Any discussion of healing leads to invariably to a discussion of "signs and wonders (i.e. miracles or mighty works of God in general)." Signs and wonders (or miracles) were mighty, supernatural, works of God’s that caused “wonder” (or awe) on the part of witnesses, much like Paul’s healing of the crippled man at Lystra in our previous discussion. Without getting into another discussion of biblical languages, the words “sign” and “wonder,” or “miracle” were supernatural events that were unmistakably acts of God. These were immediate (i.e. done directly by God) or mediate (done through men). These were uniquely works of God. What were they like? What made them stand out? How were they unique? What is the purpose of a miracle? We will ask and answer these questions in an attempt to come to grips with the anatomy of a miracle so that we can compare and contrast the biblical accounts of miracles with modern day accounts.
Let’s start work on a definition. A popular systematic theology textbook used in many fine seminaries describes a miracle as follows: “miracle: A less common kind of God’s activity in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to himself (see note 1).” Some argue that this is the beginning of a good definition. However, is it sufficient? Some would apply this definition calling the birth of a baby a miracle. Others claim an answer to prayer as a miracle depending upon the circumstances (should we be stunned that God answers prayer?). Can cancer survivors consider their remissions, or recovery, miracles (are remission and recovery surprisingly unusual)?
God teaches us in the Bible that He ordains everything that happens. God superintends everything. Some distinguish between God’s superintending all the events of this world and unmistakable acts of divine intervention as “providence” and “miracles,” respectively. Providence is typically described as God subtly orchestrating events and natural processes to bring about His will. Miracles are tantamount to a sudden, noticeable invasion of the natural world by God wherein the laws of nature are seemingly violated. Naturally, wounds heal slowly (providence). Supernaturally a wound or illness heals suddenly or immediately (miracle). Naturally, the tide comes in and goes out; water levels change (providence). Supernaturally, these processes are noticeably and unmistakably interrupted (the dividing of the Red Sea and subsequent drowning of Pharaoh’s army). Let’s return to the earlier definition suggested by one prominent theologian: “miracle: A less common kind of God’s activity in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to himself(see note 2)”
Certainly, the previous definition is a good start because the author uses the phraseology “a less common kind of God’s activity.” Miracles should arouse people’s “awe and wonder.” But do “today’s” miracles always do so in a real way? Think of those who witnessed the restoration of a withered hand and their desire to kill Jesus. That was “awe inspiring.” So, just what are the characteristics of a miracle? Perhaps we should look to the Scriptures as we try and distill a more complete description of a miracle. Let us start with John chapter two, Jesus first miracle, at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. Let us look at what Jesus did here and then branching out into the rest of Scripture, pull together a working definition of a miracle.
What did Jesus do? He turned water into wine. Theologian A. A. Hodge points out that miracles have three clear characteristics (see note 3). First, they tend to be events occurring in the physical world, capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily senses of human witnesses. Second, they are of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the will of God. Third, they invariable accompany the teaching of a divinely deputized religious teacher, and are designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth of his message. Beloved, all three of these characteristics are present in the turning of water into wine (and the drowning of Pharaoh’s army by the Red Sea). After all, Jesus made water into another substance and that the difference in the transformation was physically obvious and apparent to those who were party to the event (John 2:7-11). There were those present who remembered pouring water into the pots; pots who contents were no high quality wine. So, the water was placed into the water pots. The waiters knew; the disciples knew, Jesus knew, and Mary knew. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, he remarked that the groom had served the good wine last, as opposed to first. The event was obvious to bodily senses, inescapably obvious and observable.
Secondly, it is obvious that there is no other cause associated with the transformation of water into wine other than Divine intervention. Turning an inert substance such as water into an organic substance such as wine by an act of will is nothing short of a creation miracle (i.e. let there be light… let there be wine from water). This required a change in molecular and chemical structure, particularly given that wine is fermented grape juice! Jesus changed the molecular structure of the water from H2O to C2H5OH, (hydroxyl group (a combination of one oxygen atom and done hydrogen atom); water became a form of ethanol, the type of alcohol found in beer, wine, and brandy.Jesus re-arranged the molecular structure of this water. All of this had to be altered in order to turn the inorganic water into an organic substance, like grape juice derived alcohol, or wine—ethanol. Ethanol is a type of alcohol (see note 4). Furthermore, He did this and caused this organic substance to die and ferment.
Fermentation is a process, not an event. It cannot happen instantaneously, even with today’s technology. Therefore, this event was a miraculous expression of God’s will. The act was of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate will of God. Third, this sign and wonder accompanied religious teacher.
Third, this miracle certainly authenticated Jesus’ divine commission and the truth of his message to His disciples. Knowing what He had done, they would have to ask themselves, “If He can do this, what else can He do?” and as they pondered the feat, they would conclude as Nicodemus concluded in John 3 and the man born blind in John 9 that God was with Him and He must be a teacher (prophet) sent from God; otherwise, He could not due these things.
Regarding Jesus, His glory and identity were, certainly, manifested. The disciples who were present believed in Him because of what He did and the nature of what He did indicated that His Messianic mission was most certainly divine. Take a moment can test these criteria with as you consider the 7 signs performed by Jesus in the book of John, His miracles meet all three of the criteria above:
o Turns water into wine (John 2:1–12)
o Heals a nobleman’s son (John 4:46–54)
o Heals a lame man at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–17)
o Feeds 5,000 (John 6:1–14)
o Walks on water, stills a storm (John 6:15–21)
o Heals a man blind from birth (John 9:1–41)
o Raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:17–45)
Consider, afresh, Jesus’ miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead as we put together a working definition and understanding of a miracle. Lazarus has been in the grave 4 days. There were many, many witnesses present. Jesus makes unmistakable truth claims about Himself to Martha and Martha affirms them to Him. Furthermore, He had made such truth claims to others, time and time again. There are many witnesses present who observe Jesus and His conduct and are familiar with His ministry.Jesus publicly went to the tomb and raised Lazarus from the grave with a word! Jesus had appealed to God, His Father publicly and summoned Lazarus and Lazarus came forward, resulting in many Jews putting their faith in Him because God authenticated His ministry. Here we have all three characteristics present:
o An event occurring in the physical world, capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily senses of human witnesses—in the case of raising Lazarus, a multitude of witnesses.
o An event of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate volition of God—there is no doubt he’d been dead 4 days, only God could have restored life to Lazarus.
o It was an event accompanying a religious teacher, and designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth of his message.—this miracle attended the ministry of Jesus Christ…and authenticated Him as the Son of God, the Promised One.
Beloved, we can run every sign in John through this grid and we see that it all applies. When Jesus tells the man to rise up and walk, or feeds 5,000, we have the same characteristics. Moreover, we can go back to Moses in the Old Testament and the same principles apply when Moses “sent” the 10 plagues, consider the plague of gnats in Exodus 18:16-19:
16 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Stretch out your staff and strike the dust of the earth, that it may become gnats through all the land of Egypt.'" 17 They did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his staff, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were gnats on man and beast. All the dust of the earth became gnats through all the land of Egypt. 18 The magicians tried with their secret arts to bring forth gnats, but they could not; so there were gnats on man and beast. 19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had said (Exo 8:16-19).
Moses and Aaron had told Pharaoh that God wanted him to let their people go. Pharaoh had refused saying he hadn’t heard of their god. He refused to believe them or listen to them. Sadly, like the Pharisees and Sadducees, many miracles were performed in Pharaoh’s sight during the 10 plagues and Pharaoh did not respond. His magicians recognized the presence and power of God. First, it was an event occurring in the physical world, capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily senses of human witnesses—witnesses included but were not limited to Pharaoh and his own magicians, as well as all of Egypt and the children of Israel. Second, the event was of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate volition of God—the magicians, the witches of Pharaoh admitted that this was from God. Finally, the event accompanied a religious teacher, namely Moses, and was designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth of his message—this showed that Moses spoke for God. This was the anatomy of a miracle. Do people perform miracles like this today?
Too often, a charismatic television personality says, “some one out there is being healed of a kidney stone” or a healer heals someone of some unseen malady like a sore shoulder or a migraine headache. Are these “miracles” of the same caliber as those done by Christ, Moses, and others? Are they even in the same league? Are they really miracles? Spend some time meditating on the seven signs that Jesus performed, or the miracles worked upon Pharaoh’s Egypt during the 10 plagues. Prayerfully ask yourself the following questions.
ONE: Are today’s miracles like those found in the Bible (public instantaneous healings of withered hands, “partings of the Red Sea,” or raising the dead in front of friends and foes alike)? Why? Why not?
TWO: The next time you observe a miracle on television, or in your local church, consider whether these truly fit the criteria we have distilled from Scripture. When you watch a miracle on television ask yourself why so many of them seem to fall far short of the model provided in Scripture.
THREE: Ask yourself the next time you hear about people raising people from the dead, in a place like India, “Why is there no footage and why are there no eye-witnesses?”
Let us keep working at distilling a working definition for a miracle. Truly, as one systematic theology textbook described it, a miracle is a “less common kind of God’s activity in which he arouses people’s awe and wonder and bears witness to himself (6).” No one could totally argue against what is written here besides to say it is not enough. We might add our other three criteria, helpfully provided by theologian A. A. Hodge. At the same time, looking at the idea that miracles are a “less common kind of God’s activity,” we might note that today’s miracle workers appear to insist that we should believe that miracles are, in practice, every day occurrences. After all, many in the CM insist that what was commonly done by the prophets of old and in the New Testament Era church should be done in the church today! Is this so?
As we strive to develop and distill our working definition of a miracle, we must pause to consider and confront popular misconceptions about miracles in the Bible. Indeed, a number of Old Testament prophets and leaders seem to have performed miracles or had miracles associated with their ministries. In reality, however, few performed miracles. While great miracles were associated with the ministries of Moses and Aaron, only one miracle is associated with Joshua. Certainly Elijah and Elisha performed miracles. In Daniel’s case there was the lions’ den and Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego survived the fiery furnace. But how many miracles did these men perform: Isaiah, Zephaniah, Habbakuk, Nahum, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah? Consider the occurrences of miracles in the New Testament. Jesus Christ performed miracles. The Seventy He commissioned before calling the 12 performed many signs and wonders. The Twelve performed miracles. Peter performed a number of miracles. Paul performed a number of miracles. James, Luke, Timothy, and Jude performed no miracles we know of. Furthermore, the Apostle John did not feature miracles in His ministry writings.
If we combine our three criteria so helpfully shaped by A. A. Hodge, with our other theologian’s definition, we understand that a miracle is an uncommon event occurring in the physical world, capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily senses of human witnesses that is of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate volition of God; moreover, it accompanies a religious teacher, and designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth of his message. Remember our discussion of healing, a miracle, as such is obvious and observable, it is supernatural and non-mythical as it is public and beyond contestation in that enemies and friends of the miracle worker are unable to write it off as a natural event. Miracles (and miracle workers) today just don't seem to match those in the Bible. Where are the “greater works” of John 14:12 (next week--we take up "The Greater Works")?
Notes:
1) Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology : An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 1994), 1247.
2) IBID.
3) Hodge, A.A. Outlines of Theology. Index created by Christian Classics Foundation. electronic ed. based on the 1972 Banner of Truth Trust reproduction of the 1879 ed. Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation, 1996.
4) "Water Molecule."Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Chapter 4 What About Healing (part three)?
As we talked about healing generally, we asked and answered questions such as “Does God want to heal everyone?” and “Does God heal everyone?” and “Does healing require, or is healing hindered by, the quantity or quality of faith of the one who is either to receive the healing, or do the healing?” We let the God the Holy Spirit speak for Himself by looking to what He wrote through the pen of Paul and others. Now, let us turn our attention to asking and answering the question, “What does miracle healing look like?” This is an important question because many believe we should be able to heal as good as, or better, than Jesus, the Apostles, and the saints of the New Testament Era. Miracle healing today seems to take on many forms and manifestations. You can see them for yourself by going to certain video websites and following the links provided. Having personally seen “miracle healings” in a number of charistmatic churches, I can attest to you that all of them resembled in one form or another the video links footnoted listed above (and listed below). The question is, “Do these miracle healings truly reflect the miracle healings God describes for us in His word?” Just what does a healing miracle look like?
Many times, the healings one sees involve healing a headache, curing shoulder pain, or casting out an invisible spirit. One prominent television personality receives “words of knowledge” that someone in the television audience is being healed of dizzy spells, polyps, kidney stones, or the like. Are such healings typical of those described by the Holy Spirit through the pens of those He moved to write Scripture? Are such healings typical of New Testament healings? What does God say in the Bible? Let me tell you up front, when Jesus, or others, performed miracles of healing the results were obvious and observable. Critics could not rationally explain them away. They were very public and unmistakably supernatural. They were also unmistakably “non-mythical (cast off as "old wives' tales").” Consider the healing of the man with the withered hand.
10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- so that they might accuse Him. 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him (Mat 12:10-14).
Wow! Imagine watching a visible and unmistakable healing---one that did not “wear off.” Notice that Jesus’ healing was unlike the lengthening of legs or healing of headaches which some may “perform” on television or on the occasional video with a limited audience. No, Jesus restores a withered hand in an obvious and observable way that his critics could not rationally explain away. How did His miracles of healing look? His healing miracles were very public and unmistakably supernatural. It is also unmistakably non-mythical because his critics were present and did not have to rely upon second hand reports, which they could easily deny or disparage. There could be no allegations of fraud. That is why his opponents determined to figure out how “they might destroy Him.” Their excuse might have been that He had healed on the Sabbath. However, that He healed was beyond contestation. Such is not the case with modern day miracle healers. Consider the “miracle healing of miracle healings,” the raising of Lazarus from the dead. This healing fits the same mould:
37 But some of them said, "Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?" 38 So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" 41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me." 43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." 45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish (Joh 11:37-50).”
Consider what God writes. Lazarus has been decidedly dead, indisputably dead, for 4 days! There were all kinds of witnesses, friend and foe alike. Some were followers of Christ; others were enemies of Christ. No doubt there were “undecideds” present as well. In front of all Jesus publicly raised Lazarus from the dead. The scope and grandeur of the miracle healing was so great that even His enemies were forced to admit, affirm, and, sadly, regret His power to heal, as they planned His murder:
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish (Joh 11:47-50).”
Recognize that Jesus’ enemies do not deny His healing miracles. They only refused to consider the implication of these healings (i.e. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God). Notice, also, that a corpse does not have faith, nor, does one suppose, does it lack faith. The healing did not depend on the faith of Lazarus. Some will try and say that Jesus’ miracle somehow depended on the faith of those gathered around, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" This notion does not hold water because many present refused to entrust themselves to Him, or believe on Him. More than a few believed on Him after the miracle-healing. God’s healing Lazarus was not contingent upon human faith but the divine will.
39 Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" 41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me." 43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." 45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation (Joh 11:39-48).”
Consider also that people came to meet (and sadly gawk) at Lazarus after he was raised from the dead. Not only were there witnesses to his death and raising but people saw and met Lazarus afterwards (John 12:9-11). Does this happen today? How many people have you met who were raised from the dead, or had a withered hand restored? How many people do you know of who were blind from birth have sight today through a miracle healing? How many of these alleged cases can be substantiated or documented in undeniable, unquestionable ways?
Reflect upon the healing of the paralytic in John chapter 5, a man paralyzed for some 38 years. It is even unclear that he wanted to be well or that he knew who Christ was at the time of the healing. Think of the evidence of the healing---38 years of passersby seeing the man day after day! Who could deny the reality of this healing miracle? This was a healing driven by the will of God rather than the desires of, or faith of men.
As for healing being possible on the contingency of adequate quantities of faith on the part of the healer or the one receiving the healing, spend some time reflecting upon the healing of the man born blind from birth in John chapter 9. He did not trust in Christ, nor did he have faith prior to the healing. The miracle was public. The evidence of his blindness and subsequent healing were beyond contestation. That Christ healed him was undeniable. He came to faith as a result of his healing, rather than before receiving healing. The same can be said of Naaman’s healing in 2 Kings 5:1-27. The same can be said of the unbelieving folk present for the healing of Jairus’ daughter in the gospels of Mark and Luke. Their unbelief did not quench the ability to heal. Healing did not depend on the faith of those present, nor was it hindered by their unbelief.
What does a healing look like? It looks like a mighty act of God. It is obvious, unmistakably supernatural, public and therefore non-mythical. Friend and foe alike are present. It would seem that there is little resemblance to what we see today. No excuses were made due to the lack of faith on any one party.
The magnitude of Paul’s healings closely resembled those of the Lord of Jesus. They were obvious and observable, like the healing of the withered hand; they could not be explained away. They were very public and supernatural. Paul healed a crippled man at Lystra (Acts 14:8-15). The crowds upon witnessing the miracle healing sought to worship Paul (and Barnabas) as Greek gods. Sadly, many idol worshippers received the miracle and sought to worship man and not God. Their “faith” was misplaced. It appears that, once again, we have an account of a very public healing done not only in the presence of believers and those receptive to Paul’s gospel but also superstitious pagans, many, if not most, of whom did not believe on Christ for their salvation. Yet, this miracle healing is a model New Testament miracle of healing in that it was very public, it was undeniable, it was supernatural, and it was observably obvious.
Friends, the disconcerting truth is that healings today almost invariably do not follow this pattern or resemble these examples in any way. This begs we ask and answer the question, “Why is this?”
As you reflect on this, please consider the following questions in your own heart. Such questions warrant answering.
ONE: If we are able to do all that the New Testament healers did, all that Jesus and the Apostles did—indeed all that the prophets did, then why do we never see of miracle healing of the same scope, caliber, or magnitude?
TWO: Moreover, why is it that we have “miracle healings” that are unobservable, “un-documentable,” and very much subject to contestation since, as some teach, Jesus taught that we should do greater works (including greater healing miracles) than He performed (John 14:12). Where are these greater works occurring and why do so few see them since even skeptics and foes witnessed Jesus’ healing miracles?
THREE: Since we live in an age of technology, with video recorders, camera phones, satellite uplinks, and internet video, why is it that there are no verifiable examples of eyes that had been gouged out being restored, or amputated limbs regrown, or withered hands for that matter, being fully restored? People make such claims and yet they seem incapable, or, worse, unwilling to verify them to the glory of God and the furtherance of the gospel? Why is this? Why aren't miracle healers emptying cancer wards and burn centers of the ill and injured to the glory of God?
FOUR: Jesus very publicly raised Lazarus from the dead, why does hasn’t anyone, anywhere, done the same before a crowd—and documented it? Why do we never meet these people as others met Lazarus?
FIVE: Given the glory of God that would be displayed in documenting such miracles, why is there virtually no objective, verifiable evidence when such evidences were abundantly available to the masses in the New Testament Era?
FIVE: Given the glory of God that would be displayed in documenting such miracles, why is there virtually no objective, verifiable evidence when such evidences were abundantly available to the masses in the New Testament Era?
SIX: What should we make of those who claim to have received such miracles but resist or refuse to document them? Should we suppose they wish to hide God’s glory? Why not display it in an unmistakable, observable, and irrefutable way—if there is nothing to hide, like Jesus and the Apostles did?
SEVEN: Today’s miracle healings appear to fall profoundly short of their Old Testament and New Testament counterparts. Many claim miracle healings. Many claim to have witnessed them. Many claim to have witnessed raising the dead. At the same time, there is never (I mean never) a shred of objective, verifiable, and documentable evidence made available for God’s glory. Why is this? Most, if not many, of these accounts seem to fall far short and are often second hand accounts heard through others, or the friend of a friend. What do we make of the differences between Jesus’ miracles of healing and the healing miracles done today?
We write these things not to be contentious or divisive. But Jesus taught that in His kingdom nothing would be done in secret. He taught nothing in secret. These miracle healings should be documented and shouted from the rooftops. The Bible teaches us to test the spirits. Paul commended the “noble Bereans” who listened but verified what he taught by searching the Scriptures, rather than taking his claims at face value. Should we do no less today? Miracle healings fall into the category of signs and wonders that caused people to stop, look, and witness the glory of God in fear, awe, and trembling. Such signs and wonders go far beyond the healing of a sore shoulder, lengthening a leg, or healing a migraine. What does a healing miracle look like? It looks like a radical act of God as He intervenes supernaturally in obvious, unmistakable, undeniable ways that are beyond contestation, even by critics and skeptics. We seem to see none of this today. Go before the Lord and ask yourself “Why?” Beloved, read through the gospels and compare the healings you have seen with those of the Apostle Paul, of Peter with John, or those of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ask yourself, if we are to be healing today as then did in that era, then why do we see not such miracles today?
PS:
Video links of healings are listed below because of a problem with footnoting software:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnvpQPIYvGo 8/25/2009 12:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJICxXnvlw 8/25/2009 12:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndk93NZZShc downloaded 8/25/2009 12:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Rw6TCiUO8&feature=related 8/25/2009 12:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlAPYxwqBao&feature=related downloaded 8/25/2009 12:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSaU9b37ro&feature=related downloaded 8/25/2009 12:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20KdDnNnms0&feature=PlayList&p=59C94AA7FB4FEAA1&index=1 downloaded 8/25/2009 12:34 PM
Next time we will discuss "signs and wonders."
We will post again before or on September 10th.
Many times, the healings one sees involve healing a headache, curing shoulder pain, or casting out an invisible spirit. One prominent television personality receives “words of knowledge” that someone in the television audience is being healed of dizzy spells, polyps, kidney stones, or the like. Are such healings typical of those described by the Holy Spirit through the pens of those He moved to write Scripture? Are such healings typical of New Testament healings? What does God say in the Bible? Let me tell you up front, when Jesus, or others, performed miracles of healing the results were obvious and observable. Critics could not rationally explain them away. They were very public and unmistakably supernatural. They were also unmistakably “non-mythical (cast off as "old wives' tales").” Consider the healing of the man with the withered hand.
10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- so that they might accuse Him. 11 And He said to them, "What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 "How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." 13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand!" He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him (Mat 12:10-14).
Wow! Imagine watching a visible and unmistakable healing---one that did not “wear off.” Notice that Jesus’ healing was unlike the lengthening of legs or healing of headaches which some may “perform” on television or on the occasional video with a limited audience. No, Jesus restores a withered hand in an obvious and observable way that his critics could not rationally explain away. How did His miracles of healing look? His healing miracles were very public and unmistakably supernatural. It is also unmistakably non-mythical because his critics were present and did not have to rely upon second hand reports, which they could easily deny or disparage. There could be no allegations of fraud. That is why his opponents determined to figure out how “they might destroy Him.” Their excuse might have been that He had healed on the Sabbath. However, that He healed was beyond contestation. Such is not the case with modern day miracle healers. Consider the “miracle healing of miracle healings,” the raising of Lazarus from the dead. This healing fits the same mould:
37 But some of them said, "Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?" 38 So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39 Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" 41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me." 43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." 45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish (Joh 11:37-50).”
Consider what God writes. Lazarus has been decidedly dead, indisputably dead, for 4 days! There were all kinds of witnesses, friend and foe alike. Some were followers of Christ; others were enemies of Christ. No doubt there were “undecideds” present as well. In front of all Jesus publicly raised Lazarus from the dead. The scope and grandeur of the miracle healing was so great that even His enemies were forced to admit, affirm, and, sadly, regret His power to heal, as they planned His murder:
47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, 50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish (Joh 11:47-50).”
Recognize that Jesus’ enemies do not deny His healing miracles. They only refused to consider the implication of these healings (i.e. Jesus is Messiah and Son of God). Notice, also, that a corpse does not have faith, nor, does one suppose, does it lack faith. The healing did not depend on the faith of Lazarus. Some will try and say that Jesus’ miracle somehow depended on the faith of those gathered around, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" This notion does not hold water because many present refused to entrust themselves to Him, or believe on Him. More than a few believed on Him after the miracle-healing. God’s healing Lazarus was not contingent upon human faith but the divine will.
39 Jesus said, "Remove the stone." Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, "Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days." 40 Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?" 41 So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42 "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me." 43 When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Unbind him, and let him go." 45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a council, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation (Joh 11:39-48).”
Consider also that people came to meet (and sadly gawk) at Lazarus after he was raised from the dead. Not only were there witnesses to his death and raising but people saw and met Lazarus afterwards (John 12:9-11). Does this happen today? How many people have you met who were raised from the dead, or had a withered hand restored? How many people do you know of who were blind from birth have sight today through a miracle healing? How many of these alleged cases can be substantiated or documented in undeniable, unquestionable ways?
Reflect upon the healing of the paralytic in John chapter 5, a man paralyzed for some 38 years. It is even unclear that he wanted to be well or that he knew who Christ was at the time of the healing. Think of the evidence of the healing---38 years of passersby seeing the man day after day! Who could deny the reality of this healing miracle? This was a healing driven by the will of God rather than the desires of, or faith of men.
As for healing being possible on the contingency of adequate quantities of faith on the part of the healer or the one receiving the healing, spend some time reflecting upon the healing of the man born blind from birth in John chapter 9. He did not trust in Christ, nor did he have faith prior to the healing. The miracle was public. The evidence of his blindness and subsequent healing were beyond contestation. That Christ healed him was undeniable. He came to faith as a result of his healing, rather than before receiving healing. The same can be said of Naaman’s healing in 2 Kings 5:1-27. The same can be said of the unbelieving folk present for the healing of Jairus’ daughter in the gospels of Mark and Luke. Their unbelief did not quench the ability to heal. Healing did not depend on the faith of those present, nor was it hindered by their unbelief.
What does a healing look like? It looks like a mighty act of God. It is obvious, unmistakably supernatural, public and therefore non-mythical. Friend and foe alike are present. It would seem that there is little resemblance to what we see today. No excuses were made due to the lack of faith on any one party.
The magnitude of Paul’s healings closely resembled those of the Lord of Jesus. They were obvious and observable, like the healing of the withered hand; they could not be explained away. They were very public and supernatural. Paul healed a crippled man at Lystra (Acts 14:8-15). The crowds upon witnessing the miracle healing sought to worship Paul (and Barnabas) as Greek gods. Sadly, many idol worshippers received the miracle and sought to worship man and not God. Their “faith” was misplaced. It appears that, once again, we have an account of a very public healing done not only in the presence of believers and those receptive to Paul’s gospel but also superstitious pagans, many, if not most, of whom did not believe on Christ for their salvation. Yet, this miracle healing is a model New Testament miracle of healing in that it was very public, it was undeniable, it was supernatural, and it was observably obvious.
Friends, the disconcerting truth is that healings today almost invariably do not follow this pattern or resemble these examples in any way. This begs we ask and answer the question, “Why is this?”
As you reflect on this, please consider the following questions in your own heart. Such questions warrant answering.
ONE: If we are able to do all that the New Testament healers did, all that Jesus and the Apostles did—indeed all that the prophets did, then why do we never see of miracle healing of the same scope, caliber, or magnitude?
TWO: Moreover, why is it that we have “miracle healings” that are unobservable, “un-documentable,” and very much subject to contestation since, as some teach, Jesus taught that we should do greater works (including greater healing miracles) than He performed (John 14:12). Where are these greater works occurring and why do so few see them since even skeptics and foes witnessed Jesus’ healing miracles?
THREE: Since we live in an age of technology, with video recorders, camera phones, satellite uplinks, and internet video, why is it that there are no verifiable examples of eyes that had been gouged out being restored, or amputated limbs regrown, or withered hands for that matter, being fully restored? People make such claims and yet they seem incapable, or, worse, unwilling to verify them to the glory of God and the furtherance of the gospel? Why is this? Why aren't miracle healers emptying cancer wards and burn centers of the ill and injured to the glory of God?
FOUR: Jesus very publicly raised Lazarus from the dead, why does hasn’t anyone, anywhere, done the same before a crowd—and documented it? Why do we never meet these people as others met Lazarus?
FIVE: Given the glory of God that would be displayed in documenting such miracles, why is there virtually no objective, verifiable evidence when such evidences were abundantly available to the masses in the New Testament Era?
FIVE: Given the glory of God that would be displayed in documenting such miracles, why is there virtually no objective, verifiable evidence when such evidences were abundantly available to the masses in the New Testament Era?
SIX: What should we make of those who claim to have received such miracles but resist or refuse to document them? Should we suppose they wish to hide God’s glory? Why not display it in an unmistakable, observable, and irrefutable way—if there is nothing to hide, like Jesus and the Apostles did?
SEVEN: Today’s miracle healings appear to fall profoundly short of their Old Testament and New Testament counterparts. Many claim miracle healings. Many claim to have witnessed them. Many claim to have witnessed raising the dead. At the same time, there is never (I mean never) a shred of objective, verifiable, and documentable evidence made available for God’s glory. Why is this? Most, if not many, of these accounts seem to fall far short and are often second hand accounts heard through others, or the friend of a friend. What do we make of the differences between Jesus’ miracles of healing and the healing miracles done today?
We write these things not to be contentious or divisive. But Jesus taught that in His kingdom nothing would be done in secret. He taught nothing in secret. These miracle healings should be documented and shouted from the rooftops. The Bible teaches us to test the spirits. Paul commended the “noble Bereans” who listened but verified what he taught by searching the Scriptures, rather than taking his claims at face value. Should we do no less today? Miracle healings fall into the category of signs and wonders that caused people to stop, look, and witness the glory of God in fear, awe, and trembling. Such signs and wonders go far beyond the healing of a sore shoulder, lengthening a leg, or healing a migraine. What does a healing miracle look like? It looks like a radical act of God as He intervenes supernaturally in obvious, unmistakable, undeniable ways that are beyond contestation, even by critics and skeptics. We seem to see none of this today. Go before the Lord and ask yourself “Why?” Beloved, read through the gospels and compare the healings you have seen with those of the Apostle Paul, of Peter with John, or those of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ask yourself, if we are to be healing today as then did in that era, then why do we see not such miracles today?
PS:
Video links of healings are listed below because of a problem with footnoting software:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnvpQPIYvGo 8/25/2009 12:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LJICxXnvlw 8/25/2009 12:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndk93NZZShc downloaded 8/25/2009 12:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Rw6TCiUO8&feature=related 8/25/2009 12:23 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlAPYxwqBao&feature=related downloaded 8/25/2009 12:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSaU9b37ro&feature=related downloaded 8/25/2009 12:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20KdDnNnms0&feature=PlayList&p=59C94AA7FB4FEAA1&index=1 downloaded 8/25/2009 12:34 PM
Next time we will discuss "signs and wonders."
We will post again before or on September 10th.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Chapter 4: What About Healing (part two)
I remember attending a healing event at the end of a service when I lived in Orlando, Florida. I had just decided to seek Jesus, having realized my need for a relationship with Christ. This was my first time in a charismatic church (or any church for a very long time). The pastor, theretofore unknown to me, was famous. He would later move his own ministry to California into what was then the largest television studio in the world. At this particular church service, those in need of healing lined up to receive the miracle of healing. The line was quite long. The pastor, who often identified himself as “God’s Annointed,” started down the line healing people.
At this service, those in need of healing lined up to receive the miracle of healing. The line was quite long. The pastor, who often identified himself as “God’s Annointed,” started down the line healing people. At his touch, people noticeably reacted to his touch and uniformly fell backward. As he approached a young lady, he shouted “No one touch her, she’s got a demon!” This caution elicited a reaction. As I was surprised and intrigued by this revelation, my eyes soon turned to the end of the line where sat a young girl in a wheelchair. Looking at her, I could see she was bald by either cancer or the necessary radiation and chemotherapy treatments.
As “God’s Annointed” worked his way down the line of those needed healing, he healed them of various maladies, spending time talking about each one. To my astonishment, as he neared this young girl, he seemed to become distracted. He talked on about the various promises of God. For to heal the young girl of her cancer, “God’s anointed ended the healing service. The service ended with people being healed of migraine headaches, stiff backs. None of these maladies could be “diagnosed” just by looking at the person. This was not true of the young cancer patient. New to the faith and more than a little naïve, I assumed he just forgot about her. Knowing what I know of him today, I know better.
Healing events, like the one described above, are the hallmark of today’s charismatic movement. Was this the face of “New Testament Era” healing that all believers should enjoy today? Many in the CM insist that the New Testament saints routinely healed the sick in the infant church. Therefore, not less than a few argue that Christians should do today just as the Apostles and other miracle workers did during New Testament Times. Some go as far to suggest that if you have enough faith you can be healed of any disease or heal others. Faith is the key. Men and women of this persuasion insist that God wants all people to be healed and healing is for today—just as it was during Jesus’ time and the time of the Apostles.
Indeed, many insist that we can claim healing as a right because as believers we are children of The King, children of God. Others go as far to conduct special healing services where they claim healing and seemingly heal at will, or at their own discretion (or “on demand”). Is this idea biblical? Is this idea supported by Scripture? What does the word of God indicate? We will look to the word of God to begin to answer these and other questions.
Let us leave the discussion of whether such gifts as “miraculous healing” is for today for another (perhaps later) time. Instead, let us focus on the Biblical evidence about healing. What does the Bible teach us about miraculous healing? Who determines when and how healing takes place (God or man)? Does failure to heal indicate a lack of living faith on the part of the man (or woman) who fails to heal? Should every solid, “Bible believing, true blue Christian” expect to be healed, be healed by others, heal themselves, or heal others?
Brothers and sisters, many good men and women differ on their understanding of healing. While not all of us understand completely everything there is to know about healing and or miracle working, we must ask and answer the question, “What can we be certain of by looking to the pages of Scripture?” Let us consider what the Bible clearly teaches about healing. Once again, let us ask and answer the question “What can we learn from the Bible about healing? What conclusions can we draw from the narratives, teachings, and lessons taught in the Scriptures? Let us pause a moment to review what we already learned from Scripture.
For one thing, we all must understand, as we already learned, that not everyone received the spiritual gift of being able to heal others. Therefore, no everyone should expect to be able to heal someone no matter how much faith they, or the person, has. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit put it this way, speaking through the apostle:
5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be (1Co 12:5-17)?
The Bible is plain. The Holy Spirit is clear. God gave to various people various gifts. No all people receive all gifts, or the same gifts. Therefore, not every Christian expected to receive the ability to heal people. God gave to each member as “He wills.” One receives one gift, another receives another gift. Let us return to the text and revisit what the Holy Spirit says through the pen of the apostle:
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills…17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be (1Co 12:5-11, 17)?
This much should be clear: even in “New Testament Times” not all Christians expected to work miracles of healing, to heal others. Not every Christian who read Paul’s epistles to Corinth expected to speak in tongues. This may shock some readers but not even the Apostles were able to heal “at will” or at their “discretion.” Such abilities were distributed and employed as “He (God) wills (willed).” Consider the Apostle Paul’s inspired words:
19 Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus (2Ti 4:19-20).
Ponder the implications and indications of “Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.” Paul had to leave behind a co-laborer at Miletus because the man was ill. One wonders and may ask the question, “Paul, why not heal Trophimus?” Did Paul lack faith? Did the “Apostle to the Gentiles” who spoke in tongues more than others, who performed all kinds of other miracles lack sufficient faith to heal this man? Perhaps Trophimus lacked faith? This is unlikely because Paul chose him as one who accompanied him on his missionary journeys (see Acts 20 and 21).
As you ponder Paul’s leaving Trophimus sick at Miletus, consider the indications of Paul’s advice to Timothy: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1Ti 5:23).” Consider the implications of this verse. Apparently neither Timothy nor Paul could heal Timothy of his stomach ailments. Therefore, Paul advises Timothy to mix water with wine in order to help alleviate some of his difficulties. Did Timothy lack faith? It is unlikely that Timothy lacked sufficient faith at that time since Paul had entrusted him with the care of souls at the Ephesian church. Remember, Christian, it was Timothy whom the apostle dispatched to check on the church at Thessalonica. Timothy was a man of faith, great faith. 1 and 2 Timothy are composed to this man. Paul and Timothy were pastors (one was an Apostle). Paul described Timothy this way: “2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith…(1Ti 1:2).” This should call into question the notion that all Christians should be able to heal at any time, if one has enough faith. This also calls into question the notion that all Christians should be able to heal others at will like the apostles allegedly did. Neither Paul nor Timothy could heal Timothy of Timothy’s stomach problems. Apparently Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the commandment of God (1 Timothy 1:1) could not heal himself, or others, whenever he chose though it is unlikely his faith in Christ was not of sufficient intensity or scope.
Beloved, not only must we understand that not all believers receive all, or even the same, gifts, but not even the Apostles uniformly received and manifested the same gifts, or some gifts all the time. The Apostle Paul could not heal whenever he wanted! Therefore, second and third, we learn that God does not heal on demand and that those able to heal could not heal whenever they wished. It is all up to God. And if this was true then, it is true now. Some argue that Paul chose not to heal Timothy or Trophimus. Some argue that if Paul had wanted to claim healing for these men he could have; however, for some reason Paul chose not to do so. Two other occurrences contradict such a notion. Consider the testimony of Philippians 2:25-28:
25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26 because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you (Phi 2:25-28).
Paul was heartsick over the illness of his dear friend, Epaphroditus. Providentially and mercifully, God healed him, as Paul put it, “so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.” God healed Epaphroditus as God willed. Paul did not heal Epaphroditus at his own discretion. The Bible, here in the book of Philippians, indicates Paul could not, or did not. Ephaphroditus’ situation greatly grieved Paul.
Indications are that Paul was unable to do so. Indeed, Ephaphroditus’ illness advanced until he was sick to the point of death. Why did not Paul heal him? Paul certainly did not lack the faith, nor did he lack the love or concern. Paul was not free to heal as he willed but only as God willed. Similarly, in the "New Testament Era," Christians were not empowered to heal whenever they chose, even as “children of the King.” The reality is that Paul could not even heal, or deliver himself. Consider the testimony of 2 Corinthians 12:7-9:
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-- to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me (2Co 12:7-9).
Paul, like Jesus, could do nothing on his own initiative. All healing and restoration depended on the sovereignty of the Father. Relief from his affliction was not the Father’s will. Therefore, Paul could not heal himself, nor would God remove the affliction.
Should every believer expect to be able to heal anyone, on demand? It would seem that the Bible’s answer is “no.” I doubt there are few, if any, of greater faith than an apostle chosen by Christ, by commandment of God. Is this not consistent with the testimony of Scripture? After all did the Lord Jesus not say: “I can do nothing on My own initiative?”
*30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (Joh 5:30)
*28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. (Joh 8:28)
*42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. (Joh 8:42)
*49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. (Joh 12:49)
*13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (Joh 16:13)
The Father in heaven decided what Jesus said and did. He decided what the Spirit did. He decided that Paul would not able to heal Trophimus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, or himself. Now some would argue that the gifts during the later part of Paul’s ministry were fading as the Scriptures were recorded and the infant church was established. We will not take up this conversation here. However, it is safe to say that the time, place, and means of healing is not up to men, rather it is up to God. He allows healing as He wills. Men seem neither to have the ability or liberty to heal on demand, according to their own will.
Let’s review the questions we asked at the beginning of our discussion and answer them.
1.Who determines when and how healing takes place, God or man?
2.Does failure to heal indicate a lack of living faith on the part of the man (or woman) who fails to heal?
3.Should every solid, “believing believer” expect to be healed, to heal themselves, or heal others?
Scripturally, the answers to questions one and three are “no.” No, man does not determine who is healed or when. No, believers should not expect to heal, or be healed by others. First, not everyone received the same gifts. Second, healing is determined according as He wills, not as we will. Paul was unable to heal as he willed. Jesus said all that He did was at the Father’s initiative. Should any other believer expect any different treatment than the Apostle Paul, or the Son of God?
Let us not forget that Job, the greatest of all the men of the East did not heal himself, could not heal himself (after all Job was a prophet). Let us also not forget that God allowed Job’s illness. Did Job lack faith? Let us return to question 2, “Does failure to heal indicate a lack of faith?” To answer this question we must asked a second question, “What does the Bible indicate?”
During and after my time in the CM, I heard it said, “If the healing doesn’t take, or take place, it’s because you don’t have enough faith.” I have seen desperately ill boys and girls hoping (faithing) for a miracle, only to be disappointed. Rather than ascribing failure to the healer, or to misinterpretation of God’s word, the sick person is left with this, “You don’t believe enough… you lack faith.” Is this so? Can this be so? What does the Bible teach us about such a notion? John chapter 9 provides us with the narrative of the man, blind from birth, that Jesus healed. Certainly, the man “did not see Jesus coming.” Nor did the man believe and worship Christ until after Christ identified Himself as the Son of man. Read and reflect upon the text:
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5 "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." 6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam " (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing…35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" 37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." 38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him (Joh 9:1-7; 35-38).
The blind man correctly put his faith in Christ after the healing miracle. The Father had caused the man to be born blind so that He could have Jesus demonstrate His glory. The blind man’s healing was not contingent upon the blind man having enough faith. Another example of the recipient of healing lacking in faith is found in the Old Testament, in the account of the healing of Naaman the Syrian. He was an idolater and an enemy of the people of Israel. He suffered from leprosy and out of desperation turned to a Jewish seer, Elisha. As for having enough faith to receive healing, the narrative speaks for itself.
9 So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean." 11 But Naaman was furious and went away and said, "Behold, I thought, 'He will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.' 12 "Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, "My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean '?" 14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean. 15 When he returned to the man of God with all his company, and came and stood before him, he said, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; so please take a present from your servant now (2Ki 5:9-15).”
Naaman, upon hearing the prophet’s instructions, went away in a rage. He saw Israel and it’s rivers as inferior. Ultimately, submitting to the prophet’s instructions disgusted him. Providentially, at the entreaties of his own servants, Naaman complied, again out of desperation. Despite his skepticism, not because of his great faith, the Lord healed Naaman. Naaman’s reaction is telling:
15 When he returned to the man of God with all his company, and came and stood before him, he said, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; so please take a present from your servant now (2Ki 5:9-15).”
Naaman’s healing led to Naaman’s faith in God. His faith in God did not lead to His healing. Naaman became a believer that day. God healed, as always, according as He wills. Let us conclude that the success or failure of “a healing” does not depend on the sick person “having enough faith.” It depends on the will of God, who heals according as He wills. Thus, the notion that many have about healing---“You can be healed if you have enough faith”—is false. The notion that if you have enough faith you will be healed is a sad one indeed. I remember one leader in the CM movement commenting on Joni Eareckson Tada’s quadriplegia, noting that if she had enough faith, God would heal her. She writes of having received phone calls exhorting her to “just believe” and she would receive full healing and restoration. If anyone has “great faith” it is Joni Eareckson Tada. The suggestion that her life of quadriplegia is in someway connected with the quality or quantify of her faith is worrisome, to say the least.
In light of what God has spoken through the Scriptures we have considered, pause now, asking and answering these questions in your own mind and heart.
ONE: As I child of God should I expect healing? Should I expect healing because I am a Christian? Should I expect that everyone receives the same gifts from God, given that the Bible says just the opposite?
TWO: Does God heal everyone who wants to be healed if they have “enough faith?” How does Job’s affliction square with his great faith? How is it that Timothy, the Apostle’s assistant, did not receive healing given his great faith? Paul, a man of great faith, was unable to heal Epaphroditus and despaired Epaphroditus’ death? Did Paul lack sufficient faith? Did Epaphroditus? Should I reconsider my belief that if a person has enough faith, then he or she can be healed?
THREE: Does God heal those who do not have “great faith,” or “enough faith?” The man born blind did not come to faith, or demonstrate faith until after he was healed. Naaman did not come to faith until after he was healed. Naaman loathed the prophet’s instructions. Given these biblical realities, do I need to reconsider my belief that if a person has enough faith, then he can be healed?
FOUR: Many healing services act as if God heals in response to human demand? The Bible indicates otherwise. Indeed, Jesus said He could do nothing apart from the Father’s initiative. What does this tell us about pastors and churches who teach in contradiction to what the Bible clearly shows? Did God heal in response to Paul’s entreaty that the thorn in his flesh be removed? Is it time to re-evaluate your understanding in light of what the Bible says, instead of the traditions of men you have received with regard to healing?
FIVE: Glance at any one of Joni Eareckson Tada books. Consider her life of faith and service. Do you really believe she would be walking right now if she “just had enough faith?” What changes do you need to make in your thinking?
SIX: Prayerfully examine your, your pastor's, and your church's views and positions and practices when it comes to healing. Do they line up with what the Bible teaches?
PS: We will post again on or before September 2
Next we will consider "What healing looks like."
At this service, those in need of healing lined up to receive the miracle of healing. The line was quite long. The pastor, who often identified himself as “God’s Annointed,” started down the line healing people. At his touch, people noticeably reacted to his touch and uniformly fell backward. As he approached a young lady, he shouted “No one touch her, she’s got a demon!” This caution elicited a reaction. As I was surprised and intrigued by this revelation, my eyes soon turned to the end of the line where sat a young girl in a wheelchair. Looking at her, I could see she was bald by either cancer or the necessary radiation and chemotherapy treatments.
As “God’s Annointed” worked his way down the line of those needed healing, he healed them of various maladies, spending time talking about each one. To my astonishment, as he neared this young girl, he seemed to become distracted. He talked on about the various promises of God. For to heal the young girl of her cancer, “God’s anointed ended the healing service. The service ended with people being healed of migraine headaches, stiff backs. None of these maladies could be “diagnosed” just by looking at the person. This was not true of the young cancer patient. New to the faith and more than a little naïve, I assumed he just forgot about her. Knowing what I know of him today, I know better.
Healing events, like the one described above, are the hallmark of today’s charismatic movement. Was this the face of “New Testament Era” healing that all believers should enjoy today? Many in the CM insist that the New Testament saints routinely healed the sick in the infant church. Therefore, not less than a few argue that Christians should do today just as the Apostles and other miracle workers did during New Testament Times. Some go as far to suggest that if you have enough faith you can be healed of any disease or heal others. Faith is the key. Men and women of this persuasion insist that God wants all people to be healed and healing is for today—just as it was during Jesus’ time and the time of the Apostles.
Indeed, many insist that we can claim healing as a right because as believers we are children of The King, children of God. Others go as far to conduct special healing services where they claim healing and seemingly heal at will, or at their own discretion (or “on demand”). Is this idea biblical? Is this idea supported by Scripture? What does the word of God indicate? We will look to the word of God to begin to answer these and other questions.
Let us leave the discussion of whether such gifts as “miraculous healing” is for today for another (perhaps later) time. Instead, let us focus on the Biblical evidence about healing. What does the Bible teach us about miraculous healing? Who determines when and how healing takes place (God or man)? Does failure to heal indicate a lack of living faith on the part of the man (or woman) who fails to heal? Should every solid, “Bible believing, true blue Christian” expect to be healed, be healed by others, heal themselves, or heal others?
Brothers and sisters, many good men and women differ on their understanding of healing. While not all of us understand completely everything there is to know about healing and or miracle working, we must ask and answer the question, “What can we be certain of by looking to the pages of Scripture?” Let us consider what the Bible clearly teaches about healing. Once again, let us ask and answer the question “What can we learn from the Bible about healing? What conclusions can we draw from the narratives, teachings, and lessons taught in the Scriptures? Let us pause a moment to review what we already learned from Scripture.
For one thing, we all must understand, as we already learned, that not everyone received the spiritual gift of being able to heal others. Therefore, no everyone should expect to be able to heal someone no matter how much faith they, or the person, has. In the Bible, the Holy Spirit put it this way, speaking through the apostle:
5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills. 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be (1Co 12:5-17)?
The Bible is plain. The Holy Spirit is clear. God gave to various people various gifts. No all people receive all gifts, or the same gifts. Therefore, not every Christian expected to receive the ability to heal people. God gave to each member as “He wills.” One receives one gift, another receives another gift. Let us return to the text and revisit what the Holy Spirit says through the pen of the apostle:
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills…17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be (1Co 12:5-11, 17)?
This much should be clear: even in “New Testament Times” not all Christians expected to work miracles of healing, to heal others. Not every Christian who read Paul’s epistles to Corinth expected to speak in tongues. This may shock some readers but not even the Apostles were able to heal “at will” or at their “discretion.” Such abilities were distributed and employed as “He (God) wills (willed).” Consider the Apostle Paul’s inspired words:
19 Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus. 20 Erastus remained at Corinth, but Trophimus I left sick at Miletus (2Ti 4:19-20).
Ponder the implications and indications of “Trophimus I left sick at Miletus.” Paul had to leave behind a co-laborer at Miletus because the man was ill. One wonders and may ask the question, “Paul, why not heal Trophimus?” Did Paul lack faith? Did the “Apostle to the Gentiles” who spoke in tongues more than others, who performed all kinds of other miracles lack sufficient faith to heal this man? Perhaps Trophimus lacked faith? This is unlikely because Paul chose him as one who accompanied him on his missionary journeys (see Acts 20 and 21).
As you ponder Paul’s leaving Trophimus sick at Miletus, consider the indications of Paul’s advice to Timothy: “No longer drink water exclusively, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. (1Ti 5:23).” Consider the implications of this verse. Apparently neither Timothy nor Paul could heal Timothy of his stomach ailments. Therefore, Paul advises Timothy to mix water with wine in order to help alleviate some of his difficulties. Did Timothy lack faith? It is unlikely that Timothy lacked sufficient faith at that time since Paul had entrusted him with the care of souls at the Ephesian church. Remember, Christian, it was Timothy whom the apostle dispatched to check on the church at Thessalonica. Timothy was a man of faith, great faith. 1 and 2 Timothy are composed to this man. Paul and Timothy were pastors (one was an Apostle). Paul described Timothy this way: “2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith…(1Ti 1:2).” This should call into question the notion that all Christians should be able to heal at any time, if one has enough faith. This also calls into question the notion that all Christians should be able to heal others at will like the apostles allegedly did. Neither Paul nor Timothy could heal Timothy of Timothy’s stomach problems. Apparently Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the commandment of God (1 Timothy 1:1) could not heal himself, or others, whenever he chose though it is unlikely his faith in Christ was not of sufficient intensity or scope.
Beloved, not only must we understand that not all believers receive all, or even the same, gifts, but not even the Apostles uniformly received and manifested the same gifts, or some gifts all the time. The Apostle Paul could not heal whenever he wanted! Therefore, second and third, we learn that God does not heal on demand and that those able to heal could not heal whenever they wished. It is all up to God. And if this was true then, it is true now. Some argue that Paul chose not to heal Timothy or Trophimus. Some argue that if Paul had wanted to claim healing for these men he could have; however, for some reason Paul chose not to do so. Two other occurrences contradict such a notion. Consider the testimony of Philippians 2:25-28:
25 But I thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger and minister to my need; 26 because he was longing for you all and was distressed because you had heard that he was sick. 27 For indeed he was sick to the point of death, but God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 Therefore I have sent him all the more eagerly so that when you see him again you may rejoice and I may be less concerned about you (Phi 2:25-28).
Paul was heartsick over the illness of his dear friend, Epaphroditus. Providentially and mercifully, God healed him, as Paul put it, “so that I would not have sorrow upon sorrow.” God healed Epaphroditus as God willed. Paul did not heal Epaphroditus at his own discretion. The Bible, here in the book of Philippians, indicates Paul could not, or did not. Ephaphroditus’ situation greatly grieved Paul.
Indications are that Paul was unable to do so. Indeed, Ephaphroditus’ illness advanced until he was sick to the point of death. Why did not Paul heal him? Paul certainly did not lack the faith, nor did he lack the love or concern. Paul was not free to heal as he willed but only as God willed. Similarly, in the "New Testament Era," Christians were not empowered to heal whenever they chose, even as “children of the King.” The reality is that Paul could not even heal, or deliver himself. Consider the testimony of 2 Corinthians 12:7-9:
7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me-- to keep me from exalting myself! 8 Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. 9 And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me (2Co 12:7-9).
Paul, like Jesus, could do nothing on his own initiative. All healing and restoration depended on the sovereignty of the Father. Relief from his affliction was not the Father’s will. Therefore, Paul could not heal himself, nor would God remove the affliction.
Should every believer expect to be able to heal anyone, on demand? It would seem that the Bible’s answer is “no.” I doubt there are few, if any, of greater faith than an apostle chosen by Christ, by commandment of God. Is this not consistent with the testimony of Scripture? After all did the Lord Jesus not say: “I can do nothing on My own initiative?”
*30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. (Joh 5:30)
*28 So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me. (Joh 8:28)
*42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. (Joh 8:42)
*49 "For I did not speak on My own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent Me has given Me a commandment as to what to say and what to speak. (Joh 12:49)
*13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. (Joh 16:13)
The Father in heaven decided what Jesus said and did. He decided what the Spirit did. He decided that Paul would not able to heal Trophimus, Timothy, Epaphroditus, or himself. Now some would argue that the gifts during the later part of Paul’s ministry were fading as the Scriptures were recorded and the infant church was established. We will not take up this conversation here. However, it is safe to say that the time, place, and means of healing is not up to men, rather it is up to God. He allows healing as He wills. Men seem neither to have the ability or liberty to heal on demand, according to their own will.
Let’s review the questions we asked at the beginning of our discussion and answer them.
1.Who determines when and how healing takes place, God or man?
2.Does failure to heal indicate a lack of living faith on the part of the man (or woman) who fails to heal?
3.Should every solid, “believing believer” expect to be healed, to heal themselves, or heal others?
Scripturally, the answers to questions one and three are “no.” No, man does not determine who is healed or when. No, believers should not expect to heal, or be healed by others. First, not everyone received the same gifts. Second, healing is determined according as He wills, not as we will. Paul was unable to heal as he willed. Jesus said all that He did was at the Father’s initiative. Should any other believer expect any different treatment than the Apostle Paul, or the Son of God?
Let us not forget that Job, the greatest of all the men of the East did not heal himself, could not heal himself (after all Job was a prophet). Let us also not forget that God allowed Job’s illness. Did Job lack faith? Let us return to question 2, “Does failure to heal indicate a lack of faith?” To answer this question we must asked a second question, “What does the Bible indicate?”
During and after my time in the CM, I heard it said, “If the healing doesn’t take, or take place, it’s because you don’t have enough faith.” I have seen desperately ill boys and girls hoping (faithing) for a miracle, only to be disappointed. Rather than ascribing failure to the healer, or to misinterpretation of God’s word, the sick person is left with this, “You don’t believe enough… you lack faith.” Is this so? Can this be so? What does the Bible teach us about such a notion? John chapter 9 provides us with the narrative of the man, blind from birth, that Jesus healed. Certainly, the man “did not see Jesus coming.” Nor did the man believe and worship Christ until after Christ identified Himself as the Son of man. Read and reflect upon the text:
As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4 "We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. 5 "While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." 6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, 7 and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam " (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing…35 Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?" 36 He answered, "Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" 37 Jesus said to him, "You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you." 38 And he said, "Lord, I believe." And he worshiped Him (Joh 9:1-7; 35-38).
The blind man correctly put his faith in Christ after the healing miracle. The Father had caused the man to be born blind so that He could have Jesus demonstrate His glory. The blind man’s healing was not contingent upon the blind man having enough faith. Another example of the recipient of healing lacking in faith is found in the Old Testament, in the account of the healing of Naaman the Syrian. He was an idolater and an enemy of the people of Israel. He suffered from leprosy and out of desperation turned to a Jewish seer, Elisha. As for having enough faith to receive healing, the narrative speaks for itself.
9 So Naaman came with his horses and his chariots and stood at the doorway of the house of Elisha. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, "Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh will be restored to you and you will be clean." 11 But Naaman was furious and went away and said, "Behold, I thought, 'He will surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and wave his hand over the place and cure the leper.' 12 "Are not Abanah and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them and be clean?" So he turned and went away in a rage. 13 Then his servants came near and spoke to him and said, "My father, had the prophet told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more then, when he says to you, 'Wash, and be clean '?" 14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child and he was clean. 15 When he returned to the man of God with all his company, and came and stood before him, he said, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; so please take a present from your servant now (2Ki 5:9-15).”
Naaman, upon hearing the prophet’s instructions, went away in a rage. He saw Israel and it’s rivers as inferior. Ultimately, submitting to the prophet’s instructions disgusted him. Providentially, at the entreaties of his own servants, Naaman complied, again out of desperation. Despite his skepticism, not because of his great faith, the Lord healed Naaman. Naaman’s reaction is telling:
15 When he returned to the man of God with all his company, and came and stood before him, he said, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; so please take a present from your servant now (2Ki 5:9-15).”
Naaman’s healing led to Naaman’s faith in God. His faith in God did not lead to His healing. Naaman became a believer that day. God healed, as always, according as He wills. Let us conclude that the success or failure of “a healing” does not depend on the sick person “having enough faith.” It depends on the will of God, who heals according as He wills. Thus, the notion that many have about healing---“You can be healed if you have enough faith”—is false. The notion that if you have enough faith you will be healed is a sad one indeed. I remember one leader in the CM movement commenting on Joni Eareckson Tada’s quadriplegia, noting that if she had enough faith, God would heal her. She writes of having received phone calls exhorting her to “just believe” and she would receive full healing and restoration. If anyone has “great faith” it is Joni Eareckson Tada. The suggestion that her life of quadriplegia is in someway connected with the quality or quantify of her faith is worrisome, to say the least.
In light of what God has spoken through the Scriptures we have considered, pause now, asking and answering these questions in your own mind and heart.
ONE: As I child of God should I expect healing? Should I expect healing because I am a Christian? Should I expect that everyone receives the same gifts from God, given that the Bible says just the opposite?
TWO: Does God heal everyone who wants to be healed if they have “enough faith?” How does Job’s affliction square with his great faith? How is it that Timothy, the Apostle’s assistant, did not receive healing given his great faith? Paul, a man of great faith, was unable to heal Epaphroditus and despaired Epaphroditus’ death? Did Paul lack sufficient faith? Did Epaphroditus? Should I reconsider my belief that if a person has enough faith, then he or she can be healed?
THREE: Does God heal those who do not have “great faith,” or “enough faith?” The man born blind did not come to faith, or demonstrate faith until after he was healed. Naaman did not come to faith until after he was healed. Naaman loathed the prophet’s instructions. Given these biblical realities, do I need to reconsider my belief that if a person has enough faith, then he can be healed?
FOUR: Many healing services act as if God heals in response to human demand? The Bible indicates otherwise. Indeed, Jesus said He could do nothing apart from the Father’s initiative. What does this tell us about pastors and churches who teach in contradiction to what the Bible clearly shows? Did God heal in response to Paul’s entreaty that the thorn in his flesh be removed? Is it time to re-evaluate your understanding in light of what the Bible says, instead of the traditions of men you have received with regard to healing?
FIVE: Glance at any one of Joni Eareckson Tada books. Consider her life of faith and service. Do you really believe she would be walking right now if she “just had enough faith?” What changes do you need to make in your thinking?
SIX: Prayerfully examine your, your pastor's, and your church's views and positions and practices when it comes to healing. Do they line up with what the Bible teaches?
PS: We will post again on or before September 2
Next we will consider "What healing looks like."
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Chapter 4: What About Healing (Introductory Comments)?
Healing is a major facet (and attraction) of today's Charismatic Movement (CM). Many in the CM believe that modern day Christians should be able to do everything that “New Testament” era believers did during the early days of the church. They believe that following the events of Pentecost every real Christian has access to healing. More than a few believe that healing was an every day occurrence in the early church; therefore, healing should be an every day occurrence in today’s church.
Beloved, there is a need for healing in our fallen world. Many young children are born with birth defects and grave conditions exist among the elderly. Middle-aged people suffer from aches and pains resulting from the corruption of sin and its affects on our world. “Good people” have great needs. There are also many desperate people in desperate situations where modern medicine has run out of answers. Many people today need a miracle. Should they expect one?
Some say that God wants to heal everybody who is sick. Some say that believers in particular should never suffer from illness. Had they adequate faith they could heal themselves, or receive healing from a miracle-working healer. I have been told that as a “Child of the King” I should expect healing as part of my “inheritance.” I have heard people say to those seemingly impervious to a miracle-working healer’s “power” that they (the sick persons) simply did not have enough faith. They say if the sick person had enough faith they would be well. Can this be so? What does the Bible indicate? What is the testimony of Scripture?
These are important questions because the stakes can be quite high. They are important because at least one father in Wisconsin, the state where I reside, faced charges of reckless homicide for “expecting a miracle” and allowing his young daughter to die because he did not seek medical treatment for her. Instead, he expected a healing miracle. In a similar case, a man in Oregon faced similar charges in the death of his daughter. Should they have expected a healing miracle? Did their children die because either the parents or the children lacked enough faith? What about healing? Since our beliefs have consequences, let us look to the testimony of Scripture for our understanding and for the answers to these questions.
PS: We will post again on or before August 27.
As you prepare for this next post, prayerfully examine your beliefs about this topic and their ramifications.
Beloved, there is a need for healing in our fallen world. Many young children are born with birth defects and grave conditions exist among the elderly. Middle-aged people suffer from aches and pains resulting from the corruption of sin and its affects on our world. “Good people” have great needs. There are also many desperate people in desperate situations where modern medicine has run out of answers. Many people today need a miracle. Should they expect one?
Some say that God wants to heal everybody who is sick. Some say that believers in particular should never suffer from illness. Had they adequate faith they could heal themselves, or receive healing from a miracle-working healer. I have been told that as a “Child of the King” I should expect healing as part of my “inheritance.” I have heard people say to those seemingly impervious to a miracle-working healer’s “power” that they (the sick persons) simply did not have enough faith. They say if the sick person had enough faith they would be well. Can this be so? What does the Bible indicate? What is the testimony of Scripture?
These are important questions because the stakes can be quite high. They are important because at least one father in Wisconsin, the state where I reside, faced charges of reckless homicide for “expecting a miracle” and allowing his young daughter to die because he did not seek medical treatment for her. Instead, he expected a healing miracle. In a similar case, a man in Oregon faced similar charges in the death of his daughter. Should they have expected a healing miracle? Did their children die because either the parents or the children lacked enough faith? What about healing? Since our beliefs have consequences, let us look to the testimony of Scripture for our understanding and for the answers to these questions.
PS: We will post again on or before August 27.
As you prepare for this next post, prayerfully examine your beliefs about this topic and their ramifications.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Chapter 3: What about Tongues (Cont'd)?
More than one person might be inclined to pose the question, “Well, all of this is well and good but what about my private prayer language? When I pray in my private prayer language, I am not violating Scripture since it's just me. After all, I am not doing it in the church. So what's the problem? What about a private prayer language?” This is an important question. This question, however, must be clarified with a question. “What is a private prayer language?” Some would argue that it is a form of speaking in tongues. Given the context of the Holy Spirit’s discussion of “If I pray in a tongue…” we understand that the employment of a private prayer language is speaking in tongues, the difference being that one is doing so alone. The concept of private prayer language comes from what the Spirit communicated through the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14. As is always the case with reading, understanding, interpreting, and applying a verse of Scripture, we must look at the verse in context.
12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. 13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen " at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue (1Co 14:12-19).
As you consider this passage, ask yourself this question, “Just what is the point of the Spirit’s discussion? What has the Spirit moved Paul to write and why? What is the focus of this passage? A thoughtful read of this passage (indeed all of chapters 12-14) reveals that God wants our worship practices to focus around the good of others. We are to engage in other oriented worship practices. In verse 12, the unruly and self-oriented church at Corinth is exhorted and admonished to be more concerned with the edification (the building up) of others than the display of their gifts. Beginning in verse 13 the Spirit commands that the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he provide interpretation. This is not optional. Therefore, the Spirit, speaking through the pen of Paul indicates that one who speaks in a tongue should desire to know what he or she is saying. Why is this? His action, or manifestation of such a gift, should be for the good of others. Only this should be the speaker’s motive. Otherwise, the Spirit (and the Apostle) would not give such a command: “13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret (1Co 14:13).” Consider what God says, in His word, in verses 14-17. He says that if one speaks, prays, or sings in a tongue without knowing what he is saying, “What good does it do?”
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen " at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified (1Co 14:14-17).
Consider that this conversation hearkens back to all we have discussed thus far, as it prepares us to think biblically about what some would describe as “my private prayer language.” Perhaps I should mention here that my wife and I came out of a charismatic background as new believers.
During my early Christian life, I was a follower of Ken and Gloria Copeland. Moreover, when I began to seek Christ, the first church I visited was the Orlando Christian Center, in Orlando, Florida, where Benny Hinn was the senior pastor. My wife came to Christ at a third wave, full gospel, charismatic church in Atlanta, Georgia, pastored by a man named Chuck Strong. It was there she was “taught” to speak in tongues. Once, during a family crisis, where my brother was tottering on the verge of death from AIDS, my wife asked if she could go privately and pray in tongues. I granted my permission. Looking back, I have to ask myself, “What was I thinking?” Did I believe God was more pleased with prayer in a “private prayer language” than in English?
The language of private prayers is “tongues."What is the purpose of a private prayer language? I ask the same question as the Spirit asks through the Apostle Paul, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then (1Co 14:14-15)?
“What is the outcome then…” means “what good is it?” If tongues were for a sign to the unbeliever, then what is the outcome of one’s private prayer language? If one prays and does not understand then one’s mind is unfruitful---unedified. What is the outcome then? What good is it?
At the same time, if one prays in a tongue and understands (i.e. his mind is fruitful) why not pray in the mother tongue that God assigned you when He selected to town, county, state, and nation of your birth, along with your parents? What good is it to do otherwise? After all, tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever. That much is certain:
20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:20-23)?
It is bad enough when churches, like Corinth, spoke in tongues in an ungodly way, without order and unbelievers thought them mad. However, God says it is just as bad to exercise our gifts in other ways He does not approve. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. Where does this fit in to the concept of a private prayer language? One is hard pressed to make such a case from Scripture.
Let us be careful not to attempt to read things into Scripture and impose our desires on the text. Trying to make the case for a private prayer language, when all things are to be done for the edification of the church and tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, from an isolated verse or two. This is a danger the cults face. Remember, as we earlier discussed, the Mormons baptize by proxy for dead people calling it “baptism for the dead” by pulling 1 Corinthians 15:29 out of context and reading their preference into the verse. Advocates of a private prayer language seem to be guilty of a similar practice. The same can be said of those who insist that some tongues are angelic language. These well intended people, brothers, and sisters take a passages like 1 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 14:14 and draw conclusions based upon insufficient data and while ignoring the context.
For a better understanding of these passages, we are forced to delve into aspects of the Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Granted few people read or are functionally in Greek (and Hebrew) and for this reason little emphasis has been placed on them. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the statements in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14, to which we refer are in the subjunctive mood. Why is this important? This is important because some would argue that Paul (or the Holy Spirit) rather than taking time to identify who and who did not have the gift of tongues at Corinth (since not all Christians receive this gift) chose instead to make a number of “if-statements.” Thus, the subjunctive is employed. An “if statement” not to be crass choose not to argue fact but possibility: “If pigs could fly they would have wings.” The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility, that something might be possible. Thus, rather than debate the issue, all its potential permutations, and challenge individually every individual at Corinth who claimed the gift, Paul, rather, the Holy Spirit, choosing not to waste the space seems to say, in effect, “If….then it must be done this way…” effectively legislating and regulating the false practitioners into silence:
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful… 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad…26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:13-37).
Any one noting the “let’s” and the “must’s” becomes aware of the commands (imperative mood) and the “if’s” reveal the subjunctive mood. Rather than debate who is and who is not gifted, or whether there is a private prayer language, the Spirit gives commands strongly regulating tongues, with the strongest of warnings at the end: “37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:37-38).” Thoughtfully consider Those who ignore the regulations and limitations God puts on speaking in tongues (or prophecy) in these chapters are not to be recognized as legitimately representing Him, or employing a gift in accordance with His will, a will expressed with such clarity here in His word.
So, what about a private prayer language, or an angelic language? Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers so that they can hear the word of God in their language and respond:
8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God. 14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words…36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Act 2:8-41).
I would suggest the value of a private prayer language is small, if not entirely inconsequential compared to the salvation of souls. The Holy Spirit puts it this way:
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature (1Co 14:18-20).
As you reflect upon these things, ask and answer these questions before God, in your mind.
ONE: If the Holy Spirit says that tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever, then, biblically speaking, where does speaking in a private prayer language, or in an angelic language fit in to the equation? After all, if you seem to be babbling in an unintelligible way, will the hearer not think you are mad?
TWO: When people reveal, “I have a private prayer language,” are they giving glory to God, or someone else? If it is private, then why make it public?
THREE: Since God, the Holy Spirit, puts strict limitations on the display of tongue and warns that those who ignore these strictures are not to be taken seriously, what should we think of churches and pastors who allow several people, or groups of people, to speak in tongues all at the same time?
This last question brings us to a final consideration on tongues, “How tongues?” Biblically speaking, “What does the Bible say about speaking in tongues in God’s church?” In other words, “Does the Bible teach that there is a wrong way and a right way?”
6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1Co 12:6-11).
In short the Spirit of God speaking through the Apostle Paul, tells us that God gives certain gifts to certain people to be used “as He wills.” Too many people seem to forget this and seek, as did the unruly church at Corinth, to employ the gifts as they will.
Has God given us instruction on the use of gifts? Yes, He has. At the risk of repeating myself, let’s revisit 1 Corinthians 14.
23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. 26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret (1Co 14:23-27).
If no one can interpret, or if two or three have already spoken, the one who desires to speak in tongues must remain silent. No one is to speak in tongues unless he can be certain that he, or someone else will interpret. Moreover, if God’s quota has been met, then all others with the gift must remain silent. How serious is God about these things? Consider what God has to say through Paul:
37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:37-38).
Those who are apt to disobey God’s commands are not to be taken seriously: “he is not recongnized.”
Some will bristle or resist what we have pointed out from Scripture. Many, unhappy with what the word of God has to say about their lives or practices seek, as does the cult of Mormonism seeking to justify proxy baptism for the dead, a verse, or part of a verse, they might employ to take issue with the crystal clear teaching of God’s word. This ought not to be. Finding obscure verses or phrases or less clear phrases in no way compromises the clarity of clearer passages. Humility, like love for God and His word, requires a believer to obey the clear passages without attempting to muddy up the waters, or seek escape clauses so that he or she may have occasion to disobey God.
PS: We will post again on or before 8/21/2009
12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. 13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen " at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. 18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue (1Co 14:12-19).
As you consider this passage, ask yourself this question, “Just what is the point of the Spirit’s discussion? What has the Spirit moved Paul to write and why? What is the focus of this passage? A thoughtful read of this passage (indeed all of chapters 12-14) reveals that God wants our worship practices to focus around the good of others. We are to engage in other oriented worship practices. In verse 12, the unruly and self-oriented church at Corinth is exhorted and admonished to be more concerned with the edification (the building up) of others than the display of their gifts. Beginning in verse 13 the Spirit commands that the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he provide interpretation. This is not optional. Therefore, the Spirit, speaking through the pen of Paul indicates that one who speaks in a tongue should desire to know what he or she is saying. Why is this? His action, or manifestation of such a gift, should be for the good of others. Only this should be the speaker’s motive. Otherwise, the Spirit (and the Apostle) would not give such a command: “13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret (1Co 14:13).” Consider what God says, in His word, in verses 14-17. He says that if one speaks, prays, or sings in a tongue without knowing what he is saying, “What good does it do?”
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. 16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen " at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified (1Co 14:14-17).
Consider that this conversation hearkens back to all we have discussed thus far, as it prepares us to think biblically about what some would describe as “my private prayer language.” Perhaps I should mention here that my wife and I came out of a charismatic background as new believers.
During my early Christian life, I was a follower of Ken and Gloria Copeland. Moreover, when I began to seek Christ, the first church I visited was the Orlando Christian Center, in Orlando, Florida, where Benny Hinn was the senior pastor. My wife came to Christ at a third wave, full gospel, charismatic church in Atlanta, Georgia, pastored by a man named Chuck Strong. It was there she was “taught” to speak in tongues. Once, during a family crisis, where my brother was tottering on the verge of death from AIDS, my wife asked if she could go privately and pray in tongues. I granted my permission. Looking back, I have to ask myself, “What was I thinking?” Did I believe God was more pleased with prayer in a “private prayer language” than in English?
The language of private prayers is “tongues."What is the purpose of a private prayer language? I ask the same question as the Spirit asks through the Apostle Paul, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then (1Co 14:14-15)?
“What is the outcome then…” means “what good is it?” If tongues were for a sign to the unbeliever, then what is the outcome of one’s private prayer language? If one prays and does not understand then one’s mind is unfruitful---unedified. What is the outcome then? What good is it?
At the same time, if one prays in a tongue and understands (i.e. his mind is fruitful) why not pray in the mother tongue that God assigned you when He selected to town, county, state, and nation of your birth, along with your parents? What good is it to do otherwise? After all, tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever. That much is certain:
20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:20-23)?
It is bad enough when churches, like Corinth, spoke in tongues in an ungodly way, without order and unbelievers thought them mad. However, God says it is just as bad to exercise our gifts in other ways He does not approve. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. Where does this fit in to the concept of a private prayer language? One is hard pressed to make such a case from Scripture.
Let us be careful not to attempt to read things into Scripture and impose our desires on the text. Trying to make the case for a private prayer language, when all things are to be done for the edification of the church and tongues are a sign for the unbeliever, from an isolated verse or two. This is a danger the cults face. Remember, as we earlier discussed, the Mormons baptize by proxy for dead people calling it “baptism for the dead” by pulling 1 Corinthians 15:29 out of context and reading their preference into the verse. Advocates of a private prayer language seem to be guilty of a similar practice. The same can be said of those who insist that some tongues are angelic language. These well intended people, brothers, and sisters take a passages like 1 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 14:14 and draw conclusions based upon insufficient data and while ignoring the context.
For a better understanding of these passages, we are forced to delve into aspects of the Koine Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Granted few people read or are functionally in Greek (and Hebrew) and for this reason little emphasis has been placed on them. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that the statements in 1 Corinthians 13 and 14, to which we refer are in the subjunctive mood. Why is this important? This is important because some would argue that Paul (or the Holy Spirit) rather than taking time to identify who and who did not have the gift of tongues at Corinth (since not all Christians receive this gift) chose instead to make a number of “if-statements.” Thus, the subjunctive is employed. An “if statement” not to be crass choose not to argue fact but possibility: “If pigs could fly they would have wings.” The subjunctive mood is the mood of possibility, that something might be possible. Thus, rather than debate the issue, all its potential permutations, and challenge individually every individual at Corinth who claimed the gift, Paul, rather, the Holy Spirit, choosing not to waste the space seems to say, in effect, “If….then it must be done this way…” effectively legislating and regulating the false practitioners into silence:
13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful… 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad…26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. 36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:13-37).
Any one noting the “let’s” and the “must’s” becomes aware of the commands (imperative mood) and the “if’s” reveal the subjunctive mood. Rather than debate who is and who is not gifted, or whether there is a private prayer language, the Spirit gives commands strongly regulating tongues, with the strongest of warnings at the end: “37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:37-38).” Thoughtfully consider Those who ignore the regulations and limitations God puts on speaking in tongues (or prophecy) in these chapters are not to be recognized as legitimately representing Him, or employing a gift in accordance with His will, a will expressed with such clarity here in His word.
So, what about a private prayer language, or an angelic language? Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers so that they can hear the word of God in their language and respond:
8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God. 14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words…36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified." 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Act 2:8-41).
I would suggest the value of a private prayer language is small, if not entirely inconsequential compared to the salvation of souls. The Holy Spirit puts it this way:
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature (1Co 14:18-20).
As you reflect upon these things, ask and answer these questions before God, in your mind.
ONE: If the Holy Spirit says that tongues are for a sign to the unbeliever, then, biblically speaking, where does speaking in a private prayer language, or in an angelic language fit in to the equation? After all, if you seem to be babbling in an unintelligible way, will the hearer not think you are mad?
TWO: When people reveal, “I have a private prayer language,” are they giving glory to God, or someone else? If it is private, then why make it public?
THREE: Since God, the Holy Spirit, puts strict limitations on the display of tongue and warns that those who ignore these strictures are not to be taken seriously, what should we think of churches and pastors who allow several people, or groups of people, to speak in tongues all at the same time?
This last question brings us to a final consideration on tongues, “How tongues?” Biblically speaking, “What does the Bible say about speaking in tongues in God’s church?” In other words, “Does the Bible teach that there is a wrong way and a right way?”
6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills (1Co 12:6-11).
In short the Spirit of God speaking through the Apostle Paul, tells us that God gives certain gifts to certain people to be used “as He wills.” Too many people seem to forget this and seek, as did the unruly church at Corinth, to employ the gifts as they will.
Has God given us instruction on the use of gifts? Yes, He has. At the risk of repeating myself, let’s revisit 1 Corinthians 14.
23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. 26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret (1Co 14:23-27).
If no one can interpret, or if two or three have already spoken, the one who desires to speak in tongues must remain silent. No one is to speak in tongues unless he can be certain that he, or someone else will interpret. Moreover, if God’s quota has been met, then all others with the gift must remain silent. How serious is God about these things? Consider what God has to say through Paul:
37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. 38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1Co 14:37-38).
Those who are apt to disobey God’s commands are not to be taken seriously: “he is not recongnized.”
Some will bristle or resist what we have pointed out from Scripture. Many, unhappy with what the word of God has to say about their lives or practices seek, as does the cult of Mormonism seeking to justify proxy baptism for the dead, a verse, or part of a verse, they might employ to take issue with the crystal clear teaching of God’s word. This ought not to be. Finding obscure verses or phrases or less clear phrases in no way compromises the clarity of clearer passages. Humility, like love for God and His word, requires a believer to obey the clear passages without attempting to muddy up the waters, or seek escape clauses so that he or she may have occasion to disobey God.
PS: We will post again on or before 8/21/2009
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Chapter Three: What about Tongues (part three)?
I once sat in a church where people were encouraged to “take some time now and worship God in your own way.” Immediately, scores, if not hundreds, of people began speaking in tongues all at once. This was once described as a "symphony of speaking in tongues." As I pondered the event, I asked the question, “Why?” Why did this happen? Is this the way God intended it to be? This led to another question, “Why the gift of tongues?” Why did God grant to some the ability to supernaturally speak in foreign languages to others who would not normally be able to understand them? Why did God bestow on some the ability to speak (and or interpret) languages foreign to them? It is likely that if you asked 50 Christian people for their opinions that you would likely receive numerous opinions. Therefore, we must ask and answer the most important question, “What does the Bible say?”
Does the Bible, anywhere, give a clear indication of the purpose of tongues? The Spirit of God speaking through the pen of His apostle provides us insight in His letter to the unruly church at Corinth, which abused the graces God gave them. What does He say? Speaking through the pen of Paul the Holy Spirit says this:
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:18-23)?
Look at the “So then” statement: “So then tongues are a sign, not for those who believe but unbelievers.” “So then” is equivalent to “in conclusion,” or “therefore,” or “in light of what I just said…” “So then” points us back up the stream of thought. Let us ask ourselves this question, “What was the previous line of reasoning?” Just what was the previous line of reasoning? Paul was warning them of their self-absorbed, self-oriented displays of self-exaltation. In the wider context of 1 Corinthians 13, setting up chapter 14, the Spirit instructs us on love and ability without love:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing (1Co 13:1-3).
“Tongue talking” for the sake of “tongue talking,” or with no real godly aim in mind, is useless and not God honoring as it lacks love. Tongue talking for any purpose other than God’s purpose is lacks love of God and others. Moreover, God grants the ability to speak in a foreign language to those who can understand it for the purpose of evangelism. Indeed, this is what happened at Pentecost.
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:6-12)?”
As the foreign language speakers sat stunned that these “Galileans” were somehow proclaiming the glories of God in their respective (foreign) languages, consider what happened next. We must not miss this.
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power… 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Act 2: 22-41).”
As the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 14, “tongues are a sign for the unbeliever,” and as we see this applied in Acts 2, the purpose was to cause the foreign language “hearer” or “speaker” to stop and take notice, some getting saved as was the case when three thousand souls were added to the church.
Multiple people, dozens of people, speaking all at once, in the Spirit’s mind rather than causing the unbeliever stop and take notice forces the unbeliever to conclude “that you are mad (1 Corinthians 14:23).” The Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, writes, “18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Corinthians 14:18-19).”
The preoccupation that many today have with speaking in tongues, the all too common mass demonstration of “the gift” by some (described earlier), is contrary to all that pleases God. Tongues are a sign God employed to bring men to Christ as at Pentecost and beyond. He did not intend tongue speakers to “put on a show,” or to worship Him in our own way but to do so according to His will. This was to problem the Holy Spirit addressed with unruly Christians in the unruly Church at Corinth. Some would reasonably conclude that this misuse of an alleged gift from God is a problem in too many churches today. It appears to be a temptation for too many professing Christians who say they love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.
Given the all too sad current state of affairs with “speaking in tongues” that pervades our churches these days, every thinking and maturing believer needs to ask and answer for himself, or herself, the following questions. Please prayerfully consider these questions.
ONE: Is today's practice of speaking in tongues consistent with God’s principles for such a practice? Put another way: “Is the use of tongues in many churches today inconsistent with what the Bible teaches?” What does the Bible say about multiple instances of speaking in tongues?
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret (1Co 14:27);
TWO: If tongues are to be a sign to unbelievers, then is the speaking in tongues that occurs in many worship services consistent with the will of God? If it is not consistent with the will of God, then should this wrong practice not be stopped?
THREE: If today’s practices are often unbiblical, then what does this mean for pastors, church leaders, believers, and churches where these unbiblical chapters have been allowed or encouraged?
FOUR: What, if any, attitudinal changes need to take place in our hearts? What changes will we make? Are we willing to change?
Many point out instances where new believers in the New Testament spoke in tongues at the point of salvation. How does this square with what we just observed from the Scriptures? It is just as likely that just as many will ask, “What about the languages of “angels” referred to in 1 Corinthians 13:1?” Others may ask “What about a private prayer language, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:14?” What do we say about these things? First, we must remember to avoid building a theology around a single verse. The Mormon cult justifies its practice of proxy baptism for those who were already dead by a single verse: “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them (1 Co. 15:29)?” Let us be careful not to take theological leaps based upon practices with which we have become accustomed.
Beloved, 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 discusses spiritual gifts and their use and application. These passages are “purpose built” to explain what is and is not appropriate in terms of the use or employment of the spiritual gifts that God grants according to His will. Let us never endeavor to attempt to employ one verse against another to provide us with the latitude to misuse the gifts and graces that God entrusts to His people. Let us review the Spirit’s admonition and instruction regarding the gift of tongues:
22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:22-23)?”
Consider the context of this passage. What conclusions might we draw about tongues?
19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature (1Co 14:19-20).
We must not misuse any blessing God bestows upon us. Nor should we ever employ what is holy for selfish purposes. We must not be children in our thinking, “22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers…(1 Corinthians 14: 22).” Why tongues? According to the Bible, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers. Tongues were to be a means of evangelism, or proclaiming the gospel to those who might not otherwise understand the words the evangelist spoke. Tongues are not for a display of our glory or giftedness but for the salvation of the lost, as a sign to the unbeliever.
PS: our next post will be on or before August 13th.
Does the Bible, anywhere, give a clear indication of the purpose of tongues? The Spirit of God speaking through the pen of His apostle provides us insight in His letter to the unruly church at Corinth, which abused the graces God gave them. What does He say? Speaking through the pen of Paul the Holy Spirit says this:
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:18-23)?
Look at the “So then” statement: “So then tongues are a sign, not for those who believe but unbelievers.” “So then” is equivalent to “in conclusion,” or “therefore,” or “in light of what I just said…” “So then” points us back up the stream of thought. Let us ask ourselves this question, “What was the previous line of reasoning?” Just what was the previous line of reasoning? Paul was warning them of their self-absorbed, self-oriented displays of self-exaltation. In the wider context of 1 Corinthians 13, setting up chapter 14, the Spirit instructs us on love and ability without love:
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing (1Co 13:1-3).
“Tongue talking” for the sake of “tongue talking,” or with no real godly aim in mind, is useless and not God honoring as it lacks love. Tongue talking for any purpose other than God’s purpose is lacks love of God and others. Moreover, God grants the ability to speak in a foreign language to those who can understand it for the purpose of evangelism. Indeed, this is what happened at Pentecost.
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:6-12)?”
As the foreign language speakers sat stunned that these “Galileans” were somehow proclaiming the glories of God in their respective (foreign) languages, consider what happened next. We must not miss this.
22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know-- 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power… 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls (Act 2: 22-41).”
As the Spirit says in 1 Corinthians 14, “tongues are a sign for the unbeliever,” and as we see this applied in Acts 2, the purpose was to cause the foreign language “hearer” or “speaker” to stop and take notice, some getting saved as was the case when three thousand souls were added to the church.
Multiple people, dozens of people, speaking all at once, in the Spirit’s mind rather than causing the unbeliever stop and take notice forces the unbeliever to conclude “that you are mad (1 Corinthians 14:23).” The Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, writes, “18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Corinthians 14:18-19).”
The preoccupation that many today have with speaking in tongues, the all too common mass demonstration of “the gift” by some (described earlier), is contrary to all that pleases God. Tongues are a sign God employed to bring men to Christ as at Pentecost and beyond. He did not intend tongue speakers to “put on a show,” or to worship Him in our own way but to do so according to His will. This was to problem the Holy Spirit addressed with unruly Christians in the unruly Church at Corinth. Some would reasonably conclude that this misuse of an alleged gift from God is a problem in too many churches today. It appears to be a temptation for too many professing Christians who say they love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength.
Given the all too sad current state of affairs with “speaking in tongues” that pervades our churches these days, every thinking and maturing believer needs to ask and answer for himself, or herself, the following questions. Please prayerfully consider these questions.
ONE: Is today's practice of speaking in tongues consistent with God’s principles for such a practice? Put another way: “Is the use of tongues in many churches today inconsistent with what the Bible teaches?” What does the Bible say about multiple instances of speaking in tongues?
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret (1Co 14:27);
TWO: If tongues are to be a sign to unbelievers, then is the speaking in tongues that occurs in many worship services consistent with the will of God? If it is not consistent with the will of God, then should this wrong practice not be stopped?
THREE: If today’s practices are often unbiblical, then what does this mean for pastors, church leaders, believers, and churches where these unbiblical chapters have been allowed or encouraged?
FOUR: What, if any, attitudinal changes need to take place in our hearts? What changes will we make? Are we willing to change?
Many point out instances where new believers in the New Testament spoke in tongues at the point of salvation. How does this square with what we just observed from the Scriptures? It is just as likely that just as many will ask, “What about the languages of “angels” referred to in 1 Corinthians 13:1?” Others may ask “What about a private prayer language, alluded to in 1 Corinthians 14:14?” What do we say about these things? First, we must remember to avoid building a theology around a single verse. The Mormon cult justifies its practice of proxy baptism for those who were already dead by a single verse: “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them (1 Co. 15:29)?” Let us be careful not to take theological leaps based upon practices with which we have become accustomed.
Beloved, 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 discusses spiritual gifts and their use and application. These passages are “purpose built” to explain what is and is not appropriate in terms of the use or employment of the spiritual gifts that God grants according to His will. Let us never endeavor to attempt to employ one verse against another to provide us with the latitude to misuse the gifts and graces that God entrusts to His people. Let us review the Spirit’s admonition and instruction regarding the gift of tongues:
22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad (1Co 14:22-23)?”
Consider the context of this passage. What conclusions might we draw about tongues?
19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature (1Co 14:19-20).
We must not misuse any blessing God bestows upon us. Nor should we ever employ what is holy for selfish purposes. We must not be children in our thinking, “22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers…(1 Corinthians 14: 22).” Why tongues? According to the Bible, tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers. Tongues were to be a means of evangelism, or proclaiming the gospel to those who might not otherwise understand the words the evangelist spoke. Tongues are not for a display of our glory or giftedness but for the salvation of the lost, as a sign to the unbeliever.
PS: our next post will be on or before August 13th.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Chapter Three: What are tongues (part two)?
Having broached the topic of tongues, let's ask the question, "What are tongues?" During my years in business, I once had a coworker ask me, upon finding out I was a believer, "So, you are a born again, 'tongue talking' man?" Our conversation went on from there. However, one might ask the question, "What did he meaning by "tongue talking?" Let's take up the question "What does it mean to speak in tongues?"
When one speaks in tongues what is he, or she, doing? What are tongues? Many disagree over just what tongues are. People like to describe them as "heavenly languages," or angelic ones. Some say they have no pattern but are merely ecstatic utterances. Others believe them to be a supernatural ability to speak or understand a foreign language for the purpose of evangelism (this is where I tend to go). Each camp produces its own proof texts to support their particular view, or flavor of a particular view. This is unfortunate because the only view any should care about is God's view. In seeking to understand just what "tongues" are one must seek to read their understanding from, rather than into, Scripture.
What are tongues? What do the Scriptures say? How can we distill a right understanding when each group seems to produce a set of supporting Scriptures to prop up their own view? It does seem difficult at times to unwrap a clear understanding, particularly when some passages are less clear than others. We must employ wise interpretive practices on such an important topic. While there are more than a few less clear passages on what tongues are, we must look to the clearer passages in order to inform our thinking on the matter of tongues. So, let’s ask and answer the question (What are tongues?) using God’s clear and inerrant word.
Let's begin by understanding the clearer passages so that we can begin to understand this difficult topic more clearly. Let's understand the easily understandable and work through the more difficult passages so that we can eventually build a clear understanding or definition in the coming pages. What does the Bible say and say very clearly about tongues? Speaking to the unruly church at Corinth through the pen of His apostle, Paul, the Holy Spirit says this.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
He admonishes the carelessness with which they conduct their public worship services. He tells them not to engage in disorderly practices like speaking in tongues all at once, or speaking unintelligibly. Speaking in tongues for “tongues’ sake” is wrong (verse 6). Meaningless noise is of no use if it is unintelligible because it benefits no one (verses 7-8). Tongues spoken for self-exaltation or for unloving, selfish purposes is like speaking to air because it does not edify or build up anyone---there is no benefit (verse 10). Paul reminds them that tongues are languages and because they have meaning, they are spoken for a purpose (presumably for the glory of God’s and the good and growth of others)—verse 10.
Linger at verse 10. What are tongues? They are languages. Specifically, they are languages employed by humans for human understanding, edification, and application. You may say, “But what about private prayer languages and the tongues of angels?” Rest assure we will come to these topics. Nevertheless, let’s go about this in an orderly approach. What is Paul saying to the church at Corinth here?
His emphasis and conclusion are found in verse 10, “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:10).” His admonition and exhortation are found in verses 6-9—use tongues (that is languages) for the sake of others rather than other purposes. Tongues, according to the Spirit, in these verses are languages. When the Holy Spirit speaks through the pens of the “human writers” of Scripture about tongues the emphasis is a supernatural ability to speak, understand, interpret, or explain in a foreign language or that, which has been spoken, in a foreign language.
Can we be certain of this? Let’s allow Scripture to illumine and or interpret Scripture for us. Let’s consider the “mother” of all passages on tongues: the events of Pentecost in Acts 2! As the New Testament Church was born at Pentecost, the disciples spoke in tongues. What does the Holy Spirit, speaking through the pen of Luke, writing Acts, reveal about tongues in this passage? What does the Bible say?
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:1-12)?”
What does the Spirit, speaking through the Scripture writer’s pen indicate about “tongues?” He indicates that tongues are foreign languages.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:4-12)?”
This passage gives us insight into what the Spirit is saying through the pen of His apostle, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14: “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:10).” Clearly, tongues refers to foreign languages. You see this in the near context in 1 Corinthians 14:
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp…10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
The wider context of Acts gives us further clarity:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:4-12)?”
What does this mean? This means tongues are real languages spoken and understood by mortal men and by some to whom He gives a supernatural ability to communicate in mother tongues of hearers without specialize language training, as was the case of the events of Pentecost in Acts 2. This becomes clearer to those who read the whole of the New Testament, finding their way into the book of Revelation:
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev 7:9-10).”
Here the Spirit reveals the internationality of the church because people are saved from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. We see the diversity of color, locale, and language reflected in the words of the Holy Spirit (spoken through the pen of the Apostle John). Every tongue confesses Christ. Controversies on matters of continuation or cessation aside, this is a glorious thought and sight! Let’s savor it before moving on. While we may, or may not, differ on the matter of tongues, let us rejoice in the salvation that Christ brings!
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev 7:9-10).”
We understand that there are other verses, which at least on the surface, may indicate another “identity” for tongues. However, the honest reader must ask and answer this question, “What is the Holy Spirit saying in these passages about the nature, or definition, of tongues?” You must ask and answer this question directly because it is vital to addressing some of the abuses of a select few, who like the unruly Corinthians, today disregard God’s word on the biblical practices of this supernatural gift.
Language has structure and form. Even the untrained ear detects this when exposed to a foreign language. Scripture indicates as much in 1 Corinthians 14:
7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
What are tongues? Tongues are languages. The Scriptures indicate they are foreign languages. They have structure, pattern; grammar.
PS: We will post again, on or before August 8.
When one speaks in tongues what is he, or she, doing? What are tongues? Many disagree over just what tongues are. People like to describe them as "heavenly languages," or angelic ones. Some say they have no pattern but are merely ecstatic utterances. Others believe them to be a supernatural ability to speak or understand a foreign language for the purpose of evangelism (this is where I tend to go). Each camp produces its own proof texts to support their particular view, or flavor of a particular view. This is unfortunate because the only view any should care about is God's view. In seeking to understand just what "tongues" are one must seek to read their understanding from, rather than into, Scripture.
What are tongues? What do the Scriptures say? How can we distill a right understanding when each group seems to produce a set of supporting Scriptures to prop up their own view? It does seem difficult at times to unwrap a clear understanding, particularly when some passages are less clear than others. We must employ wise interpretive practices on such an important topic. While there are more than a few less clear passages on what tongues are, we must look to the clearer passages in order to inform our thinking on the matter of tongues. So, let’s ask and answer the question (What are tongues?) using God’s clear and inerrant word.
Let's begin by understanding the clearer passages so that we can begin to understand this difficult topic more clearly. Let's understand the easily understandable and work through the more difficult passages so that we can eventually build a clear understanding or definition in the coming pages. What does the Bible say and say very clearly about tongues? Speaking to the unruly church at Corinth through the pen of His apostle, Paul, the Holy Spirit says this.
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
He admonishes the carelessness with which they conduct their public worship services. He tells them not to engage in disorderly practices like speaking in tongues all at once, or speaking unintelligibly. Speaking in tongues for “tongues’ sake” is wrong (verse 6). Meaningless noise is of no use if it is unintelligible because it benefits no one (verses 7-8). Tongues spoken for self-exaltation or for unloving, selfish purposes is like speaking to air because it does not edify or build up anyone---there is no benefit (verse 10). Paul reminds them that tongues are languages and because they have meaning, they are spoken for a purpose (presumably for the glory of God’s and the good and growth of others)—verse 10.
Linger at verse 10. What are tongues? They are languages. Specifically, they are languages employed by humans for human understanding, edification, and application. You may say, “But what about private prayer languages and the tongues of angels?” Rest assure we will come to these topics. Nevertheless, let’s go about this in an orderly approach. What is Paul saying to the church at Corinth here?
His emphasis and conclusion are found in verse 10, “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:10).” His admonition and exhortation are found in verses 6-9—use tongues (that is languages) for the sake of others rather than other purposes. Tongues, according to the Spirit, in these verses are languages. When the Holy Spirit speaks through the pens of the “human writers” of Scripture about tongues the emphasis is a supernatural ability to speak, understand, interpret, or explain in a foreign language or that, which has been spoken, in a foreign language.
Can we be certain of this? Let’s allow Scripture to illumine and or interpret Scripture for us. Let’s consider the “mother” of all passages on tongues: the events of Pentecost in Acts 2! As the New Testament Church was born at Pentecost, the disciples spoke in tongues. What does the Holy Spirit, speaking through the pen of Luke, writing Acts, reveal about tongues in this passage? What does the Bible say?
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:1-12)?”
What does the Spirit, speaking through the Scripture writer’s pen indicate about “tongues?” He indicates that tongues are foreign languages.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:4-12)?”
This passage gives us insight into what the Spirit is saying through the pen of His apostle, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14: “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:10).” Clearly, tongues refers to foreign languages. You see this in the near context in 1 Corinthians 14:
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? 7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp…10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
The wider context of Acts gives us further clarity:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. 5 Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean (Act 2:4-12)?”
What does this mean? This means tongues are real languages spoken and understood by mortal men and by some to whom He gives a supernatural ability to communicate in mother tongues of hearers without specialize language training, as was the case of the events of Pentecost in Acts 2. This becomes clearer to those who read the whole of the New Testament, finding their way into the book of Revelation:
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev 7:9-10).”
Here the Spirit reveals the internationality of the church because people are saved from every tribe, tongue, people and nation. We see the diversity of color, locale, and language reflected in the words of the Holy Spirit (spoken through the pen of the Apostle John). Every tongue confesses Christ. Controversies on matters of continuation or cessation aside, this is a glorious thought and sight! Let’s savor it before moving on. While we may, or may not, differ on the matter of tongues, let us rejoice in the salvation that Christ brings!
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Rev 7:9-10).”
We understand that there are other verses, which at least on the surface, may indicate another “identity” for tongues. However, the honest reader must ask and answer this question, “What is the Holy Spirit saying in these passages about the nature, or definition, of tongues?” You must ask and answer this question directly because it is vital to addressing some of the abuses of a select few, who like the unruly Corinthians, today disregard God’s word on the biblical practices of this supernatural gift.
Language has structure and form. Even the untrained ear detects this when exposed to a foreign language. Scripture indicates as much in 1 Corinthians 14:
7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? 8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? 9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning (1Co 14:6-10).
What are tongues? Tongues are languages. The Scriptures indicate they are foreign languages. They have structure, pattern; grammar.
PS: We will post again, on or before August 8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)