Do you suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused? Men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"
– Martin Luther
"Mmmm . . . beer." - Homer Simpson
Historically, God’s people have greatly enjoyed alcohol. In the European world one of the most Christian drinks was beer. Saint Gall was a missionary to the Celts and renowned brewer. After Charlemagne’s reign the church because Europe’s exclusive brewer. When a young woman was to marry her church made special bridal ale for her, from which we derive our word bridal. Pastor John Calvin’s annual salary package included upwards of 250 gallons of wine to be enjoyed by he and his guests. Martin Luther explained the entire reformation as “…while I sat still and drank beer with Philip and Amsdorf, God dealt the papacy a mighty blow.” Luther’s wife Catherine was a skilled brewer and his love letters to her when they were apart lamented his inability to drink her beer. When the Puritan’s landed on Plymouth Rock the first permanent building they erected was the brewery.
As feminism grew in America during the turn of the 20th century the women’s suffrage and prohibition movements were the practical results of a feminine piety that came to also dominate the church as more women became pastors and the church became more feminine. Some denominations began to condemn alcohol as sinful and the Methodist pastor Dr. Thomas Welch created the very “Christian” Welch’s grape juice to replace communion wine in 1869. The marriage of Christianity and feminism helped to create a dry nation that put out of business all but the largest brewers who were able to survive on near beer and root beer which explains why today American beer is largely mass produced, watered down, light on calories, and feminine in comparison to rich and dark European beers. The resurgence of micro-brews is helping to overcome the great loss and resurrect the art of brewing.
Lastly, some Christians foolishly argue that such terms as new wine and mixed wine in the Bible speak of non-alcoholic wine. But, new wine can still intoxicate according to Scripture (Isaiah 24:7; Hosea 4:11; Joel 1:5), and mixed wine refers to special wines where various wines are mixed together and/or mixed with spices and does not refer to wine cut with water (Psalm 75:8; Song of Songs 8:2). God refers to pouring out the wine of His mixed wine on His enemies which does not mean He will dilute justice (Psalm 75:8). The only time such a practice is mentioned in the Bible is in regards to merchants who cut wine with to rob customers (Isaiah 1:22). The Bible speaks of grape juice (Numbers 6:3) and if God meant to speak of non-alcoholic wine he would have used that word to avoid confusion.
All Bible believing Christians agree that drunkenness is a sin.
The Bible is abundantly clear that drunkenness is a sin (Deuteronomy 21:20; Ecclesiastes 10:17; Matthew 24:29; Luke 12:45; 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:18; 1 Peter 4:3).
The matter is so serious that no priest was to drink alcohol while performing their duties (Leviticus 10:9; Ezekial 44:21) though they could consume while not working (Numbers 18:12, 27, 30), no king was to drink while judging law (Proverbs 31:4-5), an elder/pastor cannot be a drunkard (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7), and that no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21).
Sins associated with drunkenness include incest (Genesis 19:32-35), violence (Proverbs 4:17); adultery (Revelation 17:2); mockery and brawling (Proverbs 20:1); poverty (Proverbs 21:17); late night and early morning drinking (Isaiah 5:11-12); hallucinations (Isaiah 28:7); legendary antics (Isaiah 5:22); murder (2 Samuel 11:13), gluttony and poverty (Proverbs 23:20-21); vomiting (Jeremiah 25:27, 48:26; Isaiah 19:14); staggering (Jeremiah 25:27; Psalm 107:27; Job 12:25); madness (Jeremiah 51:7), loudness combined with laughter and then prolonged sleep (Jeremiah 51:39; nakedness (Habbakuk 2:15; Lamentations 4:21); sloth (Joel 1:5); escapism (Hosea 4:11); depression (Luke 21:34); and staying up all night (1 Thessalonians 5:7).
Prohibitionists wrongly teach that all drinking is a sin and that alcohol itself is an evil.
Psalm 104:14-15 "He God makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man . . ."
John 2:1-11 is clear that Jesus first miracle was performing over 100 gallons of wine at a wedding party
Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."
Abstentionists wrongly teach that drinking is not sinful but that all Christians should avoid drinking out of love for others and a desire to not cause anyone to stumble.
Hosea 2:8 "She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-which they used for Baal."
1 Timothy 4:1-5 "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
1 Corinthians 10:31 "So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."
Moderationists rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that Christian conscience must guide each person.
Wine is spoken of as both good and bad in the same verses (1 Samuel 1:14, 24; 25:18, 37; Joel 1:5,10).
Apart from good feasting alcohol in Scripture is rightly used for communion (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18), medicinal purposes (Proverbs 31:6; 1 Timothy 5:23), and Old Testament worship (Numbers 28:14).
Proverbs 3:9-10 "Honor the Lord with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over with new wine."
Ecclesiastes 9:7 "Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart."
Psalm 104:14-15 "He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread that sustains his heart."
Deuteronomy 14:26 "Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice."
At Mars Hill Church, we ask that everyone act according to their conscience when it comes to alcohol consumption. Because of past sin, some who have had problems with alcohol may need to abstain for fear of stumbling into old sinful habits. For those who enjoy alcohol with biblical moderation, we recommend using discernment when providing hospitality for others who may have conscience or addiction issues. Best of all, we look forward to the day when our Lord and Savior will prepare for us a redeemed feast with wine:
"On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. It will be said on that day, "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him; let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation." - Isaiah 25:6-9
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Welcome to A Thousand Tonuges
Hello to all you blogger's out there.
This blog documents certain doctrinal issues and questions.
Enjoy reading. I will be updating as often as i can.
I pray that God's Word would penetrate hearts and transform lives to the glory of Jesus.
Just pick a topic to read----------------------------------------------------------->
This blog documents certain doctrinal issues and questions.
Enjoy reading. I will be updating as often as i can.
I pray that God's Word would penetrate hearts and transform lives to the glory of Jesus.
Just pick a topic to read----------------------------------------------------------->
Friday, September 7, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Can Women Pastor?
In a social climate of complete equality in all things, the biblical teaching of only allowing men to be pastors and elders is not popular. Many feminist organizations denounce this position as antiquated and chauvinistic. In addition, many Christian churches have adopted the "politically correct" social standard and have allowed women pastors and elders in the church. But the question remains, is this biblical?
My answer to this question is, "No, women are not to be pastors and elders." Many may not like that answer, but it is, I believe, an accurate representation of the biblical standard. You make the decision after reading this paper.
First of all, women are under-appreciated and under-utilized in the church. There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men. However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling. What does the Bible say? We cannot come to God's word with a social agenda and make it fit our wants. Instead, we must change and adapt to what it says.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve. He put Adam in the garden and gave him the authority to name all the animals. Afterwards, God made Eve as a helper to Adam.(1) This is an important concept because Paul refers to the order of creation in his epistle to Timothy when he discusses the relationship between men and women in the church context. Let's take a look.
"But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:12-14 -- all quotes from the Bible are from the NASB). This passage has several interesting areas of discussion, but for our purpose we will focus on authority. At the very least, there is an authority structure set up by God. The woman is not to have authority over the man in the church context. But this does not extend to the political/economic world. In the Old Testament Deborah was a judge in Israel over men. Also, in the New Testament, Phoebe played an important role in the church at Cenchrea (Romans 16). There is no doubt that women supported Paul in many areas and were great helpers in the church (Act 2:17; 18:24; 21:8). But what Paul is speaking of in 1 Tim. 2 is the relationship between men and women in the church structure, not in a social or political context.
When we look further at Paul's teachings we see that the bishop/overseer is to be the husband of one wife (1 Tim. 3:2) who manages his household well and has a good reputation (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 7). Deacons must be "men of dignity"(1 Tim. 3:8). Paul then speaks of women in verse 11 and their obligation to receive instruction. Then in verse 12, Paul says "Let deacons be husbands of one wife..." Again, in Titus 1:5-7, Paul says, "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward..." Notice that Paul interchanges the word 'elder' and 'overseer'.
In each case, the one who is an elder, deacon, bishop, or overseer is instructed to be male. He is the husband of one wife, responsible, able to "exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). We see no command for the overseers to be women. On the contrary, women are told to be "dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things" (1 Tim. 3:11). Why is it that it is the men who are singled out as the overseers? It is because of the created order of God that Paul references (Gen. 1-2; 1 Tim. 2:12-14). This is not merely a social custom that fell away with ancient Israel.
Additionally, in the Old Testament in over 700 mentions of priests, every single one was a male. There is not one instance of a female priest. This is significant because priests were ordained by God to hold a very important office of ministering the sacrifices. This was not the job of women.
Therefore, from what I see in Genesis 1-2, 1 Timothy 2, and Titus 1, the normal and proper person to hold the office of elder/pastor is to be a man.
What About Galatians 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Gal. 3:28).
This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.
Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law "before faith came" and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are "Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise," (v. 29).(2) The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God's grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn't matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.
This verse is not talking about church structure. It is talking about salvation "in Christ." It cannot be used to support women as pastors because that isn't what it is talking about. Instead, to find out about church structure and leadership, you need to go to those passages that talk about it: 1 Timothy 2 and Titus 1.
Being a Pastor or Elder is to be in Authority
God is a God of order and balance. He has established order within the family (Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-21 ) and the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14; 1 Cor. 11:8-9). Even within the Trinity there is an order, a hierarchy. The Father sent the Son (John 6:38) and both the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me," (John 6:38). It is clear that God is a God of order and structure.
In creation, God made Adam first and then Eve to be his helper. This is the order of creation. It is this order that Paul mentions in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 when speaking of authority. Being a pastor or an elder is to be in the place of authority. Therefore, within the church, for a woman to be a pastor or elder, she would be in authority of men in the church which contradicts what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2:11-14.
But Doesn't This Teaching Belittle Women?
No, male leadership does not belittle women. Jesus was given his authority by God the Father (Matt. 28:18). He was sent by God (John 6:38). He said the Father was greater than He (John 14:28). Did this belittle Jesus? Of course not. Women are of great value in the church and need to be used more and more according to the gifts given them.
Does the wife's submission to the husband mean that she is less than the husband, less important, or belittled? Again, not at all. Not having a place of leadership in the church does not mean a woman is less of a person, less important to God, or inferior. All are equal before God whether it be Jew, Gentile, free, slave, male, or female. But in the church, God has set up an order the same way he set one up in the family. The chain of command is Jesus, the man, the wife, and the children.
What About Women Who Say They are Called By God to Be Pastors?
There are women pastors in the world who love their congregations and have stated that they are called by God to be pastors. Of course, I cannot agree with this considering the previous analysis of the biblical position. Instead, I believe they have usurped the position of men and gone against the norm of scriptural revelation. Additionally, those who state that they are called by God because of the great job they are doing and the gifting they have received are basing their theology upon experience and not scripture.
The issue is simple: are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?
What About a Missionary Woman Who Establishes a Church?
Scripture establishes the norm. As Christians we apply what we learn from the word, to the situations at hand. So, what about the situation where a woman missionary has converted a group of people, say in the jungle somewhere, and she has established a church? In that church, she is then functioning as a pastor and teacher having authority over men in the church. Should she not do this?
First of all, she should not be out there alone. She should be with her husband or, at the very least, under the oversight of a church body in the presence of other women and men. Missionary work is not a lone endeavor to be handled by single women.
Second, if in some highly unusual set of circumstances there is a woman in a lone situation, it is far more important that the word of God be preached and the gospel of salvation go forth to the lost than not. Whether it be male or female, let the gospel be spoken. However, I would say that as soon as there is/are males mature enough to handle eldership, that she should then establish the proper order of the church as revealed in scripture and thereby, show her submission to it.
Does this also mean that women shouldn't wear jewelry?
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; 10 but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness. 11 Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," (1 Tim. 2:9-13).
Some argue that if we are to forbid women to be elders then the context of 1 Tim. 2:9-13 demands that we require women to no have braided hair, wear gold, or have costly garments. Since no one wants to put that sort of a demand on a woman (since it is cultural), then why should we also demand that they not be elders since it would logically follow that it was also a culturally based admonition?
The problem here is that multifaceted. First, the objection ignore what the scriptures plainly teach about the elder being the husband of one wife. Second, it fails to address the real issue of biblical headship residing in the male. Third, it fails to properly exegete the scripture in question.
In 1 Tim. 2:9-13 Paul tells us that women should be modestly dressed. He uses the example of then present day adornment as an example of what not to do, definitely culturally based assessment by Paul. Notice that Paul emphasizes good works and godliness as a qualifier (as does Peter, see 1 Pet. 3:2). This is not a doctrinal statement tied to anything other than being a godly woman in appearance as well as attitude.
In verse 11, Paul says that a woman should quietly receive instruction. Please note that "The word, heµsychia, translated “quietness” in 1 Timothy 2:11 and silent in verse 12, does not mean complete silence or no talking. It is clearly used elsewhere (Acts 22:2; 2 Thes. 3:12) to mean “settled down, undisturbed, not unruly. A different word (sigaoµ) means “to be silent, to say nothing” (cf. Luke 18:39; 1 Cor. 14:34).”3 Paul is advocating orderliness in this verse.
Then in verse 12-13, Paul says, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve." Notice that Paul directly relates the authority issue with the created order. He does not do this with the woman's dress code. Therefore, the dress code can be seen as cultural and the authority issue as doctrinal since the later is tied to the creation order and the dress code and authority issue are not, especially since they are separated by the conjunction "but" which is showing contrast, i.e., here we have one thing, but over here we have another. Also, Paul was speaking in the context of modesty, and at that time in corinth, prostitutes would wear braided hair with lots of gold jewelry to attract customers. It was a cutural statement.
1st Corinthians 14
Paul's epistle to the corinthian church. Prophecy and Tongues.starting in vrs.1
a. Pursue love: Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has brilliantly declared the preeminence of love for Christians in 1 Corinthians 13. Now, since love is the greatest, we must pursue it.
b. Desire spiritual gifts: There was nothing wrong with the Corinthian Christian’s desire for spiritual gifts. But they had made a godly desire into an obsessive pursuit, when the only pursuit for Christians is to be love.
c. Especially that you may prophesy: In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul spoke of prophecy and the gift of tongues only in the context of the other gifts of the Spirit. Now, he will focus on the gifts of prophecy and tongues, and how they should function in church body life. Obviously, in the Corinthian church, there was an over-emphasis on tongues, and an under-emphasis on prophecy.
d. What does it mean for someone to prophesy? Many who believe miraculous gifts are no longer given by God regard prophecy as simply “inspired preaching,” and not “inspired” in a direct way.
i. Paul will tell us much more about prophecy in this chapter. Yet, we know he does not mean prophecy is identical to preaching, because there was a Greek word available for “preaching” (kerusso), and Paul did not use this Greek word.
ii. “Preaching is essentially a merging of the gifts of teaching and exhortation, prophecy has the primary elements of prediction and revelation.” (Farnell, cited in Kistemaker)
2. (2-3) Prophecy and tongues contrast in whom they are speaking to.
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.
a. He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God: With the gift of tongues, the speaker is addressing God, not men. Disregard of this verse leads to one of the most significant misunderstandings regarding the gift of tongues, believing tongues is a supernatural way to communicate “man to man” instead of “man to God.”
i. If we misunderstand this, we misunderstand Acts 2 and think the disciples were preaching to the crowd in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Instead, they were speaking to God and the multi-national crowd overheard their praises to God. Acts 2:11 says, we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. Later, Acts 10:46 describes the hearing of the gift of tongues: they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.
ii. If we misunderstand this, we misunderstand what is really happening when someone attempts to interpret a tongue and addresses his or her message to men. A true interpretation of the gift of tongues will be addressed to God, not men. It will be a prayer, a praise, or some other communication to God.
iii. If we misunderstand this, we can be led to believe the gift of tongues is just the ability to speak another language, and all Paul is speaking about here is interpreting the preacher’s sermon in someone’s native tongue. But no one needs to interpret the preacher’s sermon to God!
iv. If we misunderstand this, we can misuse the gift of tongues, using it in a way that draws unnecessary attention to ourselves. God does not give anyone the gift of tongues for the direct sake of others (though indirectly others are edified), but for that believer and God alone.
b. He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God: Because this simple statement is so devastating to the idea that tongues is just a human language spoken for human benefit, many of those who believe the miraculous gifts have passed have trouble with this verse. Some have even tried to claim Paul is speaking sarcastically here, and is criticizing the Corinthian Christians for using the gift of tongues to speak to God instead of men.
i. Paul uses plenty of sarcasm in the Corinthian letters, but certainly not here. If we can say Paul means the exact opposite of the plain meaning of the words here, we are on dangerous ground. Why not apply the same interpretive principle (“he really means the opposite of what he seems to be saying”) to other passages of Scripture?
c. For no one understands him: Paul recognized that normally, when someone spoke in tongues, no one else could understand him. The reason is simple: with the gift of tongues, the intention is to speak to God and not man. Therefore, it is fine if no one understands him.
i. The exception to no one understands him is when the tongue is publicly interpreted. Even then, it is not the tongue itself that is understood, but the interpretation of the tongue.
d. In the spirit he speaks mysteries: When the tongues speaker can not be understood, it does not mean it isn’t really language, or that they are merely speaking “gibberish.” It means they are speaking in the spirit and that they speak mysteries.
i. Many have done linguistic analysis of people speaking in tongues and have “concluded” they are not speaking a “real” language, but just jabbering in gibberish. Of course it sounds like nonsense to human ears, because it was never intended for human ears. We should expect it to sound like nonsense, because Paul plainly says, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
ii. However, this does not mean that all intelligible speech is the legitimate gift of tongues. Some, not understanding the gift, may imitate it, or fake it, just to “prove” something.
iii. Does in the spirit refer to the speaker’s spirit, or to the Holy Spirit? It could be either one, because both are true. The translators of the New King James Version believe it to be the speaker’s spirit, because they used a lower-case “s” in spirit.
e. But he who prophesies speaks . . . to men: In contrast to the gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy is directed to men. It is God speaking supernaturally (often “naturally supernaturally”) through people to people.
f. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men: Not only is the gift of prophecy directed towards men, it is also largely positive in its character. Often, when a “negative” word is spoken, it is not truly a word from God at all, or it is a word meant only for the individual, not for someone else.
i. Edification is “building up.” It is a construction term, and speaks our being “built up” in the Lord. A word of prophecy will build someone up, not tear him or her down.
ii. Exhortation is encouragement. It is like the speech from the coach in the locker room, rallying the team to go out and perform as they have been trained to perform. A word of prophecy will encourage someone, not discourage him or her.
iii. Comfort has the idea of not only consoling, but also strengthening. It doesn’t just cry with someone hurting, it puts its arms around them and strengthens them to carry the load. A word of prophecy will strengthen, not weaken someone.
3. (4-5) Prophecy and tongues contrast in whom they edify.
He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
a. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself: Some have wrongly thought Paul says this as a criticism. Their idea is “you selfish Corinthian Christians! You are using tongues to only edifying yourself, when you should use it to edify others!” This is wrong. Paul is simply stating the nature of the gift of tongues. Since he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, it follows that it is a gift for self-edification, not church edification.
b. He who prophesies edifies the church: Because prophecy can be understood by all, a true word of prophecy builds up everyone.
c. I wish you all spoke with tongues: Paul was positive about the gift of tongues! Because of the tone of this chapter, it is easy to think he was “down” on the gift of tongues. Not at all; Paul valued the gift of tongues in his own life (I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all, 1 Corinthians 14:18), and wanted other Christians to speak with tongues.
i. Why did Paul wish you all spoke with tongues? No doubt, because he knew the value of it in his own life. Paul was able, when in the spirit he speaks mysteries, to unburden his soul before God in a way going beyond human language and intellect. He could pray, praise, and intercede beyond his ability to understand and articulate. Paul wanted every Christian to know this same blessing!
d. But even more that you prophesied: As good as the gift of tongues is, Paul sees the gift of prophecy as better for the church as a whole. Why? Because He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. And the focus here is clearly, that the church may receive edification.
i. Paul’s context in 1 Corinthians 14 is more focused on what the Corinthian Christians do when they come together as a church, than on what they do in their own devotional life. There are things that are fine for a Christian to do in their own devotional life, which may be disruptive, annoying, or self-exalting for a Christian to do in a church meeting. The gift of tongues is one of those things. So, since Paul is focusing on when the Corinthian Christian comes together as a church, it is clear why he regards the gift of prophecy as greater.
ii. However, if one were to ask Paul, “Which is greater for one’s devotional life: the gift of tongues or the gift of prophecy?” He would no doubt say “the gift of tongues,” because who do you prophecy to when you are alone with the Lord in your prayer closet?
4. (6) In Paul’s ministry, he spoke so all could profit.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?
a. If I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you: Paul recognized the gift of tongues was valuable for himself (I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all, 1 Corinthians 14:18). But it was not valuable for him to speak to others with the gift of tongues. They could not understand him, so they could not be edified.
b. Unless I speak to you either by a revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? Here, Paul describes different ways he might communicate which would be edifying to others.
i. Revelation: Paul may be speaking of his own awareness that he was being uniquely inspired as an apostle. There may have been times when Paul knew, with apostolic authority, His words were directly and infallibly from God.
ii. Knowledge: Paul may be speaking of his own knowledge, or by supernatural knowledge given by the Holy Spirit. Whichever, the knowledge would be communicated in the language common to all, so all could profit.
iii. Prophesying: Paul knew he could speak by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with a sense his thoughts and words were being guided and blessed by the Holy Spirit.
iv. Teaching: Paul could also profit others by speaking to them from the Scriptures themselves, teaching them as was his pattern in the churches he founded (Acts 15:35, 18:11, 28:31).
5. (7-9) Examples demonstrating the importance of speaking so all can profit.
Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
a. Unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? Musical instruments must use a certain pitch and beat to communicate a song. If they do not, the music is not accessible to the listener. Sounds are coming forth, but they cannot be understood. The same is true for a trumpet that makes an uncertain sound. It is of no profit for others.
i. It may feel good for a child to bang on a piano, and they may like the sound. But for anyone else, it is unpleasant. Even so, someone communicating to God with the gift of tongues may be blessed, but no one else is. Therefore, if someone is going make an uncertain sound (speak in tongues unto God), let them do so unto themselves, and not among others.
b. For you will be speaking into the air: Speaking in tongues at a meeting of the church benefits no one else; it is simply putting sounds into the air, not into the minds and hearts of others.
i. It may satisfy a curiosity to hear someone else speak in tongues, but it does not edify spiritually. We may think it is “neat” to hear others speak in tongues, but that is more of a soulish curiosity than a spiritual edification.
6. (10-11) All languages can be understood if one knows the meaning.
There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.
a. None of them is without significance: Language itself is a gift from God. We can communicate with language because we are made in the image of God.
b. Modern linguists know man could not have invented language, any more than our circulatory system was created. Most modern linguists believe language is so unique, apart from God, it “must” have been part of a unique evolutionary process.
i. Language could not be the product of man putting together sounds all by himself. For example, there are many universal human sounds (like the “raspberry” sound) which are not part of any human language. If man invented language on his own, it would make sense for some language to use that sound.
ii. Language is so complex because languages exist as whole systems, not as small parts put together. And, most modern linguists believe all languages come from one original language.
c. Knowing language is a gift from God, and all languages have meaning, we can trust that if we speak in the gift of tongues, God understands, even if no one else – including ourselves – can.
7. (12-14) Why the nature of the gift of tongues makes it less usable for edifying the whole church.
Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
a. Let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel: The goal must be mutual benefit at church meetings. So, if there must be tongues, there must be interpretation, so there can be edification.
i. If tongues are directed to God, how can a legitimate interpretation be edifying to others? The same way our reading of Psalms can edify. The prayer, or praise, or plea of another unto God can identify powerfully with our own heart before God, and we can agree with what another says to God.
b. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret: Here, Paul points to a way of giving the interpretation of the tongue, without necessarily speaking forth the tongue itself. Here, he suggests the tongues speaker himself pray that he may interpret. Then, the uncertain sound mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14:8 need never be public, yet the whole church is edified by the interpretation of the tongue.
c. My spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful: Speaking in tongues is communication with God on a spiritual level, by-passing our understanding. My understanding does not benefit when I speak in tongues (is unfruitful), but my spirit prays.
i. In saying my spirit prays, Paul again is emphasizing the essential function of the gift of tongues: to communicate to God, not to man.
ii. For some, this bypassing of the understanding is undesirable. They never want to relate to God except by and through their understanding. While we value our intellect and understanding, and while we dedicate ourselves to loving God with all our mind (Matthew 22:37), we also appreciate the limitations of our understanding, and thank God for a way to relate to Him that goes beyond intellect.
iii. If someone is perfectly satisfied with their ability to relate to God through their understanding, they really have no need for the gift of tongues. But if the day comes when they desire to relate to God beyond the ability to understand, they should seek God for the gift of tongues.
iv. If our understanding is unfruitful, the how does one actually speak in tongues? Everyone’s experience may be slightly different, but generally, we can makes some observations. It doesn’t happen as one just opens their mouth and God “takes over” their tongue. It doesn’t happen as they begin to wiggle their tongue and God “takes over.” It doesn’t happen as they are told to repeat a nonsense word or phase faster and faster until God “takes over.” Actually, the language of tongues works much like languages we understand. A word or a sound occurs to our mind, and we vocalize that word or sound. In the gift of tongues, one simply continues to speak the words and sounds coming into their mind, trusting God is prompting us, and He understands what we are saying, and that what we are saying is perfectly appropriate for the moment.
v. Is it possible that one could be speaking in tongues, and without knowing, be saying the most horrible blasphemies? No, it is not possible. Paul began this whole section on spiritual gifts with the principle: Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed (1 Corinthians 12:3). Also, Jesus reminded us: For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him! (Luke 11:10-13) We don’t need to fear we will find Satan when we are sincerely seeking God.
vi. We can also remember another general principle relating to the gifts of the Holy Spirit: And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Corinthians 14:32). The Holy Spirit does not make us do strange, bizarre things. He will never makes someone shout in tongues, or speak in tongues in a strange manner, though they may do it on their own initiative. But they should never credit or blame it on the Holy Spirit.
8. (15-19) The result: when and when not to use the gift of tongues.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
a. Paul gladly proclaims: I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, I will also sing with the understanding. Paul will use the gift of tongues, both in prayer and in song, and he will use it often. Yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding . . . than ten thousand words in a tongue. Therefore, Paul’s use of tongues was pretty much focused in his devotional life with the Lord.
i. Paul here makes reference to how we can sing in the spirit. God can give us the freedom to exercise the gift of tongues in a melodic way, so it flows in with worship. However, based on the principles in this chapter, if this is done it should never be done in a way that would draw attention to itself or distract others.
b. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks: If no one understands my blessing of the Lord, if no one understands my thanks to God, they can’t say “Amen” with me. When I am gathered together with other believers, I can’t just do my own thing and say, “Well, it blesses me.” I must have a concern for others also.
i. Apparently, it was the custom in the early church to say “Amen” when someone else prayed, and perhaps during a message. “It was very frequent in primitive times to express their approbation in the public assemblies by Amen. This practice, soberly and piously conducted, might still be of great use in the Church of Christ.” (Clarke)
ii. According to Clarke, some ancient Jews thought it very important to say “Amen,” to the point where “they even promised the remission of all sins, the annihilation of the sentence of damnation, and the opening of the gates of paradise, to those who fervently say Amen.” (Clarke)
iii. There is certainly nothing wrong with an “Amen” from the congregation today, as long as it is consistent with everyone being blessed, not just the one saying it!
c. You indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified: Paul is completely consistent in his emphasis on tongues being directed to God. Just in these verses, he points out what we do with the gift of tongues: we pray, we sing, we bless, and we give thanks. All of these we do unto the Lord, not unto man with the gift of tongues.
d. So, Paul saw great value in the gift of tongues for his own devotional life before the Lord: I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all. Yet, when he gathered with other Christians, his concern was to be a blessing, not with getting a blessing.
9. (20-25) The gift of tongues and unbelievers at church meetings.
Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature. In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
a. Do not be children in understanding: In their selfish desire to edify themselves at the expense of others in the meeting, the Corinthians were showing themselves to be children, and selfishly immature. Paul points them to a higher call.
b. In the law it is written: Paul here quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. In Isaiah 28, the prophet Isaiah is announcing judgment to the people of Israel. They did not receive the word of the prophets who spoke to them in Hebrew, so now they will hear the voice of men with other tongues and other lips. The Assyrian invaders spoke a language the Israelites could not understand, and it was an example of judgment to the Israelites. “And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me” says the Lord.
c. Therefore tongues are for a sign: In the Isaiah 28 passage, tongues were a sign of judgment upon the Israelites. Foreigners who spoke in unknown tongues invaded their country. Paul is saying that today also, tongues are for a sign.
i. In Isaiah 28, the strange tongues were not a blessing, but a curse. Paul is warning, “Take heed that it be not the case now: that, by dwelling on the gift, ye forget the Giver; and what was designed for you as a blessing, may prove to you to be a curse . . . God may curse your blessings.” (Clarke)
d. Not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe: Here, the straight reading of the text presents one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. In the straight reading of the text, Paul is plainly saying tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophecy is a sign for those who believe.
i. The problem comes when we see what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25: first, that if unbelievers hear tongues in a meeting, they will not be blessed, but will say that you are out of your mind. Second, if unbelievers hear prophecy and are convicted in their hearts, their reaction may be to worship God and report that God is truly among you. So, in 1 Corinthians 14:23-25, Paul seems to indicate that tongues are not beneficial in ministering to unbelievers, while prophecy is beneficial to unbelievers. So, how then can tongues be a sign to unbelievers, and prophecy be a sign better suited for those who believe? There seems to be a contradiction between 1 Corinthians 14:22 and 1 Corinthians 14:23-25.
ii. Perhaps, Paul is saying that tongues are indeed a sign to unbelievers, but not a positive one. They are a sign of judgment, as the unknown tongues of the Assyrians were in Isaiah’s day. In this way, tongues indeed are a sign to unbelievers, but it is a sign that condemns them as they regard tongues speakers as being out of their minds.
iii. Others have thought that the real problem here is an error made by someone who copied the verse very early in the history of the Bible. For example, respected translator J.B. Phillips thinks an ancient scribe mixed up Paul’s word order in 1 Corinthians 14:22, and the verse should read: That means that tongues are a sign of God’s power, not for those who are unbelievers but to those who already believe. Preaching the word of God, on the other hand, is a sign of God’s power to those who do not believe rather than to believers. It is important to note that Phillips does not believe the Holy Spirit made an error, but a copier of what the Holy Spirit inspired did.
e. A good principle of understanding the Bible is always to interpret what is hard to understand in light of what is easier to understand. 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 seem easier to understand, because it is easy to see how an unbeliever hearing Christians speaking in tongues might say that you are out of your mind. It is also easy to see that prophecy could convict the heart of an unbeliever, causing them to repent, and to worship God and report that God is truly among you. So, while we may not exactly understand what Paul means by tongues are a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers, we know he does not mean tongues “minister” to or edify unbelievers. Tongues do nothing to bring an unbeliever closer to God; they may instead turn him off.
i. We also can understand that this is not the primary reason for the gift of tongues. They are not mainly intended by God to be a sign to unbelievers. Even assuming that is what Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, originally wrote, Paul has much more to say about the role of tongues in the believer’s personal communication with God. Perhaps, Paul is saying something like this: “If you insist on speaking in tongues in your church meetings, instead of in your own personal devotional life, the only good that comes from that use of tongues is that is a sign of judgment to unbelievers. Because they think you are crazy when they hear you speaking so, it simply shows they don’t understand the things of God and are headed towards judgment. But how much better if you were to emphasize prophecy instead of tongues, then everyone could be blessed, believer and unbeliever together!”
f. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed: This can be done through the gift of prophecy, either by an “evident” word of prophecy, or by a spontaneous word of prophecy “hidden” in the message of the teacher or preacher. Many come to a unique conviction from the Holy Spirit in this manner.
B. Applying these principles to public worship.
1. (26) A general principle to guide gatherings of the church: let all things be done for edification.
How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.
a. Whenever you come together: Paul is writing here, as in the previous portion of the chapter, of the conduct of the Corinthian Christians when they come together for fellowship and the Word.
b. Each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation: Paul sees the gathering of the church as a time when people come to participate and to give to one another, not merely to passively receive.
i. We can easily picture how this dynamic would work among the Corinthian Christians. They would, out of necessity, meet in small groups in different homes. There would be many “house churches” scattered all over the city of Corinth. As they would meet in these small groups, there would be a freedom, and a responsibility to not only receive but to give. So, one might give by reading or singing a psalm. Another might offer a word of teaching. Someone might pray in a tongue, along with an interpretation. Still someone else might have a revelation, a word from God’s heart and mind to the gathered church. In a small, home-fellowship type setting, this is how the church should work together.
The Context is love, not selfishness.
When we come together we should act like Jesus.
Love one another, let everyone be edified.
Sometime our freedoms in Christ are limited.
Thank God for His freedom, and for His restriction.
Different Races
Different races.
What is a ‘race’? How did different skin colors come about? Are black people the result of a curse on Ham?
According to the Bible, all humans on earth today are descended from Noah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-11). But today we have many different groups, often called ‘races,’ with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible’s record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, as we shall see, this does not follow from the biological evidence.
The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah’s family had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God’s command to ‘fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Modern genetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1
What is a ‘race’?
There is really only one race—the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has ‘made of one blood all nations of men’ (Acts 17:26). Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical appearance. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these ‘people groups’ rather than ‘races,’ to avoid the evolutionary connotations associated with the word ‘race.’
All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the ‘races’ are not very great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would typically differ by just 0.2 percent.2 Of this, only 6 percent can be linked to racial categories; the rest is ‘within race’ variation.
|
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or ‘white’),3 the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.
Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.
One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences arise from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let’s look at skin color, for instance. It is easy to think that since different groups of people have ‘yellow’ skin, ‘red’ skin, ‘black’ skin, ‘white’ skin and ‘brown’ skin, there must be many different skin pigments or colorings. And since different chemicals for coloring would mean a different genetic recipe or code in the hereditary blueprint in each people group, it appears to be a real problem. How could all those differences develop within a short time?
However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin—melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little melanin, we would be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments.4
In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin—the amount produced.
| ||||
This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat around them (see Figure 1). Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat—the latter simply have less.
What does melanin do? It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little melanin in a very sunny environment, you will easily suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder for you to get enough vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.
We also need to be aware that we are not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.
How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time? Remember, whenever we speak of different ‘colors’ we are referring to different shades of the one color, melanin.
If a person from a very black people group marries someone from a very white group, their offspring are mid-brown. It has long been known that when such people marry each other, their offspring may be virtually any ‘color,’ ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding this gives us the clues we need to answer our question, but first we must look, in a simple way, at some of the basic principles of heredity.
Heredity
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us in the way a blueprint and specifications describe a furnished building. It determines not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles, but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, all the information that specifies how the person will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is already present. Most of this information is in coded form in our DNA.5
To illustrate coding, a piece of string with beads on it can carry a message in Morse code. The piece of string, by the use of a simple sequence of short beads, long beads (to represent the dots and dashes of Morse code), and spaces, can carry the same information as the English word ‘help’ typed on a sheet of paper. The entire Bible could be written thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of string.
In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA. This is by far the most efficient information storage system known, greatly surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.6 This information is copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people reproduce.
The word ‘gene’ refers to a small part of that information which has the instructions for only one type of enzyme, for example.7 It may be simply understood as a portion of the ‘message string’ containing only one specification.
For example, there is one gene that carries the instructions for making hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in your red blood cells. If that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as copying mistakes during reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will often make a crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (Diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia result from such mistakes.)
So, with an egg which has just been fertilized—where does all its information, its genes, come from? One half comes from the father (carried in the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).
Genes come in pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have two sets of code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one coming from the mother and one from the father.
This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a damaged gene from one parent that could instruct your cells to produce a defective hemoglobin, you are still likely to get a normal one from the other parent which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries hundreds of genetic mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our parents, which are usefully ‘covered up’ by being matched with a normal gene from the other parent—see ‘Where did Cain get his wife?’).
Skin color
| ||
| ||
|
We know that skin color is governed by more than one pair of genes. For simplicity, let’s assume there are only two,8 located at positions A and B on the chromosomes. One form of the gene, ‘M,’ ‘says’ to make lots of melanin; another form of the gene,9 ‘m,’ says to only make a little melanin. At position A we could have a pair such as MAMA, MAmA or mAmA10 which would instruct the skin cells to make a lot, some, or little melanin. Similarly, at position B we could have the gene pairs MBMB, MBmB or mBmB instructing cells to make a lot, some or little melanin. Thus very dark people could have MAMAMBMB, for example (see Figure 2). Since both the sperm and eggs of such people could only be MAMB, (remember, only one of each A or B pair goes to each sperm or egg) they could only produce children with exactly the same combination of genes as themselves. So the children will all be very dark. Likewise, very light people, with mAmAmBmB, could produce children only like themselves (see Figure 3).
Let’s look at what combinations would result from parents who are brown-skinned with the genes MAmAMBmB (the offspring of an MAMAMBMB and mAmAmBmB union, for example; see Figure 4).
We can do this with a diagram called a ‘punnet square’ (see Figure 5). The left side shows the four different gene combinations possible in the sperm from the father and the top gives the combinations possible in the eggs from the mother (remember that a parent can only pass on one of each pair of genes to each sperm or egg). We locate a particular sperm gene combination and follow the row across to the column below a particular egg gene combination (like finding a location on a street map). The intersection gives the genetic makeup of the offspring from that particular sperm and egg union. For example, an MAmB sperm and an mAMB egg would produce a child with MAmAMBmB, just the same as the parents. The other possibilities mean that five levels of melanin (shades of color) can result in the different offspring of such a marriage, as roughly indicated by the level of shading in the diagram. If three gene pairs were involved, seven levels of melanin would be possible.
Thus a range of ‘colors,’ from very light to very dark, can result in only one generation, beginning with this particular type of mid-brown parents.
If people with MAMAMBMB, who are ‘pure’ black (in the sense of having no genes for lightness at all), were to intermarry and migrate to a place where their offspring could not marry people of lighter color, all their descendants would be black—a pure ‘black line’ would result.
If ‘white’ people (mAmAmBmB) were to marry only other whites and migrate to a place where their offspring could not marry darker people, a pure (in the same sense) ‘white line’ would result—they would have lost the genes needed to produce a large amount of melanin and be black.
It is thus easily possible, beginning with two middle-brown parents, to get not only all the ‘colors,’ but also people groups with stable shades of skin color.
But what about people groups that are permanently middle-brown, such as we have today? Again, this is easily explained. If those with genes MAMAmBmB or mAmAMBMB, no longer intermarry with others, they will be able to produce only mid-brown offspring—as in Figure 4. (You may want to work this out with your own punnet square.)
If either of these lines were to interbreed again with the other, the process would be reversed. In a short time, their descendants would show a whole range of colors, often in the same family. Figure 6 shows what were called Britain’s most amazing twins. One is obviously quite light in complexion, while the other is clearly darker-skinned.
Of course, this is not amazing at all when you do the exercise on paper, based on what we have discussed. (A clue if you want to do it yourself: mother cannot be MAMAMBMB. Also, the twins are obviously not identical twins, which are derived from the same egg—that is, monozygous).
|
If all people on Earth were to intermarry freely, and then break into random groups that kept to themselves, a whole new set of gene combinations could emerge. It may be possible to have almond eyes with black skin, blue eyes with black frizzy short hair, etc. We need to remember, of course, that the way in which genes express themselves is much more complex than this simplified picture. For example, sometimes certain genes are linked together. However, the basic point is unaffected.
Even today, within a particular people group you will often see a feature normally associated with another people group. For instance, you will occasionally see a European with a broad flat nose, or a Chinese person with very pale skin, or Caucasian eyes. Most scientists now agree that, for modern humans, ‘race’ has little or no biological meaning. This also argues strongly against the idea that the people groups have been evolving separately for long periods.
What really happened?
We can now reconstruct the true history of the people groups, using:
-
The information given by the Creator Himself in the book of Genesis.
-
The background information given above.
-
Some consideration of the effect of the environment.
The first created man, Adam, from whom all other humans are descended, was created with the best possible combination of genes—or skin color, for example. A long time after Creation, a worldwide Flood destroyed all humans except a man called Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives. This Flood greatly changed the environment. Afterwards, God commanded the survivors to multiply and cover the earth (Gen. 9:1). A few hundred years later, people chose to disobey God and to remain united in building a great city, with the Tower of Babel as the focal point of rebellious worship.
From Genesis 11, we understand that up to this time there was only one language. God judged the people’s disobedience by imposing different languages, so that they could not work together against God. The confusion forced the people to scatter over the earth as God intended.
So all the people groups—black Africans, Indo-Europeans, Mongolians, and others—have come into existence since Babel.
Noah and his family were probably mid-brown, with genes for both dark and light skin, because a medium skin color would seem to be the most generally suitable (dark enough to protect against skin cancer, yet light enough to allow vitamin D production). As all the factors for skin color were present in Adam and Eve, they would most likely have been mid-brown as well, with brown eyes and brown (or black) hair. In fact, most of the world’s population today is still mid-brown.
After the Flood, for the few centuries until Babel, there was only one language and one culture group. Thus, there were no barriers to marriage within this group. This would tend to keep the skin color of the population away from the extremes. Very dark and very light skin would appear, of course, but people tending in either direction would be free to marry someone lighter or darker than themselves, ensuring that the average color stayed roughly the same.
The same would be true of characteristics other than skin color. Under these sorts of circumstances, distinct differences in appearance will never emerge. To obtain such separate lines, you would need to break a large breeding group into smaller groups and keep them separate, that is, prevent interbreeding between groups. This would be true for animal as well as human populations, as every biologist knows.
The effects of Babel
This is exactly what happened at Babel. Once separate languages were imposed, there were instantaneous barriers. Not only would people tend not to marry someone they couldn’t understand, but entire groups which spoke the same language would have difficulty relating to and trusting those which did not. Thus, they would move away or be forced away from each other, into different environments. This, of course, is what God intended.
It is unlikely that each small group would carry the same broad range of skin colors as the original, larger group. One group might have more dark genes, on average, while another might have more light genes. The same thing would occur with other characteristics: nose shape, eye shape, etc. And since they would intermarry only within their own language group, these differences would no longer be averaged out as before.
As these groups migrated away from Babel, they encountered new and different climate zones. This would also have affected the balance of inherited factors in the population. (However, the effects of the environment are nowhere near as important as the initial genetic mix of each group.)
As an example, consider a group of people who moved to a cold region with little sunlight. Here, the dark-skinned members would not be able to produce enough vitamin D, and thus would be less healthy and have fewer children. So, in time, the light-skinned members would predominate.
If several different groups went to such an area, and if one group happened to be carrying few genes for lightness, this particular group could in time die out. Thus, natural selection acts on the characteristics already present, and does not create new ones.
It is interesting to note that the Neanderthals of Europe, now extinct but recognized as fully human, show evidence of vitamin D deficiency in that many of their bones were bent. In fact, this, plus a large dose of evolutionary prejudice, caused them to be classified as ‘ape-men’ for a long time. It is thus quite plausible that they were a dark-skinned people who were unfit for the environment into which they moved because of the skin color genes they began with. Notice (again) that this natural selection, as it is called, does not produce skin colors, but only acts on the created capacity for making skin pigment that is already there.
Conversely, fair-skinned people in very sunny regions could easily be affected by skin cancer. Thus, in these regions dark-skinned people would more readily survive and come to predominate.
|
So we see that the pressure of the environment can (a) affect the balance of genes within a group, and (b) even eliminate entire groups. This is why we see, to a large extent, that the physical characteristics of people tend to match the environment where they live (e.g., Nordic people with pale skin, equatorial people with dark skin).
But this is not always so. The Inuit (Eskimo) have brown skin, yet live where there is not much sun. Presumably they all have a genetic makeup such as MAMAmBmB which would not be able to produce lighter skin. On the other hand, native South Americans living on the equator do not have black skin. These examples confirm that natural selection does not create new information—if the genetic makeup of a group of people does not allow variation in color toward the desirable, natural selection cannot create such variation.
Pygmies live in a hot area, but rarely experience strong sunshine in their dense jungle environment; yet they have dark skin. Pygmies may be a good example of another factor that has affected the racial history of man: discrimination.
People different from the ‘norm’ (e.g., a very light person in a dark people group), have historically been regarded as abnormal and rejected by the group. Thus, such a person would find it hard to get a marriage partner. This would further tend to eliminate light genes from a dark people, and vice versa. In this way, groups have tended to ‘purify’ themselves.
Also, in some instances, interbreeding within a small group can accentuate a commonly occurring unusual feature that would otherwise be swamped by marriage outside the group. There is a tribe in Africa whose members all have grossly deformed feet as a result of this inbreeding.
Let us return to the pygmies. If people possessing genes for short stature were discriminated against, a small group of them might seek refuge in the deepest forest. By marrying only each other they would ensure a pygmy ‘race’ from then on. The fact that pygmy tribes do not have their own languages, but instead speak dialects of neighboring non-pygmy tribal languages, is good evidence to support this.
The effects of choice
Certain genetic characteristics may have influenced people groups to make deliberate (or semi-deliberate) choices concerning the environments to which they migrated. For instance, people with genes for a thicker, more insulating layer of fat under their skin would tend to leave areas that were uncomfortably hot.
Common memories
The evidence for the Bible’s account of human origins is more than just biological and genetic. Since all peoples have descended from Noah’s family, and a relatively short time ago, we would expect to find some memory of the catastrophic Flood in the stories and legends of many people groups. We may find the story distorted by time and retelling. In fact, an overwhelming number of cultures do have accounts that recall a world-destroying Flood. Often these have startling parallels to the true, original account (such as: eight people saved in a boat, the sending of birds, a rainbow, and more).
Conclusion
The dispersion at Babel broke up a large interbreeding group into small, inbreeding groups. This ensured that the resultant groups would have different mixes of genes for various physical features. By itself, this dispersion would ensure, in a short time, that there would be certain fixed differences in some of these groups, commonly called ‘races.’ In addition, the selection pressure of the environment would modify the existing combinations of genes so that the physical characteristics of each group would tend to suit their environment.
There has been no simple-to-complex evolution of any genes, for the genes were present already. The dominant features of the various people groups result from different combinations of previously existing created genes, plus some minor degenerative changes, resulting from mutation (accidental changes which can be inherited). The originally created (genetic) information has been either reshuffled or has degenerated, but has not been added to.
Consequences of false beliefs about the origin of races
-
Rejection of the Gospel
The accuracy of the historical details of Genesis is crucial to the trustworthiness of the Bible and to the whole Gospel message.11 So the popular belief that people groups evolved their different features, and could not all have come from Noah’s family (contrary to the Bible), has eroded belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
-
Racism
One of the biggest justifications for racial discrimination in modern times is the belief that people groups have evolved separately. Thus different groups are at allegedly different stages of evolution, and so some people groups are more backward than others. Therefore, the other person may not be as fully human as you. This sort of thinking inspired Hitler in his quest to eliminate Jews and Gypsies and to establish the ‘master race.’12 Sadly, some Christians have been infected with racist thinking through evolutionary indoctrination that people of a different ‘color’ are inferior because they are supposedly closer to the animals. Such attitudes are completely unbiblical (e.g. Acts 17:26, Col. 3:11), although out-of-context Bible verses are often conscripted in attempts to justify racist views (see Are black people the result of a curse on Ham? below).
-
Bad influence on missionary outreach
Historically, the spread of evolutionary belief was associated with a slackening of fervor to reach the lost in far-away countries. The idea of savage, half-evolved inferior peoples somehow does not evoke the same missionary urgency as the notion that our ‘cousins,’ closely linked to us in time and heredity, have yet to hear the Gospel.13 Even many of the finest of today’s missionary organizations have been influenced, often unconsciously, by this deeply ingrained evolutionary belief of how other peoples and their religions came about.
 |
All tribes and nations are descendants of Noah’s family!
The Bible makes it clear that any newly ‘discovered’ tribe ultimately goes back to Noah. They are not a group of people who have never had superior technology or knowledge of God in their culture. Rather, their culture (going back to Noah) began with (a) a knowledge of God, and (b) technology at least sufficient to build a boat of ocean-liner size. Romans 1 suggests the major reason for this technological loss and cultural degeneration (see ‘Stone Age’ people? below). It is linked to the deliberate rejection by their ancestors of the worship of the living God.
Therefore, the first priority in helping a ‘backward’ people group should not be secular education and technical aid, but first and foremost the Gospel.
In fact, most ‘primitive’ tribes still have a memory, in their folklore and religion, of the fact that their ancestors turned away from the living God, the Creator. Don Richardson, missionary of Peace Child fame, has shown that a missionary approach, unblinded by evolutionary bias, and thus looking for this link and utilizing it, has borne a bountiful and blessed harvest on many occasions.14
Jesus Christ, God’s reconciliation in the face of man’s rejection of the Creator, is the only truth that can set men and women of every culture, technology, people group or color, truly free (John 8:32; 14:6).
Are black people the result of a curse on Ham?
The previous discussion shows clearly that the blackness of, for example, black Africans, is merely one particular combination of inherited factors. This means that these factors themselves, though not in that combination, were originally present in Adam and Eve. The belief that the skin color of black people is a result of a curse on Ham and his descendants is nowhere taught in the Bible. Furthermore, it was not Ham who was cursed, but his son, Canaan (Gen. 9:18,25, 10:6). Furthermore, Canaan’s descendants were probably mid-brown skinned (Gen. 10:15–19), not black. False teaching about Ham has been used to justify slavery and other non-biblical racist practices. It is traditionally believed that the African nations are largely Hamitic, because the Cushites (Cush was a son of Ham: Gen. 10:6) are thought to have lived where Ethiopia is today. Genesis suggests that the dispersion was probably along family lines, and it may be that Ham’s descendants were on average darker than, say, Japheth’s. However, it could just as easily have been the other way around.
Rahab, mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1, was a Canaanite. A descendant of Ham, she must have married an Israelite. Since this was a union approved by God, it shows that the particular ‘race’ she came from was not important. It mattered only that she trusted in the true God of Israel. Ruth, a Moabitess, also features in the genealogy of Christ. She expressed faith in the true God before her marriage to Boaz (Ruth 1:16). The only marriages God warns against are same sex ‘marriages’ and God’s people marrying unbelievers.15 Return to text.
‘Stone Age’ people?
Archaeology shows that there have been people who lived in caves and used simple stone tools. There are still people who do the same. We have seen that all people on Earth today are descended from Noah and his family. Before the Flood, Genesis indicates, there was at least enough technology to make musical instruments, farm, forge metal implements, build cities, and build a huge seaworthy vessel. After the dispersion from Babel, the hostilities induced by the new languages may have forced some groups to scatter rather rapidly, finding shelter where and when they could.
In some instances, the stone tools may have been used temporarily, until their settlements were fully established and they had found and exploited metal deposits, for example. In others, the original diverging group may not have taken the relevant knowledge with them. Ask an average family group today how many of them, if they had to start again, as it were, would know how to find, mine, and smelt metal-bearing deposits? Obviously, there has been technological (cultural) degeneration in many post-Babel groups.
In some cases, harsh environments may have contributed. The Australian Aborigines have a technology and cultural knowledge which, in relation to their lifestyle and need to survive in the dry outback, is most appropriate. This includes the aerodynamic principles used in making boomerangs (some of which were designed to return to the thrower, while others were not).
Sometimes we see evidence of degeneration that is hard to explain, but is real, nonetheless. For instance, when Europeans arrived in Tasmania, the Aborigines there had the simplest technology known. They caught no fish, and did not usually make and wear clothes. Yet recent archaeological discoveries suggest that earlier generations had more knowledge and equipment.
For instance, archaeologist Rhys Jones believes that in the Tasmanian Aborigines’ distant past, these people had equipment to sew skins into complex clothes. This contrasts with the observations in the early 1800s that they just slung skins over their shoulders. It also appears that they were in fact catching and eating fish in the past, but when Europeans arrived, they had not been doing this for a long time.16, 17 From this we infer that technology is not always retained and built upon, but can be lost or abandoned.
Animist peoples live in fear of evil spirits and often have taboos against healthy practices like washing, and eating various nutritious foods. Again this illustrates how loss of knowledge of the true Creator-God leads to degradation (Rom. 1:18–32).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
