Hebrews 6.3 D
November 10th 2013
Welcome. Let’s pray.
PRAYER
Speaking of prayer, I have it on my mind to establish a team of people who are willing to pray for the ministry and church.
What this means is a commitment to praying for the ministry on or at an assigned time during the week.
We’ll have to see who is willing and lead to participate and that will tell us the span etc.
So, we’ll start with those who are interesting in being a part of the prayer team and then we’ll construct it around that.
We are NOT a ministry or church of means – and never have been – but we are a ministry of substance, and part of this corporate substance is our ability to appeal to the Father on behalf of our needs.
So, there is a list at the back of the room. Please sign it if you are willing to join the CAMPUS prayer team.
Okay, let’s reflect upon the Word of God set to music and then we’ll take a few moment in silent praise and reflection before getting back and finishing John 4.
MUSIC
REFLECTION
Okay,
We are still on Hebrews 6 verses 1-3 and we will be for a few weeks.
Over the past few weeks we have tried to articulate what the writer is saying and I think we can, so far suggest the following:
Believers, once they have been nutritiously fed with the milk of the word ought to move on to a diet of Christian solids – to perfection, the writer says (which we will define here better in the weeks to come).
That there are a number of foundational factors to our walk and these, once laid and understood, ought to remain set and cured in our foundation.
That these foundational practices are listed for us here in verses 1-3, where the writer says:
“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit.”
Then, contextually speaking, one of the reasons the writer is instructing these Jewish converts to Christian-ity to leave their focus on these foundational elements behind is because in “leaving them” and then “moving on to perfection,” they stand a great chance of avoiding apostasy. We mentioned that this is atypical of the way men and women might suggest avoiding apostasy because typically we think going back to the basics is a better way of remaining sustainable, right?
Finally we noted that there is a chronological list presented of six things and they are set in three specific groups the writer suggests we leave behind –
Group One
“repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,”
Group Two
“of the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands”, and of
Group Three
“resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
We left off last week discussing baptism and today are going to hit on what the writer means by “the laying on of hands.”
Now, I would suggest (and you may disagree – which is perfectly acceptable) but I would suggest that where the writer says, “the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands” that he is talking about the doctrine (the instruction and teachings about both things).
I am not of the opinion that he is suggesting we leave behind the practice of baptisms or the practice of the laying on of hand, but just the “doctrine of.”
Note that in our three groupings, the first group relates to coming to faith, the second group has to do with church administration, and the third group has to do with ideas, teachings, and instruction on “things to come.”
So when it comes to church administration of things like “baptisms” and “laying on of hands” I believe the writer is suggesting we don’t “major in the minors” – meaning, we don’t surround ourselves with a bunch of doctrinal disputation and discussions and even pomp when we administer in such things.
We admit they are part of the faith, we receive them with joy on behalf of ourselves and when others receive them, but we move on . . . to what he calls “perfection.”
We also note (and we will especially see this fleshed out in the coming chapters of Hebrews that Jesus is now our high priest, that the priesthood is ubiquitously assigned to believers, and therefore there is no reason to make laying on of hands and administration of baptisms a focus.
So let’s talk about this last administrative doctrine he tells us to leave behind – the laying on of hands.
All right, like the practice of water ablutions and baptisms, the laying on of hands originates in the Old Testament.
When the COI would bless each other, or when they would pray for each other, and when they would offer sacrifices up, hands would be laid upon the person or the animal being sacrificed.
In Leviticus 4:15 we read:
“And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.”
From this we can see that hands were laid on the animal prior to its sacrifice and in this case the hands were those of the Elders.
Elder here in the Hebrew simply means the oldest and most mature men in the group. It is not referring to an ecclesiastical office – at least not in this situation.
In fact, when it came to laying on of hands there were times when all men – young and old – would participate in the practice.
For example, in Leviticus 24:24 we read a story that illustrates this very thing, saying:
Leviticus 24:10 “And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp;
11 And the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses: (and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan:)
12 And they put him in ward (I believe that would be the Bountiful 14th ward), that the mind of the LORD might be shewed them.
13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
14 “Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.”
So as a form of witnessing to the guilt of a person (who was about to be stoned to death) hands were laid on them (by those who witnessed the evil they did) as if to symbolically say, “If my witness is not true I then am guilty and deserving of what this person is about to suffer.”
Of course we know that family patriarchs placed their hands on the heads of family members when delivering a blessing to them – and we mentioned last week that Jacob performed this very thing on the sons of Joseph.
All of these things were important cultural applications of the Jews.
This being said we also note that when it comes to the “hand laying” in the Old Testament it seems that it relates mostly to the administration of priestly things.
In and through priestly applications we find a display of heavenly authority being given to men.
And we know that with the COI when it came to priestly things the authority was all through the tribe of Levi.
We also know that in and through this line there were priests and high priests.
Generally speaking, the priests would lay hands on people and animals for specific reasons.
Numbers 8:12 says:
And the Levites shall lay their hands upon the heads of the bullocks: and thou shalt offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, unto the LORD, to make an atonement for the Levites.
We also know that there was a laying on of hands by only the singular High Priest.
Ever hear the term scapegoat used today? It hearkens all the way back to an Old Testament practice.
In Leviticus 16:21 we read:
“And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.”
When Aaron (or another High Priest) had finished the ritual described here in Leviticus 16 the goat was taken and led away (as it says) and then let loose in the wilderness, never to be seen again.
It’s a tremendous picture of Christ who, having the sins of the world laid upon Him, would carry them off where they would never to be seen from or heard of again.
Interestingly enough, there is a tradition that says the Jews added a little twist to this practice and they would tie a piece of scarlet cloth to the head of the scapegoat and if God accepted the sacrifice offered the scarlet cloth would turn white while the goat was being led into the wilderness, but if the cloth remained scarlet the Jews would spend the rest of the year in mourning.
Then there was the laying on of hands for ordination to priestly office.
We remember that Moses laid his hands upon Joshua, signifying the transferral of his authority to lead the nation.
By and through this rite there was a priestly confirmation that the animal “chosen” or the person being set apart was dedicated, and consecrated, and set apart for a specific dedication to God.
From this I think we can readily see what a beautiful tradition the laying on of hands can be in the local church.
Additionally, the placement of hands on the head of an animal signified that the animal was being offered up as an atonement for sin which served as the means God gave for a person to be temporarily redeemed by the shed blood of the animal sacrificed.
This is how it would work.
The person who brought the animal to be sacrificed would placed their hands on the head of the beast and confessed his sin over the sin-offering (and his trespass over the trespass-offering) saying something like,
“I have sinned, I have done iniquity; I have trespassed, and have done this and this and now I offer this animal, as a means to prove my repentance before God and with this I make atonement.” (or “a covering of sin).”
The animal then was considered to be vicariously bearing the sins of the person who brought it – and when it was killed – it was for and on behalf of the person who brought it.
In addition to priesthood ordination and sin and trespass offerings, the hands, throughout scripture, are very emblematic.
Both Job and 1st Samuel depict the “right hand to represent the south,” and “the left hand to represent the north (Job 23:9; 1st Samuel 23:19).
Giving the “right hand” to another person was a pledge of fidelity (2nd Kings 10:15; Ezra 10:19) and was also a sign of submission to victors in war (Ezekiel 17:18; Jeremiah 50:15).
In this we might find the origins of the modern day handshake, which is also extended as a token of friendliness, or and expression of fidelity and trust.
According to Genesis 14:22 the right hand was lifted up in taking an oath – another precursor to the modern oath-swearing we do in our courts of law.
And the hand is frequently mentioned, (usually the right hand) as a symbol of power and strength (Psalm 60:5 and Isaiah 28:2).
1st Kings 19:18 talks about the act of kissing the hand as a sign of homage and “pouring water over the hands” was a sign of servitude. (2nd Kings 3:11).
The hand is anthropomorphically a symbol of the power of God (Ezra 7:6 and 28 and Isaiah 1:25) and David often spoke of “the hand of God” being upon him (in a good way).
Exodus 9:3 however presents the hand of God upon a man as a punishment.
We also know from the description of Stephan’s death (by stoning) that to be at the” right hand” of something was deemed to be in a place of “honor and power” as Stephen exclaimed that he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the glory of God.
This representation is also supported by Psalm 45:9, Psalm 80:17, Psalm 110:1 and even Matthew 26:64.
So bottom line, “hands” – of God, or Man and of consecrated priestly men – were very emblematic in the economy of the Nation of Israel.
And like water baptisms, and washings, the practices and customs related to hands (“the laying on of hands,” the “lifting of the hand to swear,” the “shaking of hands to display loyalty”) naturally flowed right into the early Christian church.
Now take note – in the early church, these practices and customs played a significant role in helping the very difficult transition from the Old Covenant (with it ways and means and demands) into the New (with its liberties and freedoms).
Human beings do not quickly let go of tradition and so the import of baptisms and the use of hands were VERY important in helping smooth “the fading away of the Law” through the wonderful light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Once the Good News was established and standing on its own – especially among the Gentile nations – many of these practices took on, shall we say, a different light.
So stay with me.
The arrival of the promised Messiah was first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Because of this we are going to find Him – in His missional efforts to the Jews – appealing to all that was present in their culture for a thousand years plus.
Naturally then, we find the Redeemer laying His hands on children to bless them, and on the sick when he healed them all as a means to reach the Jew.
They would understand the historical significance of such behaviors.
We must also note the fact that He did not always resort to such customs, but enough, in my opinion, that the nation He came to reach first, could and would relate to Him through the times He did.
Unfortunately, in some really strange and out of context attempts to restore every thing that was present in the early church, many religiously inclined reformers (or restorationists like Alexander Campbell or Joseph Smith missed the context and purpose of such customs and believed it really important that a truly restored Christianity would bear all the markings of what Jesus and His disciples did in the early church.
This includes laying on of hands as a means to “heal, bless, give spiritual gifts, or to set people apart for church service.
Unfortunately, what is often overlooked in such cases is there are also times when there was no laying on of hands when it came to such early church events.
The things just happened.
For example, in our Milk gathering this morning, we read in John chapter four of a nobleman from Capernaum coming to Jesus in Cana and begging Him to travel back with him a days journey in order to heal his son who lay dying.
It would appear the nobleman was under the impression that the Lord had to be in the dying boys presence to perform the miracle (and in all probability, to lay His associated hands upon the child).
But Jesus – picturing what it looks like to operate by the Sprit – simply told the man – “Go home. Your son liveth.”
In my opinion this is just one example of Jesus showing how the old forms and methods were not always going to be around, needed, or necessary.
If spirit led, lay hands. But if not, fa-gettaboutit.
This seems to be the point of the writer of Hebrews. Don’t wrap yourselves all up in the “doctrines regarding laying on of hands.” There is no power in the hands, only power in Christ Jesus. The hands may be used or not – but Jesus has always got to be in the mix.
After 1500 years of priestly authority that used the laying on of hands Jesus came, fulfilling the priestly authority and becoming (as we will learn) our great and ONLY high priest, and priesthood authority was complete – in Him.
And now there exists a “believer’s priesthood” which originally (in the early church) operated very much in the ways and modes of Old Testament customs but now are seen, in light of New Testament scripture, as unnecessary.
Of course men (especially that group of powerful men from Rome) would re-erect a priesthood authority and pass it off as mandatory. And they will use examples from scripture where Christ and the twelve appeal to Old Testament custom.
This is why some people in these latter-days may ask, “Well didn’t those who Jesus called as apostles adopt and carry on the practice of laying on of hands – especially in terms of bestowing the holy spirit, setting apart people to office, and in healings?
The certainly did. We cannot deny this.
But again, we have to ask, “to what end?” Why did they approach their administrations this way? Was it because it was demanded of God or because they were working to help transition a law-lead people into fields of grace?
Do we have evidence that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, of healings, and the deliverance of spiritual gifts ONLY occurred during the apostolic period BY the laying on of hands?
Not hardly. In fact we have penty of evidence that early church healings, and spiritual gifting, and receiving the Holy Spirit, and ordinations were carried out as much without the laying on of hands as with!
So why did the apostles use the laying on of hands at all?
First of all, I would submit to you that the twelve apostles were called as special witnesses of Christ crucified and resurrected.
They had all been taught by Christ Himself (Paul included) and all were present in the early church to help get it up and running and stable in a very treacherous environment.
During this apostolic period whatever they did on earth was done in heaven – and they, and they alone – by His authority – established Christ’s church here on earth.
Because of them, the Good News is still here today.
Additionally, I would strongly suggest that they were “the last bag of cement” that God used in forming the foundation of His church, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone.
So pulling from their cultural and spiritual Hebrew backgrounds they lead what was mostly a body of converted Jews into the New Testament (or New Coventant) known as Christianity.
I would submit to you that it took these special, “Jewish,” “Jesus trained,” “literal witnesses of His resurrection” to prepare the soil and plant the seeds for the church to begin to take root in such a hostile environment and they merely appealed to what was already established as common among the Jews to ease things along.
In the end we know from scripture that the chosen twelve certainly laid hands on people in the following situations:
For Healing the sick and afflicted,
For imparting spiritual gifts
In the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, and in
ordaining people to church office.
But take careful not, in every one of these examples we have other examples of people being healed without the laying on of hands by Jesus or an apostle, we have examples of people popping up in the early church who were not set apart to serve (but were serving) and we have examples of the Holy Spirit falling on a number of people and groups without the laying on of hands.
We even have examples of people serving in the church without any record of them having been ordained.
I mean, who ordained Paul?
And if we are claiming the need of a priesthood to bestow things like the Holy Spirit look at Paul again.
It was through a local law abiding Jew to whom Paul was sent both to receive his sight back and to receive the Holy Spirit (but we have no record of him (Ananias) being ordained or set apart by anyone.
Should the practice of laying on of hands be forgotten in the church today? I certainly hope not.
God has made human hands warm and extremely adept and providing comfort and reassurance.
We use our hands to create, to soothe, to massage, to greet and welcome. We use them to wipe tears away, to lend help, to assist the downtrodden, and to bear each other’s burdens.
To take the time to place our hands on another person and to petition our great high priest for His blessings upon them is a tremendous act in the faith and walk of any Christian.
But is the laying on of hands required to invoke the will and ways and hands of the Lord when it comes to the work of the Spirit?
Absolutely not. And let me supply you with a few reasons why I make this stand.
First, there can be an idea that to lay hands a person has to have had hands laid on them (you know) as a means to bestow authority and the like.
What did Jesus say about this?
Mark 16 beginning at verse 14 we read:
14 “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
We note from this no mention of someone needing to be ordained, nor do we even get a hint toward gender.
The qualifier Jesus suggests for those who would do all those things – is, “And these signs shall follow them that believe . . .”
Secondly, when Jesus was about to ascend into heaven, we read His great commission.
Notice, that He said:
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Making disciples of them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
For this reason I see the practice and or doctrine surrounding the laying on of hands superfluous. Nice yes. A demand?
Never.
Because of misinterpretation many churches believe that after water baptism the Holy Spirit is invited into the believer by the imposition of the laying on of hands.
But this is counter to many biblical descriptions of what occurs when a person believes. For instance
Ephesians 1:13-14 says, speaking of Christ:
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.”
Notice that Paul here does not mention laying on of hands for the reception of this sealing of the Holy Spirit of Promise. If they laying on of hands was required I think it would be mentioned.
Besides, Jesus clearly taught that the Holy Spirit moves like the wind and the laying on of hands to implement His work to me is suspect.
All of this being said, I am of the opinion that the laying on of hands does serve a specific function in the early church and I am of the opinion it ought to continue to serve in the church in this way today.
Not because it is tied to priesthood authority nor by demand but because it lends to order – and that is in the area of church ordination or better put, when a body of believers chooses to have someone or several someones serve in a special capacity within the church family.
When the apostles were getting bogged down with duties in the church this is what they said to the local church in Acts 6 at verse 3:
3 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.”
Again, this is not by way of bestowing any real power on the recipient nor does it require any sort of priesthood to perform such ordinations but like water baptism, it helps set people apart before the congregation for specific tasks, and certainly lends to order.
Notice that the apostles told the church to seek out seven men who were qualified. And once they were chosen they prayed over them and then they laid hands on them.
In Acts 13:1 we read:
“Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.”
3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.”
Here we see fasting and prayer coming into play with the calling of people to the work of the ministry and before laying hands on them for their work.
And then regarding such ordinations Paul says in 1st Timothy 5:22:
“Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.”
In other words, go slowly when it comes to ordinations. Prayerfully take your time. Fast to discern what is best.
All of these things are beneficial in the establishment of order in the church.
But a final point makes me sure that such things such practices and doctrines cannot be uber important to the mature Christian life . . . the fact that the writer of Hebrews includes “the laying on of hands” (and/or the doctrine of the laying on of hands) as elemental to the faith and once done or in place, to not make them a mountain.
But to instead move on to perfection.
That the custom of laying on the hands, as symbolic of imparting spiritual gifts, prevailed in the early Church in the time of the apostles no one can doubt.
But on the question whether it is to be regarded as of perpetual obligation in the Church, we have to try and remember
That the apostles were endowed with the power of imparting the influences of the Holy Ghost in a miraculous and extraordinary manner. It was with reference to such an imparting of the Holy Spirit that the expression is used in each of the eases where it occurs in the New Testament.
That we never read of Jesus telling anyone that the laying on of hands was an essential rite to be observed perpetually. Did He command belief? Yes. Baptism as an outward sign of belief? Yes. Taking communion? Yes. But laying on of hands, no.
Confirmations by the laying on of hands has NEVER proven the promises delivered to be true. But the Holy Spirit falling, and spiritual gifts on the unconfirmed believer is rampant. In other words, we have far more evidence of the Holy Spirit working without the aid of Man as being effective than people laying claim to being Christian through ordinations.
I think God knew what He was doing when He made the confirmation of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual gifts to be at the will of the Spirit and not by the laying on of hands. I mean when men are led to think they impart the things of God by and through their own system of delivery there are all sorts of problems that will naturally come about.
So yes, I think any pastor has a right, if he chooses, to lay his hands on the members of his flock and to implore blessings on them but God did not establish a system where He through His holy Spirit would be forced to act in such cases.
So we’ve covered the essentials of conversion and administration in the church.
Next week we will begin talking about Christian expectations the writer tells the reader to leave –
Focuses on the resurrection and eternal punishment.
May God be with us all.
PRAYER TEAM REMINDER
No Women’s Bible Study
Yes, there is an open Bible Study on Sunday.
