Systematic Theology - Church

The Laying On of Hands

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 14

Dictation Name: 14 The Laying on of Hands

Year: 1960’s – 1970’s

Of the joy that is ours in Jesus Christ, our Father, we give thee thanks. We thank thee that our times, the seasons, and all things are in thy hands who doest all things well. Fill our hearts with joy, with thanksgiving. Make us ever mindful that we live in thy grace, and that thy power, thy mercy, and thy government surrounds us. Grant now that as we study thy word, our hearts rejoice and that we behold wondrous things out of thy law. In Jesus name. Amen.

Our scripture this morning is from the Book of Numbers. Numbers 8:9-13, and our subject, continuing our studies in the doctrine of the church, is The Laying On of Hands.” Our scripture, Numbers 8:9-13. “And thou shalt bring the Levites before the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt gather the whole assembly of the children of Israel together: and thou shalt bring the Levites before the Lord: and the children of Israel shall put their hands upon the Levites: and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord for an offering of the children of Israel, that they may execute the service of the Lord. 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. And thou shalt set the Levites before Aaron, and before his sons, and offer them for an offering unto the Lord. Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel: and the Levites shall be mine.

And after that shall the Levites go in to do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: and thou shalt cleanse them, and offer them for an offering. For they are wholly given unto me from among 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. And I have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tabernacle of the congregation, and to make an atonement for the children of Israel: that there be no plague among the children of Israel, when the children of Israel come nigh unto the sanctuary.”

Bodies have a very great significance in the Bible that is too seldom appreciated. We are to be resurrected from the dead. This means that the body is not insignificant in the sight of God, nor things physical, things material. Greek thought and Greek philosophy separated the soul and the body, whereas, the Bible sees their unity.

In Greek thought, the depreciation of the body in later Greek philosophy led to the depreciation of physical sins, such a sexual sins. The Bible allows no casual view of the body. The body is often used symbolically in scripture to represent the body of Christ, the church. The word “hand” of course, is that which most concerns us today, the laying on of hands.

The word “hand” is very commonly used in the bible symbolically. It is the symbol of might and of power. Scripture speaks of the hand of the Lord, meaning his power and his protection. The lifting up of hands can be a symbol of violence and of supplication, of blessing and benediction, and much, much more. There are so many references to hands in the Bible, and to the significance symbolically of hands, that one could write a short book on the meaning of hands in the Bible.

Let us sum it up with his statement. Because the Bible sees the importance of the physical side of life, it stresses the importance of material things, material facts, such as the body ritual and law. Whenever and wherever you have a neo-Platonism or any kind of paganism which depreciates the body, which depreciates material things, you have then a disrespect for law and for ritual, and for the body, because then these things are regarded as less important, and then men look down on those things which are related to the body. It’s care, sins of the flesh, and the place of the body in the plan of God.

Greek thought thus, stressed internal and spiritual things. It depreciated external things, and the result has been that this kind of influence continuing within Christendom, has led to a view that ritual is for the masses who are less intellectual, whereas ideas and things spiritual are perceived by the superior minds. This creates a very false view of ritual and of law as well.

Now, the Bible is hostile to idolatry because it sees the importance of material things. Material things are not irrelevant. They are very critically important. No material symbol can be used other than what God allows, because there is a very essential link between matter and spirit, and so, for man to use casually material symbols to represent God is to give a false ascription to something created which is forbidden by God. This is why neo-Platonism and Hinduism, which emphasize spirituality more than any other religion are so prone to idolatry, because the material is incidental, or meaningless, and it can be casually used without commitment. Of course, pantheism can use any and all symbols, because all things are equally worthless and equally meaningful.

In Egyptian religion, an onion or a beetle, or a crocodile, anything could be used to represent God, because the being of God was omnipresent in all things, but the God of scripture is separate from his creation. So that nothing material or spiritual can be used to represent him which he himself does not appoint, lest there be confusion, lest there be a false meaning. Jesus Christ is the unique and sole incarnation of God. The sacraments are the unique and exclusive ordinances of God. Thus, whether it be ritual, or law, or anything physical, only that which God reveals to be a part of his revelation can be used by us as Christians.

Now, all of this is as a prelude to a very important rite: the laying on of hands. Our concern is not with the office that is so designated. Our concern is with what does laying on of hands mean? The usual approach to this rite is humanistic and institutional. Now, the institutional aspect is not irrelevant. It is, indeed, very important. The institutional aspect is clearly basic to scripture, but it cannot be made primary. We have to see what does laying on of hands mean in the Bible. In Numbers 8:9-13, we have a plain statement of its meaning, one that is never set aside in scripture. The Levites had the care of the sanctuary in the wilderness, but after the wilderness journey, only a small fraction of the Levites had anything to do with the sanctuary. Their basic function became instruction.

The Christian pastor is the modern Levite. This is why, because there is a continuity between the Levitical order and the ministry of the church, the pastor, the presbyter, or the bishop, we have an ordination of deacons and presbyters. The continuity of the office has meant the continuity of the rite, and the rite, laying on of hands, continues in force with the same meaning. Now, what is the meaning? Well, Numbers tells us very clearly, as does Exodus 13:2 and verses 11 and 13 as well. The first born belonged to God. The first born represent the totality in principle. The first born were to be redeemed from actual service with a payment, and the Levites became their substitute. They were thus, the representatives of all the people.

Second, the leaders of the congregation laid their hands upon the Levites, exactly as the worshiper laid his hands upon an animal that was to be sacrificed for atonement. However, in this instance, the essential meaning was not atonement, but identification and substitution. The Levite now was identified with the congregation as their substitute. All were to be united in the service of the Lord, because identification does not eliminate responsibility wherever we are. The early church, of course, added acclimation to indicate that the person who was to be ordained by the laying on of hands was indeed their representative. It was they who chose him, and therefore, they, who by acclimation, signified their choice.

This had a tremendous impact, incidentally, in the Roman Empire. The Romans were persecuting the Christians at the time, but they realized that a tremendous power in the church was that everyone knew that he had to be given to the service of the Lord, and that his leader in that service was the man on whom hands were laid. This man was the representative and the substitute for the congregation, chosen by the congregation, and therefore, there was a close link between the pastor and the people. As a matter of fact, the Emperor Alexander Severis, whose dates were 205-235 was so impressed by this fact that he wanted to adopt this ritual and its meaning for the Roman Empire and its officials. This, however, was not done.

Then third, the Levites, on whom hands had been laid, then laid hands on sacrificial animals to make atonement for themselves as representatives of the people, to signify that by identification, the believer dies in Christ in order to live in him, as 2 Timothy 2:11, Romans 6:5 and 8, 2 Corinthians 4:10, and many other passages clearly set forth. Thus, the laying on of hands, not only meant identification, it also meant that the atonement was accepted, because it had to do with the fact that their salvation rested in the atonement, and by the laying on of hands they accepted the whole of the system of identification with their pastors and supremely, with Jesus Christ their Lord.

Then fourth, God says the Levites shall be mine. They do not belong to the people, but to the Lord, as do all, and God says further, “For all the firstborn of the children of Israel are mine, both man and beast.” Now, to deny the Old Testament meaning of the laying on of hands means that we then make the clergy a professional class, with no essential relationship to the congregation, and this unhappily is what too often has taken place in both Protestant and Catholic circles. They are a professional group. They are separate, and nothing is said about the fact that in the laying on of hands, it is the people who are represented. It does not mean that those who are so set apart become the servants of the people and are subject to them. Rather, that they lead them in their common service to the Lord.

Now, to accept the Old Testament meaning means that we set ourselves apart in the laying on of hands as a body of believers with a common life in Christ as our head, and our presbyters, or bishops, are our representatives, our instructors, our leaders in the service of the king and in the work of his household. The laying on of hands, in the service of atonements, made the animal sacrifice a sin-bearer for the people’s sin.

Now, this meaning is clearly not present in Numbers 8:9-19 when we examine the text. Rather, it is substitution, identification, and sacrificial service to the Lord. Unhappily, too many congregations, when they have a presbyter and lay hands upon him through the appointed men, act as though the pastor were their sin-bearer, on whom they could lay all their irritations, their rebelliousness, and their guilt, and this is a very tragic and unhappy fact, but the laying on of hands is a tremendous symbol. Anyone who is present in such a service gives thereby his assent to not only their service, but to his service. He sets himself apart to serve the Lord, to be under the leadership of one who will guide him in the service of the Lord. The laying on of hands thus, does not commit the bishop alone to a service, the presbyter or pastor, but all the people. It is therefore, a rite given to us by God, the meaning of which is most important for our time. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, thou hast laid thine hand upon us, set us apart to be thy people, to be under thine appointed leaders, to be like the first born, dedicated to thy service whatever our calling. O Lord, our God, keep us from the sin of laying all the service upon presbyters, and separating ourselves from thy calling. Give us grace day by day to know that we are called to serve thee, to glorify thee, and to rejoice in thee. In Jesus name. Amen.

Are there any questions now about our lesson?

No questions? Well, let me say this. The next time you are ever anywhere where there will be such a service, ask that the meaning be expounded to the people, because it is essential to an understanding that is so set apart. It not only sets apart a man, but everyone present, without exception, because it is an act in which there is an essential relationship between those who are present and the one upon whom hands are laid. It is a commitment of all to a common service. It used to be that, at one time, the people were to give assent publicly to what was being done. I mentioned in the early church, there was not only the election, but the acclimation by the people of the man who was to be ordained. This was taken so seriously that, on occasion, some in the early church refused, but they submitted, not because they wanted to but out of conscience, because they felt they could not reject a calling which bound them and the people to a common service. If they could reject it, then the people could. Yes?

[Audience] How many different common or popular views are held right now in the church concerning the laying on of hands?

[Rushdoony] How many what?

[Audience] Of popular view, or common view of the rite of laying on of hands?

[Rushdoony] Yes. I think essentially there is one, well, two. In some churches, you have the belief that one body of men alone are involved. Bishops or the presbyters, or some like group, and there is no real emphasis on the participation of all who are present, nor any instruction of all who are present. Now, you do have, in Presbyterian government, a charge to the congregation, but the charge does not deal with the laying on of hands, but together with the call which is read to give him that bodily support, financially, and so on, and a few other things, all good, but it doesn’t deal with the essential rite. Then, you have other groups where, in a sense, it becomes humanistic and the one is institutional, the other humanistic, in which the congregation is doing it, and the congregation is, in a sense, ruling the man and controlling him, and saying, “We create you,” by the laying on of hands. So, either the people or the church. Now, I am misinterpreting both views. What I am doing is to give their common popular meaning, because behind both is the meaning I have dealt with today, but it’s so easy for us to give a humanistic version, to see either the man or the institution, or the people, when the essential fact is, God has called all and all of them, by giving assent or acclimation, or election, and being present on the laying on of hands, thereby signify, “We are committed. We have a service we must render to the Lord.”

Any other questions?

Well, if not, let us conclude now with prayer.

O Lord our God, we give thanks unto thee that thy word is truth, and that we are thy people by thy sovereign grace and calling, and that we have a great and glorious destiny in Jesus Christ. Teach us to rejoice in all thy ways, to know that thy purposes are true and righteous altogether. Give us, in our day, victory over the powers of darkness, over the forces of humanism and statism, so that we may again be a righteous people, grounded on Jesus Christ our Lord, and faithful to his word. In his name we pray. Amen.

End of tape