LAYING ON OF HANDS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Laying on of Hands in the Old Testament

Those in Pentecostal churches may associate the laying on of hands with the receiving of the Holy Spirit or being “slain in the Spirit” while other Protestant groups think of it in the context of ordaining a person into full-time Christian service or appointing people as deacons or elders (see Acts 6:6; 13:3; I Timothy 4:14; Hebrews 6:2). But we rarely think of that practice in relationship to the Old Testament. It turns out that laying on of hands was also a part of Jewish ceremonies, but in that context it sometimes served a somewhat different purpose.

Here is a brief survey of those OT passages, starting with a general overview by Schutz: “Alongside this [the Day of Atonement ceremony of Leviticus 16], though more rare, is the laying on of hands as an act of blessing (Gen. 48:18; Isa. 44:3). It is no doubt closely related to the ritual of laying on of hands on the occasion of a man's installation in an office (Num. 27:12ff, etc). The laying on of hands means, therefore, if one compares the two very different acts of removal of sin and blessing, that there passes to the one on whom hands are laid the particular quality of the one who performs the act. He passes on his special blessing or burdens the scapegoat with the burden which he himself had carried.”

Genesis 48:8-20

The context here is the blessing by the aged Jacob of all his descendants. However, in blessing Joseph's sons he purposely places his right [i.e. favored] hand on the younger son Ephraim and his left hand on the older son Manasseh. Joseph objects but Jacob explains that the “younger brother shall become greater than he, and his descendants shall become a company of peoples.”

Hamilton points out: “The subtlety of Jacob naming Ephraim ahead of Manasseh back in v. 5 slipped by Joseph unnoticed, even though Jacob named his own children chronologically – Reuben, then Simeon.” He also notes, “The act of hand imposition in this incident is conveyed by the verb sit (vv. 14,17) and by the verb sim (v. 18), both of which mean 'put, place.' In contrast, throughout priestly literature, whenever there is a laying on of one hand (Lev. 1:4) or of both hands (16:21), the verb that is consistently used is samak. It is possible that sit/sim and samak are synonyms. But it is also possible that sit/sim may refer to laying one's hands on the head of another lightly, while samak implies the use of more pressure.”

Leviticus 1:4

Banwell: “The touch of a person's hands was held to communicate authority, power, or blessing, the right hand being more significant in this respect than the left, but both hands were often used (Gn. xlviii.13,14; Dt. xxxiv.9). Note especially the laying of the hands of the worshiper on the head of his sacrificial beast, where the communication of authority probably signified identity with the offering (Lv. 1.4).”

Milgrom gives a Jewish perspective on this verse: “The explanations of this rite fall into four categories: (a) transference of sin to the animal...or of ownership to God...; (b) identification 'intended to penetrate the animal with the soul of the offerer' (Dussaud), or the animal, turning into smoke, brings the offerer nearer to God...; (c) declaration, to enable the offerer to declare its purpose...or his innocence...; (d) ownership...” He eliminates all possibilities except the last one, although others could well question his reasoning in reaching that conclusion.

Leviticus 16:20-22

“The clearest expression of the imagery of atoning sacrifice appears in the legislation of the Day of Atonement...First, Aaron sacrifices for himself and his house so he can continue the ceremony without fear of judgment (Lev 16:11-14). Second, he offers the sin-offering of a goat for the congregation of Israel (Lev 16:15-19). Third, Aaron lays his hands on a second goat (a scapegoat) and sends it outside the camp to die (Lev 16:20-22). The first goat is sacrificed. This act symbolizes the divine side of atonement: God's holy justice is satisfied...The second goat represents the human side of atonement. The sins of the people are transferred to the goat by Aaron's hands...This twofold imagery helps to resolve a long-standing theological controversy over the imagery of atonement...Expiratory views of atonement focus on sacrifices as the way to free people of sin and its defilement. Propitiatory understandings of atonement present sacrifices as the appeasement of divine wrath. The symbolism of two goats on the Day of Atonement indicates that both concepts are essential...” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)

Leviticus 24:14

This passage presents the specific case in which a people heard someone utter a curse using the Lord's name. Wenham says, “It was not simply uttering the holy name of Yahweh (the Lord) that constituted the offense, as Jews often hold, or cursing by itself. It was using the Lord's name in a curse that merited the death penalty...Blasphemy brings guilt on those who hear it as well as on the blasphemer himself. To rid themselves of this guilt the hearers had to lay their hands on the blasphemer's head (v. 14). His subsequent death [by stoning] then atoned for his own and his hearer's sin.” Rooker echoes this opinion almost word for word.

Most Christians, including myself, might take issue with the comment that the rite atoned for the blasphemer's sin. But that is probably due to a confusion regarding (a) which of the two above-mentioned understandings of atonement one is thinking of and (b) the great difference in OT and NT views of life and death (There are arguably less than a handful of OT verses expressing the idea of eternal life and death). Thus, we would probably say that God's wrath brought about by the blasphemer's sin has been satisfied by the offender's physical death in that He no longer needed to wreak his vengeance on those who had heard the blasphemy. However, that does not at all imply that the offender himself is now back in God's good graces and will enjoy eternal life with Him.

Numbers 8:10ff

“This section [i.e. Numbers 8:9-13] clarifies the parallel between the Levites and the animal sacrifices...Beginning in v. 10b the procedures for offering both the Levites and the animal sacrifices are given in parallel form: hands are laid on the offerings (vv. 10b, 12a), a proper person offers the sacrifices (vv. 11a, 12b), and the outcome of the offerings is given (vv. 11b, 12c). The laying on of hands possibly denotes the identification of the Levites with the people and the animal sacrifices, but more probably denotes the substitution of the one for the other.” (Ashley)

Numbers 27:12-23

“Despite the difference in authority between Moses and Joshua, there was a real continuity between them expressed symbolically by the laying on of Moses' hands (18,23). In this symbolic gesture Joshua was identified with Moses and made his representative for the future...the closest parallel to the imposition of hands on Joshua is the ordination of the Levites (8:10ff), when the Israelites appointed them as their substitutes in place of their first-born children.” (Wenham)

Deuteronomy 34:9

This verse reads, “And Joshua, son of Nun, was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him, and the Israelites obeyed him and they did what the Lord had commanded Moses.” This refers back to the event in Numbers 27:18, which, however, seems to read as if Joshua already had the spirit before hands were laid on him. The difference between the two accounts may lie in the fact that, as Levinson states, “In Num 27.18, Joshua already possessed an undefined 'spirit' (often associated with prophecy or possession)." This may, therefore, be different from the specific 'spirit of wisdom' which Deuteronomy mentions.