Church of Christ Deism: Do Spiritual Gifts Come Exclusively from the Laying On of Hands?
It’s been argued by many that spiritual gifts died out in the generation following the apostles because the gifts were imparted exclusively by the laying on of apostolic hands. In the Churches of Christ, this teaching has taken on near-canonical status due to the highly influential book by H. Leo Boles The Holy Spirit: His Personality, Nature and Works
Who laid hands on John the Baptist? Or the apostles? Or the Romans? Ah, yes, the Romans. We need to talk about the Romans … because Paul says,
(Rom 12:4-8) Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. 7 If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8 if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
Paul speaks of “gifts” (charismata), including prophecy, which has been described as a gift from the Spirit going back to Numbers 11. So how did the Romans receive these gifts if no apostle had ever been to Rome? A few people may have traveled there from other locations where the apostles had laid hands on converts, but Paul plainly speaks as though they all have spiritual gifts. While it’s entirely possible that gifts were sometimes given by the laying on of apostolic hands, it’s awfully hard to argue that only apostolic hands could give spiritual gifts.
Also, there are the Corinthians. Ah, yes, the Corinthians. We need to talk about the Corinthians … because Paul says,
(1 Cor 1:14-16) I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)
If Paul refused to baptize Christians so that there’d be no cause of jealousy — some claiming a special apostolic baptism whereas others have a more pedestrian baptism, why on earth would he have laid hands on a few, knowing that this would lead to some having special gifts and others not? Wouldn’t the giving of miraculous powers by the laying on of apostolic hands give far more cause for jealousy that an apostolic baptism?
And surely members had been added to the Corinthian congregation after Paul’s last visit, and yet he speaks as though each member had been gifted (12:7, 11, 13, 18).
And then there’s the conversion of Cornelius and his household. They received the Spirit, evidenced by the gift of tongues (Acts 10:46), without apostolic hands.
Obviously, there is no ironclad rule that God will only give spiritual gifts via apostolic hands. Right? So let’s take a look at the passages that do speak of the laying on of hands.
The first reference to the laying on of hands is Acts 6:6 where 7 men, likely deacons, were charged with caring for Hellenistic widows. The laying on of hands was a means of investing them with a new office, but they were already “full of the Spirit” (v. 3), and there’s no indication of any miraculous impartation.
When the Samaritans were baptized, they did not receive the Spirit (Acts 8:16). This was a great problem, and so the men who converted them sent for the apostles.
(Acts 8:17) Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
There is no statement that they spoke on tongues or prophesied. Nor are we told how they could tell that the Samaritans received the Spirit. Luke says nothing of miraculous gifts. Rather, a number of commentators have suggested that that apostles had been derelict in the commission they received in Acts 1 when Jesus ascended. They were charged with going to Samaria, and they hadn’t gone. Therefore, to compel them to go to Samaria, and so to fully include the Samaritan Christians in the Kingdom, God refused to give his Spirit until the apostles came.
You see, if the Samaritans had received the Spirit but not miraculous manifestations, the apostles wouldn’t have been compelled to make the trip. But as the Spirit is essential to salvation, they had to come to make things right.
One might argue that the only way the apostles could have known that their hands imparted the Spirit is if the Samaritans spoke in tongues or the like. And that may be so. But if it is, then it’s also so that the only way Philip knew they didn’t receive the Spirit at first is because they didn’t speak in tongues or the like. And if tongues come only by apostolic hands, why would he have been surprised that they didn’t speak in tongues?
No, you can’t make the Samaritans fit the apostolic hands theory.
In Acts 9 Ananias laid hands on Saul/Paul, he regained his vision, but there’s no record that he spoke in tongues. But then, he’d not yet even been baptized. In Acts 13, the teachers and prophets in Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Paul to commission them as missionaries — but there are no miraculous manifestations recorded.
In Acts 19 Paul baptized the Ephesians and then laid hands on them, and they immediately prophesied and spoke in tongues. However, in the early church, it was routine practice to lay hands on the person just baptized. After all, a convert was being converted to a mission — a fact we often forget. Therefore, it’s not altogether clear that the Ephesians received a second infilling of the Spirit — an ordinary indwelling at baptism and a miraculous indwelling with the laying on of hands. It’s likely, I think, that it was all one event, with the Spirit received just once and evidenced, as had often (but not always) been true going back to Numbers 11, by tongues and/or prophecy.
The Timothy passages are a bit of a puzzle —
(1 Tim 4:14) Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you.
(2 Tim 1:6) For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.
It seems likely that both statements refer to Timothy’s baptism and the customary laying on of hands that immediately followed. But Paul doesn’t feel compelled to credit the giftedness of Timothy to Paul’s apostolic hands. He was quite comfortable crediting the gift to the hands of the elders. You see, both statements are surely true.
Finally, we have —
(1 Tim 5:22) Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.
It’s unlikely that Paul was referring to the laying on of hands that follows baptism. Rather, Paul was likely referring to the appointment of elders and deacons as described earlier in the book.
Now, Felix Brunner in A Theology of the Holy Spirit
Well, you can’t help but notice the parallel —
(Acts 1:8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
God used the coming of the Spirit — in three different ways — to drive the gospel outward. The apostles were plainly reluctant to go to Samaria and the Gentiles, and God had to push them to take these difficult steps.
The laying on of hands in ancient times was a means of commissioning to office or a mission. For a new Christian, the laying on of hands symbolized both the giving of a mission and the coming of the Spirit — because the Spirit came on the convert to equip him or her for mission. The hands weren’t primarily to infuse gifts. Rather the coming of gifts came with the Spirit, not the hands.
Sometimes it suited God’s purposes to demonstrate that the Spirit had come by means of tongues or prophecy, but not always. Sometimes the tongues or prophecy came with the laying on of hands and sometimes not.
God is not a rulebook. God is the power behind the laws of nature, but he is not himself a law of nature. He is a person with free will, and he does things as he wishes. Even when it involves the keeping of a promise, God keeps it as pleases him. He promises his Spirit to his people, but he delayed giving it to the Samaritans for his own, very good reasons. Sometimes we know the reasons and sometimes not.
The Spirit’s work in the early church was to drive the gospel to more and more people. The mission was far more important to God than following some set of spiritual laws about how to give gifts. Rather, gifts were given as suited God’s purposes, and his purposes were to spread the gospel from Judea to the nations.
When we seek to reduce God’s work through his Spirit to a set of invariable rules, like Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (in which he set for his laws of motion), we become, to an extent, Deists. It’s not a good place to be.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Acts, charismatic, Church of Christ Links, deism, Felix Brunner, H. Leo Boles, laying on of hands, miracles, spiritual gifts, The Holy Spirit, Uncategorized
Jay Guin
justinmichaelallen2
Excellent work, brother Jay! Just the kind of Bible study that is needed on all subjects!
Jay,
Here you have another excellent post! In 1 Corinthians 12:11, Paul wrote concerning the charismatic gifts, “All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.”
Strong defines “just as” in this text as, “just (or inasmuch) as, that: – according to, (according, even) as, how, when.” In other words, the Spirit determines the method of giving His gifts, as well as which gifts to give to each one.
This helps to explain what we may see as anomalies in the way the Spirit is given and received.
God is God and we are not…even though we sometimes teach things that indicate that man has the say, the power, the decision–as if we could capture the wind. “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8
It sounds like some folks are applying the Regulative Principle to God. Since we read in scripture that the gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, that excludes the option of giving them through other means. And since God gave the gifts to confirm the word, that precludes God from giving gifts for other purposes. I doubt anyone is deliberately following that line of logic, but the underlying principle for interpreting scripture is disturbingly similar.
Alan, many I know are adamant that
“Since we read in scripture that the gifts were given by the laying on of the apostles’ hands, that excludes the option of giving them through other means. And since God gave the gifts to confirm the word, that precludes God from giving gifts for other purposes.”
Jay said,
“God is not a rulebook. God is the power behind the laws of nature, but he is not himself a law of nature. He is a person with free will, and he does things as he wishes.”
So many Christians in the churches of Christ (and other denominations) believe that God is predictable like a rulebook and only does / acts as they have been taught. God conforms to them and their understanding, not vice versa. It is a common problem even in mainstream Christianity; that is, the idea that God is there to serve the individual. The King of the universe bow down and serve His creation? Are “we” arrogant, or what? God, the Holy One, The Holy Spirit, The Son is master creator of all creation and we are to comply to and serve Him- He can and will do anything He wants and in anyway He desires! To try to make rules and define God in such terms is so arrogant on our part. The book of Job, and the prophets make this very clear. Regarding the Holy Spirit, He is as much alive and well today as He has always been;
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
even the Spirit of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you.”
(John 14:16-18 – ASV)
Notice in this passage two things: Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to His followers, and Jesus said the Holy Spirit will not leave His followers – no time restriction i.e. until ‘New Testament’ is written, etc.
Those that have difficultly believing the Holy Spirit is alive and well today have a big problem simply because the Word tells us the Holy Spirit marks us as “His”. If you don’t believe in the Holy Spirit, why should God prove you wrong??? Who are we that God has to prove Himself to…? The Gospel says to believe in Him and that includes ALL of Him…
Just some thoughts… (Alan and Jay, great posts and comments!!)
Nicely done, Jay.
Makes me wish I’d said it like that….many, many times over the years. So I’ll settle for quoting you until I forget that you were the one who put it together like this – and then I’ll probably forget to give anyone but God the credit. Do you mind?
Blessings,
Glenn
Let’s get some facts straight here:
Concerning Romans 12:4-8, Jay said,
“Paul speaks of “gifts” (charismata), including prophecy, which has been described as a gift from the Spirit going back to Numbers 11. So how did the Romans receive these gifts if no apostle had ever been to Rome? A few people may have traveled there from other locations where the apostles had laid hands on converts, but Paul plainly speaks as though they all have spiritual gifts. While it’s entirely possible that gifts were sometimes given by the laying on of apostolic hands, it’s awfully hard to argue that only apostolic hands could give spiritual gifts.”
Some facts:
1) Nothing stated in the referenced scripture requires the gifts to be of the supernatural type. According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the Greek for prophecy (propheteuo) refers to declaring the word of God regardless whether the knowledge comes from the supernatural or just personal study. The other gifts listed (service, teaching, exhortation, contributions, generosity, leadership and showing mercy) do not refer to the supernatural.
2) The typical supernatural gifts are missing in this list: healing, raising the dead, and speaking in tongues. Clearly, the Romans did not have these gifts.
Jay said, “If Paul refused to baptize Christians so that there’d be no cause of jealousy”.
A fact:
1. No where does it say that Paul refused to baptize anyone. We don’t know why he only baptized a minority of the Corinthian Christians. Although, he was clear he wanted people to show allegiance to Christ rather than himself. He was glad that they were baptized.
Jay said, “And surely members had been added to the Corinthian congregation after Paul’s last visit, and yet he speaks as though each member had been gifted (12:7, 11, 13, 18).”
Personal comment: a lot of CENI being used here, especially the necessary inference that Paul was referring to all. He was there for one and a half years which obviously had a big, positive influence.
Jay said, “And then there’s the conversion of Cornelius and his household. They received the Spirit, evidenced by the gift of tongues (Acts 10:46), without apostolic hands.”
Personal comment: a lot of regulative principle being used here (sorry, I couldn’t resist). The Apostle Peter was clearly present. The “laying on of hands” is just an idiom indicating apostolic presence and intention to pass on the supernatural gifts.
Jay said, “When we seek to reduce God’s work through his Spirit to a set of invariable rules, like Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (in which he set for his laws of motion), we become, to an extent, Deists. It’s not a good place to be.”
Personal comment: I have no desire to reduce anything God does. I only want to understand God’s communication to us revealing His intentions and plans
p.s. I almost deleted this before posting because it probably sounds so blunt. However, the level of disagreement on the basics is beyond mere perplexity.
Rich,
Perhaps we are reading from two different editions of Vine’s. But my copy defines propheteuo as “to be a prophet, to prophesy, is used with the primary meaning of telling forth the Divine counsels … (b) of foretelling the future … .”
Under propheteia (the Greek word actually used in Romans 12:6), Vine’s says, “It is the declaration of that which cannot be known by natural means. … In his measure the teacher has taken the place of the prophet, cp. The significant change in 2 Pet. 2:1. The difference is that, whereas the message of the prophet was a direct revelation of the mind of God for the occasion, the message of the teacher is gathered from the completed revelation contained in the Scriptures.”
See pages 221-222.
What support do you have for “laying on of hands” being idiomatic and not involving the actual laying on of hands? Any? Can you cite a source?
Rich, you said, “According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the Greek for prophecy (propheteuo) refers to declaring the word of God regardless whether the knowledge comes from the supernatural or just personal study.”
I have a problem with that; with declaring some sort of difference between “knowledge from the supernatural or just personal study” when it comes to prophecy in the Biblical sense.
Here is my problem: “Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus be cursed,’ and no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.” ~ 1 Corinthians 12:3
“For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” ~ Revelation 19:10
You also said, “Clearly, the Romans did not have these gifts.”
Not clear to me. Other possibilities: Paul chose not to mention the supernatural gifts, as they were not relevant to his point. Paul chose not to mention the supernatural gifts, as they were not the ones he advised Christians to “earnestly/eagerly desire.” (1 Corinthians 12:31; 14:1)
Rich, you wrote:
“Jay said, ‘If Paul refused to baptize Christians so that there’d be no cause of jealousy’.
A fact:
1. No where does it say that Paul refused to baptize anyone. We don’t know why he only baptized a minority of the Corinthian Christians. Although, he was clear he wanted people to show allegiance to Christ rather than himself. He was glad that they were baptized. ”
Technically, you are correct in saying Paul did not refuse to baptize anyone. He did say he was glad he had not baptized any more than he had lest any should say he baptized in his own name. Jay’s point stands.
Jay has already questioned your citation of W.E. Vine. I do not have Vine, but Vincent’s Word Studies says at Romans 12:6, “The New-Testament prophets are distinguished from teachers, by speaking under direct divine inspiration.” Kittle’s TDNT says, “Primitive Christian prophecy is the inspirede speech of charismatic preachers through whom God’s plan of salvation for the world and the community and His will for the life of individual Christians are made known.” Again, Jay’s point stands.
Jay,
It looks like we have the same version of Vine’s. You left out the part where he says the supernatural prophesies have ceased.
The word prophesy, in its generic sense, means to predict the future (part b of Vine’s). Admittedly, in most biblical contexts, this includes supernatural knowledge. However, not always. The Hebrew version of the word is used in Nehemiah 6:12 simply as a predictor of the future based on secular information.
Presuming the supernatural type of prophesy in Romans 12 when listed with gifts that are not supernatural is an assumption and not required by the context.
A minor point on the Roman’s gifts. Chuld some gifted Christians move to Rome? Or less likely, could an apostle visited not in Acts or tradition?
Ketith,
Thanks for your feedback. See my response to Jay, above, on the generic meaning for prophesy.
As to Romans 12, you have helped make my point. Since Paul did not list supernatural gifts this cannot be a proof text that the Romans received the supernatural without the live presence of an apostle.
Even if some of the Romans had these gifts, it is possible that a few received the supernatural gifts while visiting the Judea region and used them to help establish the church in Rome. It’s speculation but possible.
Jay,
Perhaps my recovery from a 17 hour drive in a U-haul yesterday has affected my word choices. My use of idiom (popular phrases that mean something beyond their literal words) was meant to be an analogy to some physical gestures mentioned in the NT that have meaning beyond their literal movement. These include the laying on of hands, anointing the head with oil, greeting with a holy kiss, etc. The laying on of hands was a real physical gesture that had multiple meanings as your suggest. Included was the transfer of the supernatural from the Holy Spirit to another person through the apostles.
In the case of Cornelius, the important issue is this all occurred in the presence of Peter. It doesn’t really matter whether Peter did lay on the hands (and Luke chose not to record it) or not.
Rich – In the case of Cornelius, the important issue is this all occurred in the presence of Peter. It doesn’t really matter whether Peter did lay on the hands (and Luke chose not to record it) or not.
Rich, if Cornelius and his house was given the Holy Spirit and the spiritual gift to speak in tongues by Peter laying hands on them why would Luke leave that out, Luke was a physician someone who would know the importance to write the laying on of hands especially being Cornelius and his house were Gentiles.
You are reaching making up stuff and give nothing to support it.
If Peter had laid his hands on Cornelius and his household, why would he have been surprised that they received the gifts? The whole point seems to be that he didn’t expect it, and therefore had no reason to lay hands on them.
Rich,
Had Peter laid hands on Cornelius before he was baptized, would the brethren with him and the church in Jerusalem have responded the way they did?
Given the sensitivity of the whole idea of admitting Gentiles to Christian fellowship, Peter would have been raked over the coals and back again! As it was, they called him on the carpet for an explanation. What was his explanation? “Who was I to resist God?”
If he had laid hands on them, as you suggest, that explanation would not have satisfied them. Instead, they rejoiced that God had granted repentance even to the Gentiles!
Dear Anon., Jerry & Alan:
I don’t remember ever saying that Peter laid his hands on Cornelius. However, the situation is consistent that an apostle is always present in the scriptures when the supernatural powers are given to a person.
It is purely speculation that Peter did not or did lay his hands in this situation. Luke only gives us summary information for each of the events. For example, we learn several more details of Paul’s conversion when Luke records Paul’s description of the events (Acts 22) than when it is first recorded in Acts 9.
By the way, although Peter’s traveling companions were surprised that Cornelius and others received the supernatural gifts, it seems that Peter understood fully and explained the reason to the others.
Acts 15:7-8. “And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us.”
Peter said God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles knowing their hearts. We are given three summaries about the Gentiles conversion Acts 10, Acts 11, and Acts 15, and nowhere does the Scriptures say Peter laid hands on them. Sorry Rich but your argument is very, very weak.
The Bible says it is God who gives all things such as speaking in tongues as He wills, not as man wills.
1 Corinthians 12:7-11“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.”
May I repeat that I never said that Peter laid his hands on Cornelius. What I did say is not being mentioned is not proof that he did not. We don’t know for sure either way.
Rich, I would only be helping you make your point if I agreed with it; I refuted it in the first part of my comment and I was merely pointing out that – even within your pattern of thinking – there is more than one possibility about why Paul mentioned some gifts but not others beyond “the Romans did not have these gifts.”
I tend to believe that all gifts of the Spirit are supernatural because He is supernatural, whether you would term them “mundane” or “spectacular.” In fact, what you term “mundane” seem to overlap the set of gifts Paul recommends earnestly desiring.
I’m sure it is more convenient to your argument to separate gifts into seemingly magical and non-magical categories so that you can do away with the ones that you no longer want to exist (perhaps because you find them troublesome?) and exalt only those you wish to exalt.
I find it interesting that both the gifts of 1 Corinthians 12-14 and those of Romans 12 come with a teaching about humility, mutual benefit, and sincere brotherly love. Any of the Spirit’s gifts can be misused by the hands of the self-minded; scripture does not treat any of them as more troublesome than others.
Keith,
Concerning nomenclature, I was just using Jay’s words, “spectacular and mundane”.
This is totally about trying to figure out God’s will, not mine. Please don’t assume any other motive.
The facts are that the only recorded events of people receiving the supernatural/magical/spectacular gifts did so in the presence of an apostle. The bible even records the case where people did not receive these gifts until an apostle traveled to them. Any other observation is a pure stretch/speculation to assume otherwise.
I see this as an explanation why we don’t observe raising of the dead today.
Do you have another explanation or do you believe people have the power to raise the dead? This is the issue.
What I believe is not the issue at all, but whether God still works through His people.
Because scripture does not draw the lines you draw between what He can/can’t/will/won’t do to accomplish His purposes. It does not tie His hands nor duct-tape His lips, bro.
That’s the issue.