Laying on of hands - what does the Bible say?

The seven were then set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed they laid their hands on them. As this "laying on of hands" is so much misunderstood, and has been made an act by which authority, power and blessing is claimed to be conferred, we must say a brief word on it. It is always proper in reading and interpreting the Word of God, to see if not elsewhere in the Bible the terms or things to be interpreted are used, so that through them the right meaning can be ascertained. The laying on of hands is first mentioned in the Book of Leviticus. In the opening chapters of that book we read how the offerer was to lay his hand upon the head of the offering. Thus we read of the Peace offering: "He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering" (Leviticus 3:2). This meant the identification of the Israelite with the offering itself. And this is the meaning of the laying on of hands from the side of the Apostles. They identified themselves and the assembly with them in their work for which they had been chosen. It was a very simple and appropriate act to show their fellowship with them. All else which has been made of the laying on of hands is an invention. There is no Scripture for the present day usage in Christendom, that a man in order to preach the Gospel or teach the Word of God must be "ordained."

This was very significant in the sacrifices of the O.T. At the consecration of Aaron and his sons, they laid their hands on the bullock for the sin offering, on the ram for the burnt offering, and on the ram of consecration, showing identification of the offerers with the sacrifices. Lev. 8:14, 18, 22. At the consecration of the Levites the children of Israel first laid their hands on the Levites, and the Levites laid their hands on the head of one bullock for a sin offering, and on another for a burnt offering, to make atonement for the Levites. Num. 8:10-12. On the day of atonement Aaron laid his hands upon the head of the scapegoat, and confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and it was sent away into the wilderness to signify the putting away of the sins confessed over the goat. Lev. 16:21.

There was also the laying on of hands as the induction to office, as Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and gave him a charge from the Lord as his successor. Num. 27:23. The apostles also laid hands upon those that had been chosen to take charge of the poor, Acts 6:6; and it is probable that in the appointment of elders, hands were laid upon them. Timothy was counselled not to 'lay hands suddenly' on any man. 1 Tim. 5:22. As a mark of commendation and fellowship hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas when sent forth on their missionary journey. Acts 13:3. A gift was imparted to Timothy with the laying on of Paul's hands, the elderhood being associated with the apostle in the act. 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6. The Holy Spirit was also given with the laying on of the apostles' hands. Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6. The sick were often cured with the laying on of hands. Mark 6:5; Luke 4:40; Luke 13:13; Acts 28:8. This apostolic action has been imitated in Christendom and much misused, great pretensions being made as to a status given and spiritual blessing imparted; whereas if it were regarded as a simple recognition and mark of fellowship in service it would be a scriptural act.

With regard to the laying on of hands, it would seem to have been of several distinct kinds. In the first place, the Holy Ghost was given, on several occasions, in connection with the apostles laying their hands on believers. (See Acts 8:17, 19:6.) Secondly, persons were in this way designated, or rather set apart, for some special office. In Acts 6, for example, the seven who were selected to "serve tables" were "set before the apostles," who, when they had prayed, laid their hands upon them (v. 6); and Paul directs Timothy not to "lay hands suddenly" on any one; that is, as we understand it, Timothy was not to appoint any one to be an elder or a deacon without first satisfying himself as to the possession of the requisite qualifications. Next we find that gift was bestowed on Timothy through the laying on of the apostle's hands. (2 Tim. 1:6.) In all these cases it will be noticed that the laying on of hands is either by the apostles or by Timothy, who was an apostolic delegate, and who therefore acted under Paul's direction and authority. In none of these instances consequently could it be now practised, unless "apostolic succession" were claimed; for which there is not even the shadow of a proof in the Scriptures, but which rather is easily disproved by them. The contention for it indeed rests upon ecclesiastical pretensions and presumption, and not upon the word of God. There are, however, two other kinds of laying on of hands to be noticed. When the Holy Ghost had said, "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them," those who were gathered together with them "fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them," and sent them away. (Acts 13:2-3.) This could in no sense be said to be an appointment to an office; for it was not an office they were called upon to fill, but rather service on which they were sent. The Holy Spirit had designated His servants for their mission. The laying on of hands here was rather of the nature of identification, expressive of entire fellowship, with Barnabas and Saul in their work. This significance of laying on of hands is seen in the Old Testament in connection with the sacrifices. By putting their hands upon the head of the ram of consecration, Aaron and his sons were identified before God with all its sweet savour when it was burnt upon the altar. (Exodus 29:15-19, etc.) An instance of the same meaning may be found in 1 Timothy. As we have already seen, gift was bestowed on Timothy through the laying on of Paul's hands. In the first epistle, referring to this, Paul alludes to the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (Chap. 4:14.) But the very words he uses show its character. Here it is not through, as in the second epistle, where he speaks of the laying on of his own hands, but with, teaching plainly that they were but associated with him in the act, and that thus they were identified with what was being done, as well as with Timothy in the service to which he was being called. Such laying on of hands is simply an act of fellowship. The only other kind to be mentioned is in connection with healing the sick. The Lord Himself laid His hands on the sick (Luke 4:40), and He commissioned His disciples, after His resurrection, to do the same thing. (Mark 16:18.) But while "gifts of healing" were found in the assembly at Corinth, there is no sign of the commission entrusted to the disciples being extended beyond themselves. Enough has been written to aid in the investigation of the question; and the reader, by referring to all the cases mentioned, with their context, will be enabled to apprehend the truth involved, and to estimate at their proper value presumptuous ecclesiastical claims.

He was to lay hands hastily upon no man, nor thus to be partaker in the sins of others. The laying on of hands was practised in various ways in the Church of old. It was essentially a sign of fellowship, not necessarily a communication of authority at all. Those who laid hands on Paul and Barnabas when they started for their mission among the Gentiles imparted no authority to those with whom they thus signified their fellowship. On the other hand, it is quite possible, although it is disputed, that hands were laid upon elders, and that the apostle refers to this in this case. Here it would still be the sign of fellowship, the recognition of one in a certain place of confidence, in his fitness for the place into which he was put. The responsibility implied in it is evident. If thus there should be a hasty recognition not justified afterwards by the conduct of those who received it, those who had committed themselves to it would have identified themselves with what in result was shame and dishonor. Timothy must keep himself pure.

Is the laying on of hands necessary? In Acts 8:17 at Samaria, the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of hands, and likewise at Ephesus in Acts 19:6. In all other recorded cases, the Spirit was given without laying on of hands. At the first preaching to the Gentiles the Spirit was given at the moment of belief, but in all other instances as a distinct event subsequent to belief. The usage of the epistles shows that the first preaching to the Gentiles provided the pattern intended to be permanent, and the rest were exceptional events for special reasons connected with the introduction of the new faith. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 "are we all baptised by one Spirit". Who is this "all"? All that in every place invoke the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In Galatians 3:2 the fact that the Galatians (who had fallen from grace, and were not running well) had received the Spirit by the hearing of faith, is made the ground of the argument as to how they were to be made perfect. But here in Ephesians 1:13, quoted in opening, is the most definite passage on the subject. They were sealed with the Holy Spirit "on believing".

(V. 22). In Scripture to lay hands on another is the sign of fellowship, rather than the communication of authority as Christendom teaches. False liberality may affect large-heartedness by carelessly extending fellowship to those who are pursuing a wrong course. We may thus put our sanction on evil and partake of other men's sins. We are to keep ourselves pure, an injunction that clearly proves we may be defiled by our associations.

The laying on of hands is expressive of fellowship and identification, as Acts 13:3 shows us. Barnabas and Saul were already prophets and teachers when the Spirit called them to launch forth in the evangelization of the Gentile world. There was therefore no thought of "consecrating" them when their fellow-workers laid hands upon them, but rather of showing full fellowship and identification with their mission.

This simple action has been most grievously misunderstood and misrepresented in the interests of ecclesiastical officialism, and many souls have been injured thereby. The rite of Confirmation is indeed built upon it. But what is the significance of the laying on of hands? The general idea may be gathered from such a Scripture as Lev. 1:4. It is expressive of identification.

He who laid hands on another declared thereby his oneness and sympathy with him. Hence the warning to Timothy: "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim. 5:22). The bearing of the action of Peter and John in Samaria was this: on behalf of the Christians in Jerusalem they expressed their oneness with the new group of believers which had sprung up in the city they had ever hated and despised. Instead of the Spirit falling immediately upon them, as upon the company in Caesarea in Acts 10:44, the Samaritans were kept waiting for this blessing until Jerusalem expressed itself through the instrumentality of Peter and John. God thus openly signified that the Church, whether planted in this city or in that, is one. Had the Samaritans been treated precisely as the Jews on the day of Pentecost the old rivalry between the two religious centres, of which the woman spoke to the Saviour at the well in John 4:20, might easily have been carried into Christianity. This was effectually prevented by the Samaritans being made to share the Jerusalem outpouring instead of receiving an independent outpouring of their own. The choice of instruments, too, was remarkable: Peter, the strictly conservative Jew, who had ever judged it an unlawful thing to come to or keep company with a man of another nation (Acts 10:28): and John, the son of thunder, who once asked his Lord if he should command fire to come down from heaven and consume the Samaritans as Elijah did (Luke 9:51-56). But the most sectarian hearts are capable of learning lessons of grace in the school of God. So enlarged were the hearts of Peter and John by what they witnessed in Samaria, that on the homeward journey they evangelised many villages of the same once obnoxious people. They were beginning to understand that God is no respecter of persons.

In Old Testament times we meet with this act (Heb.6:2), both in connection with sacrificial victims and with people. On animals brought to the altar the offerer laid his hand: in the case of the burnt offering or peace-offering, in token of being identified with the value of the sacrifice; in the case of the sin-offering, as an acknowledgment that it stood in his place, his guilt being transferred to it. Then on persons hands were laid in recognition of the part or lot appointed them. We see that on the occasion of the setting apart of the Levites for their service. The elders, by God's appointment, laid their hands on them, the acknowledgment that they were selected to serve Him instead of the first-born of the twelve tribes, on whom He had a claim (Num.8:10). Again, when the blasphemer (Lev.24:14) was to be put to death, the witnesses laid their hands on his head. They had fellowship in the execution of the sentence. Further, when Joshua was to be recognised as the leader of the people, subsequent to the death of Moses, the latter laid his hands on him (Num.27:18); and on that occasion a gift was thereby conferred (Deut.34:9), for it was a superior laying his hands on one not equal to him in spiritual rank.

The laying on of hands was not for ordination; they had been already ordained by the Holy Ghost, and saints were then more subject to Him than to impeach His sufficiency or try to supplement what He had completed. I say nothing of the folly of supposing an inferior order of ministers — "prophets and teachers" — ordaining such as God had set first in the church, viz., apostles.*

The act of the imposition of hands seems to have been practised from very early times, as we see, right through the Scriptures. Thus, "Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it upon Ephraim's head … and he blessed them" (Gen. 48:14-20). Again, the Lord took children into His arms, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them (Mark 10:16). Further, hands were imposed as an external sign of countenance, approval, or fellowship, as is our manner of greeting each other in this country. And, lastly, hands were imposed as an expression of conveyance, as in Leviticus, where we read of the offerer transferring or conveying, ceremonially, his sins to the head of the sacrificed lamb; and also in 1 Tim. 1:6, and Acts 8 etc., where we read of the Holy Ghost being communicated mediately to the Samaritan converts by the laying on of hands. I should remark here that Timothy, who was specially indicated before by prophecy, received his gift for ministry mediately by the laying on of Paul's hands. At the same time, however, the Presbytery (the elders) associated or had fellowship with Paul. In 2 Tim. 1-6, dia, through, or by means of, is the particle used; whereas, in 1 Tim. 4:14, meta, which implies community or participation, is the word employed. I do not remember another similar instance, in which the Lord employed one of His servants as the honoured channel through whom He conveyed a gift; and, of course, it were absurd of any not thus specially commissioned to pretend to the position. The Queen may charge one of her ministers to confer a title in her name, and the act would be valid; but without such royal commission the ceremony would be just child's play.

So, now that we have neither prophecy to indicate, nor apostolic authority to convey a gift, the act of imposing hands with that object would be mockery. Therefore, to impose hands to-day on any one, and by any one, with a view to the conferring of a gift as for ministry, is sinful mimicry of apostolic power.

I conclude that the assembly at Antioch expressed their participation in the work of the apostles — Barnabas and Saul — by laying their hands upon them. It was not ordination. Similarly, I presume that saints might now meet together and commend in prayer to the Lord beloved brethren going forth to service; and why may they not also lay their hands upon them on such occasions? Their doing so, would of course, impart nothing to them, neither would the omission entail any loss. Yet I suppose that if they were simple, and in full fellowship with what the Holy Ghost was doing, they would unceremoniously express the same, and they would be gainers.