Friday, October 12, 2012

THE TONGUES CONFUSION

by Dr. Curtis Hutson
Tongues Confusion Cover

The Tongues Confusion

The Meaning of It
The Motive Behind It
The Method for It
The Misunderstanding About It



"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. " --I Cor. 14:6-9

The subject of tongues is worth study because it is in the Bible, and we need to learn how it deals with this important subject for two great reasons.

First, the tongues, or charismatic movement, is experiencing rapid growth. Seeking for a deeper experience, well-meaning and sincere Christians have been led into the movement. Due to a false understanding, thousands of believers seek for the experience of speaking in tongues in stead of for the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit to win souls.

On the other hand, many more thousands of Christians are so repulsed by what seems to them fanaticism, that they turn entirely away from any study of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. They are so afraid they will get out on a limb that they never bother to climb the tree.

I want Christians everywhere to be filled with the blessed Holy Spirit of God. There can be no great soul-winning churches, no revival, without the power of the Holy Spirit. Zechariah 4:6 states, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."

 
Now there is a second great reason for studying the question of speaking in tongues. There is such widespread difference of opinion among sincere believers that the truth of the matter should be known. Every honest Christian should approach the study of tongues with an open mind and without prejudice. Surely God must be grieved when those who love Him and believe the Bible think so harshly of one another and differ so radically on such an important subject as being filled with the Holy Spirit.
In this study I will not talk about experience; we will only see what the Bible says. If one's experience does not agree with the Bible, the experience is wrong, not the Bible. Experience is not the principle; the Bible is. And doctrine is not settled by one's experience but by what the Bible has to say.
Several years ago a popular weekly television program featured a detective. If I recall correctly, his name was Sergeant Friday. In every story a situation developed in which Sergeant Friday said to a witness whom he questioned, "Just the facts, Mister. Just state the facts." With God's help, I shall do just that. We will see what the Bible says concerning the meaning of it, the motive behind it, the method for it, and the misunderstanding about it.

THE MEANING OF IT

The word translated "tongues" in Acts 2:4 is the Greek word glossa. I have just counted 50 times in my Strong's Concordance where the word appears in the New Testament. Sixteen times it refers to a literal, human tongue--the physical organ in the mouth; once, in Acts "cloven tongues like as of fire," and 33 times the word means "language." But not one time in all the Bible does "tongues" mean a heavenly language that only God understands. It never means something mysterious nor unknown to mankind. In Acts 2 it was not a jabber but normal, human languages known and spoken by people present on the day of Pentecost; and the nationalities of those in whose language they were allowed to speak are given:
"And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. " -- Acts 2:7-11.
Notice the language of Acts 2. Verse 4 states, "They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues .... " It does not say they spoke with the unknown tongue; they simply spoke with other languages Verses 7 and 8 say, "And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Again the Bible does not say they spoke with some heavenly language and every man understood them because he was filled with the Holy Spirit. It simply says, "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" Then verses 9 through 11 list the nationalities of people whose languages were being spoken.
There are only three places in the book of Acts whet people spoke in tongues. Namely, at Pentecost -- Acts 2:1 11; in Caesarea -- Acts 10:44-46; and in Ephesus -- Act 19:1-6.
In Acts 10:46 we are told how Cornelius and hi household were heard to "speak with tongues, and magnify God." And Peter responded by saying, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" These were ne converts, and Peter suggested baptism. The tongues spoken by Cornelius and his household were not miraculous tongues. It simply says that they spake with tongues and magnified God. Cornelius and his household were members of the Italian band from Rome, and their natural language was Latin. It is possible that in the centurion's household were soldiers, slaves, servants and government officials from many of the nations of the Roman world. Could it have been that in their heavenly ecstasy they reverted each to his mother tongue in praising God?
It is a psychological truth that in moments of extreme delight or peril a foreigner will exclaim in his native tongue rather than in the language he has more recently acquired. But be that as it may, the tongues referred to in Acts 10:46 were known languages, not an ecstatic utterance.
The third historical record of people speaking in tongues in the book of Acts is found in chapter 19:1-6. When Paul met these twelve men in Ephesus, he asked, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Their reply was that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Now how could followers of John the Baptist be ignorant of the Holy Spirit, when he preached the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11)? Evidently the true message of John the Baptist had been lost as it was passed from one disciple to another; then when these misled men heard a clear presentation of the Gospel, they were baptized (vs. 5). Verse 6 states, "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
Here again the Bible does not say they spoke with heavenly languages or in some ecstatic utterance, but that they spoke with tongues, or languages. Ephesus, a great cosmopolitan city, was made up of people from different parts of the Roman world. The Bible does not indicate what languages were spoken. But it clearly indicates that more than one language was used: "...they spake with tongues" (plural). And verse 7 states, "And all the men were about twelve." It is possible that a dozen different languages were spoken, as these new Christians, filled with joy, prophesied.
Aside from these three instances in the book of Acts, tongues are mentioned in Paul's discussion of the gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:1-14) and in I Corinthians 14. A study of I Corinthians 14 will reveal that the tongues mentioned are not so-called spiritual or heavenly languages. The languages used were normal, human languages. It was no jabber, no babble of sound unfamiliar to any human ear.
In that chapter it is referred to as "an unknown tongue"; but "unknown" is in italics, which means it is a supplied word, placed there by Bible translators for the sake of understanding. The languages mentioned here are simply foreign languages unknown to those present. Verses 23 and 24 make this especially clear:
"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all."
Now, visualize the scene. A church service is in progress and people are speaking in numerous foreign languages. Some uneducated or unlearned person, as the Scripture calls him, happens to walk into the service. He hears a number of people, all speaking with various languages; it is mass confusion, so he concludes all are mad! But if the church members would speak words easy to understand, instead of speaking in foreign languages that the unlearned do not know, then the unbeliever and the unlearned man would be convinced of all.
The use of the word "unlearned," in verses 23 and 24, shows that the languages referred to were not supernatural. They could be learned by proper study. One can learn any foreign language if he studies it enough. If the languages used in I Corinthians 14 were a supernatural gift, then it would be available to the unlearned as well as the educated. If speaking in tongues means speaking in some mysterious language known only to God and not known to any group of men, no matter how much learning and education a man has, he will not understand the heavenly language. But foreign languages, known and spoken by men, can be learned. The fact that these languages were the kind that unlearned men did not understand indicates they were known, normal, human languages.
Remember, then, that tongues in the Bible simply mean languages and, in the case of I Corinthians 14, foreign languages, unknown by some who attended the church services.

THE MOTIVE BEHIND IT

I have already mentioned that there are only three places in the Bible where people spoke in tongues: Acts 2:1-11; 10:44-46; 19:1-6.
The central and most important Bible passage on the subject of tongues is found in Acts 2:1-11. First, it is important because it is the first time tongues are discussed in the New Testament. Second, it is important because speaking in tongues was on a larger scale in Acts 2 than in either of the other cases mentioned. Third, it is the most important passage because this is the only instance where we can be absolutely sure that speaking in tongues was a miraculous gift.
Acts 2:4 states: "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
In Acts 10 and 19 the Bible simply says they spake with tongues. There is no hint that speaking in tongues in Acts 10 or 19 was a supernatural gift. Only in Acts 2:4 does the Bible say "as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Now, what was the motive behind this supernatural gift on the day of Pentecost? There were at least 3,000 unsaved people present. There could have been more; but according to verse 41, three thousand souls were saved: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
On the day of Pentecost, God had a problem: 3,000 un-saved people were present. The Galileans knew the plan of salvation. They could present the Gospel clearly, but they could not speak in the languages of those who needed to hear the message. The problem God faced was language barrier. He wanted these 3,000 precious souls to be saved, but the men who knew how to present the Gospel could not speak in the languages of the unconverted. So God allowed them to speak in languages which they had not learned. They spoke in other languages supernaturally, in the words of Acts 2:4, "...as the Spirit gave them utterance."
Sixteen different nationalities are named as hearing in their own language the wonderful works of God. These Spirit-filled Christians at Pentecost witnessed for Jesus in sixteen different languages beginning with that of the Parthians and ending with that of the Cretes and Arabians:
"And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in dudaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. " --Acts 2:7-11.
When these precious unconverted people heard the Gospel, they trusted Jesus Christ as Saviour. And the Bible states in Acts 2:41, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."
The important thing on the day of Pentecost was not the speaking in tongues but the conversion of 3,000 sinners. And that places importance on soul winning, not on speaking in tongues. The tongues were secondary and incidental. They were only a means to an end; the end was soul win ning.
That is certainly consistent with Acts 1:8, where Jesus said,
"But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
It is said of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15,16,
"For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God."
To put the emphasis on speaking in tongues would be like having someone bring you a million dollars in a brown paper bag, and you dump the money into the trash and get excited over the paper bag. The paper bag was the instrument in which the money was delivered. The money is the important thing, not the bag.
The tongues on the day of Pentecost were the instrument through which the message was delivered that resulted in 3,000 souls saved. The salvation of 3,000 sinners was the important thing, not the tongues that delivered the message. Winning souls was the motive behind speaking with tongues in Acts, chapter 2.
Aside from the three instances recorded in the book of Acts, one other place in the New Testament mentions speaking in tongues. It is in Paul's discussion of the gifts of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12:1-14. Verse 10 lists, among other gifts, "divers kinds of tongues." The church at Corinth is the only New Testament church that spoke with tongues. It is never mentioned in connection with the churches in Macedonia, Achaia, Judea, Samaria, Asia, Rome or any other place.
First Corinthians, chapter 14, does not contain a list of exhortations to speak in tongues but a long list of restrictions against the practice. Paul is not encouraging the Christians at Corinth to exercise the gift but to refrain from its use. He is not giving a set of rules on how to speak in tongues but rather laying down strict regulations to restrain its use in the church.
Before giving a number of these regulations found in I Corinthians 14, I should call attention to the fact that the tongues in I Corinthians 14 are different from those in Acts 2, Acts 10 and Acts 19.
In Acts 2 the disciples simply preached the Gospel in the languages of those present. They heard the Gospel, trusted Christ as Saviour and 3,000 were saved. The tongues used on the day of Pentecost were not unknown languages to the hearers.
The tongues mentioned in I Corinthians 14 were unknown to the congregation. They were foreign languages not known by the people in the church, thus they were unknown tongues.
Now, notice several regulations Paul lays down in regard to speaking in tongues.
First, no tongues or foreign languages were to be used in the church except when people present understood what was being said.
"If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. " -- I Cor. 14:27, 28.
Second, there should never be more than two or three in any service speaking in other languages or tongues. "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret" (vs. 27).
Third, only one person was to speak at a time. Any time two or three were speaking at the same time it was clearly out of order. "...let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course" (I Cor. 14:27). If tongues were ever spoken in a service, it had to be "by course," never two speaking at the same time.
Fourth, any religious service where speaking in tongues caused confusion was clearly not of God: "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints" (I Cor. 14:33).
Fifth, under no condition was a woman to speak in an unknown tongue in the church:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to ,speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. " -- I Cor. 14:34, 35.
That is a strange statement for the Apostle Paul to make, since in I Corinthians 11:3-10 he had just given instructions how women were to dress when they prayed or prophesied in the church. Now, in I Corinthians 14:34 and 35 he says they are not to speak at all but to keep silent.
Has he forgotten what he has just written? Is he stupid? Has he lost his mind? No, not at all. These verses forbid-ding women to speak in the church are found in the middle of this chapter on speaking in tongues. He is giving regulations on the use of tongues in the church, and he says the women are to keep silent. They are not permitted to speak!
Dr. W. A. Criswell said:
    "In front of the ancient city of Corinth was the deep blue sea. Behind the city of Corinth was the steep, high Acro-Corinthus, an Acropolis far more prominent than that in Athens on which was built the Parthenon. Crowning the imposing Acropolis at Corinth was a magnificent temple to Aphrodite (Latin, 'Venus').
    "The Greek goddess of love and beauty was worshiped with sexual orgies. The temple prostitutes who were used in these orgies of worship worked themselves up into ecstatic frenzies as they followed their heathen, immoral rituals.
    "The sight of frenzied women speaking in unknown tongues in their dedication to immorality was a common one in the days of Graeco-Roman culture. Paul's abhorrence of such speaking is explicable and obvious. Paul assumes that even strangers walking by an assembly of God's people, seeing and hearing the women talking in unknown tongues, would immediately say: 'What have we here; a little colony of Aphrodite? Let us go in and enjoy the sensual pleasure.' 'No,' said the apostle, 'a thousand times no!
    When it comes to speaking in tongues, let your women keep silent in the churches. It is a shame [mark this word 'shame'] for women to speak in unknown tongues in the church.'
    "That interdiction still stands, unremoved. The hysterical, unseemly excess of tongue-speaking women in public worship is a reproach to the name of the Lord."
Sixth, Paul encourages the church to speak in a language understood by the congregation:
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak live words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. " --I Cor. 14:18, 19.
These are tremendous odds -- 5 to 10,000! This would be enough to stop the practice of tongues forever in the judgment of any ordinary fair-minded person. The practice has no, place in the church.
Recently I wrote on the margin of my Bible five reasons why tongues were not suited for public worship services.
  1. It could not be generally understood and therefore required the services of an interpreter to be of any value.
  2. It repelled unbelievers and did not edify believers who could not understand what was being said.
  3. It led unbelievers to conclude that those who spoke in this unintelligible manner, when they could have used known languages, were out of their minds; they were mad.
  4. It might lead the hearers to conclude that God is the author of confusion, since those who spoke in tongues claimed to do so by the power of the Holy Spirit.
  5. It actually thwarted God's purpose which is that His witness should be understood by all.
Why use such a round-about way to get the truth to people? God never used such means nor did the apostles.

THE MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT IT

There are several misunderstandings regarding speaking in tongues. Some say it is the evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit. Others say tongues is a prayer language and they speak to God in tongues. Still others insist that speaking in tongues is a sign of spirituality. When one becomes spiritual enough he will speak with tongues.
Is speaking in tongues the evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit? Let us see what the Bible says. There is not a single statement--either before or after Pentecost--in which the Bible speaks of the gift of tongues as the evidence or part of the evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. This is a doctrine not founded upon a single clear statement in the Word of God.
Pastor Donald Gee, a well-known writer of the Pentecostal movement, said in his booklet, Speaking in Tongues, the Initial Evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit:
    "The doctrine that speaking with other tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit rests upon the accumulated evidence of the recorded cases in the book of Acts where this experience is received. Any doctrine on this point must necessarily be confined within these limits for its basis, for the New Testament contains no plain, categorical statement anywhere as to what must be regarded as THE sign."
Those who teach that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit get such an idea from history, from books or from human experience, not from the Bible, since it says nothing about it.
There are good reasons to believe that speaking in tongues is not the evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
First, as I have mentioned, the Scripture nowhere says that speaking in tongues was the evidence.
Second, another evidence was promised. Acts 1:8 states, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
Here the Bible says that when they were filled with the Holy Spirit they would receive power to witness. That is exactly what happened in Acts, chapter 2. Filled with the Holy Spirit, they preached the Gospel and 3,000 souls were saved!
It is said of John the Baptist in Luke 1:15,16, "For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God."
Notice it says nothing about John the Baptist speaking in tongues. It does say, "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God." When he is filled with the Holy Spirit, he will be a great soul winner. If there is an evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, it is soul winning, not speaking with tongues.
Third, there are examples in the Bible of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues: Jesus--Luke 3:21,22 and Acts 10:38; John the Baptist--Luke 1:15, 16; the converts at Samaria--Acts 8:14-17; the Apostle Paul--Acts 9:17.
The great soul winners of our day are men who have been filled with the Holy Spirit but never spoke in tongues.
Then there are the great evangelists and preachers of yesteryear who were filled with the Holy Spirit but never spoke in tongues: Dwight L. Moody, Charles G. Finney, Dr. R. A. Torrey, John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, J. Wilbur Chapman, George Truett, Gipsy Smith and many, many others.
Since God gave another evidence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit, it is wrong and foolish for anyone to believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence when God says nothing of the kind.
There is another misunderstanding regarding speaking in tongues. Some who speak in tongues say it is a prayer language, basing the teaching on I Corinthians 14:2, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God." A little study here will clarify your mind. This verse simply says if a man speaks in the church in a foreign language, which no one understands, then he is not speaking unto men but unto God. Then the verse goes on to explain, "...for no man understandeth him." The Scripture does not say and does not mean that the tongues mentioned here were a language known only to God. An unknown tongue is any foreign language unknown to you or unknown to the person who hears it spoken.
If I spoke in Chinese to an English-speaking audience who did not understand Chinese, I would not be speaking to men because they would not understand the language. I would be speaking to God, since He understands and knows all languages. What God has in mind here is simply foreign languages unknown to those present but not unknown to God.
Recently in a restaurant, I sat near several people who were speaking in a language unknown to me. As I enjoyed my meal, I wished I could understand what they were saying. But they were not speaking to me since the language spoken was unknown to me. However, the language they were speaking in was not unknown to God, and He heard and understood every word.
There is no such thing as a special prayer language. God understands one language as well as the other. He is omniscient. There is no language unknown to God. He hears every conversation.
Several years ago I led a lady to Christ who knew very little English. When I asked her to pray, she indicated that she could not speak the English language well enough to pray. I suggested that she pray in her own native tongue, which she did. The tongue was unknown to me. I have ab solutely no idea what she said, but I am sure God heard every word. And when she had finished praying, a glow came over her face as she reached out to shake my hand. The next Sunday I had the happy privilege of baptizing her, and she made a faithful church member. There is no such thing as a special prayer language.
There are those who believe that speaking in tongues is a sign of spirituality. This is another misunderstanding. Only one church in the Bible ever spoke with tongues--the church at Corinth. It is clear from the Scriptures that this was not a spiritual church. Paul said in I Corinthians 3:2, 3,
"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
Here the Bible specifically says the church at Corinth was carnal and not spiritual. They were not able to eat strong meat and must be fed on the milk of the Word (I Cor. 3:2). Some of them were puffed up and offended with Paul (I Cor. 4:18). There was fornication among them: a man living in sin with his stepmother and the church openly taking his part (I Cor. 5:1). Church members were going to law with one another before unbelievers (I Cor. 6:1-8). Some of the church members ate meat offered to idols (I Cor. 8). There were divisions and heresies at the Lord's Supper, and some came to the communion drunk (I Cor. 11:17-21). Some church members denied the resurrection (! Cor. 15: 12). The only church in the Bible where members spoke in tongues was not spiritual but carnal. So, speaking in tongues could not be a sign of spirituality. Now, these closing words.
I would exhort every Christian to be filled with the Holy Spirit. You may as well try to beat back the tide with a pitchfork as to try to do God's work without the fullness of the Holy Spirit.
When you are filled with the Holy Spirit, then spend your time winning souls to Christ. The whole purpose of the Holy Spirit's coming into the world was to "reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (John 16:8). What does it matter if you speak with the tongues of men and of angels and never lead a soul to Christ! What difference would it make if you could speak a dozen languages--whether by human wisdom or by a miracle--if you never gave anyone the plan of salvation or told a sinner how to be saved?
Be filled with the Holy Spirit and win souls.

Contacting Sword of the Lord

This, and other booklets, can be obtained by contacting Sword of the Lord Publishers directly, please do not direct your queries to Roy Lister (me), though I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the subject matter of the material shown here.
    Sword of the Lord Publishers
    Po Box 1099
    Murfreesboro
    Tennessee, 37133
    U.S.A
© Copyright 1985 by Sword of the Lord Publishers

ISBN 0-87398-840-X

WHY WOMEN ARE BIBLICALLY FORBIDEN TO PREACH

There is a difference in roles of men and women. Always has been and always will be. There is an equality in our relationship to God.
Galatians 3:28-29

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.
Yet there is a difference in roles God ordained for men and women.
Two Reasons For Different Roles Are Given In 1 Timothy 2:8-15 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1. The First Reason Given: The Order Of Creation.
Paul does not go into detail, but enough is given to show that we must consider what is revealed in the first three chapters of Genesis. Male and female relationships are some of the greatest influences in human society and they are based on Creation. This is one of the reasons we must understand the Creation\Evolution controversy. If Evolution is true, we eliminate the foundation of everything the Bible reveals including the relationship men and women have with each other.
From the Creation account in Genesis, we know:
  1. Both male and female are made in the image of God.
  2. Both male and female have dominion over the earth
Genesis 1:26-28 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
In Genesis, Creation is described two times. In chapter one, there is a general account of the creation of everything. In Chapter two, there is more specific account of creation of men and women. The Holy Spirit revealed because of what happened at Creation, there is a difference in the roles of men and women today.
A. In The Creation Account, The Male Is Central In The Narrative
There is evidence of male headship from the fact that the male is the center and the subject of the entire narrative. All the action and events revolve around the man. He is the subject; all else is brought into the story in relation to him. He is the "star" of the story, he occupies center stage.
Everything else, including the woman, has a supporting role.
  1. The male is the first to be created (2:7). (firstborn)
  2. The garden is prepared for him, and he is placed within it (2:8).
  3. The male, not the female, is given the name borne by the human race as a whole: "Man" (1:26-27, 5:2).
  4. God speaks to the male (2:16); he is the first to receive divine revelation and instruction. (Just as a CEO or General uses a "chain of command")
  5. The animals are brought for naming to the male, not the female (2:19-20).
  6. The woman is made from the man, not the man from the woman (2:22).
  7. The woman is also made for the man and brought to him. the man was not made for the woman (2:18, 22).
  8. It is the man who speaks and makes a theological comment upon the woman’s creation, not vice versa (2:23).
  9. It is the male who names the female, not the woman naming the man (2:23).
The whole narrative in Genesis 2 is the story of how God created the man and provided in every way for his well-being. The man is the central character through the entire account of the creation of mankind.
When God created the human race, He placed the man squarely in the center of His creative work. The other activities recorded in Genesis 2 are all relative to the man’s existence, nature, and needs. This includes the creation of the woman. All of this strongly implies that the man is the one to take the lead in the commands given by God to subdue the earth.
B. The Male Was Created First
The creation order implies male headship. It was not an accident nor was it random chance.
The Holy Spirit revealed that the order of creation of the man and woman was on purpose and it demonstrates the headship of the male.
  • Feminist Argument: Animals were created before man, but they are not the head of man, therefore, man is not the head of woman.
  • 1 Timothy 2:12-13 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
    For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

    C. The Woman Was Created From The Man
    The fact that the woman was created from the man implies male headship. Man is the source of the woman; the woman is derived from the man.
    Genesis 2:22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
    The female’s being derived from the male does not necessarily, in and of itself, confer headship upon the male. We would not know that this is an indicator of male headship except for the revelation of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 11:3-8. In His decision to bring woman into existence out of the man, God established an appropriate and everlasting symbol of his intention for man to exercise headship over the woman and for the woman to exist in a relationship of dependence upon the man.
  • Feminist Argument: Man is from the dust of the ground. Dirt is not the head of man, therefore, man is not the head of woman.
  • 1 Corinthians 11:3-9 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
    7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
    The New Testament commentary is the decisive factor in this argument. We know it is a valid argument because the inspired Apostle Paul himself uses it. When feminists reject it, they are arguing against Paul, and ultimately against the Holy Spirit who inspired him.
    C. The Woman Was Created for the Man
    Male headship is implied in the fact that the woman was created for the man. Not only was she created from him; she was also created for him. Though the man was created first, he was not intended to exist alone for very long. God declared,
  • Feminist Argument: God is called man’s helper 16x. (Same word, "ezer" is used).
    Man is not the head of God, therefore, man is not the head of woman.
  • Genesis 2:18 Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." (NASB)
    The woman was brought into existence for the express purpose of meeting the needs of the already-existing male, and to enable him to lead a fulfilled life. The woman was created for the man; the man was not created for the woman. This is an indication of the roles of the male being the leader and the woman being the helper for the male.
    This is confirmed 1 Corinthians 11:9 and is given as a proof of male headship
    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
    1 Corinthians 11:9 For indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
    This New Testament commentary on Genesis 2:18 cannot be ignored or explained away.
    That God describes the woman as a helper suitable for or corresponding to the man does reflect the ontological equality between the sexes, but in no way does it require functional equality.
    "Ontology" - The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being. It shows that in her essential being, woman, unlike the animals, is on an equal plane with man; but it does not negate the role of subordination established by God when he created the woman for the man, i.e., for the sake of the man or as a helper for the man.
    D. Eve Was Deceived
    Does the fact that Satan chose Eve for this first temptation imply that women as such are spiritually weaker than men? Do they have some kind of inherent weakness that makes them more vulnerable to temptation and sin, as some think 1 Peter 3:7 is suggesting? (being the weaker vessel)
    Why Did Satan Choose Eve? The question of why Satan chose Eve as the object of his temptation is made all the more relevant by Paul’s remark that "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14) This text does mean something.
    Does it mean that Eve was chosen because Satan considered her more deceivable, more vulnerable than Adam? Was Eve the "weaker vessel" - emotionally or intellectually?
    The Bible does not reveal Satan’s motive for beginning with Eve. It just records the fact that Eve was the first to be tempted and deceived, and the first to sin. We are not told whether it was part of a deliberate strategy of Satan, or if his choice was just random. But the fact that we do not know for sure why Satan chose Eve does not negate the force of 1 Timothy 2:14, which says that Eve’s being the one who was deceived does have something to do with women’s being prohibited from teaching men and having authority over men in the New Testament church.
    The really significant point is that (according to 1 Timothy 2:14) it is not the transgression itself but the deception that is being held against Eve. The fact that Eve was deceived by the Devil is in some way related to the fact that women are not permitted to teach men and have authority over men in the church. We simply cannot deny this connection. The problem, though, is to explain it. Exactly what is the connection?
    It is possible that there is something inherent in women’s nature that somehow makes them more vulnerable to deception concerning spiritual matters and therefore less qualified to teach men and have authority over men in the context of the church. This would be consistent with Peter’s description of woman as the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7). Peter does not explain the nature of this "weakness," nor does he suggest that it constitutes some kind of flaw or fault in women. Whatever it is, it would be consistent with the role for which God created woman in the first place. That is to say, the characteristics that make a woman more strongly suited for her intended role in the family and church make her weaker with reference to what is required for duties of headship and leadership. Such characteristics probably have to do more with her emotional rather than her intellectual nature.
    Whatever this "weaker" nature may be, it is possible, if not likely, that this is what Paul has in mind as underlying the fact that Eve was deceived by Satan whereas Adam was not, and that this is the very same thing that disqualifies women from teaching men and having authority over men. If this is so, then the reason for this disqualification is not Eve’s sin at all. Neither is the disqualification some kind of penalty, either for her sin or for allowing herself to be deceived.
    It is simply some inherent, created female characteristic that manifests itself in susceptibility to this kind of deception.
    1 Tim. 2:13 gives as the primary reason for the prohibition the fact that Adam was first created, then Eve. In other words, the prohibition is grounded in creation, not in some aspect of the Fall. To say that what is true because of creation is also a part of the penalty for the Fall seems inconsistent. But if the prohibition is related to some inherent female characteristic which itself is related to vulnerability to deception, as the first explanation suggests, then 2:14 is also basing the prohibition on human nature as created, and not on the Fall as such.
    E. Adam’s Responsibility And Male Headship
    One other point must be noted concerning the sin itself, namely, the connection between Adam’s responsibility for that sin and the fact of the male headship that was already established in Genesis 2. Both the Genesis context and Biblical teaching as a whole seem to point to the fact that Adam, the male, bears a greater responsibility for the first sin than Eve. This is exactly what we would expect if Adam was already the appointed head of that two-member family.
    Following the sin, when God came to confront his human creatures in their guilt, he specifically addressed the male:
    Genesis 3:9 Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" Why does God first of all specifically call Adam into account for the sin? Because he is the appointed head. As the head of the human family he had the greater initial responsibility for righteousness and thus received the greater blame for the sin.
    God didn’t call both of them together, but he called the head. As the God-appointed head, Adam bore the primary responsibility for their actions. Adam held the position of being responsible for sin entering the human race even though Eve sinned first.
    The New Testament confirms this understanding. It reveals that Adam is the one who is singled out and held responsible for the consequences of the Fall for the human race.
    Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.
    Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
    Romans 5:15-19 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
    1 Corinthians 15:21-22 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.
    Why is such responsibility laid on Adam? The only thing that can explain the clear teaching concerning Adam’s greater responsibility is his immediate headship over Eve and his ultimate and representative headship over the entire human race.
    She sinned first, but Adam was held accountable because he was the one ordained by God to be the head. The relationship of men and women are not just for marriage. There is a special relationship within marriage, but the difference in roles are for all men and for all women.
    Marriage Is Not In The Context of 1st Timothy 2:8-15! Verse 15 She shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
    She is not to seek the role of the male, but role for which God created her.
    The N.T. teaches a difference in the roles of men and women. The differences of roles are based on God’s choice of creation. God chose to make men and women different and they have different responsibilities as they work together to serve God.
    1 Corinthians 11:3-9 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man... For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
    1 Timothy 2:11-14 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
    Feminism has been one of the most successful social movements in our nation. Although there have been some legitimate goals, one of the results of this movement is to influence our culture to ignore the fact that there is a difference in the roles of men and women.
    When we study the Bible, the issue is not one of equality, but of roles. The Bible teaches an equality of men and women. Both men and women:
    1. Are made in the image of God
    2. Have dominion over the earth
    3. Are joint heirs in Christ.
    The Bible clearly teaches a distinction in the roles of men and women. The early leaders in the feminist movement recognized this.
    After their views became more accepted, others have tried to interpret the Bible to fit their views. God likens rebellion to witchcraft in 1st Samuel 15:23. Women who enter the pulpit are disobeying God, openly and shamelessly, which puts them in the same boat as demonic witches.

    "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." —2nd Thessalonians 1:8

    FACE TO FACE WITH TONGUES

    A Verse by Verse Examination and Exposition On the Subject of Tongues

    Mark 16:14-20
    1. The Commission
    This portion of Scripture is claimed by the tongues advocates to support their practice of speaking in so-called tongues.  Let us examine the Verses.
    In Verse 14, we find Christ, after His resurrection, addressing the eleven remaining disciples in a reproachful manner for their hesitancy in believing that He had actually risen from the dead.
    "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."
    He then gave them this commission:
    "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (15b)
    Now, of those that believed the gospel (17), certain "SIGNS" shall follow.  Notice carefully, if you will, Christ said "SIGNS," plural; not just one sign, singular, of speaking in tongues.
    "And these signs shall follow them that believe..." (17a)
    In verses 17 and 18, five signs are given:
    1. "In my name they shall cast out devils (demons)."
       
    2. "They shall speak with new tongues."
       
    3. "They shall take up serpents."
       
    4. "If they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them."
       
    5. "They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
    The question naturally arises, "Why do those who speak in so-called tongues not exercise the other four signs?"  With thousands of sick people in all our hospitals, perhaps millions, it would be inhumane and unchristian not to visit these hospitals and lay hands on the sick with Christ's promise that they "shall" recover.  Remember, if the sign of speaking in tongues is for today; then, so are the other four!
    1. The Concern

      One must remember that the sign miracles are associated primarily with the nation of Israel.  The miracles recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were to confirm the message that Jesus was their Messiah.  If Israel, as a nation, would have received Jesus Christ as their Messiah, Christ would have established His Kingdom at that time.
    "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom." (1st Corinthians 1:22)
    The Jews required miracle signs, so Christ gave them signs in abundance.  In Matthew 10:5-8 He sent the Apostles to Israel with the power to perform miracles as signs to Israel.
    "...Go not into the way of the Gentiles ... But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.  Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils (demons): freely ye have received, freely give."
    In Luke 10:1-20, Christ sent seventy disciples out, two by two, with the power to perform miracles.
    "And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." (Luke 10:9)
    "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." (Luke 10:19)
    John summarized the miracle signs in John 20:30,31 by saying,
    "And many other signs (miracles) truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah), the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
    Again, we emphasize, these signs were to authenticate the message that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.
    The five signs given in Mark 16:17,18 were to confirm the Word they were commissioned to preach until the New Testament was completed.
    "And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and CONFIRMING THE WORD WITH SIGNS FOLLOWING." (Mark 16:20)
    Remember, the New testament had not yet been written.  One could not open to Ephesians, Revelation, or James, and etc., as God's completed revelation to man was not yet in writing.  The Book of Acts, the transition Book which chronicles the infancy of the Church Age, provides some of the record of these signs prior to the Book of Revelation.  Actually, the last miracles recorded in the New Testament took place about 58 A.D. (Acts 28:1-9).  There were many who were not healed from about 60 A.D. on to the present.  Here are some examples:
    1. Epaphroditus, (Philippians 2:25-30).  This faithful servant of the Lord was a companion of Paul (Vs. 25).  His illness may have been caused by working so hard for the Lord that he did not take time to eat properly or get enough rest (Vs. 30).  Whatever the cause, he almost died.  The point is ... Paul, who had performed miracles prior to this, was unable to heal his friend.  The miracle sign of healing was no longer possessed by the Apostle Paul.  God did not see fit to heal Epaphroditus (Vs. 27), for Paul credits God with the healing and glory.
       
    2. Timothy, (1st Timothy 1:2 with 5:23).  Paul, in his writing to young Timothy, whom he had won to Christ, said, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities" (1st Timothy 5:23).  This took place about 62 A.D.  There was probably no other person whom Paul loved more than Timothy, yet he was unable to heal him as he had others before.  Even at this time, about 34 years before the writing of Revelation, the last Book of the Bible, the miracle signs had ended.
       
    3. Trophimus, (2nd Timothy 4:20).
    "Erastus abode at Corinth: but TROPHIMUS have I left at Miletum sick."
    At about 66 A.D., Paul could not heal Trophimus; but, just a few years earlier, Paul had done the following:
    1. (Acts 13:1), Made a man blind.
       
    2. (Acts 14:8-10), Made a cripple who had never walked, WALK.
       
    3. (Acts 16:18), Cast out a demon.
       
    4. (Acts 28:8), Healed another man.
       
    5. (Acts 19:11,12), Performed special miracles.
    "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them."
    But, now, in 66 A.D., he could not heal Trophimus and had to leave him at Miletum sick.  The miracle signs had ceased!
    1. Paul, (2nd Corinthians 12:7-9).  Whatever illness Paul had, it affected his body for it was a "thorn in the flesh" (body).  Paul could not heal himself as he had done previously when bitten by the venomous viper (Acts 28:1-9).  He asked the Lord three times to cure him; but, in this case, it was not God's will to do so.  As 2nd Corinthians was written about 58-60 A.D., we can see the power of Paul to heal himself was not present.  The miracle signs had already ceased!
    1. The Conclusion.

      In Mark 16:17 we read, "And these signs shall follow them that believe..."  The signs listed in Mark 16:17,18 DID follow them that believed; but, only for a short period of time.  These signs are recorded in the Book of Acts, the last occurring about 58 A.D. as given in Acts in 28:1-9.  Now, some conclusion:
    1. The last miracle signs are recorded about 58 A.D. (Acts 28:1-9).  They had ceased about 38 years before the New Testament was completed.
       
    2. Paul, who had exercised these miracle signs, could no longer do them.  He could not heal Epaphroditus, Timothy, Trophimus, not himself from about 62 A.D. on.
       
    3. Since tongues advocates claim Mark 16:17,18 as their license for speaking in tongues, they would also have the power to perform the other four miracles.  As stated in Verse 7, "These signs (plural) shall follow them that believe.All the signs, not just the speaking in tongues!
       
    4. Most tongues advocates insist that all the signs given in Mark 16 are for today.  A minority claim just tongues are still applicable today.  To this minority, we simply refer the Scripture found in 1st Corinthians 13:8-10 where "knowledge, prophecy, and tongues" shall be done away with, or "cease," when God's written Word is complete.  This was accomplished with the Book of Revelation in about 96 A.D. (please refer to our section on 1st Corinthians 13).
       
    5. Ananias.  In Acts 9:10-18, he exercised one of the signs by healing Paul's blindness.  Why do not those speaking in so-called tongues lay their hands on the blind and allow them to see?  Recently, as of this writing, I visited a very young girl in the Cleveland Clinic.  She was blind, could hardly hear and had just come out of open heart surgery.  They could not stabilize her breathing and could do nothing more, medically, than wait and see.  Of all the tongues advocates who claim the signs in Mark 16, where is just ONE who would lay their hands on a person such as this so she could be restored to health.  Does one care to step forward?
       
    6. Stephen, (Acts 6:1-15).
    "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great WONDERS (plural) and MIRACLES (plural) among the people." (Vs. 8)
    Stephen, exercising the signs of Mark 16, did wonders and miracles among the people.  A far cry from someone today claiming tongues for a spiritual "high," but failing to empty our hospitals by laying on of the hands and the sick recovering.
    1. Philip, the Evangelist.
    "And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the MIRACLES (plural) which he did.  For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed." (Acts 8:6,7)
    Philip was exercising the signs of mark 16, not just a sign of speaking in tongues.  Why do not those who claim the signs of Mark 16 are for today , do what Philip did?  We also must note that "the people gave HEED TO THOSE THINGS WHICH PHILIP SPAKE, hearing and seeing the miracles."  The miracles were given to validate the message until the New Testament was completed.  Since we have God's completed Word today in great abundance, there is no need for the miracles.
    1. Barnabas and Paul, (Acts 14:3;15:12).
    "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what MIRACLES (plural) and WONDERS (plural) God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." (15:12)
    These miracles were: healing the sick, casting out demons, the power to escape death when bitten by a venomous viper.  These fulfilled Mark 16:17,18 completely and were not to be compared with the shallow emotionalism of the so-called speaking in tongues of today.
    The one time that Paul mentioned his use of tongues was to quench the "spiritual" pride of the Corinthian tongues speakers.
    "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all." (1st Corinthians 14:18)
    He, no doubt, used this gift on his missionary journeys when he encountered people whose language he did not know.  In 1st Corinthians 14:19,20, Paul told the Corinthian church to speak words in the church that could be understood and to grow up and act like men, not children.  Paul's only reason for mentioning his use of the tongues gift was to squelch their spiritual pride.  The, and only then, it was to convey the gospel to a people whose language he did not speak.  It was a real language, and not the shallow "jibber-jabber" that we hear today.
    Much more could be written to substantiate that the signs of Mark 16:17,18 (including tongues) have ceased, prior to God's completion of His Word.  I feel enough has been penned to convince any honest Bible student, who has a desire to know the truth, that these signs are not with us today.
    A word of warning!  Satan will attempt to counterfeit the working of the Holy Spirit in whatever way he can.  It is much easier for him with tongues to appease the flesh with emotionalism and sensationalism, than it is to heal the sick, raise the dead, keep you from dying when you drink something poisonous, or keeping you alive when bitten by a deadly, venomous viper.
    The speaking in tongues can be declared counterfeit and invalid, only if you declare God's Word to be true.  Especially as God emphasizes, "Tongues will cease when my written Word is complete" (1st Corinthians 13:8-10).  And as we have seen, the sign gifts actually were "phased out" before the completion of God's Word.
     

    A FINAL WORD
    Here are some final issues which tongues advocates must face and answer, without evasion:
    1. Pastor and Deacons.

      If tongues are for everyone, as most tongues advocates claim, surely God would have made this a requirement for all pastor and deacons.  When we examine the Word of God, we find this is not the case.  Read carefully for yourself the requirements for a pastor in 1st Timothy 3:1-7.  Now, read the requirements for a deacon in 1st Timothy 3:8-13.  SPEAKING IN TONGUES IS NOT A REQUIREMENT!  If speaking in tongues is as important as those who endorse them claim, then, God was mistaken in not requiring this of pastors and deacons who are to be the overseers and examples to the congregation.  No, God did not include tongues as a requirement for pastors and deacons, today, as it is not needed.  We now have the written, completed Word of God at our disposal (1st Corinthians 13:8-10).  God said tongues would cease, and they have!  I will stand on God's Word rather than the word of those who advocate tongues.  What about you? (Psalm 118:8)
       
    2. Grieving the Holy Spirit.

      If the tongues advocates are correct in this assumption which Kenneth Hagin has stated in one of his books, "...every Christian should speak in tongues...," would it not grieve the Holy Spirit if a Christian did not speak in tongues?  Read carefully in Ephesians 4:22-32 the list of all the things that grieve the Holy Spirit, NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES!  If tongues are for today, I'm sure it would grieve the Holy Spirit if one did not experience the so-called "gift."  Again, I will place my trust in God's Word (Psalm 118:8).  What about you?
       
    3. Acts, Chapter Two.

      If tongues advocates today dare claim Acts 2 to support their speaking in tongues, why does not everyone understand in their own language when they speak?  Acts 2 does not endorse private speaking in tongues at all, as Acts 2 was a public meeting with various nationalities present and everyone understanding in their own language.  The claim of tongues speakers today, in no respect coincides with that of Acts 2.  Which will you believe, the record of God's Word or the testimony of men? (Psalm 118:8)
       
    4. Mark, Chapter Sixteen.

      Almost without exception, every tongues advocate I have talked to has referred to Mark, Chapter 16, quoting Verse 17 in part.  When I say "in part," I mean they only quote part of the Verse or verses that endorse their claims.  Allow me to illustrate from a book written by one of the leading tongues advocates today.  He listed several reasons why every believer should speak in tongues.  Here is his quote of Scripture to support one of those reasons, "and these signs shall follow them that believe ... they shall speak with new tongues" (mark 16:17).  Now if you read only his book and did not check the Word of God you could very well be deceived.  I will now quote from God's Word all of Mark 16:17 and 18:
    "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
    My question is, why did this preacher omit and not even mention the other four signs?  The word "signs" is plural.  If you could do one sign, you could do all of them.  I would think that healing the sick would surely have pre-eminence over speaking in tongues, wouldn't you?  To pull tongues alone out of Mark 16 would be to mutilate God's Word to endorse one's desire.  If tongues are for today, so are the other four signs.  Who will you believe, God's Word or man-made claims? (Psalm 118:8)
    1. 1st Corinthians, Chapter Twelve.

      This Chapter reveals several interesting observations concerning tongues and the gifts of the Spirit.  Let us enumerate:
    1. (Verse 1).  They were ignorant concerning spiritual gifts.
       
    2. (Verse 3).  Some in Corinth, who were speaking in tongues were actually cursing Jesus by a false spirit and yet were not aware of it.  The demonic spirits were having a field day in Corinth, cursing Jesus through the speaker without his realization.
       
    3. (Verses 8 and 10).  Tongues are given last, yet the Corinthians placed them first.  Compare that with the tongues movement of today and you will see the same thing taking place.
       
    4. (Verse 13).  The Baptism of the Spirit is into the Body of Christ, not into tongues.
       
    5. (Verse 13).  This Verse says that all have been made to drink (same as baptized) into one Spirit.  Tongues cannot be evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit since not all speak with tongues (Verse 30); but, all believers are baptized into the Body of Christ.  This verse refutes one of the major errors of Pentecostalism, who say that speaking in tongues is evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.
       
    6. (Verses 11,18, and 30).  God's Word says that He distributes the gifts to believers as He (God) sees fit.  This makes an absolute liar out of those who say tongues are for everyone.
       
    7. (Verses 14-24).  God's Word emphasizes that all gifts are of equal importance.  Personally, I hear a thousand times more about the gift of tongues than any of the other gifts.  Something is wrong somewhere...God says they were all equal.
    If one honestly compares this Chapter with the claims of tongues advocates today, one can easily see their claims are false and filled with the error of false doctrine predicated on the wisdom of men instead of the infallible Word of God.  You have a decision to make, will you believe God's Word or man's word? (Psalm 118:8)
    1. 1st Corinthians, Chapter Thirteen.

      This Chapter tells the believer when tongues will cease and informs us that the more excellent way to influence unbelievers is with our actions, motivated by the love of God.
    1. (Verses 8-10).  The word "perfect" is referring to God's Word, not Christ.  The Greek word "teleios" is never used in reference to Christ.
       
    2. With the Book of Revelation (God's completed Word) knowledge, prophecy, and tongues would have ceased.
       
    3. Three things would remain after God's Word is complete: faith, hope, and charity (love).
       
    4. Since the Book of Revelation was completed, God has never given the gift of tongues to anyone.  Any speaking in so-called tongues would have to be motivated by a Satanic spirit, not the Holy Spirit.  If tongues today were of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit would be contradicting God's Word and that is impossible.
       
    5. If any person is in doubt, reference the teaching concerning the word "perfect," I would advise you to write several reputable Christian colleges and ascertain from their Greek professors the meaning of the word.
       
    6. You are now confronted with a decision, will you believe God's Word that knowledge, prophecy and tongues have ceased with the Book of revelation, or will you say "No" and endorse man's teaching? (Psalm 118:8)
    1. 1st Corinthians, Chapter Fourteen.

      While tongues existed prior to the completion of the Book of Revelation, Chapter 14 must be followed concerning the government of tongues.
    1. The speaking in tongues would always have to be interpreted (Verses 5,13,27,28).
       
    2. The purpose of tongues was to edify the church (Verses 4,5,12), not the individual.
       
    3. No one was ever to pray or sing in tongues (Verses 14,15).
       
    4. (Verse 20).  Paul said they were children in the faith, not mature men because of their obsession with tongues.
       
    5. (Verse 27).  At any meeting there was never to be more than three to speak in tongues, and then only one at a time.  After that, one was to interpret each of the three speakers.  Compare this with your Pentecostal meetings today.  There is no comparison whatsoever!
       
    6. (Verse 32).  Each person is responsible for controlling himself.
       
    7. (Verse 35).  The churches were in a state of confusion because of the speaking in tongues.  We have the same thing today.
       
    8. (Verse 34).  No woman was ever given the gift of tongues.  They were never to speak in tongues in the church.  Tongues advocates have told me this is only referring to a business meeting within the church.  This is another example of their twisting, turning, and adding to God's Word to make it fit their practices.  Paul never discussed anything about a business meeting in Chapters 12 through 14.  This is absolute dishonesty with God's Word.  The hardest thing I have found is to get the tongues advocates to accept God's Word.  "Let the woman keep silent in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak...for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (Verses 34,35).  Will you believe the Lord or man? (Psalm 118:8)
    1. One False Doctrine Leads to Another.

      One false doctrine almost always leads to another.  I have found, almost without exception, those who endorse tongues speaking also believe you can lose your salvation.  This leads to believing that salvation is obtainable by good works and not a salvation totally of grace by faith.  Then...if they are trusting in works to get them to Heaven...they are not saved!  Salvation is by faith, alone, without works; and one can never be lost again (Ephesians 2:8,9).  Some come in the "back door" and say, "Yes, I am saved by faith alone; but, if I sin, I can be lost again."  If you feel you have to help Christ out to "keep yourself" saved, it boils down to works again, and you do not have God's salvation!

      I am only stating what they have related to me personally and every Christian has a right to judge a person's testimony and preaching against the Word of God.  If you tell me you are going to heaven by your good works, the Bible says you are not.  If you tell me you are going to Heaven by faith, alone, trusting in the finished work of Christ, then you agree with the Bible and are saved.
    "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1st John 4:1)
    1. Are Tongues Speakers Sincere?

      Many people are misled by the fact they know someone who seems so sincere and speaks in tongues.  They cannot conceive the fact this person has been misled and deceived because they have not studied the Word of God concerning tongues.  False doctrine can only influence a person who does not have a knowledge of God's Word.  The sad situation is, the persons who feel tongues speakers are so sincere do not know God's Word, either.  If they did, they could have turned to Corinthians and helped the person who claims tongues, showing them the "more excellent way" of Christian life since tongues have ceased.

      I do not accept the fact that tongues advocates are sincere when they have been shown the Word of God and reject it.  Many often do.  One cannot convince me they love the Lord and then reject His Word.  I will accept their sincerity when they are without knowledge; but, they are not telling the truth about their sincerity when they are shown the truth and reject it.  When a tongues advocate will not accept God's Word and those who are influenced by them do not know God's Word, you have the end of both.  They are well-described by Matthew 15:14, "And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
    With the clear teaching of God's Word concerning tongues, there is no excuse for accepting the counterfeit.  It would have to be willful disregard for the Bible.  Paul concluded that "If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."  There is nothing more that anyone can do, except show them the truth.  It then becomes their responsibility to accept it.  After reading this exposition, where do you stand?  Who will you believe?
    "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Psalm 118:8)
    Table of Contents

    HERITAGE BAPTIST BIBLE CHURCH
    P.O. Box 573
    Walnut Grove, MN 56180
    Telephone (507) 859-2519

    Thursday, October 11, 2012

    WHAT KNOWLEDGE CANT DO

    “I thought to myself, ‘Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem be­fore me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowl­edge.’ Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.” Ecclesiastes 1:16-18
    Verses 16-18 are not an argument against knowledge but a warning that knowledge isn’t the answer to everything. In Jeremiah 9:23-24 the Lord Himself re­minds us not to boast in our riches, strength, or wisdom, “but let him who boasts boast about this: that he under­stands and knows me.” We were made to know God! That is our privilege, our calling, and our very purpose for existing. It is a privilege afforded to every believer and a duty every Christian must pursue.
    We can always know God better than we do. No one ever arrives at a perfect knowledge of God. Those who do not know God have missed the central truth of the uni­verse. Second Thessalonians 1 warns us that God will judge those who do not know Him. In that great day, no excuses will be accepted and no substitute knowledge will suffice. Since it is possible and necessary to know God, those who do not know Him face a terrible future.
    Well-known scientist Carl Sagan died at the age of sixty-two. He gained his public fame primarily as host of the series “Cosmos” on public television. He is remem­bered for his oft-repeated statement that “the cosmos is all that ever was, or is, or ever will be.” He was a thor­oughgoing secularist, humanist, agnostic, and ardent evolutionist. To the very end he remained skeptical of any claims to God’s existence. He died as he lived-an unbe­liever.
    After his death his wife said the following: “There was no deathbed conversion, no appeals to God, no hope for an afterlife, no pretending that he and I, who had been inseparable for twenty years, were not saying good­bye forever.”
    That statement reminds me of a brief anecdote J.I. Packer told regarding an acquaintance whose career de­railed because of his evangelical convictions. When asked if he harbored any ill feelings, he replied quite simply: “I’ve known God and they haven’t.” Packer goes on to note most of us would not feel comfortable speaking in such straightforward terms. But the terms are entirely biblical. Knowing God does make a difference and is the defining characteristic of those who follow Jesus Christ. To know God deeply and intimately more than makes up for the things we lose because of our faith.
    Lord of all the universe, save me from the folly of think­ing that I know more than I really do. If I boast, let it be because I know You. Amen.

    WHAT DID JESUS DO IN HELL

    Commentary by Jack Kelley

    “I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ, his Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty” (Excerpt from the Apostle’s Creed).


    Recently a woman wrote with the following question. She said, “I have just discovered that some of my friends believe when Jesus became sin He took on the nature of Satan and went to hell where He was tormented by Satan and his demons until God called from heaven and said ‘enough’ and then the Holy Spirit entered Him again and Jesus became the 1st born again man.  I don’t believe this is true and have been looking for Biblical answers for them can you help?”

    I’ve heard this teaching a number of times, and I’m convinced there are several problems with it. The verse her friends were referring to is 2 Cor. 5:21, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Jesus bore the penalty for every sin mankind ever had or ever would commit as if He Himself was guilty of them all. This took place on the cross during the last three hours of His suffering that ended with His death.  Becoming sin for us is what made God turn away from Him, taking the light from the world, and it’s what caused Him to say, My God, My God why have you forsaken me? (Matt. 27:45-46).

    Taking on the sin of the world caused a separation between the Father and the Son that had never occurred before, and while Jesus had steeled Himself against the physical abuse He was suffering, He was not prepared for that. It’s the only part of the whole ordeal He couldn’t bear in silence.

    At the end of that time, knowing that all was completed and so the Scripture would be fulfilled, He asked for a drink. Then He said, “It is finished,” and died (John 19:28-30).  This was the end of His suffering. He had done what He came to do, and that’s to die for the sins of the world (John 1:29). There would be no more suffering on our account. This is confirmed in the Greek word John used in the Lord’s statement. It’s tetelesti, a form of the Greek verb teleo, which means to accomplish or complete. It also means to discharge a debt, and in the Lord’s day it was an accounting term that meant nothing further was owing. The debt we owed to God was paid in full. There would have been no reason for the Lord to endure further torment.

    Here’s Another Problem

    The Gospel of Luke makes reference to a brief conversation Jesus had with one of the two men being crucified with Him that gives rise to another problem. While one of the men hurled insults at Him, the other one declared the Lord’s innocence and said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
    Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:39-43)
    Jesus said He was going to Paradise, and yet the Apostle’s Creed I quoted from above said He descended into Hell. Which was it? For the answer, let’s go to the Bible’s most detailed description of the after life experience as it was before the cross. It’s the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus and it’s found in Luke 16:19-31.

    Tell Us A Story

    “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

    “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

    “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

    “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

    “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

    “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

    “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

    Some call this story a parable, but I think it was the account of something that really happened. The Lord’s parables generally weren’t about actual people but were hypothetical in nature. In this story we see real people in a real situation. It’s almost as if He expected His audience to know who He was talking about.
    I think the Lord was pointing to His own future by saying that God gave us His word as a guide for life and death, but if people don’t believe it they won’t be persuaded even if someone (Himself for instance) comes back from the dead. Because of this, I’m skeptical of the popular stories about people who claim to have been to heaven or hell and have been allowed to return and tell us about what it’s like. If God refused to let Lazarus come back to warn the rich man’s five brothers, why would He suddenly let all kinds of people come back to warn people now?

    Back To Our Subject

    But our topic here is what Jesus did after He died and the story of the rich man and Lazarus can help us understand that as well.

    The spiritual condition of these two men is not revealed in so many words. But by their destinations we can tell what it was. Upon his death, angels carried Lazarus to Abraham’s side. This term was the Jewish expression for a place of comfort in Sheol, the abode of the dead, that was also called Paradise. It’s the place Jesus said He was going to in Luke 23:43. It was where all believers from the time before the cross went until the resurrection took them to heaven. In the early church, some believed that Paradise was the actual Garden of Eden and was neither in Heaven nor on Earth. Being taken there indicates Lazarus had died believing in a coming redeemer who would pay the penalty for His sins and qualify him for the resurrection to eternal life.

    When the rich man died he was taken to hell. The Greek word for hell is Hades. It’s equivalent to the Hebrew word Sheol which, as I said, is the abode of the dead. That means it’s the same place where Lazarus went, but while Lazarus enjoyed a place of comfort, the rich man’s lot was agony in the fire. This tells us he was not a believer. He could see Lazarus but he couldn’t join him. The time for choosing his eternal destiny ended at his death just like it does for us. Hebrews 9:27 tells us man is destined to die but once and after that to face judgment.

    Paradise was a only a temporary place for believers, who could not enter heaven until the blood of Jesus was sprinkled on the altar there (Hebrews 9:11-12). Since then all believers who die go directly to Heaven (Phil 1:21-23, 2 Cor. 5:6-8).

    The part of Hades where the rich man went is also a temporary place. Rev. 20:13 tells us at the Great White throne judgment Hades will give up the dead that are in it and each person will face their final judgment before being cast into the lake of fire.

    So although it wasn’t this way at the beginning, somewhere along the way Hades, or hell as we call it, came to be known as the place where unbelievers spend eternity in suffering and torment. I think this misunderstanding is at least partially responsible for the false teaching that Jesus was tormented by Satan there.

    When Jesus went into Hades, He went as a conqueror, not as a victim. In the Bible there are only two references to the time between His death and His resurrection and both support this position. As we saw in Luke 23:43 He said He was going to Paradise immediately after He died and He was taking one of the men dying next to him along. And in 1 Peter 3:18-20 we’re told that by the power of the Holy Spirit He preached to the disobedient spirits imprisoned there, so He must have visited the other side of Hades as well. But it was not for the purpose of suffering. It was for the purpose of reminding them that their punishment was just and well deserved.

    But Wait, There’s More

     

    Finally, our writer mentioned that her friends believe Jesus became the first born again man after God put a stop to His suffering and the Holy Spirit entered Him again. But as we’ve just seen the Holy Spirit was with the Lord when He preached to the disobedient spirits.  More importantly, being born again is the result of accepting the Lord’s death as payment for all our sins. Jesus never sinned, and He didn’t have a sin nature. True, He became sin for us, but He had no need to be born again. On the contrary, He’s the one who made it possible for us to be born again.

    In summary, there’s no Biblical support for the belief that the Lord’s suffering on our behalf continued after His death. Selah