Have you ever put a puzzle together and
then discover that you are missing a piece?
Takes away the whole fun of doing the puzzle.
Most Christians and churches today, at
least in the United States, have a missing piece. The problem is that they don’t know it’s
missing.
Nobody ever talks about it, and when they
do, they don’t think it’s any big deal.
In Hebrews 5, the author has been talking
about believers who should have been further along in their spiritual growth by
now. They should be teaching others in
the faith, but they are still in need of being taught themselves.
Then in Hebrews 6, he wants to take them
to new places spiritually, and he briefly mentions the basic foundational
teachings of Christianity: repentance, faith in God, baptism, the resurrection
of the dead, and eternal judgement. That’s
all in Hebrews 6:1–2:
The passage has some things that scholars
differ about as to its exact meaning, but you can still understand the general
sense without understanding all the details.
Some English Bibles use the word ‘washings’
or something like that instead of the word ‘baptism.’ One reason is that the word is plural,
baptisms, and the other is that the Greek word used is not the common one used
for baptism.
But then we don’t really know who wrote
Hebrews, so you can’t compare this against other New Testament writers. To say the word means ‘washings’ doesn’t make
sense, because these are supposed to be foundational Christian teachings, and
nobody calls washings a foundational Christian teaching.
Some people wonder why the word is plural
if it refers to baptism. Paul did say in
Ephesians 4:5 that there is one baptism, yet the Bible does speak of water
baptism and spirit baptism. But I think we
have more problems if we say that the writer was talking about anything other
than baptism.
But there is another foundational teaching
mentioned here that nobody talks about.
I have never heard anyone teach about it, preach about it, or even a conversation
or debate about it, like in Bible school.
I did do a paper on it in grad school, but I can’t find it right now. It’s here somewhere.
And that teaching is the laying on of
hands.
For the sake of simplicity, there is the
same problem here as there is with Communion, if you remember our last lesson. The question is whether the act is merely symbolic
or whether it actually does something.
My conclusion is that it does, or, it’s supposed to. We can’t go into the whole issue in a short lesson,
but we can get the discussion going.
In Hebrew, the word ‘hand’ is often used to
express power. You don’t see in that
your English Bibles so much, because the translators use a word like power
where the Hebrew says hand.
Twelve times in Luke and Acts, which are
two volumes of one book that Luke wrote, the use of hands is mentioned as
conveying power.
Luke
4:40 Now when the sun was setting, all those who
had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him [Jesus]; and He
laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.
Luke
13:13 And
he [Jesus] laid his hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight, and
she praised God. This was a woman who had been
bent over double.
Acts
5:12 Now through the hands of the apostles many
signs and wonders were taking place among the people.
Many people might see these expressions
about hands as just a literary device, but there are too many instances where
hands are mentioned to accept that. You
don’t keep repeating literary devices.
That only diminishes their effect.
The hands really were an important part of the action.
Acts
6:6 These [men] they set before the apostles,
and they prayed and laid their hands upon them.
No mention is made here of any effect of
the laying on of their hands, but what did they think they were doing when they
did that?
Acts
8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they were
receiving the Holy Spirit. 8:18 Now when
Simon saw that the Spirit is given through the laying on of the apostles'
hands, he offered them money, 8:19
saying, "Give me also this power, that any one on whom I lay my
hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
English Bibles say: when Simon saw that
the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, but the Greek
has the present tense: when Simon saw that the Spirit IS given through the
laying on of the apostles’ hands. Now
Greek often uses a present tense where we would expect a past tense in a sentence
like this, but when you read it, the present tense just jumps out at you. It’s stunning. Like Luke is saying: this is how this is
done.
This passage is important, and I think
most Bible teachers try too hard to avoid the obvious.
Philip went to Samaria to preach the
gospel. A lot of Bible teachers make the
point of this being a new mission field as the reason for God doing something
different here in order to make a statement.
But – the people readily accepted Philip’s
preaching. They were all baptized and
filled with joy. But when the apostles
heard about all this, they sent Peter and John to them, because they hadn’t
received the Holy Spirit yet.
But why didn’t they, and how would they
know that? We teach that a person
automatically receives the Holy Spirit when they get saved. We don’t have time here to go into the whole
discussion, but here the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit after they
believed and were baptized, and the apostles could tell that immediately.
And, again, how did they know that?
Most Bible teachers would say that God
revealed that to them, but I think the Bible would have said so if He had. The Bible does stuff like that a lot.
They laid hands on them, and they received
the Holy Spirit. And how did they know
that they had received the Holy Spirit?
These same Bible teachers would say that God gave a special sign,
because these were Samaritans. I would
say that the apostles had seen thousands of people come to Christ before this,
and they knew what to expect.
I know by my mentioning this incident, that
all kinds of other questions are raised, which we can’t go into here. The focus here is on a foundational Christian
teaching of the laying on of hands, which nobody talks or teaches about.
Acts
9:12 and he [Paul] has seen a man named Anani'as
come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight." Acts
9:17 So Anani'as . . . entered the
house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus
who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may
regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Why lay hands on him? Why not just say the word? Or give him a hug, a pat on the back, or an
elbow bump?
Acts
13:3 Then after fasting and praying they laid
their hands on them and sent them off.
It doesn’t say anything here about whether
anything supernatural happened, but I include this to just show often this is mentioned
in Scripture. If the act was merely
symbolic, did Luke need to even mention it?
Acts
14:3 So they remained for a long time, speaking
boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs
and wonders to be done through their hands.
Acts
19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,
the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.
This is another one of those passages where
people are not giving enough attention to what is happening here. Paul meets a group of believers and asks them
if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed.
Now what kind of a question is that? If everything is automatic, he never would
have asked the question in the first place.
Was this some kind of trick question?
They didn’t know anything about such a
thing. And we today certainly don’t tell
people we lead to Christ about the Holy Spirit.
But why would Paul even ask the question? We would never do that.
So Paul baptized them in the name of Jesus
and laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Again, a lot of Bible teachers see this as
a unique situation that caused God to do things a little differently. But the questions remain: why would Paul even
ask the question, and why did they even need Paul to lay hands on them?
Acts
19:11 And God was doing extraordinary (Lit. not
the ordinary) miracles through the hands of Paul, . . . .
There are a lot of Greek words that could
convey the idea of marvelous, wonderful, really great, but the construction
here is: not the ordinary. There are ordinary
miracles, and then there are not the ordinary miracles. And it goes on to describe a few of
them. But again it was through Paul’s
hands.
Acts
28:8 It happened that the father of Publius lay
sick with fever and dysentery; and Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his
hands on him healed him.
My son went into convulsions once due to a
freak accident. I laid hands on him immediately
and commanded him to be healed in Jesus’ name, and he was. Immediately.
Then there are three passages in the books
of Timothy that Bible teachers are able to wiggle around enough to avoid
anything supernatural happening here.
But if these were not manifestations of supernatural power, then there
is no reason why Paul would have even mentioned this.
1Tim
4:14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was
given you through prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the elders.
1Tim
5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands,
nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.
2Tim
1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of
God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;
A lot of Bible commentators think that the
gift the Timothy received here was his office as overseer. But the verses don’t make sense then. Don’t neglect your gift, rekindle your gift?
I’m not buying it. Timothy received a supernatural spiritual
gift. Maybe several, one through the
laying on of hands by the elders and one through Paul.
And then in Mark 16:18, it says that they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
We can’t answer every
question in a short lesson, but I am hoping to raise your interest in something
that you probably never gave a thought to, something that the book of Hebrews
calls a foundational teaching in this Christian life. I feel like too often we think that there is
nothing more to learn.
The most common retort
to an article like this is the idea that in the early days of the Church, God
did things differently than He does today.
The problem with that thinking is that we no longer then have any idea
of how things are supposed to be like today.
