NEW BLOG SITE

Vintage Jesus

Click the image for Vintage Jesus sermons.

These are some of the best sermons on Jesus. Practical sermons that sink traditional teachings about Jesus.

Reformed Beer?

C A L V I N U S
Beer from Switzerland.

Have a beer with John Calvin.

GLORY!


website here.

Eternal Security Debate. Mark Driscoll vs Dan Corner

Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church

Mark Defends Sound, Reformed, Bible doctrine of security in Christ.
Download the debate Here

The Five Points of Calvinism

There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.
The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.
Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation).
Basically, Calvinism is known by an acronym: T.U.L.I.P.

Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)

These five categories do not comprise Calvinism in totality. They simply represent some of its main points.

Total Depravity:
Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick (Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."
Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

God Stuff

Comedy Central has a show called "the Daily Show". It has a section of clips they show from all the goofiness of TV evangelists.

it's great! Here's some of the clips.




God Stuff Episode 33

Add to My Profile | More Videos

God Stuff Episode 49

Add to My Profile | More Videos




Crazy huh?

Here's some of my favorite spoof videos of tv preachers and Christianity in pop culture.











Please Excuse the "F" word dane uses in this next clip...

Under The Needle.

AN ETHICAL EVALUATION OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS


by Lorne Zelyck

This article first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 6 (2005). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org

---

SYNOPSIS

Decorating one’s body with tattoos and piercings is a recent cultural phenomenon with ancient roots. The morality of these practices should be evaluated according to their effect on the four aspects of the image of God—(1) structural, (2) functional, (3) relational, and (4) teleological.
Some within the Christian community consider tattoos and body piercings to be a desecration of the image of God on the basis that they (1) violate the believer’s conscience and God’s Law, (2) mutilate the physical body, (3) hinder unity within the church, and (4) glorify the ungodly and vulgar. In contrast, other believers consider them to be a demonstration of the image of God on the basis that they (1) exhibit artistic beauty, (2) express the free will of the believer, (3) create diversity within the church, and (4) can be a means to express spiritual truth.

Tattoos and body piercings are in themselves neither moral nor immoral. In biblical cultures, tattoos and body piercings were symbols of ownership by, devotion to, identification with, and protection by a deity or master. Depending on which deity or master these symbols represent, therefore, tattoos and body piercings either may desecrate or demonstrate the image of God. Believers who are considering tattoos or body piercings first should be led by their consciences, then should consider the effects that such symbols will have on their physical bodies, interpersonal relationships, and spiritual lives.

---

”I Didn’t Make You Like This.“ I returned home from Sid’s Tattoo Parlor to find my father standing in the kitchen with a horrified look on his face. Without saying a word, I took off my shirt and signaled for him to help. As he peeled the blood-marked bandage from my back, my father’s horror soon turned to lament. With tears trickling down his face, he sobbed, “I didn’t make you like this.” These words of disapproval from my beloved father hurt worse than the raw markings on my back. I felt rejected and didn’t know what to do, so I got in my car, drove to the edge of town, and began to pray. As my earthly father’s voice echoed in my mind, I began to ask my heavenly Father if I had made the wrong decision to go under the needle.

Tattoos and body piercings have never been as popular as they are today. I suspect many people have had experiences similar to mine—they have gone under the needle and gotten tattoos or body piercings, only to have their new “decorations” met with skepticism and wonder. Most skepticism is based on permanence and placement. Temporary tattoos and ear piercings do not usually produce concern, yet permanent tattoos and unusual body piercings can produce a negative, visceral response. Further, many within the Christian community object to tattoos and body piercings on the basis that they are unnatural and therefore immoral.

As tattoos and body piercings continue to gain popularity within mainstream culture, I believe it is important for the Christian community to evaluate critically the morality of such “decorations.” Are tattoos and body piercings intrinsically (i.e., in themselves) immoral? What is the basis for determining their morality? What, if anything, does the Bible say about these “decorations?” Does God view with approval those who are tattooed and pierced? Or does He view us with disapproval, saying, “I didn’t make you like this”?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

Tattoos and body piercings are not unique to contemporary culture. For example, in 1991, a 5,000-year-old corpse (later named Otzi) was found frozen in a glacier with several tattoos imprinted on his skin.¹ A 4,000-year-old clay figurine from Iran was discovered to have multiple ear piercings.² The Pentateuch reveals that in approximately 1400 BC tattooing and body piercing were well-known practices in ancient Israel and among its Mesopotamian neighbors (Exod. 32:2–3; Lev. 19:28). Furthermore, a remarkable number of first-century Greek and Roman writers mention the prevalence of tattoos, and the second-century historian Herodian even described the people of northern Britain as “Picts” after the open display of their body markings.³ Throughout church history, tattoos have also been referred to in edicts, councils, and personal correspondence among clergy.

Tattoos started to gain prevalence in the Unites States when Samuel O’Reilly patented the first electric tattoo machine in 1891, which was based on an embroidering machine invented by Thomas Edison.⁴ In the twentieth century, tattoos and body piercings drew the attention of the public media. In 1936, Life magazine created a stir with an article that claimed one in ten Americans was tattooed.⁵ Current estimates on just how many people are tattooed or pierced vary widely, but the Mayo Clinic reports that approximately 20 million Americans are tattooed and an even larger number have body piercings.⁶ A nationwide Harris Interactive Poll found that 16 percent of all adults have at least one tattoo. The highest incidence of tattoos was found among Americans age 25 to 29 (36 percent) and those age 30 to 39 (28 percent).⁷ Among university students, it was reported that 23 percent had one to three tattoos, and 51 percent had one or more body piercings, aside from earlobe piercings for women.⁸ According to U.S. News and World Report, tattooing is the country’s sixth fastest growing retail business, growing at the rate of one new tattoo parlor opening its doors every day. One estimate has 30,000 tattoo and body piercing artists working in the United States with at least eight major tattoo magazines being published regularly.⁹

A BASIS FOR ETHICAL EVALUATION

Does the Christian community have a basis on which to evaluate the morality of tattoos and body piercings? Yes. In the first chapter of the Bible, humankind is described as incredibly unique. God decreed His creative will when He stated, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26).¹⁰ The Hebrew word translated “image” is tselem, which means “something cut out.”¹¹ Tselem is often used in the Old Testament to describe things such as people, coins, statues, and tumors that resemble or represent something else.¹² The Hebrew word translated “likeness” is demuth, which means “similitude” and comes from the root meaning “to be like.”¹³ In this context, therefore, tselem and demuth indicate that humankind resembles God and is like Him. This similarity and likeness is traditionally called the image of God.

Four Aspects of the Image of God

Theologians have identified four aspects of the image of God in which humans were made: (1) structural, (2) functional, (3) relational, and (4) teleological. Each aspect indicates a particular trait that makes humans uniquely like God.

(1) The structural aspect of the image of God indicates that humans have the capacity to know, to reason, and to make moral decisions (Gen. 2:16–17). (2) The functional aspect indicates that humans are to operate as God’s representatives on earth by ruling over nature (Gen. 1:26; 2:5). (3) The relational aspect of the image of God indicates that humans have the capacity to mirror the unity within the Trinity through relationships with God and other humans, and (4) the teleological aspect indicates that humans are created to glorify God through making visible His character.¹⁴

Much attention has been directed toward identifying only the spiritual implications of the image of God, while unfortunately neglecting its physical implications.¹⁵ I agree with Herman Bavinck’s affirmation that these four aspects of the image of God encompass the entire person, spiritual and physical: “Man’s body also belongs to the image of God…The body is not a tomb, but a wondrous masterpiece of God, constituting the essence of man as fully as the soul.”¹⁶ Since the physical body is included in the image of God, the morality of decorations added to it—including tattoos and body piercings—must be evaluated according to their effect on these four aspects of the image of God.

A DESECRATION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD?

Traditionally, Christians have viewed tattoos as immoral on the basis that they desecrate the image of God.17 Proponents of this view say: (1) Tattoos desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they violate our consciences (Rom. 2:15) and God’s Law (Lev. 19:28). In reference to his tattoo, one Christian writes, “With my depraved and back-slidden mind, I justified an abomination to God Himself, who instructs us through His divine law not to print any marks on our bodies (Lev. 19:28).”18 (2) Tattoos desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God because they mutilate the body that is supposed to be nurtured and sustained, making it vulnerable to infection. (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is desecrated by tattoos because they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians (1 Cor. 8:9–12). Psychiatrist Armando R. Favazza summarizes: “Many people—especially those belonging to non-conformist groups—get tattoos to demonstrate their defiance of traditional authority….Many studies link multiple tattoos with antisocial personality, [and] an increased incidence of assaultive behavior.”¹⁹ (4) Lastly, the teleological aspect of the image of God is desecrated by tattoos because they glorify the ungodly and vulgar, as well as convey narcissism, defiance, and arrogance—vices that are inappropriate for Christians (1 Pet. 3:3). Jean-Chris Miller, author of The Body Art Book, supports this point by stating, “Death and darkness have always been a classic tattoo theme—skulls, snakes, demons, and spider webs are all conventional tattoo imagery.”²⁰

Many of the same arguments are used to support the view that body piercings are immoral. Proponents of this view say: (1) Body piercings desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they are an unnatural addition to the physical framework of the body. (2) They desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God because they mutilate the body. (3) Body piercings desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God because they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians. (4) Piercings desecrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are ostentatious (1 Tim. 2:9) and may indicate psychological and behavioral maladies. In her book, In the Flesh, Victoria Pitts writes, “Practices such as piercing, scarification, and branding are linked to anorexia, bulimia, and what has been called ‘delicate self-harm syndrome,’ which is an addictive, repetitive, non-decorative form of skin cutting, usually on the arm or legs. This is considered an expression of absolute hatred or anger.”²¹

A DEMONSTRATION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD?

A small minority of Christians disagrees with the traditional opinion and believes tattoos are moral on the basis that they are a demonstration of the image of God. Proponents of this view say: (1) Tattoos are a demonstration of the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are created with the ability to recognize artistic beauty and decorate themselves accordingly. Miller identifies aesthetics as one of the many reasons why people get tattoos.²² (2) Tattoos are a demonstration of the functional aspect of the image of God because humans have the free will to do what they want with their bodies (1 Cor. 6:12). Miller, again, bluntly states, “It’s your body and you can do what you like with it.”²³ (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is demonstrated by tattoos because they create diversity within the body of Christ. Amy Krakow begs for unity among humankind when she exclaims that tattoos are “just ink; body art. Not some scarlet letter telling the world we’re wanton criminals, sexual perverts, biker scum, sailors, soldiers or just plain weird.”²⁴ (4) Lastly, tattoos demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are a medium by which a Christian can communicate God’s character. A. Gell expresses the external as well as internal communicatory nature of tattoos by stating, “The inside-facing and the outside-facing skins are…one indivisible structure, and hence the skin continually communicates the external world to the internal one, and the internal world to the external one.”²⁵

Many of these same arguments are used to support the view that body piercings are moral. Proponents of this view say: (1) Body piercings demonstrate the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are able to decorate themselves in a way that they view as aesthetically pleasing. (2) They demonstrate the functional aspect of the image of God because humans have the free will to do what they want with their bodies (1 Cor. 6:12). (3) The relational aspect of the image of God is demonstrated by body piercings because they create diversity within the body of Christ. (4) Piercings demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God because they are a medium by which a Christian can communicate God’s character.

RELEVANT BIBLICAL PASSAGES

The Hebrew word qa‘aqa‘, translated “tattoo,” appears only once in the Old Testament, in a prohibition: “You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:28). Qa‘aqa‘ is commonly defined as a “cut, incision” or “gross cutting of the skin,” yet within this context it most likely refers to painting or scarring of the skin.²⁶ It is unlikely that qa‘aqa‘ refers to self-mutilation, since that concept was already referred to earlier in the verse in the prohibition against cutting one’s body. I believe the cultural context helps explain this prohibition against tattoos. During this period, tattoos signified ownership and devotion, since a common practice in Babylonia and Egypt was to tattoo a slave with his owner’s name or the name of a god. Tattooing and self-mutilation also were religious mourning rites connected with the Canaanite fertility god.²⁷

Theologian Gerhard Kittel explains the idolatrous nature of tattoos in the Israelite culture: “When a person was tattooed he became dedicated to the god and became its servant, as well as came under its protection, so that he should not be harmed.”²⁸ Tattoos, therefore, were associated strongly with idolatry and were prohibited because Yahweh’s exclusive claim of ownership and devotion is incompatible with the false-god cults.
Some rabbinical sources suggest that the prohibition was limited only to heathen, idolatrous, and superstitious tattoos.²⁹ For example, rabbis believed that the master who marks his slave so that he does not run away is exempt from the prohibition in Leviticus 19:28, and the Tosepta records a rabbinic prohibition that only forbids tattooing the name of another god.³⁰

Judging by the number of biblical references, it seems apparent that body piercing was an established custom among the Israelites. These decorations were primarily worn for aesthetic reasons, yet they too represented ownership and status. Royalty, brides, and the nation of Israel are all described as being adorned with nose rings (Gen. 24:47; Isa. 3:21; Ezek. 16:12) and earrings (Isa. 3:19; Ezek. 16:12). These decorations were worn not only by women, but also by men and children (Exod. 32:2; Judg. 8:24).

Similar to tattoos, body piercings may have had an idolatrous connotation. For example, when Jacob renewed the covenant with Yahweh, his household “gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had and the rings which were in their ears” (Gen. 35:4). Unlike tattoos that were prohibited in the Pentateuch, however, body piercings were prescribed. Exodus 21:6 and Deuteronomy 15:17 both indicate that a master was to pierce the ear of his slave to symbolize ownership and permanent servitude.

Tattoos and body piercings are not mentioned in the New Testament. In Galatians 6:17, however, Paul exclaims, “From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.” The Greek word translated “brand-mark” is stigma, which was a mark pricked, in or branded on, the body.

Similar to tattoos within the Mesopotamian culture, a stigma denoted ownership and devotion, as well as identification. In the Greco-Roman world, property such as animals, slaves, criminals, and later soldiers carried these marks. Recruits to the Roman army were most likely tattooed on the hand with the abbreviated name of the emperor, whereas criminals and slaves were marked on the forehead with their offense. ³¹

The meaning of Paul’s “brand-marks” cannot be answered with complete certainty. Historically, a tattoo was a source of imagery and exaggeration in literature. In the fifth century BC, a slave in Aristophanes’ Wasps effectively complains, “I’m being tattooed to death with a stick.” The humor seems to lie within the similarity of a tattoo to the black and blue marks left by a beating.32 Perhaps Paul was using “brand-marks” as a metaphor referring to his bruises, welts, and scars—the visible signs of the mistreatment he received as a slave of Christ (2 Cor. 11:23–29; Acts 14:19).³³

Paul’s brand-marks further served as signs of his devotion to, and ownership by, Jesus. Just as tattoos symbolized devotion to, and protection by, a god, no one was able to harm Paul—the slave and property of Jesus—and go unpunished.

Symbolism throughout the Old and New Testaments

Other biblical passages also describe literal and figurative markings and writings on the body that may symbolize ownership or devotion to a master. In Genesis 17:11, God instituted circumcision as a symbol of the covenant between Abraham and Himself. For Israel, the Shema (Deut. 6:4) was to be remembered as if it were permanently marked on their hands and forehead (Deut. 6:8). The prophet Isaiah proclaims that one day people will write on their hands, “Belonging to the Lord” (Isa. 44:5), and in reference to Jerusalem, God Himself states, “Behold, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands” (Isa. 49:16). The prophet Ezekiel describes a mark that an angel will set on the foreheads of the faithful to protect them from the sword of the avenging angel (Ezek. 9:4, 6).

The infamous mark of the Beast in the book of Revelation is described as a mark that the ungodly receive on their foreheads or hands as a symbol of their devotion to him (13:16–17). The faithful receive a different mark on their foreheads: the name of God or Christ (14:1; 22:4).

To summarize, the Old and New Testaments both indicate that tattoos and body piercings are symbols of ownership, devotion, and identification. These symbols denote protection by the deity or master to which they refer, and retribution toward anyone who harms those who bear them.

THE AMORALITY OF TATTOOS AND BODY PIERCINGS

A survey of these biblical passages reveals that tattoos, body piercings, and permanent markings are not essentially immoral; rather, they are merely symbols that indicate ownership, devotion, and identification. I believe that tattoos and body piercings, therefore, are neither intrinsically moral nor immoral; they are amoral. This is because they neither inherently desecrate nor demonstrate the image of God, though they have potential to do either. I believe that:

1. Tattoos and body piercings do not inherently desecrate the structural aspect of the image of God because they do not inherently violate the conscience of a Christian. The prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 is part of the Law that Christ has superseded (Eph. 2:5). Christians are free from the Levitical Law and are now under the law of Christ, which does not reiterate the prohibition against tattoos.³⁴ The timeless principles related to tattoos and body piercings remain: God’s people are not to be idolatrous or to imply devotion to false gods through their bodily decorations or adornment.
Tattoos further demonstrate the structural aspect of the image of God because humans are created with the ability to recognize beauty and decorate themselves accordingly.³⁵ Surely the appreciation of beauty is very subjective and beauty may truly lie in the eye of the beholder. Whatever one’s personal opinion of beauty, however, tattoos are legally considered to be art. On November 12, 1982, then governor Jerry Brown announced that tattoos are officially designated as art in California.³⁶ Tattoo artists and body piercers are also classified by the U.S. Department of Labor in the tax bracket A194—Artists, Performers, and Related Workers.³⁷

2. In general, tattoos and body piercings do not desecrate the functional aspect of the image of God. Tattoos permanently mark the body, but I do not think they can be classified with body modification or mutilation, which irreversibly alters the functional structure of the body.³⁸ Similarly, most body piercings are temporal and can be removed without causing permanent damage.

In addition, tattoos and body piercings are not proven to cause disease. During the Old Testament period, tattoo and scarification instruments were presumably a source of disease and infection. A common theme within the holiness code is that many of the laws were given to prevent the Israelites from experiencing illness. God’s prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28, therefore, may have been His gracious means of disease prevention. Current tattooing and piercing techniques, which include one-time-use needles, individual ink pots, latex gloves, autoclave equipment, and stainless-steel instruments and jewelry, have all but eliminated the spread of disease. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no data exists that indicates that exposure to tattooing and body piercing alone places people at increased risk for Hepatitis C or HIV.³⁹

3. Regrettably, tattoos and body piercings can desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God to the extent they hinder unity within the body of Christ and violate the consciences of fellow Christians. In 1 Corinthians 8:1–13, Paul exhorts Christians to painstakingly avoid violating a weaker brother’s conscience. Bible scholar David Lowery explains this passage: “Paul did not say that a knowledgeable Christian must abandon his freedom to the ignorant prejudice of a ‘spiritual’ bigot. The ‘weak brother’ was one who followed the example of another Christian, not one who carped and coerced that knowledgeable Christian into a particular behavioral pattern.”⁴⁰ The apparent principle is that Christians are to be watchful of their actions to prevent knowingly compelling a weaker brother to violate his conscience. Applying this principle to our discussion, if a knowledgeable Christian by getting a tattoo or body piercing will compel a weaker brother to do the same and thus cause the weaker brother to violate his own conscience, Paul instructs the knowledgeable Christian simply to refrain for the sake of unity.

4. Tattoos and body piercings may desecrate or demonstrate the teleological aspect of the image of God, depending on the focus of their symbolism. Since tattoos and body piercings are amoral symbols that indicate ownership, devotion, and identification, the morality of these decorations depends on their intended meaning and the deity or master to which they express devotion. If a person were tattooed or pierced simply to look ostentatious or to portray something odious and offensive, this would clearly desecrate the teleological aspect of the image of God (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3).

Tattoos and body piercings, however, also have the potential to communicate the character and truths of God to an external world, as well as remind their bearers of the truths that these decorations symbolize. Just as tattoos and body piercings symbolize that their bearers are devoted to a master or god, they also remind their bearers to whom they belong. Christians throughout history have been tattooed with Christian symbols as an indication of ownership and devotion to Christ. Procopius of Gaza, writing at the end of the fifth century, says that many Christians chose to be marked on their wrists or arms with the sign of the cross or the name of Christ. Mark Gustafson writes, “Religious tattoos were in use at the same time that institutions of political authority were using tattoos in a punitive sense.”⁴¹ In late antiquity and the Middle Ages, punitive tattooing was as frequent as in the classical Greek and Roman eras, yet orthodox Christians willingly had themselves tattooed with the emblems and name of Jesus.⁴² These examples indicate that tattoos had begun to take on a new meaning within the Christian community: they went from identifying a person as a criminal or the property of an earthly master to an expression of devotion to Christ. Body piercings likewise have taken on new meaning within the Christian community as a reminder to the pierced that Christ was pierced for them.

Tattoos and body piercings, then, are amoral on the basis that they do not inherently desecrate the image of God, but rather have the ability to demonstrate the image of God. Within the current Christian community, however, tattoos and body piercings unfortunately have had a divisive effect and consequently desecrate the relational aspect of the image of God. Unity within the Christian community is rare, yet important because it is a primary way to witness to unbelievers. Jesus prayed to the Father that all believers would “be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:23). Paul repeatedly reminds, encourages, and commands Christian communities to be united as well, since they are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26).

Is it possible that Paul’s brand-marks mentioned in Galatians 6:17 may have violated the conscience of a “weaker brother” and caused disunity? Probably not, since they were involuntarily inflicted. Someone would only discover the meaning of Paul’s marks if he explained it to them. The meanings behind tattoos and piercings need to be discussed and explained openly among Christians on both sides of the issue to preserve unity. I hope they will seek to understand one another’s concerns and make appropriate conciliations. Those who believe tattoos and body piercings are a desecration of the image of God may have their conscience strengthened by realizing the spiritual truths that these decorations can portray; whereas those who believe tattoos and body piercings are a demonstration of the image of God may regulate their freedom in Christ by not decorating themselves to look like circus performers or walking tackle boxes.

“MOM, I WANT SLEEVES AND MY EARS GAUGED”⁴³

If you are a parent or involved in any form of youth ministry, I suspect you have been (or soon will be) faced with this ethical dilemma. I recommend advising any Christian who is considering getting a tattoo or body piercing to consider how these decorations may affect the four aspects of the image of God that they bear. Some questions to consider may be:

(1) What is your motivation for getting a tattoo or body piercing? Would it violate your conscience or the consciences of your family members, friends, and fellow believers in Christ? Is it legal in your state and at your age to be tattooed or pierced?

(2) Is the parlor you go to certified and clean? Have you seen other tattoos or body piercings that your artist of choice has done? Are you prepared to have this symbol permanently imprinted on you body? How will you feel about your tattoo in 20 years? Are you addicted to tattoos or body piercings?

(3) What will your parents, spouse, or church members think of your tattoo or body piercing? Will it disrupt the unity within your Christian community? Will this decoration prevent you from accomplishing God’s will for your life? Is the decoration auspicious? Are you able to cover it up?

(4) Does this tattoo or body piercing symbolize something that is relevant to your relationship with Christ? Would it benefit or hinder your relationship with Him?

If the tattoo or body piercing (1) will not violate your conscience or the conscience of others, (2) will not cause permanent harm or disease to your physical body, (3) will not harm your interpersonal relationships, and (4) is symbolic of a spiritual truth that will benefit your relationship with Christ and your witness to the world, then I believe that it will not desecrate the image of God and you as a Christian are free in Christ to go under the needle.

---

NOTES:

1. Steve Gilbert, Tattoo History: A Source Book (New York: Juno, 2000), 11.
2. Paul Mason, Just the Facts: Body Piercing and Tattoos (Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003), 8.
3. Terisa Green, The Tattoo Encyclopedia: A Guide to Choosing Your Tattoo (New York: Fireside, 2003), xi.
4. Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book (New York: Berkley, 1997), 12.
5. Amy Krakow, The Total Tattoo Book (New York: Warner Books, 1994), 6.
6. Mayo Clinic staff, “Tattoos and Piercings: What to Know before You Go under the Needle,” May 17, 2004, MayoClinic.com, http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=MC00020.
7. Joy Marie Sever, “A Third of Americans with Tattoos Say They Make Them Feel More Sexy,” The Harris Poll #58, October 8, 2003, HarrisInteractive, http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ harris_poll/index.asp?PID=407.
8. CNN/Money, “Don’t Hide That Tattoo,” May 31, 2005, CNN/Money, http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/31/news/economy/challenger_tattoo/.
9. Margo DeMello, Bodies of Inscription: A Cultural History of the Modern Tattoo Community (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000), 13.
10. All Bible quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
11. F. Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), s.v. “tselem,” 853.
12. The Mormon view that humans bear a direct physical resemblance to God is incorrect, but it is difficult to reject based on the definition of tselem alone; rather, I reject the Mormon view of the image of God based on passages that indicate that God cannot be seen by humans (John 1:18) and that God is spirit (John 4:24). Furthermore, Israel was not to make graven images since they did not see the form of the Lord when He spoke to them from the midst of the fire at Horeb (Deut. 4:15).
13. Brown, s.v. “demuth,” 197–98.
14. I am indebted to Steven Tracy for his explanation of three different aspects of the image of God: functional, relational, and visible (which I term teleological). Steven R. Tracy, Mending the Soul (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 24–25. For a description of the structural aspect, see Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 70–71. For a further description of the various aspects of the image of God, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 445–49; and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 520–29.
15. Recently, more attention has been focused on developing a theology of the body. In his 1979 Audiences, Pope John Paul II began laying foundations for a theology of the body, repeatedly emphasizing the urgency of the task. Fifteen years later, Mary Prokes defined the theology of the body as the discipline that “reflects upon a faith understanding of the lived body and the material universe.” See Mary Prokes, Toward a Theology of the Body (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 26, 30. The theology of the body is clearly an issue that further needs to be explored and developed by the Christian community.
16. Hoekema, 68.
17. A recent phenomenon among upper-class women is cosmetic tattooing, conveniently termed “permanent beauty treatment,” where eyebrows, eyelids, lips, and cheeks are tattooed for aesthetic reasons. To remain consistent, Christians who are opposed to tattooing must be opposed to permanent beauty treatment.
18. Terry Watkins, “Tattoo: The Mark of Regret,” Biblebelievers.com, http://www.biblebelievers.com/ watkins_tattoos/regret.html.
19. Armando R. Favazza, quoted in Gilbert, 159.
20. Miller, 56.
21. Victoria Pitts, In the Flesh: The Cultural Politics of Body Modification (New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2003), 25.
22. Miller, 29.
23. Ibid., 31.
24. Krakow, 144.
25. A. Gell, quoted in Mark Gustafson, “The Tattoo in the Later Roman Empire and Beyond,” in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, ed. Jane Caplan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 25. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), s.v. “qa‘aqa‘.” Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. “stigma.”
26. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), s.v. “qa‘aqa‘.”
27. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 7, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), s.v. “stigma.”
28. Kittel, 660.
29. Gilbert, 150.
30. Jacob Milgrom, The Anchor Bible, vol. 3A, Leviticus 17–22 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 1695.
31. Kittel, s.v. “stigma.”
32. Aristophanes, Wasps, in Loeb Classical Library, vol. 2, trans. Jeffery Henderson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), line 1296.
33. C. P. Jones, “Stigma and Tattoo,” in Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History, ed. Jane Caplan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 10.
34. If this is not so, Christian men violate the Law every time they shave (Lev. 19:27).
35. Some may suggest that the structural aspect of the image of God, which allows humans to make moral decisions including personal adornment, must be governed by the functional aspect of the image of God, which opposes body modification. Many aesthetic treatments that may be considered body modifications, however, are accepted within the Christian community such as dental braces, reconstructive plastic surgery, circumcision, and hair removal. It seems more cogent in light of these to evaluate the aspects of the image of God individually.
36. Krakow, 14.
37. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Occupational Classification System Manual,” October 16, 2001, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/ocsm/comA194.htm.
38. It is for this reason that the Catholic Catechism does not prohibit tattoos. See “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” under “Respect for the Dignity of Persons,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Hepatitis C: Percutaneous Exposures in Other Settings,” June 23, 2005, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/ ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/c_training/edu/1/epidem-trans-5.htm. J. F. Walvoord, R. B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–1985), s.v. “1 Cor. 8:13.”
40. J. F. Walvoord, R. B. Zuck, and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary New Testament: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–1985), s.v. “1 Cor. 8:13.”
41. Gustafson, 29.
42. Jones, 13.
43. A sleeve is a tattoo that entirely covers the arm from wrist to shoulder, and a gauge is the increment by which enlarged body piercings are measured.

Alleged similarities between Jesus and other deities

Did Christianity Steal Idea's From Other Religions?

click here for this study.

thanks to the divine evidence.

Alcohol. - Mark Driscoll

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

Jesus Is In Miami!

Watch this. All i can do is laugh.

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----------------------------------------------------------->

Mark Driscoll on American Idolatry.

The Physical Death of Jesus

for this study CLICK HERE

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.