“𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐃-𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑” 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐈𝐋 𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌: 𝐀 𝐁𝐈𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋, 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐋𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

“𝐏𝐑𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐃-𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑” 𝐖𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐈𝐋 𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐑𝐘 𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌: 𝐀 𝐁𝐈𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋, 𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐋, 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐋𝐔𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

𝑨𝒃𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕

In some contemporary Indian Pentecostal and charismatic churches, pastors and other Christian ministers pray over bottles of water or oil and distribute them to believers for healing, protection, deliverance, prosperity, or other forms of spiritual blessing. Supporters of these practices may appeal to biblical narratives involving water, anointing oil, healing through physical means, Paul’s handkerchiefs and aprons, or the instruction concerning anointing in James 5:14–15. Nevertheless, the movement from biblical narrative to contemporary ecclesial practice requires careful exegetical, hermeneutical, theological, and contextual evaluation. This article examines whether Scripture provides sufficient warrant for attributing transferable or stored spiritual power to prayed-over water or oil. In dialogue with Pentecostal theology, scholarship on divine healing, and studies of material religion, it argues that although Scripture clearly affirms divine healing and provides warrant for the prayerful anointing of the sick with oil, it does not establish the mass blessing and distribution of water or oil as spiritually empowered objects for future use. Such practices may unintentionally encourage magical understandings of spiritual power, dependence upon religious objects, excessive elevation of charismatic leaders, and the commodification of spiritual ministry. These concerns are especially significant within the religiously plural environment of India, where sacred water, blessed substances, protective objects, and ritual mediators already occupy important places in popular religious practice. The article concludes by proposing a Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered, ecclesially grounded, pastorally responsible, and biblically regulated model for ministry to the sick.

𝐾𝑒𝑦𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠: 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑠𝑚; 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔; 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑖𝑙; 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑑-𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟; 𝑃𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦; 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛; 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦; 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛; 𝐽𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑠 5; 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 19; 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑦

1.      𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

Divine healing has occupied an important place within Pentecostal spirituality since the emergence of the modern Pentecostal movement. Early Pentecostals commonly understood healing as an expression of Christ’s redemptive work, a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, and an anticipatory sign of the coming kingdom of God.¹ Although Pentecostal traditions differ in their theological explanations of healing, prayer for the sick remains central to Pentecostal worship, evangelism, testimony, pastoral care, and missionary practice.²

Within Indian Pentecostalism, the expectation that God continues to heal is shaped not only by global Pentecostal theology but also by local experiences of illness, poverty, limited access to medical care, spiritual conflict, religious pluralism, and deeply embodied forms of popular spirituality.³ Pentecostal churches frequently provide communities in which suffering persons receive prayer, emotional support, spiritual meaning, social belonging, and hope. Any theological criticism of contemporary healing practices must therefore avoid dismissing the lived experiences of believers or reducing Pentecostal spirituality to irrationality, emotionalism, or superstition.

Alongside the historic Pentecostal emphasis upon divine healing, however, certain contemporary practices require careful biblical and theological examination. In some Pentecostal and charismatic churches, pastors, evangelists, prophets, or other Christian ministers pray over bottles of water or oil, describe them as “blessed” or “anointed,” and distribute them to believers for use in their homes. Believers may be instructed to drink the water, sprinkle it throughout their houses, apply the oil to diseased or painful areas of the body, use it during spiritual conflict, or preserve the bottles for future occasions of sickness, danger, oppression, or perceived spiritual need.

The theological meaning attributed to these objects varies considerably. In some settings, water or oil may function merely as a symbolic reminder of prayer, divine grace, or the believer’s dependence upon God. In other settings, however, the language surrounding these substances suggests that the prayer, spiritual authority, or “anointing” of a minister has imparted a special spiritual quality to the material object. The object may consequently be regarded as a carrier, container, mediator, or repository of healing power, divine protection, deliverance, prosperity, or supernatural blessing.

Recent scholarship on material religion has demonstrated that religious faith is never expressed only through abstract doctrines or inward beliefs. Religious communities encounter, interpret, and communicate the sacred through bodies, spaces, sounds, gestures, food, clothing, images, water, oil, and other material forms.⁴ Therefore, the mere use of a physical object in religious practice should not automatically be described as magical, superstitious, or unbiblical. Christianity itself is profoundly material: creation is declared good, the Word became flesh, baptism employs water, the Lord’s Supper employs bread and wine, believers lay hands upon one another, and James instructs elders to anoint the sick with oil.⁵

The central issue is consequently not whether material objects may participate symbolically or instrumentally in Christian worship. The more precise theological question is this:

𝐷𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑆𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑦 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑖𝑙, 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠, 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑎𝑠 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑏𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔?

This article argues that Scripture clearly affirms God’s power to heal and provides biblical warrant for elders to pray for the sick and anoint them with oil. Nevertheless, Scripture does not establish the practice of blessing and distributing water or oil as objects containing transferable, stored, or independently accessible spiritual power. The concern is therefore not the rejection of divine healing, spiritual gifts, embodied religious practice, or the present work of the Holy Spirit. Rather, the concern is the preservation of a biblical understanding of divine agency, Christian faith, the personhood and sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, pastoral authority, and the proper relationship between material signs and spiritual realities.

2.      𝑷𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚, 𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒎𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚

A responsible evaluation should begin from within Pentecostal theology rather than treating Pentecostal experience as an external problem. Classical Pentecostalism has historically affirmed that the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit continue within the life and mission of the church. Pentecostal theology is therefore characterized by an openness to divine action, an expectation of answered prayer, and an experiential understanding of Christian faith. Steven J. Land describes Pentecostal spirituality as an integration of orthodoxy, orthopraxy, and orthopathy—that is, right belief, right practice, and rightly ordered affections.⁶ Pentecostal spirituality cannot be reduced to doctrinal propositions alone; it is embodied, participatory, affective, communal, and expectant.

Amos Yong similarly emphasizes that Pentecostal theology is shaped by an awareness of the active presence of the Spirit within creation, human bodies, communities, and the church’s mission.⁷ Such a theology resists a rigid separation between spiritual and material realities. The material world is not inherently opposed to divine activity, nor should physical means automatically be regarded as spiritually illegitimate.

Frank D. Macchia’s theology of Spirit baptism further emphasizes that the work of the Spirit is relational, ecclesial, participatory, and oriented toward the kingdom of God.⁸ The Spirit is not an impersonal force possessed by spiritually powerful individuals. The Spirit incorporates believers into the life and mission of Christ, forms the church as a community, and anticipates the renewal of creation.

Pentecostal theology therefore provides important resources both for affirming divine healing and for criticizing the objectification of spiritual power. The Spirit may act upon bodies and through material means, but the Spirit cannot be reduced to a substance, energy, commodity, or transferable possession. Theologically, there is a significant difference between affirming that God may sovereignly use a physical object and claiming that a minister can deposit divine power into an object for later use.

Candy Gunther Brown’s research on global practices of divine healing demonstrates that healing prayer often includes bodily actions such as touch, laying on of hands, anointing, testimony, and other embodied practices.⁹ Such actions may strengthen communal participation, express compassion, communicate hope, and embody theological convictions. Nevertheless, the presence of material or bodily mediation does not remove the need for theological discernment. The church must continually ask whether a practice directs faith toward the triune God or relocates spiritual confidence in the object, technique, or minister.

3.      𝑴𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑯𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔

Many contemporary healing practices are defended through selected biblical narratives. Yet the occurrence of an event in Scripture does not necessarily establish that event as a normative practice for the church. A fundamental hermeneutical distinction must therefore be maintained between description and prescription.

Biblical narratives frequently describe unique acts of God within particular historical, covenantal, and redemptive contexts. Such narratives reveal God’s character, purposes, and power, but they do not always provide universal commands or repeatable ministry methods. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart emphasize that biblical narratives generally describe what occurred rather than directly prescribing what must occur in every subsequent generation.¹⁰ Narrative events must be interpreted within their literary and canonical contexts before normative theological conclusions are drawn.

For example, God instructed Moses to make a bronze serpent so that Israelites who looked upon it might live (Num 21:4–9). Elisha instructed Naaman to wash seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kgs 5:1–14). Jesus applied mud to the eyes of a man born blind and instructed him to wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:6–7). Paul’s handkerchiefs and work aprons were associated with extraordinary miracles in Ephesus (Acts 19:11–12). These accounts testify to God’s sovereign freedom to work through unusual material means. Nevertheless, none automatically establishes a continuing ecclesial practice.

Responsible interpretation should consider several questions. Is the practice explicitly commanded? Is it consistently modeled by Jesus and the apostles? Is it explained, regulated, or commended in the New Testament Epistles? What function does the material object perform within the biblical narrative? Is the proposed contemporary practice consistent with the broader biblical theology of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, faith, prayer, the church, and pastoral ministry?

Pentecostal hermeneutics rightly emphasizes the role of the believing community, the illumination of the Spirit, and the experiential appropriation of the biblical text.¹¹ Nevertheless, experience remains accountable to Scripture. The Spirit who empowers the church is the Spirit who inspired the Scriptures; therefore, genuine spiritual experience should not be placed beyond biblical and theological evaluation.

4.      𝑮𝒐𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈

The biblical doctrine of healing begins with God rather than with a particular method, minister, or material object. In the Old Testament, God reveals himself as Israel’s healer: “I am the LORD who heals you” (Exod 15:26). The psalmist praises God as the one “who heals all your diseases” (Ps 103:3). Healing is therefore presented as an expression of God’s mercy, covenant faithfulness, sovereign authority, and gracious care.

The healing ministry of Jesus occupies a prominent place in the Gospel narratives. Jesus healed the sick, restored sight to the blind, cleansed lepers, delivered those oppressed by evil spirits, enabled the lame to walk, and raised the dead. These acts expressed divine compassion, demonstrated the arrival of God’s kingdom, fulfilled messianic expectations, and revealed the identity and authority of Jesus (Matt 11:2–6; Luke 4:18–21).

Keith Warrington argues that healing in the New Testament should not be reduced to a mechanical technique or isolated from the person and mission of Jesus. Healing functions within the broader proclamation of the kingdom and reveals God’s compassionate action toward human brokenness.¹² Likewise, Pentecostal theology generally understands healing as a sign of the kingdom that is genuinely present but not yet fully consummated. Consequently, Christians may pray expectantly for healing while recognizing that sickness, suffering, and death remain realities within the present age.¹³

The apostles participated in ministries of healing through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:1–10; 5:12–16; 9:32–42). Nevertheless, they rejected the idea that miraculous power originated within themselves. Following the healing of the man unable to walk, Peter asked, “Why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk?” (Acts 3:12). Peter redirected attention away from the apostles and toward Jesus Christ, declaring that faith in the name of Jesus had strengthened the man (Acts 3:16).

The apostolic response is theologically significant. Genuine Christian ministry refuses to present the minister as the source, owner, or controller of divine power. Biblical healing is fundamentally theocentric, Christ-centered, Spirit-enabled, and prayer-dependent. Any practice that gradually transfers confidence from God to a minister, method, substance, or object risks obscuring this biblical order.

5.      𝑷𝒓𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒅-𝑶𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝑾𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑨𝒃𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒂 𝑵𝒆𝒘 𝑻𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒆

Water possesses rich theological symbolism throughout Scripture. It may represent cleansing (Ezek 36:25), divine provision (Exod 17:1–7), spiritual life (John 4:10–14), the work of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37–39), and baptismal identification with Christ and the Christian community (Acts 8:36–38; Rom 6:3–4). Nevertheless, the symbolic importance of water does not establish the belief that prayer transfers healing power or ministerial anointing into water.

Several biblical narratives involve water in miraculous events. At Marah, God enabled Moses to address the bitterness of the water (Exod 15:22–25). Elisha purified a harmful water source through the symbolic use of salt (2 Kgs 2:19–22). Naaman was healed after obeying the prophetic instruction to wash seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kgs 5:1–14). Jesus instructed the man born blind to wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:6–7).

These events demonstrate God’s sovereign freedom to use material means. They do not establish water as a permanent carrier of divine power. The Jordan River did not become a universally prescribed source of healing for future lepers. The pool of Siloam was not established as a permanent Christian healing center. Moses did not preserve the water of Marah in containers and distribute it throughout Israel.

More importantly, the New Testament contains no command, apostolic instruction, or established ecclesial pattern in which Christian leaders pray over containers of water and distribute them for healing, protection, deliverance, prosperity, or spiritual blessing. The absence of such instruction does not restrict God’s sovereign freedom; however, it prevents the church from presenting the practice as though it possessed clear apostolic authorization.

6.      𝑨𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑶𝒊𝒍: 𝑬𝒙𝒆𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔

Unlike prayed-over water, the use of oil in ministry to the sick has explicit New Testament support. Mark records that the Twelve “anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them” (Mark 6:13). The most significant passage is James 5:14–15:

“Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.”

The passage should be interpreted within its ecclesial, pastoral, and theological context.

First, the sick believer calls for the elders of the church. The ministry occurs within the relationships and structures of the local congregation. James does not direct the believer toward a distant celebrity minister, an independent healing specialist, or a spiritually empowered object.

Second, the elders come to the sick person. The passage describes personal pastoral ministry rather than the impersonal distribution of pre-blessed substances. The sick person receives prayer, presence, care, and the ministry of the church’s recognized leaders.

Third, the elders pray over the sick person. The grammatical and theological focus falls upon the person receiving prayer rather than upon the oil as an independent object.

Fourth, the anointing occurs “in the name of the Lord.” The authority and efficacy of the ministry are grounded in the Lord rather than in the oil or the spiritual status of the elders.

Fifth, James attributes the anticipated result to prayer and divine action: “the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up.” The text does not state that the oil heals, contains divine power, or stores the anointing of the elders. The Lord remains the active agent of healing.

Scholars differ concerning the precise function of the oil. Douglas J. Moo recognizes that oil may carry symbolic significance while also noting its medicinal associations in the ancient world.¹⁴ Peter H. Davids similarly discusses both medicinal and symbolic interpretations but emphasizes that the effectiveness of the action lies in prayer and the work of God rather than in the oil itself.¹⁵ Luke Timothy Johnson gives greater attention to the embodied and communal dimensions of the practice, locating it within the church’s ministry to the suffering.¹⁶

Regardless of the preferred interpretation, the text does not portray oil as a container of transferable spiritual power. The distinction between the biblical pattern and certain contemporary practices is therefore significant:

The biblical pattern: The sick believer calls the elders; the elders come to the believer; they pray over and anoint the sick person in the name of the Lord; the congregation trusts God for the outcome.

The object-centered pattern: A minister blesses bottles; believers receive and store them; the substance is later applied as though it contains an enduring spiritual power associated with the minister.

These patterns should not be regarded as equivalent.

7.      𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑯𝒐𝒍𝒚 𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕, 𝑨𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑸𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝑷𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓

The concept of “anointing” occupies an important place in Pentecostal vocabulary. It may refer to the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, divine enablement for ministry, spiritual gifting, or a perceived manifestation of God’s power. Nevertheless, popular uses of the term do not always correspond to careful biblical theology.

The New Testament does not portray the Holy Spirit as an impersonal spiritual energy that may be accumulated, transferred into objects, stored in containers, or activated through religious techniques. The Holy Spirit is the divine Person who acts according to the sovereign will of God. Paul writes, “All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11).

Gordon D. Fee emphasizes that for Paul the Spirit is not merely a divine influence or power but the personal presence of God among his people.¹⁷ Similarly, Macchia’s Pentecostal theology understands the Spirit’s work as relational, ecclesial, and oriented toward participation in the life of the triune God.¹⁸ These perspectives challenge any understanding of anointing as a spiritual substance possessed by an individual minister and deposited into material objects.

The account of Simon the magician provides an important theological warning. Simon perceived apostolic authority as a form of spiritual power that could be acquired and controlled. Peter rejected this understanding and declared, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!” (Acts 8:20).

The problem was not merely Simon’s use of money. His deeper error involved treating the gift of God as a controllable spiritual commodity. Similar concerns arise whenever divine power is represented as something possessed by a minister, transferred into an object, distributed through a religious product, or activated through a particular technique.

Christian theology must therefore distinguish between God sovereignly using a physical means and human beings claiming the authority to deposit divine power into an object. The former is clearly present in Scripture; the latter lacks clear New Testament support.

8.      𝑷𝒂𝒖𝒍’𝒔 𝑯𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒌𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒆𝒇𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑨𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒔: 𝑨𝒏 𝑬𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒔 19:11–12

Acts 19:11–12 is frequently cited in support of prayed-over cloths, oil, water, and other objects:

“God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them.”

Several contextual observations are necessary.

First, Luke explicitly characterizes these events as “extraordinary miracles.” The expression emphasizes their unusual character. The narrative does not present them as the ordinary pattern of Pauline ministry or as a practice expected of local church leaders.

Second, God is the subject of the action: “God was doing extraordinary miracles.” The text emphasizes divine agency rather than Paul’s ability to transfer spiritual power into material objects.

Third, Paul is not described as intentionally establishing a ministry based upon the distribution of anointed cloths. The text does not state that he prayed over the handkerchiefs, advertised them, sold them, connected them with offerings, or instructed churches to repeat the practice.

Fourth, the New Testament Epistles contain no command directing elders, pastors, or other Christian leaders to distribute spiritually empowered cloths or objects.

Fifth, the Ephesian context is important. Ephesus was deeply influenced by magical practices, occult traditions, ritual formulas, and beliefs concerning spiritual power (Acts 19:13–20). Clinton E. Arnold has demonstrated the importance of magical practices and beliefs concerning spiritual powers within the religious environment of Ephesus.¹⁹ Within this setting, the extraordinary miracles demonstrated the superior authority of Jesus Christ over the powers feared or trusted by the population.

The following narrative concerning the sons of Sceva further clarifies Luke’s theology. These individuals attempted to employ the name of Jesus as a spiritual formula (Acts 19:13–16). Their failure demonstrated that the authority of Christ cannot be reduced to a technique, incantation, ritual procedure, or controllable source of power.

Acts 19:11–12 should therefore be understood as a descriptive account of an extraordinary divine action within a particular missionary context. It should not be transformed into a universal prescription authorizing ministers to manufacture, market, or distribute spiritually empowered objects.

9.      𝑴𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑼𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑷𝒉𝒚𝒔𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑶𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒔

Recent studies of material religion have challenged the assumption that religion consists primarily of beliefs, doctrines, and inward experiences. David Morgan argues that religious communities perceive and inhabit their worlds through embodied practices and material forms.²⁰ Birgit Meyer likewise emphasizes that material objects, bodily sensations, media, images, sounds, and ritual practices participate in the formation of religious experience.²¹

These insights are valuable because they prevent an overly intellectualized understanding of Christianity. Christian worship is embodied and material. Baptism uses water; the Lord’s Supper uses bread and wine; believers kneel, sing, speak, listen, touch, lay hands upon one another, and gather in physical spaces. The incarnation itself affirms the significance of material creation.

Therefore, theological criticism should not assume that materiality is inherently opposed to biblical faith. The relevant question is not, “Is a physical object present?” but rather, “What theological meaning is assigned to the object, and how does the object function within the community?”

Material practices become theologically problematic when the sign is detached from the gospel, when the object is understood to contain controllable spiritual power, when the minister becomes the exclusive source of that power, or when the object displaces trust in God.

The distinction may be expressed as follows:

A material sign directs faith beyond itself toward God; a magical object becomes the functional location of power and dependence.

This distinction is not always easy to identify in lived religious practice. The same object may carry different meanings for different participants. Pastoral discernment must therefore examine not only official explanations but also how believers actually understand and use the object.

10.  𝑭𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝑺𝒚𝒎𝒃𝒐𝒍 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒂𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝑶𝒃𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕: 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑫𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

One of the principal pastoral concerns surrounding prayed-over water and oil is the possibility that faith may gradually shift from God to the material object. The theological language may remain Christian while the functional object of trust changes.

Believers may begin to assume that water possesses power because a particular pastor prayed over it, that oil contains the minister’s anointing, or that applying the substance guarantees protection from sickness, evil spirits, misfortune, or spiritual attack. Ordinary prayer may then be regarded as insufficient, while access to the blessed object becomes increasingly important.

At this stage, the object may function in a manner similar to an amulet, charm, or protective religious substance. The concern is not merely terminological. The underlying religious logic may become magical: a spiritually powerful individual transfers sacred power into a material object, and the object is subsequently used to obtain a desired supernatural result.

Allan Anderson notes that Pentecostalism in many Majority World contexts engages directly with questions of healing, spiritual power, evil, protection, and deliverance.²² This engagement is one reason for Pentecostalism’s contextual relevance and missionary growth. Nevertheless, contextual relevance also creates the possibility that preexisting assumptions concerning sacred power may be incorporated into Christian practice without sufficient theological transformation.

Biblical faith operates according to a different logic. Faith is personal trust in the living God according to his character, promises, and revealed will. It is not confidence in an object believed to contain spiritual power. The psalmist declares, “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God” (Ps 20:7).

The pastoral task is therefore to direct believers continually toward God rather than toward visible means associated with religious experience.

11.  𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒛𝒆 𝑺𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒔 𝒂 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑾𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈

The history of the bronze serpent provides a significant biblical analogy. During Israel’s wilderness journey, God instructed Moses to make a bronze serpent and place it upon a pole. Those who looked upon it in response to God’s command were preserved from death (Num 21:4–9).

The bronze serpent was divinely authorized and genuinely associated with God’s saving action. Nevertheless, later generations transformed the object into a focus of religious devotion. During the reforms of Hezekiah, the king destroyed it because the Israelites had begun offering incense to it (2 Kgs 18:4).

The object was not inherently evil, nor was its original use illegitimate. The problem emerged when a divinely appointed sign became an enduring sacred object and received the devotion that belonged to God.

This account establishes an important theological principle:

A legitimate sign may become spiritually harmful when it is detached from its God-given purpose and transformed into an object of continuing religious dependence.

The principle is directly relevant to the use of oil. Even when oil is employed as a legitimate symbol within prayer for the sick, it may become problematic if believers attribute inherent or stored healing power to it. A symbol may become a sacred object; a sacred object may become an object of dependence; and an object of dependence may become a subtle form of idolatry.

12.  𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒖𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝑴𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑫𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚

The distribution of anointed objects may reshape a congregation’s understanding of pastoral authority. Believers may conclude that certain ministers possess superior spiritual power that can be transferred through touch, objects, or substances. Items associated with prominent ministers may consequently be regarded as more spiritually effective than those associated with ordinary local church leaders.

Such beliefs may weaken the New Testament emphasis upon the believer’s direct access to God through Christ. Paul teaches that believers have access to the Father through Christ in one Spirit (Eph 2:18), while Hebrews invites the Christian community to approach the throne of grace with confidence (Heb 4:16).

Pastors and elders possess genuine authority and responsibility within the church. They are called to teach, shepherd, protect, equip, pray for, and care for God’s people (Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11–16; 1 Pet 5:1–4). Their authority, however, is ministerial rather than mediatorial. They serve under the authority of Christ and through the ministry of the Word. They do not occupy an intermediary position in which believers must depend upon them for access to divine power.

The New Testament affirms: “There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).

A healthy pastoral ministry directs believers toward maturity in Christ. An unhealthy ministry may create continuing dependence upon the minister’s personality, reputation, perceived anointing, or associated objects.

13.  𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒛𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒑𝒊𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑩𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈

The theological problem becomes more serious when prayed-over water, oil, cloths, or similar objects are sold, connected with required offerings, used to attract crowds, or promoted as distinctive products of a particular ministry.

Jesus instructed his disciples, “You received without paying; give without pay” (Matt 10:8). Peter rejected Simon’s attempt to associate spiritual authority with financial exchange (Acts 8:18–23). Paul likewise distinguished apostolic ministry from those who commercialized or “peddled” the word of God (2 Cor 2:17).

The commercialization of sacred objects risks transforming spiritual ministry into a religious marketplace. Blessings may become packaged, promoted, branded, and distributed as products. The minister may then be perceived as possessing exclusive access to a spiritual resource that believers require.

Simon Coleman’s study of charismatic Christianity demonstrates that prosperity-oriented religious networks may employ material objects, media, testimonies, and financial practices in ways that connect spiritual blessing with circulation, exchange, and ministerial authority.²³ Such practices must be evaluated carefully, particularly when vulnerable believers are encouraged to associate financial giving with access to healing or spiritual power.

Poor, sick, and desperate individuals may be especially vulnerable to promises of healing, protection, prosperity, or deliverance attached to religious objects. Pastoral ethics therefore requires transparency, accountability, and the rejection of any practice that exploits suffering or presents divine grace as a commodity.

14.  𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝑰𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑪𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒕

The Indian context gives this discussion particular urgency. Indian religious traditions are diverse and should not be treated as though they were identical. Nevertheless, many expressions of popular religion within the subcontinent include sacred water, blessed substances, holy ash, protective threads, amulets, ritual objects, sacred food, and items associated with spiritually significant persons or places.

In such contexts, religious objects may be understood as mediators or carriers of sacred power. They may be used to obtain healing, protection, fertility, prosperity, deliverance, or relief from spiritual oppression.

When Pentecostal churches distribute prayed-over water or oil as substances containing spiritual power, converts may retain elements of a pre-Christian or popular magical worldview while adopting Christian terminology. Sacred water may be replaced by “Christian blessed water”; a protective object may be replaced by a bottle associated with a pastor; and dependence upon a traditional religious specialist may be replaced by dependence upon a Christian minister believed to possess transferable anointing.

The outward religious form may change while the underlying worldview remains substantially unchanged.

Christian conversion, however, involves more than the replacement of religious symbols. It includes the renewal of the mind and the transformation of one’s understanding of God, power, faith, mediation, suffering, and spiritual life: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom 12:2).

Contextual Christian ministry must distinguish between communicating the gospel through culturally understandable forms and uncritically absorbing religious assumptions that conflict with biblical theology. The Indian church should proclaim God’s power in ways that confront fear, spiritual bondage, sickness, and suffering while directing believers away from magical dependency and toward mature faith in Christ.

15.  𝑨 𝑩𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑨𝒏𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑶𝒊𝒍

A critical evaluation of prayed-over water and stored anointing oil should not result in the rejection of every use of oil. Such a conclusion would exceed the evidence of Scripture.

James 5:14 provides clear warrant for the elders of the church to pray for the sick and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. The theological concern is therefore not the material substance itself but the meaning attributed to it and the manner in which it is used.

A biblically responsible practice should affirm the following principles:

1. Oil possesses no independent or inherent spiritual power.
2. Healing comes from God rather than from the substance.
3. Oil does not function as a container of a pastor’s personal anointing.
4. The object must not become the focus of faith.
5. Oil should not be marketed or sold as a spiritual product.
6. The sick person should receive prayer, personal presence, and pastoral care.
7. The practice should remain within the ecclesial framework reflected in James 5:14–16.
8. Medical treatment should not be rejected or unnecessarily delayed.
9. God remains sovereign in the manner in which he answers prayer.
10. The church must continue caring for the sick regardless of whether immediate healing occurs.

This approach preserves the biblical practice of anointing while rejecting interpretations that transform oil into a spiritually empowered commodity.

16.  𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑬𝒄𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒔

The correction of unbiblical or theologically harmful practices requires more than public denunciation. Some pastors may adopt such practices through imitation, limited theological education, cultural influence, pressure to demonstrate spiritual power, or a sincere but misguided desire to respond to human suffering. Effective correction should therefore combine theological clarity, biblical firmness, pastoral patience, and ecclesial accountability.

16.1  𝑹𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑩𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑰𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

Churches should train pastors and believers to distinguish between descriptive narratives and prescriptive commands. Biblical passages must be interpreted within their literary, historical, canonical, and theological contexts.

Acts 19:11–12 should not be isolated from the Ephesian context and converted into a universal ministry formula. James 5:14–15 should not be detached from the ministry of local church elders and transformed into a doctrine of spiritually empowered oil.

16.2  𝑻𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑾𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒔𝒆𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝑮𝒐𝒅

Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that he had declared “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). Churches become vulnerable to theological imbalance when testimonies, experiences, visions, isolated biblical verses, and extraordinary claims receive greater authority than careful exposition of Scripture.

Congregations require sustained teaching concerning the gospel, the person and work of Christ, the Holy Spirit, prayer, healing, suffering, spiritual gifts, the nature of the church, pastoral authority, Christian maturity, and biblical interpretation.

16.3  𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝑳𝒐𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑪𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒄𝒉 𝑬𝒍𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔

James directs the sick believer toward the elders of the local church rather than toward sacred objects or celebrity ministers. The ministry of healing should therefore be restored to the context of personal pastoral care.

Elders should visit the sick, listen compassionately, read Scripture, pray, offer encouragement, facilitate reconciliation where necessary, provide practical assistance, and help believers obtain responsible medical care. Where anointing with oil is practiced, its meaning should be clearly explained.

16.4  𝑬𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒑 𝑩𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑫𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑴𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒚

Believers should be taught that they may approach God confidently through Jesus Christ. Christian families should cultivate prayer in the home. Parents may pray for their children, spouses may pray for one another, and members of the church may pray for those who are suffering.

The New Testament commands believers to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17) and to “pray for one another” (Jas 5:16). The church should cultivate a community of prayer rather than a culture of dependence upon spiritually empowered objects.

16.5  𝑹𝒆𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑾𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝑫𝒆𝒏𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒈

Pastoral correction must avoid presenting a false choice between object-centered practices and disbelief in divine healing. Rejecting prayed-over water as a container of spiritual power does not require the rejection of miracles, spiritual gifts, or the present work of the Holy Spirit.

The appropriate theological affirmation is:

God continues to hear prayer and may heal according to his sovereign wisdom and will; however, Scripture does not instruct believers to place their confidence in bottles, substances, sacred objects, or the supposedly transferable anointing of a minister.

16.6  𝑬𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒔𝒉 𝑪𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝑬𝒄𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑮𝒖𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔

Churches and denominational bodies should develop clear pastoral guidelines concerning the use of water, oil, prayer cloths, and other objects. Such guidelines should:

• prohibit claims that divine power has been deposited into material substances;
• discourage the distribution of objects for future healing or protection;
• reject the sale of spiritually branded products;
• prevent the use of testimonies as promotional tools for sacred objects;
• require theological accountability for claims involving supernatural power;
• protect vulnerable believers from financial and spiritual exploitation.

Where these practices are already established, change should be accompanied by careful teaching. Abrupt removal without theological explanation may produce confusion or fear. Reformation should therefore be educational, pastoral, and patient while remaining clear in its biblical direction.

17.  𝑨 𝑩𝒊𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑷𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑴𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒍 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑴𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑺𝒊𝒄𝒌

A healthy local church should approach sickness through prayer, compassionate presence, responsible pastoral care, and trust in the sovereignty of God.

When a believer becomes seriously ill, the believer or family should inform the elders of the church. The elders should visit the person, listen compassionately, read appropriate passages of Scripture, encourage faith in Christ, and pray. Where the church understands James 5:14 as a continuing practice, the elders may apply ordinary oil while clearly explaining that the oil possesses no independent spiritual power.

Prayer should be offered in the name of the Lord, and the outcome should be entrusted to God. The church should continue supporting the person through prayer, practical assistance, encouragement, fellowship, and responsible medical care.

If God grants healing, glory should be given to God rather than to the oil, the minister, or a particular method. If immediate healing does not occur, the sufferer should not be accused of lacking faith. The church should continue to provide love, care, prayer, and hope.

Such a model is biblical because it follows the ecclesial pattern of James 5. It is Christ-centered because faith remains directed toward the Lord. It is Spirit-empowered because it remains open to God’s present action. It is pastoral because the sick person receives personal care rather than merely a religious object. It is ethically responsible because it does not discourage medical treatment or exploit vulnerability. It is spiritually healthy because it preserves confidence in divine healing without promoting superstition.

18.  𝑪𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏

The practice of praying over bottles of water or oil and distributing them for future healing, protection, deliverance, prosperity, or spiritual blessing lacks clear support in the commands and established ecclesial practices of the New Testament.

Scripture affirms that God heals, prayer is effective, the Holy Spirit continues to work, and elders may anoint the sick with oil in the name of the Lord. Nevertheless, Scripture does not teach that ministers possess an impersonal spiritual power called “the anointing” that may be transferred into physical objects, stored for later use, or distributed as a spiritual commodity.

The biblical accounts involving water, oil, mud, handkerchiefs, aprons, and other physical means demonstrate God’s sovereign freedom. They do not establish a general doctrine of spiritually empowered objects. James 5 places the emphasis upon the prayerful ministry of local church elders, the sick person, the name of the Lord, and God’s action—not upon oil as an independent source or container of healing power.

The contemporary distribution of prayed-over water and stored anointing oil may create serious theological and pastoral risks. It may encourage superstition, preserve magical understandings of spiritual power, foster dependence upon religious objects, elevate ministers beyond their biblical role, weaken the direct confidence of believers in Christ, and contribute to the commercialization of spiritual ministry.

These concerns are particularly important within the Indian context, where sacred substances, protective objects, and religious mediators already form part of many popular religious worldviews. The church must ensure that Christian terminology does not merely replace non-Christian terminology while leaving the underlying pattern of religious dependence unchanged.

The appropriate response is neither the denial of divine healing nor the rejection of the Holy Spirit’s present work. Rather, the church must recover a biblically grounded and authentically Pentecostal theology of healing centered upon the sovereign action of God, faith in Jesus Christ, the personal ministry of the Holy Spirit, prayer in the name of the Lord, the ministry of local church elders, the loving care of the Christian community, responsible medical treatment, and submission to divine wisdom.

The church must therefore distinguish carefully between the biblical anointing of the sick with oil and the unbiblical attribution of stored or transferable spiritual power to anointed objects.

The guiding theological conviction may be stated as follows:

Christian faith rests neither in prayed-over water, blessed oil, sacred objects, celebrated ministers, nor religious techniques. Christian faith rests in the living God, who hears the prayers of his people and acts according to his wisdom, grace, power, and sovereign will through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Footnotes

1. Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 115–41; David W. Faupel, The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 112–44.
2. Keith Warrington, Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (London: T&T Clark, 2008), 267–90; Allan Anderson, An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 223–39.
3. Michael Bergunder, The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–18, 219–42.
4. David Morgan, Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief (London: Routledge, 2010), 1–17; Birgit Meyer et al., “The Origin and Mission of Material Religion,” Religion 40, no. 3 (2010): 207–11.
5. John 1:14; Matt 28:19; 1 Cor 10:16–17; 11:23–26; Jas 5:14–15.
6. Steven J. Land, Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 41–48.
7. Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 25–46.
8. Frank D. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 15–20, 258–63.
9. Candy Gunther Brown, Testing Prayer: Science and Healing (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 1–20, 195–219.
10. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 93–111.
11. Kenneth J. Archer, A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2009), 187–220.
12. Keith Warrington, Jesus the Healer: Paradigm or Unique Phenomenon? (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000), 1–20, 217–23.
13. Warrington, Pentecostal Theology, 267–90.
14. Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 236–42.
15. Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 191–94.
16. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 37A (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 330–34.
17. Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 6–9, 896–902.
18. Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit, 258–63.
19. Clinton E. Arnold, Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 14–40.
20. David Morgan, The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 1–31.
21. Birgit Meyer, “Mediation and the Genesis of Presence: Toward a Material Approach to Religion” (inaugural lecture, Utrecht University, October 19, 2012), 6–24.
22. Allan Anderson, To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 135–58.
23. Simon Coleman, The Globalisation of Charismatic Christianity: Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 27–57, 175–96.

Bibliography

Anderson, Allan. An Introduction to Pentecostalism: Global Charismatic Christianity. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

———. To the Ends of the Earth: Pentecostalism and the Transformation of World Christianity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Archer, Kenneth J. A Pentecostal Hermeneutic: Spirit, Scripture and Community. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2009.

Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians: Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Bergunder, Michael. The South Indian Pentecostal Movement in the Twentieth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Brown, Candy Gunther. Testing Prayer: Science and Healing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Coleman, Simon. The Globalisation of Charismatic Christianity: Spreading the Gospel of Prosperity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Davids, Peter H. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dayton, Donald W. Theological Roots of Pentecostalism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Faupel, David W. The Everlasting Gospel: The Significance of Eschatology in the Development of Pentecostal Thought. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 37A. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Land, Steven J. Pentecostal Spirituality: A Passion for the Kingdom. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 1. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Macchia, Frank D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Meyer, Birgit. “Mediation and the Genesis of Presence: Toward a Material Approach to Religion.” Inaugural lecture, Utrecht University, October 19, 2012.

Meyer, Birgit, David Morgan, Crispin Paine, and S. Brent Plate. “The Origin and Mission of Material Religion.” Religion 40, no. 3 (2010): 207–11.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Morgan, David. Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief. London: Routledge, 2010.

———. The Sacred Gaze: Religious Visual Culture in Theory and Practice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

Warrington, Keith. Jesus the Healer: Paradigm or Unique Phenomenon? Carlisle: Paternoster, 2000.

———. Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.