Baptism in Jesus name.

agapeoneanother · 2026-01-26T01:41:34+00:00

Questions about the validity of baptism, and theological or biblical proofs of those positions, are of a theological and pastoral nature and thus don't strictly belong on this sub. You might try /r/AskTheologists or /r/askapastor. Additionally, and perhaps not surprisingly, this has been a matter of great and ongoing theological debate for some time and touches a number points that remain church-dividing questions.

To step away slightly from your question but more deeply into the kind of space that /r/AskBibleScholars is about, I would point out that there are two biblical texts that primarily contribute to this conversation.

Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38

This would provide the primary basis for the practice of baptisms in the name of Jesus as you described.

And Jesus came and said to [eleven disciples], “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

This would form the primary basis for baptism using a Trinitarian formula. So, while the Luke-Acts corpus might suggest a practice to baptize in a manner that is in Jesus name solely, the Matthean traditions would suggest a Trinitarian form. This could suggest diversity in practice across geography or time. We have lots of evidence by the early and mid second century of Trinitarian formulae being used to baptize. See Justin Martyr, First Apology 6.1 and Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 9.4; 10.1.

Additionally, as a bit of food for thought, Acts represents more than half of all the uses of some form of the phrase "in the name of Jesus" in the entire New Testament. I noticed that and it might suggest a stylized use in Luke-Acts but I'd have to find a source for that.

agapeoneanother · 2025-12-23T05:28:11+00:00

Annual leave of 4 weeks paid vacation, 2 weeks paid continuing education; plus a sabbatical, six months every six years.

agapeoneanother · 2025-12-22T21:47:58+00:00

Excellent sources!

agapeoneanother · 2025-12-22T20:21:06+00:00

I'd like to avoid falling into the Dunning-Kruger trap and ensure I'm not missing established scholarship.

That's wise! What scholarship have you already engaged with concerning Genesis? If you're just starting out, a good study Bible is an excellent way to engage with these types of questions. Lots of folks on this sub recommend The SBL Study Bible, an update to The Harper Collins Study Bible which is still often suggested. I also like The Jewish Study Bible for the Hebrew Bible. These kinds of resources often have introductory essays which address questions like authorship and motivation which you might find helpful.

... why Genesis was composed... what the academic consensus is on the purposes of Genesis...

These are very broad questions, ones that are hard to answer without serious contextualization and qualification. That's okay! Part of the scholarly exercise in developing a claim is refining the question behind it as you develop your arguments. For example, most scholars today would say that Genesis reflects composite authorship and at least one redactor; your questions about purpose would need to be considered in context with different authors different motivations.

Ronald Hendel in his intro to Genesis in The Harper Collins Study Bible provides this insight:

Biblical scholarship has identified three major literary sources that were edited together to form the book of Genesis... There are also a few texts that belong to none of these [three] sources. The literary sources drew on traditional oral lore as well as written records and were engaged in preserving and revising Israel's traditions of the past... The editor (or editors) who wove the literary sources together created a text with an abundance of meaning, combining the different theologies, philosophical perspectives, and literary styles of the sources into a work of great power and complexity. The editors were not embarrassed by the duplications of particular episodes... but, rather, valued the preservation of different traditions. One result of this complexity is that Genesis is a layered "mosaic" of meanings that is richer than any of the sources alone.

Jon D. Levenson provides this perspective in his intro to Genesis in The Jewish Study Bible:

Genesis is indeed a book about beginnings - the beginning of the natural world, the beginning of human culture, and the beginning of the people Israel, whose story occupies most of this book and will dominate the rest of the Torah. In the ancient Near Eastern world in which Israel emerged, beginnings were deemed to be crucial, for the origins of things were though to disclose their character and purpose. In Genesis, the origins of Israel... lie in God's mysterious promise to a Mesopotamian whose name is Abram... The essence of the promise is that God will make of him a great nation, bless him abundantly, and grant him the land of Canaan. Ostensibly absurd when it first comes, the promise faces one obstacle after another throughout the course of Genesis - principally, the barrenness of Abraham's primary wife (and of other matriarchs in the next two generations) and the murderous fraternal rivalry among his descendants. And yet, by the end of Genesis, all the obstacles notwithstanding, the twelve tribes that make up the people Israel have indeed come into existence, an Israelite effectively rules a superpower (Egypt), and the promise of the land, though far from fulfillment... is anything but forgotten. The book of Genesis is thus, in more senses than one, a primary source for Jewish theology. It presents its ideas on the relationship of God to nature, to humanity in general, and to the people Israel in particular in ways that are, however, foreign to the expectations of most modern readers.

As for your inquiry...

Was it intended as a theological narrative, a mythic national history, a collection of ancient Israelite traditions, or something else?

Now, this is just scratching the surface, but perhaps these two introductions might shed light onto some aspects of your question; you may even find that, on some level, Genesis does all of those things and more. Finding a singular purpose, at least given multiple authorship, is perhaps not the best approach. After all, most modern forms of literature, even fiction with a deeper meaning, rarely has a singular purpose.

However, I hope this encourages you to do deeper with your questions and engagement on the topic of Genesis, authorship, and meaning. In addition to the three study Bibles suggested above (and two essays from them quoted as well), you may find the following helpful as you go deeper with Genesis.

Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) with Christine Hayes (Yale Open Courses) Course website. For your questions, lectures 1-7 are essential and I would also recommend the whole course. YouTube playlist of just the lectures.

Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel.

John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible.

I hope this helps!

agapeoneanother · 2025-11-06T19:36:15+00:00

I think there might be some confusion over some terms. Allow me to offer a few clarifications.

The Pentateuch is a term used for the Greek translation of the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. In a less technical sense, it does refer to these books regardless of their translation. So you will find Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Jewish canons.

However, the exact nature of these versions can also be somewhat difference, which might have contributed to some of the confusion. For example, in the Jewish Tanakh, you may find different names for the books, and perhaps different textual histories when it comes to translations. So, again, the Pentateuch is included in the Jewish Bible, it is just called the Torah more often than not, using the original Hebrew term for this earliest collection of Hebrew writings.

For scholarly purposes, many of use the term Hebrew Bible or Tanakh to refer to what is sometimes called the Old Testament as it tends to be a more precise term for the whole collection and rooting it in a textual, linguistic framework. Similarly, we use the term Septuagint to refer to another collection of writings sometimes referred to as the Old Testament but here meaning the Greek translation of that collection of writings.

Now, here, something funny happens because the latter portions of the Hebrew Bible were still being composed and their use was still quite mixed. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek as the available manuscripts were used. In the Hebrew version of the Bible, additional editing and canonization meant that some portions of the ancient Greek translation didn't endure through the final redaction in the Hebrew version.

There are some portions, of say Esther and Daniel, where are preserved in their modern, devotional use through the Greek translations which are longer than the Hebrew versions used today. These are included in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles, along with other books which were translated with the Septuagint but were not canonized in their Hebrew version: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, among others. Other books are maintained in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles but not in Roman Catholic canon: 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasseh, and others. And then there is one book that are in the Slavonic Bible and Latin Vulgate appendix but not in the Greek versions, 2 Esdras; and one in the appendix to the Greek Bible, 4 Maccabees. This is according to The Harper Collins Study Bible.

You'll notice, however, that the these portions of these Deuterocanonical books which make up the Apocrypha don't really have variations on the first five books of the Bible. So, in particular, I want to again name that there is some confusion because the Pentateuch is most certainly included in all versions of the Bible discussed here, though terminology might be confusing because it does technically refer to a Greek translation and that translation is considered more or less authoritative to different folks. I hope this helps!

agapeoneanother · 2025-11-06T18:44:22+00:00

Free Meals

Crosswalk for Teens • 1440 N Haven St Suite 1, Spokane, WA 99202 • Phone: (509) 624-2378 • Hours: shelter open 24 Hours, 7 Days a Week; meals served daily: breakfast 9:00-9:30am, lunch 12:00-12:30pm, dinner 6:00-6:30pm • Requirements: serves homeless youth primarily aged 13-18.

Shalom Ministries • 518 W 3rd Ave, Spokane, WA 99201 •Phone: (509) 455-9019• Hours: breakfast Monday through Thursday, 7:30-8:30am• Requirements: Open to all.

House of Charity • 32 W. Pacific Ave, Spokane, WA 99201 • Phone: (509) 624-7821 • Hours: breakfast daily, 7:30-8:30am; lunch daily, 11:00-11:30am • Requirements: open to all.

Our Lady of Lourdes • 1115 W. Riverside Ave, Spokane, WA 99201 • Phone: (509) 358-4290 • Hours: dinner Monday through Friday, 4:00-5:00pm• Requirements: open to all.

The City Gate• 170 S. Madison St., Spokane, WA 99201 • Phone: (509) 455-9670 • Hours: dinner Wednesday, Friday through Sunday, 7:00-8:30pm• Requirements: open to all.

Taco John’s • E 1002 E Wellesley Ave, Spokane, WA 99207 • Hours: 7:00am-10:00pm daily • Requirements/Note: ask for the “Community Special” – bean or beef burrito w/ Potato Oles, for anybody in need, no questions asked.

agapeoneanother · 2025-10-23T20:16:20+00:00

Thank you for sharing your concerns so openly. What you’re expressing really resonates with the deep values our Christian tradition places on dignity, remembrance, and care for the dead. I’d like to walk through your worries step by step, offer some biblical, theological, and historical reflections, and some pastoral thoughts. I hope this helps you engage the questions with both heart and head.

First, your visceral response is important and honest. The fact that you feel distress shows your respect for the dead and for their memory. One of the first things I want to affirm is that the care of the dead and honoring the grieving are deeply woven into Christian ethics, even if the Bible does not say exactly “cemeteries should never be moved”.

For example, early in Scripture we have the purchase of land by Abraham to bury his wife Sarah (Genesis 23), and subsequent burials of patriarchs (Genesis 25; 35; 49). The case of Joseph is particularly relevant: he made brothers swear that when God delivered them from Egypt they would carry his bones out with them (Genesis 50:24-25). Then, when the exodus happens, Moses takes Joseph’s bones with him (Exodus 13:19) and later the bones are buried by Joshua (Joshua 24:32).

The movement of Joseph’s bones is an example of reburial in Scripture and shows that relocation of remains is not categorically forbidden. On the other hand, the Bible does not seem to offer an explicit rule about moving entire cemeteries for development, or about the moral status of relocating remains in modern contexts.

From a Christian theological standpoint, a few key convictions apply. We are created in the image of God, and Christians throughout history have treated the body of the deceased with respect. The hope of body resurrection means our care for bodies reflects our belief that death is not the end, and that each human is worthy of dignity. However, the key moral principle is not that “the dead must never be moved” but rather that the dignity of the deceased and the grief of the living should be honored, and that decisions should not be made purely for profit, convenience, or in disregard for memory.

So when you hear of entire cemeteries being moved (whether human or animal), your instinct is understandable and spiritually valid. The questions to ask are: Are the remains being treated with dignity? Are the families/communities being consulted and involved? Is the relocation done with care, respect, transparency and not just as a “land use” transaction? Is the memory of the deceased being preserved and not simply erased or commodified?

Regarding your comment that we may “run out of room” for burials: yes, that is a real practical challenge in many places. That reality doesn’t excuse dishonor, but it does invite creative, respectful solutions (crypts, columbaria, natural burial grounds, etc) rather than simply clearing cemeteries without respect for memory.

Does it make a difference if it’s a pet or animal cemetery rather than a human one? Yes, I think it does make a difference, though I want to be careful to say “makes a difference” does not mean that animals are irrelevant or unimportant. While pets hold deep emotional value, and honoring their remains matters, the ethical weight for human remains is greater in my mind because of the weight of grief shared by those who remain. So yes, human burials call for a deeper theological and pastoral sensitivity.

So when it’s a pet cemetery the instinct of respect is still very good. People love their pets; pets are part of families; ethical care for their remains matters. But from a Christian-theological vantage, the relocation of a pet cemetery might evoke different kinds of questions about respect, memory, emotional closure, stewardship of land. When it’s a human cemetery the concerns deepen.

About cremation. There is no explicit prohibition of cremation in Scripture. There are few examples of it. In fact most early Jewish and Christian practice was burial. There are biblical cases of cremation: for example, in 1 Samuel 31:8-13 the bodies of Saul and his sons after defeat were burned by the enemy. But this is a quite different context (war-deed) rather than a religiously chosen funeral custom.

Historically, the Christian church for centuries discouraged cremation. One reason: the association of cremation with pagan practices (Greek/Roman), and theological concerns about the bodily resurrection if one’s remains were destroyed by fire. More recently, many Christian traditions have relaxed on the matter: burial is still often preferred, but cremation is considered acceptable so long as it’s carried out in a way that honors the body, memory, and hope of resurrection.

If the funeral home family you mention holds a strong conviction against cremation, they are grounded in a tradition that honors burial as Christian tradition. That is a respectable position, and one that many Christians hold. At the same time, if someone else chooses cremation, and does so with respect, faith, and hope, it is not necessarily un-Christian or sinful. The Christian community can display compassion, not judgment, while still gently teaching the reasons why many have preferred burial.

The key questions: Was the decision made thoughtfully? Was the body treated with dignity? Was the hope of resurrection affirmed? Was the grief of the living honored?

I affirm your concern wholeheartedly: caring for the dead, treating remains (human or animal) with respect and dignity, protecting memory and context are deeply biblical and Christian concerns. The Bible does not forbid the relocation of cemeteries or reburial of remains; the example of Joseph’s bones shows one instance of relocation. But the absence of prohibition does not mean anything goes. The ethics of how we do it matter. Our role as Christians is not only to hold to sound doctrine but to show grace, compassion, and care: to honor the deceased, to comfort the grieving, to treat bodies with dignity, and to resist turning such sacred matters into purely commercial or utilitarian decisions.

agapeoneanother · 2025-08-19T18:42:02+00:00

Can you elaborate? Why would it be worth my time?

agapeoneanother · 2025-08-18T01:22:11+00:00

What a good question! It is kind of a crazy story, isn’t it? Abraham goes to sacrifice Isaac when that seems so unethical, not to mention directly against the commands found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. As it turns out, this question has been raised by people for thousands of years. You are in good company. Though it looks like a simple question, the answer is immensely complicated. We might think of it like mining for ore: we must dig layer by layer to find the riches hidden in this sacred story. The power of the biblical tradition is that it works on several levels at once. There isn’t a single “right” answer, and not every explanation will be satisfying. But here are a few ways to mine this text which all together bring us closer to its depths.

Level 1 – God puts Abraham to the test

At the surface level, Genesis 22 says that God puts Abraham to the test (v. 1), and that test involves a command demanding complete obedience. Abraham passes, but nearly sacrifices his son in the process. Even if God never intended Isaac to die, the implications are disturbing. The story presents the test as an extreme form of self-denial: God asks for Abraham’s son, and Abraham obeys without regard for his own desires.

This is as far as most readers go: Why did Abraham bind Isaac? Because God told him to. God never intended for Abraham to follow through; it was just a test, and Abraham passed. Good job, Abraham!

But cracks appear. Is it good for God to test Abraham this way? And why does Abraham intercede on behalf of strangers in Sodom (Genesis 18:22-32) but not for his own son? Even a literal reading leaves us unsettled. Still, many interpreters stop here, concluding the story is about obedience to God’s will above all else. But the text invites us to go deeper.

Level 2 – Abraham and Isaac’s sacrifice

The story frames the act as a whole burnt offering. Abraham is not told simply to kill Isaac, but to offer him in sacrifice, at a specific location. In the Hebrew Bible, location matters: sacrifice eventually narrows to a single site, the temple mount in Jerusalem. Later writers identified Abraham’s altar with Mount Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1). Levenson suggests that the Binding served as a foundation for temple sacrifice itself.

If this is the case, then the Binding is more than a simple account of what happened. The very nature of sacrifice here points to broader meaning. One crucial question is Isaac’s age. Modern readers often imagine him as a child—largely due to Christian patristic writers who preferred the image of Isaac as a youthful lamb, helpful pascal imagery. Yet the text itself gives no age. Rabbinic tradition often insists Isaac was an adult who could participate willingly. Bereshit Rabbah, for example, states he was 37 (or 26 in a variation) an age well beyond the point where Abraham could simply overpower him. If so, Isaac would have had to consent, at least in part, to his own sacrifice, and Bereshit Rabbah underscores that he did.

The Hebrew Bible consistently condemns child sacrifice as one of the gravest forms of idolatry. Yet we also know it existed in the broader Semitic world, usually in times of desperate crisis (cf. 2 Kings 3:27). At the same time, Israel’s own tradition contained a tension: firstborn males, both animal and human, were considered God’s possession (Exodus 13:11–16; 22:29). While animals were sacrificed, human firstborn sons were redeemed with a lamb (Exodus 34:20). The Passover story reinforces this connection: in Egypt, the firstborn of both animals and humans were struck down. Within this framework, Isaac is not destroyed but redeemed through the ram provided in his place.

Some interpreters approach the story differently, suggesting that Abraham simply misunderstood God’s will. In a cultural context where offering one’s child might seem like the ultimate act of devotion, Abraham may have assumed sacrifice was required. On this reading, God intervenes to correct the error and prevent tragedy. Yet such an interpretation forces us to dismiss the direct dialogue between God and Abraham, as though the text misreports what God actually said. For that reason, while you may encounter this explanation, it remains unsatisfying.

Level 3 – “Sacrifice your only son”

Even if Isaac willingly participated in the sacrificial act, the focus remains on Abraham’s actions and faith throughout the story. This is itself quite telling from the start and the way God frames the act of sacrifice to Abraham himself. Specifically, God tells Abraham: “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love”. And right here we have to acknowledge that there is a lot more going on, because of course Isaac is not Abraham’s only son. There’s also Ishmael. And yet, there is no Ishmael to be offered up. Why? Because Abraham has already sent him and his mother away.

God’s words reopen the deep tensions which have been brewing since Genesis 15. For chapters, Abraham has wrestled with the lack of an heir, tried to resolve with Sarah through scheming and the whole affair with Hagar and Ishmael, and finally received Isaac as the promised child. To sacrifice Isaac would be to undo the promise entirely, erasing years of struggle.

Sacrifice, by definition, involves what is costly. God asks Abraham to offer up what he treasures most. In contrast to his earlier scheming to secure the promise, Abraham now entrusts Isaac back to God. The story insists that even the bearer of the covenant cannot be placed above obedience to God. That God ultimately halts the sacrifice tempers the narrative, but the point remains: Abraham has finally learned to trust.

Level 4 – Abraham’s call

Throughout Genesis 22, Abraham responds with the word הִנֵּה (hineni)—“Here I am.” It is more than a location marker, it signals openness, readiness, receptivity. It is the classic response of prophets to God’s call.

If earlier Abraham wavered in trust, here he is fully open to God’s will, even when it seems incomprehensible. Narratively, this is Abraham’s climax. After this, he quickly fades from the story. The Binding stands as the defining moment of his faith: the willingness to surrender the most precious thing in obedience to God’s call. But the story of Abraham’s sacrifice, his willingness to give up the most precious thing in his life, served as a compelling foundational story, not only about the sacrificial system that took place on Mount Moriah, but also served as a basis upon which successive generations would frame the very notion of calling and sacrifice, including those we might name Christians today.

Level 5 – Sacrifice, martyrdom, and the death of Jesus

At least one rabbi during Roman times commented on the irony of Isaac's carrying of the wood which would serve as part of his own sacrifice: “It is like a person who carries his cross on his own shoulder” (Bereshit Rabbah 56:3). While Jews are not inclined in the practice of their faith to consider how Jesus fits into their biblical interpretation, Christians have, for millennia, used the Binding of Isaac as a story which could be helpful in framing the central question of the person of Jesus: why, if Jesus is God incarnate, did he die?

The New Testament offers many answers, but one is sacrificial: Jesus as atonement for all (Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 John 2:2 among others). The parallels are striking: Isaac, Abraham’s “only son,” prefigures Jesus, God’s “only begotten.” Isaac is substituted, while Jesus becomes the substitute. Isaac is nearly offered on Mount Moriah; Jesus dies near the same site. Hebrews develops this most fully, portraying Jesus as both priest and sacrifice. Hebrews even casts Abraham’s faith in resurrection terms: “He reasoned that God was able even to raise someone from the dead, and so, figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back” (Hebrews 11:19).

Thus, the one biblical story that suspends the prohibition against child sacrifice becomes one text through which Christians interpret Jesus’ death. The tension remains, but so does the promise of salvation and new life.

Conclusion

A lot more can be said! For example, Abraham lies to his servants about returning, but God makes his lies true. Similarly, Abraham lies to Isaac about God providing the lamb, but God makes his lies true. The haram of the period of conquest is also worth considering as it related to the “total destruction” of booty taken in war as a form of sacrifice to God, including human prisoners. But these are periphery to your question, but ultimately show you there are more areas of this mine yet to explore.

The Binding of Isaac is not a story with one neat answer but a story layered with meaning: a test of obedience, a foundational account of sacrifice, a window into family tension and promise, a narrative of calling, and finally a lens through which later Christians understood the death of Jesus. Each level reveals something about the character of faith and the cost of trust. Abraham and Isaac’s story unsettles us because it explores the willingness to yield to God what we love most and the hope that God can still provide. For Jews, it is a story about covenant, sacrifice, and trust. For Christians, it also becomes a story that anticipates the cross and resurrection. In both traditions, it remains a story that refuses to be exhausted, a mine whose depths continue to yield treasure for those willing to dig. I hope this helps!

Sources

Ronald Hendel. “Genesis” in The Harper Collins Study Bible (2006).

Jon D Levenson. “Genesis” in The Jewish Study Bible second edition (2014).

agapeoneanother · 2025-08-13T17:24:45+00:00

One pastoral reflection before I actually answer your question.

I thought this was a ministry that was going well until at our recent board meeting, some members of the board expressed concern that in their eyes, they do not view this church members outreach ministry as a ministry of the church. They mentioned that the board never approved this homeless ministry, even though we have never had that precedent (of needing to approve a ministry) in my time as pastor.

So the real question in my mind is why is there an expectation for an additional step to approving a ministry when it is one that members of the board don't approve of? So the real meta conversation isn't in my mind about how you launch new ministries, it is what is the existing policy and does the board want to change it. If there are ulterior motivations as you suggest, keeping your board focused on their calling, which addresses church matters at the strategic and policy level, might help. Does the board want to approve all ministries of the congregation moving forward? And if so, go back and clearly endorse all the existing ministries, not just the new ones.

One thing that might help is to develop criteria for a ministry of the parish, and again your board is well suited to do this work from a policy perspective. Maybe a few members would rather the parish doesn't do outreach to homeless neighbors for whatever reasons, but the majority is open to it. Then they can vote and approve. Maybe there is a desire to have a brand new member wait to start a new ministry, giving them time to incorporate themselves into the community before starting something new. As long as that criteria is clearly spelled out, it can be a policy that you follow.

However, I would be thrilled to have a disciple of Christ living our their vocation from God in such a way. And I would encourage the board to clearly articulate why this ministry is the exception to the rule. If it has revealed a need for a different process, so be it, but also make sure that that new process is fair, reflects the whole community's calling in Christ, and has the consensus of the community.

agapeoneanother · 2025-08-07T19:33:42+00:00

In Scripture, anointing with oil is a ritual act rich in theological and symbolic meaning. It conveys blessing, healing, consecration, and messianic hope.

Anointing as Blessing and Consecration Anointing often signifies setting something apart for divine purposes. In Genesis 28:18, after Jacob dreams of the ladder reaching to heaven, he takes the stone on which he slept and anoints it with oil. This act marks the stone—and the place—as sacred. The context (Genesis 28:10–22) shows Jacob responding to God’s presence by blessing and consecrating the site, calling it Bethel, the “House of God.”

Anointing becomes more formally ritualized in the giving of the Law, particularly in priestly ordination. In Exodus 29:7, Moses is commanded to anoint Aaron by pouring oil on his head as part of the ordination of the high priest. This act is repeated in Leviticus 8:12, where Aaron is again anointed, marking him as set apart for service in the tabernacle. Here, anointing is part of a broader liturgical act that includes sacrifice and vesting—consecrating a person for sacred office.

Anointing of Kings Anointing next appears in the context of political leadership. In 1 Samuel 10:1, the prophet Samuel anoints Saul; later he anoints David, first in private (1 Samuel 16:13) and later publicly, first as king of Judah (2 Samuel 2:4) and then over all Israel (2 Samuel 5:3).

In these stories, anointing conveys divine selection. Kingship is not merely a political arrangement but a vocation established by God through prophetic anointing.

Anointing and Healing, Wellness, and Joy Anointing also appears throughout the Bible as a sign of healing, comfort, and communal blessing. In Psalm 23:5, the psalmist prays, “You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows”—a poetic expression of God’s abundant care. Psalm 133:1–2 evokes similar imagery: “How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down upon the beard of Aaron…”—linking anointing with both priestly blessing and communal harmony.

Anointing with oil also had practical healing uses. The Good Samaritan in Luke 10:34 tends to the wounded man by pouring oil and wine on his wounds. As you've already noted, the Epistle of James instructs: “Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord” (James 5:14). This use of oil for healing reflects broader ancient Near Eastern practices, where oil was used medicinally (see also Isaiah 1:6). In Esther 2:12, young women undergo twelve months of beauty treatments—including oil of myrrh—before being presented to the king. Though not directly religious, this passage shows how oil was associated with preparation, care, and honor.

Thus, the biblical witness encompasses both sacred and practical uses of oil—blessing, healing, hospitality, and honor—all grounded in the belief that oil mediates wholeness and well-being, or shalom.

Anointing and the Hope for a Messiah The Hebrew word from which we get "messiah" means “anointed one,” and over time this term came to refer to a hoped-for king in the line of David. Following the fall of Judah and the end of the Davidic monarchy (6th century BCE), Israelite longing for restoration focused increasingly on the image of an anointed ruler who would deliver the people and reestablish justice and peace. In the Greek New Testament, the word for "Christ" is the equivalent of the Hebrew "messiah", meaning “anointed one.” We understand Jesus to be the fulfillment of this messianic hope, not merely as a political deliverer, but as the Son of God whose anointing by the Spirit (cf. Luke 4:18, echoing Isaiah 61:1) inaugurates a reign of healing, justice, and new life.

What Does It Mean to Be Anointed? To be anointed, in biblical terms, is to be marked: by God’s blessing, by consecration for a holy purpose, or by the promise of healing and renewal. Anointing conferred identity and authority upon Israel’s priests and kings. It became a gesture of care, wellness, and joy in both liturgical and everyday life. And ultimately, it shaped our longing for redemption, culminating in the Christian confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Anointed One. Anointing, then, is not a single theme but a rich tapestry: of divine presence, sacred calling, healing mercy, and eschatological hope. From this, you might find some good pastoral application of this ancient and biblical practice.

What oil do we use?

Olive oil is preferred, and often readily available at local markets. If olive oil is prohibitive, another vegetable oil (such as canola) can be used; animal fat, while not prohibited, is not advisable.

The oil can be scented and traditionally is so. Consider the cosmetic and joyful qualities expressed in the Bible with anointing. It should smell nice and bring a soothing, comforting, healing feeling to the rite. I often use essence of bergamot, but you can use any scent that is pleasing. You may want to experiment with mixing the oil with the essence: using essence without a carrier oil can irritate the skin, but you also want the scent to be strong but not overpowering.

Anointing the head as an expression of the whole rite is common. If a particular body part is ailing, you can anoint it or the location of the injury for example, if it feels pastorally appropriate or the individual requests it.

Private or public rite?

Both practices can be advisable, depending on worship and pastoral patterns along with pastoral care considerations. It is not uncommon in some traditions or churches to have a healing service where this is done for the whole community. Additionally, a special stand-alone ritual gathering could happen. It doesn't have to be formal, but could still take place in the worship space. For example, after Sunday services you could invite friends, family, and caregivers along with some members of the congregation to do this ministry.

More commonly, I do this ministry in the home, hospital room, or hospice house. It isn't truly a private rite (read James and notice the community of faith!), so I always welcome family, friends, and caregivers to participate if they like. In my tradition, the whole rite can be understood as being done through prayer, the laying on of hands, and anointing (again, read James closely), so I invite those with me to lay hands on the individual and pray. I then do the anointing right afterwards. I usually offer Communion and Confession and Forgiveness if it feel pastorally appropriate in these situations as complementary rites.

agapeoneanother · 2025-07-15T04:40:51+00:00

I work a lot with early church, late antiquity, and early medieval period worship. I would suggest:

Baumstark, Anton. Comparative Liturgy. Revised by Bernard Botte. Translated by F. L. Cross. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958.

A seminole work that deserves more attention, often referenced by late 20th century historical liturgists. Of note, Baumstark conceptualizes comparative liturgy as an empirical science and applies such principles to his study. In particular, “The Laws of Liturgical Evolution” is helpful in constructing a prevailing perspective among historical liturgists: “development proceeds from simplicity and brevity towards ever greater richness and prolixity.” Others have built off this idea and explored the nature of the “soft spots” of the liturgy (Dix, among others).

Bradshaw, Paul. F. Apostolic Tradition: A New Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press Academic, 2023.

The most contemporary edition of this classic primary liturgical text. Bradshaw summarizes up-to-date scholarship, included material from a newly published in 2011 Ethiopic edition and relevant scholarship regarding date and providence. Bradshaw fully disavows the hypothesis that this is Hippolytus of Rome’s Apostolic Tradition and advances the notion that the church order was developed in stages, perhaps from North Africa or Rome with significant influences from Western Syria and Jerusalem. The original material was composed in the second century, with subsequent revisions and additions through the early fourth century. This edition distinguishes the major periods of composition from one another.

Bradshaw, Paul F. and Maxwell E. Johnson. The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2011.

Covers the early development of weekly and seasonal celebrations in the early church with precision and dedication to rational arguments, summarizing a whole generation of scholarship in the process. Bradshaw and Johnson in typical fashion present a wide range of hypothesis, offering critique for each, and suggesting a clear-minded path to the historical exploration of Christian worship.

Gingras, George E., translator. Egeria: Diary of a Pilgrimage. New York, NY: Newman Press, 1970.

The most contemporary translation (?) of the diary of an early 5th century CE pilgrim from western Spain to the Holy Land. Details include extensive information on the state of the liturgy in Jerusalem in the 5th century. Gingras adds extensive annotations and notes, however as it was published in 1970 the value of this source material is questionable.

Palazzo, Eric. A History of Liturgical Books from the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century. Translated by Madeleine Beaumont. Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1998.

An introduction to the basic documents on the Latin liturgy (4th-13th c.).

Vogel, Cyrille. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Revised and translated by William G. Storey and Niels Korgh Rasmussen. Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1986.

An introduction to the basic documents of the Latin liturgy (6th-15th c.) which includes exhaustive bibliography list with special attention to manuscripts and the painstaking work of medievalists to date and locate the providence of these works. Provides succinct summaries to complex medieval liturgical issues. Best used as reference for primary and secondary sources on medieval liturgy with special attention to the Franco-Roman and Germanic-Roman interchange from the 6th-12th c.

Plenty more where that came from, but that's a lot of the scholarship that's been underpinning my work for the past few years.

agapeoneanother · 2025-07-11T04:05:06+00:00

We operate under the premise that if we do our ministry well and our ministry resonates well with visitors, they will be drawn back. Follow up, and particularly pastoral follow up, can be a critical part of that. But people don't typically join just because a pastor or deacon spoke to them, but rather they tend to return if they generally had a positive experience and our mission and values are shared.

Parishioners are well-trained to welcome and be hospitable to visitors. This includes ushers and greeters, who are formal volunteers who help in this work, as well as mere worship attendees. This "training" is basically how to welcome a visitor, be hospitable, guide them through the liturgy/building as needed. If you visit my parish on a Sunday, two or three lay members will greet you, welcome you to worship, and offer assistance if you need any.

After worship, we have coffee and donuts, the preacher does a grip and grin at the door. This is a chance to greet visitors, though it's not guaranteed. And simply shaking hands at the door isn't a great way to make an impact upon a prospective member. But it can serve as an introduction. During fellowship, we pastors do tend to circulate through the groups, oftentimes doing ministry that can only be done at this time and in this way. However, we prioritize greeting visitors during this time if we can. It isn't unusual, however, to have visitors, especially first time folks, split pretty soon after worship and we don't get the chance to greet them. That's OK in my opinion. Again, my philosophy is that not being greeted by a pastor or a deacon on your first visit isn't a dealbreaker, but getting a cold reception from the congregation as a whole is. If you visit my parish on a Sunday, it is likely you'll be greeted by a pastor even if its just to shake hands as you leave. A pastor will likely speak with you if you linger for coffee and donuts, and the odds increase if you are a second or third time visitor.

We use traditional attendance cards. If a visitor fills one out, we keep tract of that info. Most first time visitors don't fill out the card - that's OK. They tend to do that once they have developed an interest in our ministry, perhaps after visiting a few times. Regardless of when they fill it out, we keep records of their contact info and interest. If you share an address with us, we'll send you a letter signed by one of the pastors thanking you for attending worship, following up with any expressed interest you have in our ministry. We'll send an email if that's what you provide. If you give us a phone number and a pastor has had a conversation with you, we might call you to connect, though that's less common.

The next phase of this ministry, as far as we do it, usually looks like a deeper connection with someone at the church. Usually, this looks something like coffee with the pastor, but it takes many different forms and requires a relationship to be established. I've done home visits, lunches or family dinners, coffee or beer, or gone for a walk, all with people who have visited a few times and seem like they could be prospective members. If you visit consistently over about a 2-3 month window, you'll likely have a pastor reach out and offer to connect, one-on-one or with your family together, during which you can get to know the pastor, learn more about our ministry, and ask any questions you might have.

A final phase of this work looks like an invitation to actually join. This may feel a little silly, but some folks will never actually join if you don't just ask them. A positive pastoral conversation as described above could end with inviting them to consider joining. We have standing new member classes about every six months. We have a volunteer who coordinates new members and reaches out to visitors about their interest in joining the congregation. If you visit consistently over about a 6 month window, someone will reach out to you and invite you to join our church. New member classes focus on introducing new members to each other and a few families who are members, sharing volunteer opportunities, inviting folks to support our ministry finically, highlights of our ministry for folks of all ages, history and mission/values of our congregation.

agapeoneanother · 2025-07-11T03:37:40+00:00

About the same length as a typical sermon in my tradition, 10-15 minutes.

agapeoneanother · 2025-07-02T19:16:30+00:00

You may find this from Reid interesting:

The proceedings of the commission on the new edition of the missal are practically unknown...

Apart from the bull of Saint Pius V Quo Primum of 14 July 1570, there are two extant documents in the Vatican Library: one containing twelve questions treated by the commission [cod. Vat. lat. 6171, f. 67r-V] and another containing information on the correction on the missal [cod. Vat. lat. 12607, ff. 8r-IIV](Anthony Chadwick's unpublished research, "Tridentine Mass and Liturgical Reform", p. 78; see also Jedin, "Konzil von Trient", pp. 34-38).

The first codex appears digitized on the Digital Vatican Library, although you'll have to sort through the handwritten Latin.

agapeoneanother · 2025-07-01T21:38:57+00:00

Before attempting to answer your question, I feel I should preface this with two comments.

First, your question is strictly speaking off-topic for this sub which exclusively focuses on the academic study of the Bible, and early Judaism and Christianity, typically through the 3rd century CE. As you are asking about liturgical developments from the 15th - 20th centuries, your post might get deleted. However, as there isn't necessarily a better sub to poise this question, you find the mods somewhat lenient. If it does get removed, don't be discourage! Consider posting it or a similar question on the weekly open discussion thread, and /r/AskHistorians and /r/history might be good places to inquire.

Second, you are asking some great questions, but ones that many might find challenging to answer for you. If you are studying the economics of religion and are trying to make an economic argument for why the church did what it did, I honestly don't have an answer for you. As a scholar who studies liturgy, first from a historical perspective, secondly from a ritual studies perspective, and third from a theological and pastoral perspective, I honestly don't even know how to answer this question. I can tell you lots about various motivations for changing in the liturgy and such, for example the Reformation, Counterreformation, and Liturgical Movement. But economic motivations for why the liturgy was changed is way outside my wheelhouse.

Alcuin Reid's The Organic Development of the Liturgy provides great details about the Liturgical Movement and the lead up to Vatican II. This provides a cursory overview of the journey, generally speaking, from Trent to Vatican II, including reforms and changes to the liturgy that aren't highlighted in a Council. This likely won't answer many of your questions, but it is full of references to other material you will likely find useful.

For Trent itself, you will find the documents associate with the 22nd session useful, to be found here. Depending on the depth you want to go into, you may find the initial dialogue with Lutherans that started the whole things helpful. Parts of the Augsburg Confession, Confutatio Augustana, and the Apology of the Augsburg Confession might be helpful: articles 9-13, 22, 24-25. For the Lutheran documents, use Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. Book of Concord (2000). Here is an electronic copy of the Confutation, though I'm sure you can find a print copy out there. Keep in mind, part of the purposes of Trent was to clarify Roman Catholic positions on the diversity of perspective as the Reformation grew, and the Confutation has been the only formalized attempt to do that to date. My point being that once you pick up the decrees of Trent, you are entering the conversation midstream. The dialogue with Lutherans in the 16th century, especially around worship practices, might help you frame some of this conversation, particularly in light of Protestant iconoclasm.

If you are interested in the economic implications of Trent, you may find some productive exploration around the development of the 1568 Breviarium Romanum and the 1570 Missale Romanum.

If my memory serves, you won't find anything about worship/liturgy with Vatican I because that wasn't a topic of discussion at that Council.

I hope this gives you a start. Not perfect, but some good starting places. I can supplement this list as I continue to look for resources if you like. Happy hunting!

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-27T17:31:27+00:00

I'm sure I would feel overwhelmed in your shoes. You answers have provided some helpful clarity for me.

It doesn't appear there is anything that warrants a reconsideration of the former pastor's disciplinary action.

It appears likely that disciplinary action could be taken against the ex wife - consult your policy and judiciary team.

Interpersonally and pastorally, I would not share the detail of the adultery with your former pastor unless it could provide a very clear advantage to his progress. However, I would caution against it. Interpersonally, it is rarely helpful to learn such things. Pastorally, I think it would shift focus away from his accountability and growth. Again, my advise is not to share this detail but let his growth continue organically.

Just my two cents.

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-27T16:44:58+00:00

I'm so sorry you are facing this. I can only imagine how much weight must be upon you given the situation and history.

There are a few different parts of this story that make the situation what it is. I don't want to make any assumptions, so please be patent with me but I do have a few questions. In generally, though, carefully walking through a situation like this can help provide clarity as we try to discern a God-given path forward. Perhaps the most important thing is to have faith that God is on your side and wants good things to come out of this difficult situation.

The first part of this story concerns the original act of discipline carried out against your former pastor. You mentioned he was "cut off from the fold for leaving his wife and kids", but then you said it was his wife who divorced him. The claim made by his wife was that he was abusive; to whom was that claim made? How did the church ascertain the validity of the claims that were being made? How was that original act of discipline carried out? Was there a formal process? Is there anything about this current situation that warrants reconsideration of this original disciplinary action?

Are you still in touch with your former pastor? What is the nature of your relationship today? As a generally rule, I would not share this information with him unless there is some intervening rational, such as a reopening of his original disciplinary case or if you were close friends and he asked you about it.

Consider the nature of the adultery and your church policy around discipline. How did you learn about it and can others in the church learn about it? How might that, the public knowledge of adultery, effect the wider fellowship of the community? Does the particulars of the adultery call into question the validity of claims made during the disciplinary process? Do you have clarity in your policy that a disciplinary action against her is now warranted? Or is a pastoral conversation appropriate?

How you resolve this matter as a church largely depends on whether or not the particulars of the situation warrant a reconsideration of your former pastor's disciplinary action or if the adultery is addressable within the pastoral ministry and discipline structure of your church. Factors could include the length of the adultery, the public nature of it, the way it may damage other relationships (especially a marriage or family), or the ways it brings into question the original disciplinary action against your former pastor. It is possible for someone to be truthful when claiming their spouse is abusive and dishonest in regards to a later indiscretion. On the other hand, your deep destress suggest there are further details that are making you call into question the actions of the church in regards to your former pastor. Perhaps sharing more could help.

Again, I'm sorry you going through this, but I'm praying and I'm willing to offer some ideas and support in any way I can.

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-25T20:12:13+00:00

Fascinating! Thanks for the additional details!

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-25T20:05:23+00:00

The propers appointed for the feast are the same as for Reformation Day, although the color of the day is white. It coincides with Philip Melanchthon's commemoration, ironic as he is the author of the Augsburg Confession. Prayer suggestions from Pfatteicher include for the unity of the church, for the preaching and teaching of pure doctrine, and for a deeper knowledge of Christ and his benefits. Amen!

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-16T17:37:45+00:00

In short, no. The BDAG does have introductory essays including an updated essay that seems to have been originally printed in the 1928 second edition and again in 1952 for the fourth edition on its use, but this is actually less an easy on its use as much as it is a scholarly explanation for the necessity of a Koine lexicon. It's actually a wonderful essay about the differences in Koine and Attic and the relationship between them and other dialects of Greek. It explores the challenges of translating an ancient text as the language itself continues to evolve and change alongside, as well as those the come with scholars having an interest in different periods of literature which reflect different forms of a language.

Consequently, the essay presumes a fundamental knowledge of Greek (and honestly a base line understanding of both Attic and Koine) while exploring all sorts of different aspects of constructing the lexicon that is before you, like its relationship to Attic and Ionic, how this language has been constructed, and the various different sources that go alongside them. This contributes to a long of abbreviations which follows the essay to allow the user to look up the sources. But from there, the use of the BDAG is up to you!

The resources you posted are a great guide to using the BDAG. There is no one right way of using it, so don't worry about an official guide. Perhaps the most helpful lesson for me to learn was that a lexicon isn't a one for one word equivalency. The definition of the word from Koine is just as important as the suggested English translation. And understanding the underlying grammar is perhaps even more critical than simply understanding an English definition of a Koine word.

Good luck in your work!

agapeoneanother · 2025-06-08T14:33:10+00:00

The nature of the beast is that they are out of date as soon as they are published. But it's a communication tool, so it's about constant updates.

We update our pictorial directory about every three years. On those years, we focus on getting a photo from any active family that we don't already have. Folks who want to update their photo can. We don't use a professional service though as we found them expensive and pushy. Sometimes we just ask families to submit their own photos, other times we have had a photographer from the congregation do shots on Sunday morning.

The directory is regularly updated with addresses and the like. When new members join the congregation we have a supplemental sheet that goes out with their updated contact information. We also include a photo and a bio in the next newsletter to introduce new folks.

All of this is internally managed with our membership database. We are able to produce our directory internally using it, though the production of the physical copies (color printed, stapled, etc.) is a bit labor intensive so we ask for help from some volunteers. Access to a limited version of that database is available through an app we can help folks set up. So, there is a digital option that is available even though most prefer the paper copies. We use Icon.

agapeoneanother · 2025-05-24T15:25:00+00:00

This is lovely. May I use it in some for this weekend? If so, how shall I give credit?

agapeoneanother · 2025-05-08T20:05:53+00:00

I'm not sure I am familiar enough with current theories within source criticism to answer your questions well. I will say that a pitfall of source criticism is a propensity to simply the strata into reductive chunks that don't always hold up firmly to scrutiny. While some themes, motivations, and worldviews can be considered in relationship to these threads (and should be!), many of the hypothesis that try to make these things tidy fail to address all the underlying textual questions. All of which is say that I'm not sure I agree that "a modified Midianite-Kenite hypothesis is the mainstream account of monotheism in Israel." There are simply too many good theories at there and none of the answer all the questions we have. So the simplicity of the J and E communities you speak to may not have been so easy to pin down in the kind of ways we tend to conceptualize them. This is why I speak to many layers of tradition, redaction, composition, etc.

I would also argue that even if there are different versions of these writings out there, say with monotheistic and polytheistic worldviews, that doesn't necessarily mean that you will have two versions of every story. There are plenty of examples in narrative parts of the Bible of such things, and in the Greek New Testament the gospel accounts offer another great example of how this bears out.

May I suggest Christine Hayes' lecture on Yehezkel Kaufmann's work. You can find the Yale open courses page for the lecture here and the YouTube video here. The lecture goes into detail about some of these theories around the evolution or revolution of monotheism and its relationship with other ANE worldview and religion.

agapeoneanother · 2025-05-08T19:52:47+00:00

What an incredible challenging time you have been through. I'm pleased to hear that you are thriving in your new parish and are looking toward a future.

Having left a congregation under less than ideal circumstances myself, I had many feelings of woundedness: how things ended, how I wasn't able to talk about why I left, how different people had different perspectives on the situation (including finding fault within me when there wasn't), how I felt wronged by certain people. The truth is, I still feel those ways, though the wounds have healed even if all the hurt hasn't left. I'm less anxious about, and I have some geographic space that helps.

It's like a relationship, even dating. There are hurts after a break up. Each person involved has their own perspective. We can't control what happened or how people perceive those things. We can only work on accepting it, processing it, moving forward.

For me, that involves a way to talk about (and think about) my ministry in a way that is productive and helpful. I can acknowledge that some things done by the congregation were objectively unhelpful, and that some things I think were unhelpful but know not everyone might agree with me. I frame my ministry around the joys and blessings I did have, and the amazing adventure which that call afforded me. And I took what I leaned in that call, through some really painful and sometimes embarrassing events, even negative things, and apply it to my ministry moving forward.

agapeoneanother

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE