental.
Sacramental anointing is not scriptural.
Anointing was not significant to some early disciples.

I see a sequence that is both logical and chronological. In light of my remarks here, I have doubts about of these statements. In particular, it is difficult for me to see why women should be excluded from the priestly role of sanctfication. It was a woman who anointed Jesus, who portrayed his body as the Body of the Anointed. Can we deny women the right to do this to the Body of Christ today? Can we respect anyone's anointing if we do not respect the anointing Jesus received?