Articles
The Laying On Of Hands (Part 2)
In our last article we looked at examples of the laying on of hands in various contexts: 1) that which was incidental to other actions (like arresting someone); 2) that which had ceremonial meaning (like appointing Paul and Barnabas to their work among the Gentiles); and 3) that which was functional (like the apostles imparting spiritual gifts).
This brings up a question of application: Does the purpose of #2 above apply today? That is, we still have elders, deacons and preachers being appointed in certain churches to take up spiritual duties. There may also be other situations where a particular spiritual work is being undertaken, like the recent trip to visit and teach among the Romanian brethren by Martin, Aurie and Dan. We informed everyone about making benevolent contributions through them, and prayers were requested and offered for their safe travel and fruitful work. Did we neglect a divine mandate by not formally laying hands on them and appointing them to this work?
We can expand this question by thinking of evangelists we invite to preach for us on occasion, Bible class teachers who switch in and out quarterly, baptisms (an obvious acceptance of a life-long charge to faithful service), wedding ceremonies (the appointment of the spiritual head of the family and the nurturer of the children), song leaders and others who serve in a public capacity, etc. Again, is the laying on of hands a mandate for any significant, spiritual undertaking such as these?
This is a question about the application of Biblical authority. We are considering a practice that has behind it approved apostolic examples, but does this alone create a mandate?
My own answer to this question is “no,” and for the following reason: The laying on of hands was a cultural feature that pre-existed Christian practice (as we saw last week in the example of Moses laying hands on Joshua). Its foundation is that of social tradition and had a significance apart from spiritual application. To put it another way, it was more of a Jewish/ Eastern practice than a Christian one. It carried over as a cultural norm rather than an action with particular spiritual meaning.
Not everything done by apostles in the 1st century is a mandate for the church today. For example, a kiss of greeting and washing the feet of a brother appear in the form of commands (I Cor. 16:20; II Cor. 13:12; I Thess. 5:26; I Pet. 5:14; John 13:13-15). These were cultural practices that bear no independent spiritual meaning. By “independent” spiritual meaning I mean that these things in and of themselves are not religious rites or do not carry significance.
We do recognize the spirit of these things: We should warmly greet each other without malice on the one hand or lust on the other, and we should serve each other selflessly even in ways we might find humbling or distasteful. But a kiss of greeting and washing feet per se are not distinctly Christian practice.
But one might ask: Why, then, is baptism considered essential? It is true that baptism predated Christianity (John’s baptism), but it was not merely a cultural practice. Both John’s baptism and baptism commanded by Jesus and the apostles carry specific, independent meaning. Baptism is singled out as the act of faith that secures the actual forgiveness of Jesus’ blood and by which we “put on Christ” (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:26-27; I Pet. 3:21). No such accompanying language defines the laying on of hands.
Our culture has its own consecration rite: The handshake is probably the closest thing to the ancient ritual of laying on of hands. Even in the most solemn appointments, like a presidential inauguration, a shake of the hands “seals the deal.” A hand on the Bible, another lifted, the recitation of the presidential oath – and then a handshake from the chief justice. But even so, do we consider the handshake to be in any sense an “official” component of the inaugural process? No, it is still a cultural courtesy, sometimes a mere formality, and not a key to the Oval Office.
On a different note, it is a shame that the laying on of hands to comfort, encourage and sympathize with those who are hurting has been tainted by sexual abuse or unbridled lust. There is great emotional power in a touch – a holy embrace, a pat on the back – and often these are withheld because of appearance or baseless suspicion. Just another example of good being compromised by evil self-gratification.
