Praying for Healing Without the Anointing…

In all my years in the body of Christ through my own denomination, I’ve only heard of one local church using anointing oil in their prayer meetings.  To be honest, I was taken aback.  At the time, I knew what James 5 said, but up to that point, I had not seen it in practice.

Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make them well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. (James 5:13-16, TNIV, emphasis added)

So is this one of those texts that most local churches and denominations have applied that cafeteria approach to the interpretation of Scripture to?  You know, we don’t mind the singing, praying, confessing, and healing in the name of the Lord, but the anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord, we have no spiritual appetite for it, because most of us see it as an antiquated practice.

My church for some reason has taken the cafeteria approach to this one.  And yes, Nick and Peter, I believe the oil should be taken literally. 😉

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Church, Church History, Healing and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Praying for Healing Without the Anointing…

  1. Damian says:

    I’m curious the position of anointing with oil with regard to sacraments.

    That is, sacraments are generally regarded as ritual actions enstated by Christ that fulfil some kind of spiritual function. I know many believe they’re only symbolic (I don’t), but they’re certainly important.

    Things like anointing with oil, however, lie in a grey area. Catholics call them sacramental, but we do not, and I’m curious what the import of a symbolic action such as this is if not enstated by Christ as baptism and eucharist are.

    That is, *can* the oil itself be important, or is this simply something retained from the old testament by the author of James?

    Do you understand what I’m getting at, T.C.?

  2. Richard says:

    The practice of anointing the sick with oil was an ancient Jewish medicinal practice. It is then important to note that the epistle of James is the earliest NT document and was written to Jewish Christians. It is therefore not a practice that is for all Christians.

    If when I get an headache my elders want to annoint me with oil then they are free to do so, but I will of course be taking a paracetamol tablet or two. 😉

  3. Bryan L says:

    Richard:
    “The practice of anointing the sick with oil was an ancient Jewish medicinal practice.”

    I’m not necessarily doubting that Richard, but do you have any references to that and can it be shown that James has a the idea that whatever sickness someone has somehow the oil will serve some medicinal function? Is it not possible that the oil, although in some cases was used for medicinal reasons, is actually symbolic in this case?

    TC:
    Good post! This is definitely one of those cafeteria verses in Christianity, however anointing with oil is big in Pentacostal/Charismatic circles. At my church they keep it up at the front where people go for prayer during services so that it’s always available.

    Bryan

  4. Richard says:

    Bryan,

    Try Midrash Koheleth, “Chanina, son of the brother of the Rabbi Joshua, went to visit his uncle at Capernaum; he was taken ill; and Rabbi Joshua went to him and anointed him with oil, and he was restored.”

    It is also mentioned elsewhere:

    A. “it was not lawful to “anoint” part of the body, as the whole body; but if a man was sick, or had ulcers on his head, he might anoint according to his usual way, and no notice was taken of it.” (T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 77. 2. Maimon. Hikh. Shebitat Ashur, c. 3. sect. 9.)

    B. “a man may not anoint with wine, or vinegar, but he may anoint with oil: he that has a pain in his head, or has ulcers upon him, סך שמן, “he may anoint with oil”, but he may not anoint with wine and vinegar: wine of the second tithe, which they mix, is forbidden to anoint with; oil of the second tithe, which they mix, is lawful to anoint with.” (T. Hieros. Maaser Sheni, fol. 53. 2.)

    C. “R. Meir allowed of the mixing of oil and wine, לסוך לחולה, “to anoint the sick” on a sabbath; but when he was sick, and we sought to do so to him, he would not suffer us.” (Ib. Betacot, fol. 3. 1. & Sabbat, fol. 14. 3.)

    If you read the older commentators they often cite many Jewish writings on this verse.

    Niebuhr (Beschrieb. von Arabien, s. 131) says, “The southern Arabians believe that to anoint with oil strengthens the body, and secures it against the oppressive heat of the sun, as they go nearly naked. They believe that the oil closes the pores of the skin, and thus prevents the effect of the excessive heat by which the body is so much weakened; perhaps also they regard it as contributing to beauty, by giving the skin a glossy appearance. I myself frequently have observed that the sailors in the ships from Dsjidda and Loheia, as well as the common Arabs in Tehama, anointed their bodies with oil, in order to guard themselves against the heat. The Jews in Mocha assured Mr. Forskal, that the Mohammedans as well as the Jews, in Sana, when they were sick, were accustomed to anoint the body with oil.” Rosenmuller, Morgenland, in loc.

    Hope this helps. 🙂

  5. Nick Norelli says:

    Bryan: Yeah, we have a bottle of oil at the altar as well. In fact, this past Sunday my friend used it when praying for some ofhis congregants.

  6. Without looking into it yet I wonder what “sick” refers to.

    I was prayed over by my step father who is a Lutheran (!) deacon. He used a book of prayer (Common Book of Prayer? – I’m not Lutheran) and anointed me with oil. I was not healed but could hear that everything was done according to Scripture whether misapplied or not.
    Jeff

  7. tc robinson says:

    Damian, you raised some important issues, but Richard has presented some convincing evidence for the medicinal function of the anointing oil.

    Peter Davids, in his commentary on James in the NIGTC series, argues that it is not medicinal here but more: “Thus it is either the outward sign of the inward power of prayer or, more likely, a sacramental vehicle of divine power” (p. 193).

    Bryan L, thanks. This is one of those practices I have to think about in the next chapter of my ministry. Yeah, I think it suffers from that cafeteria approach too.

    Richard, thanks for the data, but Davids doesn’t think they argue against either a sacramental or symbolic use of the anointing oil.

    Nick, what else am I going to find at the altar?

    Jeff, How old were you?

    I noticed that the NLT has “olive oil” in James 5.

  8. Jeff, How old were you?

    41

  9. tc robinson says:

    So it had to do with an illness in your life, correct?

  10. Peter Kirk says:

    We also have anointing oil, extra virgin olive oil, in our church and sometimes use it when praying for the sick. We consider it to have sacramental rather than medicinal value. We are an Anglican church but this is not a regular Anglican thing. We don’t use as much oil as suggested in Psalm 133:2!

    As I understand things the Roman Catholic church has a formal sacrament of anointing the sick with oil. Unfortunately they have lost the context in James, such that this anointing has become “Extreme Unction” otherwise known as “the last rites” for those expected to die!

  11. So it had to do with an illness in your life, correct?

    Condition or illness yes.

    I’m not expected to die anytime soon though, God willing, so I’ll be here to torment you.
    Jeff

  12. tc robinson says:

    I’m not expected to die anytime soon though, God willing, so I’ll be here to torment you.

    Jeff, I’ve come to appreciate your sense of humor in blogosphere. 😉

  13. Damian says:

    Richard,

    Thanks for the evidence towards medicinal use of anointing oil.

    T.C.,

    Given the evidence Richard presented there, I’d argue then that Peter is saying rather, “Pray over them and send them to a doctor!” It seems to fit the context – he’s telling people who’re happy to praise, people who’re needy to pray, etc.

    I’d argue against anointing with oil as a sacrament. If you accepted this, then it opens the door to the seven sacraments of the Catholic church, which I’m not sure there are grounds for, although I haven’t looked at it. Reformation theology claims there is room only for those sacraments instated by Christ.

    For the record, though, I’d probably lean towards the Eastern Orthodox view of sacrament, that is that we should regard everything as sacramental (that is, everything recreates the divine drama), hence allowing for any number of sacramental actions. Baptism and communion are certainly special in that they were instated in Christ, however. I’d be cautious about assigning special power to other dramatic actions such as anointing.

    For the record Peter, extreme unction is for the sick, not just for the dying. It always has been, it’s the media presentation that has made it for the dying, not the church tradition.

  14. Bryan L says:

    Richard:

    Do you have any dates for your citations? I’m sure you aware of the dangers in using later rabbinic writings to interpret the NT since much changed in Judaism after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. I was looking for your first citation (Midrash Koheleth) and I was unable to find a copy of the book or any relevant information like the date or provenance (although it seems like it might be from the middle ages). Maybe you can help me here. I’m not denying though that oil served a medicinal function in the ancient world though.

    There are a few problems with the medicinal interpretation though. Not wanting to get into all of them (such as the Greek word used for anoint and the other word that could have been used) and just sticking with the English translation:
    1.) If oil in this case is medicinal why then are the Elders set aside to do this? Why can’t anyone give the person oil to help cure them? Why not just call a physician to do this? And why just oil? I highly doubt oil was a cure all.
    2.) Why must they be anointed with oil “in the name of the Lord”?
    3.) Given the sandwiching in the passage of the ‘anointing with oil’ between prayer, why shouldn’t we believe that the oil is instead serving some sort of religious/symbolic/sacramental function instead of purely medicinal function since anointing with oil often had that religious/symbolic/sacramental function and also since the credit for healing is given to the prayer of faith? It seems like the anointing with oil is part of (an extension of) the prayer not something done in addition to it.

    Also I’m not sure what the relevance of James being written to Jewish Christians (or whether or not it is the earliest writing in the NT) has to do with whether this passage was applicable to all Christians. Maybe you can elaborate.

    Blessings,
    Bryan EL

  15. Nick Norelli says:

    Richard: I’m curious about the Midrash Kohelet as well. Where did you find it in English?

  16. Nick Norelli says:

    Scratch that; I just saw that Soncino has an English translation of the entire Midrash Rabbah both in print (10 vols.) and on CD-Rom.

  17. tc robinson says:

    Given the evidence Richard presented there, I’d argue then that Peter is saying rather, “Pray over them and send them to a doctor!” It seems to fit the context – he’s telling people who’re happy to praise, people who’re needy to pray, etc.

    Damian, Davids surveyed the same literature and took a different position than Richard. But I’ll take it symbolically, not sacramentally.

  18. tc robinson says:

    There are a few problems with the medicinal interpretation though. Not wanting to get into all of them (such as the Greek word used for anoint and the other word that could have been used) and just sticking with the English translation:
    1.) If oil in this case is medicinal why then are the Elders set aside to do this? Why can’t anyone give the person oil to help cure them? Why not just call a physician to do this? And why just oil? I highly doubt oil was a cure all.
    2.) Why must they be anointed with oil “in the name of the Lord”?
    3.) Given the sandwiching in the passage of the ‘anointing with oil’ between prayer, why shouldn’t we believe that the oil is instead serving some sort of religious/symbolic/sacramental function instead of purely medicinal function since anointing with oil often had that religious/symbolic/sacramental function and also since the credit for healing is given to the prayer of faith? It seems like the anointing with oil is part of (an extension of) the prayer not something done in addition to it.

    Also I’m not sure what the relevance of James being written to Jewish Christians (or whether or not it is the earliest writing in the NT) has to do with whether this passage was applicable to all Christians. Maybe you can elaborate.

    Bryan L, you’ve raised some important issues. I await Richard and Damian’s response. This is good stuff. 😉

  19. Damian says:

    Bryan,

    I’m obviously not as acquainted with the Jewish literature and context as Richard, but here I’d begin drawing parallels with ANE culture.

    That is, there was little distinction between scientific and religious in that day. Physicians were often Rabbis (or Priests, etc.), as theological education and other educations generally took place in the same institutions.

    Hence, I’d say it would be the same action as (say), taking panadol in the name of the Lord. That is, doing something with God’s blessing.

    I can see what you mean about the positioning of the verse, but I actually feel like the context is something of a practical situation. It’s describing the spiritual actions one should take in specific physical situations (happiness, grief, sickness). Hence, I think it’s as valid to say he’s saying ‘if you’re sick, then take your medicine in God’s name’ considering this is immediately after ‘if you’re happy, praise God’.

    As for oil being a cure-all – well, I wouldn’t be surprised as it is. Having friends in Greek families, the mothers tend to use methylated spirits for everything (antiseptic, on a cloth for colds, headaches, etc.) and this is in contemporary times. Cure-alls are fairly common folk-wisdom, and throughout the rabbinic literature I’ve read, particularly Talmud, they certainly prescribe folk-medicines.

    I look forward to Richard’s reply.

  20. Peter Kirk says:

    Damian, thanks for the clarification about extreme unction. I don’t suggest that anointing with oil is “a sacrament”. Rather I go with your Eastern Orthodox view of sacramental actions, but that some actions are more sacramental than others in reflecting more closely the divine plan, in that although not personally and explicitly instituted by Jesus (he anointed not with oil but with mud and spittle!) they were commanded in inspired Scripture, and were modelled by the Apostles (Mark 6:13, the only gospel reference).

  21. Peter Kirk says:

    I just chanced upon an interesting point in relation to what Richard has claimed about Jewish healing. Maybe the rabbinical Jews allowed medicinal or pseudo-medicinal healing. But it seems they didn’t allow “Praying for Healing Without the Anointing”, according to this passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 90a quoted, in a quite different context, by Claude Mariottini.

    All Israel have a portion in the world to come, … but the following have no portion therein: … R. Akiba added: one who reads uncanonical books. Also one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, I will bring none of these diseases upon thee which I brought upon the Egyptians: ‘for I am the Lord that healeth thee.’

    This is in fact from the Mishnah and so from the 1st to 2nd centuries, and R. Akiba lived c.50-c.135. The quotation is of course from Exodus 15:26, and is a favourite among charismatic Christians teaching about healing. I wonder why the 1st-2nd century Rabbis rejected this kind of healing – did it seem too magical (but the words “a charm” are not in the original text here), or is it because Jesus and Christians did this?

  22. tc robinson says:

    Peter, thanks. But if we take the sacramental approach, I really don’t see much biblical support of it. The references in Scripture all seem symbolic or medicinal to me.

  23. Richard says:

    If I may begin with the easy questions, and I certainly do not claim special knowledge on this. I have simply read the older commentators who were Hebraists and rabinical scholars, e.g. Dr. John Gill and Bishop John Lightfoot.

    I’m not sure what the relevance of James being written to Jewish Christians (or whether or not it is the earliest writing in the NT)
    It’s important to place the statement of James into its cultural context. The epistle of James was written to “To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” and it was written at a time when there had been very few Gentile converts. This means that James is writing to those who are Jewish and who have had an ancient practice of anointing the ill with oil by elders of the synagogue etc.

    This gives us important background because no where else in the NT is this practice encouraged. Paul does not tell the Ephesians or Romans to do it. Why? May be they had no sick at those churches and so the issue never came up, or may be those Gentiles would have used their own medicinal practices etc.

    Understanding what Jewish culture was like helps us to understand what James is saying. The modern application would be something like..well when I was younger I was very ill from an asthama attack and the vicar came to hospital and prayed with me and for me, whilst I was hooked up to the medical machines, asking God to heal me if he would. This is the current application IMO once we take into account the cultural context of James’ instruction.

    If oil in this case is medicinal why then are the Elders set aside to do this?
    It was common Jewish practice for the elders of synagogues to visit the sick and anoint them with oil. It is then unlikely that this ncient Jewish practice would have been disbanded by Jewish converts, but now instead of Jewish elders the Christian elders visit.

    Adam Clarke notes that Rabbi Simeon, in Sepher Hachaiyim, said: “What should a man do who goes to visit the sick? Ans. He who studies to restore the health of the body, should first lay the foundation in the health of the soul. The wise men have said, No healing is equal to that which comes from the word of God and prayer. Rabbi Phineas, the son of Chamma, hath said, ‘When sickness or disease enters into a man’s family, let him apply to a wise man, who will implore mercy in his behalf.’”

    Why must they be anointed with oil “in the name of the Lord”?
    James desires them to use natural means while looking to God for a special blessing. It is simply recognising that God can heal if he so choses and it is no different than taking an asprin and at the same time praying to God that he would take the pain away.

    Given the sandwiching in the passage of the ‘anointing with oil’ between prayer, why shouldn’t we believe that the oil is instead serving some sort of religious/symbolic/sacramental function instead of purely medicinal function

    Because of the cultural practice that it is so obviously based upon. And of course that there is no reason to suppose what you are asking, that is “Why why should we believe that the oil is instead serving some sort of religious function when there is no reason for this interpretation?”

    As for dates, I will have to get back to you but even if these were recent (1st & 2nd century) it is more than likely that they reflected an ancient tradition, i.e. they are collections of ancient sayings etc.

    Hope this is of some use. 🙂

  24. Richard says:

    As an aside, if you know of a rabbi local to you why not ask them for more detail, they would be in a better position than I. 😉

    I used to live next to a large Orthodox Jewish community and when these types of questions come up I wish I still did.

  25. Peter Kirk says:

    TC, I’m not sure I am making a distinction between “sacramental” and “symbolic”. In what way would you say that anointing with oil for healing is symbolic but not sacramental?

    Richard, perhaps you are not so far from a sacramental view yourself when you write:

    James desires them to use natural means while looking to God for a special blessing. It is simply recognising that God can heal if he so choses and it is no different than taking an asprin and at the same time praying to God that he would take the pain away.

    Now if we anoint with oil or give an aspirin in a case where in fact these do not cure the problem medically, we look to God to heal if he chooses. We are making a token effort towards healing and expecting God to do the rest. This is similar to baptism as a sacrament: we know that water cannot wash away the guilt of sin, but we make a token effort at washing as a sign of our faith that God is doing the real washing. Similarly with oil we make a token effort at healing, even in cases where we know it cannot really have a medicinal effect, as a sign of our faith that God is really healing. Do these thoughts off the top of my head make sense?

  26. Richard says:

    Peter,

    I understand what you are saying. That is, I understand the theology but I just don’t think that the practice is mandated. The problem with the sacramental idea as regards oil, is that the Jews used it as a medicine, i.e. it was a Jewish medicinal practice and so is not binding on Gentiles in 21st Century Britain.

  27. Peter Kirk says:

    Richard, the problem I have with your argument is that you could use it to negate almost every command in the Bible, OT and NT, that they are Jewish practices and so not binding on Gentiles today. For example “Do not commit adultery” was a Jewish practice which does not align with modern western practice. So is this also no longer mandated? Or should we abandon baptism because this was a Jewish way of washing dirt off the body which should not be applied in a sacramental sense to Gentiles today? I must say I find a lot of arbitrariness in your hermeneutical principles on this matter and on worship and dance.

  28. Richard says:

    Peter, the question of adultery is a part of the moral law and so binds all nations and all peoples at all times. The Jewish practice of anointing the sick with oil is in no way parrallel with this. It is a cultural practice specific to the ANE.

    Take yourself back to AD60, you are a Jew, you attended the synagogue since you were born, you were circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. You love the ancient practices of your nation, and delight in reading the Talmud and Midrash and are looking forward to the Mishna. Then you are converted to Christianity and your congregation receives a letter from James, leader of the Church in Jerusalem. He says “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.” How will you understand this?

  29. tc robinson says:

    Peter, symbolic because it represents the “anointing” from the Lord which brings about the real healing.

    But if sacramental, then we’re talking about a “means of some special grace” here. We have biblical precedence for the symbolism of oil.

    Richard, I’ll ask my pastor friend who has the practice at his church.

  30. Peter Kirk says:

    TC, I don’t understand a sacrament as a means of grace (is that the RC definition?), but as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. Well, in this case the reality is not just spiritual, but it is God’s work. But this sounds very like your “symbolic”.

    Richard, it’s obvious how I would understand that if I was a member of the original target audience. But are you saying that Christians who are not members of James’ original target audience can simply ignore James’ letter, and presumably similarly with Paul, Peter, John etc? Do I ignore Romans because I don’t live in Rome?

    It is a cultural practice specific to the ANE.

    You contradict yourself, as earlier you gave evidence that it is also practised in the modern Near East. So does this part of James apply to Christians today in the Near East but not in western countries? That would seem an odd argument!

  31. tc robinson says:

    TC, I don’t understand a sacrament as a means of grace (is that the RC definition?), but as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. Well, in this case the reality is not just spiritual, but it is God’s work. But this sounds very like your “symbolic”.

    Peter, I was going with the RC definition.

    Yes, what you outlined is indeed my “symbolic.”

    You contradict yourself, as earlier you gave evidence that it is also practised in the modern Near East. So does this part of James apply to Christians today in the Near East but not in western countries? That would seem an odd argument!

    Good points, Peter. 😉

  32. Robert says:

    We use it to pray over sick people, like Bryan, and Nick we keep it at the altar. Yes I also attend a Pentecostal church. Why? Because James said so… 😉

  33. Robert says:

    I don’t attend a Pentecostal church because James said so, we use oil when we pray because James said so. Just thought I clear that up before the blogging comedians get me – hahaha

  34. tc robinson says:

    But I’m still confused about “I don’t attend a Pentecostal church because James said so.” 🙂

  35. tc robinson says:

    Robert, I hear you. 🙂

  36. Bryan L says:

    Richard:

    “This gives us important background because no where else in the NT is this practice encouraged. Paul does not tell the Ephesians or Romans to do it. Why?”

    This is an argument from silence and thus doesn’t help at all. I could say that James doesn’t mention baptism even though many of the other letters do but I wouldn’t be able to infer anything from this omission

    “It was common Jewish practice for the elders of synagogues to visit the sick and anoint them with oil. ”

    Two things:
    1.) Any references to this occurring in the time of the NT (BTW did you ever find that date for Midrash Koheleth)?
    2.) This still doesn’t show that the anointing of oil on the sick served a primarily medicinal purpose instead of a religious or symbolic purpose. All it would show is that the Elders anointed the sick with oil–which is under discussion here.

    Regarding the Sepher Hachaiyim, do you have a date and provenance of that book? I cannot find out anything about it on the internet (even with the alternate spelling Sefer HaChaim).

    “James desires them to use natural means while looking to God for a special blessing. It is simply recognising that God can heal if he so choses and it is no different than taking an asprin and at the same time praying to God that he would take the pain away.”

    This interpretation makes me wonder if it would go against James thoughts about being “double minded”: take an aspirin if God wants to heal he will (maybe he won’t) and if he does then he will use the aspirin (oil) that you took?
    Plus the idea of “natural means”? I’m curious if they had our modern view of medicine and physiology.
    And I’m sure they saw common sense value in using oil for skin problems (or lice) but as far as the many other illnesses and diseases I’m not yet convinced. And also if you have an internal ailment what does putting oil on the outside of your body (anointing) do?

    “Because of the cultural practice that it is so obviously based upon.”

    But it’s obviously not so obvious ; )

    Bryan L

  37. tc robinson says:

    Bryan L, at the end of the day, I believe a local church may or may not adopt the practice. And even though my local church doesn’t use it right now, I hope to one day lead them in that direction. 😉

  38. Bryan L says:

    Yeah TC, I don’t think a church has to do it like it’s some NT law or something. I was just saying what I thought James was talking about.

  39. Richard says:

    Peter; yes, ‘A’ should have been dropped from ANE 😉

    Bryan; in terms of dating the Midrash etc, one issue is that they often reflect far older customs and we know from other sources that anointing with oil was an Near Eastern practice. So that shouldn’t be controversial. That is, we know (historical fact) that the anointing of oil on the sick in the Near East served a medicinal purpose. TC, has already noted that this has been pointed out by his commentator.

  40. Bryan L says:

    Richard:
    Are you saying you do not have any dates or provenances for those references?

    “we know from other sources that anointing with oil was an Near Eastern practice. So that shouldn’t be controversial.”

    That’s fine I would just like to see some of these other sources that are contemporary to or predate the NT. I’m not really doubting that oil served a medicinal function in the ANE I would just like to examine some of these sources and assess their similarity to the passage in James.

    “TC, has already noted that this has been pointed out by his commentator.”

    He also noted that Peter Davids disagreed with your interpretation of the data. I’ve also read Doug Moo and Ralph Martin and they do as well so I’m looking for a stronger defense of the medicinal interpretation.

    Bryan

  41. tc robinson says:

    Bryan L, thanks for tracking down that info. I plan to get Moo soon. 😉

  42. Richard says:

    I would just like to examine some of these sources and assess their similarity to the passage in James

    I am not aware of the dating off hand, and would have to check but don’t have the data to hand. FWIW, we have cuneiform tablets from ancient Mesopotamia which mentions the use of sesame oil (as an anti-bacterial agent). Again, it’s been a while since I looked into this and I don’t have my notes. Perhaps TC could post up Peter Davids references on this.

    Try this. pp. 197

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s