Researched by the Ignaria Editorial Team · Updated 2026-05-24
Modern debates about whether Christians should treat affliction spiritually or medically often assume that the tradition made a clear choice. It did not. From the apostolic period through the Reformation, the church consistently held both dimensions together: prayer and anointing for the sick were enjoined by apostolic command (James 5:14-15), while physical means were simultaneously assumed and endorsed. Christ himself healed by touch and by word; the church's healing ministry extended his work through its ministers. The patristic tradition portrayed Christ as the Physician of both soul and body — a physician who addresses whatever dimension of the human person is afflicted. What divided the tradition was not whether physical means were legitimate but what status anointing of the sick held as a repeatable ecclesial rite: Catholics and Orthodox developed it as a sacrament capable of bodily and spiritual healing; Reformed Protestants argued the miraculous gifts had ceased and the Jamesian anointing was tied to an apostolic era now past. What remained constant was the assumption that the human person is a unity of body and soul, and that healing — however administered — addresses both.
The Apostolic Command: Prayer, Anointing, and Bodily Healing
James 5:14-15 is the New Testament's primary text on the church's healing ministry: "Is any sick among you? 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 shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." James places the initiative with the sick person who must summon the elders, indicating that healing is an ecclesial act rather than a purely individual spiritual exercise. The promise attaches to the elders' prayer of faith, not to the intensity of the sick person's own spiritual effort. The Gospels establish the pattern that underlies this command: Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law by taking her by the hand (Mark 1:31), demonstrating that bodily healing belongs to his ministry and is accomplished through concrete physical action alongside spiritual authority.
Christ as Physician of Both Soul and Body
The fathers consistently portrayed Christ as the Physician who heals according to the measure of faith he finds, addressing soul and body together. John Cassian illustrated the principle by recalling how Jesus responded to the centurion: "He restored to their former strength the limbs that were relaxed, by the power of a word, saying: 'Go thy way, and as thou hast believed so be it unto thee.'" Augustine distinguished between the primary and secondary goods in healing — the soul's freedom from sin being the greater concern and bodily relief the lesser — while affirming both as proper objects of prayer: "let us make this only our endeavor, that our hearts be whole from sins; and when it happens that we are scourged in the body, let us pray to Him for relief." Chrysostom identified the connection between soul and body as diagnostic: bodily ills frequently arise from the wickedness of the soul, making spiritual health the wellspring from which bodily restoration flows.
Medieval Sacramental Healing and the Council of Trent
Medieval theology developed James 5 into a sacramental theology of anointing, understanding it as a remedy for both body and soul. Hugh of St. Victor described anointing as "a sort of special medicine for the body and soul, mitigating and healing its languors," and argued that it could be repeated whenever sin or illness recurred. Thomas Aquinas identified Extreme Unction as a sacrament instituted to address bodily sickness as a consequence of sin, providing a spiritual remedy that may also restore bodily health when expedient. The Council of Trent (1563) formalized this: anointing "raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy" while "at times obtains bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul." This formulation preserves both dimensions: the sacrament addresses the whole person, and its bodily efficacy is real but conditional on what serves the soul's welfare.
The Reformation: Critique of Sacramentalism, Affirmation of Means
The Reformed tradition challenged the Roman sacramental framework while preserving the conviction that spiritual and physical means belong together. Calvin argued that the apostolic anointing in James was tied to miraculous gifts that had ceased, and that what Rome practiced "insults the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy." But Calvin did not conclude that physical means were inappropriate — he taught that God "has fixed the boundaries of our life" while simultaneously entrusting believers "with the care of it, provided us with the means of preserving it, forewarned us of the dangers to which we are exposed, and supplied cautions and remedies, that we may not be overwhelmed unawares." The church was never asked to choose between spiritual and physical healing; it was asked to administer both as gifts from the God who governs the whole person. Matthew Henry captured the pastoral posture: God's tender mercy "will make his people an abundant amends for all their sufferings and afflictions" — not by removing physical affliction as if it were unreal, but by ensuring that all suffering serves God's purposes and terminates in his appointed time.
What the primary sources show
"Is any sick among you? 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 shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." — The apostolic command that grounds the church's healing ministry: prayer, anointing, and forgiveness addressed together to the whole person.
"It is known, then, to God what is expedient for us: let us make this only our endeavor, that our hearts be whole from sins; and when it happens that we are scourged in the body, let us pray to Him for relief." — Augustine subordinates bodily healing to spiritual wholeness without dismissing it: both are proper objects of prayer, with the heart's freedom from sin as the primary concern.
"For that our bodily ills are caused by the wickedness of the soul, is shown both by him that had the palsy thirty and eight years, and by him that was let down through the roof, and by Cain also before these." — Chrysostom teaches a diagnostic principle: spiritual condition and bodily affliction are interconnected, so healing the soul is often the wellspring from which bodily restoration flows.
"It is a sort of special medicine for the body and soul, mitigating and healing its languors." — Hugh presents anointing as addressing both dimensions of human affliction simultaneously: the tradition never separated bodily medicine from spiritual care.
"...raises up and strengthens the soul of the sick person, by exciting in him a great confidence in the divine mercy...and at times obtains bodily health, when expedient for the welfare of the soul." — Trent preserves both the spiritual and bodily efficacy of anointing, but qualifies bodily healing as conditional on what serves the soul's welfare.
"For he who has fixed the boundaries of our life, has at the same time entrusted us with the care of it, provided us with the means of preserving it, forewarned us of the dangers to which we are exposed, and supplied cautions and remedies, that we may not be overwhelmed unawares." — Calvin reconciles divine sovereignty with the duty to use provided means: God's governance does not cancel the responsibility to employ the remedies he has supplied for bodily and spiritual care.
"The best way to bear afflictions is to look to the end of them; and the pity of God is such that he will not delay the bringing of them to an end when his purposes are once answered; and the tender mercy of God is such that he will make his people an abundant amends for all their sufferings and afflictions." — Henry presents affliction as divinely purposive: it serves God's ends and terminates in his appointed time, combining submission with active hope.