In the Roman, Eastern, and Anglo-Catholic churches, the laying on of hands is practiced in the sacramental rites of holy orders and confirmation. By the sacrament of holy orders a Christian is made a deacon, priests, or bishop through the imposition of hands by a bishop or bishops in manual tactile Apostolic succession. In the sacrament of confirmation, the baptismal grace conferred in baptism is made complete, or strengthened, through the imposition of hands by a bishop in manual tactile Apostolic succession. Both of these practices have Biblical precedent and so I am not against them. I am against the idea that the benefits of the rites are exclusively administered by the Roman Church, Eastern churches, or Anglo-Catholics.

Paul says the doctrine of the laying on of hands is an elementary principle. And yet, I don’t think it is fully appreciated in some evangelical circles. If a church body has a kind of anti-sacramental character, the laying on of hands seems, to me, to be diminished in significance. Whereas, in Roman and Eastern circles the laying on of hands by their bishops is exalted to such an extent that it crowds out other elementary doctrines and/or greater and more important, mature doctrines.

“Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.” (Hebrews 6:1-3)

So, let us examine what the God-breathed pages of Scripture say about this doctrine.

Sacrifice

The Bible uses “laying on of hands” language most often to convey some kind of violence or harm on whoever or whatever is having hands laid on them. For example, In Esther we read, “Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew, ‘Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and they have hanged him on the gallows, because he intended to lay hands on the Jews.'”(Esther 8:7) Haman wanted a genocide against the Jews (Esther 3:5-6). Laying on of hands here meant violence or we could say sacrifice (in this instance, unlawful sacrifice).

This is how I take the general meaning of the phrase. That it’s most often associated with violence or sacrifice. Nehemiah threatens merchants who were breaking the Sabbath with violence, and uses the phrase, “I will lay hands on you!” (Nehemiah 13:21) The Lord says He will lay his hand on Egypt which included the death of their firstborn children and the death of the Egyptian army (Exodus 7:4).  God tells Abraham not to lay his hands on Isaac, meaning don’t sacrifice him (Genesis 22:12). Reuben tells his brothers not to lay a hand on Joseph, meaning don’t kill him (Genesis 37:22).

The Bible shows us that the laying on of hands was used in the sacrificial rites of worship to Yahweh. It has a sacrificial element, and I strongly believe we are invited to see the connection between lawful, ritualized, sacrificial laying on of hands and other forms of laying on of hands whether they be lawful or not. In Leviticus, animals sacrificed to God for various reasons have the priests hands land on them.

In the Day of Atonement sacrifice, we see Aaron laying hands on the scapegoat. “Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness.” (Leviticus 16:21) The goat wasn’t a blood sacrifice, but it was an exilic sacrifice.

We see animal sacrifices for unintentional corporate sins. In Leviticus 4 the elders, not the priests, lay their hands on the sacrificial bull.

“Now if the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally, and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done something against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which should not be done, and are guilty; when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a young bull for the sin, and bring it before the tabernacle of meeting. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord. Then the bull shall be killed before the Lord.” (Leviticus 4:13-15)

We also see the laity acting in this priestly role in atoning for unintentional and intentional, individual sins.

‘If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally by doing something against any of the commandments of the Lord in anything which ought not to be done, and is guilty, or if his sin which he has committed comes to his knowledge, then he shall bring as his offering a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed. And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering. Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering, he shall bring a female without blemish. Then he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill it as a sin offering at the place where they kill the burnt offering. The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar. He shall remove all its fat, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering. Then the priest shall burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for his sin that he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him.” (Leviticus 4:27-34)

The Levites also lay their hands on sin offerings as atonement for the Levite’s sins.

“Then the Levites shall lay their hands on the heads of the young bulls, and you shall offer one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering to the Lord, to make atonement for the Levites.” (Numbers 8:12)

I believe all of these ritual, sacrificial, laying on of hands are shadows of Christ’s sacrifice. We see that this language is used when the elders and chief priests of Jesus’ day come and seize him for his sacrifice. They laid hands on the lamb of God. Matthew 26:50: “Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him.” Mark 14:46: “Then they laid their hands on Him and took Him.”

So, there is an element of dedication to sacrifice that laying on of hands shows us. I think this is the fundamental meaning of the phrase, and of the ritual, especially of ordination. That it ultimately points to the laying on of hands of the Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sins. And that those who are under-shepherds of The Shepherd have hands placed on them to signify their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the people of God, like Christ.

Authority to Rule and Minister in the Old Covenant

The Bible shows us that the laying on of hands is also associated with the investment of authority, of ordination. And so, in this sense, I would agree with Rome as I would agree with most traditions, including Protestants, who practice the laying on of hands for ordination to the ministry.

Interestingly enough, we see that it is the people who are the ones who place their hands on the Levites in their ordination.

“You shall bring the Levites before the Lord, and the children of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites; and Aaron shall offer the Levites before the Lord like a wave offering from the children of Israel, that they may perform the work of the Lord.” (Numbers 8:10-11)

The laity place their hands on the Levites, but you also have a priestly authority there, Aaron, who offers the Levites up to the Lord as a wave offering.

Moses ordains Joshua as his successor and in the laying on of his hands he gives some of his authority to Joshua. Notice that Joshua has the Spirit already. He doesn’t receive the Spirit from Moses, but he does receive authority.

“Then Moses spoke to the Lord, saying: ‘Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, who may go out before them and go in before them, who may lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd.’ And the Lord said to Moses: ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun with you, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him; set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation, and inaugurate him in their sight. And you shall give some of your authority to him, that all the congregation of the children of Israel may be obedient. He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire before the Lord for him by the judgment of the Urim. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in, he and all the children of Israel with him—all the congregation.’ So Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and set him before Eleazar the priest and before all the congregation. And he laid his hands on him and inaugurated him, just as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.” (Numbers 27:15-23)

We see that real blessings are also conferred to Jacob’s grandchildren through the laying on of hands. Jacob (Israel) blesses Ephraim and Mannasseh, Joseph’s sons by placing his hands on them.

“Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn…So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will bless, saying, ‘May God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh!’ ” And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh.” (Genesis 22:14,20)

While this isn’t necessarily the same as ordination, like Joshua and Moses, or like the Levites, it does show that something real is transferred or bestowed via the laying on of hands.

Authority to Rule and Minister in the New Covenant

In the New Covenant, we see this continued.

While the resurrected Christ doesn’t lay his hands on the Apostles, he does commission the Apostles in breathing on them in order to receive the Holy Spirit in John 20. “‘Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.’ And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’” (vv. 21-23) This is one of the foundational proof-texts for Christ conferring authority to the Apostles, who in turn, confer authority to others. We could say just as the Father sent the Son, so Christ sends the Apostles, and just as Christ sends the Apostles, so the Apostles send ministers. Or as Rome, the East, and Anglo-Catholics say, just as Christ established the Apostles, so the Apostles established bishops. There is certainly a lot of validity in what Rome et al are saying here.

Acts 6:2-6: “Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, ‘It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.’ And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them.”

So, we see the Apostles, it appears, lay their hands on these men. Ordaining them similarly to how Joshua was ordained, or the Levites were ordained. It is generally accepted that these were deacons, but some have argued these men were elders. The text doesn’t say one way or the other, but their function seems to be more in accord with deacons, and this is the traditional interpretation.

In Acts 13:1-4 hands are laid on Barnabas and Saul (Paul) and they are sent out: “Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus.”

A few things to note here. Paul is called Saul here even after his conversion. A common misconception is that he underwent a name change. But most significantly, the ones laying their hands on these Apostles were certain prophets and teachers. They weren’t Apostles themselves. They weren’t the original 12 Apostles at least.

Barnabas, we are told, is a Levite. (Acts 4:36) So, we might see New Covenant fulfillment of the Levitical role here. Similar to Numbers 8:10-11, the children of true Israel lay their hands on a Levite and dedicate them to the Lord’s purposes. Barnabas also sold his land and gave the money to the Apostles (Acts 4:36-37), which could also be an echo of the Levites not having a land inheritance, but having God Himself as their inheritance (Numbers 18:20-24).

But what is most pertinent to our purposes is to note that the imposition of hands and their sending out of Paul and Barnabas is done by prophets and teachers, not by Apostles, and we are told it has the backing of the Holy Spirit. Something certainly more messy than the neat line of Apostolic succession. Apostles are made here by what appears to essentially be laity with giftings of teaching and prophecy.

Later in Acts 14, we see Paul and Barnabas are then called Apostles (v.14) and they appoint elders in the churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, ‘We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.’ So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.” (vv. 21-23) Luke doesn’t mention the laying on of hands here, though I would say it is reasonable to assume they did. I bring this up, because we see this throughout the New Testament. That the Apostles did appoint elders in the churches of various cities. Or they appoint men like Timothy and Titus, who in turn are commanded to appoint other elders.

Paul says to Titus, “I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.” (Titus 1:5) We aren’t told that Paul laid his hands on Titus, but again, I bring it up to show this pattern of the Apostles appointing men, as their successors, to carry on their work.

But taking into consideration the way Paul was sent by certain prophets and teachers certainly complicates the neat line of Succession that is espoused by those who hold to strict views of Apostolic Succession. Further complicating this is the issue of Jesus sending disciples out to Israel in the same way as the Apostles (Luke 10). Being sent ones, they are etymologically linked as Apostles. The Eastern tradition refers to these 70 (or 72) as Apostles.

Paul mentions that Timothy had hands laid on him, suggesting his ordination came through Paul and the elders.

1 Timothy 4:14: “Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.”

We aren’t specifically told what the gift that is in him is, but I think we can gather from the larger context of the letter that it is the gift of ordination, the responsibility given to him to be a minister of the gospel. Of note here is that Paul mentions the laying on of hands by the elders.

2 Timothy 1:6: “Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.”

Here Paul reminds Timothy of the gift of God, presumably the same gift mentioned in the previous letter, and mentions that it came to him through the laying on of Paul’s hands. This is certainly a strong statement in favor of the strict Apostolic Succession tradition.

1 Timothy 5:22: “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”

Timothy now has the authority to lay his hands on Christians and make them elders, presumably. This comes in a passage where Paul is instructing Timothy in how to honor elders who rule well, and how to deal with elders who are sinning. He then adds not to be hasty in the laying on of hands, which suggests that Timothy ought to be patient and discerning in who to ordain as an elder. Because in ordaining a sinful elder, Timothy would be partaking in that sin. Paul says to keep yourself pure. This is something the Roman and Eastern churches notoriously violate regularly, as do many Protestant churches.

Lastly, in Paul’s instruction for the appointment of elders, he doesn’t stress the laying on of hands by Apostles, but holiness. Holiness of life is the qualification of an elder. While the laying on of hands is expected in the rite of ordination, Paul’s concern is more emphatically on holiness of life and purity of doctrine.

Valid or Not?

The Biblical witness, to my mind, is not strong enough to confidently assert that valid ordination comes exclusively from Rome, the East, or certain Anglicans, who do, by most accounts, have bishops as successors to the Apostles. The Biblical account is not emphatic enough or clear enough to invalidate such a large portion of the Church that is so manifestly filled with faithful followers of Christ when considering the weightier matters of the law, the fruits of the Spirit, sobriety in doctrine, etc.

However, I do think the doctrine of Apostolic Succession in Roman, Eastern, and Anglican churches appears to be heavily supplemented by the general mode of ordination we see throughout all of Scripture. I simply cannot escape the conclusion that their doctrine about the laying on of hands syncs very nicely and powerfully with Scripture and even more powerfully with Church history, which we will discuss later.

On the other hand, I believe churches that have elders appointed by the people through the laying on of hands is valid, as the people are priests themselves, in the order of Melchizedek, through baptism. Through baptism, which is a priestly ordination, all Christians have a form of Apostolic succession. We could say the New Covenant children of Israel (a Christian congregation) bring a New Covenant Levite (an elder) before their high priest (Christ) and ordain him like the Old Covenant children of Israel did before Aaron. I believe that the Biblical witness along with the historical witness, does support the idea that the regular mode of ordination comes from presbyters or bishops, and that ideally, perhaps, one could trace their ordinations back to the Apostles through the bishops or presbyters. This, at the very least, provides a helpful statement about our connection to the past and a reflection of what we see demonstrated in Scriptures.

I say either presbyters or bishops because the distinction is artificial (as Jerome tells us, and as the terms are used interchangeably in Scripture). Though, I would acknowledge that the historic episcopate can be beneficial, when led by faithful bishops. This has also been the regular practice of the Church throughout most of her history. If a church wants to reserve the right of ordination to the bishop, they are permitted to do so, as long as they recognize that this governing choice is of human origin in its application that derives from divinely originating principle, that of elders ordaining other elders. Every church makes these human originating applications all the time (i.e. Sr. Pastor, Assistant Pastor, etc.).

Ideally, I would like to see a Church where Apostolic succession of faith and morals is paired with Apostolic succession of manual tactile ordination. I tentatively say this might be the optimal situation of a future faithful Church, as it demonstrates unity with the past and echoes the examples we see in Scripture. It would provide a connection to the Apostles in lifestyle, belief, and the physical laying on of hands. The Biblical witness is too pervasive to simply scoff at the idea of something significant happening with the laying on of hands and to think it’s irrelevant.

At the very least, in a future faithful Church which is laboring toward unity, those coming from the Protestant tradition might consider ordination in Apostolic succession as a concession to the weaker brothers who have such a high view of it, similar to Paul going through certain Jewish rites to demonstrate his solidarity with them (1 Corinthians 9:20, Acts 16:13, Acts 18:18, Acts 21:23-26). Paul becoming a Jew to the Jews and a Gentile the Gentiles could be analogously applied to this situation. But given certain situations, I can envision taking the opposite approach. That it would be more wise to actively resist ordination from bishops in Apostolic succession in order to affirm the validity of elders who have retained Apostolic faith, for example.

Protestants might also consider another analogue, which I find to be very helpful personally. That Israel after the flesh has retained some kind of elect status while still being enemies of the gospel. Paul says, “Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” (Romans 11:28-29) Similarly, we might say of Rome, the East, and Anglo-Catholics, concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the gift of Apostolic succession they are beloved for the sake of the Apostles. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. The call to repentance and faithfulness to Jesus still applies to Jews according to the flesh, but Paul still acknowledges some kind of retained gift given to them. The call to repentance and faithfulness to Jesus still applies to Papists, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglo-Catholics, though they still might have some kind of irrevocable gifting related to the laying on of hands.

Perhaps this is entirely too charitable, and there is nothing significant at all about Apostolic succession. But I have a hard time believing that. But I have an even harder time believing that those who do not have Apostolic succession of tactile ordination are somehow inferior even though they retain Apostolic succession of faith. I do not believe that at all. I would say Rome and the East are absolutely wrong on this point. And I would commend certain Anglo-Catholics for not making judgments about the validity of clergyman outside of Apostolic succession. Also, some of the greatest arguments against Apostolic succession come from evangelical Anglicans. Even from evangelical Anglican bishops.

Colin Buchanan, an Anglican bishop, writes in The Churchman:

“Here is the heart of the matter. Catholicity springs not from above, from a universal bishop or a diocesan bishop. It is the privilege of every man regenerated in Christ. “The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance” (Article XIX). Where there is no faith, there is no church. No congregation, no church. No Word of God, no church. No sacraments, no church. The unit of the visible Church is not the diocese but the congregation, the test of it not the bishop but the faith, doctrine, and practice of the local congregation.”

“We do well to note the words of Pilkington: ‘Succession of good bishops is a great blessing of God ; but because God and and his truth hangs not on man nor place, we rather hang on the undeceivable truth of God’s Word in all doubts, than on any bishops, place, or man.'”

The Anglical position is the Reformed one-that the Scriptures are perspicuous and contain “all things necessary to salvation.” (The Church of England and Apostolic Succession, Churchman, Vol 075, 1961)

I am firmly on the side of Protestants who prioritize Abrahamic faith as the mark and creation of a true Church. Jesus says wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, that He is there with them. This is the essence of the true Church. But these lesser issues concerning ordination must be taken seriously, as we see them demonstrated in the Scriptures, and in the history of the Church. These are my tentative thoughts on the issue, and I welcome thoughtful feedback from others who have considered this Biblical and ancient practice deeply.

Saint Athanasius Podcast (Audio)

Saint Athanasius Podcast (Video)