Quote:
Originally Posted by Christian Commando
Point 1- Q- 7- you state- "eternal life which is eternal and can never be taken away." You passed over Heb. 6:4-6, which declares someone who has become saved and reborn, if so chooses to turn away and live according to the world, shall lose Salvation and can never be "reborn" again thru repentance, if they "crucify to themselves, the Son of God afresh."
Will the class of people mentioned in Hebrews 6.4-8 perish?
Answer:
Let us read from verse 1 to verse 8 of Hebrews 6:
Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned.
Some people after reading verses 6 and 8 (italicized above) conclude that this class of people cannot be saved. Who are they? According to verses 4 and 5 they are people who fall away from the truth after they have experienced four things: (1) have once been enlightened, (2) have tasted of the heavenly gift, (3) have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and (4) have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. Their consequence will be: are “rejected and nigh unto a curse, whose end is to be burned” (v.8). Basing their conclusion on this last verse, some judge that this class of people is not saved. If such is really the case, then a person who has eternal life is able to lose it—which is to say, that he who is saved may be “unsaved”. How can we explain it?
Let us first understand what the book of Hebrews is talking about. Hebrews speaks about “pressing on”; and our progress of pressing onward is twofold: (1) Christians must grow, and (2) those who teach others must grow too. Christians should know the Lord progressively more in their lives; those who teach others should also teach more advanced truth; that is, they should not only teach on salvation from the beginning to the end of the year, they should teach even deeper truth.
The peak concerning progress spoken in Hebrews is reached in Chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5 speaks of Melchizedek, about whom the writer says: “Of whom we have many things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are become dull of hearing” (v.11). You ought to have fully grown, yet you are still pitifully old babies. You should be able to take the solid food of the word of righteousness but, sad to say, you are in need of milk. Then Chapter 6 is addressed to those who teach. In their teaching there should be progress instead of confining it merely to the six elementary doctrines of repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the teaching of baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. So we may plainly perceive that Hebrews 6.1-8 does not deal with the problem of initial salvation but with the problem of progress. The aim of this Epistle to the Hebrews is to point toward progress, not toward salvation. We will be seriously mistaken if we confuse the theme.
A number of Christians pay no attention to the truth of the church or the truth of the kingdom; their eyes are exclusively fixed on salvation as if that is all. But the Bible is not totally devoted to the matter of salvation; it tells us of many other things. Hence let us first lay hold of the theme of the epistle before we look into this particular portion of Hebrews. Now the passage before us may be divided into three sections: (a) verses 1-3, “not again”; (b) verses 4-6, “impossible”; (c) verses 7 and 8, which can be entitled “should not”. Let us take up each in order.
(a) Not again. “Not again” is in reference to six things; namely, repentance from dead works, faith toward God, teaching of baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. We are told about “not laying again a foundation”. These six items are foundational truths. Since the foundation is already laid, it need not be laid again. Who will ever build a house by laying the foundation all the time? After the foundation is laid, the work should proceed onward.
(b) Impossible.“Once” in verse 4 refers back to a historical fact. “Again” in verse 6 is the same word as the “again” in verse 1. The coordinate conjunction “and” in this section joins four things together; namely, once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. Hence what is said here is, that if a person already has experienced these four things it is impossible for him to be renewed again unto repentance if he falls away. For this person has only fallen—he has not forsaken the course he runs.Since his direction is still correct, how can he ever renew his repentance, crucify again the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame?
The writer of this letter told the Hebrews in verses 1-3 that they had no need of laying again the foundation. Some might retort: But what if a person fits the description in verses 4-6? Must he not lay the foundation again if he falls away? Should he not be renewed again to repentance? The answer of the writer was: Even though one may have the conditions of verses 4-6, that is to say, a situation in which he has really sinned, it is still impossible for him to be renewed to repentance.
Can we be born again and then be unborn? Can we be renewed to repentance and be reborn? The repentance in verse 6 is the same repentance as in verse 1, so it is repentance as a foundation. This does not suggest that one should not repent again; it only affirms that no one could go back to the foundational position and renew himself to repentance. That, then, is the big difference. Take special note of the word “again”—renew again to repentance, laying again a foundation of repentance. Not again, because it is impossible.
Therefore, this passage does not instruct us that if a person falls after he has received so much spiritual benefits he must renew his original repentance and lay again the foundation. Regeneration happens only once. Who will start all over again if he merely falls on the way?Even so, many people entertain such a misconception as this.
(c) Should not.Although verses 1-3 tell us “not again” and verses 4-6 tell us “impossible”, verses 7 and 8 tell us that we “should not”, which means that we should not continue to fall, we should not always sin, lest we seem to crucify the Son of God afresh and put Him to an open shame. We will be disciplined if we really do so. Hence we should not do it.
Some people assume that if a person sins after he is saved he will be unsaved. Other people believe that after one is saved he will not be punished regardless of what sin he commits. Both of these views are incorrect. God expects a saved person to grow and to make progress. Just as no one can go back to his mother’s womb and be born again after he has lived a bad life for several decades, so spiritually he cannot go back to lay again the foundation if he ever falls away. But what if he really continues doing bad things? There will be three consequences; namely, (1) rejected, (2) brought nigh to a curse, and (3) be burned.
(1) Rejected—This is the same word as the “rejected” found in 1 Corinthians 9.27. There Paul describes how he buffets his body and brings it into bondage lest by any means after he has preached to others he himself should be rejected. Naturally every Christian knows that Paul is not in danger of becoming unsaved, but that he is afraid lest he miss the crown and the kingdom.
What is meant by being rejected of God? For example, you have a bicycle which was originally in good shape and fit to be used, but now it is broken and rusted and cannot be used. By saying this it does not mean that this bicycle has disappeared; it is only being rejected, put aside because useless. To be rejected by God does not mean that a person has lost eternal life or is unsaved; it only means he is set aside by God and has thus become useless. To those believers who continue in sins, God has His discipline of putting them outside of glory—in outer darkness-without any part in the kingdom. This is what Matthew 25.30 means.
(2) Brought nigh to a curse—Here it says nigh to a curse, not a curse itself. Nigh to a curse looks like a curse, and yet it is not to be cursed. What is being stressed here is not so much a matter of the degree of punishment as it is the fact of punishment itself. Not only unbelievers will be punished, Christians too will be punished. Therefore it says nigh to a curse.
Let us be very careful lest we deign to think that no matter what a Christian does he will not be punished. Remember that “nigh unto a curse” implies there is punishment.
(3) Be burned—This fits in well with what 1 Corinthians 3.15 says about God’s fire burning up the person’s work. Such a person is like a living garbage can in which are stored many unclean things that will be purified through the fire.
We should rejoice on the one hand and be warned on the other. Our salvation is safe and secure on the one side, yet on the other side we will receive punishment if we do not behave. Although such punishment is not permanent, we shall have no part in the millennial kingdom.
To sum up, then, Hebrews 6.1-3 states that the foundation is not to be laid again; verses 4-6 explain that it is impossible to again lay the foundation from whence a believer has fallen but there must be a rising up, since there is no possibility of going back to renew his first repentance; and verses 7 and 8 conclude that one should not misbehave, because he will surely be punished if he persists.
Quote:
Point 2- Q- You state- "God made the earth desolate and waste in Gen. 1:2 because of the sin of the inhabitants of earth's ealiest ages."
Thats a lie. For there are no proofs in God's Word of this belief, nor any physical fossil records showing any creature created before man's time having a level of intelligence to be able to conceive of and understand the "Concept" of good and evil.
They are called demons which are now disembodied spirits. Demons were never physical so you won't find fossil records.
The general concept among Christians regarding the first chapter of Genesis is that the very first verse is a kind of general introduction or premise, and that the works which are done in the six days to follow explain it. In other words, they take the words “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” as the subject of Chapter 1. The writer of Genesis, so they speculate, outlines what he intends to say in the first sentence and then proceeds to explain it in detail. Having mentioned when God created the heavens and the earth, he then continues by telling what condition the earth is in and how God day after day creates light, air, earth, plants, animals, and so forth. Such is the popular view as to how Genesis 1 narrates the creation story and how the universe was created out of waste and void. Yet those who study carefully the first chapter of sacred Scripture deem this interpretation to be erroneous. Due to this erroneous interpretation and not due to the Bible’s narration itself, a great controversy has arisen between the church and the world. Many young people, for example, doubt the accuracy of the Bible when they learn of such “discrepancy” in the face of particular geological evidences. In the original Hebrew, this initial verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains seven words which carry within themselves a sense of independence. These divinely revealed words do not say that in the beginning God “formed” or “made” the world out of certain raw materials. No, the heavens and the earth were created. This word “created” is “bara” in the original. So that in the beginning God bara the heavens and the earth. This word “bara” is used three more times in Genesis 1 and 2: (1st) “And God created [bara] the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that moveth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind” (1.21); (2nd) “And God created [bara] man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (1.27); and (3rd) “And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created [bara] and made” (2.3). To “create” is to “call the things that are not, as though they were” (Rom. 4.17). These sea-monsters and living things not only had physical bodies but also had an animated life within them. They therefore required a direct creative act of God. Thus it is only reasonable that the Scriptures should use the word “created” rather than the word “made” in these passages. In similar manner, though man’s body was formed out of the dust of the ground, his soul and spirit could not be made out of any physical material, and hence the Bible declared that “God created man in his own image.”
In the first two chapters of Genesis three different words are used for the act of creation: (1) “bara”—calling into being without the aid of pre-existing material. This we have already touched upon; (2) “asah”—which is quite different from “bara,” since the latter denotes the idea of creating without any material whereas “asah” signifies the making, fashioning, or preparing out of existing material. For instance, a carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create one. The works of the Six Days in Genesis are mainly of the order of “asah”; (3) “yatsar”—which means to shape or mold as a potter does with clay. This word is used in Genesis 2.7 as follows: “And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Interestingly, Isaiah 43.7 illustrates the meaning and connection of all three of these words: “every one that is called by my name, and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have formed, yea, whom I have made.” “Created” signifies a calling into being out of nothing; “formed” denotes a fashioning into appointed form; and “made” means a preparing out of pre-existing material.
The words “In the beginning” reinforce the thought of God creating the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is really no need to theorize; since God has so spoken, let men simply believe. How absurd for finite minds to search out the works of God which He performed at the beginning! “By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God” (Heb. 11.3). Who can answer God’s challenge to Job concerning creation (see Job 38)?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This heaven is not the firmament immediately surrounding the earth; rather, it points to the heaven where the stars are. It has not undergone any change since it was created, but the earth is no longer the same.
To understand the first chapter of Genesis, it is of utmost importance that we distinguish the “earth” mentioned in verse 1 from the “earth” spoken of in verse 2. For the condition of the earth referred to in verse 2 is not what God had created originally. Now we know that “God is not a God of confusion” (1 Cor. 14.33). And hence when it states that in the beginning God created the earth, what He created was therefore perfect. So that the waste and void of the earth spoken of in verse 2 was not the original condition of the earth as God first created it. Would God ever create an earth whose primeval condition would be waste and void? A true understanding of this verse will solve the apparent problem. “Thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else” (Is. 45.18). How clear God’s word is. The word “waste” here is “tohu” in Hebrew, which signifies “desolation” or “that which is desolate.” It says here that the earth which God created was not a waste. Why then does Genesis 1.2 state that “the earth was waste”? This may be easily resolved. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1.1). At that time, the earth which God had created was not a waste; but later on, in passing through a great catastrophe, the earth did become waste and void. So that all which is mentioned from verse 3 onward does not refer to the original creation but to the restoration of the earth. God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning; but He subsequently used the Six Days to remake the earth habitable. Genesis 1.1 was the original world; Genesis 1.3 onward is our present world; while Genesis 1.2 describes the desolate condition which was the earth’s during the transitional period following its original creation and before our present world.
Such an interpretation cannot only be arrived at on the basis of Isaiah 45.18, it can also be supported on the basis of other evidences. The conjunctive word “and” in verse 2 can also be translated as “but”: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was waste and void.” G. H. Pember, in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages, wrote that...
the “and” according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record. For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5.1). There the opening words, “This is the book of the generations of Adam,” are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. We have, therefore, in the second verse of Genesis no first detail of a general statement in the preceding sentence, but the record of an altogether distinct and subsequent event, which did not affect the sidereal [starry] heaven, but only the earth and its immediate surroundings. And what that event was we must now endeavour to discover.*
*G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, New Edition, edited with additions by G. H. Lang (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975), p. 31. (The original work of Pember, under the same title, was initially published in 1876 by Hodder and Stoughton. Later editions were issued by Pickering and Inglis and the Fleming H. Revell Co.)
Over a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the words “the earth was waste” might equally be translated “the earth became waste.” Dr. I. M. Haldeman, G. H. Pember, and others showed that the Hebrew word for “was” here has been translated “became” in Genesis 19.26: “His wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.” If this same Hebrew word can be translated in 19.26 as “became,” why can it not be translated as “became” in 1.2? Furthermore, the word “became” in 2.7 (“and man became a living soul”) is the same word as is found in Genesis 1.2. So that it is not at all arbitrary for anyone to translate “was” as “became” here: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, [but] the earth became waste and void.” The earth which God created originally was not waste, it only later became waste.
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1.1) and “in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Ex. 20.11). Comparing these two verses, we can readily see that the world in Genesis 1.1 was quite different from the world that came after Genesis 1.3. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. In the Six Days God made the heaven and earth and sea. Who can measure the distance that exists between “created” and “made”? The one is a calling into being things out of nothing, the other is a working on something already there. Man can make but cannot create; God can create as well as make. Hence Genesis records that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but later on the earth had become waste and void due to a tremendous catastrophe, after which God commenced to remake the heaven, earth and sea and all the creatures in them. 2 Peter 3.5-7 expresses the same thought as well: the heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the original heavens and earth referred to in Genesis 1.1; the earth mentioned in verse 6 that was overflowed with water and which perished is the earth covered with water which became waste and void as mentioned in Genesis 1.2; and the heavens and the earth that now are as spoken of in verse 7 are the restored heavens and earth after Genesis 1.3. Hence the works of God during the Six Days are quite different from His creative work done in the beginning.
The more we study Genesis 1, the more we are convinced that the above is the true interpretation. In the first day, God commanded light to shine forth. Before this first day, the earth had already been existing, but it was now buried in water, dwelt in darkness, and was waste and void. On the third day, God did not create the earth. He merely commanded it to come out of water. F. W. Grant has stated that “the six days’ work merely sets the earth into a new program; it does not create it out of nothing.”* On the first day, God did not create light, He instead commanded light to shine out of darkness. The light was already there. Neither did God create heaven on the second day. The heaven here is not the starry heaven but the atmospheric heaven, that which surrounds the earth. Where, then, did all these come from if they were not created during the Six Days? The one answer is that they were created at the time of the first verse of Genesis 1. So that subsequently, there was no need to create but simply to remake.
* A free translation.—Translator
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Note that there is no detailed description here. We therefore do not know whether the original heaven and earth were created instantaneously or through many ages. Was it done in thousands of years or in millions of years? In what shape and how large? We only know that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Neither do we know how many years elapsed between the time of the first verse and that of the second verse of Genesis 1. We do not know when God created the heavens and the earth, nor do we know how long was the period after the original creation that the desolation described in verse 2 occurred. But we do believe that the original, perfect creation must have passed through many many years before it became waste and void. Such a long period would be enough to cover the so-called pre-historic age. All the years which geology demands and all the so-called geologic periods which it distributes among those years can fall into this time frame. We do not know how long the earth underwent change nor how many changes there were before it became waste and void because the Scriptures do not tell us these things. Yet we can affirm that the Bible never states that the age of the earth is but six thousand years in length. It merely shows that the history of man is approximately six thousand years old. By understanding the first two verses of Scripture, we can recognize that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. The attack of geologists against the Bible is merely beating the air. How marvelous is the word of God.
We do not present this interpretation in order to pacify science. For the revelation of God never yields to man’s reasoning. We will not forsake the authority of God’s word in order to make compromise with the conclusions of men. Nor do we intend to attempt to reconcile science with the Bible (for contradiction is to be expected since “the mind of the flesh is enmity against God”—Rom. 8.7). For such an interpretation as we have presented here was put forward even in the early church, long before geology had become a discipline of science.
Quote:
Therefore, the old past prehistoric creatures God did away with, I suggest were only because God tired of dealing with less inteligent creatures, which is why He decided to try another type created in His image."
Demons are not prehistoric creatures. They are utterly evil beings who will never repent. They seek to possess your body because they are disembodied spirits.
Quote:
Point 3- Q- 16- "laying on of hands-
This has nothing to do with joining the "Body" "experiencially". It has to do with one method God taught the apostles for healing of people, that is all. It is also not necessary for recieving Salvation and the "Gift of the Holy Spirit".
I never said it is required for new birth though it can aid in the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
(1) Should we practice the laying on of hands today?
The Bible does mention the laying on of hands, but it is not the same as what people call laying on of hands today. Nowadays, it is always viewed as a case of the "better" laying hands on the "lesser." But in the Scriptures there is equally the view that the "lesser" can lay hands on the "better" as well as the "better" can lay hands on the "lesser." As recorded in Acts 8, when the apostles Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritan believers, what they did was a case of the "better" laying hands on the "lesser." But Acts 13 tells us that in the church at Antioch, when several prophets and teachers ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said to them: "Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them" (v.2b). So they laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and sent them away. Now we know from this same passage that Paul and Barnabas were apostles, but they had hands of the prophets and teachers laid on them. Yet in Ephesians 4 the apostles are listed first, then the prophets and the teachers. And hence in Acts 13 we find the "lesser" laid hands on the "better."
The biblical conception of the laying on of hands is not what people today usually think of—the latter being an action of the "better" performed on the "lesser." In the Scriptures, laying on of hands is but an expression of fellowship, sympathy and union. The laying on of hands spoken of in Acts 8 shows that the Samaritans were also joined to the body of Christ even as their baptism testified to their being joined to the death of Christ. The laying on of hands told of in Acts 13 indicates that the church was united with Barnabas and Paul and was in full agreement and fellowship with them. Their going out was the going out of the whole church. Such kind of laying on of hands exhibits to us that it was not only Barnabas and Paul who went abroad to preach the gospel but that the whole church at Antioch went forth with them. So that what the two apostles did was related to the entire church at Antioch. Their laying on of hands spoke not only of their fellowship with the ones who received this token (Paul and Barnabas) but also of the fellowship of the ones who received the laying on of hands with the whole church at Antioch. If anyone would go out from one locality to work for the Lord, it is best if he is sent out by the laying on of hands.
Let us be careful in our wiping out all the traditions of men from Scriptural teaching just as people cleanse dust from the glass. Some do not wipe the dust off but instead break the glass because it is filled with dust. Many may suggest that since we talk about elders and deacons and the laying on of hands we are not different from any denomination. Let us see that there is actually nothing wrong with these things in themselves; but what is wrong is that which men have added on to them. Our purpose today is not to destroy the works of the denominations but to restore the things which God had originally ordained. We cannot forsake biblical realities because of human adulteration. We instead ought to ask if God has so commanded. When I go out to do spiritual work, how many times I expect the brethren to lay hands on me to show that I do not go out alone but that the entire church sends me out. They are one with me.
(2) When Paul laid hands on Timothy, he imparted a gift to Timothy. Is a gift received through the laying on of hands?
What is a gift? It is the ability of a member. In other words, if you are an eye in the body, your gift is seeing; if you are an ear in the body, your gift is hearing. When a person is joined to the body of Christ, he immediately receives a gift. Why, then, did the apostle lay hands on Timothy? In representing the body of Christ, the apostle recognized that Timothy was also a member of that body. It pleases God that such laying on of hands will activate a gift in the person. What Acts 13 expresses is also the union of the body of Christ, although it is not for the manifestation of gifts but for the demonstration of the principle of our working together. Never can prophets and teachers impart gifts to apostles. I believe the laying on of hands should be continued. Nevertheless, Paul warned Timothy to "lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure" (1 Tim. 5.22). Hebrews tells us to "not lay again a foundation" (6.1). Both baptism and laying on of hands are included in that foundation. And hence, if we neglect the laying on of hands there will be some flaw in the foundation.
Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Heb.6:1-2
Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8:14-17
And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Acts 19:5-6
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brethren to dwell together in unity!
It is like the precious oil upon the head,
That ran down upon the beard,
Even Aaron’s beard;
That came down upon the skirt of his garments;
Like the dew of Hermon,
That cometh down upon the mountains of Zion:
For there Jehovah commanded the blessing,
Even life for evermore.
Ps. 133
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. . . . And he shall lay his hand upon the head of his oblation, and kill it at the door of the tent of meeting: and Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar round about. . . . and he shall lay his hand upon the head of his oblation, and kill it before the tent of meeting: and Aaron’s sons shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. . . . and he shall lay his hand upon the head of it, and kill it before the tent of meeting; and the sons of Aaron shall sprinkle the blood thereof upon the altar round about. . . . And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tent of meeting before Jehovah; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the bullock, and kill the bullock before Jehovah. . . . And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before Jehovah; and the bullock shall be killed before Jehovah. . . . And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt-offering before Jehovah: it is a sin-offering. . . . And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and kill the sin-offering in the place of burnt-offering. . . . And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and kill it for a sin-offering in the place where they kill the burnt-offering.
Lev. 1:4; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33
The Bible clearly shows us the need for baptism. It also very clearly indicates the need for the laying on of hands. In both Samaria and Ephesus, the believers had the laying on of hands after baptism. This was what the apostles did in their time. Likewise, in our time the children of God will incur loss if they are only baptized but do not have the laying on of hands.
"Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection" (Heb. 6:1), exhorts the writer of Hebrews. In Christian life, there are a few truths which are foundational. A foundation needs to be laid only once, but it must be firmly laid. What is it that is included in the doctrine of the first principles of Christ? Not only are repentance, faith, resurrection, and judgment listed, but also baptism and the laying on of hands. These two, then, are also foundational truths in Christianity. Our foundation will not be complete if the laying on of hands is missing.
The error of the church today is quite different from that of the Hebrews in the first century. The Hebrews, having laid the foundation, circled around and never went beyond it. Today, though, we go forward without ever having laid the good foundation.
Because those to whom the apostle wrote revolved all the time around such things as repentance and faith, baptism and the laying on of hands, resurrection and judgment, he exhorted them to leave the doctrine of the first principles of Christ and press on to perfection. But today’s Christians move too fast; we run away before the foundation has been laid. The apostles had to persuade people to leave, whereas we must induce people to return.
The Meaning of the Laying on of Hands
We have already seen what baptism has done for us. It calls us out of the world and thus delivers us from the world. It identifies us with Christ so that we may share in His resurrection. What, then, can the laying on of hands do for us? What is its meaning?
In the Old Testament we find that the laying on of hands has a double significance. It is mentioned most frequently in Leviticus, chapters 1, 3, and 4, so we will look there to find its first meaning.
1. IDENTIFICATION
The laying on of my hand on the head of the sacrifice in Leviticus 1 signifies that I am identified with the sacrifice and the sacrifice with me. Why do I not offer myself to God, but offer a bullock instead? "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills" (Ps. 50:10), says the Lord. What is the use of bringing cattle or sheep to Him? God does not lack a bullock or a lamb. It is men that He wants to offer themselves.
But what would happen if I actually came to the altar and offered myself? I would be doing the same thing as the Gentiles did, as those who worshiped Moloch. In the Old Testament, there were people who served Moloch. Instead of offering cattle and sheep, they sacrificed their own sons and daughters on the altar to their god. Does our God desire only cattle or sheep? If we offer ourselves to God, how is our God different from Moloch? He is different in that Moloch demanded the blood of our sons and daughters, but our God requires us to offer ourselves. His charge is even more severe than that of Moloch.
It is true that God’s demand is more strict, but He shows us a way whereby we may sacrifice and yet not be burned. How? I bring a bullock or a lamb to the Lord. I lay my hand upon the head of the sacrifice. Whether I pray audibly or silently, my prayer is: This is I. I myself should be on the altar and be consumed by fire. I myself ought to be sacrificed, and I would indeed gladly offer myself to You. I should offer myself to be a burnt-offering, a sweet savor unto You. Lord, I now bring this bullock with me, and upon its head I lay my hand. By doing this, Lord, it signifies that this bullock is I, and I am this bullock. When I ask the priest to slay it, it is as if I am slain. When the blood of the bullock flows, my blood flows. When the priest sets the sacrifice on the altar, he has put me on the altar. I have laid my hand on it, so it is I.
Is not the same principle of identification illustrated in baptism? When I step into the water, I say this is my grave, for the Lord has buried me in it. I take the water as my grave. Likewise, as I lay my hand on the head of the bullock, I take the bullock as myself. When I offer it to God, I offer myself. The bullock stands for me.
Hence, the first meaning of the laying on of hands is identification. This is its prime significance in the Old Testament. I am identified with the sacrifice and it is I. Today both the sacrifice and I stand in the same position. When it is brought to God, I am brought to God.
2. IMPARTATION
There is a second significance to the laying on of hands in the Old Testament. In Genesis we see how Isaac laid his hands on his two sons* and how Jacob laid hands on his two grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh (48:8-20). Jacob laid one hand on each of his grandsons and blessed them. So the laying on of hands becomes the impartation of blessing. With whatever blessing one is blessed, it shall come to pass.
In short, the significance of the laying on of hands is twofold: identification and impartation. These two may again be summed up by another word, communion. Through communion, we become identified; through communion, what one person has flows to another person.
* Editor's note: Implied in chapter 27:27-40.
Why Christians Must Have the Laying on of Hands
We now proceed to ask: Why should Christians have the laying on of hands? Why does the Bible show us this act performed by those who are representative of the body? Why do the apostles lay hands on believers after the latter are baptized?
To answer these questions, we need to explain first what is meant by the body of Christ and what the anointing oil refers to. Let us read 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 together with Psalm 133. Christianity is really a marvel. The marvel lies in God’s intention to secure on earth a man who is absolutely obedient to Him, who can fully represent Him and who lives out His life exclusively. Today God has already set up this man to be Christ and Lord. "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 2:36). God poured out His own Spirit upon this Man, Jesus of Nazareth, as the Head. In other words, the Lord Jesus does not receive the anointing oil as an individual but as the Head of a corporate body. As the Holy Spirit is poured upon Him, the Head, the same Spirit is poured on the body which is the church. Thus He receives God’s anointing for the sake of the body.
His name is Christ (Christos—the Anointed One), and our name is Christian (Christianos—belonging to the Anointed One). He is the Head, and the church is the body. God does not intend to create only one individual; His desire is for a corporate man. If the church were left to herself, she could not possibly satisfy God’s heart nor could she maintain God’s testimony, for she herself has no strength. That is why God must pour His oil upon the church. With the oil, she can satisfy God’s demand, for the oil represents God’s authority. The authority of God is given to the church through the anointing oil.
Let it be noticed, however, that God’s oil is not poured on any one member nor does it fall on all the members; rather it is sent to the Head. The Holy Spirit is given to the Head, not to the body. But as the Head receives the oil, the whole body is anointed. Do we see the difference here? The concern is not how each individual member receives the Holy Spirit, nor how all the members receive the Holy Spirit, but how the Head is anointed.
How, then, are we to receive the oil? If we stand in the body, the oil which has been poured on the Head will naturally come to us. Since the oil is not given to individuals, it is impossible for us to receive the anointing on an individual basis. This does not mean that we will not be individually anointed; it simply asserts that we cannot ask for individual anointing. The difference involved here is great. Many fail to receive blessings from God because they seek the Holy Spirit on an individual basis.
When the precious oil was poured upon Aaron’s head, it ran down upon his beard and down to the skirt of his garments. Aaron’s skirt was quite long, for it covered his feet. In other words, the oil which is poured on the head flows to the lowest part of the body. It is, therefore, clear that people enjoy the anointing oil today not because of their personal condition before God but because of their standing in the body. If we stand in our place beneath the Head, the oil will most assuredly come down upon us. Receiving the oil is not merely a personal matter nor even a body affair, but strictly a matter of taking a position in the body under the Head.
It is imperative as we travel the spiritual road, that we have the power of the Holy Spirit in order to testify. Otherwise we will witness in the flesh. The holy oil is never poured on human flesh. This is a point we need to take note of. We cannot do anything according to our own thought; we must have the anointing oil. Whether we have it depends on our having a proper relationship with the body. It does not rely upon our asking or our prayer.
Let it be re-emphasized: the Bible never teaches that the body is anointed. It only mentions that the Head is anointed. The body is anointed because the Head is anointed. If the body wants to be anointed independently, it will never receive the anointing. The precious oil is poured on Aaron’s head, not on his body, though it does then flow down over the whole body from the beard to the skirt. Only the ignorant will seek individual anointing; only the simple will look for an independent anointing. Whoever is subject to the Head by standing in his particular place in the body as appointed by the Head will receive the anointing oil.
The Apostles Laid Hands on Believers
The Word of God shows us how after one is baptized into Christ, he receives the laying on of hands through those who are God’s appointed authority, such as the apostles. The apostles represent the Head, Christ, as well as the body of Christ. When one receives the laying on of hands, he bows his head and worships, for hereafter he will never again raise his own head but will submit himself under authority. His own head is no longer head; instead he is under authority.
The apostles represent the body. As they lay hands on the believers, it is as if they are saying that we all have fellowship with one another for we are one. "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles" (1 Cor. 12:28a). Being first, they can very well represent the church. By the laying on of their hands, they declare to the believers: "Brethren, you are one with the body of Christ, therefore the precious oil which flows down from the Head comes to you."
The apostles also represent Christ. "First apostles"—the "first" here implies authority; that is to say, they are delegated authorities of the Head. So when they lay hands on the believers, it is equivalent to the laying on of the Lord’s hands. Through their hands, not only the church but also Christ has laid hands on the Christians. Henceforth, we are subject to the authority of Christ the Head.*
* Editor's note: not only the apostles, but also others laid hands on the believers (see Acts 9:17 and 1 Tim. 4:14).
How to Receive the Laying on of Hands
We find that the meaning of the laying on of hands has two aspects: identification and impartation. The laying on of hands in the first aspect joins a person to the body and in the second aspect communicates what the Head has for the member. It requires being a member in the body as well as being subject to the authority of the Head. No one can say he is sufficient alone. The new life which he receives is corporate in nature; it does not allow independence. In the body, he lives; out of the body, he dies. On the basis of this identification is the impartation of blessing.
If a brother lays hands on me, it is not a meaningless or indiscreet act. My eyes must be opened to see that hereafter I am but a child among many children, a cell among many cells, one member among many members. I live by the life of the body just as in this physical body every member lives by the whole body. If I act independently, I come to an end and thus will be useless. If I cease to fellowship with other children of God, something is drastically wrong with me. No matter how strong I am, I cannot exist all by myself. If I am cut off from the body, I will surely die. I cannot boast of my own strength. I am strong because I am in the body. If I am disconnected from the body, I am altogether finished; by the laying on of hands, though, I am connected to the body.
At the time of the laying on of hands, I should realize, "Oh, Lord, I cannot live by myself; I have to confess this day that I am but one member in the body. Only in the body can I live, only in the body can I have the oil." Is this clear? One receives the oil because the Head has been anointed. If one is subject to the Head and is also joined to all the children of God, his submission as a member within the body draws the oil upon him.
Supplementary Lesson on the Laying on of Hands
Let us take up the case of the Samaritans and the case of the Ephesians. In Samaria a number of people believed in the Lord and were baptized through the labor of Philip, but they did not receive the Holy Spirit. According to God’s Word, they were saved. They did not receive the Holy Spirit because they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now when the apostles who were in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John over to pray for the believers in Samaria that the latter might be given the Holy Spirit. As the apostles laid their hands on them, they received the Holy Spirit.
What is the advantage of the laying on of hands as illustrated by this particular incident? It enables the oil to flow to me. I, as a member, today acknowledge my place in the body and take my position under the Head. Such acknowledgement brings the oil upon me. A new believer can receive the anointing of the precious oil right away through the laying on of hands, even though it takes a lifetime for him to learn well all the lessons involved in it.
In baptism I declare that I have forsaken the world; in the laying on of hands I announce that I have entered into the body. The former is negative in that I give up the world while the latter is positive in that I join the body. It means that I need this day to be identified with all the children of God, and I need to be subject to the authority of the Head. When I place my whole being under the authority of the Head, I receive the inflow of the oil. As soon as my position is right, the oil starts to flow to me. But if my position is wrong, how can the oil come to me? The Samaritans were in a peculiar situation: they had believed in the Lord and were saved; yet they had not received the Holy Spirit. The apostles came to put them under the Head. By laying hands on their heads, thus putting them under the authority of the Head and joining them to the whole body, the marvelous thing happened—the Holy Spirit was poured upon them.
Next comes the incident in Ephesus. When Paul went there to preach the gospel, he found twelve disciples who had already been baptized with the baptism of John. They were disciples, they had believed; yet they had only received the baptism of John. Paul therefore asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. They answered negatively by saying they had not so much as heard whether the Holy Spirit had been given. Paul immediately discovered they were deficient in something fundamental.
This story is rather interesting. Why had they not received the Holy Spirit if they had already believed? The answer is that there was something lacking in the first principles. They had been baptized, but upon inquiry it was discovered that they had been baptized with the baptism of John, not baptized into Christ. Hence Paul prescribed believer’s baptism for them, that they should be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Once this step was taken, he laid hands on them without asking any further questions. Through the laying on of hands, they were identified with the body and were made subject to the authority of the Head.
However, no one should have the laying on of hands without first being baptized. (The house of Cornelius, though, was an exception which will later be discussed.) The rule is: the Holy Spirit descends on those who have been delivered from the world and identified with Christ in death and resurrection through baptism; they then see how they must live in the body and be subject to the authority of the Head. Let me emphatically say that the anointing oil is more than a mere outward manifestation; it is an inward reality.
Psalm 133 shows us how the Head is anointed. In the anointing of the Head, the whole body is anointed; thus every member is anointed. Immediately praises rise up in me for the oil which has flowed down from the Head and has reached me, a member of the body. Whether the Lord gives outward manifestation or not is a minor concern. The outward phenomena of Pentecost ought not to be overly stressed, for we believe it is but to affirm that these people were being anointed. The issue lies in the anointing, not in the outward manifestation. The thing that is important is to know from where the oil comes. The anointing upon the Head is what has become the anointing upon the member. For this reason, the laying on of hands with prayer is a marvelous thing.
The One Exception in the Bible
The only exception in the Bible to the above happened in the house of Cornelius. The household of Cornelius had neither been baptized nor had had the laying on of hands; nonetheless, the Holy Spirit came upon them. Why was there this one exception? Since the time of Pentecost, all the apostles originally had the idea that the grace of the Lord was only for the Jews. They themselves were Jews; even the Lord Jesus was a Jew. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came upon the Jews. The three thousand saved then and the five thousand saved later were all Jews, Jews who had returned to Jerusalem from various nations. So up to the time of Cornelius, all who had received this grace were Jews. Whether the same grace would be given to the Gentiles was unknown to them. The Jews customarily looked down upon the Gentiles as dogs and lower animals. Even Peter found it very hard to change his view.
We all know it is not easy to break through darkened minds. It was, therefore, a matter of great significance to open the door of salvation to the Gentiles. This began with the house of Cornelius. Even in the case of the Samaritans, the people were related to the Jews, though they were not pure Jews. But the Lord also desired to save the Gentiles. How was He going to initiate this? First, He gave Peter a vision of "a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet, let down by four corners upon the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts and creeping things of the earth and birds of the heaven" (Acts 10:11-12). The Lord commanded Peter to rise, kill, and eat. But Peter seemed to know better than God’s command for he answered that he had never eaten such things, meaning he had never had anything to do with Gentiles. This was done three times until Peter got the message. How very stubborn the human mind is! After three times, even people with a poor memory can remember. Peter could not pretend that he had seen wrongly nor could he excuse himself by saying he had forgotten.
As he meditated on the vision, the men from Caesarea were at the door asking for him. He immediately understood the purport of it. Even dogs under the table ate the children’s crumbs; the Gentiles had their share in the salvation of God. He went with the men unhesitatingly; but, still, to baptize the household of Cornelius was something he dared not do. True, these Gentiles had already believed, but what would the brothers from Joppa accompanying him say if he baptized them? They would not recognize the baptism and would accuse Peter of acting independently. He was in a dilemma. He himself was clear as to the Lord’s intention, but these brethren were not clear. So how could he make a move? But the Lord answered by pouring the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and the other Gentiles though they had neither been baptized nor received the laying on of hands. Thus, when he returned to Jerusalem, Peter could say that since the Holy Spirit had descended before he made the gospel clear, he could do nothing but make up the deficiency by baptizing them. The baptism was for the sake of their being separated from the world and entering into Christ. The laying on of hands was omitted, however, because they already had received the anointing oil which it signified.
Later on, at the council in Jerusalem, the same problem concerning the Gentiles was raised. Peter restated his experience, and thus the door of salvation was kept open to the Gentiles.
In Samaria there was the laying on of hands, but in Caesarea there was none. In Acts 15 the Lord used this case in Caesarea to prove Paul’s point, but in Acts 19 Paul himself laid hands on the disciples he found in Ephesus. Thus it shows that the matter of the laying on of hands yet continues up to the present.
We Must Walk with All of God’s Children
New believers need to be shown that they cannot live independently but they must be members one of another and learn to be subject to the authority of the Head. They ought not to be rebellious, but should rather walk together with all the children of God. Thus they will manifest the fact of anointing both in their lives and in their works.
Quote:
Point 4- Q- 17- Can women be "Apostles"- Yes.
Can they be preachers and Teachers? No. God clearly dictates women are not to preach or to teach- ( with the exception of teaching younger women how to be proper God guided women).
The Bible doesn't say women can't teach. You are pulling text out of context. You're abusive towards women. You have no right to teach women anything.
Quote:
Point 5-Qs- related to apostles, appointing, etc, etc.
I'm afraid you have the process wrong. You asked if a person agreed the apostles were to appoint Elders, etc, etc, when they never did even in thier time.
Yes, Apostles appointed Elders. Paul, for example, went to the church Ephesus and appointed Elders there.
Quote:
If look at true Biblical History of the Church, the Apostles appointed Church Leaders- (Preachers) over them first. Then the Preacher, thru voting of the the membership, chose the Elders and Deacons of Churches.
But, the Apostles also, after churches were more plentiful and more converts, appointed "Bishops" over territories to govern over groups of Churches.
Preachers are teachers, they are shepherds. Their role is to teach, not to be Elders. Whether there is a teacher present or not, the fact remains, Apostles appoint not preachers, but Elders. Preaching is based on a gift of teaching. Whereas being an Elder is not based on some gift but appropriateness for the task whom the Apostle recognizes and appoints. There is no voting membership, but it is the decision of the Apostle and his or her's alone. The elders in turn approve of deacons and approve of the Elders of the meeting places in a locality.
There are no men appointed over territories. Rather, Apostles work over territories, not as bishops, for bishops are Elders who take care of a locality. Only Apostles take care of a region of church localities. There are no exceptions in Scripture.
Quote:
Also, as God guided the first apostles, He guided them to choose other Apostles to carry on thier work of overseeing the "Bishops" who oversaw groups of Churches and thier "Preachers", Deacons and Elders.
The same system God appointed to be used by Moses after so long in the Exodus to help care for growing needs within eac
There are no Bishops in Scripture that are in charge of a region. A bishop is always constrained as an Elder of a locality. Preachers are teachers and their role is to go among the meeting places of the local assembly and teach. They do not work regionally. Their work is local in nature. They are not overseen. They are free to work. Apostles, rather, oversee Elders of a locality, and Elders of a locality oversee Elders of meeting places. There is nothing in the 5 books of Moses that teach another spirit for the organizing of the Church. You're mistaken.
