Laying on of Hands
Alan Yerkey
Table of Contents
Lay Hands Suddenly on No Man
"Lay Hands Suddenly on No Man, Neither Be Partaker of Other Men's Sins: Keep Thyself Pure" (1 Tim. 5:22 AKJV).
This paper is written in hopes of assisting other believers within Christendom to a better understanding of 1 Timothy 5:22, "Lay hands suddenly on no man," in its relation to the "laying on of hands." Many I have spoken with believe that this verse and others like it solely have their application to the ordination of "elders," or of purpose to some other office, in the sense that it is what both places God's blessing upon them and the authority in which their ministry is given. It is my hope in showing from its origin in the Old Testament, to tracing it up through the New Testament, that its more purposeful application is of identification. As a Christian, it is the public recognition with someone in being of the same fellowship in Christ. Although elders are directly mentioned in the passage in 1 Timothy 5, due to the broader context in which it is given, it is of a more correct inference made that we are not to hastily join into fellowship with someone unknown to us. The reason being evident, "neither be partaker of other men's sin: keep thyself pure."
While I understand that many may be unfamiliar with the use of 1 Timothy 5:22 as first outlined above, it has scripturally been used and understood in context to surrounding verses as having its application to both elders and the common fellowship. Even more, in connection to so many other passages, it goes further, to that of simple relationships in our daily lives. It is not of any manner the way in which the authority of ministry or of an office is conferred. Such authority is given by God alone.
The Greek language denies limiting the verse in application to the simple idea of the "ordaining" of an elder in context with both the entirety of the passage and of the epistle itself. Of the "elders" spoken of within the passage (1 Tim. 5:1-22), elder is used equally of the older men and older women (vss. 1-2; not of respect of position, but of seniority of age), as it is to one who may be set as an overseer of the particular assembly's necessary operations (vss. 17,19). Yet verse 22 is also in context to the overall order within the assembly as relating to young men and women, and even widows (5:1-16), and how those in fellowship there should act towards each other, to include those seeking reception into it. The overall character or subject of the entire epistle itself has to do with the order within the assembly ("house") when everything is in its "normal" condition (the maintenance of sound doctrine and the provision for the due care of the saints; 2 Timothy, of when "the great house," or the Church, is in disorder).
"On no man," as translated in the AKJV, is not of man, as in meaning gender, it would be better stated as the Greek, mēdĕni, not one (no one): no person or thing (Strong's G3367, not even one [man, women, or thing — not exclusive of any; but inclusive of all]).
"Another man's," allŏtriŏs, meaning not of one's family/country (or, by ex-tension, hostile or foreign [what could be]; Strong's G245). Hence it is more directly in principle that we are not to hastily join fellowship with anyone unknown (or, accept of anything) to us which could possibly be hostile to the good order of the assembly. We are to keep ourselves pure from any corrupting influence or presumptuous and intentional sin which can be identified. This is easily backed by numerous texts throughout the whole of the Bible as to the type of fellowship we are to look for or to avoid. It is also a key in applying that of proper reception into the meeting.
If it is one professing themselves a longtime Christian, we must look for fruit as evidence; if it is a new believer, we are to "wait" to see the truth in their confession. Either way, it is to welcome them into the room ("place") of the "unlearned," while yet withholding from participating with them in communion at Christ's table until the Spirit would direct otherwise. This is not to say that we refuse to study or pray with them present; it is exactly that which we should do (else, how shall they learn?). However, the intimacy with Christ at His table among the saints is that which we must guard — it is His table. More will be said in regards to this aspect of fellowship later, but first let us trace the subject of "the laying on of hands" further.
Beyond even the Greek of the passage, for one to suggest simply the use of the term, "lay hands on," means "ordination," is false. There is absolutely no place one may find that the laying on of hands is explicit to one being "ordained" to any form of service or ministry. In all the terms used as to ordain, or "consecrate," as some prefer, it is not the idea of the "laying on" of hands that results in the one being ordained. Ordination, or consecration, comes through the "filling of the hands," as being given or set for a specific service or task; it is something God alone is to be responsible for (a simple delegation as to a ministering service, Acts 6:1-6, is of different principle). This is best seen in example to us in what was given of Aaron and his sons being consecrated into the service of priests (Ex. 29; Lev. 8).
The Hebrew is a compound of two primary root words, and it literally means, "to fill the hand" (H4390 mâlē' — to fill, to be full of + H3027 yâd—open hand [power, means]); that is, to fill the hand with the means and authority to accomplish a purpose, and appears in Exodus 29:9,33, yet its "defined" use of practical example in verse 24: "and thou shalt put all this in the hands of Aaron, and the hands of his sons, and shalt wave them as a wave offering before Jehovah. And thou shalt receive them of their hand...(25a)." It is not simply the sacrifice spoken of in reference, but the service which Aaron and his sons were then ordained/consecrated to as priests in the place of Moses (Lev. 8-9). It was a complete filling of Aaron and his sons with the authority necessary for the ministry for which God would have them. However, it is also within these passages that we see by example the principle of identification, in the "laying on of hands," of Aaron and his sons with the sacrifices offered (Ex. 29:10,15,19; Lev. 8:14,18, 22; H5564 çâmak — to lean, lay, lay upon/prop, put, take hold of, Grk 2007 epitithēmi). This is just one direct example from Scripture of the distinction between the two acts and what each of them represents.
In Genesis specifically, we see the laying on of hands most connected with that of blessing and identification throughout the Patriarchs (and nowhere as to "ordination"). Typically, it was of a father passing an inheritance or his blessing onto his son(s) in his identifying with them as his own at the latter part of life. Whether of his household's substance, or simply of blessing (or even, a prophetic word, Gen. 48:9-14;49), what they received stemmed from their identification with him as family in the laying on of his hands to receive such. Without which, there would be no blessing or inheritance received (consider Ishmael: all that Ishmael received was from God; he received nothing from Abraham, Gen. 21:9-21).
As to the Levites (Num. 8:5-22), the whole assembly of the children of Israel were called together for the purpose of identification with them, God alone already having chosen the Levities for His service. The entire assembly was told to "put (lay) their hands upon the Levites: and Aaron shall wave the Levites before Jehovah as a wave offering from the children of Israel ... for they are wholly given unto Me from the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto Me. For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are Mine, both man and beast: on the day that I smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for Myself. And I have taken the Levites for all the firstborn of the children of Israel" (vss. 10b-18). One cannot say that it was the children of Israel that ordained, or consecrated, the Levites to their service by the laying on of their hands. It was of Jehovah. But one could correctly say that the Israelites were identified with the Levites in their sacrifice to service, in the stead of all their firstborn, by the laying on of hands as God had commanded for the act He Himself had already performed.
To follow this back through to the New Testament, there is not a single example, I believe if properly understood, which would show that it is by the laying on of hands in which one is ordained in the sense typical of today's use by many. In our first instance in Acts, which many try to present to the contrary, Acts 6:1-6, it is not the apostle's laying of their hands on the seven chosen that gave them any form of ordination to service. It was simply the choice of the assembly as given by the apostles the task to choose. They were chosen out by the people concerned.
Simply put, it is that the whole assembly looked to the apostles alone to meet all their needs. The apostles, upon the rise of the dispute in question, gave it back to them ("It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God, and serve tables" v. 2b) with the instructions and authority that they should choose by, and from among, themselves. Upon the assembly doing so, the apostles then prayed, if I may assume, possibly for the faithfulness and directions of the service of the seven. Then they "laid hands" on them in the presence of the assembly to fully identify them to all within (to be even as a testimony to any that may not have been present in their choosing), that they are the ones who would be filling such need of ministry among the "tables," and not the apostles themselves. This alone is the "appointment" necessary in public recognition by the laying on of hands, that there would be no further question as to whom the assembly should go to in concern of such matters. This is not a special "ordination" to a specific service or office. And each of the men chosen already possessed gifts from the Spirit, such as both Stephen's and Philip's gifts of evangelism, without any authority for them to use them being mentioned in a laying on of hands having previously taken place. Their gifts were of the Holy Spirit alone and relied nothing upon man's directing or enabling their use.
In all other occurrences of the laying on of the hands in the Acts, it may be seen the same, should one give up the notion that it is through the laying on of hands that a person is ordained to any form of office or service. Yes, such an act may accompany one being set for or going off on a ministry or service, as a blessing in prayer and of identification with them (Acts 13:1-4; 15:36-40; as also Gal. 2:9). However, the laying on of hands is not from which the ministry or service originates and has its authority. If this were not so, then should not it have been mentioned in the appointment of Matthias becoming "numbered among the eleven" (Acts 1:15-26) and for such an important and prominent role of an apostle. Perhaps even of greater witness, the Gospels themselves are silent, in the Lord’s choosing and sending out the disciples to surrounding villages, yet they had been both commissioned and given gifts to cast out demons and to heal (Matt. 3:13-19; 6:7-12; Luke 9:1-6). If the laying on of hands was of meaning as necessary to do such acts (or to have such authority), why would it not specifically be mentioned as being done? It is not, nor was it necessary to, the disciples' identification with Jesus, as they were known to all as being of His own company (Acts 4:13; may the same be spoken of us).
It was also not in Ananias’ laying hands on Paul which ordained him to his ministry; it was of Christ alone (Acts 9:1-9; Gal. 1:1-12). Paul received as a blessing, his vision; and identification in truth to Whom he now found himself in fellowship with, the full gift of the Holy Spirit (both Christ and of the Body; as well Ananias' and Barnabas' testimony of such things being true to those of Damascus and Jerusalem, Acts 9:13-28).
In those of Samaria having to wait for Peter and John to come down from Jerusalem (that they should receive the Holy Spirit), it was in good order that the Samaritan's be identified with them in receiving the Spirit by the apostle's laying hands upon them (Acts 8:5-17). If this were not so, then the Samaritan believers may have become puffed up in religious pride and may have seen themselves as something different than those of Jerusalem. Acts 8:18-21, with Simon wanting to again make something of himself (cf. vss. 9-11), ignorantly thinking that the gift of the Holy Spirit simply came from the laying on of hands, also testifies to the identification aspect between Jerusalem and Samaria, and not that it is how the Spirit is received (or some "special" manifestation of the Spirit granted). The two were to be united, and not in type to Simon's "false confession" (v.21), of the worship the Samaritan's previously had in worshipping what they did not know in separation from Israel (consider John 4:9-26, the history between the Jews and Samaritans being that they each claimed their own scriptures, temple, and authority of worship). They were to be one in the Body, Jews and Samaritans (as with Gentiles), in which all believers make up a part (Col. 3:11).
To the opposite, Cornelius, and all present at the preaching of Peter in Caesarea, had no such requirements of identification with Jerusalem as Samaria had. It was not at all necessary in order for them to receive the Spirit, that any laying on of the hands is ever witnessed as being performed. The Lord Himself had "consecrated" Cornelius and his house to both receive the Gospel and receive the Holy Spirit — just as He had to the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 10; 11:1-18; as to the nations, declared clean and set apart for use, vs. 9,18).
As another brother once stated, "...the two general cases of the gift of the Holy Ghost are entirely irrespective of any such act; the special cases, where hands were imposed, owed their existence to peculiar circumstances"; it was not the standard practice.
One could go on to Timothy's gift given in prophecy, which was accompanied by the laying on of the hands of the elderhood, or even to the right hand of fellowship. However, each are but forms of the same principles of identity. Special circumstances may exist in certain cases, but the over-ruling factor remains in the purpose being of identification between the parties involved.
Even if given the freedom to speak metaphorically (in the light of Scripture), a man's hands show his work; shows his "life"; his heart manifested by their work. In Acts 28:1-4, though it was a necessary physical act, in Paul putting wood upon the fire for warmth while stranded on the island Malta, both the fire and the viper carried a certain significance to those of Paul's time. For such reason as the viper attaching itself to Paul's hand, the people there believed he must be such as a murderer escaped from the justice of the sea, only to die of vengeance from the viper (certain death) coming through the "fire of judgment." This was the identity they gave such an occurrence. For Paul to survive "judgment" was perhaps the witness seed of grace for him to then present the Gospel to the islanders, showing the truth of God's forgiveness through Christ to even such as the chief of sinners (Acts 28:5-10; cf. Mark 16:15-18).
Our hands both identify us with, and to, those around us, whether for good or for evil. We are "marked" by their work. To hastily lay them upon someone in taking one into fellowship is the same as partaking in whatever sin may be currently a hindrance to them. It is being identified with them in the work of their hands and it is in having them identified with ours.
Why, perhaps, some may still ask, is the teaching here one of such importance? It is because of identity, our identity as believers within the Body of Christ, and the meaning and principles of our separation unto Him. It regards our witness before believers and non-believers alike and who we are associated with as being in fellowship to (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1; 2 Tim. 2:19-21).
This is not in any way the idea some have expressed to me that we refuse fellowship with anyone we "deem" to be sinners. If this were the case, the meeting room would be empty, as we are all sinners saved by grace. However, it is not that we should be found in fellowship with anyone willfully practicing sin. And it is not of defense to say, "But we all sin daily"; which is just an excuse not to properly hold those found intentionally walking in sin responsible in a Scriptural manner. Such thought not only denies God the conscious purity and holiness His Majesty deserves, but it is also an affront to the very grace we have been given in Christ (Rom. 6).
Perhaps a contrast of the type of circumstances which might bring a better understanding to this will help. For example, a person cannot truthfully claim that a believer who sins, unknowingly or not, in some form or another, who then becomes conscious of that sin and confesses the same, with plain evidence in a newness of walk, is of the same relation as one having an adulterous affair with no exercise of conscience at all. Yes, sin is sin, but it is that which is of a presumptuous and deliberate character within a fellow believer that we must hold to account. It is not something to be gloried over, to think, "Oh, how God's grace does abound" (Rom. 3:5-8; 6:1-2). It is to be of discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-8 and with the aim of restoration, 2 Cor. 2:6-11; Gal. 6:1-3).
Some then say, in regards to the unsaved, but Jesus ate with publicans and sinners. This cannot be denied, yet it is of a different principle in aspect to our discussion. The idea presented by so many that, "Jesus was a friend to sinners," in the manner that many would have us believe of today's modern use of the word toward the unsaved, is false. Jesus was and is the only propitiation for sin, and as such, He is Savior, the only Way in which one may be saved from the judgment of sin. In this, He is truly a "friend of publicans and sinners" and "wisdom is justified of her children," for He will save one coming to Him repentant of sin regardless of their past. This is truly important to understand, as for one to think He is simply a "friend," one who may have suffered and died for them, yet who is still accepting of a presumptuously sinful life, is of a blasphemous spirit (Matt. 11:16-19). It denies the very quickening act of the Holy Spirit in a sinner leading them to repentance. And nowhere could it be inferred that Christ would be accepting in the idea of a believer going along with a non-believer in the ways of the world as a way to "befriend" them to better witness to them (Acts 17:30,31).
The witness of our separation towards a non-believer is to show the purity of walk for which we are called to, while proclaiming the true Gospel before all. It is both Christ, the Savior, crucified for our sin; and the risen Lord Jesus, not only He who is our Redeemer, but the One who has set us free from the power of sin (John 3:16,17; Rom. 8:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:14-21). Our witness is to reflect the same charity and grace, as well as the purity of walk, of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is to be faithful to His calling (John 17:20-26; Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 1:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:13-16).
With all this being said, it is hoped that the principle of our separation is not seen as a Pharisaical attitude of "stand by thyself: for I am holier than thou" (Isa. 65:5a); that by the very hypocrisy of one's heart and ways, it is an incense of smoke and fire before the Lord, deserving of His rebuke and leading to their condemnation, should they not repent (Matt. 3:1-12; 23:1-33). It is that our separation is of the exercise of the spirit in humility (by the Holy Spirit's actions within the believer) in leading one into both the obedience and submission which is actually meant for the disciple of Christ (Matt. 7:15-27; 1 Peter 1:13-25). Just as there were basically two forms of disciples in Jesus' day: those who were merely following the Lord for outward reasons (John 6:44-66), and those who were "disciples indeed" (John 8:28-[31], 32), there are the same in ours (2 Tim. 4:3-4; 1 John 1:5-2:6). And this begins with our separation unto the Lord as being called to live holy before Him.
While separating ourselves from this world and all its corruptions (including corruptions within the Christian profession), we are soberly to think neither more nor less of ourselves, but of Christ and His honor and glory (Rom. 12:1-3; Titus 2:1-15). We are to recognize that our lusts and desires over this world, our self interest and pride, and the pressure to achieve even the "very best" of the life here, are but what cost Him His life in sacrifice for the Father's glory and our re-demption (Mark 8:34-38; Luke 23:44-47; 1 John 2:15-17). We are to live holy before Him to the very best of our ability as yielding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:5-23). Of necessity, this would include a genuine expression of true love towards all, even if it would be such as may cause sorrow or discomfort to another in not having things the way they would want or expect. We are to be as ambassadors, strangers and foreigners in this world, yet living the Gospel before all by Christ being manifest in us (2 Cor. 5:20-21).
In this manner, it has nothing to do with "self-righteous" acts or "pious" devotions of the flesh, but of obedience and submission in love, in recognizing Christ as not only our Savior, but as Lord over our very soul. It is owning that He alone is our righteousness, our salvation, our redemption and our walk—He is our life. It is giving Him the preeminence He alone deserves.
To this extent, and in relation to the use of 1 Timothy 5:22 as previously noted, to be cautious in the approach to fellowship with an unknown believer is not as to doubting one's confession (or even assuming there is sin in their life), but it is to test its truth in honor to the One it claims as its own. This is not of any sort a default to resist fellowship with professing believers, but is an act of reception which is scriptural in protecting not simply both parties seeking to be in fellowship, but even more so, that of our fellowship when at His table. Though this requires earnest proof to be offered in evidence of their confession before an embrace to His table is made, it neither denies nor limits our responsibility in sharing the gospel with others, nor from welcoming one into the room of the unlearned when there is no obvious or blatant sin to prevent such.
If we were to simply place the desire of having fellowship with someone on a level higher than what God's revealed Word gives for us of obedience in love (as well the act of submission, when concerning something we would be reluctant over or would not normally choose to do), one should ask what that would suggest of our thoughts as to the glory and honor of God. Even as what it would suggest as to a soul's gratitude for its redemption purchased through Christ's blood.
Though it may be hard for some to believe, simply being refused "full and open" fellowship (as in remembrance, association in publication of gospel or scriptural teachings, etc) is not automatically thinking the person must be in error or living in sin, but it is believing the best of them and expecting to find it to be true — yet holding to the responsibility of proving them as such. To this, the "flesh" is often insulted that it should be slighted in such a suggestion or request (or, delay), often causing one to question both the motive and character of the other who asks of it. This does not need to be, however, if both parties involved would simply wait with charity towards each other on the grace and timing of the Lord to lead as He would. Either way, the purpose in the "room (place/position) of the unlearned" is not simply the idea of one who is new to the faith (though this may be so), but it is also of one we ourselves have yet "learned" as to their being proven (again, dokimazo — to test with the expectation of finding it good). This may seem foreign to the mass of professing Christendom, but it is nevertheless true.
The greatest riches a Christian has in this world are Christ and the Father, and the Holy Spirit living within and empowering us. Whatever trials, sufferings, or persecutions; whatever temptations, we face them in triumph with our rejected Savior, taking our rightful place at His side (John 15:20-21; 16:33; 1 Cor. 4:10-[16]17; 10:31-11:1; Phil. 1:27-29; 2 Tim. 3:10-[12]17; 1 Pet. 1:3-9,13-21; 5:10). Second to this is the fellowship of the family of Christ which He has given us to own in the same unity of the Spirit with which we have been sealed.
We are to be members one of another, in true sincerity of love and honor within Christ's body, with Jesus alone as our head. There is no separation in this aspect — it is not so a "personal walk"; our relationship to Christ as His being our Savior and Lord most certainly is, but our walk in Him, or life, is of love relationship in His family as well (John 15-17; Eph. 4:1-16; Phil. 2:1-13; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 John 3:1-4:21). In this are the words of our Lord in our witness to the world fulfilled, "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35).
However, love in fellowship is not the idea of accepting someone in blind ignorance of their ways. It is seeking for their all — for their edification, encouragement, exhortation, correction, admonishment, and rebuke (if necessary) — as the relationship is discovered between both parties involved. This includes to be proven, one to another: one will never heed correction if they are lead to believe their every act is acceptable and well. They will feel insulted even at the suggestion they may be in the "wrong".
We are to hold our brothers and sisters to the same standards we should seek: Christ — and in the same grace and charity in cherishing even the most seemingly "uncomely" or "unnecessary" within His body. It is for His glory and honor, not our own. If we should cleave to Him in genuine sincerity of faith, our hearts seeking to serve Him in love, in true obedience and humility, it is certain that we will share in that same honor for which we guard ourselves for Him, and we shall have that fellowship with those who "call upon the Lord out of a pure heart." This is not taking the stance of a Pharisee, looking down the nose at the rest of Christendom, but is the practical application of the truth of God's word in one wanting to live holy before Him with like-minded believers. It is also seeking to uplift those struggling within Christendom to find true fruit in their life and to understand it only comes through obedience in love in living holy (and wholly) unto Him.
When considering how far one may go in witness to a non-believer, we must never attempt to out-step or over-step our Lord, nor go into venues where His witness would be tarnished simply by our presence there. I could not see it be a fault to simply go fishing with one not yet "proven" as to be in the faith or not, or even possibly with one we are in witness of the gospel to. However, I would not dare step into a Sports Den (Bar) with the same intent in mind, being surrounded by the entertainments and addictions of the world. I have no place there at all, if but perhaps to pick up a stumbled son or brother in offer of correction, but certainly not to "hang out" in hopes I might be able to witness to those within. To be friends with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4).
I own the fall of the Church as prophesied and outlined in the Book of Revelation (just as the "latter times" of Paul's epistles); just as I own all professing Christendom as my own. It is because of such that I must seek for Christ's honor and glory, and not my pleasure or comfort. Nor am I simply to look for the profession from another of His name: it is to be a living, loving witness in practical holiness, in proof to the One for whom we are called, united in fellowship at His table. Anyone who would reverse the order of our fellowship, seeking to please their fellow man, or even their "brother or sister", over the Father and the Son, have fulfilled their place in the Laodicean Church of placing Christ outside — and it is many saint's prayers that those as such would hear His knock and repent (Rev. 3:14-22).