Hebrews 6:1,2 A Missing Piece in the Foundation

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.