The Laying On Of Hands (Part 1)

Jim Jonas
08/12/12 - The Centreville Journal

In American society, where we covet our personal space and are sensitive to misunderstandings and potential charges of sexual harassment, we are not generally “touchy.” That is, we are more reserved than other cultures in regard to physical contact. So it may be difficult to conceive of the concept of “laying on of hands” mentioned so often in the Scriptures, especially when some of the references seem inconsistent.

1. There are a number of references that are incidental to another act:
   * Matt. 18:28 – In anger (“laid hands on him and took him by the throat”).
   * Matt. 19:13 – A sign of blessing (“that He might put His hands on them and pray”; “… and bless them” – Mark
      10:16).
   * Matt. 26:50 – To physically apprehend (“they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him”; cf. Acts 4:3; 5:18).
    
2. There are also references that seem to have ceremonial meaning:
   * Aaron (and subsequent high priests) “shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all
      the iniquities of the children of Israel … putting them on the head of the goat” (Lev. 16:21).
   * Moses laid hands on Joshua before the congregation (Num. 27:22-23).
   * Leaders of the Antioch church laid hands on Paul and Barnabas at the commencement of the first preaching
      journey (Acts 13:2-3).
    
3. Yet other episodes of laying on of hands is functional – that is, the touching was an integral part of the process of transference:
   * Jesus touched the blind man to heal him (Mark 8:23-25), though this is not an exclusive method of healing.
   * A definitive passage on transference is Acts 8:17-19. This is important because of the claims of many today to
     have miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are not left to surmise about this process, for Luke specifically
     explains the method of impartation. Philip couldn’t transfer the gifts, though he had miraculous ability. Simon
     couldn’t buy the power to impart gifts. It was reserved exclusively for the apostles: “Now when Simon saw that
     through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money …” (8:17). The
     implication is obvious: If there are no apostles today (and there aren’t), then there are no miraculous gifts
     (because the method of impartation no longer exists).

And what shall we make of the following references?

1. Acts 6:6 – Why did the apostles lay hands on the seven servants? Because no miracles were done by those other than apostles before this and because afterward both Stephen and Philip are working miracles, we may conclude that this episode involves both the inauguration or appointment to a particular work and the extension of miraculous ability. This, then, is the first occurrence of this, but Luke does not explain the significance of the laying on of apostles’ hands until two chapters later (Acts 8:17-19).
    
2. I Tim. 4:14; II Tim. 1:6 – Paul refers to Timothy’s “gift” twice, encouraging him to “not neglect the gift that is in you” (4:14) and “to stir up the gift of God which is in you” (1:6). This gift is both “with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” (4:14) and “through the laying on of my hands” (1:6). But is it impartation (miraculous) or ceremonial?
   
   Non-apostolic elders could not confer miraculous abilities, so this gift likely refers to acknowledging the prophetic call of Timothy to the work of an evangelist and assistant of Paul (“the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery” – 4:14). However, Paul was an apostle and could have imparted a miraculous gift to Timothy, but there is no record of his ever using it. More likely, Paul refers to the commencement of Timothy’s work with him and the concurrent actions of himself and the elders at Lystra to formally appoint him to the work.
    
3. I Tim. 5:22 – Timothy is warned against laying hands hastily on anyone. Because he is not an apostle and cannot impart spiritual gifts, this probably refers to appointing elders who are not truly qualified. In so doing, he becomes a partaker of the sins of others. [Continued next week]

Share Online