The Doctrine of “Laying on of hands”
During some recent study concerning 1 Timothy 4:14, I discovered some interesting ideas about the nature of “laying on of hands”. 1 Timothy 4:14 reads, “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” This verse caused me to do some extra searching for the truth concerning this apostolic practice. From the search there seems to be about three common uses of this phrase. There is the “laying on of hands” for healing, there is the “laying on of hands” for commissioning, and there is the “laying on of hands” for imparting the Holy Spirit. Typically, we believe in the church that only the Apostles had the authority to impart the Holy Spirit’s miraculous gifts on another human being. This doctrine is found in Acts 8. It seems in the text that it is the Apostles that have the ability to impart the Spirit to disciples. And I guess we typically take these verses as limiting the role of others in regards to “laying on of hands” to impart the Holy Spirit. It is commonly stated that Apostles could give the gift of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous sense, but those who received this miraculous outpouring could then not impart the gift to someone else. This view seemed legitimate to me. It was only over after studying the issue for awhile that I accidentally happened upon Acts 9:17 “And Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’” I was simply checking a reference for the healing use of “laying on of hands” when it appeared that Ananias laid hands on Paul for him to “be filled with the Holy Spirit.” This verse seemed to cause some confusion. Now it could possibly be argued that the fulfillment of the “filling of the Holy Spirit” is Ananias informing Paul that he must be baptized. But there seems to be a conjunction of “and” that attaches the healing and the imparting of the Spirit. Anyway, I would love some help in this doctrine. What is going on in these texts?
Related posts:
- More About “Laying on of Hands”
- Personality and Doctrine
- Judgments Over Doctrine
- Denominational Spirituality
- Missio Dei through the Holy Spirit
About The Author
[...] Steve, Anne, Asher & StAn wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptTypically, we believe in the church that only the Apostles had the authority to impart the Holy Spirit’s miraculous gifts on another human being. This doctrine is found in Acts 8. It seems in the text that it is the Apostles that have … [...]
Interesting observation. I shall be interested in reading the responses.
Anyone who reads the book of Acts openly and exhaustively will notice the there is no ryme or rhythm to the time and means by which the Holy Spirit begins to indwell the individual. What else should we expect? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. It is only the man of modernity that tried to place a ball and chain upon the Holy Spirit.
Great post and great questions… When you get this all figured out, let me know so that I may understand as well
.
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
I will let you know. This is a serious issue that I am studying now for school. We do read Acts as a hard pattern, once an event occurs we expect it to occur in the same manner everytime.
I think historically we have read Acts expecting a pattern to emerge because we were taught that the entire NT was a pattern. I used to hear sermons on how God gave Noah a pattern for building the ark and likewise God has given Christian a pattern for building the church (the NT). It was just too bad that God left us to unscramble the NT pattern
.
Maybe we are trying too hard to figure out something we are not fully able to comprehend. When I left Sunset, things were pretty black and white for me. I had all the answers. The longer I have preached and studied, the less I know and the more questions I have. In John 3 Jesus said the Spirit is going to do what he wants when he wants where he wants how he wants. I don’t have a clue where he comes from or where he is going, let alone being able to neatly package a set of rules about how he can operate among us. One thing I do know…He is God, I am not.
As Rex stated, there is a pattern in the New Testament that we today should follow. Any examples or commands are to be followed. As for the Holy Spirit, God came to Ananias in
a “vision” and gave him instructions about his meeting with Paul. If God “talks” with someone today and
gives him that same power, so be it. Not to limit God, but I rather think that God has not talked with anyone “directly” in quite a while. God can communicate any way he sees fit, but I believe today that is thru his Son. (Hebrews 1:2)
For clarification I never stated that the New Testament is a pattern or contains a pattern for being the church today. Other have claimed that but I do not. Though I regard scripture with a high view in terms of inspiration and authority, I do not believe God intended the New Testament to be read as a pattern for reproducting the church.
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
I am sorry for misstating Rex’s statement that the New Testament is a pattern for being the church today. He does not claim this. He goes on to say, “I do not believe God intended the New Testament to be read as a pattern for reproducing the church”
You cannot REPRODUCE anything without using the makers original pattern. In order to reproduce the first century church we must use the first century pattern which is the New Testament. If we do not use the first century pattern than anything we do is ok. I believe that is why there is so much division in the religious world today.
Everyone doing what they feel is ok. They are not using the first century pattern, The New Testament.
Corky,
I appreciate your position and understand where you come from. Having said that, I do not believe there is any pattern within the New Testament. Secondly and more importantly, I do not believe we are called to reproduce the first-century church. We are called to be disciples of Jesus in the 21st century. Jesus calls us to follow him not his people. Our goal as Christians is to reproduce the life of Jesus Christ in our own lives within our own contexts. The New Testament is a collection of occasional writings to help the various local Christian communities carry out this goal. We can certainly learn some do’s and don’ts from reading the New Testament. But there is no one size fits all pattern. For example, which pattern of leadership do we prefer? Apostolic only (Acts 2)? Apostolic and Deacons (Acts 6)? Orgainzed Councils (Acts 15)? Apostles (Missionaries), Prophets, Evangelist, Pastors, and Teachers (Acts 21ff, Eph 4, 1 & 2 Tim, Tit)? Do you see how the leadership structures were not a result of some divinely mandated pattern but more the result of the church responding to its present needs?
I suspect you will disagree with much of what I just wrote. That is fair. Part of the problem is that we probably are operating from two entirely different set of hermenuetics, which makes a big difference. I no longer adhere to the Command, Example, Inference hermenuetic. I understand why those who still operate from this hermenuetic do so and respect that but respectfully disagree.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
Rex,
Thanks you for your thoughts. Yes, we do disagree on some points, but this is one of the great freedoms we have in Christ. As Paul points out in the book of Galatians 1:6ff,
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.”
There must have been some pattern for these people to follow or Paul would not be warning them not to be deserting this pattern. As Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 1:10,
” I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.”
If we are speaking different doctrines I do not see how we can present a united front as the church to the world.
In Him
Corky
Corky, with all do respect, quit proof-texting and read the context of Galatians. The charge Paul is leveraging against the Galatian church is the charge of turning the Gospel of Jesus Christ back into the observation of the Old Law. Turning the Gospel into law is something that, IMHO, the CoC was really good at doing during the 20th century (and some still are doing that). How many sermons have we heard instructing the hearer to follow the “law of Christ” meaning the unwritten creed we have established to determine what constitutes faithfulness to Jesus? I heard plenty of those sermons growing up and you know what? The only reference to the “law of Christ” is in Galatians 6.2 and it refers to bearing the spiritual burdens of our fellow Christians.
As for the 1 Corinthians passage… Don’t assume that unity based in Jesus and the wisdom of the cross (the context for the passage you cited) is synonymous with uniformity in practice. Even Paul assumes there will be some differences and even disagreements of what constitutes clean and unclean (1 Cor. 8, see also Romans 14).
We can be united not because we agree on how every last scripture is to be interpreted and practiced but because we both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the crucified and resurrected Lord and Savior.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
Rex,
I do not know what proof-texting is. The only way I know to answer a question about God and His creation is to look to and use His word. His word, the Holy Scriptures (both Old & New Testaments) is his gift to us to tell us what he expects from us. We can call it a pattern book or maybe instructions from a loving Father who wants the best from his less than perfect children. I do not know where the line is but at some point God will give rebellious children up to a reprobate mind. He cannot do this if he has not set some sort of limits.
Again, as for the “law of Christ” you refer too, we read in Romans 8:7,
“the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”
Whatever “God’s law” is, and whatever it wants from us ( or for us) can only be found in the Gospel which was once and for all delivered to us in the Holy Scriptures. When Jesus was tempted by the devil He quoted Scripture. Was he proof-texting or using the scriptures to shape His behavior?
In Him
Corky
Proof-texting is taking a passage from scripture and removing it from it context to prove an argument. In most cases, by proof-texting we change the orginal intention of scripture and its meaning.
As for Jesus proof-texting… No! Jesus was not proof-texting. Go back and read the stories surrounding the passages that Jesus quoted and you will see that Jesus was well aware of the context. The tests which Jesus faced were all tests which Israel faced and failed at. Jesus is quoting from those experiences and telling Satan that he will not fail like Israel did.
Thanks for the conversation.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Ithaca Church of Christ
Ithaca, NY
Matthew,
I like the way you question things to find the truth. I have not studied much about this topic, so I cannot provide any real insight. The doctrine of laying on of hands may have been basic to the Christians of the New Testament, but it seems to have been neglected in my life. I am motivated to look into it further because of your post. Have a great new year!
I find it a bit sad that the original discussion question regarding the laying on of hands kind of got lost.
Add to it the question of foot washing, as we certainly have a very vivid example of Jesus himself doing that. Greeting one another with a holy kiss likely will get you sued these days. Didn’t the example of Christ himself, and the added examples of the disciples observing the various feasts of the old testament cause any of us to wonder why we have abandoned those observations?
Where is the pattern for indoor baptismals? Pews, padded or otherwise? Gymnasiums, fellowship halls, kitchens, PA systems, where do we come off using any or all of these with no first century directive? So much of what we want to fuss over is culturally based, but we don’t see it that way.
Much of what we do has been dragged with us out of Catholicism, because it was convenient to our sense of worship. The first century church met in homes, we meet in specified buildings… is it any wonder that people forget what the church is, that it is not the building that we hold so sacredly close to our worship?
I believe in miracles. If I didn’t, I would never pray for God to intercede in anyone’s health, life, or preach that He still moves among us.
Laying on of hands is one of those things that I also wish I had a better understanding of, but it is just as vague to me as foot washing, praying covered or uncovered, and so many other things.
I just hate when an honest question dissolves into back and forth fussing about patterns, policies, and procedures. How long before we are looking to some central organization/synod for our proper interpretations of these things? I believe that in many ways, we already are… just don’t want to admit it out loud, since it is also not something the first century church did.
Jimbo
I’ve wrestled with this question too. But it’s simple really. Christ’s death and resurrection took away the need for this act. He was our scapegoat! Here’s an excellent quote from http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple05.htm:
The Acts of Sacrifice
The Rabbis mention the following five acts as belonging to the offerer of a sacrifice: the laying on of hands, slaying, skinning, cutting up, and washing the inwards. These other five were strictly priestly functions: catching up the blood, sprinkling it, lighting the altar fire, laying on the wood, bringing up the pieces, and all else done at the altar itself.
The whole service must have been exceedingly solemn. Having first been duly purified, a man brought his sacrifice himself ‘before the Lord’—, to ‘the door of the Tabernacle’ (Lev 1:3; 4:4), where the altar of burnt-offering was (Exo 40:6), and in the Temple into the Great Court. If the sacrifice was most holy, he entered by the northern; if less holy, by the southern gate. Next he placed it so as to face the west, or the Most Holy Place, in order thus literally to bring it before the Lord. To this the apostle refers when, in Romans 12:1, he beseecheth us to present our ‘bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.’
Laying on of Hands
But this was only the commencement of the service. Women might bring their sacrifices into the Great Court; but they might not perform the second rite— of laying on of hands. This meant transmission and delegation, and implied representation; so that it really pointed to the substitution of the sacrifice for the sacrificer. Hence it was always accompanied by confession of sin and prayer. It was thus done. The sacrifice was so turned that the person confessing looked towards the west, while he laid his hands between the horns of the sacrifice, * and if the sacrifice was brought by more than one, each had to lay on his hands.
* If the offerer stood outside the Court of the Priests, on the topmost of the fifteen Levitical steps, or within the gate of Nicanor, his hands at least must be within the Great Court, or the rite was not valid.
It is not quite a settled point whether one or both hands were laid on; but all are agreed that it was to be done ‘with one’s whole force’— it were, to lay one’s whole weight upon the substitute. *
* Children, the blind, the deaf, those out of their minds, and non-Israelites, were not allowed to ‘lay on hands.’
If a person under vow had died, his heir-at-law took his place. The only public sacrifices in which hands were laid on were those for sins of public ignorance (Lev 4:15; 16:21), when the ‘elders’ acted as representing the people— which some Rabbinical authorities add public sin-offerings in general (on the ground of 2 Chron 29:23)— the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, on which the high-priest laid his hands. In all private sacrifices, except firstlings, tithes, and the Paschal lamb, hands were laid on, and, while doing so, the following prayer was repeated: ‘I entreat, O Jehovah: I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I have committed (naming the sin, trespass, or, in case of a burnt-offering, the breach of positive or negative command); but I return in repentance, and let this be for my atonement (covering).’ According to Maimonides, in peace-offerings a record of God’s praise, rather than a confession of sins, was spoken. But, as the principle prevailed that frequent confession even without sacrifice was meritorious, another formula is also recorded, in which the allusion to sacrifices is omitted.
Closely connected with this was ‘the lifting and waving’ of certain sacrifices. The priest put his hands under those of the offerer, and moved the sacrifice upwards and downwards, right and left; according to Abarbanel also ‘forwards and backwards.’ The lamb of the leper’s trespass-offering was waved before it was slain (Lev 14:24); private peace-offerings, only after they had been slain; while in public peace-offerings, the practice varied.