Truth Magazine

By Dorval L. McClister

Brother Ron Howes has submitted an article in opposition to some comments I made concerning the laying on of hands in the appointment of elders. Brother Howes seems to have drawn some conclusions from Acts 6:3-6 that an appointment ceremony was all that was involved in the laying on of hands. He states, “I must conclude therefore that when the Apostles laid their hands on these men in verse 6, that it was not to impart the Spirit, because they already had it. Here the action of laying on of hands is clearly an appointing ceremony.” I have some difficulty in understanding how he reached this conclusion. First of all, to be filled with the Holy Spirit (as were these men mentioned in Acts 6:3) does not imply that they had received any miraculous gifts of the Spirit. John was filled with the Spirit (Lk. 1:15), yet John did no miracle (Jn. 10:41). Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:57). Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:41). Christians are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). Is there any biblical evidence that any of these possessed then, or possess now, any miraculous gifts of the Spirit?

The only persons I have read about in the New Testament Scriptures who could perform miraculous signs and wonders were only those upon whom the Apostles laid their hands. Acts 6:8 provides clear evidence that miraculous powers were given to Stephen. “He did wonders and miracles among the people,” implying that he had not done this before. Philip, another one of the seven chosen, is seen later in Acts (8:13) performing “miracles and signs.” From whence did these men receive the miraculous power on the Holy Spirit? At the laying on of the hands of the Apostles as stated in verse 6. Since it is evident that being filled with the Holy Spirit is not synonymous with receiving miraculous powers from the hands of the Apostles, then the seven men in Acts 6:5 did not have such miraculous gifts until after the laying on of hands of the Apostles in verse 6. I beg, humbly, to differ with brother Howes in his conclusion that Acts 6:6 is nothing more than an “appointing ceremony.”

I hope that brother Howes understands that I have no quarrel against a preacher who wishes to lay hands upon another. However, I sincerely believe we should look carefully at such passages as Acts 13:1-3 which he incorporates as “apostolic example and direct statement” for a ceremony in which elders are appointed in the church today. In fact, no ceremony is being used here to appoint or ordain elders, deacons, or preachers in the church. Everything done in these verses is done under the direct guidance and counsel of the Holy Spirit through inspired men. The requirement involved “separating Saul and Barnabas” for a specific mission in evangelism. Three acts are mentioned: laying on of hands, fasting, and prayer. The laying on of hands in Acts 13:3 certified that mission as one personally designed and directed by the Holy Spirit. Does brother Howes incorporate all three of these acts, including fasting, in a ceremony in which elders are appointed in the church? The proper application of this passage is not in ordaining or appointing elders in the church, but rather to separate two inspired men to preach the gospel under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Does the church where brother Howes labors practice the laying on of hands and fasting when their preacher goes to another area to preach? If not, why not, as he states that such passages provides apostolic example and direct statement to do such. We really do not prove anything by using unrelated texts in a formal argument.

It may appear to brother Howes that I seem to struggle with the idea of appointing elders in the church. I really don’t. I should study the subject more, yes, indeed. And if he determines that some form of recognition of the elders by the congregation is simply a meaningless gesture, a mere ceremony, then I would certainly grant him the privilege of choosing another alternative. However, the laying on of hands by inspired men of the New Testament involved a direct relationship and intervention of the Holy Spirit, a relationship which I affirm does not exist today. I share the sentiments of R.L. Whiteside when he commented, “I have never taken part in the laying on of hands. I cannot see that it would do any man any good for me to lay hands on him” (Reflections, p. 463).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 422-423
July 21, 1983

By Ron Howes

It is with some hesitation that I choose to reply to brother Dorval McClister’s article on the eldership dated March 17, 1983. Brother McClister and I are not acquainted, and his articles on the eldership were timely, well written, and contained much to which I may say a hearty “Amen.” It is hoped that my brother will accept my disagreement for its principle and not its personality, and should he choose to respond to the response be assured there will not be a review of the review of the review.

In his comments on the appointment of elders, brother McClister says, “I can see nothing accomplished in a symbolic gesture of laying hands upon the men selected to serve as elders.” He continues, “. . .it would seem clear that Titus did not lay his hands upon those whom he appointed as elders of the church …. It is my personal belief that the practice of laying hands upon another today would be empty of any real meaning, and is not necessary in appointing elders in the church.” Because of the usual inadequacy of quotes to properly convey the thoughts of the original article, the reader is encouraged to review the entirety of brother McClister’s statements in this regard.

As have most of us when confronted with the question of just how to set the men in office, brother McClister has struggled with the issue of the appointment ceremony. It appears that he has substituted one of his own. “While the men remain standing, I also request that the entire congregation arise to their feet in recognition of them as the elders of the church.” Dorval, is this not also a symbolic gesture?

Dorval’s hesitation at using the “laying on of hands” in his appointment ceremony, arises from his conviction that this action seems to be limited to the “direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.” Some observations are in order.

In Acts chapter 6, when the seven were appointed to serve tables, their qualifications were that they be full of the Spirit and of wisdom. Verse 5 is quite emphatic in its statement that they “chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit.” I must conclude, therefore, that when the Apostles laid their hands on these men in verse 6, that it was not to impart the Spirit, because they already had it. Here the action of laying on of hands is clearly an appointment ceremony.

The same action is observable in Acts 13. The participants are indicated in verse one, being the prophets, teachers, and the church in Antioch. The apostle Paul and Barnabas are then, in verse 3, the recipients of this “laying on of hands” ceremony. Paul was already filled with the Holy Spirit, being an apostle. The ceremony here is not the impartation of spiritual gifts, but the act of appointment. The Holy Spirit separated them; the local church conducted the ceremony. The same is true today; Paul states in Acts 20:28 that it is the Holy Spirit that makes men “bishops.”

Perhaps absent from the instructions to Titus, but included in Paul’s letter to Timothy, in a section specifically devoted to Timothy’s (the evangelist’s) special relationship to the eldership, Paul tells him to “lay hands hastily on no man.” The inference is quite clear that Timothy was to lay hands on men after considerable deliberation only. Thus again, the “laying on, of hands” is the appointment ceremony. It is not an empty gesture, but one through the approval of apostolic example and direct statement that we may incorporate into the meaningful appointment process today.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 422-423
July 21, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

Jesus really did establish His kingdom. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:19) and Peter opened the doors of the kingdom on Pentecost, following Christ’s resurrection from the dead (Acts 2). The brethren, both Jews and Gentiles, were “translated” into the kingdom of God’s dear son (Col. 1:13). But the premillennialists, while denying the existence of the kingdom now, affirm that God will give it to the Jews at the second coming of Christ. But consider the words of Christ. Speaking to the Jews of His own day, He said, “Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:43).

The premillennialists have it exactly backwards. They have a much more optimistic picture for the Jews than Jesus had. They say that Jesus will give it to the Jews – He said He would take it from them. By rejecting Christ as King, national Israel forfeited all rights to the kingdom. The millennialists say that by rejecting Christ, they also guaranteed themselves another opportunity to have the kingdom. But Jesus refutes their error in this passage.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 421
July 21, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: Why did Jesus allow the woman caught in adultery in John 8 to go away uncondemned?

Reply: The account of this incident is recorded in John 8:3-11. Before commenting on the question, let us notice the passage.

And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her? And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning with the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman where she was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.

Under the law of Moses, one guilty of adultery was to be stoned to death (Deut. 22:23, 24). Obviously; the woman’s accusers wanted to place Jesus in a dilemma. Since the Romans did not regard adultery as grounds for capital punishment, but yet the law of Moses commanded the Jews to stone one to death for this offense, they thought they had Jesus in a bind. If He endorsed stoning the woman, he would be acting contrary to Roman law; but, if He did not, He would be charged with violating the law of Moses.

When the scribes and Pharisees continued to ask Jesus what He would do in this case, He said to them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (v. 7). According to the law of Moses, the witness had to cast the first stone at the one to be put to death (Deut. 17:7). In the instance of this woman, the guiltless one was asked to cast the first stone at her. While legal punishment is to be exercised (when such is justified), these were not the ones authorized to administer it. Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. What He wrote we do not know, but He gave the woman’s accusers an opportunity to carry out whatever they desired to do. The responsibility of executing the law was upon them. They left, one by one, and only Jesus and the woman remained.

Jesus arose and asked the woman, “Where are they? did no man condemn thee?” (v. 10). The woman replied, “No man Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more” (v.. 11). Jesus was making no excuse for sin when He told the woman that He did not condemn her. They were not words of forgiveness (Lk. 7:48). The woman had sinned, but no one was present to execute the law; therefore, neither did He pronounce a sentence upon her. He did not array His judgment against the law of Moses nor did He violate Roman law. Then He admonished the woman to go her way and sin no more. He did not tell her to go in peace, but to “sin no more.” This was the condition of her pardon. She was to repent.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 421
July 21, 1983