The Simple Answers… To Life’s Most Important Questions.
Bible Study Course Lesson 9 – 18
Few doctrines central to Christianity are more poorly documented in scripture than “the laying on of hands”. We are told everywhere that baptism and laying on of hands are practically synonymous; that the whole reason to BE baptized is so that you can have hands laid on you and receive the holy spirit.
And that’s. Just. Not. True.
The phrase “lay hands on”, like all phrases, is simply that; a phrase. Not a doctrine, not a theological phrase. Just common words. For as often as not, it simply referred to grabbing someone – putting them under arrest (John 7:30, Acts 5:18, Nehemiah 13:21, etc.).
And yet the apostles did convey the spirit through the laying on of hands – as in Acts 8:14-19. But then again, Jesus did not convey the spirit when He laid hands on people (Luke 4:40). To be sure, something happened when Jesus put hands on people and healed them; and it was no doubt done by the holy spirit.
But it didn’t give them the spirit (John 7:39). Those people had not just been baptized, were not ceremonially receiving the spirit of God in them as today’s Christians expect. They were just being healed. Just as Paul healed people without giving them the spirit (Acts 28:8).
Then again, sometimes Paul did give the spirit that way (2 Timothy 1:6). But sometimes, it is given in another manner altogether (John 20:22). David received the spirit by anointing (1 Samuel 16:13); and while this may have been done with hands, it does not say “laying on of hands”.
Samuel had done the same thing to Saul in 1 Samuel 9:27-10:1. Again, this was not the “laying on of hands”, this was “pouring oil over his head”. And even this didn’t convey the spirit; for despite anointing him then, the spirit didn’t come upon him until later (verse 10). Why?
Then again, I could ask the rather obvious question: Why does God need some man to tell Him to put His spirit in His own children? Does He need my permission to give you the spirit? Surely not. And yet, at least in some cases, that is exactly what happened – the apostles laid hands, and people received the spirit (Acts 19:5-7).
But when you think about it… who laid hands on the apostles’ heads? Acts 2:1-4. Whose hands gave it to Gideon? Judges 6:34. Or Samson? Judges 14:6, 19, etc. Now we could argue – fairly enough – that a judge or prophet may have, at some point, anointed or laid hands on such people and given them the spirit that way. It doesn’t say that, but it’s possible.
And yet the holy spirit is sometimes present explicitly before hands are laid – even before baptism! (Acts 10:47). In fact, in at least one case, the holy spirit was a prerequisite for having hands laid on you! (Acts 6:3-6).
You could say that Jesus received the spirit as an immediate result of baptism (Mark 1:9-12). And yet there was no mention of hands being laid on Him by John – so is that really what happened? What’s more, it can’t really be argued that this is the first time He received the spirit, can it? Isaiah 11:1-3, Luke 2:40-52, John 3:34, etc.
This should be enough to make you pause and wonder if maybe the beliefs we’ve all been told were scriptural at all. Because the fact is, if it weren’t for Hebrews 6:2, we would probably not even have a doctrine about laying on of hands to receive the spirit.
And yet, that verse is there, that verse is inspired, and therefore it is true. And sometimes that is exactly what happens. But the exceptions outnumber the rules. In fact, the only real examples of the spirit being transmitted this way in the NT are Acts 8, Acts 19, and two references in the Timothies.
And it’s worth noting that even among these sparse examples, only one shows it being done immediately after baptism. And even then, it was already their second baptism! (Acts 19:1-6). Is that really enough to justify today’s absolute dogma that repentance, baptism, and the laying on of hands to receive the holy spirit all happen within a ten minute period?
Because there is not a single example, in the entire Bible, of a sinner being baptized for the first time and immediately thereafter receiving the holy spirit through the laying on of hands! Not one.
NT PRACTICES
As I said, there are very, very few examples of the holy spirit being given that involve the hands at all, and each one, examined closely, makes us doubt the party line we’ve all been told – that every new Christian, promptly upon baptism, should have hands laid on their heads.
Reading Acts 2:38, this certainly sounds like the holy spirit would be given immediately after baptism; and yet, really, nothing was said about how or when that would happen; just as John 5:28-29 doesn’t clearly specify the time gaps between those events. So then what, exactly, do we see in the NT?
In in Acts 8:5-13, Philip the evangelist went to Samaria, himself obviously filled with the spirit as has been said in Acts 6:3. Thus, he clearly had the holy spirit to give! And yet… he either couldn’t, or wouldn’t give it to these people. Regardless, he didn’t.
It goes without saying that this was after the death of Jesus, after the founding of the church, after the giving of the holy spirit at Pentecost. Long after the time when the baptism of John could have possibly been relevant;
And yet, for all intents and purposes, that’s exactly what Philip did – he baptized them “unto repentance”, but without giving them the holy spirit! Compare that to Acts 19:1-7. Now this is, in itself, a very strange story, but we’ll come back to that.
For now, the point is that Paul said that being baptized in water by itself was to prepare you for “he that should come after”. In context this is, of course, the spirit of Jesus. And yet it’s worth noting that those who were baptized early in John’s ministry had to wait at least four years before it was even possible for them to receive Jesus’ spirit! (John 7:39).
So when God said John’s baptism prepared them, He clearly meant that could involve lengthy periods of time between baptism and the holy spirit! And so, back in Acts 8:14-16, having heard that the Samaritans believed, Peter and John went there and laid hands on them, and they received the holy spirit.
This could have been a few days; a few weeks; even a few years after – it simply doesn’t say. Regardless, this raises a lot of important questions. If laying on of hands is an automatic, back-to-back ceremony that happens along with baptism, why didn’t Philip do that?
And yet, if it wasn’t automatic, or wasn’t important, then why did the apostles feel it necessary to go up and clean up after Philip by doing what he should have done in the first place? Then again, if baptism without the holy spirit is useless, why did God send the same Philip to baptize (but again, not give the holy spirit) to the Ethiopian eunuch? Acts 8:26-40.
For that matter, why did John baptize at all? What’s more, why did Jesus’ disciples baptize alongside John in Jesus’ name John 4:1-2? I mean, Jesus had to know it would all be worthless without His spirit… right? Work that would just have to be done twice?
That’s what any modern Christian would say… but that’s obviously not true, since God doesn’t waste His prophets’ time. Of course, if baptism without the laying on of hands is useful, why did Paul have to rebaptize the men in Acts 19?
Then again, why did Apollos who ONLY knew the baptism of John have the holy spirit? Acts 18:24-25. And then, knowing this… why didn’t Aquilla, Priscilla, or at least Paul… lay hands on him??
Acts 18:26-28. Yes, they TOLD him things… but they didn’t lay hands on him. Indeed, Paul seems to have treated Apollos as an equal in 1 Corinthians 1:12 and 1 Corinthians 4:6; or at least the prophet to his own apostle in 1 Corinthians 3:4-6, 22. But who laid hands on him?
Sure, it’s possible it happened and we weren’t told… and yet, why wouldn’t we have been told, in Acts 18, when it SHOULD have happened?
SUBMISSION
So obviously, there are a lot of apparent contradictions here; and that, as always, means we’re looking at it wrong and not simply listening to what God said. So first, let’s take a step back from theology and think about this as we did with circumcision and baptism.
What is the blindingly obvious meaning of the phrase “laying on of hands”? What does it picture, in its most basic sense? Always start with this question, for the metaphors were meant to show us the answers if you just listened! Then you can always build symbolism and theology atop them.
So what would “laying hands” on someone mean, if you were not religious, not looking for a deep mystical meaning? It means that you put your hands on them; which in turn, means they are, necessarily, under your hands (Genesis 16:9).
This metaphor was used frequently throughout the Bible – Judges 10:7, to cite just one – and always means under authority, or in bondage to someone else. Which, of course, makes sense; because if something is in your hands, you have power over it (Isaiah 43:13, Jeremiah 15:21, John 10:29, etc.).
But just think about the meaning of the act of physically grabbing someone, as in Matthew 18:28 or Matthew 21:46. Using force to control someone is, by definition, putting them under your power (at least, trying to do so). If I can GRAB you, I can MAKE you do what I believe you should do (pay me back, repent, die, etc.).
Said differently, when you control someone with physical force, whatever they do next is obviously “the work of your hands” (Psalms 9:16). Now clearly, if you are overcome by someone evil, their “laying hands on you” will cause you to do evil (Psalms 125:3-5).
Consider Leviticus 24:10-14; here, laying hands on this person was ceremonial, for he was already imprisoned. But these people were witnesses; it was their testimony which gave them power over him.
Putting hands on him gave them the right to take ownership of his life, for they now controlled his fate. (Compare to Deuteronomy 17:2-7.)
To illustrate this in a somewhat obscure way, read 2 Kings 13:16; Elisha put his hands on the king’s hands, to make the king’s hands themselves into prophets. For what the king was about to do with those hands would come to pass. In a sense, this made the king’s hands as if they were Elijah’s own hands.
Thus, laying hands on someone is taking control of them; to make them, in effect, your servant; thus, in effect, to make them part of your house – even if only temporarily. To make what they do, reflect on you; or, in some cases, to make what you do reflect on them. (Psalms 128:2, Isaiah 60:21).
THE INVERSE
Now read about the sanctification of the high priest’s household in Exodus 29:4-19. Setting aside a lot of ceremonial stuff I can’t explain (and some I just don’t have time to explain now), it’s clear from verses 10, 15, and 19, that Aaron’s household puts their hands on the head of a sacrifice.
Now obviously, most sacrifices picture Jesus. And if putting hands on someone is indeed about “transferring power” or “taking ownership”, it hardly seems appropriate for them to do that to the various sacrifices of Christ. And yet… isn’t that the point? Matthew 26:26, Luke 22:17, etc.
Fundamentally, everyone looks at sacrifices backwards. They always think that the lamb represents Jesus; and from a very narrow point of view, that’s fine. But the whole POINT of a sacrifice is to kill something instead of dying yourself. Thus everything sacrificed pictures the thing it was sacrificed for.
There was an ancient Babylonian tradition to get rid of sickness; you would dress up a goat in your clothes, and tie it in your bed for a day, to “fool” the evil spirits. When they were sufficiently convinced that this was, indeed, you, the priest would then kill and bury the goat.
The apparently not-too-bright spirits, satisfied that the person they were tormenting is now dead, leave the still-alive real person alone and he gets well. At least that was the theory. Now remember from Series 3, while wrong (and frankly, kind of dumb), these practices were deceptions; which is to say, corruptions of some version of the truth.
The fundamental idea of all sacrifices is a substitution. Thus, a man who jumps in front of a bullet to save you died in your place. He, for the purposes of the bullet, pretended to be you and the bullet, satisfied that it had hit something squishy, stopped.
Likewise, when you kill a goat for your sins it doesn’t have any meaning unless that goat’s death, in some way, represents your own death. And for that to happen, the goat must, in some legal way, belong to you – nay, to be, by all legal definitions, you (2 Corinthians 2:10)
Paul said he forgave them “in the person” of Christ, which is to say, in His place. So for the purposes of those sins, Paul WAS Christ. And he in turn was giving them the power to make decisions about others as if they WERE Paul. And in the same way, for the purposes of the law, that bullock was Aaron.
OWNING YOUR SINS
With this illustration in mind, look at Leviticus 16:21-22. Aaron was explicitly transferring, through the laying on of hands, all of his sins onto this goat. This goat then, for the purposes of the law, effectively became Aaron, and by extension all of Israel for whom he was responsible.
Not that God is stupid enough to mistake Aaron for a ram; but while the law says “the wages of sin is death”, it is vague as to whose death is required. Aaron provided death, a death which legally was his own, and the law was satisfied. Well, mostly (Hebrews 9:22, 10:4).
But you cannot sacrifice that which does not belong to you (2 Samuel 24:17-25). Goats die all the time – God must have a reason to believe this particular goat symbolizes you. Likewise, the death of Jesus has no meaning unless it applies to you. For that to happen, Jesus’ sacrifice must be, legally, your sacrifice.
With that in mind, read Numbers 8:6-18. God had bought the firstborn of Israel through the Passover ceremony with the blood of the lamb in Exodus 12. Thus, legally, all firstborn belonged to Him. And yet, for a variety of reasons, God chose a single tribe instead of the firstborn of every house to work in the temple.
But just “declaring that it was so” wasn’t good enough, not even for God to do; it required a legal transaction to make it legitimate. So this ceremony was to buy back the firstborn of Israel, and replace them with the tribe of Levi. They were to be servants of God instead of all the firstborn. But for them to represent the firstborn, the firstborn had to first transfer themselves onto the Levites!
To accomplish this, the children of Israel put their hands upon the Levites. Thus, the Levites were now owned by Israel. The Levites became representatives of Israel; legal replacements for the firstborn of Israel. Because you cannot offer something you don’t own!
So now the Levites were the firstborn of Israel. Unfortunately, that meant the sins of all the firstborn fell on them – since they were those people. So before they could work closely with God, those sins had to go somewhere else; so in verse 12 they, in turn put their hands on the heads of these two bulls – transferring identity once again.
These two bulls now became the Levites, and in turn the firstborn of all Israel. Thus all their sins, and all of their righteousness, were transferred into these bulls; which is why one was offered for their sins, and one was offered as a burnt offering for a sweet savor to God.
This ceremony separated the Levites from the rest of the Israelites. The Israelites first made them their servants, so that they could be given away to God; then the Levites in turn made the bulls their servants, so they could die for their sins; which finally made them clean enough so that they could legally serve God in the firstborn’s place.
And of course, as representatives of God, these Levites had authority over the same people who had once owned them. Because the servant of God outranks a prince of Israel, even if that servant was once the prince’s own servant. Because he that is greatest among you… is your servant (Matthew 23:11).
LESSER IS BLESSED OF THE GREATER
To be in someone’s hands, or under someone’s hands, means to be under their authority. Apply that thinking to Genesis 48:11-16. Now clearly, if someone is blessing you, it means they are greater than you (Hebrews 7:7).
Thus, if you are being blessed, it means you are admitting that the blesser is greater than you are. Because he can give you something you do not have, and cannot get for yourself! Which means, in turn, that you are less than they are, as the son to his father, the servant to his lord, the disciple to his master (Luke 24:50).
Letting someone’s hand lay on your head acknowledges this (1 Chronicles 25:3). For whether they breathe on you, raise a hand to bless you, pour oil on your head, or lay hands on you, you are admitting that they have power over you.
Thus in Acts 6:3-6, the apostles were clearly appointing men under them over the business at hand. Let’s call them evangelists, since one of their number, Philip, was called that in Acts 21:8 to distinguish him from a different Philip the apostle. We could also just call them “elders”.
Regardless, the point is that the apostles chose men who already were FULL of the holy spirit! How then could this “laying on of hands” give them what they already possessed? Clearly, it wouldn’t. So instead, they were transferring authority to these men. Or said differently, putting them directly under their own authority.
Of course, the apostles were already magnified in the eyes of the people (Acts 5:13), as Joshua had been in Israel (Joshua 4:14). So all the people were already under the authority of the apostles. These particular people, then, were being made ministers of the apostles; for were they not chosen specifically to take the menial work off of them? (Acts 6:1-2).
That takes us back to Moses in Exodus 18:19-22, where Jethro suggested that Moses delegate the judgment to other men; men who would be under him, but who would be judging over other people in his place. Their judgments would BE Moses’ judgments!
The parallels to Acts 6 are uncanny, and they don’t end here; for as Moses, head of the 12 tribes, would choose 70 elders to help him, the 12 apostles chose 7 evangelists to take the burden off the apostles; and like Moses, they did this so they could remain “to god-ward”, to show the people “the way wherein they must walk”. Just as Jethro said, in effect, that Moses should not “leave the word of God” to “wait tables”.
So through the laying on of hands, the evangelists became greater than disciples, but still less than apostles. They were appointed to judge in the place of the apostles and thus, their judgments WERE the judgments of the apostles – as far as the people were concerned. Compare to Matthew 16:19.
It’s worth noting that Timothy, whom Paul gave the spirit through the laying on of his hands (2 Timothy 1:6), was likewise the evangelist of the apostle Paul (2 Timothy 4:5). Who was also delegated to speak and judge as if Paul himself was judging! (1 Corinthians 4:17-5:4). Paul’s spirit was present, because he had put it in Timothy through the laying on of hands! Because Timothy was in all ways like a son to him! (Philippians 2:19-22).
THE SPIRIT UPON THEE
The results of the Exodus 18 story are found in Numbers 11:11-17, 24-30. What’s interesting is that this was about a year after the these elders were chosen in Exodus 19, and had gone partway up the mountain with Moses in Exodus 24. And yet a year after that, Moses is still complaining of overwork and the solution God proposes is exactly what Jethro had said before Sinai. Why would this be the case? Well, remember what Jethro had said “whatever case is too hard for them, they can bring to you”.
So if, after a year, Moses was still overworked… it was because too many cases were STILL too hard for them! So God, for Moses’ sake, promised to make these elders wiser by taking some of the spirit upon Moses and divvying it up among them!
The events of the past year had demonstrated that some, if not all, of these elders were incapable of doing their job properly. And on their own merits, God doesn’t seem to have been inclined to give them His spirit. But because Moses needed help, God was willing to give it to them because Moses asked Him to!
This is a key point, so let it sink in; God had no interest in giving these people His spirit, for He had not done so in the year since their appointment as elders; but for Moses’ sake He did it anyway. So that Moses could share the burden of surrogate fatherhood among these 70 (Numbers 11:11-17).
To be fair, no hands were laid here – that we know of, anyway. But clearly, the spirit passed from Moses to the 70 elders. Equally clearly, not due to the works of the elders… but for Moses’ sake. For Moses’ sake, God overlooked their shortcomings through grace and gave them a gift they hadn’t earned (Romans 5:14-18).
It was of grace, so that they might do the works for Moses (Ephesians 2:5-10). And by the same token, Timothy received the spirit he didn’t deserve – or at least, didn’t deserve yet – to help Paul (2 Timothy 1:9-14), just as Paul received the spirit he didn’t deserve to help Christ do the works His Father gave Him to do.
The key passage for understanding this question is Numbers 27:15-23. Moses wanted God to appoint his successor. His heir to the job of leading Israel. So God told Moses to appoint Joshua as his own son… and the people would obey Joshua as if they were obeying Moses! (Joshua 4:14).
Remember what laying on of hands means, in the common-sense way: putting someone under your power. Declaring that this person is yours. Thus, if Moses put hands on Joshua, it was declaring that Joshua was to be treated just as Moses would be treated.
So Moses transferred some of his “honor” onto Joshua. God took from the spirit that was upon Moses, and gave it to Joshua; as, indeed, He had to the seventy elders; with that in mind, compare it to Matthew 25:40.
If you do something to a man’s son or servant or anyone who carries his name, you have done it to the man himself. And laying hands is one ceremonial way that you declared to the world “this person is me”.
REBAPTISM
It’s time to confront the most difficult scripture on this topic head-on, the paradox of Acts 19:1-7. The only example of baptism and immediate laying on of hands. This happened around 54 AD; almost 25 years after the death of Jesus.
What’s interesting is that in all that time, not only had these people not had hands laid on them, but had not even heard of the holy spirit! Think about that for a moment; they knew enough about the religious goings-on of Jerusalem to have heard of JOHN… but not Jesus??
This might be understandable if Ephesus were some backwater in Britain or Persia; but Ephesus was one of the most important towns in the world at the time. It was the capital of Asia Minor, and according to Strabo, a contemporary historian, it was second only in size and importance to Rome itself!
So how could they, living in the crossroads of the civilized world, not have heard the most basic tenet of the Christian faith? How could they still be living with the mere baptism of John? How could they know they needed baptized, but NOT that they needed the holy spirit that supposedly came with it?
For that matter, how could Apollos – himself from Alexandria, the world’s center of learning, with more Jews than any other region outside of Judea itself (one third of the city’s population were Jews at the time, by some estimates) – teach them about JESUS, and teach them ACCURATELY… but not know about Jesus’ spirit?? (Acts 18:24-28).
Remember! This was the golden age of true Christianity; this was when the men who had personally known Christ went around the world talking about all the true things they knew. And none of them, passing through Ephesus and Alexandria talking about Jesus, had bothered to talk about the holy spirit!
How is that possible? Because if the giving of the holy spirit by laying on of hands had been even a little bit as important to primitive Christianity, TRUE Christianity, as it is to the apostate modern Christianity, they couldn’t have not known.
Which means… it wasn’t that important to them. Paul had already visited the synagogue in Ephesus (Acts 18:19). Granted, he didn’t stay long (Acts 18:20-21), yet, surely this is one of the things he would have talked about? Surely that week or two that he stayed there was enough to spread the baptisms and holy spirit around? But apparently not.
Aquila and Priscilla, his traveling companions, stayed behind. Now this was a couple who knew enough to instruct Apollos, yet apparently also didn’t share this fact with the locals. Why?
ELDERS OF JOHN
But that’s not the only strange part of this story; for when Paul did return to Ephesus, and did lay hands on people… he only did it to TWELVE disciples. Why not all of them? Why not lay hands on all the believers in Ephesus? Could a city of 200,000, with a bustling Jewish community, only muster a dozen worthies? Acts 19:8-20, 26. Thus, there were no shortage of disciples here.
So who were these twelve; why had they not heard about the holy spirit in 25 years; and why did Paul lay hands on them? The answers start coming when you read Acts 20:17-32. Here, Paul was not just speaking to average people; but to the elders of the church.
And notice exactly what he said in verse 18: “from the first day that I came into Asia”, he had known these people! They had been there from the beginning (compare to Acts 1:20-23). That’s why they were… ELDERS!
Which leads us back to Acts 19:1-7; who was it that he had known from the beginning? THOSE TWELVE! And then he had gone on to spend THREE YEARS training them day and night at all seasons. No preacher does that; but a master does that with his disciples! Which is exactly what he called these very people in Acts 19:9, when he separated them from the synagogue!
In Acts 20:20, you see that he taught them in public, and from house to house; which is to say, from each of their HOUSES to each of their HOUSES. Remember, these were elders; and how did they become elders? Acts 20:28. They became Paul’s elders when Paul claimed them as his own by laying his hands on them!
They became elders in the exact same way as the 70 did; as the 7 did; as Joshua did; as Timothy did; through the laying on of the Apostle’s hands! Which conferred the holy spirit upon them which is WHAT MADE THEM ELDERS!
Remember, though, these twelve were disciples of John. Which meant they had been “sons of the prophets” for 25 years. These were not newcomers fresh out of paganism; these were well educated, well practiced, well trained Christians who just didn’t know about Christ’s spirit.
Disciples who, according to Acts 20:20, already had their own houses. Presumably, they were already passing on the teachings of John to their own disciples and physical children. So Paul already had high confidence that these twelve, once the way of truth had been “explained more perfectly” to them, would be elders worthy of his name.
But he cautioned Timothy not to make this decision hastily (1 Timothy 5:22), because it would make you a partaker of their sins. Get that: don’t do it HASTILY… i.e., NOT the same day you baptize someone!
Because remember: laying on of hands works both ways. For by taking ownership of a person, inviting them into your house… what they do reflects on you, for good or evil. Just as you share your good name with them, they share all their future actions with you… for they are you, now.
So who on Earth would want to lay hands on someone the very day they repented? Why take a risk on bearing their sins when you have no idea how well they’ll be able to live? To whom does God give the holy spirit? Acts 5:32.
A person who has just repented, and just been baptized to repentance… has, by definition, not yet done a single obedient thing! They JUST now promised to stop being evil. Why would God give them His spirit… and make them ELDERS? Why would you?
NOT BY LAYING ON OF HANDS
Acts 20:28 said quite clearly that it is the holy spirit which makes you an elder, and in this and several other cases, this clearly came through laying on of hands. But this doesn’t always necessarily come by laying on of hands.
God does not confine Himself to the authority structures of men, not even His own men (Daniel 4:32, Matthew 11:27). God can give His holy spirit to whomever He feels like, whenever He feels like. He doesn’t need me to do it for Him!
So if someone who knew only the baptism of John, like Apollos, impressed God sufficiently, God simply gave it to him. After all, the whole point of being the son of a prophet – which, as a disciple of John, Apollos was – is to make his spirit to be more like God’s!
To which God will always respond in kind (James 4:8). Because sons of OT prophets can become firstfruits just as much, and by the exact same method, as the sons of NC apostles! By doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with their God; which is to say, by having a wise soul, a broken spirit, and a humbled heart.
Those who do these things will please God, and will receive the holy spirit automatically (Acts 5:32 again), just as they did in the days of Moses. Joshua and Caleb already had it; the only reason God gave it to the rest of the 70 was because Moses was overworked.
And so the “trick” of how to make God give it to those whom He had not already given it to was not widely understood – or at least, not widely taught. And Acts 8:19 tells us why. Because the only people who needed that particular knowledge were the elders who needed to share the burden with not-quite yet worthy disciples.
Why broadcast such a trivial truth with so many greater things were there to be learned? Why teach people how to MAKE God give you His spirit, when you can teach them how to make God WANT to give you His spirit?
Now read Acts 19:1-2 one more time; note Paul’s implicit assumption: they had believed… so had they received the holy spirit yet. As if this were something that would, in the natural course of events, have happened after their belief; and thus, that wasn’t automatically done after baptism.
Therefore, it also implies that there is a time gap between believing (and thus, baptism) and receiving the holy spirit; that it doesn’t always happen after the same amount of time… and that it may not ever happen to some.
These men could all, and should all have found the holy spirit in the 25 years after their baptism. Yet none had found it in the pages of the Bible; in the words of John, their master; nor in the words of other Christians whom they had certainly known.
There are many people who, on their own, would fail to impress God sufficiently to warrant notice. Yet were an apostle to vouch for them before God, were an apostle to vow to “dig about and dung them” for as long as it took (in this case, three years), they just might warrant God’s investment! (Luke 13:6-9).
And, indeed, the apostles’ investment: for remember, not only does Paul invest his time in these people for three years; some of whom, he knows, will betray him (Acts 20:30); but far more costly, Paul invests his own favor with God in this people.
God likes him less, in order to like them enough to give them His spirit! Which is why you should think twice before taking on such responsibility! (1 Timothy 5:22).
BUT HE GIVETH MORE GRACE
And yet, this very act of risking your own grace on people causes God to bless you with more (Proverbs 22:9). Remember from Lesson 6-9, bread is a symbol of approval, just as water is a symbol of validation. It also, and more fundamentally, pictures the spirit of Jesus just as water pictures the Father.
So by taking responsibility for this person, the cloud of grace over you must be spread thinner to shade them as well. And yet you can’t always know how your bread will affect someone – although you should certainly make the wisest decision you can (Ecclesiastes 11:1-6). You certainly shouldn’t just give it to everyone who wants it (Matthew 7:6, Acts 8:20-23).
On the other hand, if you withhold the bread and the water which God has given you, the people will curse you (Proverbs 11:23-26). And note that this applies specifically to those who SOW SEED (2 Corinthians 9:6-11) – those who plant houses, as Paul did (1 Corinthians 3:6).
But if you make a calculated risk on a person, and it fails, that’s OK too (Matthew 15:13, 2 Corinthians 2:14-16). For if, and when, such men inevitably betray you, you can “cast out the scorner”, and the reproach that falls on you through him will cease (Proverbs 22:10).
The key is, not to make stupid investments of your time and grace (the parable of the talents comes to mind). And as you see elders you’ve appointed betray you, as Demas did (2 Timothy 4:10), you learn to recognize the signs of a “heart that is not right with God” better, and to hopefully make wiser choices next time.
God gave apostles this power to play with, so that they could learn to make better decisions as they saw the fruits; just like every single power He ever gave to men. We have what powers we have so that we can use them, practice them, and “learn by use” to discern good from evil.
And yet, the fact that He allows apostles to use this power, doesn’t mean it is exclusive to them. For if God needs a man to do something that required the holy spirit – He simply gave it to him (Exodus 31:1-11).
God had a job that needed done; these guys were too blind to do it; so He changed that. *shrug*. God needed Moses to be less soul-stressed. Of the seventy, only two were worthy of the air He breathed into them; but God made all of them elders. Again – no big deal.
He made all of these men, who like all of us had varying degrees of blindness, more awake; “smarter”. Did some of them take advantage of their newfound soul-sight to change themselves? Maybe. Most likely, some of those seventy elders did become first fruits through this gift, who might not otherwise have been able to see the Truth.
But did all of them, just because they were given the holy spirit? Certainly not, for Nadab and Abihu were killed by God shortly after this (Leviticus 10:1-2). The inheritance fell to sons of Aaron who weren’t even on that mountain! (Numbers 3:2-4).
Either way, what has God lost? He has plenty of breath. And while being in such people might be distasteful for Him, He can tolerate it if there is a good purpose (Genesis 6:3, Isaiah 63:7-10). The point is, God gives His holy spirit to whomsoever He will (Romans 9:15-16).
If God can prophesy through Saul, Balaam’s ass, and Nebuchadnezzar (the head of the Beast himself); then it clearly doesn’t matter whether the person deserves His spirit, only that what He wants done, gets done. What they do with that opportunity… that’s entirely on them.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Laying on of hands, in every sense, means the public announcement that this creature, for all intents and purposes, is you. For good, or for evil; what they do from henceforth is done by you; and what is done to them, from now on, is done to you (Philemon 1:10-19, particularly verses 12-13).
So Moses transferred some of his honor to Joshua; just as Isaac transferred some of his honor (and wealth, etc.) to Jacob; and some, likewise, to Esau; just as Jacob himself transferred some of his honor to Ephraim and Manasseh, and other pieces to his other sons.
Just as Aaron transferred some of his dishonor unto the goats, and the Levites transferred their own lack of honor to the bullocks, as the people had transferred their own to them. Just as all of us transfer our dishonor to Jesus and His house – as He, in turn, transfers His honor back to us (Isaiah 53:5-6, 12, 1 Corinthians 15:22).
So if you’re a sinner, and you put your hands on the head of a sacrifice, you’re telling God that this animal or person is you; if it is then killed, you are now dead in the eyes of the law. It is, in a sense, a way of making two people one flesh (1 Corinthians 6:16-17).
More frequently in the NT, it meant to ask God to heal someone, as if He were healing you – for by laying hands on them, they become you – and thus, God is more inclined to heal them… assuming, of course, that He likes you and would be inclined to heal you!
If you’re a father blessing your sons, you are telling all present that these parts of your inheritance belong to him now; that what’s yours, is now his. Likewise, if you’re a NC father-figure, it means telling all your house that this son now speaks for you – thus, making him an elder.
And, as in the OC, subject to whatever restrictions and portions of power you choose to bestow in this blessing. Some elders are authorized to ordain elders of their own (Titus 1:5, 2 Timothy 2:2); others, like Philip, clearly were not.
This explains why Philip the evangelist didn’t give the holy spirit; because he was not the head of a house; and had not been delegated to add elders to that house… only sons! Moses and the Apostles were heads of their houses, and had authority to delegate authority within it.
But Philip was merely an elder himself, and incapable of delegating other elders in the Apostle’s house without express permission. Which is why, before giving any of the Samaritans the laying on of hands, two apostles had to come up from Jerusalem!
Think about it: can your oldest son, whom you leave to babysit the others, delegate other children to babysit for him? It’s HIS job, not one to pass off to someone else. Unless, of course, you specifically told your oldest son to appoint babysitters among your children. Then, of course, he could – for you had conveyed that power, putting it in his hands!
So baptism brings you into the house of Jesus as one of many sons of an apostle; laying on of hands designates you as an heir of a particular apostle or elder. An heir given all the powers of the one who laid hands on him (2 Corinthians 2:10).
But to perform this job properly, you will need the same holy spirit that your spiritual father had; which God can give you not based on your works, but based on theirs. Which makes Psalms 90:15-17 the only verse you really needed to learn the things in this lesson.
Clearly, God’s servants have children; and this verse asks God’s glory to appear unto them. To let the beauty of Jesus be upon us; and to establish the work of our hands – the work that exists BY the laying on of hands – “yea, the work of our hands establish thou it”.
For whether we had to formally give them the spirit through laying on of hands or not… whether God gave it to them, or we had to beg Him to do so… either way, they are still the work of our hands, the fruits of our authority. (1 Corinthians 9:1).