Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
– Martin Luther
"Mmmm . . . beer." - Homer Simpson
Historically, God’s people have greatly enjoyed alcohol. In the European world one of the most Christian drinks was beer. Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and renowned brewer. After Charlemagne’s reign the church because Europe’s exclusive brewer. When a young woman was to marry her church made special bridal ale for her, from which we derive our word bridal. Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary package included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by he and his guests. Martin Luther explained the entire reformation as “…while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.” Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer. When the Puritan’s landed on Plymouth Rock the first permanent building they erected was the brewery.
As feminism grew in America during the turn of the 20th century the women’s suffrage and prohibition movements were the practical results of a feminine piety that came to also dominate the church as more women became pastors and the church became more feminine. Some denominations began to condemn alcohol as sinful and the Methodist pastor Dr. Thomas Welch created the very “Christian” Welch’s grape juice to replace communion wine in 1869. The marriage of Christianity and feminism helped to create a dry nation that put out of business all but the largest brewers who were able to survive on near beer and root beer which explains why today American beer is largely mass produced, watered down, light on calories, and feminine in comparison to rich and dark European beers. The resurgence of micro-brews is helping to overcome the great loss and resurrect the art of brewing.
Lastly, some Christians foolishly argue that such terms as new wine and mixed wine in the Bible speak of non-alcoholic wine. But, new wine can still intoxicate according to Scripture (Isaiah 24:7; Hosea 4:11; Joel 1:5), and mixed wine refers to special wines where various wines are mixed together and/or mixed with spices and does not refer to wine cut with water (Psalm 75:8; Song of Songs 8:2). God refers to pouring out the wine of His mixed wine on His enemies which does not mean He will dilute justice (Psalm 75:8). The only time such a practice is mentioned in the Bible is in regards to merchants who cut wine with to rob customers (Isaiah 1:22). The Bible speaks of grape juice (Numbers 6:3) and if God meant to speak of non-alcoholic wine he would have used that word to avoid confusion.
All Bible believing Christians agree that drunkenness is a sin.
The Bible is abundantly clear that drunkenness is a sin (Deuteronomy 21:20; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Matthew 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3).
The matter is so serious that no priest was to drink alcohol while performing their duties (Leviticus 10:9; Ezekial 44:21) though they could consume while not working (Numbers 18:12, 27, 30), no king was to drink while judging law (Proverbs 31:4-5), an elder/pastor cannot be a drunkard (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7), and that no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21).
Sins associated with drunkenness include incest (Genesis 19:32-35), violence (Proverbs 4:17); adultery (Revelation 17:2); mockery and brawling (Proverbs 20:1); poverty (Proverbs 21:17); late night and early morning drinking (Isaiah 5:11-12); hallucinations (Isaiah 28:7); legendary antics (Isaiah 5:22); murder (2 Samuel 11:13), gluttony and poverty (Proverbs 23:20-21); vomiting (Jeremiah 25:27, 48:26; Isaiah 19:14); staggering (Jeremiah 25:27; Psalm 107:27; Job 12:25); madness (Jeremiah 51:7), loudness combined with laughter and then prolonged sleep (Jeremiah 51:39; nakedness (Habbakuk 2:15; Lamentations 4:21); sloth (Joel 1:5); escapism (Hosea 4:11); depression (Luke 21:34); and staying up all night (1 Thessalonians 5:7).
Prohibitionists wrongly teach that all drinking is a sin and that alcohol itself is an evil.
Psalm 104:14-15 "He God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man . . ."
John 2:1-11 is clear that Jesus first miracle was performing over 100 gallons of wine at a wedding party
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
Abstentionists wrongly teach that drinking is not sinful but that all Christians should avoid drinking out of love for others and a desire to not cause anyone to stumble.
Hosea 2:8 "She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-which they used for Baal."
1 Timothy 4:1-5 "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
Moderationists rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that Christian conscience must guide each person.
Wine is spoken of as both good and bad in the same verses (1 Samuel 1:14, 24; 25:18, 37; Joel 1:5,10).
Apart from good feasting alcohol in Scripture is rightly used for communion (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18), medicinal purposes (Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23), and Old Testament worship (Numbers 28:14).
Proverbs 3:9-10 "Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine."
Ecclesiastes 9:7 "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart."
Psalm 104:14-15 "He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart."
Deuteronomy 14:26 "Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice."
At Mars Hill Church, we ask that everyone act according to their conscience when it comes to alcohol consumption. Because of past sin, some who have had problems with alcohol may need to abstain for fear of stumbling into old sinful habits. For those who enjoy alcohol with biblical moderation, we recommend using discernment when providing hospitality for others who may have conscience or addiction issues. Best of all, we look forward to the day when our Lord and Savior will prepare for us a redeemed feast with wine:
"On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation." - Isaiah 25:6-9
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Welcome to A Thousand Tonuges
Hello to all you blogger's out there.
This blog documents certain doctrinal issues and questions.
Enjoy reading. I will be updating as often as i can.
I pray that God's Word would penetrate hearts and transform lives to the glory of Jesus.
Just pick a topic to read----------------------------------------------------------->
This blog documents certain doctrinal issues and questions.
Enjoy reading. I will be updating as often as i can.
I pray that God's Word would penetrate hearts and transform lives to the glory of Jesus.
Just pick a topic to read----------------------------------------------------------->
Friday, September 7, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Can Women Pastor?
In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders." Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.
First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling. What does the Bible say? We cannot come to God's word with a social agenda and make it fit our wants. Instead, we must change and adapt to what it says.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity"(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women.
Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
What About Galatians 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).(2) The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.
Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority
God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21 ) and the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38) and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.
But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women?
No, male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.
What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors?
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?
What About a Missionary Woman Who Establishes a Church?
Scripture establishes the norm. As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women.
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.
Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:9-13).
Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here is that multifaceted. First, the objection ignore what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male. Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of then present day adornment as an example of what not to do, definitely culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly. A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code can be seen as cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the later is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not, especially since they are separated by the conjunction "but" which is showing contrast, i.e., here we have one thing, but over here we have another. Also, Paul was speaking in the context of modesty, and at that time in corinth, prostitutes would wear braided hair with lots of gold jewelry to attract customers. It was a cutural statement.
1st Corinthians 14
Paul's epistle to the corinthian church. Prophecy and Tongues.starting in vrs.1
a. Pursue love: Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has brilliantly declared the preeminence of love for Christians in 1 Corinthians 13. Now, since love is the greatest, we must pursue it.
b. Desire spiritual gifts: There was nothing wrong with the Corinthian Christian’s desire for spiritual gifts. But they had made a godly desire into an obsessive pursuit, when the only pursuit for Christians is to be love.
c. Especially that you may prophesy: In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul spoke of prophecy and the gift of tongues only in the context of the other gifts of the Spirit. Now, he will focus on the gifts of prophecy and tongues, and how they should function in church body life. Obviously, in the Corinthian church, there was an over-emphasis on tongues, and an under-emphasis on prophecy.
d. What does it mean for someone to prophesy? Many who believe miraculous gifts are no longer given by God regard prophecy as simply “inspired preaching,” and not “inspired” in a direct way.
i. Paul will tell us much more about prophecy in this chapter. Yet, we know he does not mean prophecy is identical to preaching, because there was a Greek word available for “preaching” (kerusso), and Paul did not use this Greek word.
ii. “Preaching is essentially a merging of the gifts of teaching and exhortation, prophecy has the primary elements of prediction and revelation.” (Farnell, cited in Kistemaker)
2. (2-3) Prophecy and tongues contrast in whom they are speaking to.
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
a. He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God: With the gift of tongues, the speaker is addressing God, not men. Disregard of this verse leads to one of the most significant misunderstandings regarding the gift of tongues, believing tongues is a supernatural way to communicate “man to man” instead of “man to God.”
i. If we misunderstand this, we misunderstand Acts 2 and think the disciples were preaching to the crowd in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Instead, they were speaking to God and the multi-national crowd overheard their praises to God. Acts 2:11 says, we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. Later, Acts 10:46 describes the hearing of the gift of tongues: they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
ii. If we misunderstand this, we misunderstand what is really happening when someone attempts to interpret a tongue and addresses his or her message to men. A true interpretation of the gift of tongues will be addressed to God, not men. It will be a prayer, a praise, or some other communication to God.
iii. If we misunderstand this, we can be led to believe the gift of tongues is just the ability to speak another language, and all Paul is speaking about here is interpreting the preacher’s sermon in someone’s native tongue. But no one needs to interpret the preacher’s sermon to God!
iv. If we misunderstand this, we can misuse the gift of tongues, using it in a way that draws unnecessary attention to ourselves. God does not give anyone the gift of tongues for the direct sake of others (though indirectly others are edified), but for that believer and God alone.
b. He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God: Because this simple statement is so devastating to the idea that tongues is just a human language spoken for human benefit, many of those who believe the miraculous gifts have passed have trouble with this verse. Some have even tried to claim Paul is speaking sarcastically here, and is criticizing the Corinthian Christians for using the gift of tongues to speak to God instead of men.
i. Paul uses plenty of sarcasm in the Corinthian letters, but certainly not here. If we can say Paul means the exact opposite of the plain meaning of the words here, we are on dangerous ground. Why not apply the same interpretive principle (“he really means the opposite of what he seems to be saying”) to other passages of Scripture?
c. For no one understands him: Paul recognized that normally, when someone spoke in tongues, no one else could understand him. The reason is simple: with the gift of tongues, the intention is to speak to God and not man. Therefore, it is fine if no one understands him.
i. The exception to no one understands him is when the tongue is publicly interpreted. Even then, it is not the tongue itself that is understood, but the interpretation of the tongue.
d. In the spirit he speaks mysteries: When the tongues speaker can not be understood, it does not mean it isn’t really language, or that they are merely speaking “gibberish.” It means they are speaking in the spirit and that they speak mysteries.
i. Many have done linguistic analysis of people speaking in tongues and have “concluded” they are not speaking a “real” language, but just jabbering in gibberish. Of course it sounds like nonsense to human ears, because it was never intended for human ears. We should expect it to sound like nonsense, because Paul plainly says, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
ii. However, this does not mean that all intelligible speech is the legitimate gift of tongues. Some, not understanding the gift, may imitate it, or fake it, just to “prove” something.
iii. Does in the spirit refer to the speaker’s spirit, or to the Holy Spirit? It could be either one, because both are true. The translators of the New King James Version believe it to be the speaker’s spirit, because they used a lower-case “s” in spirit.
e. But he who prophesies speaks . . . to men: In contrast to the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy is directed to men. It is God speaking supernaturally (often “naturally supernaturally”) through people to people.
f. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men: Not only is the gift of prophecy directed towards men, it is also largely positive in its character. Often, when a “negative” word is spoken, it is not truly a word from God at all, or it is a word meant only for the individual, not for someone else.
i. Edification is “building up.” It is a construction term, and speaks our being “built up” in the Lord. A word of prophecy will build someone up, not tear him or her down.
ii. Exhortation is encouragement. It is like the speech from the coach in the locker room, rallying the team to go out and perform as they have been trained to perform. A word of prophecy will encourage someone, not discourage him or her.
iii. Comfort has the idea of not only consoling, but also strengthening. It doesn’t just cry with someone hurting, it puts its arms around them and strengthens them to carry the load. A word of prophecy will strengthen, not weaken someone.
3. (4-5) Prophecy and tongues contrast in whom they edify.
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
a. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: Some have wrongly thought Paul says this as a criticism. Their idea is “you selfish Corinthian Christians! You are using tongues to only edifying yourself, when you should use it to edify others!” This is wrong. Paul is simply stating the nature of the gift of tongues. Since he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, it follows that it is a gift for self-edification, not church edification.
b. He who prophesies edifies the church: Because prophecy can be understood by all, a true word of prophecy builds up everyone.
c. I wish you all spoke with tongues: Paul was positive about the gift of tongues! Because of the tone of this chapter, it is easy to think he was “down” on the gift of tongues. Not at all; Paul valued the gift of tongues in his own life (I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all, 1 Corinthians 14:18), and wanted other Christians to speak with tongues.
i. Why did Paul wish you all spoke with tongues? No doubt, because he knew the value of it in his own life. Paul was able, when in the spirit he speaks mysteries, to unburden his soul before God in a way going beyond human language and intellect. He could pray, praise, and intercede beyond his ability to understand and articulate. Paul wanted every Christian to know this same blessing!
d. But even more that you prophesied: As good as the gift of tongues is, Paul sees the gift of prophecy as better for the church as a whole. Why? Because He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. And the focus here is clearly, that the church may receive edification.
i. Paul’s context in 1 Corinthians 14 is more focused on what the Corinthian Christians do when they come together as a church, than on what they do in their own devotional life. There are things that are fine for a Christian to do in their own devotional life, which may be disruptive, annoying, or self-exalting for a Christian to do in a church meeting. The gift of tongues is one of those things. So, since Paul is focusing on when the Corinthian Christian comes together as a church, it is clear why he regards the gift of prophecy as greater.
ii. However, if one were to ask Paul, “Which is greater for one’s devotional life: the gift of tongues or the gift of prophecy?” He would no doubt say “the gift of tongues,” because who do you prophecy to when you are alone with the Lord in your prayer closet?
4. (6) In Paul’s ministry, he spoke so all could profit.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?
a. If I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you: Paul recognized the gift of tongues was valuable for himself (I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all, 1 Corinthians 14:18). But it was not valuable for him to speak to others with the gift of tongues. They could not understand him, so they could not be edified.
b. Unless I speak to you either by a revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? Here, Paul describes different ways he might communicate which would be edifying to others.
i. Revelation: Paul may be speaking of his own awareness that he was being uniquely inspired as an apostle. There may have been times when Paul knew, with apostolic authority, His words were directly and infallibly from God.
ii. Knowledge: Paul may be speaking of his own knowledge, or by supernatural knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. Whichever, the knowledge would be communicated in the language common to all, so all could profit.
iii. Prophesying: Paul knew he could speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with a sense his thoughts and words were being guided and blessed by the Holy Spirit.
iv. Teaching: Paul could also profit others by speaking to them from the Scriptures themselves, teaching them as was his pattern in the churches he founded (Acts 15:35, 18:11, 28:31).
5. (7-9) Examples demonstrating the importance of speaking so all can profit.
Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
a. Unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? Musical instruments must use a certain pitch and beat to communicate a song. If they do not, the music is not accessible to the listener. Sounds are coming forth, but they cannot be understood. The same is true for a trumpet that makes an uncertain sound. It is of no profit for others.
i. It may feel good for a child to bang on a piano, and they may like the sound. But for anyone else, it is unpleasant. Even so, someone communicating to God with the gift of tongues may be blessed, but no one else is. Therefore, if someone is going make an uncertain sound (speak in tongues unto God), let them do so unto themselves, and not among others.
b. For you will be speaking into the air: Speaking in tongues at a meeting of the church benefits no one else; it is simply putting sounds into the air, not into the minds and hearts of others.
i. It may satisfy a curiosity to hear someone else speak in tongues, but it does not edify spiritually. We may think it is “neat” to hear others speak in tongues, but that is more of a soulish curiosity than a spiritual edification.
6. (10-11) All languages can be understood if one knows the meaning.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.
a. None of them is without significance: Language itself is a gift from God. We can communicate with language because we are made in the image of God.
b. Modern linguists know man could not have invented language, any more than our circulatory system was created. Most modern linguists believe language is so unique, apart from God, it “must” have been part of a unique evolutionary process.
i. Language could not be the product of man putting together sounds all by himself. For example, there are many universal human sounds (like the “raspberry” sound) which are not part of any human language. If man invented language on his own, it would make sense for some language to use that sound.
ii. Language is so complex because languages exist as whole systems, not as small parts put together. And, most modern linguists believe all languages come from one original language.
c. Knowing language is a gift from God, and all languages have meaning, we can trust that if we speak in the gift of tongues, God understands, even if no one else – including ourselves – can.
7. (12-14) Why the nature of the gift of tongues makes it less usable for edifying the whole church.
Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
a. Let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel: The goal must be mutual benefit at church meetings. So, if there must be tongues, there must be interpretation, so there can be edification.
i. If tongues are directed to God, how can a legitimate interpretation be edifying to others? The same way our reading of Psalms can edify. The prayer, or praise, or plea of another unto God can identify powerfully with our own heart before God, and we can agree with what another says to God.
b. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret: Here, Paul points to a way of giving the interpretation of the tongue, without necessarily speaking forth the tongue itself. Here, he suggests the tongues speaker himself pray that he may interpret. Then, the uncertain sound mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:8 need never be public, yet the whole church is edified by the interpretation of the tongue.
c. My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful: Speaking in tongues is communication with God on a spiritual level, by-passing our understanding. My understanding does not benefit when I speak in tongues (is unfruitful), but my spirit prays.
i. In saying my spirit prays, Paul again is emphasizing the essential function of the gift of tongues: to communicate to God, not to man.
ii. For some, this bypassing of the understanding is undesirable. They never want to relate to God except by and through their understanding. While we value our intellect and understanding, and while we dedicate ourselves to loving God with all our mind (Matthew 22:37), we also appreciate the limitations of our understanding, and thank God for a way to relate to Him that goes beyond intellect.
iii. If someone is perfectly satisfied with their ability to relate to God through their understanding, they really have no need for the gift of tongues. But if the day comes when they desire to relate to God beyond the ability to understand, they should seek God for the gift of tongues.
iv. If our understanding is unfruitful, the how does one actually speak in tongues? Everyone’s experience may be slightly different, but generally, we can makes some observations. It doesn’t happen as one just opens their mouth and God “takes over” their tongue. It doesn’t happen as they begin to wiggle their tongue and God “takes over.” It doesn’t happen as they are told to repeat a nonsense word or phase faster and faster until God “takes over.” Actually, the language of tongues works much like languages we understand. A word or a sound occurs to our mind, and we vocalize that word or sound. In the gift of tongues, one simply continues to speak the words and sounds coming into their mind, trusting God is prompting us, and He understands what we are saying, and that what we are saying is perfectly appropriate for the moment.
v. Is it possible that one could be speaking in tongues, and without knowing, be saying the most horrible blasphemies? No, it is not possible. Paul began this whole section on spiritual gifts with the principle: Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed (1 Corinthians 12:3). Also, Jesus reminded us: For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (Luke 11:10-13) We don’t need to fear we will find Satan when we are sincerely seeking God.
vi. We can also remember another general principle relating to the gifts of the Holy Spirit: And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Corinthians 14:32). The Holy Spirit does not make us do strange, bizarre things. He will never makes someone shout in tongues, or speak in tongues in a strange manner, though they may do it on their own initiative. But they should never credit or blame it on the Holy Spirit.
8. (15-19) The result: when and when not to use the gift of tongues.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
a. Paul gladly proclaims: I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, I will also sing with the understanding. Paul will use the gift of tongues, both in prayer and in song, and he will use it often. Yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding . . . than ten thousand words in a tongue. Therefore, Paul’s use of tongues was pretty much focused in his devotional life with the Lord.
i. Paul here makes reference to how we can sing in the spirit. God can give us the freedom to exercise the gift of tongues in a melodic way, so it flows in with worship. However, based on the principles in this chapter, if this is done it should never be done in a way that would draw attention to itself or distract others.
b. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks: If no one understands my blessing of the Lord, if no one understands my thanks to God, they can’t say “Amen” with me. When I am gathered together with other believers, I can’t just do my own thing and say, “Well, it blesses me.” I must have a concern for others also.
i. Apparently, it was the custom in the early church to say “Amen” when someone else prayed, and perhaps during a message. “It was very frequent in primitive times to express their approbation in the public assemblies by Amen. This practice, soberly and piously conducted, might still be of great use in the Church of Christ.” (Clarke)
ii. According to Clarke, some ancient Jews thought it very important to say “Amen,” to the point where “they even promised the remission of all sins, the annihilation of the sentence of damnation, and the opening of the gates of paradise, to those who fervently say Amen.” (Clarke)
iii. There is certainly nothing wrong with an “Amen” from the congregation today, as long as it is consistent with everyone being blessed, not just the one saying it!
c. You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified: Paul is completely consistent in his emphasis on tongues being directed to God. Just in these verses, he points out what we do with the gift of tongues: we pray, we sing, we bless, and we give thanks. All of these we do unto the Lord, not unto man with the gift of tongues.
d. So, Paul saw great value in the gift of tongues for his own devotional life before the Lord: I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all. Yet, when he gathered with other Christians, his concern was to be a blessing, not with getting a blessing.
9. (20-25) The gift of tongues and unbelievers at church meetings.
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature. In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
a. Do not be children in understanding: In their selfish desire to edify themselves at the expense of others in the meeting, the Corinthians were showing themselves to be children, and selfishly immature. Paul points them to a higher call.
b. In the law it is written: Paul here quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. In Isaiah 28, the prophet Isaiah is announcing judgment to the people of Israel. They did not receive the word of the prophets who spoke to them in Hebrew, so now they will hear the voice of men with other tongues and other lips. The Assyrian invaders spoke a language the Israelites could not understand, and it was an example of judgment to the Israelites. “And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me” says the Lord.
c. Therefore tongues are for a sign: In the Isaiah 28 passage, tongues were a sign of judgment upon the Israelites. Foreigners who spoke in unknown tongues invaded their country. Paul is saying that today also, tongues are for a sign.
i. In Isaiah 28, the strange tongues were not a blessing, but a curse. Paul is warning, “Take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse . . . God may curse your blessings.” (Clarke)
d. Not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe: Here, the straight reading of the text presents one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. In the straight reading of the text, Paul is plainly saying tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophecy is a sign for those who believe.
i. The problem comes when we see what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25: first, that if unbelievers hear tongues in a meeting, they will not be blessed, but will say that you are out of your mind. Second, if unbelievers hear prophecy and are convicted in their hearts, their reaction may be to worship God and report that God is truly among you. So, in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, Paul seems to indicate that tongues are not beneficial in ministering to unbelievers, while prophecy is beneficial to unbelievers. So, how then can tongues be a sign to unbelievers, and prophecy be a sign better suited for those who believe? There seems to be a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 14:22 and 1 Corinthians 14:23-25.
ii. Perhaps, Paul is saying that tongues are indeed a sign to unbelievers, but not a positive one. They are a sign of judgment, as the unknown tongues of the Assyrians were in Isaiah’s day. In this way, tongues indeed are a sign to unbelievers, but it is a sign that condemns them as they regard tongues speakers as being out of their minds.
iii. Others have thought that the real problem here is an error made by someone who copied the verse very early in the history of the Bible. For example, respected translator J.B. Phillips thinks an ancient scribe mixed up Paul’s word order in 1 Corinthians 14:22, and the verse should read: That means that tongues are a sign of God’s power, not for those who are unbelievers but to those who already believe. Preaching the word of God, on the other hand, is a sign of God’s power to those who do not believe rather than to believers. It is important to note that Phillips does not believe the Holy Spirit made an error, but a copier of what the Holy Spirit inspired did.
e. A good principle of understanding the Bible is always to interpret what is hard to understand in light of what is easier to understand. 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 seem easier to understand, because it is easy to see how an unbeliever hearing Christians speaking in tongues might say that you are out of your mind. It is also easy to see that prophecy could convict the heart of an unbeliever, causing them to repent, and to worship God and report that God is truly among you. So, while we may not exactly understand what Paul means by tongues are a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers, we know he does not mean tongues “minister” to or edify unbelievers. Tongues do nothing to bring an unbeliever closer to God; they may instead turn him off.
i. We also can understand that this is not the primary reason for the gift of tongues. They are not mainly intended by God to be a sign to unbelievers. Even assuming that is what Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, originally wrote, Paul has much more to say about the role of tongues in the believer’s personal communication with God. Perhaps, Paul is saying something like this: “If you insist on speaking in tongues in your church meetings, instead of in your own personal devotional life, the only good that comes from that use of tongues is that is a sign of judgment to unbelievers. Because they think you are crazy when they hear you speaking so, it simply shows they don’t understand the things of God and are headed towards judgment. But how much better if you were to emphasize prophecy instead of tongues, then everyone could be blessed, believer and unbeliever together!”
f. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed: This can be done through the gift of prophecy, either by an “evident” word of prophecy, or by a spontaneous word of prophecy “hidden” in the message of the teacher or preacher. Many come to a unique conviction from the Holy Spirit in this manner.
B. Applying these principles to public worship.
1. (26) A general principle to guide gatherings of the church: let all things be done for edification.
How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
a. Whenever you come together: Paul is writing here, as in the previous portion of the chapter, of the conduct of the Corinthian Christians when they come together for fellowship and the Word.
b. Each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation: Paul sees the gathering of the church as a time when people come to participate and to give to one another, not merely to passively receive.
i. We can easily picture how this dynamic would work among the Corinthian Christians. They would, out of necessity, meet in small groups in different homes. There would be many “house churches” scattered all over the city of Corinth. As they would meet in these small groups, there would be a freedom, and a responsibility to not only receive but to give. So, one might give by reading or singing a psalm. Another might offer a word of teaching. Someone might pray in a tongue, along with an interpretation. Still someone else might have a revelation, a word from God’s heart and mind to the gathered church. In a small, home-fellowship type setting, this is how the church should work together.
The Context is love, not selfishness.
When we come together we should act like Jesus.
Love one another, let everyone be edified.
Sometime our freedoms in Christ are limited.
Thank God for His freedom, and for His restriction.
Different Races
Different races.
What is a ‘race’? How did different skin colors come about? Are black people the result of a curse on Ham?
According to the Bible, all humans on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-11). But today we have many different groups, often called ‘races,’ with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible’s record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, as we shall see, this does not follow from the biological evidence.
The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1
What is a ‘race’?
There is really only one race—the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has ‘made of one blood all nations of men’ (Acts 17:26). Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical appearance. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these ‘people groups’ rather than ‘races,’ to avoid the evolutionary connotations associated with the word ‘race.’
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the ‘races’ are not very great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would typically differ by just 0.2 percent.2 Of this, only 6 percent can be linked to racial categories; the rest is ‘within race’ variation.
|
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or ‘white’),3 the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences arise from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have ‘yellow’ skin, ‘red’ skin, ‘black’ skin, ‘white’ skin and ‘brown’ skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin—melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little melanin, we would be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments.4
In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin—the amount produced.
| ||||
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat around them (see Figure 1). Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat—the latter simply have less.
What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little melanin in a very sunny environment, you will easily suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder for you to get enough vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.
How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time? Remember, whenever we speak of different ‘colors’ we are referring to different shades of the one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring are mid-brown. It has long been known that when such people marry each other, their offspring may be virtually any ‘color,’ ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding this gives us the clues we need to answer our question, but first we must look, in a simple way, at some of the basic principles of heredity.
Heredity
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us in the way a blueprint and specifications describe a furnished building. It determines not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles, but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is already present. Most of this information is in coded form in our DNA.5
To illustrate coding, a piece of string with beads on it can carry a message in Morse code. The piece of string, by the use of a simple sequence of short beads, long beads (to represent the dots and dashes of Morse code), and spaces, can carry the same information as the English word ‘help’ typed on a sheet of paper. The entire Bible could be written thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of string.
In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA. This is by far the most efficient information storage system known, greatly surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.6 This information is copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people reproduce.
The word ‘gene’ refers to a small part of that information which has the instructions for only one type of enzyme, for example.7 It may be simply understood as a portion of the ‘message string’ containing only one specification.
For example, there is one gene that carries the instructions for making hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in your red blood cells. If that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as copying mistakes during reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will often make a crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (Diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia result from such mistakes.)
So, with an egg which has just been fertilized—where does all its information, its genes, come from? One half comes from the father (carried in the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).
Genes come in pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have two sets of code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one coming from the mother and one from the father.
This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a damaged gene from one parent that could instruct your cells to produce a defective hemoglobin, you are still likely to get a normal one from the other parent which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries hundreds of genetic mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our parents, which are usefully ‘covered up’ by being matched with a normal gene from the other parent—see ‘Where did Cain get his wife?’).
Skin color
| ||
| ||
|
We know that skin color is governed by more than one pair of genes. For simplicity, let’s assume there are only two,8 located at positions A and B on the chromosomes. One form of the gene, ‘M,’ ‘says’ to make lots of melanin; another form of the gene,9 ‘m,’ says to only make a little melanin. At position A we could have a pair such as MAMA, MAmA or mAmA10 which would instruct the skin cells to make a lot, some, or little melanin. Similarly, at position B we could have the gene pairs MBMB, MBmB or mBmB instructing cells to make a lot, some or little melanin. Thus very dark people could have MAMAMBMB, for example (see Figure 2). Since both the sperm and eggs of such people could only be MAMB, (remember, only one of each A or B pair goes to each sperm or egg) they could only produce children with exactly the same combination of genes as themselves. So the children will all be very dark. Likewise, very light people, with mAmAmBmB, could produce children only like themselves (see Figure 3).
Let’s look at what combinations would result from parents who are brown-skinned with the genes MAmAMBmB (the offspring of an MAMAMBMB and mAmAmBmB union, for example; see Figure 4).
We can do this with a diagram called a ‘punnet square’ (see Figure 5). The left side shows the four different gene combinations possible in the sperm from the father and the top gives the combinations possible in the eggs from the mother (remember that a parent can only pass on one of each pair of genes to each sperm or egg). We locate a particular sperm gene combination and follow the row across to the column below a particular egg gene combination (like finding a location on a street map). The intersection gives the genetic makeup of the offspring from that particular sperm and egg union. For example, an MAmB sperm and an mAMB egg would produce a child with MAmAMBmB, just the same as the parents. The other possibilities mean that five levels of melanin (shades of color) can result in the different offspring of such a marriage, as roughly indicated by the level of shading in the diagram. If three gene pairs were involved, seven levels of melanin would be possible.
Thus a range of ‘colors,’ from very light to very dark, can result in only one generation, beginning with this particular type of mid-brown parents.
If people with MAMAMBMB, who are ‘pure’ black (in the sense of having no genes for lightness at all), were to intermarry and migrate to a place where their offspring could not marry people of lighter color, all their descendants would be black—a pure ‘black line’ would result.
If ‘white’ people (mAmAmBmB) were to marry only other whites and migrate to a place where their offspring could not marry darker people, a pure (in the same sense) ‘white line’ would result—they would have lost the genes needed to produce a large amount of melanin and be black.
It is thus easily possible, beginning with two middle-brown parents, to get not only all the ‘colors,’ but also people groups with stable shades of skin color.
But what about people groups that are permanently middle-brown, such as we have today? Again, this is easily explained. If those with genes MAMAmBmB or mAmAMBMB, no longer intermarry with others, they will be able to produce only mid-brown offspring—as in Figure 4. (You may want to work this out with your own punnet square.)
If either of these lines were to interbreed again with the other, the process would be reversed. In a short time, their descendants would show a whole range of colors, often in the same family. Figure 6 shows what were called Britain’s most amazing twins. One is obviously quite light in complexion, while the other is clearly darker-skinned.
Of course, this is not amazing at all when you do the exercise on paper, based on what we have discussed. (A clue if you want to do it yourself: mother cannot be MAMAMBMB. Also, the twins are obviously not identical twins, which are derived from the same egg—that is, monozygous).
|
If all people on Earth were to intermarry freely, and then break into random groups that kept to themselves, a whole new set of gene combinations could emerge. It may be possible to have almond eyes with black skin, blue eyes with black frizzy short hair, etc. We need to remember, of course, that the way in which genes express themselves is much more complex than this simplified picture. For example, sometimes certain genes are linked together. However, the basic point is unaffected.
Even today, within a particular people group you will often see a feature normally associated with another people group. For instance, you will occasionally see a European with a broad flat nose, or a Chinese person with very pale skin, or Caucasian eyes. Most scientists now agree that, for modern humans, ‘race’ has little or no biological meaning. This also argues strongly against the idea that the people groups have been evolving separately for long periods.
What really happened?
We can now reconstruct the true history of the people groups, using:
-
The information given by the Creator Himself in the book of Genesis.
-
The background information given above.
-
Some consideration of the effect of the environment.
The first created man, Adam, from whom all other humans are descended, was created with the best possible combination of genes—or skin color, for example. A long time after Creation, a worldwide Flood destroyed all humans except a man called Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. This Flood greatly changed the environment. Afterwards, God commanded the survivors to multiply and cover the earth (Gen. 9:1). A few hundred years later, people chose to disobey God and to remain united in building a great city, with the Tower of Babel as the focal point of rebellious worship.
From Genesis 11, we understand that up to this time there was only one language. God judged the people’s disobedience by imposing different languages, so that they could not work together against God. The confusion forced the people to scatter over the earth as God intended.
So all the people groups—black Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and others—have come into existence since Babel.
Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin color would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). As all the factors for skin color were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well, with brown eyes and brown (or black) hair. In fact, most of the world’s population today is still mid-brown.
After the Flood, for the few centuries until Babel, there was only one language and one culture group. Thus, there were no barriers to marriage within this group. This would tend to keep the skin color of the population away from the extremes. Very dark and very light skin would appear, of course, but people tending in either direction would be free to marry someone lighter or darker than themselves, ensuring that the average color stayed roughly the same.
The same would be true of characteristics other than skin color. Under these sorts of circumstances, distinct differences in appearance will never emerge. To obtain such separate lines, you would need to break a large breeding group into smaller groups and keep them separate, that is, prevent interbreeding between groups. This would be true for animal as well as human populations, as every biologist knows.
The effects of Babel
This is exactly what happened at Babel. Once separate languages were imposed, there were instantaneous barriers. Not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldn’t understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not. Thus, they would move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. This, of course, is what God intended.
It is unlikely that each small group would carry the same broad range of skin colors as the original, larger group. One group might have more dark genes, on average, while another might have more light genes. The same thing would occur with other characteristics: nose shape, eye shape, etc. And since they would intermarry only within their own language group, these differences would no longer be averaged out as before.
As these groups migrated away from Babel, they encountered new and different climate zones. This would also have affected the balance of inherited factors in the population. (However, the effects of the environment are nowhere near as important as the initial genetic mix of each group.)
As an example, consider a group of people who moved to a cold region with little sunlight. Here, the dark-skinned members would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children. So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate.
If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could in time die out. Thus, natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not create new ones.
It is interesting to note that the Neanderthals of Europe, now extinct but recognized as fully human, show evidence of vitamin D deficiency in that many of their bones were bent. In fact, this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, caused them to be classified as ‘ape-men’ for a long time. It is thus quite plausible that they were a dark-skinned people who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin color genes they began with. Notice (again) that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin colors, but only acts on the created capacity for making skin pigment that is already there.
Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer. Thus, in these regions dark-skinned people would more readily survive and come to predominate.
|
So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within a group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, that the physical characteristics of people tend to match the environment where they live (e.g., Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin).
But this is not always so. The Inuit (Eskimo) have brown skin, yet live where there is not much sun. Presumably they all have a genetic makeup such as MAMAmBmB which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples confirm that natural selection does not create new information—if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in color toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation.
Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment; yet they have dark skin. Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination.
People different from the ‘norm’ (e.g., a very light person in a dark people group), have historically been regarded as abnormal and rejected by the group. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people, and vice versa. In this way, groups have tended to ‘purify’ themselves.
Also, in some instances, interbreeding within a small group can accentuate a commonly occurring unusual feature that would otherwise be swamped by marriage outside the group. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.
Let us return to the pygmies. If people possessing genes for short stature were discriminated against, a small group of them might seek refuge in the deepest forest. By marrying only each other they would ensure a pygmy ‘race’ from then on. The fact that pygmy tribes do not have their own languages, but instead speak dialects of neighboring non-pygmy tribal languages, is good evidence to support this.
The effects of choice
Certain genetic characteristics may have influenced people groups to make deliberate (or semi-deliberate) choices concerning the environments to which they migrated. For instance, people with genes for a thicker, more insulating layer of fat under their skin would tend to leave areas that were uncomfortably hot.
Common memories
The evidence for the Bible’s account of human origins is more than just biological and genetic. Since all peoples have descended from Noah’s family, and a relatively short time ago, we would expect to find some memory of the catastrophic Flood in the stories and legends of many people groups. We may find the story distorted by time and retelling. In fact, an overwhelming number of cultures do have accounts that recall a world-destroying Flood. Often these have startling parallels to the true, original account (such as: eight people saved in a boat, the sending of birds, a rainbow, and more).
Conclusion
The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called ‘races.’ In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.
Consequences of false beliefs about the origin of races
-
Rejection of the Gospel
The accuracy of the historical details of Genesis is crucial to the trustworthiness of the Bible and to the whole Gospel message.11 So the popular belief that people groups evolved their different features, and could not all have come from Noah’s family (contrary to the Bible), has eroded belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
-
Racism
One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately. Thus different groups are at allegedly different stages of evolution, and so some people groups are more backward than others. Therefore, the other person may not be as fully human as you. This sort of thinking inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies and to establish the ‘master race.’12 Sadly, some Christians have been infected with racist thinking through evolutionary indoctrination that people of a different ‘color’ are inferior because they are supposedly closer to the animals. Such attitudes are completely unbiblical (e.g. Acts 17:26, Col. 3:11), although out-of-context Bible verses are often conscripted in attempts to justify racist views (see Are black people the result of a curse on Ham? below).
-
Bad influence on missionary outreach
Historically, the spread of evolutionary belief was associated with a slackening of fervor to reach the lost in far-away countries. The idea of savage, half-evolved inferior peoples somehow does not evoke the same missionary urgency as the notion that our ‘cousins,’ closely linked to us in time and heredity, have yet to hear the Gospel.13 Even many of the finest of today’s missionary organizations have been influenced, often unconsciously, by this deeply ingrained evolutionary belief of how other peoples and their religions came about.
 |
All tribes and nations are descendants of Noah’s family!
The Bible makes it clear that any newly ‘discovered’ tribe ultimately goes back to Noah. They are not a group of people who have never had superior technology or knowledge of God in their culture. Rather, their culture (going back to Noah) began with (a) a knowledge of God, and (b) technology at least sufficient to build a boat of ocean-liner size. Romans 1 suggests the major reason for this technological loss and cultural degeneration (see ‘Stone Age’ people? below). It is linked to the deliberate rejection by their ancestors of the worship of the living God.
Therefore, the first priority in helping a ‘backward’ people group should not be secular education and technical aid, but first and foremost the Gospel.
In fact, most ‘primitive’ tribes still have a memory, in their folklore and religion, of the fact that their ancestors turned away from the living God, the Creator. Don Richardson, missionary of Peace Child fame, has shown that a missionary approach, unblinded by evolutionary bias, and thus looking for this link and utilizing it, has borne a bountiful and blessed harvest on many occasions.14
Jesus Christ, God’s reconciliation in the face of man’s rejection of the Creator, is the only truth that can set men and women of every culture, technology, people group or color, truly free (John 8:32; 14:6).
Are black people the result of a curse on Ham?
The previous discussion shows clearly that the blackness of, for example, black Africans, is merely one particular combination of inherited factors. This means that these factors themselves, though not in that combination, were originally present in Adam and Eve. The belief that the skin color of black people is a result of a curse on Ham and his descendants is nowhere taught in the Bible. Furthermore, it was not Ham who was cursed, but his son, Canaan (Gen. 9:18,25, 10:6). Furthermore, Canaan’s descendants were probably mid-brown skinned (Gen. 10:15–19), not black. False teaching about Ham has been used to justify slavery and other non-biblical racist practices. It is traditionally believed that the African nations are largely Hamitic, because the Cushites (Cush was a son of Ham: Gen. 10:6) are thought to have lived where Ethiopia is today. Genesis suggests that the dispersion was probably along family lines, and it may be that Ham’s descendants were on average darker than, say, Japheth’s. However, it could just as easily have been the other way around.
Rahab, mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, was a Canaanite. A descendant of Ham, she must have married an Israelite. Since this was a union approved by God, it shows that the particular ‘race’ she came from was not important. It mattered only that she trusted in the true God of Israel. Ruth, a Moabitess, also features in the genealogy of Christ. She expressed faith in the true God before her marriage to Boaz (Ruth 1:16). The only marriages God warns against are same sex ‘marriages’ and God’s people marrying unbelievers.15 Return to text.
‘Stone Age’ people?
Archaeology shows that there have been people who lived in caves and used simple stone tools. There are still people who do the same. We have seen that all people on Earth today are descended from Noah and his family. Before the Flood, Genesis indicates, there was at least enough technology to make musical instruments, farm, forge metal implements, build cities, and build a huge seaworthy vessel. After the dispersion from Babel, the hostilities induced by the new languages may have forced some groups to scatter rather rapidly, finding shelter where and when they could.
In some instances, the stone tools may have been used temporarily, until their settlements were fully established and they had found and exploited metal deposits, for example. In others, the original diverging group may not have taken the relevant knowledge with them. Ask an average family group today how many of them, if they had to start again, as it were, would know how to find, mine, and smelt metal-bearing deposits? Obviously, there has been technological (cultural) degeneration in many post-Babel groups.
In some cases, harsh environments may have contributed. The Australian Aborigines have a technology and cultural knowledge which, in relation to their lifestyle and need to survive in the dry outback, is most appropriate. This includes the aerodynamic principles used in making boomerangs (some of which were designed to return to the thrower, while others were not).
Sometimes we see evidence of degeneration that is hard to explain, but is real, nonetheless. For instance, when Europeans arrived in Tasmania, the Aborigines there had the simplest technology known. They caught no fish, and did not usually make and wear clothes. Yet recent archaeological discoveries suggest that earlier generations had more knowledge and equipment.
For instance, archaeologist Rhys Jones believes that in the Tasmanian Aborigines’ distant past, these people had equipment to sew skins into complex clothes. This contrasts with the observations in the early 1800s that they just slung skins over their shoulders. It also appears that they were in fact catching and eating fish in the past, but when Europeans arrived, they had not been doing this for a long time.16, 17 From this we infer that technology is not always retained and built upon, but can be lost or abandoned.
Animist peoples live in fear of evil spirits and often have taboos against healthy practices like washing, and eating various nutritious foods. Again this illustrates how loss of knowledge of the true Creator-God leads to degradation (Rom. 1:18–32).
Slain In The Spirit
What do we find? We do not see any of this practiced or even hinted in the Scripture. When the Spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism He came up out of the water; He didn’t collapse and sink down! The Lord Jesus had power to heal even the worst cases of disease, blindness and crippled limbs, and yet no one who Jesus ever touched fell over "slain." Nor do we find Peter or John touching people and causing them to fall over. They did not ask other disciples to stand behind those they were going to lay hands on, to catch them as they toppled backward by the power. The New Testament has no people lining up waiting for the "anointing" to be passed on from another, not even the Apostles. Can you picture any of the Apostles running up to people and slapping them on the forehead, or lining people up to be slain? No soft music or repetitive choruses were sung to set an atmosphere for the anointing to fall. No one yelled repetitive phrases like, "Fire!" or "touch" or "More, Lord!" So where does this all come from ?
Those who advocate this practice need to consider what they are really attributing to the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical precedent for being "slain in the Spirit" as we see practiced today.
Jesus is the baptizer, who anoints with the Holy Spirit. The power really comes only from Christ, just what are people receiving through this experience? Do these displays of power become the convincing proof of God’s presence? John 10:41-42 records, "Then many came to Him and said, ‘John performed no sign, but all the things that John spoke about this Man were true.’ And many believed in Him there." John convinced the people without a display of miracles. It was the truth that converted them and made them into followers. It is by knowing the truth (the Word) that keeps people following faithfully, not displays of power. We don’t need to be slain "in the Spirit", but cut "by the Spirit," the Word (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12). One way is by expositional preaching the other is offered by experience. One comes by the Word that is objective, that teaches and convicts through the Holy Spirit, the other is subjective, by a person touching you or imparting a power. The Word is Biblical, the other is not.
The Old Testament has many examples of saints who fell to the ground. In Genesis 15:12-18 when Abraham was put to sleep horror and great darkness fell upon him, but it was not pleasant. This was a special event signifying God’s covenant with Abraham as God told about his offspring’s future. This act was not repeated for any of his descendents. Notice the passage indicates that the experience was not enjoyable. Genesis 17:3 Abraham falls on his face, but this does not describe an involuntary act of being slain in the Spirit as some claim. Abraham fell face forward toward the ground on his own accord, in reverence, in an act of fully conscious worship.
Scriptures used to validate this as Biblical are:
Gen.15, 17:1-3; Josh.5:13-15; Ez.1:28,43;1-5, 44:4; Mt.17:5-6; Rev.1:7, 7:11, 11:16-17; Acts 9.
Many fell backwards in Scripture, but it was not a blessing! In 1 Samuel 4:18: Eli fell off his seat backwards on hearing of the death of his sons and the capture of the Ark and he died. Isaiah 28:13 the prophet speaks of God’s Word sent to refresh, but if not heard it became a judgment "that they may go and stumble backward, and be broken." In all these examples it is a judgment, not a blessing! In 1 Samuel 28:20 we read of Saul immediately collapsing "full length" on the ground upon hearing of his impending death from Samuel after consulting the witch of Endor.
2 Chronicles 5, describes God’s glory filling the newly completed Temple. It says, "The priests could not continue ministering ... for the glory of the Lord filled the house of God" (v.14). This cannot be made into a normative occurrence for today’s Church, as many have tried to do. This was a celebration because the temple was completed, the ark was brought in and Solomon had the priests assemble inside the most holy place. Inside the glory manifested physically as a cloud in a contained place, the rest of Israel was still standing outside. In 2 Chronicles 7:2 and I Kings 8:11 the priests could not enter the temple or perform the priestly duties of the LORD because the temple was filled with the glory of the LORD.
In Ezekiel 1:28 and 2:1 the prophet is overwhelmed by the vision he saw and falls forward in worship. Those who are holy fall forward in conscious submission to God’s Holy presence. They do not become dazed and confused, as in some spirit services today. Those who are enemies fall backward when confronted with God’s true power. Philippians 2 says every knee will bow. Those who are conscious of who they serve bow forward, willingly and fully conscious. Those who fall backward overwhelmed, show a lack of submission, and rebellion.
Daniel, in 10:4-11 encountered a powerful angel and said, "I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale, and I was helpless... I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground." Daniel fell on his face; he fell forward. This was not without purpose. Daniel, a prophet, was receiving revelation that would become Scripture. Since in the Old Testament those who were affected in this manner were not born again, indwelt permanently by the Holy Spirit, this experience cannot be used as normative for the Church today. When John saw Jesus glorified in heaven (Revelation 1:17) he describes that, ‘"I fell at His feet as dead. But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, "Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last." John was overcome with fear; he did not recognize Him as the Jesus He knew on earth.
What about Saul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9? Those who promote the "slain in the Spirit" phenomenon cite Saul’s encounter with the appearance of the Lord on the road to Damascus in Acts 9:3-4 for Biblical support. Saul was an unbeliever on his way to his next extermination. He was knocked to the ground by a light (the Sheckinah glory) and he had a revelation of Christ. When Saul fell, no one touched him and no one was there to catch him. The Scripture doesn’t actually say how he fell, but the Greek language seems to indicate he went to the ground on his own volition. Jesus does not appear to be the source of Paul’s falling to the ground, Jesus did not allow Paul to remain on the ground, but told him to "arise and go into Damascus." Remember Saul was unsaved at the time, so this does not provide any justification for regarding it as a model for believers to practice today. He was consciously carrying on a conversation with the Lord. In Acts 26:14 Paul, recalling the event, states all who were with him saw the light and fell to the ground, but only he heard the voice (Acts 22:9). This was an extreme measure designed to get Paul’s attention, as he was on his way to kill Christians. The others with Paul who also fell were unbelievers and stayed in their unbelieving state. Therefore, this incident involving falling to the ground (being slain by the Spirit) cannot be used to support the idea that it is a spiritual blessing, as commonly said today.
In examples from either the Old Testament or the New, the men affected did not have a permanent indwelling of the Spirit. When the soldiers came to arrest Jesus, in John 18:4-6 He reveals His power in a unique way. He identified himself to the soldiers who were arresting him and they "drew back and fell to the ground." Jesus first revealed Himself by saying His divine name, "I Am," making it clear who it is they came for. When He identified Himself to them, they fell to the ground in judgment. These pagan sinners did fall -- backwards. They did not experience revelation or receive an anointing, or conversion, they got right back up and arrested Jesus. There was no change in them; they were still enemies of Jesus. Also, none of Jesus’ followers fell down during the arrest. Certainly none of this represents a pattern for the Church. Those who practice the artful ritual of being "slain in the Spirit" today deny or ignore these Biblical facts in order to embrace an experience that is not endorsed in the whole New Testament.
This is even stated in the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic movements "There is no mention of the Spirit here (Jn.18:1-6) and John portrays no relationship between Spirit and power and Jesus. The text remains enigmatic, especially since John offers neither explanation for, nor effect of their fall.
Those who are in rebellion to God seem to fall backward in Scripture. This just may be a sign today, not as a blessing but to show that these people are not submitting to His Word; so it is a sign of judgment. The idea that God is doing a "new thing" is without any biblical precedent. Their attempt to justify and defend this practice is by going to texts from the Old Testament. and yanking them out of their context and background. Trying to use the few incidents in Acts one cannot make them normative for the Church (believers) today.
The power is suppose to get people up not put them down and out. At the gate Beautiful Peter said to the blind man, "silver and gold I have none, but in the name of Jesus, RISE UP and walk." Most of these new anointed dispensers of power can’t say the same because silver and gold they have abundantly. The power of God got people up, those who were thrown to the ground shaking and having convulsions were not possessed by the Holy Spirit but often demon-possessed in need of deliverance. They were not reacting from receiving God’s power they were in need of God’s power for it to stop.
Many travel to crusades to get this anointing from the anointed mediator who dispenses it. What is the purpose of someone being knocked to the floor and they are picked up and the whole procedure is repeated up to eight times? Was not the first time enough to receive an anointing? What is the purpose of this experience all about? Who is getting the attention at the time? We are not to be drawing attention to the vessel but the Lord who is working through the instrument. Is the first anointing that he places on people not enough? Or is it for show? He sometimes has people falling together like a violent pile-up on a freeway. People are lifted off the ground resembling a martial arts movie. Nothing glorifies God with this behavior. Martial arts, Chi power, the Gurus touch people ( as in the occult), and can certainly knock them over. These are similarities that cannot be overlooked. Can someone say touch or wave their arms or point their fingers and release the anointing someone go down. When we see TV-evangelists blow on people they go down yet when Christ breathed on the disciples they did not. When Jesus touched people they did not fall. God has not entrusted this type of power to any man today. The biblical model is whenever the Spirit fell they were not expecting him. The Spirit is called the comforter, the helper, another one like Jesus. When Jesus left he said he would send us another like himself. His role was to replace the physical Jesus by indwelling all believers giving them a relationship with God. the question we need to ask is did Jesus act this erratic and have power displays? If not then why should the Spirit act this way when he is to point to Jesus. Is this the nature of Jesus or something other then him operating? How is it the person who dispenses this power that can knock people down, can stand through it all? That they can touch people even the catchers and they don’t go down during the service. Who then is in control if it only happens at the wave of his hand or when he says the word? Why does this only occur at the big crusades and where they meet for service and it does not take place during their days chores.
Charles Hodge one of the great theologians had this to say about this experience "..There is nothing in the Bible to lead us to regard these bodily affections as the legitimate effects of religious feelings, no such results followed the preaching of Christ or his apostles. We hear of no general outcries, faintings, convulsions, or ravings in the assemblies which they addressed…"It is evident that loud outcries and convulsions are inconsistent with these things, and therefore ought to be discouraged. They cannot be from God, for he is not the author of confusion" ( C. Hodge p.80 1851).
The fruit of the Spirit is self-control. The question to those who are open to new experiences should ask themselves is… would God offer me an experience that has me sacrifice a characteristic of the Spirit? Would He cause me to act in a way opposite to His nature and what He himself is trying to conform me to? Ephesians 5:18-19 tells us "be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord." This is an ongoing command, we are to be continually filled with the Spirit. But is this to be an experience all the time, does it show itself physically? No. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit, means self control and joy, singing. The opposite of the true Biblical filling of the Spirit is to be out of control, laid out on the ground. He is making a CONTRAST. The Bibles definition simply means for us to yield and be under his control, the opposite is to be out of control as a rag doll on the ground, drunk and incapacitated. Paul says to be filled with the Spirit gives one self control. To be filled means we yield to the Lord and give Him control of our lives. He wants us active doing His work, not knocked out, numb or dumb. Being filled with the Spirit does not produce the same effects as alcoholic beverages, it is just the opposite. If it did the people who enjoy it would be coming to the church for their natural high fix. Many people say it is the joy of the Lord , but the joy of the Lord is our strength not weakness, it does not make one unable to rise off the ground.
Many incentives prepare someone for this supposed spiritual experience. First there is the anticipation of this happening; the autosuggestion of going down. They accept the experience because they are already predisposed to the idea that one falls when the Spirit comes upon them, and already accept this experience being from God. They are open mentally to this being from God. Therefore when someone touches them or points their way they comply. Another thing to consider is the peer pressure to conform to what is going on and expected in the gathering. When someone comes up in a big crowd they are expected to go down. They might be embarrassed not to fall down when everyone else is falling, or they may be considered unspiritual, and others might think something is wrong with them. Falling down at the right time becomes a learned methodology. Many people had admitted later they went down so they would not disappoint the speaker. Others may go down in hope that this might bring an experience they never had before. Still others say they were overcome by a power.
We need to consider a possibility that if true, can be unspeakably dangerous for the participants, that is, the operation of demonic powers. Many who have studied occult phenomena in false religions find that "slain in the Spirit" is not a new phenomenon. This power is found in Hinduism, the wife of Shiva the destroyer is kali known also as Shakti the force. When a devotee receives the touch from the Guru on the forehead they can be knocked to the ground, they can laugh, shake or experience being caught up in some ecstatic illumination experiencing Nirvana and light. There are many pagan religious practices, such as "shakti-pat" by Hindu gurus, which when observed looks exactly like being "slain in the Spirit." The only difference is that their practices came first, preceding the modern Pentecostal practice. The cults also describe the Spirit as a force. Bruce R. McConkie, who was an apostle and authority of the Mormon Church wrote, "The Spirit of God which emanates from Deity may be likened to electricity" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 752-53). Isn’t this what we are hearing from those experiencing these manifestations?
The only way to know the true from the false is to test it. Jesus had the greatest anointing, yet, when He prayed for people they did not fall over; neither did Jesus go down when He was anointed. The Spirit came upon him as a dove, as a gentle companion. This phenomena and practice is foreign to Scripture. Can the Holy Spirit be thrown around like a force? This Spirit goes where the conductor tells Him to go. Biblically we are to submit and take our guidance from the Spirit, this is the opposite. Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit goes where He will, He chooses how He will be known in the heart and life of a believer, and it is not for any man to decide when His abiding in another is to be. In John 3:8 we read, "The wind blows where it pleases, and you hear the sound thereof, but cannot not tell where it came, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." No one knows where the Spirit comes from or where the Spirit goes. The Spirit is likened to the wind. Those who can dispense the anointing seem to tell the Spirit where to go and know where He will go next and what He or "it" will do. Think, my friend! Where do we find these experiences? Even the apostles did not have such experiences! What is operating? What is the source? Remember the Spirit is God himself who is supposedly thrown around the room. Whenever the presence came in the Old Testament all were affected but today the dispenser of this power stands strong while the participants all go down. Are they alone immune to its affects ?
The Bible commands us to test it. Mature Christians test the spirits; babies, weak and carnal Christians avoid testing, (Hebrews 5:13-14) because of naiveté or just insecurity and wanting to avoid know the truth. The result will be the same for all who do not guard their souls. They fall into destructive and non-Biblical practices that hurt their own Christian walk and testimonies. Much like the speaking in tongues as proof of the Spirits presence, this too has gone beyond the Bibles boundaries.
One of the earliest stories of this occurring in modern times outside the shamans is from a woman named Maria Woodsworth-Etter (1844-1924) She was a preacher in the holiness movement in the 1880’s. She gained a reputation by falsely prophesying that San Francisco would be destroyed by an earthquake in 1890. She describes her power from a vision ...Maria had a great vision. Angels came into her room. They took her to the West, over prairies, lakes, forests, and rivers where she saw a long, wide field of waving golden grain. As the view unfolded she began to preach and saw the grains begin to fall like sheaves. Then Jesus told her that, "just as the grain fell, so people would fall" as she preached. (Wayne E. Warner, "Neglect Not the Gift That Is in Thee," Etter Sermon from The Woman Evangelist p. 10)
Alan Morrison of Diakrisis Publications in England discusses the phenomenon that made this woman famous. "In her preaching in the 1880’s, she advocated a religious experience she called the "power", and she would often go into a trance during the services, standing with her hands raised in the air for more than an hour. Nicknamed the trance- evangelist and even the voodoo priestess, she was often accused of hypnotizing people. And here is where we come to the very crux of the "slain in the Spirit Phenomenon." Morrison identifies this hidden power that Maria discovered which was non other than the ancient art of hypnotism that almost a century (1734-1815) before was practiced with the same results by Anton Mesmer. "As one researcher of the occult has noted, the phenomenon that are now defined as hypnotic emerged from the faith healing activities of Mesmer at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (James Webb, the Occult Establishment Open Court 1976, p.352) "
Mesmer could actually be considered the father of slain in the Spirit except that he was plainly an occultist. Mesmer claimed to have discovered what he dubbed as animal magnetism. Having an interest in ESP and doing a doctoral study on astrology, He took a scientific approach on reaching spiritual contacts and trances through animal magnetism (universal fluid). " What he discovered was an activation of strange powers in man that would help him gain insights into cosmic truths hidden from most of humanity by a veil of ignorance."
He had written in his doctoral dissertation and repeated in a series of writings, the hoary fallacies could be shown to have essential truth within in them when interpreted scientifically-Astrology, alchemy, Oneiromancy (divination by dreams), divination. He then explained it through animal magnetism. Others who were also influenced by Mesmer were Samuel Hanneman founder of Homeopathy (New age medicine). Phineas B.Quimby who was also a mesmerist, he first attributed the power to Spirits for the use of this unknown energy but later said it was the mind. He healed Mary baker Eddy through this power who then became the founder of Christian Science a mind science Cult.
Helena Blavatsky the mediumistic founder of theosophy read Mesmer’s works which gave her a working foundation in mysticism. The evolution of this method went from calling it occult power to hypnosis. When looked at carefully there the differences are hardly noticeable. John Weldon in his book Psychic Forces and occult Shock records on pg.255 "In fact , no occult phenomenon found in Mesmerism is lacking in hypnosis."…It appears that, in essence modern hypnotism is mesmerism. Martin Ebon, fairly well respected as an occult authority, even connects the two: "The Mesmeric, or hypnotic, trance bears a close resemblance to the mediumistic trance." Mesmers activity could hardly be distinguished from what is transpiring in some of the charismatic wing of the Church today. "Mesmer marched about majestically in a pale lilac robe, passing his hands over patients bodies or touching them with a long iron wand. The results varied . some patients felt nothing at all, some felt as if insects were crawling over them, others were seized with hysterical laughter, convulsions or fits of hiccups. Some went into raving delirium, which was called "the crises" and was considered extremely healthful" (R. Cavendish, the magical arts RKP 1984 pg.180). What was described is people feeling good, uplifted, felt a release and had a sense of well being from the experience. Imagine, the same conduct and results coming from non- Christians! Hmm.
Dr.Fritjof Capra a physics professor at Berkeley university and new age adherent says "Shamans used therapeutic techniques such as groups sharing psychodrama, dream analysis, suggestion, hypnosis, guided imagery{visualization} and psychotheraphy for centuries before they were rediscovered by modern psychologists. (The Turning Point p.337 1982)
By pursuing a blessing they have abandoned truth in place of a supernatural experience. This not a Biblical experience but can be a supernatural one. In so doing they have inadvertently become open to deception by accepting this without any testing. Mr. Hinn has been called a spirit fanatic by some, this is not something new . Martin Luther who began the reformation said that there were a certain group of preachers of his day who confuse their own spirit with the Holy Spirit "they think they have swallowed the Holy Ghost feathers and all." John Calvin warned "the fanaticism which discards the scripture, under the pretense of resorting to immediate revelations is subversive of every principle in Christianity. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit the tendency is always to bury the word of God so they can make room for their own falsehood."
People have succumb to the oldest charade, in their pursuit of a blessing they have abandoned truth in place of a supernatural experience without ever testing the source for Biblical proof. Does the Bible show people lined up in a church service in a row and have the power dispersed from an anointed person. There are no conduits for his power, Jesus has and always will be the baptizer of the Holy Spirit we don’t need any other mediator. Jesus is our example. When Jesus was anointed, the Spirit came upon him as a dove, not as a wild animal like a rhinoceros.
Those who participate in this practice need to consider what they are really attributing to the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical precedent for this and need to consider the source of the activity. We are not excluding that God cannot overwhelm someone with his presence, what needs to be questioned is when it becomes a normal practice in the church that represents the Spirits work.
Truly the ancient words of the prophet Hosea ring true for us today, as it did then, "MY PEOPLE ARE DESTROYED FOR A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE REJECTED KNOWLEDGE" (Hosea 4:6)When experience replaces Biblical knowledge, we have abandoned God’s standard. Knowledge can be painful when it corrects us, but it can cost much more to follow falsehood, which by its nature is easy to swallow and soothing to those who refuse the truth.
Wine And The Bible
Wine and the Bible
Christians are often divided over the issue of alcohol.
Total abstinence has been linked to Godliness, and those Christians who feel at liberty in Christ to enjoy wine are often made to feel 'ungodly'.
But what does God's word say about wine?
'Go eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do' Ecl. 9 7
‘..your kisses are like the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth' Song of S. 7 9
‘Thou doest cause the grass to grow for the cattle....and wine to gladden the heart of man..' Psalm 104 14
Most of Jesus' parables were about vineyards. He used wine and wineskins, and vines, and winepresses to illustrate spiritual points.
His first miracle was turning water into wine. Gallons and gallons of the best wine for a party.
John the Baptist did not drink wine (Luke 1:15 & 7:33) but Jesus did drink wine, and was even accused of being a drunkard. (Luke 7:34)
Paul advised Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach.(1 Tim. 5:23.)
Jesus gave wine the highest honour of representing His precious blood during the last supper, and asks His followers to use wine in remembrance of His death until He comes. (Luke 22: 18-20)
In Deuteronomy 14 God tells the Israelites to bring their tithes in to the place of His choosing once a year to rejoice before Him. In His clear instructions He gives them the freedom of choice to spend the money on whatever they want in the way of food and drink. Not only is wine given Yahweh's clearance, but so is 'strong drink'!
"Go to the place which the Lord your God chooses, and spend the money for whatever you desire. Oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves, and you shall eat there before the Lord your God and rejoice."
Note that is was alright to drink or not to drink wine or strong drink. It was the individual's choice made before God.
Tony Campolo humorously suggests that we should get T-shirts made declaring 'My God is a party Deity'
(At this point every religious spirit within us will be rapidly rising to the surface!)
Jesus likened the Kingdom of God to a wedding feast or celebration or a wedding party, and He was likening it to a Jewish wedding!. Our solemn piety might leave us feeling a little bit out of place at such a celebration before the Lord.
Wisdom is said to have mixed her wine in furnishing her table (Prov. 9:2). Wine might be drunk with milk (Song 5:1). Melchizedek brought wine and bread to Abraham when Abraham returned from battle (Gen. 14:18). Wine was offered by the old man of Gibeah to the traveling Levite (Judg. 19:19). Jesse sent David with bread, a skin of wine, and a young goat as a present when Saul was fighting the Philistines (1 Sam. 16:20). Abigail brought David two skins of wine (1 Sam. 25:18). Strongholds were supplied with "wine" in case of siege (2 Chron. 11:11)
The tribes of Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali brought wine to David (1 Chr.12-40) when David was made king. Ziba brought David wine as he fled from Abasalom (2 Sam. 16:1–2). Job’s children were drinking wine at their brother’s house when disaster struck (Job 1:13, 18). Wine was on the list of supplies that the Persians furnished the captive Jewish people when they returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 6:9; 7:22). "And whatever they need . . . wheat, salt, wine, and oil according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem . . ." (6:9).
Wine was also used as medicine. It was said to revive the faint (2 Sam. 16:2) and was suitable as a sedative for people in distress (Prov. 31:6). Mixed with a drug, it was used to ease suffering (Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23). The Samaritan poured oil and wine on the wounds of the injured traveler (Luke 10:34).
So quite clearly, unmistakably, scripturally, wine is a good gift from God.
And if the devil can't counterfeit God's gift, he will encourage its abuse and so bring discredit upon it.
This applies to spiritual gifts as much as to wine.
Paul warns us of deceitful spirits who will.. ‘forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer, 1 Tim. 4 1-5
However like all of God's blessings, such as wine, and sexuality, we can, through the lusts of the flesh, and the prompting of our adversary, so easily allow the blessing to become a curse.
And so God's word is firm on such abuses.
‘And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery' Eph. 5 18
‘..not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard or robber.' 1 Cor. 5 11
We can eat too much, or debase our God given sexuality and the Bible has many examples and warnings against such behaviour. Never do we contemplate forbidding Godly eating, or Godly lovemaking. Rather we preach wisely against gluttony and we preach forcefully against the wrongful use of our sexuality.
The same principle must be applied to wine. Exactly as God applies it.
As children of God we have inherited a hard won freedom in Christ. Not outside of Christ. There lies bondage, but IN Christ, lies our freedom. Paul tells us..
‘All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful - I will not be enslaved by anything' 1 Cor. 6 12
‘Deacons must be serious, not double tongued, not addicted to much wine..' 1 Tim. 3 8
Any good thing God gives us can be easily abused and turned into a curse.
Amongst the first things Noah did when he emerged safe and sound out of the ark was to plant a vineyard.
However, he abused the gift of wine, fell down on top of his bed, drunk and naked. One of his sons, Ham, saw him in this state and told his brothers, presumably having a laugh at his father's dishonourable state.
Noah awoke, presumably still under the influence of the wine, and instead of apologizing for his foolishness , he placed a curse on Ham, the son who had not correctly honoured him, and out of this unfortunate son, came Canaan, and through Canaan came so much of the troubles that God's chosen people had to contend with in the promised land in years to come. Noah blessed the other sons Shem and Japeth, and out of Shem came Abraham, and the Jewish nation, the children God chose for Himself to reveal His glory through.
Wine resulted in a family split, and a family line at war with each other. A warring family line that is still outworking that original curse in the cauldron of the middle east at this very moment in time.
A family split eventually became nations split.
All over a righteous man's abuse of one of God's gifts to him.
For our doctrine to be God's doctrine it must be able to accommodate everything God has to say about it. We cannot hold on to the negative scriptures alone and build a man made doctrine which of necessity must then turn a blind eye to the positive scriptures.
We've often been so against alcohol in any shape or form that there are ministers who confidently teach that when Jesus turned the water into wine He turned it into non-alcoholic wine. Wine alright, but new wine as yet unfermented (and therefore non - alcoholic)
Two points make this teaching unscriptural.
First, wine was a long standing part of the nation's stable diet and Jesus stated as a fact that Jewish people knew that old wine was much better than new wine. Luke 5:39) The wedding guests immediately recognised this wine that He supplied for the party as being 'the best wine' which meant that it was recognised as aged, full bodied and well refined wine.
God's idea of the best wine is stated clearly for us in Isaiah 25:6
And in this mountain
The Lord of hosts will make for all people
A feast of choice pieces,
A feast of wines on the lees,
Of fat things full of marrow,
Of well-refined wines on the lees
Secondly, and more basically, 'wine' is fermented grape juice. The natural sugar ferments and turns to alcohol. Sometimes the juice was preserved in its unfermented state and drunk as 'must' but not as 'wine' If wine was to be kept for some time, a certain amount of 'lees' was added to give it body. The wine was consequently required to be "refined" or strained previous to being brought to the table.
Indeed, after reviewing Hebrew words used for wine, Smith's Bible dictionary comments.. "It has been disputed whether the Hebrew wine was fermented; but the impression produced on the mind by a general review of the above notices is that the Hebrew words indicating wine refer to fermented, intoxicating wine"
There are preachers who tell us that the wine in the last supper was non alcoholic. There is no scriptural or historical mandate for such a conclusion.
The wine used in the New Testament church was alcoholic wine, because Paul gave off to them about over eating over drinking and getting drunk at church.
‘When you meet together it is not the Lord's supper that you eat. For in eating each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What, do you not have houses to eat and drink in?"
Tony Campolo is Baptist, and Baptists use wine in communion where many other denominations use blackcurrant juice, or wine with the alcohol removed by modern technology. He is fond of saying "That's ok. You do it your way. We'll do it His way" Humorous but pointed!
When folks want to try and make scripture say something that it clearly does not, then it produces all sorts of theories. There is talk that the Hebrews always watered the wine down with water. Picture the Lord's supper. Jesus holds the red wine that symbolizes His precious Blood that will seal the New Covenant. Then one of the disciples tells Him to remember to water it down. Enough said.
People are free to not drink wine, to drink wine, or to water down their wine. Whatever, as long as everything is done as 'unto the Lord' When we do it as unto the Lord then we do it with a right heart and with wisdom, because we will not want to bring discredit to the Lord.
There is the theory that wine was only used to purify the water. Jesus drank wine, John the Baptist did not. The water did John no harm. No where in scripture does it say that God gave us wine to purify water. Scripture says that wine is to 'gladden the heart' (Psalm 104:14)
This is not to send people out to buy wine, it is simply to bring God's word in to play in place of traditions made of men. This is not to say that these traditions are bad traditions, but yet a condition of conscience. And it being a conscience issue, people should'nt bind other people to their conscience. Not going against God's law, what is a sin for one person might not be a sin for another. (Rom. 14)
But God has powerful restrictions to place on the use of wine.
Aaron, set apart by God to minister to God's people was told that if he went into the sanctuary with drink he would be killed.
"Drink no wine nor strong drink, you nor your sons with you, when you go into the tent of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations." Lev. 10 9
Coming to minister as God's servant with drink taken is as we see, a definite ‘no no' throughout all generations.
And for some people, God has specific personal demands regarding abstinence , and He will let these people know of His will on this matter.
Our bodies are God's temple that He chooses to dwell in. When we can enjoy all God's blessing without being captured and controlled by them, we will know that Godly liberty that God allows us under the Lordship of Christ.
But mature Christians are asked not to let their liberty become a stumbling block for less mature, or weaker Christians, and so we are to be wise in our freedom.
‘Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak.' 1 Cor. 8 9
‘For you were called to freedom brethren, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh..' Eph. 5 13
We are free to enjoy God's blessing of wine, but not free to abuse the blessing, and not free to let the blessing be a stumbling block to a brother who has had, or may still be wrestling with a drinking problem.
And if someone would be upset by our drinking we must respect their sensitivities and not wave our freedom under their noses. In many homes it is justifiably a sensitive issue. There has been a painful history of alcohol abuse.
Remove any stumbling blocks that would hinder anyone from coming to Christ, or drawing closer to Christ.
But also beware of the Pharisees. Jesus was labeled a drunkard and a glutton, presumably because He was seen in the close company of 'sinners' who were drunkards and gluttons. He was a friend of sinners. However the continual fruit of His non condemning friendship and the demonstration of His perfect liberty in the midst of their bondage bore testimony to His wisdom.
"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children." Matthew 11:19
And herein lies a similar problem for us.
Even the most mature of us in Christ need enormous wisdom in exercising our liberty in Christ otherwise we can give the appearance of evil. (1st Thessalonians 5:22)
In mixing with people who as yet do not know Jesus and do not attend church, we could stand with one or two glasses of wine or beer all night, while all around us people are drinking heavily.
The casual onlooker may not know that we are in Godly control, since every time they look we are holding a drink in our hand, and they cannot know that it is the same drink they saw half an hour ago, therefore in outward appearance we too could be wrongly accused of being drunkards and gluttons no different from those all around us.
If they accused Jesus of being a drunkard, then in similar circumstances we can expect the same slur on our Christian character.
Personally - and it is personal between the Lord and myself - I enjoy wine, or an occasional beer, when I'm in the company of people who know me, and know where I stand with the Lord. There I can enjoy my freedom in Christ.
But it was not the public revelers that accused Jesus. They undoubtedly would have known He enjoyed the wine, not visa versa. He was only enjoying what He created after all, though they wouldn't have known that!
It was the religious people who pointed the finger and threw the slurs upon Him.
But He cared not about their religious arrogant piety.
He had peace about His actions with God His Father.
He was where He could do most good. In their midst.
Going to them, not waiting for them to come to Him.
But some distance away the religious pious were busy placing a great divide between themselves and those who most needed the good news about the Kingdom of God. They stood looking down their spiritual noses at the great physician amongst the spiritually sick.
A place we often carefully avoid for fear of undeserved rebuke from within the church. Or fear of temptation.
Christ Himself attented the parties, was friends of sinners, harlots and tax collecters. He participated in culture without breaking God's law. He drank and ate with them, and had perfect liberty without sin and wrong doing. The sinners didn't have a problem with Jesus. He did not make anyone fall, or stumble. The only ones that had the problem with Jesus loving, respecting, be-friending, caring, culturally involving Himself with a great love for the wayward were the church leaders.
I had an issue come up one time with a weaker brother. He said to me, " I heard you went to a bar the other day". It was true, i had went to a bar to see a band play. He said, "you should'nt be going to bars because they serve beer there and you'll make christains stumble if they see you in there". I said to him, "Well, how could I make someone stumble for being in a place a weaker brother thinks is sinnful, but yet HE SEE'S ME THERE? If it is a sin issue for him, he should'nt be there. Again, it's a conscience issue.
So there's a careful balance.
Freedom with wisdom, and humility before God.
If, under the Lordship of Christ, loving God and your fellow man, you choose to drink wine, God will honour your decision. You will have that 'peace'.
If, similarly, you choose not to drink wine for personal reasons, God will honour your decision. You will have that 'peace'.
If, similarly, you choose not to enjoy a little wine, as a sacrifice to God, or to make sure you never would fall foul of temptation, or put a stumbling block in anyone's pathway to God, or offend anyone's sensitivities, He will honour that decision too. You will have that 'peace'.
If, however, under a spirit of religion, you choose to abstain from wine as an outward show of personal piety, or to score spiritual points, and look down your long spiritual nose at those who do not abstain, but respect God's gift, then you're in good company with the Pharisees.
The earth is the Lords, and everything in it, and all things were made for His glory. Everything God made He declared as 'good'. It is the abuse of the good gift that makes the event bad. When we let the abuse cause us to declare the actual gift as bad then we make a serious statement. Sexual intercourse is a powerful gift from God, but carries God's parameters. If you are reading this then you are the result of sexual intercourse. It is the abuse (i.e. the ungodly use) of this powerful gift that brings untold misery to millions of individuals and families every year. Such misery from the abuse can so easily lead people to believe that God does not approve of sexual intercourse itself. Go forth and multiply means go forth and have sexual intercourse. We must learn to separate the abuse from the gift and not let Satan's religious spirits cause us to state or even imply that God's gifts are in themselves 'bad'.
We'll let Jesus have the final words on the fruit of the vine. At the last supper He told His disciples
that from now on, - meaning of course that He had enjoyed sharing the fruit of the vine with them previously, right up until this awesome moment in history, when He designated wine as the sacramental symbol of the precious Blood that He would soon be shedding to institute the New Covenant between God and man.
"From now on, I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22 18)
or as Mark records His words.. "Truly I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God." (Mark 14 25)
Jesus was going back to the Father as their mediator, as our mediator. To intercede for us, to pray for us, to mediate like a barrister on our behalf until that day of the great party - The wedding feast of the Lamb.
The bridegroom will have His spotless wife. Like Jacob finally getting Rachael, the bride he wanted, and worked for, Jesus will be inviting us to the wedding feast where the banner over us will be love, and then and only then, will He drink the wine again with all His disciples.
Revelation 19 verse 9..'And the angel said to me, "Write this - Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."
That table is being prepared for us right now, in the presence of our enemies - those terrible powers of darkness in heavenly places who continue to bring such pain to God's creation.
The fruit of the vine is God's gift to us to gladden our hearts, and as with all good gifts from above, it is to be used with wisdom in order that it should be a blessing in our lives and not a gift that has been hijacked by the devil and transformed by his evil touch into a curse.
And the fruit of the vine is divinely symbolic when blessed and set apart to remind us of what Jesus did for us on Calvary, nearly 2,000 years ago, and to remind us that one day we will be sharing the fruit of the vine anew with Him at the marriage feast.
With this knowledge, the next time you invite friends and family over, bar-b-que a big piece of meat, dress all in white and buy the best wine you can find, then tell them "We're practicing for heaven!"
What a party it will be, neverending celebrational feast with the Lord Jesus and all our brothers and sisters in Him!
We have all been invited.
When we witness for Him, we are merely handing out His invitations to drink wine new with Him in heaven.
He does so pray that you will decide to come to Him, and so to His party.
Thank you Lord for the gift of wine to gladden the heart.
The gift of wine to remember your blood shed for us
- as we look back to what you have done.
The gift of wine to remember the great marriage feast
- as we look forward to what you will do.
And thank you for the warnings and responsibilities
that come with each good gift from above.
Give us wisdom Lord in the midst of our liberty.
In Jesus' name, we ask. Amen
G12
We are all for more people coming into the kingdom, it often takes more work than we have people for. However, it is important how people are brought in and just as important how they are trained up. We have seen a lack of discipleship over the years that has resulted in less numbers in the church.
G12 writes Jesus said, "Make disciples" (See Matthew 28:19-20). He did not just tell us to evangelise or to get decisions. People who accept the gospel and believe must be discipled. They must be taught, shaped and formed into the image of Jesus. The Church often falls short of full obedience in this respect. Many people who make decisions to become Christians are never truly discipled in the paths of Christ. This must change, and we must all place full obedience to Jesus' command on the highest level of our agenda as people and as a church.
The G12 vision is a practical means by which we can all obey the call of our Master and be a success.
I agree about the lack of discipleship but is G12 the way God gave us to succeed. Is there a way to speed up God's work in an individual? Can everyone have FULL obedience? The question that needs to be answered is: what is the solution? Cesar Castellanos of the International Charismatic Mission in Bogota, Colombia believes God has given him the ultimate solution. I would like to look at what is presented to us as God speaking a new idea to succeed.
(G12) is a cell church model founded by Pastor Cesar Castellanos which is the 400,000 strong (International Charismatic Mission in Bogota, Colombia). Wanting to see growth in his church 'In 1986 He ( Cesar Castellanos) went to Korea and adopted the principles of cell church as taught by Dr Yonggi Cho. By the end of 1991 there were 70 cells. Castellanos cried out to the Lord, "Lord I need something that will accelerate the growth." And God showed him the missing link - the concept now called G12."
This new model for doing church is also growing elsewhere because a number of well-known people are involved in promoting this new church model of discipleship. In Singapore Lawrence and Nina Khong. England is Colin and Amanda Dye at Kensington Temple. In the United States of America Pr. Dick Bernal Jubilee Christian Center Pr. Larry & Melanie Stockstill at Bethany World Prayer Center and Pr. Ken & Lois Gott.
The G12 system has numerous strict standards. In order to be part of the vision, you are expected to be dedicated, attend your cell group once a week, go to retreats, go out to evangelize, go the Sunday morning service and also attend special meetings with your leader's leader. Each week is surrounded by these church things to do, as your social activities are contained within your cell group. Your week is taken up with these meetings to attend as they make you a more serious disciple.
The school of leaders you are to attend once a week is where you learn doctrine. This lasts twelve weeks (there are three levels in this school.) It has been stated if you miss more than three courses out of twelve (for whatever reason), you must start the course over. At the end you are to have your own cell group, everyone is to become a leader, eventually. We are told "everyone is a potential leader."" everybody becomes a leader, and in time, runs their own open cell. Everyone is ministered to and everyone becomes a minister" (The Heart of the Vision). You are to save 3 people and become your own group leader and repeat the process all over again. Each person in the cell is to start to build a new cell. "When all the members of the original cell have started their own new cell, the original cell becomes a G12 group" (G12 Heart of the Vision).
While everyone can disciple people (with or without this model). The problem with multiplication ministries like this is that you may not be ready for leadership and yet they are more than willing to hand over to you 11 other newborns to disciple. Essentially we are told the G12 is NOT about doctrine. It is about a method that they claim is based on the Bible. Their goal -every believer a leader. A leader of what? Of another group of 12. The fact remains, the biblical principle to disciple is a command. The way to disciple that is promoted by G12 is Not a biblical pattern of doing church at all.
The Bogota G12 model has five stages of implementation called the Ladder of Success: win, consolidate, disciple, send. After you win someone the second step is to bring them to a retreat for a weekend. Step .2 Consolidate: where they taught on the impact of their past sins, the importance of forgiving those who did you wrong for healing. There are three parts to the Consolidation process. Consolidation is when the new believer goes through the pre-encounter Bible studies, the weekend residential encounter and the post-encounter called the 'C-Track'. This where they are convinced to follow the G12 model of ministry though we are told four stages are necessary each one is necessary for full obedience to obey the Great Commission . Consolidation process is central to the success of the G12 strategy (Encounters with Jesus Issue 1 - Article 10)
The aim of the Encounter is total transformation that will give birth to the character of Christ in the believer. It is a preparation for the training that takes place at the School of Leaders. Encounter deals with the following subjects and issues in depth: Repentance -Forgiveness -Breaking of Curses - Deliverance - Inner Healing - Baptism with Water-Baptism with the Holy Spirit -The G12 Vision.
In the courses they put in practice what they call "spiritual warfare," they break Generational curses to make the new disciple ready. So many of the new Charismatic trends seem to have found their way into this G12 model. It has been reported people throw up demons for deliverance (Is there a better way to get rid of them?) Some time is spent on breaking "generational curses" you get all the bad stuff out of them you do that through pre-encounter, a 6 week class that teaches you the basics of christianity and then the encounter, where you pretty much break whatever is holding you back from going all out for God. Then Post-encounter which teaches you how to stay in the victory you gained at the Encounter.
3 Disciple: you teach the people how to become a leader, you talk to them about evangelism, courtship, abundant life, etc. These classes are ten weeks long and you do these by going to School of Leaders 1, 2, and,3
4 Send: By now you are a cell leader and building your 12 disciples that you must intercess for. Then you are sent out to missions get your 12 lead a cell group etc.
The Pre-Encounter, the Encounter and the Post-Encounter are necessary because "Often believers today have never been truly consolidated in their faith as experienced in the G12 structure. This means many issues dealt with at the Encounter are still unresolved in their lives. Sadly, they carry pain, bondage and demonic curses for many years and still need to be set free in some areas of their lives. "
After one after another of this rigorous training you are convinced, fired up and ready to go. Churches who willingly become part of the G12 are expected to fully be committed and not attend elsewhere. Those who become part of G-12 hold to God anointing ICM in a special way and are willing to submit to ICM's (International Charismatic Mission) covering. Submission to your authority (leader) comes naturally once you have accepted the vision. I have received many letters that say basically the same thing: people have been accused of things they have not done and told that if you don't support the vision then you won't grow in God. This manipulation seems to be inherent to the G-12 model.
Some churches follow the G-12 model in the way it was invented, others extract portions they like out of it and use it. Others believe it must be used the way it was given for the results, the founder seems to hold to this position. When submitting to follow the G-12 system in its entirety covenant relationship with ICM is made. Become part of the ICM network of churches, which normally requires multiple trips to Bogota each year. It has been reported recently, ICM has asked people to sign a written agreement to follow ICM's system exactly. This written agreement allows churches to use ICM's material. The training includes: Pre-encounter- Encounter Retreat - Post-encounter- School of Leaders.
Larry Stockstill writes in his book "The Cell Church" "A paradigm controls how we interpret what we see and experience. It consists of a whole set of perspective shifts, which usually require effort and a stretch to perceive things differently, leading to a paradigm-shift" (The Cell Church; Larry Stockstill; Regal Books; Ventura, California, 1998, p.30)
The paradigm shift has become a familiar term for bringing people into a new way of doing things. In the churches case, it has been taking us away from doing it biblically into new revelations that lead us in doing today’s church. They say this is not a new revelation, but we can’t take their word on it, we need to look at the Scripture to see if their practice match's it.
Here is how its done. for one to enter the new paradigm they must let go of the old according to the new age movement. This same principle is applied in G12. the founder Cesar Castellanos addresses developing the vision by giving an example of a pastor and an architect. With the same argument used of not pouring new wine into old wineskin, the pastor come to the architect and "wants to keep some of the old structure because it some good and valuable parts, although they have been severely weakened." The architect replies that it cannot be done. His life dreams, desires and hopes are connected to the old building. The architect insists, "It is not possible to build the new house and keep the old structures. You must choose which one you want." And the man answers, "I will look for another architect for advice."
Some have tried something similar when they seek to establish the G12 vision but we know that it cannot work this way. The old structure was good, it worked and it served its purpose, but if you want to multiply, you cannot hold on to it. The Holy Spirit will give new foundations for great growth.
We have heard from pastors who had worked for years building their ministry. They arrived at a point where they could not advance any more and realised that they needed a change and supernatural intervention. They had to demolish the old building to make space for the new with the G12 vision as the foundations. Because they took this step their ministries have seen multiplication like never before.
Consider what is being presented. If your church was built on the true foundation and doing things Biblically, would it be necessary to abandon it for the new G12 model? Since many have not built on biblical ways they are open for the next wave of spiritual pragmaticism.
Is growth in numbers more important than growth in spiritual maturity? This seems to be the case with all the new trends that have bought into we are going to take the world for Christ philosophy. There is an old concept that seems to have stuck with me because it's true. Healthy sheep produce sheep. In other words if people are really being taught the word and seeing the power of God changing their lives they can't help but go out and share it with others.
His G12 teams are "to share with you the secrets of the vision God has entrusted to us." "It is now time for that vision to run throughout the earth. It is my desire and fervent prayer that God will bless you and release in you the power of this vision …"( Pastor Cesar Castellanos, First Word)
He calls it secrets of growth that God gave to him by a vision. He writes in "How did Jesus do it?" "I began to see Jesus' ministry with clarity. The multitudes followed, but He didn't train the multitudes. He only trained 12, and everything he did with the multitudes was to teach the 12. Then the Lord asked me another question: "If Jesus trained 12, should you win more than 12 or less than 12?" 1. Jesus chose 12 to reach the multitudes. 2. He stayed with these 12 permanently, until they were trained and He released them, gave them authority and empowered them to disciple the nations. 3. The call is to find the 12 and to reproduce Christ's character in them."
Did Jesus only train 12, are we to look for only 12? These are questions that need to be answered because his whole vision is based on this number 12.
Here is how he explains it is accomplished "You need to pray so that God reveals your twelve to you. Jesus won His twelve through a night of prayer. But His twelve didn’t belong to Him; they belonged to the Father. Jesus confirmed this in his prayer (John 17:9) "I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given me, for they are Yours." Your twelve belong to the Father, but when you pray, God reveals your twelve to you.
When you receive your twelve in your spirit, you will feel like a pregnant woman. First the child is conceived by faith and then it will be born" (Step one: Conceive the Group of 12 by Faith)
So we have a pattern that is claimed to be biblical and to be followed by praying. I need to emphasize we have no record of any apostle or anyone in the church praying for 12 disciples to be under them to start the process over.
Number 12, Number 12, Number 12
The cell concept is based on the number twelve which is a significant number in the Bible. They claim "it’s not the only number that carries great weight in the Bible. There were three disciples who had special intimacy with Jesus, Jesus was raised up on the third day, and there were three crosses at Calvary. God created the heavens and earth in seven days, the sabbatical year occurred every seven years."
The Scripture does have certain numbers that are given greater importance, the number 7,12, 40,70 are repeated. However what must be answered is if the numbers are used biblically; is the number 12 taught to the church by the apostles? Though they recognize other significant numbers from the Bible, their literature promotes the number twelve as God's special "anointed" number (reference: Rocky Malloy's The Jesus System: Groups of Twelve, Pastor César Castellanos' books Leadership of Success through the Group of 12 and The Ladder of Success)
Here are some examples: Castellanos states "The model of 12 has always been in God's heart. The number 12 symbolises government. At creation God established 12 months to govern each year; even days are governed by periods of 12 hours each. To govern the people of Israel, God established 12 tribes and King Solomon appointed 12 governors.
"In 1991, the lord removed the veil from my mind and gave me a deep revelation about the meaning of 12. I had asked myself why Jesus taught 12 and not 11 or 13. I also thought, the larger the number, the faster the work would progress. Why did Jesus invest His effort in just 12 people? Then I heard the voice of the Holy Spirit deep in my heart. He said if I trained 12 people, reproducing in them the character of Christ in me, and each of them did the same with another 12 - the continuation of the process, with every group of 12 transferring what they receive, would lead to unprecedented growth in the church" (Adapted from 'Successful leadership through Groups of 12' by Pastor Cesar Castellanos)
Wait a second Jesus had 12 but one apostasized. This is not included in his equation, that would make 11. Acts 1:21-25 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen "to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place."
The original 12 had one less because of betrayal which had to be replaced. The fact is, the apostles chose one more to replace Judas, Mattias became number 12. He was not one of the original 12, he came from the 70. This seems to bring the whole concept of 12 tumbling to the ground since it is supposed to be from only the 12 Jesus specifically trained. In fact the two that were the choice to replace Judas (Barsabas and Mattias) are both outside the 12.
An then what of Paul, he was 13 was he not? (depending on if you count Judas, this would make him 14 after Mattias). He was not trained with the group of twelve that was trained by Jesus when he was physically on earth. Paul who was not of the 12 wrote the majority of the epistles in the New Testament. How does this fit with his vision model of 12. How does this work with what Castellannos claims God spoke to him about 12. It doesn’t!
Furthermore Castellannos makes a unproven claim and attributes it to the Holy Spirit "and each of them did the same with another 12 - the continuation of the process, with every group of 12 transferring what they receive."
Where did the 12 apostles (14 actually) pick 12 as the number? This is not found in Scripture.
On the topic of "Shape your group of twelve," the founder Cesar Castellanos writes "In the spiritual realm it is the group of 12 that gives us authority, government and maturity in its fullness. The group of twelve has a special significance, that is why we read about the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles. You must help your disciples to have their own group of twelve" (Pastor Cesar Castellanos in his article Effective Leadership)
You don’t find the apostles diligently looking for twelve disciples in order to repeat Jesus’ pattern of twelve disciples. No other apostle had a group of twelve, only Jesus did. Nowhere does the Bible instruct us to repeat a number pattern like this so we can have authority or maturity in the spiritual realm. If the apostles did not try to copy Jesus in this numbering why is there a vision with this number today? The12 were apostles that the Lord handpicked, it was never made a model for the church to continue so we can succeed. Paul being picked afterwards proves this.
Colin Dye who is also involved in this movement says "A primary leader that surrounds himself with 12 and then one of the 12 becomes a primary leader." This is their multiplication method, to meet in a group of 12 and disciple others. There is no biblical number that is more powerful or more anointed than any other. Yet the founder says the spiritual realm will recognize the number 12, so you must continue with this number. This sounds like the Mormon church having 12 apostles and new prophets for the continuance of the church than a bible concept given by the apostles.
Steps to Establishing a Group of 12 by Sarah Ajayi "The Establishment of the government of 12 OF 12 Teaching about Elijah in 1 Kings 18:30 -35, Cesar Castellanos taught the delegates on ‘Steps to ensure the vision’. Elijah symbolically restored the Government of 12 when he placed twelve stones around the altar of sacrifice. The Government of 12 provides protection for the leaders and disciples. We need to restore the altar of God by moving closer to Him and operating in His authority. The anointing in the vision is needed to get through to the people. Like Elijah, Christians need to confront the apostasy in society."
Twelve stones are the government restored symbolically? The Government of 12 provides protection for the leaders and disciples. Did the Church not have protection until G12 came along? I think they are making a number more powerful than the Spirit. The 12 stones were placed symbolic to the tribes of Israel, they were not a government. The stones represented the nation to their enemy, the prophets of Baal in Elijah's encounter, as he proved Israel's Lord (Yahweh) was truly God.
Another questionable statement that needs to be addressed is the churches call, to confront apostasy in society? How about the apostasy in the church as the Bible teaches. The society cannot apostasize from what they never held, they never knew or practiced the truth.. Only those who leave the faith apostasize, this is not a realistic view or mandate for the church.
G12 insists there is always 12 "Then He appointed twelve, that they might be with Him and that He might send them out to preach and to have power to heal sicknesses and cast out demons" (Mark 3:14-15). (G12 What is a Cell? www.kt.org
On the topic "The Secret is in the Twelve"- One of the first things I learnt from the Lord at this time was that to implement the model of 12 one must walk in supernatural power, casting out demons and performing miracles according to each person's need."
Hold on a second, at this time Jesus also gave this same authority to 70 as well, not just 12, and they were ALL disciples. Later the 12 became apostles, there is a difference.
Luke 10:1-2 "After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. Then He said to them, "The harvest truly is" great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest." V.17 "Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name." v.19 "Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."
Some may say does this number 12 matter as long as it works? It does to the founder. I'm proposing that you can take any number of people and train them in this manner to have a repeat process, but he is saying God told him it must be 12.
Yet we do have another example of the apostles picking people to replace their work and the number is 7 not 12. "Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. "Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; "but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word "(Acts 6:2-4).
The concept of the number12 is not always there, why did the apostles choose 7 to work for them? (this may lead to G7) but the fact remains that apostles did not see 12 as the number for successful discipleship.
In their topic "Master the vision" "The Lord told Abraham to set his eyes and look to the land he was going to possess. God is entrusting you with the redemption of your nation. You decide if you dare to achieve it. But remember, you are irreplaceable, if you don’t do it, there is no one that will take your place. Take a new breath, believe that you are going to achieve, decide to believe in God and breakthrough towards victory! " (Pastor Cesar Castellanos in his article Effective Leadership)
Wow, imagine having this weight on your shoulders, you’re it to redeem your nation; you better not fail. This is the Moses syndrome put on hundreds of people. This is not only promoting people to fulfill an impossible task but a very un-biblical way of doing ministry. We do not redeem nations but people and this is done by teaching them all that Jesus has said (Mt.28:18-19).
If we do not succeed does god fail? We are all expendable, God can easily raise up another to do his work. The example we have to this is spoken in Esther by Mordacai "For if you remain completely silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14). Where is God’s word in context in this new cell church movement?
In their topic: Support the women’s ministry. "God is raising up women in a marvellous way in the leadership. In Genesis 3:15 the prophetic word said to the serpent ‘her offspring will crush your head’. The women have the ability to reproduce cells in an unbelievable way" (Pastor Cesar Castellanos in his article Effective Leadership)
I have no idea what this has to do with women discipleship, it has to do with only one man, the Messiah. The seed is about one person coming from one woman only (Luke 1:31 is Isa. 7:14; Gal.3:16). This is an example of how Scripture is misused to promote their own agenda. Jesus fulfilled the Scripture by the cross. It has nothing to do with women today.
Besides the obvious, there are other Scriptures are taken out of their context to make G12's points. "What shall we do that we might work the works of God?" (John 6:28) pick up the call to "make, mature and mobilise disciples" and be thoroughly equipped to rise to a level of significance. (
This is a scripture that was used by Jesus to rebuke the Pharisees who were in unbelief looking for a sign. He went on to say to "believe on him whom God sent," not to work.
In another article Castellanos repeats this "Jesus taught us this lesson through His own example. He did not deal with people based on their obvious abilities, but according to the potential He knew they had within" (Adapted from 'Successful leadership through Groups of 12' by Pastor Cesar Castellanos)
They had potential within or was it given by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? This is a major flaw in the concept because. The New Testament teaches that we are not to be looking within ourselves. Jesus gave them the authority from himself, it was not according to the potential He knew they had ?They had none, in fact if one looks as Peter they discover that in his own potential he failed everytime.
Success means fulfilling the Creation Mandate - "Fill the earth and subdue it." And this comes with the blessing of God. It is says, Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Genesis 1:28
Again we have the mandate of Dominionism. Are we to do this today after Adam was removed from the garden. Is this taught to the church by apostles? No so why would this be part of their teaching. Kingdom dominionsts believe we are to rule over the earth now without Christ.
The Cell Church in the European Situation Pastor Colin Dye Part one: The New Reformation Many churches in Europe are beginning to look into the Cell Church concept.
Because of the slow dying of church attendance Dye looks to these unhealthy ways to revive the church. In his topic of Revival hot spots: "There are some signs of hope. European churches have felt the impact of Reinhard Bonnke’s booklet campaign recording many thousands of decisions for Christ. The Alpha courses have made a huge impact across the world. It is said that more than one million people have passed through Alpha in Britain alone, many of whom have committed to Christ in the process. The ‘times of refreshing’ flowing from the outpouring of the Spirit at Toronto have affected significant churches across Europe. The Pensacola ‘revival’ also has begun a new move of repentance and restoration in Europe. The television ministry of God Digital is broadcasting strong teaching and fuelling the fires of revival across the Continent."
I suggest anyone take a serious look at AlphaC course that was birthed out of Nicky Gumbel (Holy Trinity Brompton) that was from a Toronto influence in England. Toronto or Pensacola were not revivals but another spirit taking over services making people act abnormally and in contradiction to the fruit of the Spirit and the spiritual gifts. To speak favorably on this shows the lack of discernment and the ideas accepted by these men to acheive ther goals.
Using the example of Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses against indulgences to the door of the church in Wittenburg, Germany. In the topic of The priesthood of all believers Dye says " The Holy Spirit is giving us new models of church that ensure the whole body of Christ is activated into the work of the ministry."
"One of the most basic ecclesiological principles of the New Testament is that the Church is the body of Christ. That is, the Church expresses the presence and activity of the Lord. In the same way that your presence is carried by your body so we as the body of Christ carry his presence. And in the same way that your body carries out your activity so we as the body of Christ carry out His work in the world. When Christ wants to work in the world, he uses his body. This is the teaching of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ Ephesians 4:11-12.
Today God is restoring such a church. The recent apostolic emphasis on the five-fold ministry across the world is producing a new hunger in the body of Christ for a complete re-thinking of how we ‘do’ and ‘be’ church in the world today.
Only through the cells can such disciples be made. The ‘open’ cells in the G12 Model attract new believers and release the members into active ministry.
Lets look at what he has stated carefully. a new model of Church, not from the Bible. Where does the book of Ephesians say such a thing? When Christ wants to work in the world, he uses his body. God can’t work outside the human bodies he has as the church? Is God limited to this? He certainly was able to before the church, why not now? The Eph. 4 passage is explaining that they leadership to equip the church so that we are mature and do not go for every new wind of doctrine that blows through, that would mean we should not go for the G-12 which is a complete re-thinking of how we ‘do’ and ‘be’ church (classic paradigm shift talk). Only through cells can disciples be made! They have gone beyond the Scripture which Paul who wrote Ephesians 4 says not to do: "That you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written." In other words, if we are to maintain spiritual health and do God’s work his way, the apostle Paul is saying we are not to seek new revelation outside the clear teaching of the Word. And this is certainly something new. While the intent may be good, the principle of discipling may be right, the implementation and Scripture to validate it is not.
The main point is that they are proposing that God restoring such a church. We need to be aware that the recent apostolic emphasis on the five-fold ministry is coming from a group of self appointed apostles which are linked with a whole lot of false prophets. They are mainly dominionist's and have been practicing doctrines of the Latter Rain. Not surprising that Colin Dye has said Jesus is not going to come until the entire church prays "Come, Jesus, Come" (Colin Dye, undated video broadcast on Joshua TV (Amsterdam), Aug. 12, 1998).
On page 20 of Revival Phenomena Colin Dye says on spiritual gifts: "The New Testament may not list every possible gift; and Jesus may send other ones which are not mentioned in Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:7-16 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-11." On p.40: "It seems logical to me, therefore, not to limit the range of his (God's) possible activities just to those which are specifically recorded or exemplified in the scriptures" (book-Revival Phenomena).
Here we have a classic case of going beyond Scripture. Therefore anything supernatural that happens, any strange manifestation must be accepted as from God because it is no longer able to be tested by the word. What a teaching to tell the church to live by, no right or wrong.
Under the topic of A Man of faith:
"Those who want to have a successful ministry must live in the realm of faith. Only through faith is our relationship with God strengthened and we are able to fulfil all our dreams. Faith operates outside our senses. It is born in the heart. Generally, all human beings have the tendency to walk by sight and not by faith. We rely on what we see, forgetting there is a spiritual realm that our eyes don’t see. It does exist and is both real and eternal. Faith connects us to the invisible and eternal world, where God’s government and celestial court is found. Faith moves us out of human limitations and transports us to the threshold of divine glory, where we leave our weakness and feebleness at the feet of the cross in order to be clothed with the invincible strength of the Spirit of God. We leave behind a world of failure and defeat to walk the solid streets of success and prosperity, transform the absurd into something logical, the rotten and despised into something useful and blessed for the world. Abraham only chose one path - the faith path. This opened up to him all the doors of success. He received strength to overcome all obstacles and made a bridge between the possible and the impossible. By faith, he could drink from the springs of life that made him young and vigorous again and he could fly with the wings of the Spirit walking around the celestial city, whose architect and constructor is God himself. He left the blessing for his seed, which is Christ. And Christ extended it to all those who are of the faith, that is to say, to those who have accepted Jesus in a personal way and are living according to God’s Word.
Are we to fulfill our dreams or God’s will? Faith is not to connect us to an invisible world as word of faith teachers teach, it is our heartfelt trust in God and his promises. Neither does faith promise success or prosperity to everyone, otherwise God has lied. Look at Hebrews 11 and see the lives of the faithful that lived impoverished lives because of their dedication.
Abraham's faith is not what made him young or vigorous, nor did he show a maturity in faith, for he wavered at this promise from God (Remember Hagar Gal.4:22). It was God who promised it and would fulfill it, that it was a unconditional covenant (Heb.6:13). Lets not forget Sarah had a part to play in this (Heb.11:8). The flamboyant speech on faith that goes beyond what the Bible describes took place, does not help his cause.
Citing Genesis 12:2-3 When you obey the Great Commission of Jesus to disciple the nations you step into the blessing of Abraham and he was blessed in all things!
Scripture tells us Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:13-14 ). If you have Jesus Christ you already have the blessing of Abraham, it is the promise of the Spirit to those who believe. This is not a correct way to prompt people to be more serious to evangelize.
There is also word of faith teaching involved among the other unbiblical concepts.
"Abraham being the father of a multitude and we being sons of Abraham, we ought to claim that we are conquering the multitude and confess that they are coming. We must see them coming. Once you know the miracle you want and can see it clearly, you only have to give the word of authority for it to be revealed exactly as you dreamt. Then what we conquer in the spiritual realm can be brought by faith to the natural realm" (Pastor Cesar Castellanos in his article Effective Leadership)
Where does the Bible teach this? Clearly no Scripture justifies this, and it gives us insight into what Castellanos actually believes. Claim what we are conquering by faith? Did Abraham do this? This is a typical method practiced in the occult, of seeing first, decreeing it, confessing it and then speaking it into existence to draw it out of this spiritual realm into our world (certainly an influence from Yonggi Cho's visualization ideas). We don’t go into the spiritual realm to make something manifest in the physical, this is taught by the mind sciences. There is nothing in the Bible that either teaches this, nor is able to happen by the method being promoted, it is found practiced in the new age movement.
Dick Bernal of Jubilee Christian Center says, The Vision God has given Jubilee is to be a lighthouse of good news of our Lord Jesus Christ as we seek to "take our cities for God." This is right out of the concept of John Dawson's book Taking our cities for God. So we can see that there are many unhealthy charismatic influences in this cell church movement.
Leading proponent of the cell church, author Joel Comiskey, who has himself written a complimentary book about G12.
3. The division this model is causing: In a very real way, the G12 movement has separated themselves from the cell church movement, claiming to be God’s new wineskin for the last days. Listen to Ralph Neighbour ’s appeal in a paper he submitted to the Cell Church Missions Network in November 2002, "The concept of building a multilevel marketing structure that peaks in the authority of a special Global Apostle with his hand-picked assistants has now come into existence. Bedazzled by the promise of fast track growth for their congregations, pastors are kneeling to kiss the gold rings worn by the Apostles. At the same time, they are severing relationships with fellow cell church workers who are not among the devotees. In many parts of the world, painful reports are coming about pastors who one or two years ago were very intimately involved in helping each other and working together in the cell movements in their cities but who now shun fellowship with others who did not bow before the Apostle’s strategy."
Before anyone joins in with the G-12 or any other movements like it, I suggest they look into what they are actually practicing and who are their affiliations. Khong (who trained at Dallas Theological Seminary) was fired from his church in 1986 and began Faith Community Baptist Church basing it on the Yonggi Cho cell model. Lawrence Khong is now part of Wagner’s leadership, so this movement is one step away to from Peter Wagner’s false apostolic government. In fact this strategy of cell church is being used by many of the apostles to set up their church government since it is a easier means of control. Does this mean a cell church model of meeting in homes is wrong? Of course not, yet we should be aware of how it is being implemented and what is it associated to.
While people can have zeal to accomplish what God asks it is just as important to do it God’s way based on the Scripture. There is so much more that could be said but this should be sufficient for those who want to enter this cell church model to beware, best to look into these new movements before one commits to them.
God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men
God's Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men
by Jonathan Edwards
also check out http://members.aol.com/jonathanedw/Edwards.html
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Romans 9:18).
THE apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, expresses his great concern and sorrow of heart for the nation of the Jews, who were rejected of God. This leads him to observe the difference which God made by election between some of the Jews and others, and between the bulk of that people and the christian Gentiles. In speaking of this he enters into a more minute discussion of the sovereignty of God in electing some to eternal life, and rejecting others, than is found in any other part of the Bible; in the course of which he quotes several passages from the Old Testament, confirming and illustrating this doctrine. In the ninth verse he refers us to what God said to Abraham, showing his election of Isaac before Ishmael - "For this is the word of promise; At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son:" then to what God had said to Rebecca, showing his election of Jacob before Esau; "The elder shall serve the younger:" in the thirteenth verse, to a passage from Malachi, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated:" in the fifteenth verse, to what God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion:" and the verse preceding the text, to what God says to Pharaoh, "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." In what the apostle says in the text, he seems to have respect especially to the two last-cited passages: to what God said to Moses in the fifteenth verse, and to what he said to Pharaoh in the verse immediately preceding. God said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." To this the apostle refers in the former part of the text. And we know how often it is said of Pharaoh, that God hardened his heart. And to this the apostle seems to have respect in the latter part of the text; "and whom he will he hardeneth." We may observe in the text,
1. God's different dealing with men. He hath mercy on some, and hardeneth others. When God is here spoken of as hardening some of the children of men, it is not to be understood that God by any positive efficiency hardens any man's heart. There is no positive act in God, as though he put forth any power to harden the heart. To suppose any such thing would be to make God the immediate author of sin. God is said to harden men in two ways: by withholding the powerful influences of his Spirit, without which their hearts will remain hardened, and grow harder and harder; in this sense he hardens them, as he leaves them to hardness. And again, by ordering those things in his providence which, through the abuse of their corruption, become the occasion of their hardening. Thus God sends his word and ordinances to men which, by their abuse, prove an occasion of their hardening. So the apostle said, that he was unto some "a savour of death unto death." So God is represented as sending Isaiah on this errand, to make the hearts of the people fat, and to make their ears heavy, and to shut their eyes; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Isa. 6:10. Isaiah's preaching was, in itself, of a contrary tendency, to make them better. But their abuse of it rendered it an occasion of their hardening. As God is here said to harden men, so he is said to put a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. 2 Chron. 18:22. That is, he suffered a lying spirit to enter into them. And thus he is said to have bid Shimei curse David. 2 Sam. 16:10. Not that he properly commanded him; for it is contrary to God's commands. God expressly forbids cursing the ruler of the people. Exod. 22:28. But he suffered corruption at that time so to work in Shimei, and ordered that occasion of stirring it up, as a manifestation of his displeasure against David.
2. The foundation of his different dealing with mankind; viz. his sovereign will and pleasure. "He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." This does not imply, merely, that God never shows mercy or denies it against his will, or that he is always willing to do it when he does it. A willing subject or servant, when he obeys his lord's commands, may never do any thing against his will, nothing but what he can do cheerfully and with delight; and yet he cannot be said to do what he wills in the sense of the text. But the expression implies that it is God's mere will and sovereign pleasure, which supremely orders this affair. It is the divine will without restraint, or constraint, or obligation.
Doctrine. God exercises his sovereignty in the eternal salvation of men.
He not only is sovereign, and has a sovereign right to dispose and order in that affair; and he not only might proceed in a sovereign way, if he would, and nobody could charge him with exceeding his right; but he actually does so; he exercises the right which he has. In the following discourse, I propose to show,
I. What is God's sovereignty.
II. What God's sovereignty in the salvation of men implies.
III. That God actually doth exercise his sovereignty in this matter.
IV. The reasons for this exercise.
I. I would show what is God's sovereignty.
The sovereignty of God is his absolute, independent right of disposing of all creatures according to his own pleasure. I will consider this definition by the parts of it.
The will of God is called his mere pleasure,
1. In opposition to any constraint. Men may do things voluntarily, and yet there may be a degree of constraint. A man may be said to do a thing voluntarily, that is, he himself does it; and, all things considered, he may choose to do it; yet he may do it out of fear, and the thing in itself considered be irksome to him, and sorely against his inclination. When men do things thus, they cannot be said to do them according to their mere pleasure.
2. In opposition to its being under the will of another. A servant may fulfil his master's commands, and may do it willingly, and cheerfully, and may delight to do his master's will; yet when he does so, he does not do it of his own mere pleasure. The saints do the will of God freely. They choose to do it; it is their meat and drink. Yet they do not do it of their mere pleasure and arbitrary will; because their will is under the direction of a superior will.
3. In opposition to any proper obligation. A man may do a thing which he is obliged to do, very freely; but he cannot be said to act from his own mere will and pleasure. He who acts from his own mere pleasure, is at full liberty; but he who is under any proper obligation, is not at liberty, but is bound. Now the sovereignty of God supposes, that he has a right to dispose of all his creatures according to his mere pleasure in the sense explained. And his right is absolute and independent. Men may have a right to dispose of some things according to their pleasure. But their right is not absolute and unlimited. Men may be said to have a right to dispose of their own goods as they please. But their right is not absolute; is has limits and bounds. They have a right to dispose of their own goods as they please, provided they do not do it contrary to the law of the state to which they are subject, or contrary to the law of God. Men's right to dispose of their things as they will, is not absolute, because it is not independent. They have not an independent right to what they have, but in some things depend on the community to which they belong, for the right they have; and in every thing depend on God. They receive all the right they have to any thing from God. But the sovereignty of God imports that he has an absolute, and unlimited, and independent right of disposing of his creatures as he will. I proposed to inquire,
II. What God's sovereignty in the salvation of men implies. In answer to this inquiry, I observe, it implies that God can either bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or refuse it, without any prejudice to the glory of any of his attributes, except where he has been pleased to declare, that he will or will not bestow it. It cannot be said absolutely, as the case now stands, that God can, without any prejudice to the honour of any of his attributes, bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or refuse it; because, concerning some, God has been pleased to declare either that he will or that he will not bestow salvation on them; and thus to bind himself by his own promise. And concerning some he has been pleased to declare, that he never will bestow salvation upon them; viz. those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. Hence, as the case now stands, he is obliged; he cannot bestow salvation in one case, or refuse it in the other, without prejudice to the honour of his truth. But God exercised his sovereignty in making these declarations. God was not obliged to promise that he would save all who believe in Christ; nor was he obliged to declare, that he who committed the sin against the Holy Ghost should never be forgiven. But it pleased him so to declare. And had it not been so that God had been pleased to oblige himself in these cases, he might still have either bestowed salvation, or refused it, without prejudice to any of his attributes. If it would in itself be prejudicial to any of his attributes to bestow or refuse salvation, then God would not in that matter act as absolutely sovereign. Because it then ceases to be a merely arbitrary thing. It ceases to be a matter of absolute liberty, and is become a matter of necessity or obligation. For God cannot do any thing to the prejudice of any of his attributes, or contrary to what is in itself excellent and glorious. Therefore,
1. God can, without prejudice to the glory of any of his attributes, bestow salvation on any of the children of men, except on those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. The case was thus when man fell, and before God revealed his eternal purpose and plan for redeeming men by Jesus Christ. It was probably looked upon by the angels as a thing utterly inconsistent with God's attributes to save any of the children of men. It was utterly inconsistent with the honour of the divine attributes to save any one of the fallen children of men, as they were in themselves. It could not have been done had not God contrived a way consistent with the honour of his holiness, majesty, justice, and truth. But since God in the gospel has revealed that nothing is too hard for him to do, nothing beyond the reach of his power, and wisdom, and sufficiency; and since Christ has wrought out the work of redemption, and fulfilled the law by obeying, there is none of mankind whom he may not save without any prejudice to any of his attributes, excepting those who have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. And those he might have saved without going contrary to any of his attributes, had he not been pleased to declare that he would not. It was not because he could not have saved them consistently with his justice, and consistently with his law, or because his attribute of mercy was not great enough, or the blood of Christ not sufficient to cleanse from that sin. But it has pleased him for wise reasons to declare that that sin shall never be forgiven in this world, or in the world to come. And so now it is contrary to God's truth to save such. But otherwise there is no sinner, let him be ever so great, but God can save him without prejudice to any attribute; if he has been a murderer, adulterer, or perjurer, or idolater, or blasphemer, God may save him if he pleases, and in no respect injure his glory. Though persons have sinned long, have been obstinate, have committed heinous sins a thousand times, even till they have grown old in sin, and have sinned under great aggravations: let the aggravations be what they may; if they have sinned under ever so great light; if they have been backsliders, and have sinned against ever so numerous and solemn warnings and strivings of the Spirit, and mercies of his common providence: though the danger of such is much greater than of other sinners, yet God can save them if he pleases, for the sake of Christ, without any prejudice to any of his attributes. He may have mercy on whom he will have mercy. He may have mercy on the greatest of sinners, if he pleases, and the glory of none of his attributes will be in the least sullied. Such is the sufficiency of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, that none of the divine attributes stand in the way of the salvation of any of them. Thus the glory of any attribute did not at all suffer by Christ's saving some of his crucifiers.
1. God may save any of them without prejudice to the honour of his holiness. God is an infinitely holy being. The heavens are not pure in his sight. He is of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity. And if God should in any way countenance sin, and should not give proper testimonies of his hatred of it, and displeasure at it, it would be a prejudice to the honour of his holiness. But God can save the greatest sinner without giving the least countenance to sin. If he saves one, who for a long time has stood out under the calls of the gospel, and has sinned under dreadful aggravations; if he saves one who, against light, has been a pirate or blasphemer, he may do it without giving any countenance to their wickedness; because his abhorrence of it and displeasure against it have been already sufficiently manifested in the sufferings of Christ. It was a sufficient testimony of God's abhorrence against even the greatest wickedness, that Christ, the eternal Son of God, died for it. Nothing can show God's infinite abhorrence of any wickedness more than this. If the wicked man himself should be thrust into hell, and should endure the most extreme torments which are ever suffered there, it would not be a greater manifestation of God's abhorrence of it, than the sufferings of the Son of God for it.
2. God may save any of the children of men without prejudice to the honour of his majesty. If men have affronted God, and that ever so much, if they have cast ever so much contempt on his authority; yet God can save them, if he pleases, and the honour of his majesty not suffer in the least. If God should save those who have affronted him, without satisfaction, the honour of his majesty would suffer. For when contempt is cast upon infinite majesty, its honour suffers, and the contempt leaves an obscurity upon the honour of the divine majesty, if the injury is not repaired. But the sufferings of Christ do fully repair the injury. Let the contempt be ever so great, yet if so honourable a person as Christ undertakes to be a Mediator for the offender, and in the mediation suffer in his stead, it fully repairs the injury done to the majesty of heaven by the greatest sinner.
3. God may save any sinner whatsoever consistently with his justice. The justice of God requires the punishment of sin. God is the Supreme Judge of the world, and he is to judge the world according to the rules of justice. It is not the part of a judge to show favour to the person judged; but he is to determine according to a rule of justice without departing to the right hand or left. God does not show mercy as a judge, but as a sovereign. And therefore when mercy sought the salvation of sinners, the inquiry was how to make the exercise of the mercy of God as a sovereign, and of his strict justice as a judge, agree together. And this is done by the sufferings of Christ, in which sin is punished fully, and justice answered. Christ suffered enough for the punishment of the sins of the greatest sinner that ever lived. So that God, when he judges, may act according to a rule of strict justice, and yet acquit the sinner, if he be in Christ. Justice cannot require any more for any man's sins, than those sufferings of one of the persons in the Trinity, which Christ suffered. Rom. 3:25,26. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; to declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Christ."
4. God can save any sinner whatsoever, without any prejudice to the honour of his truth. God passed his word, that sin should be punished with death, which is to be understood not only of the first, but of the second death. God can save the greatest sinner consistently with his truth in this threatening. For sin is punished in the sufferings of Christ, inasmuch as he is our surety, and so is legally the same person, and sustained our guilt, and in his sufferings bore our punishment. It may be objected, that God said, If thou eatest, thou shalt die; as though the same person that sinned must suffer; and therefore why does not God's truth oblige him to that? I answer, that the word then was not intended to be restrained to him, that in his own person sinned. Adam probably understood that his posterity were included, whether they sinned in their own person or not. If they sinned in Adam, their surety, those words, "if thou eatest," meant, if thou eatest in thyself, or in thy surety. And therefore, the latter words, "thou shalt die," do also fairly allow of such a construction as, thou shalt die in thyself, or in thy surety. Isa. 42:21. "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake, he will magnify the law and make it honourable." But,
II. God may refuse salvation to any sinner whatsoever, without prejudice to the honour of any of his attributes.
There is no person whatever in a natural condition, upon whom God may not refuse to bestow salvation without prejudice to any part of his glory. Let a natural person be wise or unwise, of a good or ill natural temper, of mean or honourable parentage, whether born of wicked or godly parents; let him be a moral or immoral person, whatever good he may have done, however religious he has been, how many prayers soever he has made, and whatever pains he has taken that he may be saved; whatever concern and distress he may have for fear he shall be damned; or whatever circumstances he may be in; God can deny him salvation without the least disparagement to any of his perfections. His glory will not in any instance be the least obscured by it.
1. God may deny salvation to any natural person without any injury to the honour of his righteousness. If he does so, there is no injustice nor unfairness in it. There is no natural man living, let his case be what it will, but God may deny him salvation, and cast him down to hell, and yet not be chargeable with the least unrighteous or unfair dealing in any respect whatsoever. This is evident, because they all have deserved hell: and it is no injustice for a proper judge to inflict on any man what he deserves. And as he has deserved condemnation, so he has never done any thing to remove the liability, or to atone for the sin. He never has done any thing whereby he has laid any obligations on God not to punish him as he deserved.
2. God may deny salvation to any unconverted person whatever without any prejudice to the honour of his goodness. Sinners are sometimes ready to flatter themselves, that though it may not be contrary to the justice of God to condemn them, yet it will not consist with the glory of his mercy. They think it will be dishonourable to God's mercy to cast them into hell, and have no pity or compassion upon them. They think it will be very hard and severe, and not becoming a God of infinite grace and tender compassion. But God can deny salvation to any natural person without any disparagement to his mercy and goodness. That, which is not contrary to God's justice, is not contrary to his mercy. If damnation be justice, then mercy may choose its own object. They mistake the nature of the mercy of God, who think that it is an attribute, which, in some cases, is contrary to justice. Nay, God's mercy is illustrated by it, as in the twenty-third verse of the context. "That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory."
3. It is in no way prejudicial to the honour of God's faithfulness. For God has in no way obliged himself to any natural man by his word to bestow salvation upon him. Men in a natural condition are not the children of promise; but lie open to the curse of the law, which would not be the case if they had any promise to lay hold of.
III. God does actually exercise his sovereignty in men's salvation.
We shall show how he exercises this right in several particulars.
1. In calling one people or nation, and giving them the means of grace, and leaving others without them. According to the divine appointment, salvation is bestowed in connexion with the means of grace. God may sometimes make use of very unlikely means, and bestow salvation on men who are under very great disadvantages; but he does not bestow grace wholly without any means. But God exercises his sovereignty in bestowing those means. All mankind are by nature in like circumstances towards God. Yet God greatly distinguishes some from others by the means and advantages which he bestows upon them. The savages, who live in the remote parts of this continent, and are under the grossest heathenish darkness, as well as the inhabitants of Africa, are naturally in exactly similar circumstances towards God with us in this land. They are no more alienated or estranged from God in their natures than we; and God has no more to charge them with. And yet what a vast difference has God made between us and them! In this he has exercised his sovereignty. He did this of old, when he chose but one people, to make them his covenant people, and to give them the means of grace, and left all others, and gave them over to heathenish darkness and the tyranny of the devil, to perish from generation to generation for many hundreds of years. The earth in that time was peopled with many great and mighty nations. There were the Egyptians, a people famed for their wisdom. There were also the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who were great, and wise, and powerful nations. There were the Persians, who by their strength and policy subdued a great part of the world. There were the renowned nations of the Greeks and Romans, who were famed over the whole world for their excellent civil governments, for their wisdom and skill in the arts of peace and war, and who by their military prowess in their turns subdued and reigned over the world. Those were rejected. God did not choose them for his people, but left them for many ages under gross heathenish darkness, to perish for lack of vision; and chose one only people, the posterity of Jacob, to be his own people, and to give them the means of grace. Psal. 147:19,20. "He showeth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them." This nation were a small, inconsiderable people in comparison with many other people. Deut. 7:7. "The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people." So neither was it for their righteousness; for they had no more of that than other people. Deut. 9:6. "Understand therefore, that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this good land to possess it for thy righteousness; for thou art a stiff-necked people." God gives them to understand, that it was from no other cause but his free electing love, that he chose them to be his people. That reason is given why God loved them; it was because he loved them. Deut. 7:8. Which is as much as to say, it was agreeable to his sovereign pleasure, to set his love upon you.
God also showed his sovereignty in choosing that people, when other nations were rejected, who came of the same progenitors. Thus the children of Isaac were chosen, when the posterity of Ishmael and other sons of Abraham were rejected. So the children of Jacob were chosen, when the posterity of Esau were rejected: as the apostle observes in the seventh verse, "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called:" and again in verses 10, 11, 12, 13. "And not only this; but when Rebekah also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; the children moreover being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the promise of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." The apostle has not respect merely to the election of the persons of Isaac and Jacob before Ishmael and Esau; but of their posterity. In the passage, already quoted from Malachi, God has respect to the nations, which were the posterity of Esau and Jacob; Mal. 1:2,3. "I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob; and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." God showed his sovereignty, when Christ came, in rejecting the Jews, and calling the Gentiles. God rejected that nation who were the children of Abraham according to the flesh, and had been his peculiar people for so many ages, and who alone possessed the one true God, and chose idolatrous heathen before them, and called them to be his people. When the Messiah came, who was born of their nation, and whom they so much expected, he rejected them. He came to his own, and his own received him not. John 1:11. When the glorious dispensation of the gospel came, God passed by the Jews, and called those who had been heathens, to enjoy the privileges of it. They were broken off, that the Gentiles might be graffed on. Rom. 11:17. She is now called beloved, that was not beloved. And more are the children of the desolate, than the children of the married wife. Isa. 54:1. The natural children of Abraham are rejected, and God raises up children to Abraham of stones. That nation, which was so honoured of God, have now been for many ages rejected, and remain dispersed all over the world, a remarkable monument of divine vengeance. And now God greatly distinguishes some Gentile nations from others, and all according to his sovereign pleasure.
2. God exercises his sovereignty in the advantages he bestows upon particular persons. All need salvation alike, and all are, naturally, alike undeserving of it; but he gives some vastly greater advantages for salvation than others. To some he assigns their place in pious and religious families, where they may be well instructed and educated, and have religious parents to dedicate them to God, and put up many prayers for them. God places some under a more powerful ministry than others, and in places where there are more of the outpourings of the Spirit of God. To some he gives much more of the strivings and the awakening influences of the Spirit, than to others. It is according to his mere sovereign pleasure.
3. God exercises his sovereignty in sometimes bestowing salvation upon the low and mean, and denying it to the wise and great. Christ in his sovereignty passes by the gates of princes and nobles, and enters some cottage and dwells there, and has communion with its obscure inhabitants. God in his sovereignty withheld salvation from the rich man, who fared sumptuously every day, and bestowed it on poor Lazarus, who sat begging at his gate. God in this way pours contempt on princes, and on all their glittering splendour. So God sometimes passes by wise men, men of great understanding, learned and great scholars, and bestows salvation on others of weak understanding, who only comprehend some of the plainer parts of Scripture, and the fundamental principles of the christian religion. Yea, there seem to be fewer great men called, than others. And God in ordering it thus manifests his sovereignty. 1 Cor. 1:26,27,28. "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are."
4. In bestowing salvation on some who have had few advantages. God sometimes will bless weak means for producing astonishing effects, when more excellent means are not succeeded. God sometimes will withhold salvation from those who are the children of very pious parents, and bestow it on others, who have been brought up in wicked families. Thus we read of a good Abijah in the family of Jeroboam, and of a godly Hezekiah, the son of wicked Ahaz, and of a godly Josiah, the son of a wicked Amon. But on the contrary, of a wicked Amnon and Absalom, the sons of holy David, and that vile Manasseh, the son a good Hezekiah. Sometimes some, who have had eminent means of grace, are rejected, and left to perish, and others, under far less advantages, are saved. Thus the scribes and Pharisees, who had so much light and knowledge of the Scriptures, were mostly rejected, and the poor ignorant publicans saved. The greater part of those, among whom Christ was much conversant, and who heard him preach, and saw him work miracles from day to day, were left; and the woman of Samaria was taken, and many other Samaritans at the same time, who only heard Christ preach, as he occasionally passed through their city. So the woman of Canaan was taken, who was not of the country of the Jews, and but once saw Jesus Christ. So the Jews, who had seen and heard Christ, and saw his miracles, and with whom the apostles laboured so much, were not saved. But the Gentiles, many of them, who, as it were, but transiently heard the glad tidings of salvation, embraced them, and were converted.
5. God exercises his sovereignty in calling some to salvation, who have been very heinously wicked, and leaving others, who have been moral and religious persons. The Pharisees were a very strict sect among the Jews. Their religion was extraordinary. Luke 18:11. They were not as other men, extortioners, unjust, or adulterers. There was their morality. They fasted twice a week, and gave tithes of all that they possessed. There was their religion. But yet they were mostly rejected, and the publicans, and harlots, and openly vicious sort of people, entered into the kingdom of God before them. Matt. 21:31. The apostle describes his righteousness while a Pharisee. Philip. 3:6. "Touching the righteousness which is of the law, blameless." The rich young man, who came kneeling to Christ, saying, Good Master, what shall I do, that I may have eternal life, was a moral person. When Christ bade him keep the commandments, he said, and in his own view with sincerity, "All these have I kept from my youth up." He had obviously been brought up in a good family, and was a youth of such amiable manners and correct deportment, that it is said, "Jesus beholding him, loved him." Still he was left; while the thief, that was crucified with Christ, was chosen and called, even on the cross. God sometimes shows his sovereignty by showing mercy to the chief of sinners, on those who have been murderers, and profaners, and blasphemers. And even when they are old, some are called at the eleventh hour. God sometimes shows the sovereignty of his grace by showing mercy to some, who have spent most of their lives in the service of Satan, and have little left to spend in the service of God.
6. In saving some of those who seek salvation, and not others. Some who seek salvation, as we know both from Scripture and observation, are soon converted; while others seek a long time, and do not obtain at last. God helps some over the mountains and difficulties which are in the way; he subdues Satan, and delivers them from his temptations: but others are ruined by the temptations with which they meet. Some are never thoroughly awakened; while to others God is pleased to give thorough convictions. Some are left to backsliding hearts; others God causes to hold out to the end. Some are brought off from a confidence in their own righteousness; others never get over that obstruction in their way, as long as they live. And some are converted and saved, who never had so great strivings as some who, notwithstanding, perish.
IV. I come now to give the reasons, why God does thus exercise his sovereignty in the eternal salvation of the children of men.
1. It is agreeable to God's design in the creation of the universe to exercise every attribute, and thus to manifest the glory of each of them. God's design in the creation was to glorify himself, or to make a discovery of the essential glory of his nature. It was fit that infinite glory should shine forth; and it was God's original design to make a manifestation of his glory, as it is. Not that it was his design to manifest all his glory to the apprehension of creatures; for it is impossible that the minds of creatures should comprehend it. But it was his design to make a true manifestation of his glory, such as should represent every attribute. If God glorified one attribute, and not another, such manifestation of his glory would be defective; and the representation would not be complete. If all God's attributes are not manifested, the glory of none of them is manifested as it is: for the divine attributes reflect glory on one another. Thus if God's wisdom be manifested, and not his holiness, the glory of his wisdom would not be manifested as it is; for one part of the glory of the attribute of divine wisdom is, that it is a holy wisdom. So if his holiness were manifested, and not his wisdom, the glory of his holiness would not be manifested as it is; for one thing which belongs to the glory of God's holiness is, that it is a wise holiness. So it is with respect to the attributes of mercy and justice. The glory of God's mercy does not appear as it is, unless it is manifested as a just mercy, or as a mercy consistent with justice. And so with respect to God's sovereignty, it reflects glory on all his other attributes. It is part of the glory of God's mercy, that it is sovereign mercy. So all the attributes of God reflect glory on one another. The glory of one attribute cannot be manifested, as it is, without the manifestation of another. One attribute is defective without another, and therefore the manifestation will be defective. Hence it was the will of God to manifest all his attributes. The declarative glory of God in Scripture is often called God's name, because it declares his nature. But if his name does not signify his nature as it is, or does not declare any attribute, it is not a true name. The sovereignty of God is one of his attributes, and a part of his glory. The glory of God eminently appears in his absolute sovereignty over all creatures, great and small. If the glory of a prince be his power and dominion, then the glory of God is his absolute sovereignty. Herein appear God's infinite greatness and highness above all creatures. Therefore it is the will of God to manifest his sovereignty. And his sovereignty, like his other attributes, is manifested in the exercises of it. He glorifies his power in the exercise of power. He glorifies his mercy in the exercise of mercy. So he glorifies his sovereignty in the exercise of sovereignty.
2. The more excellent the creature is over whom God is sovereign, and the greater the matter in which he so appears, the more glorious is his sovereignty. The sovereignty of God in his being sovereign over men, is more glorious than in his being sovereign over the inferior creatures. And his sovereignty over angels is yet more glorious that his sovereignty over men. For the nobler the creature is, still the greater and higher doth God appear in his sovereignty over it. It is a greater honour to a man to have dominion over men, that over beasts; and a still greater honour to have dominion over princes, nobles, and kings, than over ordinary men. So the glory of God's sovereignty appears in that he is sovereign over the souls of men, who are so noble and excellent creatures. God therefore will exercise his sovereignty over them. And the further the dominion of any one extends over another, the greater will be the honour. If a man has dominion over another only in some instances, he is not therein so much exalted, as in having absolute dominion over his life, and fortune, and all he has. So God's sovereignty over men appears glorious, that it extends to every thing which concerns them. He may dispose of them with respect to all that concerns them, according to his own pleasure. His sovereignty appears glorious, that it reaches their most important affairs, even the eternal state and condition of the souls of men. Herein it appears that the sovereignty of God is without bounds or limits, in that it reaches to an affair of such infinite importance. God, therefore, as it is his design to manifest his own glory, will and does exercise his sovereignty towards men, over their souls and bodies, even in this most important matter of their eternal salvation. He has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
APPLICATION.
1. Hence we learn how absolutely we are dependent on God in this great matter of the eternal salvation of our souls. We are dependent not only on his wisdom to contrive a way to accomplish it, and on his power to bring it to pass, but we are dependent on his mere will and pleasure in the affair. We depend on the sovereign will of God for every thing belonging to it, from the foundation to the top-stone. It was of the sovereign pleasure of God, that he contrived a way to save any of mankind, and gave us Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, to be our Redeemer. Why did he look on us, and send us a Saviour, and not the fallen angels? It was from the sovereign pleasure of God. It was of his sovereign pleasure what means to appoint. His giving us the Bible, and the ordinances of religion, is of his sovereign grace. His giving those means to us rather than to others, his giving the awakening influences of his Spirit, and his bestowing saving grace, are all of his sovereign pleasure. When he says, "Let there be light in the soul of such an one," it is a word of infinite power and sovereign grace.
2. Let us with the greatest humility adore the awful and absolute sovereignty of God. As we have just shown, it is an eminent attribute of the Divine Being, that he is sovereign over such excellent beings as the souls of men, and that in every respect, even in that of their eternal salvation. The infinite greatness of God, and his exaltation above us, appears in nothing more, than in his sovereignty. It is spoken of in Scripture as a great part of his glory. Deut. 32:39. "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me. I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal; neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." Psal. 115:3. "Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleased." Daniel 4:34,35. "Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation. And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" Our Lord Jesus Christ praised and glorified the Father for the exercise of his sovereignty in the salvation of men. Matt. 11:25, 26. "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." Let us therefore give God the glory of his sovereignty, as adoring him, whose sovereign will orders all things, beholding ourselves as nothing in comparison with him. Dominion and sovereignty require humble reverence and honour in the subject. The absolute, universal, and unlimited sovereignty of God requires, that we should adore him with all possible humility and reverence. It is impossible that we should go to excess in lowliness and reverence of that Being, who may dispose of us to all eternity, as he pleases.
3. Those who are in a state of salvation are to attribute it to sovereign grace alone, and to give all the praise to him, who maketh them to differ from others. Godliness is no cause for glorying, except it be in God. 1 Cor. 1:29,30,31. "That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." Such are not, by any means, in any degree to attribute their godliness, their safe and happy state and condition, to any natural difference between them and other men, or to any strength or righteousness of their own. They have no reason to exalt themselves in the least degree; but God is the being whom they should exalt. They should exalt God the Father, who chose them in Christ, who set his love upon them, and gave them salvation, before they were born, and even before the world was. If they inquire, why God set his love on them, and chose them rather than others, if they think they can see any cause out of God, they are greatly mistaken. They should exalt God the Son, who bore their names on his heart, when he came into the world, and hung on the cross, and in whom alone they have righteousness and strength. They should exalt God the Holy Ghost, who of sovereign grace has called them out of darkness into marvellous light; who has by his own immediate and free operation, led them into an understanding of the evil and danger of sin, and brought them off from their own righteousness, and opened their eyes to discover the glory of God, and the wonderful riches of God in Jesus Christ, and has sanctified them, and made them new creatures. When they hear of the wickedness of others, or look upon vicious persons, they should think how wicked they once were, and how much they provoked God, and how they deserved for ever to be left by him to perish in sin, and that it is only sovereign grace which has made the difference. 1 Cor. 6:10. Many sorts of sinners are there enumerated; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind. And then in the eleventh verse, the apostle tells them, "Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." The people of God have the greater cause of thankfulness, more reason to love God, who hath bestowed such great and unspeakable mercy upon them of his mere sovereign pleasure.
4. Hence we learn what cause we have to admire the grace of God, that he should condescend to become bound to us by covenant; that he, who is naturally supreme in his dominion over us, who is our absolute proprietor, and may do with us as he pleases, and is under no obligation to us; that he should, as it were, relinquish his absolute freedom, and should cease to be merely sovereign in his dispensations towards believers, when once they have believed in Christ, and should, for their more abundant consolation, become bound. So that they can challenge salvation of this Sovereign; they can demand it through Christ, as a debt. And it would be prejudicial to the glory of God's attributes, to deny it to them; it would be contrary to his justice and faithfulness. What wonderful condescension is it in such a Being, thus to become bound to us, worms of the dust, for our consolation! He bound himself by his word, his promise. But he was not satisfied with that; but that we might have stronger consolation still, he hath bound himself by his oath. Heb. 6:13, etc. "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself; saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater; and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us. Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."
Let us, therefore, labour to submit to the sovereignty of God. God insists, that his sovereignty be acknowledged by us, and that even in this great matter, a matter which so nearly and infinitely concerns us, as our own eternal salvation. This is the stumbling-block on which thousands fall and perish; and if we go on contending with God about his sovereignty, it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely necessary that we should submit to God, as our absolute sovereign, and the sovereign over our souls; as one who may have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and harden whom he will.
5. And lastly. We may make use of this doctrine to guard those who seek salvation from two opposite extremes - presumption and discouragement. Do not presume upon the mercy of God, and so encourage yourself in sin. Many hear that God's mercy is infinite, and therefore think, that if they delay seeking salvation for the present, and seek it hereafter, that God will bestow his grace upon them. But consider, that though God's grace is sufficient, yet he is sovereign, and will use his own pleasure whether he will save you or not. If you put off salvation till hereafter, salvation will not be in your power. It will be as a sovereign God pleases, whether you shall obtain it or not. Seeing, therefore, that in this affair you are so absolutely dependent on God, it is best to follow his direction in seeking it, which is to hear his voice to-day: "To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart." Beware also of discouragement. Take heed of despairing thoughts, because you are a great sinner, because you have persevered so long in sin, have backslidden, and resisted the Holy Ghost. Remember that, let your case be what it may, and you ever so great a sinner, if you have not committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, God can bestow mercy upon you without the least prejudice to the honour of his holiness, which you have offended, or to the honour of his majesty, which you have insulted, or of his justice, which you have made your enemy, or of his truth, or of any of his attributes. Let you be what sinner you may, God can, if he pleases, greatly glorify himself in your salvation.
Was Jesus A Hippie?
Was Jesus a hippie?
This page goes over the subject of "Long hair Jesus".
Most pictures you see in our society of Jesus are of a pale, skinny,
stylish long hair, dress wearing wuss Jesus.
I don't think Jesus looked anything like what we have conjured up in our culture.
The Nazarite vow (Num.6) , which most people think Jesus took, was a vow of sanctification,
to set oneself apart for God.
It's ground rules were:
1. No drinking any strong drink (beer) and/or wine.
Jesus did drink wine. Actually His first miracle was being the best bartender ever at a huge wedding party (John 2:1-11, Matt. 11:19) Being a jew, jews were not forbidden to drink wine. Jesus drank! BUT, never got drunk. The Bible says He made wine to gladden the heart of man (Ps. 104:14-15).
2. You could not go near dead bodies or dead animals.
We all know Jesus went around dead bodies. (John 11:38-44, Matt. 9:18-26)
3. You couldn't cut your hair.
Long hair on men at that time (apart from a temporary vow) was considered a disgrace. For the reason of gender confusion. In that culture at that time it was shameful for men to wear long hair because it was the glory of woman. The girls wore the long hair. In our day it doesn't matter, it's not looked at as an issue. It was cultural. (1 Corinthians 11: 14-15)
Anyone can see Jesus was from Nazareth but never took a Nazarite vow. Is His time it would have been proper or normal for him to have short hair. Not saying that long hair for a guy is bad
or anything, but in that day it was looked at as shameful and gender blurring.
Jesus wasn't a wuss! He was a carpenter. His hands were more than likely cracked and dry. He walked everywhere and had to be in good shape. Something I always thought of was, He was beaten with a flagellum(whip) which at the ends had pieces of bone,metal balls, or glass, 39 times or lashes. As accurately depicted in the movie "the Passion", most men died during scourging. Jesus went through that and more. THAT'S MANLY.
Jesus was the dude of dudes. He was a Man's man.
This is what i think Jesus looked like. Normal, and Jewish.
What Race Was Jesus?
| Jesus is a real, historical person, born in the Land of Israel, during the Roman occupation, in approximately the year 3 BCE. However, at the time His name was actually pronounced, "Yeshua," and that is the name used in this article. That Yeshua was born Jewish is one of the least contested truths of the Bible. The very first verse of the New Covenant reads: The book of the genealogy of Messiah Yeshua ("Jesus Christ"), the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). Who were Abraham and David? Abraham was the first Hebrew. God changed his name from Abram (Gen. 17:5). In Gen. 14:13 he is called Abram the Hebrew. So we can see that Yeshua (Jesus) is descended from "Abram the Hebrew." Even to this day, Jews are also called "Hebrews", and the language of the Jews is "Hebrew." Abraham and his descendants were given the unconditional covenant of the Promised Land (Gen. 17:8) and the covenant of circumcision (Gen. 17:10). Abraham is the father of the Jews (Acts 3:12-25). Isaac was his son and Jacob was his grandson (Matt. 1:2). Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are known as the Patriarchs, the fathers of the Jews. Jacob's name was changed by God to "Israel" (Gen. 35:10-12) and he had twelve sons (Gen. 35:23-26) from whom come the Twelve Tribes of Israel. All of their descendants are known collectively throughout the Bible as the Children of Israel (Ex. 1:6-7). One of those twelve sons was Judah (Gen. 35:23, Matt. 1:2) and it is from his name that we get the word 'Jew'. Although Yehudah (Judah) was only one of the twelve, by 700 BCE, because of the course of Israel's history, the word Yehudee (Jew) came to mean any person descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Jer. 34:9). So, for instance, Saul haShaliach (the Apostle Paul) was of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1) yet he self-identified as a Jew (Acts 22:3). Nevertheless, according to the Bible, the Messiah must be descended from the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:10) as King David was (1Sam. 17:12, 1Ch. 28:4) and descended from King David himself (2Sam. 7:12-13, Isa. 9:6-7, Jer. 23:5-6). That is why the Messiah is called Son of David (Matt. 21:9). Yeshua (Jesus) is from the Tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). His earthly father was descended from David (Matt. 1:6-16) and His mother was as well (Luke 1:27, 32-34, 3:23-31). In addition, Yeshua was born King of the Jews (Matt. 2:2). The King of the Jews must Himself be Jewish (Deut. 17:15). His aunt Elizabeth was Jewish (a descendant of Aaron, Moses' brother) and His uncle Zacharia was a Jewish priest (Luke 1:5, 36). Yeshua was circumcised according to Jewish law (Luke 2:21, Lev. 12:2-3), and redeemed according to Jewish law (Luke 2:22-23, Num. 18:15). His mother atoned according to Jewish law (Luke 2:24, Lev. 12:6-8). He is called The Consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25) and The Glory of Thy People Israel (Luke 2:32). Jesus was born a Jew. |
Jesus lived as a Jew |
|---|
| Although He was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1, Micah 5:2), Yeshua was raised in Nazareth (Luke 2:39-40). Both were Jewish towns at the time, according to archeologists and historians. Bethlehem is just south of Jerusalem while Nazareth is north, in the Galilee section. Both of Yeshua's parents were from Nazareth (Luke 1:26-27, 2:4, 39) and they returned there with the Child when they had done everything according to the Law of the Lord that His birth required (Luke 2:39). His aunt and uncle were also Torah observant Jews (Luke 1:6) so we can see that probably the whole family took their faith very seriously. Yeshua's parents made the 140 mile (225 m.) round trip to Jerusalem every Passover (Luke 2:41) in observance of Deut. 16:16. It was at the age of twelve that Yeshua stayed behind an extra three days to learn from the Temple teachers (Luke 2:46). Although He already understood the Torah well (Luke 2:47), His attitude of listening and questioning indicates love of the Hebrew scripture and respect for the teachers. He also respected the Temple itself, calling it His Father's (Luke 2:49). Near the end of His life, He praised a widow for giving all she had to the Temple (Luke 21:1-4). In adult life, His disciples were Jews (John 1:47, Matt. 20:25-26) and they called Him 'Rabbi' (John 4:31). Mary called Him 'Rabboni' (John 20:16). They sought Him because they believed the Torah and the Prophets (John 1:45). A Pharisee who had not yet come to faith in Him also addressed Yeshua as 'Rabbi' (John 3:2), as did a crowd of people (John 6:25). A Samaritan woman easily recognized He was a Jew (John 4:9). Yeshua's disciples spoke Hebrew (John 1:38, 41) and so did He, as well as Chaldean, a closely-related language brought back by the Jews from their captivity in Babylon (Matt. 27:46). In the sermon on the mount He affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matt. 5:17) even in the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:19-20). He regularly attended synagogue (Luke 4:16) and His teaching was respected by the other congregants (Luke 4:15). He taught in the Jewish Temple (Luke 21:37) and if He were not a Jew, His going into that part of the Temple would not have been allowed (Acts 21:28-30). Although He differed with some of His contemporaries on how to keep the commandments (Matt. 12:12), He did not disagree on whether to keep them, saying such things as,"if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments," (Matt. 19:17). When He healed someone of leprosy, he instructed him to,"show yourself to the priest and present the offering that Moses commanded..." (Matt. 8:4, Lev. 14). Yeshua not only taught others how to live a Jewish life, He lived it Himself. The outward signs of this were such things as wearing tzitzit (tassles) on His clothing (Luke 8:43, Matt. 14:36, Strong's # 2899) to serve as a reminder of the commandments (Num. 15:37-39). He observed Passover (John 2:13) and went up to Jerusalem (Deut. 16:16). He observed Succot (John 7:2, 10) and went up to Jerusalem (John 7:14). He also observed Hanukah (John 10:22) and probably Rosh haShanah (John 5:1), going up to Jerusalem on both those occasions as well, even though it isn't commanded in the Torah. The inward sign of His Judaism was a circumcised heart (Deut. 10:16, 30:6). When faced with temptation, Yeshua answered from the Hebrew Scripture (Matt. 4:2-10, Deut. 8:3, 6:16, 6:13). When teaching, He taught from the Hebrew Scripture (Matt. 22:42-45). When admonishing, He quoted from the Hebrew Scripture (Mk. 7:6-13). Yeshua self-identified as a Jew (John 4:22) and as King of the Jews (Mk. 15:2). From His birth to His last Passover seder (Luke 22:14-15), Jesus lived as a Jew. |
Jesus died a Jew |
| When Yeshua was taken prisoner by a Roman captain, his cohort, and some Jewish officials (John 18:12), He was delivered into the custody of the Jewish priests, elders, and scribes (Mk. 14:53). The Roman soldiers would not have placed Him under Jewish jurisdiction if He were not Jewish. Later, Yeshua was brought before the Sanhedrin, the Jewish council (Luke 22:66). He was charged with an offense against Jewish Law (Matt. 26:65-66, Lev. 24:13-14, John 19:7). Pilate, head of the Roman occupation, also recognized Jewish jurisdiction over Yeshua (John 18:31). This was because Yeshua was a Jew (John 18:35). He unequivocally identified Himself as the Messiah (Mk. 14:61-62) and as we have seen above, the Messiah must be Jewish. He said He is the King of the Jews (Matt. 27:11) and, as we have also seen above, the King of the Jews must Himself be Jewish. The Jewish crowd also called Him 'King of the Jews' (Mk. 15:12). He was mocked, spat on and beaten by the Roman soldiers as 'King of the Jews' (Mk. 15:16-20) and when they crucified Him, their charge was 'King of the Jews' (Matt. 27:37). The place of judgment had a Hebrew place-name (John 19:13) and the place of crucifixion had a Hebrew place-name (Mk. 15:22). Joseph of Arimethea, who took custody of Yeshua's body, was Jewish (Luke 23:50-52) and he laid the body in his own new tomb (Matt. 27:59-60). Therefore, Yeshua was buried in a Jewish cemetery. He was also buried according to Jewish custom of the time (John 19:40). Without doubt, Jesus died a Jew. |
Jesus was resurrected a Jew |
| Yeshua the risen Jew told his Jewish disciples to go out and teach all the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19, Strong's # 1484). Then, after eating, talking and walking with His disciples, Yeshua, "lifted up His hands and blessed them" (Luke 24:50). What blessing is spoken with lifted hands? The Aaronic Benediction (Num. 6:24-26) is given in Synagogues and in Churches even to our day, and in the Synagogues it is still given as it was more than a thousand years before the resurrected Jew Jesus gave it: with lifted hands. In fact, another name for the Aaronic Benediction is "The Lifting up of Hands." (see Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ. Ch.XVII. A. Edersheim. Eerdmans pub.) Rav Sha'ul (the apostle Paul) tells us that while he was on the road to Damascus Yeshua spoke to him from heaven in Hebrew (Acts 26:14). Sha'ul, a Jew who was born a Roman citizen (Acts 22:27-28), was fluent in Greek (Acts 21:37) and possibly many other languages, but Yeshua spoke to him in Hebrew, the language of the Jews. Sha'ul did not become a believer until well after Yeshua's death and resurrection, yet an important part of his message is that Yeshua is a descendant of the Jewish king David (2Tim. 2:8). Many years after His resurrection, Yeshua testified that He is the root and offspring of king David (Rev. 22:16), and in a time yet future, two of His titles will be Lion of the tribe of Judah, and Root of David (Rev. 5:5). In Matt. 24:20 He told us to pray concerning the coming tribulation, that we would not have to flee on the Sabbath. And in Matt. 26:27-29 Yeshua told the disciples that He will celebrate the Passover seder anew with us in His Father's kingdom. The standard He will use at the judgement is the Law God gave the Jews. To those who do not do the will of God, He will say, "Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:22-23, Strong's # 458, 459). In (Heb. 13:8) we are told Yeshua the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever. So, if He ever was a Jew He was resurrected a Jew, and He is one to this day. He was born a Jew, He lived a Jew, He died a Jew, and He was resurrected a Jew. He is alive and Jewish now, and forevermore the same. The fact is that, although Jesus was a Jew, the most important thing is that He came, died and rose again. His message was of love. Thats what we should see about Christ. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
