Laying On of Hands: Guidelines and Principles—Who May Lay on Hands?

Introduction

You owe yourself some degree of religious curiosity. Perhaps better said, you owe others some degree of religious curiosity. What I mean is a genuine consideration of histories, traditions, practices that in some way reasonably challenge your own assumptions or conclusions.

I’m not saying you should be in a state of constant doubt, of always searching and never finding. I’m not saying that any and every theory falls into the category of reasonable challenge and must be considered. But our occasion of studying this ritualistic section within our Oracles of God series—namely, this middle pair of baptism and laying on of hands¹—makes us aware of some reasonable differences in Christian practice.

When we studied baptisms, for example, we saw that there are more baptisms in Scripture than most people are aware of. Then, of course, we learned about the different views of baptism throughout the church (across geography and time). We will see differences in the church with laying on of hands as well.

But these practices across different Christian traditions, at some point in their history, point to differences in belief about what is true and best.

These practices across different Christian traditions … point to differences in belief about what is true and best.

And so we’ve seen differences in belief not only in these ritualistic principles but also in the first pair of elementary principles we discussed—specifically, differences in belief regarding the relationship of repentance and works and faith. And we’ll no doubt see differing beliefs when we encounter the last pair of principles: resurrection from the dead and eternal judgment.

In my previous sermon, we saw that laying on hands is used in commissioning or ordaining, but outside of that fact, Scripture lays out very little in terms of how to go about the practice.

Whatever you think about ordination, if you think about it at all, is probably shaped by the tradition you grew up in—by whatever you grew up seeing.

Whatever you think about ordination … is probably shaped by the tradition you grew up in.

In some shape or form, ordination services have commonalities across traditions and, at the most general level, typically involve:

Presentation of a candidate(s) for service
Some form of testing of the candidate (or acknowledgment that such testing has taken place), so that the candidate has been deemed worthy of the office
Some recognized distinction among ordained and non-ordained individuals
Prayer and laying on of hands
Celebration of the individual and the community to which he belongs

Outside of those basic elements, you will encounter different traditions and formalities when it comes to ordination. And if you consider the spectrum of Christian practice, the tradition at GraceLife (where I serve as lead pastor) exists on the side of the spectrum with the least formality and the least centralized authority (those things tend to pair up).

Toward the end of this sermon, we’ll discuss a concept that may be entirely new to you; it may be different not only from what you see practiced, but in terms of being rooted in a theology and philosophy of ministry that you might have never encountered or understood. It’s worth your curiosity, if for no other reason than numbers: its adherents are the majority, and its practice has spanned centuries.

Consideration of practices that are in opposition or alternative to yours help you to clarify or erase the boundaries of your own positions.

Consideration of practices that are in opposition or alternative to yours help you to clarify or erase the boundaries of your own positions. Sometimes we encounter different traditions or sets of beliefs that cause us to assess our own. Maybe we find that we’ve built on the wrong foundation altogether; or the foundation is strong, but the structure is shaky (we need a readjustment); or perhaps we’re in a good position and just need to strengthen and maintain what’s been established.

Our next consideration in our Laying on of Hands sermon subseries² is to look at the guidelines and principles that are outlined in the Bible for laying on hands. In doing so, we come to the realization that there is little there in terms of guidelines and principles. So as we ask the question “Who may lay on hands?” there are two related questions to ask:

Is laying on of hands directed or voluntary?
Who has the authority/power to lay on hands?

Directed or Voluntary?

Is laying on of hands something we can do at our own discretion, or is it reserved for when God says, “OK, now go do this”?

There are certainly cases in the Bible when God clearly gave direction to someone to lay on hands. We have seen many of these cases already (in previous sermons in this subseries). For example:

God told the priests to lay hands on the sacrifices and offerings (we see numerous references in the Mosaic law to this; it shows the representation, identification, transference of guilt, and substitutionary purpose of the practice).
The Jews were to lay their hands on the offering they brought before the Lord (as above); see Numbers 8.
The Jewish congregation was to commission the Levitical priests (Numbers 8:10).
Moses laid hands on Joshua to commission him (Numbers 27:18–23; Deuteronomy 34:9).
Ananias was instructed to lay hands on Saul for healing (Acts 9). This is one purpose we haven’t talked about for laying on of hands—healing—and we see it frequently in the New Testament.

We see other examples in Scripture when laying on of hands was voluntary:

Israel/Jacob blesses his grandsons (Genesis 48:9–20).
There are other examples of healing in the Bible where’s there’s a mix of voluntary and directed laying on of hands, plus some voluntary laying on of hands that stems from some previous or ongoing directive.

This invites us to ask the question, How should we understand directives in the Bible? What is the level of direct contact needed to consider a Christian practice a directive?

To understand an answer to these questions, let’s walk through an exercise.

Consider the book of Colossians. It’s a letter written to the church at Colossae of that time. But is it written to anyone else? Is it written only to the Christian church at Colossae, or is it also written to other churches of that time? Or is it even broader than that, written to Christian churches of all time? We have some letters in which Paul says to “have this read” to other churches. And many of us agree that Colossians was written to all churches for all time, so there’s something to be gleaned—some directive for us today in the letter. But the question is, what in the letter is descriptive? (In other words, what in it simply says, “Hey, this is what happened” versus “Here’s what you should do”?) And what in the letter is prescriptive (saying “This is what you should do”)? And ultimately the question is, “What is prescriptive to me?” Moreover, what’s the manner by which I would even judge something to be prescriptive?

Let’s continue to consider the letter of Colossians as an example. At the end of the book, Paul writes, “Say to Archippus, ‘Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it’” (4:17). Is this a command to find a guy named Archippus (or “Archie,” if you want to be a little less archaic) and say to him, “Hey, the Bible says you need to take heed of your ministry, which you’ve received in the Lord, so you may fulfill it”? Of course not. But it is a message to us to take heed of the ministry to which we’re called.

Understanding directives in the Bible—and whether they’re meant for us today—is not easy; this is literature that is, for New Testament purposes, 2,000 years old.

Who Has the Authority/Power to Lay on Hands?

We come to the second big question about laying on of hands. Who has the authority and power to do it?

There’s a slight difference in the terms “authority” and “power.” Someone might have a (given) authority, but he may be powerless to execute it. You may also encounter people with great power or influence who don’t have the authority to do what they’re doing.

As a principle, laying on of hands is meaningless apart from proper authority.

Laying on of hands is meaningless apart from proper authority.

We’ve discussed at great length how physical actions must be connected to some greater spiritual significance. No one can convey more authority or power than what he has. In some cases in Scripture, the authority is supernatural; in other cases, it’s bestowed by man. In still other cases, it is simply the natural way of things.

Consider the examples we’ve seen already in this sermon series:

Jacob’s blessing of his sons was a voluntary act. Also, as the father, Jacob was the only one who had the authority to bless his grandsons in his own name. No one else could have blessed them in the name of Jacob (Israel).
In the case of Moses laying hands on Joshua, again, Moses—as the leader of the people of Israel at the time—was the only one with the authority to lay hands on Joshua to appoint him to be the new leader.
Only the priests had authority to lay hands on the sacrifice (for priestly purposes), thus representing all of the people.

The highest degree of authority and power is when we see divinely bestowed authority and what I’ll describe as resident power.³ Following is an example of divine authority and resident power in the Old Testament; it occurs when Elisha (the prophet who succeeded Elijah) lays his hands on Joash the king of Israel:

When Elisha became sick with the illness of which he was to die, Joash the king of Israel came down to him and wept over him and said, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!”⁴ Elisha said to him, “Take a bow and arrows.” So he took a bow and arrows. Then he said to the king of Israel, “Put your hand on the bow.” And he put his hand on it, then Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands. He said, “Open the window toward the east,” and he opened it. Then Elisha said, “Shoot!” And he shot. And he said, “The Lord’s arrow of victory, even the arrow of victory over Aram; for you will defeat the Arameans at Aphek until you have destroyed them.” Then he said, “Take the arrows,” and he took them. And he said to the king of Israel, “Strike the ground,”⁵ and he struck it three times and stopped. So the man of God was angry with him and said, “You should have struck five or six times, then you would have struck Aram until you would have destroyed it. But now you shall strike Aram only three times.”

Elisha died, and they buried him. Now the bands of the Moabites would invade the land in the spring of the year. As they were burying a man,⁶ behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet. (2 Kings 13:14–21, emphasis added)

In the passage above, it’s in verse 17 that we see the power transfer (“then Elisha laid his hands on the king’s hands …”)—a “sealing of the deal,” if you will. Then, when a man is later thrown in the same grave (cave) as Elijah’s body and his body touched the bones of Elijah, Elijah revived and stood up. There was again some resident power, even residual power, in Elijah’s body.

Next, let’s consider an example of divine authority and resident power in the New Testament. We’ll find it in Acts 8:

Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them. The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing.⁷ For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed. So there was much rejoicing in that city.

Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great; and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, “This man is what is called the Great Power of God.” And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts.⁸ But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike. Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.⁹ Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”¹⁰ But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.” (Acts 8:4–21, emphasis added)

In this example, we can perhaps sympathize with Simon; he sees, as we see, that there is something divine and powerful in this act—it is a thing to desire. I want to be a part of what’s going on here, too. But Simon was confused when it came to issues of power and authority; he didn’t quite understand the details of what was going on.

What was the potential area of confusion for the Hebrew audience? Consider our list of elementary principles: repentance, faith, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All five of those except laying on of hands are a bit easier to guess regarding controversy; they were all at the heart of standard religious debates. But laying on of hands is different. There are a few possibilities for why laying on of hands made this list by the author of Hebrews.

Maybe it was an Old Testament ritual, and the author is reminding the audience about what was going on with this ritual that was no longer valid or effective.

Perhaps the confusion was over the relationship between laying on of hands and baptism (and the giving of the Holy Spirit).

Perhaps it is a point of question as the entire power and authority paradigm has shifted in the New Testament world. Everything regarding priests and leaders, synagogues and religious practices, was changing. And now there are these men of God who can by the hand of God do incredible things with their own hands. The people may have been wondering, Who do we listen to? Just read the letters of Paul, and you’ll see how he was constantly chased by a group of people saying, “No, don’t listen to Paul! He’s not a true leader.”

Apostolic Succession

Speaking of Paul, let’s look at his second letter to Timothy. Paul was a mentor to Timothy and had laid his hands on him. Remember, when we covered the purposes of laying on of hands, we talked about conferring blessing or transferring guilt; we talked about the principle of substitution; and we talked about ordination and commissioning. Here is a verse that, from a Protestant perspective, we might place in a different category altogether, or as a subcategory of one of the purposes we’ve already discussed:

For this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. (2 Timothy 1:6)

From this verse, you might say a purpose of laying on of hands is to bestow a gift. You might initially consider this a subcategory of the conferring blessing purpose. Or you might say it’s actually a subcategory of ordination or commissioning, because what we have in this verse is Paul ordaining Timothy.

Ordination is handled in different ways across denominations and traditions of the church. Some will see it as a process. Others will see here the sacrament of holy orders. “Sacrament” isn’t just a fancier word for a religious practice; in certain traditions, the sacraments are the means by which people receive God’s grace. Thus, they’re of utmost importance. The sacrament of holy orders can be defined as the ordination of a person to an office of the church that is legitimized only by the directed, authoritative, formal process of laying on of hands which, according to these traditions, is a process set in place by the apostles and is restricted to those who have received this grace through an uninterrupted line that can be traced back to the apostles.

If you come from a Baptist background, you’ll read this verse in 2 Timothy and say it’s describing Timothy being ordained as a pastor.

But if you’re Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican (or a few other denominations), you’d read this passage and say Timothy is being ordained as a bishop (as first bishop of Ephesus), thus establishing the bishopric of Ephesus or Metropolis of Ephesus. You’d say Paul ordained Timothy, and Timothy ordained Onesimus, and there was a succession of bishops that could be traced all the way back to an apostle, namely Paul. This process refers to the concept of apostolic succession. The idea is that the line of bishops today are uninterrupted all the way back to the apostles—so, any bishop you ask today, “Who ordained you?” would reply with the name of a bishop, whose ordination could be traced all the way back to one of the first apostles.

Those who hold to this view of apostolic succession would say that from this succession comes the only legitimate power and authority in church. That succession, perpetuated through the laying on of hands, extends to:

The ordination of priests and consecration of bishops
Rule in the church
Confirmation of members of the church

Apostolic succession = the idea in some denominations/church traditions that the line of bishops today is uninterrupted all the way back to the apostles; these bishops are seen as the only legitimate power and authority in church, and their succession is perpetuated by the laying on of hands

This concept is practiced principally by those in the following churches:

Roman Catholic
Orthodox
Anglican
Some Lutheran

Here’s a quote from the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church (CCC) on this topic:

“Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops.”¹¹ Hence the Church teaches that “the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.” (CCC 862)

I would add that if the church is in control of salvation—that is, if you don’t view salvation as granted to the individual who appeals to Christ on his own, who trusts Him individually, rather than being mediated at least to an extent by the church—then this formal and guarded process is quite reasonable. Then, the reason for apostolic succession would be to ensure the truth and uniformity and adherence of proper teaching and function within the church; it would also be to ensure that the actuality of real grace that conveys authority and power in the church continues.

Assessment of the Concept of Apostolic Succession

I’ll concede that the idea of apostolic succession is a very clean one. It essentially says, “The apostles started it, they had authority and power, and it’s been passed down through the centuries and millennia.”

However, the history of the concept of apostolic succession is not as clean or provably pure as those holding to it might suggest. It has a lot of variations within traditions and across denominations. Practically speaking, what you end up with is not the uniformity of teaching or function. Thus, important questions arise as to where lies the real grace and authority and power in the church.

All of the groups (churches) that I mentioned above will lay claim to apostolic succession, because they are going to view their particular schism, break, split, or reform as an improvement of the church, and thus a movement of God (i.e., in keeping with what the apostles would have wanted). Even the religious movement of Mormonism appeals to this idea. Mormonism founder Joseph Smith contended that there was a great apostasy that took place after the apostles died; as luck would have it, an apostle supposedly appeared to Smith and gave him the power of the priesthood, specifically (and fittingly in light of our current study based on the book of Hebrews) the priesthood of Melchizedek.¹²

Before you cast off formal churches or other religious factions as strange, we who reject apostolic succession have our own version of all of this. We just deformalize and individualize the concept and say, “I feel the Holy Spirit leading me …” Be careful with that kind of claim.

We who reject apostolic succession have our own version of all of this …: “I feel the Holy Spirit leading me …”

Origins of the Idea

How did the idea of apostolic succession come about?

If you believe in it, it makes sense that this would be a (capital T) Tradition of the church. And before you say we don’t see it in Scripture, so it must not be right, you need to be prepared to answer the rebuttal of someone who says, “Exactly. And if you don’t see that in Scripture don’t you think God would have preserved something this important in the Tradition of his Church?”

It’s possible the idea of apostolic succession was an overreaction to the Gnostics. Gnosticism was a sect that arose within the early years of the church whose adherents claimed special knowledge or revelation from God. As a reaction to that, the church might’ve felt the need to say, “No, that’s not true; you don’t have a special revelation from God, because we have our traditions and practice and beliefs all linked to the apostles.” And in order to preserve itself against this Gnostic teaching, the church might’ve said, “Let’s set up this idea that everyone who follows absolutely has claim to the truth, because it lines up with the apostles.”

It’s also possible—and in my view, most likely—that the church, like any growing system, formed a powerful central authority beyond what was good or intended. We certainly see that in the time of Christ, when we consider what the Jewish religious authorities had become. And like monarchs and pharisees, pedigree supplants principle.

Most likely … the church, like any growing system, formed a powerful central authority beyond what was good or intended.

The bottom line is this: The church is supposed to be apostolic, and even abuses of that truth or twisting of that truth will preserve some truthful element. Scripture asserts the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). Christ is the cornerstone, and from the cornerstone the foundation is built; the cornerstone aligns the foundation across all of its planes, before the rest of the foundation is filled.

Furthermore, the proper adherence of church members to this day is adherence to apostolic teaching. In Acts 2:42, we see, “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.”

Does an apostolic church mean the more literal and physical reality of being able to trace one’s authority and power through a series of ordinations beginning with the apostles and continuing through their successors, the bishops? Or does it mean the church is built upon the faith taught by the apostles—namely, the faith revealed in the Scriptures? The difference is whether succession is historical and institutional, or whether succession lives in ideas and practices.

There are problems in measuring each—problems in measuring history, problems in measuring ideas. Much of what you conclude might rest on how comfortable you are with those problems.

GraceLife’s Position and Practice

At GraceLife, where I serve as pastor, we hold that the apostolicity of the church is measured by its adherence to the truth of the Scriptures, for it is the Scriptures that are the known witness of the apostles and their teachings. Our church practices a voluntary laying on of hands for ordination services, yet we believe this practice is built upon the biblical example and is within the rights of an individual body of believers to engage in this practice. It’s a practice that lives between the areas of voluntary and directed. We see it as a practice in the church that we think is appropriate to engage in.

Our own practice has evolved since I’ve been here (for 15 years as of 2024). Some such evolution within the church would be expected and reasonable, as new leaders have new visions for the church or have clarified views regarding church governance. As I said at the beginning of this sermon, we should maintain some level of religious curiosity. Interestingly enough, GraceLife’s founding pastor, A. L. Stough, was studying for the Catholic priesthood when he became convinced of other truths and set out to become a Baptist minister. But one thing’s certain: If I ever say I’ve been visited by the apostles themselves and have a few new things to teach, you should question me!

In terms of ordination practices at GraceLife, we have three main categories of commissioned roles.

Elders: Elders are charged with the leadership of the church, including its administration and spiritual well-being. As a subset, we have elders who are also pastors, and they shepherd the flock with an emphasis on teaching and spiritual care while also being charged with elder leadership.

Deacons: We also ordain deacons here at GraceLife. Historically, deacons have been regarded as ministers of mercy—caring, for example, for widows (as called for in Acts 6). Even within the past 20 years or so, other discoveries of scholarship and language have caused many to shift their ideas of what they believe about deacons. The newer and broader vision of deacons is the idea of being the service arm of the elders. So, for whatever spiritual needs the elders recognize within the church, they call upon the deacons to meet those needs.

The newer and broader vision of deacons is the idea of being the service arm of the elders.

Ministers: We also have ordained ministers of the gospel in the broader sense. These are those who are dedicated to a lifetime of ministry. Inherent in their roles is the idea of sending. We have a minister of prayer and encouragement, for example, who may minister at GraceLife or elsewhere on a regular basis (e.g., going to groups like law enforcement officers or rehab centers, or working alongside other area ministries). These individuals are commissioned to minister within our church, but they’re also commissioned to be representatives in our community.

Applications

What are some applications to this teaching on laying on of hands and the concept of apostolic succession?

First is to simply be aware of these ideas. To the extent that you weren’t aware of these beliefs, let this sermon be an opportunity for you to stop and consider that your assumptions and convictions probably suffer blind spots. Don’t be ashamed if you weren’t aware of apostolic succession until now. It’s a big deal in the history of the church, but many of us today may not be as aware of it—or of other similar traditions. There’s no need to fear these things or purposely avoid them. It is good, however, to learn enough about them to understand them at a basic level and to see how you might affirm some area of truth in them and thus extend grace toward those who hold to them (even if you yourself do not). It’s also good to learn enough about traditions of the church to understand how you might argue against that which is false and thus uphold truth with others.

Let this sermon be an opportunity for you to stop and consider that your assumptions and convictions probably suffer blind spots.

I encourage you to put on trial the thoughts of these traditions. Appoint yourself as the lawyer for each side. Weigh the evidence. Consider a system for determining how to weigh the evidence. Is the idea coherent? Is it consistent? Is the idea cohesive? What are Scriptural arguments for or against each side?

I also encourage you to assess your current beliefs regarding church practice. Is your belief (and practice) based on the tradition of men or the apostolic tradition? When you say things like “Church should be like _______” or “Church should never be like _______,” what are you basing your assertion on?

For all the discussion on power and authority, you’ll have to decide the extent to which you give significance to church history, especially history with close proximity to the early church. How much power or authority rests in early documents or purported church fathers? In my opinion, the answer isn’t nothing; there is at least great historical value in those writings. But it’s also not everything. Even Peter himself—the supposed leader of the early church—had to be corrected in practice in the first century. If we see such correction even of Peter, how much can we depend upon writings and practices of the early church? In fact, much of the New Testament was written because the first-century church was often getting things wrong. There was need for correction even then, among those closest to the apostles.

You’ll have to decide the extent to which you give significance to church history … [including] early documents or purported church fathers.

Conclusions

As we move toward our final sermon in this series, here’s what I hope you’ll conclude: The teachings and view of laying on of hands that I’ve presented—and that is upheld at GraceLife—is, we believe, faithful to Scriptural prescriptions. In areas in which Scripture is silent only descriptions are given (thus allowing freedom to decide whether to adopt certain practices or not), I along with my fellow leaders at GraceLife seek wisdom.

We’re a New Testament church with a calling to function in the 21st century. Some aspects of our calling are timeless, while some are time-bound. It would be a mistake to try to model a church entirely on what is seen in Acts 2, when there was still a lot of the church still to be established.

I hope, too, that you’ll conclude that ordination is special. That means it is rare and difficult. Ordination is service-oriented: it is the outworking of the Great Commission with obedience to the Great Commandments.¹³ Laying on of hands is a testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church at the corporate and individual levels. We believe in the authority and power of the church; the degree to which that authority and power is manifested in our church is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit. He acts as He pleases.

Laying on of hands is a testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church at the corporate and individual levels.

Lastly, power and authority, especially religious power and authority, are perpetually susceptible to corruption; righteous systems that are filled and operated by fallen humans will exhibit and foster unrighteousness. We’re all to guard against it.

But guarding the church is really the subject of the next sermon, when we will look at one clear instruction Scripture does give us regarding laying on of hands: exercise caution; that is, don’t lay on hands in haste.

Table of Contents