The “Laying on of Hands” of Elders

By David A. Mappes

[David A. Mappes is Staff Pastor, Bethany Bible Church, Phoenix, Arizona, and Professor of Bible, Southwestern College, Phoenix, Arizona.]

[This is article four in a four-part series, “Studies on the Role of the New Testament Elder.”]

The third article in this series discussed the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18–20 in relation to sinning elders who are to be rebuked.[1] Then in verse 22 Paul wrote, “Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.” Does this command about laying on of hands refer to the ordaining of elders or to the restoring of elders who had been rebuked?[2]

A number of commentators suggest that the verse refers to restoring elders (among other penitents) who have been publicly rebuked.[3] Advocates of this view appeal to the context as well as a supposed difference between the practice of ordination by presbyters in 1 Timothy 4:14 and Paul’s injunction in 5:22.

Laney, who states that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας (“those who continue in sin,” 5:20) refers to only the sinning elders, suggests that the laying on of hands refers to restoring a previously rebuked elder. “The context of discipline (5:19–21) suggests that Paul is referring to the hasty restoration of a penitent elder to his former position.”[4] Hasler also argues that verse 22 refers not to ordination but to a particular liturgical act of elder restoration.[5] Hasler cites 2 John 11; 3 John 9; 1 Clement 44:1–6; 47:6; and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (11:1) in support of his view that elder discipline and restoration efforts were in process in the New Testament period. Hanson seeks to illustrate a difference between 1 Timothy 5:22 and ordination described in 4:14. He argues that since 4:14 refers to ordination with a presiding bishop (if available) and a group of presbyters, then hasty ordination could not occur even if Timothy had desired to do so.[6] Hanson supposes that the plurality of the presbytery would keep Timothy from hastily ordaining an elder since the presbytery would oversee the process of ordination.

However, Hasler’s citations of 2 John 11; 3 John 9; 1 Clement 44:1–6; 47:6; and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (11:1) do not actually support his premise that 1 Timothy 5:22 refers to a ceremony that restored fallen elders. In 2 John 10–11, John warned believers that if they express hospitality to false teachers and bring these false teachers into their homes, the believers would actually be sharing in and supporting the false teachers’ evil deeds. This concept of sharing in the guilt of the sins that another person or group propagates is clearly taught in 1 Timothy 5:22. The only point of similarity between 2 John 11 and 1 Timothy 5:22 is the principle of shared guilt in the sins of another. Clement warned the church of the serious consequence of ejecting innocent bishops from ministry but he said nothing about restoration.[7] Both John and Polycarp admonished unruly false teachers (Diotrephes and Valens, respectively) who had exercised considerable authority in the church (3 John 9–10; Letter to the Philippians 11). Polycarp reminded the Philippians of their responsibility to reclaim and spiritually restore an individual and his wife. It is difficult to determine if the man referred to was an elder or Valens or someone else. However, Polycarp wrote nothing about restoration to eldership. His concern was that this individual and his wife be restored to fellowship with the Lord. Hasler is correct in appealing to the above citations to indicate that problems of elder discipline existed in the New Testament church, but these citations do not support his premise that 1 Timothy 5:22 refers only to elder restoration.

Contrary to Hanson and Ellicott, church leadership according to the Pastoral Epistles was indeed infected with false teachers who intimidated Timothy. The fact that Paul commanded Timothy as an apostolic delegate to remain in Ephesus and restore order in the church suggests problems existed among the presbytery.

Many commentators, on the other hand, agree that the rite of laying on of hands in 1 Timothy 5:22 refers to ordination.[8] The phrase, “laying on of hands” (χεῖρας ἐπιτίθει) appears throughout the Old and New Testaments in describing a number of situations, including blessing, transference, and identification. In the case of transference the substance being transferred depends on the context. In the case of identification a person is closely identified with another or with what and/or whom that other person represents.

The laying on of hands in verse 22 is best understood as referring to identifying elders publicly. The recipients of this rite may be either those who had been rebuked and thus removed from the eldership or individuals who were not previously recognized and designated as elders. But whether the elder candidate is a previously rebuked elder or a new elder candidate is inconsequential. The significant point is that the rite does not refer exclusively to restoring previously rebuked elders. If it did, then this would imply that disciplined elders constitute a class of subelders whose restoration to eldership involved a different ordination process. But no such special treatment is recorded in the New Testament. A distinct process for identifying and reinstating disciplined elders is not specified in the New Testament. Nor does the New Testament speak of a separate classification of elders.

The view that the laying on of hands in verse 22 refers to elder acknowledgment (which may include both elder restoration and the identification of new elders) is supported by several observations. First, the imposition of hands did not function as an exclusive rite associated with the reception of penitents until the third century. Second, references in the Pastoral Epistles to the laying on of hands refer to ordination. Third, the lists of elder qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:7–9 specify who is to be recognized and appointed as elders, with no hint of an inferior elder classification. Either an individual is officially recognized and appointed as an elder, or he is not an elder. If an elder has been removed from eldership, to be restored he must satisfy the same qualifications a first-time elder must meet. Thus no need exists for a separate installation. Fourth, 1 Timothy 5:24–25 is best understood in reference to elder recognition and not simply reinstatement of rebuked elders.

In verse 22 Paul expressed two concerns. First, he was concerned that Timothy not irresponsibly set apart someone for eldership by appointing him hurriedly. The elder qualifications in 3:1–7 call for an appropriate amount of time for those characteristics to be observed. “Ordination without preceding thorough investigation would render Timothy co-responsible for the wrongs which such elders might subsequently commit.”[9] Thus if Timothy irresponsibly elevated a person to eldership, he would share in the guilt of that elder’s subsequent sins.

By placing a person in an office that has as one of its qualifications that the person be “above reproach” (3:2), the one laying on hands will seem to be condoning the sins that the person commits…. The sins are those of others (ἀλλοτρίαις), but Timothy and the other elders will become responsible for those sins when they lay hands on too hastily.[10]

Paul’s second concern was that Timothy “keep” himself “free from sin” (lit., “keep himself pure,” σεαυτὸν ἁγνόν τήρει). This emphasizes the importance of not irresponsibly elevating unqualified men to serve as elders. If caution is exercised in eldership appointment, then the necessity of elder discipline is greatly reduced. In verses 24–25 Paul wrote, “The sins of some men are quite evident, going before them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after. Likewise also, deeds that are good are quite evident, and those which are otherwise cannot be concealed.”

Timothy was not to install men as elders hastily because the sins of some are not open and thus are not easily detected. Conversely an absence of clear and open good deeds does not automatically eliminate one’s future eligibility from eldership. Scholars debate whether “judgment” (κρίσιν) in verse 24 refers to divine judgment,[11] human judgment, or both. If it refers primarily to divine judgment, then Paul’s intention was conciliatory.

The main point of the two verses is to show that it is not always possible to identify whether men are good or bad just by their deeds, but that God will make all plain at the last judgment. Presumably the purpose of the passage is to console Timothy in case he makes mistakes in disciplinary matters: it is not always possible to distinguish good from bad, but God will make right at the end.[12]

According to this view Paul consoled Timothy that he could not be responsible for the sins of some men, since those sins will not be revealed until the judgment seat of Christ. While Timothy was to exercise caution by not allowing the installation of unqualified elders, he could not be responsible for future sinful actions.

Other writers argue that κρίσιν refers to human judgment.[13] In this view Paul was warning Timothy to allow time for thorough investigation or judgment before laying on hands on someone as an elder. While the term κρίσιν can refer to either divine or human judgment, Paul may have referred in verse 24 to human judgment. If an elder candidate can mask his sins until after he has passed this elder judicial examination (i.e., judgment), then extreme caution should be taken in and before the examination.

To illustrate the importance of a thorough and timely examination Paul contrasted the open sinfulness of some men with the cloaked sin of others. The sins of some are clearly evident (πρόδηλα) before any examination; hence no need exists for intense examination. “Some men are such open and notorious sinners, that there is no need of any inquiry about them, or any examination of them…they even prevent and supersede any formal process about them.”[14] In the case of open sin, no examination is required; such men are already disqualified to serve as elders.

The sins of others are not so obvious. These sins will be manifested after they have undergone a human judicial process to determine their eligibility for eldership (“their sins follow after”). Sin will eventually manifest itself (v. 25). One’s character may not be immediately obvious; therefore Timothy should not be in a hurry to install an individual as an elder. Paul’s use of ταχέως (“hastily”) in verse 22 and his comment in verse 24 that some sins follow after (ἐπακολουθοῦσιν) judgment indicate that a period of time for observation must precede any elder appointment. Harvey aptly wrote, “Patient investigation and the testing of time will at last develop the real character, however concealed.”[15]

The rite of laying on of hands refers, then, to elder recognition. These men may be either former elders who had been removed from eldership or individuals who have not previously served as elders. The qualifications listed in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 constitute the standard for determining who should be appointed to serve as elders. This list requires that the conduct of prospective elders be observed over time before they are installed as elders.

Notes

1. David A. Mappes, “The Discipline of a Sinning Elder,” Bibliotheca Sacra 154 (July-September 1997): 333-43.
2. Woodward suggests an unusual view of 1 Timothy 5:22. He believes Paul was warning Timothy not to lay hands hastily on an elder in the sense of initiating the process of an accusation (Robert R. Woodward, A Commentary on 1& 2 Thessalonians, 1& 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon [Abilene, TX: ACU, 1985], 81).
3. Hans-Werner Bartsch, Die Anfänge Urchristlicher Rechtsbildungen: Studien zu den Pastoralbriefen (Hamburg: Evangelischer Verlag, 1965), 101–2; Frederic Henry Chase, Confirmation in the Apostolic Age (London: Macmillan, 1909), 65; Burton Scott Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1947), 160; Walter Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 2d ed. (Andover, MA: Draper, 1884), 97; James W. Falconer, From Apostle to Priest: A Study of Early Church Organization (Edinburgh: Clark, 1900), 136; Paul Galtier, “La réconciliation des pécheurs dans la premire épitre a Timothée,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 39 (1951): 317-20; Fred G. Gealy, “1 Timothy,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick (New York: Abingdon, 1955), 11:444–45; H. Hammond, A Paraphrase and Annotations upon All the Books of the New Testament, Briefly Explaining All the Difficult Passages Thereof, 6th ed. (London: Amen-Corner, 1689), 703–4; Victor Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1978), 43; Gottfried Holtz, “Die Pastoralbriefe,” in Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 13:129; N. J. Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Mohr, 1889), 244; Fenton J. A. Hort, Christian Ecclesia (London: Macmillan, 1914), 214; J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985), 123; Charles J. Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 63–64; Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 32 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1961), 207–8; Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, trans. J. A. Baker (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969), 147–48; August Wiesinger, Biblical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the First to Timothy , trans. John Fulton (Edinburgh: Clark, 1851), 500, 502–3; Kenneth S. Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament for the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 87; and J. Ysebaert, “La imposition des mains rite de réconciliation,” La Maison-Dieu 90 (1967): 93-101.
4. Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline, 123.
5. Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 43.
6. Anthony T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 103.
7. 1 Clement 44.
8. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (reprint [4 vols. in 2], Chicago: Moody, 1958), 3:353–54; J. Glentworth Butler, “The Acts, the Epistles, and the Revelation,” in The Bible-Work (New York: Butler Bible-Work, 1892), 522; John Calvin, The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthiansand the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, vol. 10 of Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. David Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T. A. Small (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 265–66; Joseph Coppens, L’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau Testament et dans L’Église ancienne (Wetteren-Paris: De Meester, 1925), 124–31; Patrick Fairbairn, Pastoral Epistles (1874; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 223–24; Gordon Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 131; John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Woodward, 1811), 616; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 120; William Hendriksen, 1and 2 Timothy and Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 185; Johann Eduard Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, ed. H. A. W. Meyer, trans. David Hunter (Edinburgh: Clark, 1861), 213–14; Robert J. Karris, The Pastoral Epistles (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1979), 97; John N. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1963; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 127–28; Homer Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, rev. ed. (Salem, WI: Sheffield, 1993), 179–80; Edward J. Kilmartin, “Ministry and Ordination in Early Christianity against a Jewish Background,” Studia Liturgica 13 (1979): 42-69; George W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 239; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 688; Bernadine Piconio, “The First Epistle to Timothy,” in An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, Catholic Standard Library (London: Hodges, 1890), 163; Alfred Plummer, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1894), 106–7; Jerome D. Quinn, “Ordination in the Pastoral Epistles,” International Catholic Review 8 (Winter 1981): 358-69; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Broadman: Nashville, 1931), 4:588; Thomas Scott, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: Translated from the Original Greek with Original Notes and Practical Observations (London: Sheldon & Goodrich, 1817), 395; Ceslas Spicq, Les Épitres Pastorales (Paris: Gabalda, 1969), 1:546–48; John Trapp, Trapp’s Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 646; J. J. van Oosterzee, “The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy,” in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 23:65; David Verner, The Household of God (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983), 156–57; Ronald A. Ward, Commentary on 1and 2 Timothy and Titus (Waco, TX: Word, 1974), 89; and Edmond J. Wolfe, Annotations on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and the Hebrews (New York: Christian Literature, 1897), 93.
9. Hendrickson, 1and 2 Timothy and Titus, 185.
10. George W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 239.
11. Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles, trans. Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro, ed. Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 81; Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 97-99; Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles, 228-29; and Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, 120-21.
12. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 104.
13. Alford, The Greek Testament, 3:354–55; William Lewery Blackley, The Critical English Testament, 3d ed. (London: Daldy, Isbister, 1877), 278–79; Robert G. Gromacki, Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 153–54; Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 242; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 690-92; and Newport J. D. White, “The Epistle to Titus,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 5:138–39.
14. Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 616.
15. Hezekiah Harvey, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Firstand SecondTimothy and Titus, and the Epistle to Philemon (Philadelphia: American Baptist, 1890), 69.