The Johannine Anointing: Focusing on Truth

 

In 1977, after a consideration of all New Testament literature, J. K. Moon gave this classic Pentecostal/charismatic, albeit eclectic, definition of the anointing:

The anointing is the special presence of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of God’s servant which produces an inspiring awareness of the divine presence. His entire faculties are enhanced (heightened illumination, courage, wisdom, discernment, faith, guidance, memory, vocabulary, emotions, intellect, and physical performance) beyond natural abilities. The Word of God is quickened to accomplish its regenerating, healing, edifying, and sanctifying objective. And those ministered to are invested with a God-consciousness. …¹

For most Protestant Christians the word anointing has this univocal meaning, the rich meaning with which Luke impregnated it in his usage of its verb form in association with the empowerment of Jesus when the Holy Spirit descended upon him (3:22; 4:18). According to Luke, when the Spirit came upon Jesus, he experienced the power (4:14) and fullness (4:1) of the Spirit, which enabled him to victoriously endure satanic attacks, to preach the gospel, to effect inner-healing (4:18), to do good, and to heal those oppressed of the devil (Acts 10:38). However, John also spoke of an anointing, and his description, defying Moon’s definition, is much different than Luke’s.

The Lukan and Johannine Anointings

In 1981, David Bundrick specifically addressed the Johannine anointing and isolated it, rightly so, as one particular kind of anointing, i.e., distinct from the Lukan anointing. Bundrick hinted at the distinction when he wrote that, “While emphasis today is placed upon ‘the anointing of the teacher,’ this text [1 John 2:18-27] demonstrates that ‘the anointing upon the student’ is vital.”2 But neither Moon nor Bundrick clearly defined and delineated both the Lukan and the Johannine anointings.

The distinctive marks of the Lukan anointing are the accompanying, mighty acts of God (such as, healings, exorcisms, evangelism). The Johannine anointing, on the other hand, is the chrisma (only John uses this word in its noun form). Its effect is more internal and thus hidden from the view of others. (It is not to be confused with Paul’s unrelated term charisma.) It cannot be said that the Lukan anointing abides, and it cannot be said that all Christians have it, whereas the Johannine anointing (chrisma) is had by all Christians (1 John 2:20) and abides (1 John 2:27). The Johannine anointing teaches and lends assurance to the believer that he has the truth and should remain in Christ (1 John 2:27; cf. 2 Cor. 1:21-22); the Lukan anointing enables one to be a teacher and lead others to Christ or further in Christ. Whereas the Lukan anointing is evidenced by external, mighty deeds of God for the performance of God’s will, the Johannine anointing is the quiet, inner witness of the Spirit, which certifies the truth of a teaching.

 

 

Unfortunately, Moon’s definition above blurs the distinction between the Lukan and the Johannine anointings, as Moon co-mingles the functions of the two anointings. In the opening quotation, note that Moon’s first three sentences refer to the classic Pentecostal anointing, whereas the last sentence refers to the “chrismatic,” i.e., Johannine, anointing: “And those ministered to are invested with a God-consciousness. …” (Although, even here, Moon writes as though this God-consciousness comes from the instrumentality of the anointed minister rather than from the chrisma of the Holy One, i.e., Jesus, cf. 1 John 2:20.)

The Johannine Anointing for Today’s Christian

In the first century, John was writing to Spirit-endowed believers (3:24; 4:13) who were being seduced by super-spiritualists, whom some have identified as Gnostics; however, John identifies them as antichrists (such a one denies the Anointed One, the Christos, 2:22). Inasmuch as the chrisma serves to certify the truth of “all things” (2:27), false statements to the contrary would be anti-chrisma, making John’s “antichrist” identification both logical, rhetorically pleasing, and apropos. The common thread in the various branches of Gnosticism was and still is the Gnostic’s claim to greater and higher knowledge, usually of an esoteric and thus unverifiable origin and nature. The Gnostics of John’s day were denying the humanity and incarnation of Jesus. This eventually led to the denial of the efficacy of the atonement and the trinitarian concept of the godhead.3 The teachings of today’s super-spiritualists eventually deny the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and the servanthood of the believer. These historic, biblical doctrines are denied by many teachers today who place man at the center with God in orbit around him.

Unfortunately, Pentecostal/charismatics, more than other Christians, have gravitated toward these unscriptural teachings. Therefore, a reminder of the Johannine anointing from Pentecostal/charismatic leaders would be in order. John reminded his readers of the teachings they received in the beginning; these were the truths in which they should continue (1 John 2:24). In the beginning, they had received an anointing, but some were discarding it and opening themselves up to seducing teachers. They left their beginning and no longer relied upon the Teacher or Paraclete (John 14:26) who, in fact, gave them their beginning through the teachings of the apostles (1:1-5a; 4:5-6).

 

Conclusions

Though Luke and John both speak of a chrisma (Luke using its verb form), the contexts do not suggest a univocal usage of the term. Whereas the Lukan chrisma speaks of a usually visible manifestation of the Spirit, the Johannine chrisma is an inner witness to the truth of a teaching. The function of the Johannine anointing is to confirm these truths within the hearer, especially as they relate to Jesus (1 John 2:22-23; 4:1-3; 5:5-10; cf. John 14:26; 16:14-15). The text (1 John) seems to indicate that this function of the Spirit is operable in all believers who have been given the Spirit (3:24; 4:13).

 

 

These spiritual concepts are not in competition, neither are they mutually exclusive. Our prayer should be for both: may the fire fall, expanding the kingdom, and may our minds be illumined, securing truth within us.⁴

 

PR 

 

Notes

¹ “The Holy Spirit in Preaching,” Paraclete (Fall) 1977: 26.

² “Ye Need Not That Any Man Teach You,” Paraclete (Fall) 1981: 17.

³ Bundrick, 15.

⁴ I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Paul Elbert (Church of God Theological Seminary) for his insightful comments on an early draft of this article.