Tongues of Angels? Probably Not

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 2

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

Tongues of Angels? Not Likely.

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,

but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and surrender my body that I may boast,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Pentecostal Claim: Languages of Angels

Pentecostals and their child movements, Charismatism, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation claim that the Holy Spirit still grants the spiritual gift of speaking in the languages of men and angels. They see glossolalia at several points in the book of Acts and extrapolate it to today without regard to other events in church history. Then they add their experience and interpret the rest of scripture in accordance with their experience.

Former Pentecostal pastor George Gardner told of how, when he was a ministry student, a Hebrew friend stood in chapel and recited Mary Had a Little Lamb in Yiddish. Another student with the gift of interpretation went into a long translation of the Holy Spirit’s message: The students were spending too much time in volleyball and other recreational activities and not enough time in their studies and ministries. That gave Gardner his first hint that Tongues, or at least Interpretations, was not always genuine. 

My wife’s uncle, by birth a Ukrainian Jew and a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, had a similar story about visiting a Pentecostal church and reciting the 23rd Psalm in Ukrainian. The “interpretation” had nothing to do with the Psalm. 

I’ve heard stories, so nth-hand as to be rumors, about people who were understood by immigrants. Sounds like Navajo or Sounds like German. But is "sounds like" authoritative? The one story I’ve heard that sounded credible came from a Pentecostal co-worker. This man was a certified super genius. He understood the low priority that 1 Corinthians 14 assigns to the gift of tongues, so he attended a cessationist Baptist church for teaching that was better than in any of the local Pentecostal churches. 

While visiting another church, he was invited to give a message, which he gave in English. Afterwards, two ladies came to him. One explained that she heard his message in English, but the other, who had recently immigrated, spoke no English, and had heard the entire message in her native language. Due to being isolated by language, hearing the message in her own language had been a blessing that brought her to tears. Although my coworker spoke in tongues, the “tongues” in this case, was not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of a listener. And it was not a spiritual gift, but a one-off miracle.

Since Pentecostals have not shown that they speak in human foreign languages, by process of elimination, they conclude, they speak in a heavenly, angelic language. But scriptural evidence for such a claim is extremely weak. 

Scripture Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

The chapter reads as very poetic, so one should expect metaphor and hyperbole. Verses 1 through 3 all pose hypothetical situations. Verse 3 describes extreme actions, and verse 2 describes attributes never held by any mere human. Considering this trio of verses as a unit should lead a reasonable person to accepting that the language of verse 1 is hyperbolic, as well. That is, the phrase that suggests glossolalia might include speaking in angelic language may be hypothetical to strengthen the following clause: 

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

The warning in Verse 1 weighs against Pentecostals speaking in the languages of angels in two ways. First, speaking in the languages of angels is like banging brass and clanging cymbals because it conveys no information. Angelic communications with humans have, without exception, conveyed messages. Angels do perform tasks such as making war, but even the Greek word translated angel means messenger. Tongues may be exciting, but it imparts no long-term blessing. By its nature, speaking in an unintelligible, supposedly angelic language violates the test of love and the goal of members of the church edifying each other. 

Second, speaking in the languages of angels, without love, is no better than the sounds of a brass pot falling to the pavement or cymbals clanging in a Hellenist or Roman temple. The allusion to pagan religious practices links back to verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12. Pagans spoke in nonsensical tongues amid much chanting and rhythmic noise (such as from symbols) that was used to work up the worshipers into an ecstatic state of altered consciousness -- the same formula as the worked-up anticipation, long music services, shallow, repetitive lyrics, and trance-inducing songs in Pentecostal churches. 

The Pagans were not alone. To their company, we can add adherents of the heresies of Sacramentalism (Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and many Protestant denominations -- especially Pentecostals), Mariolatry (Roman Catholics), and Modalism (Oneness Pentecostals). In the 1800s, glossolalia was frequently practiced by Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Glossolalia is also practiced by shamans and certain branches of Hinduism. 

Around 2010, Justin Brierly, on the British Unbelievable? radio show and podcast, interviewed an Atheist who de-converted from Pentecostalism and still occasionally spoke in tongues just for fun. According to Pentecostals, abandoning his salvation canceled the blessings of being God’s son, forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. So either the Holy Spirit failed to remove the gift of tongues along with the gift of salvation, and continued to manifest Himself through the ability, or the gift was a learned psychological phenomenon. 

The glossolalia of the pagans calls into question that of Christians. If the practice is a learned, altered state for pagans, it can be a learned, psychological phenomenon for Christians. If it results from demonic control for pagans, it can result from demonic control of false brethren among us. Some argue that it results from demonic control of genuine Christians, too; but I'm not convinced that it is possible for a demon to go beyond making suggestions to one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Rumors of legitimate glossolalia have, in fact, been countered by missionary accounts of demonic blasphemy through glossolalia. Although, without recordings and authoritative interpretation, neither type of account presents credible evidence, one must admit that the accounts cancel out each other.

A Pentecostal might point to 2 Corinthians 12:4 as evidence of angelic, non-human languages. Paul said he knew a certain man, probably himself, who was caught up to heaven where he heard inexpressible words. The term, inexpressible (arreta) meant not that the words were difficult to pronounce, but rather that they were too holy to be permitted. Indeed, the term is followed by that are not permitted for a man to utter. 

The word permitted (exon) means exactly that: permitted or lawful. It is used over 30 times in the New Testament to refer to permission. So the sense is not that the words in the vision were an unpronounceable foreign language, but that they were too holy to be spoken without negative consequences. The verse does not support the existence of angelic languages.

The “name” of God provides us with three examples of forbidden holy words. Some Christians consider even the title G_d too holy to even spell out. This echoes how the pronunciation of YHWH was lost. After the return of Judah from exile, the priests decided that God’s name was too holy to speak. As a result, the pronunciation was forgotten between 400 and 200 BC because written Hebrew had no vowels. Soon after, to make the name pronounceable during readings in synagogues, they added the vowels from Adonai, Lord, to the consonants, YHWH, I AM. Transliterating YaHoWaH from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, gave us Jehovah. At the same time, Bible translators replaced most occurrences of Jehovah with the LORD (in all capital letters). It was assumed that any literate person would understand the meaning.

Consideration of genre, tone, and history undercut the belief that verse 1 promotes the idea that glossolalia comprises an angelic language. 2 Corinthians 12:4 is not even relevant. One avenue remains: Does the study of angels support a literal reading of the phrase, tongues... of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

Angelology Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

Evidence that one or more angelic languages exists in physically expressible form is extremely weak. Logic weighs overwhelmingly against it. Assuming that tongues is a language of angels crosses into presumption. Translating spirit communication into audible form would involve human languages, and such translation would violate known historic precedent.

In native form, Angels, being spirits, lack physical bodies. When they have communicated with humans on earth, they have taken physical form to create soundwaves in air and have used human languages. In visions, human witnesses always heard angelic speech in their own human languages. Since human witnesses receive a gift of spiritual sight that enables the visions, it would make sense that they also receive a gift of interpretation. But that would be speculation, and it does not establish that angels have a unique language that can be expressed as “tongues.”  

A related point is that, since spirits lack organs such as tongues, resonant nasal cavities, and vocal cords, and do not live in a physical, sound-conducting atmosphere, their medium of communication would more likely be analogous to what we would consider telepathic. Telepathy would likely communicate thoughts directly without need for verbal protocols. Translating thoughts through a gift of tongues would require adding layers of grammatical, syntactical, and phonemic protocols defined by the natural human language of the speaker. 

The result of encoding angelic thoughts with human language protocols would be expression in human language. It would be easiest to use the language of the speaker. However, it would also be possible to use a human language unknown to the speaker, as happened at Pentecost. But would use of a foreign language be likely? The speech in foreign languages at Pentecost had an audience: people who understood those languages. The purpose of speech is to be understood, so if nobody is there to receive the message, use of a foreign language serves no purpose.

If tongues is used for prayer by the Holy Spirit and the audience is God the Father, human language would not be needed. Like angels, God is Spirit. This returns us to the fact that language, and even sound, would be redundant. Since the Father and the Spirit know each other’s minds, glossolalia is again redundant. Indeed, the Holy Spirit prays within each Christian (Romans 8::26-27) with wordless silence and is perfectly understood by God. So glossolalia as an additional form of prayer is redundant in three ways.

If angels have at least one language, God must have a language. Since God and angels communicate, they would probably share a single language. Being perfectly obedient to God, they would have no need to hide communication from God, so only one language is needed. The language would be labeled as belonging to the greater owner, so why would it be called the language of angels and not the language of God or of the Spirit? If angels had a separate language, why would the Holy Spirit translate His thoughts into an angelic language when speaking directly to the Father?

Why, without love, is speaking in the tongues of angels worthless? Love (agape) focuses outward. Loving speech conveys information that benefits the hearer. Unloving speech selfishly focuses on edifying ego at the expense of others’ time. God does not need to reward it; They have already rewarded themselves, who speak in tongues that do not inform, correct, or encourage others.

 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Binding Yourself to Salvation with Jello Cords

Imagine a chain binding you to your salvation. 

The Strong Chain

One gospel  has one link in it: God's grace through faith. This link is infinitely stronger than titanium; it will never fail.

The Weakest Possible Chain

Another gospel, commonly found among "Christian" churches, has two links. The first link is, again, God's grace through faith. Some churches in this group primarily preach about the first link, so, whether or not members later become convinced that there's a second link, they are kept secure by that first, titanium link.

The second link, however, is human merit. This link requires completing the earning of salvation by doing good, avoiding certain evils, or perseverance through character and will-power. In other words, the second link is works and wages. 

This other gospel puts the two links together, the titanium link of God's grace with the mercurious link of human merit. If your conversion depended on the first link alone, you are secure. If your "gospel" required both, your religion has already caused you to stumble, for the second link has no power to save nor to keep. It is time to repent of this false gospel of self-righteousness and trust God alone.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please don't plagiarize like an SBC president.

Holy Spirit: Uniquely-gifting Person of God

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:8-11

Did you read the verses and the context carefully?

Subtitle: The Holy Spirit: Intelligent, Volitional, Selective

Do you think having the same gift as the crowd makes you special? If you belong to Christ, you may underestimate just how unique and special you are.

Charismata: Spiritual Gifts

Verses 8-10 form a pattern. To one is given one gift. To another is given another gift. To another is given another gift. To another is given another gift. Et cetera. Based on these verses in isolation, nobody receives every gift.

Look again at the pattern in verses 8-10. None of the clauses indicate that any gift is given to everybody. Just the opposite. Based on these statements in isolation, each person receives a different gift. If there were ten million gifts and ten million members of the body of Christ, each member would receive a different gift. 

Based on a study of all the spiritual gifts, we know that there is a limited number of spiritual gifts. If everybody receives at least one spiritual gift (verses 4-7), then the Holy Spirit may consign a particular gift to multiple members of the body. This is confirmed by, for example, many people speaking in foreign languages at Pentecost and the existence of multiple prophets in apostolic times.

Comparing verses 8-10 to Romans 12, we know that this passage contains a partial list of spiritual gifts. They include:

• A message of wisdom
• A message of knowledge
• Faith
• Gifts of healing
• Energizings of power (miracles)
• Prophecy
• Distinguishing between spirits
• Kinds of tongues
• Interpretation of tongues.

Verses 8-11 indicate that the Holy Spirit is the source of all spiritual gifts.

In verses 4-6, notice the parallelism between “same Spirit,” “same Lord,” and “same God [the Father). The repetition of “same Spirit” and “one Spirit” in chapter 12 implies a need, in Corinth’s pagan, polytheistic culture, to prevent or correct a belief that different spirits would give different spiritual gifts. This stresses two conclusions:

• The same, singular Holy Spirit gives all spiritual gifts.
• There is exactly one Holy Spirit.

Verse 11 summarizes the idea, exemplified in verses 8-10, of diversity in how the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts. The verb ‘diairoun’, “dividing” or “apportioning,” is a word picture that depicts dividing something and distributing the pieces. 

The adjective ‘idia’ in verse 11 is the root word of ‘idiot.’ According to George E. Gardiner, author of The Corinthian Catastrophe (Kregel Press, 1985), to be ‘idia’ was originally complimentary. It meant you didn’t follow the herd; you were your own, unique individual. It was later that, in English, ‘idiot’ came to mean uniquely lacking in intelligence or wisdom. In verse 11, the adjective is usually translated as an adverb, “uniquely.” It means “uniquely one’s own.” Since, in the Greek, it modifies the noun translated “to each,” the phrase contrasts against a conformist, one-size-fits-all mentality. It stresses that each member’s gifts are specially selected for that member. This reinforces the message in verses 8-10 that no gift is given to all, and no member has all gifts.

Verse 11 ends with the verb ‘boulomai,’ “as He [the Holy Spirit] wills.” HELPS Word-studies says the word “is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning....” It contrasts against another verb that focuses on desiring or wishing for a given outcome. In other words, the Holy Spirit plans and resolutely determines which gifts He divides among the members of the body.

If the Holy Spirit wills, resolutely determines, my gifting, does asking for different gifting indicate rebellion against God’s will and authority?

• If the Holy Spirit divides the spiritual gifts among the members of the body in accordance with a plan that He resolutely determines, then could asking for a gift that the Holy Spirit has not consigned to you imply that the Holy Spirit failed to plan for the gifts you would need? 
• Would that, in turn, imply a defect in God’s church architecture, which was the roadmap that the Holy Spirit used to choose your gifts? 
• Wouldn’t such errors imply a misalignment between the service that Christ performs through the members of the body and the determinations of the Father and the Spirit? 
• What would that then imply a failure of omniscience and a division between the Son and the Father and Spirit? 
• If the Father has designed the body and assigned your role, and the Spirit has determined what gifts to give you in accordance with the Father’s design, does asking for an additional gift imply ingratitude and rejection of God’s plan? 
• Does it imply that you think you see inadequacy in God’s planning and the Holy Spirit’s provision? 
• Since you think you see a defect in the Father’s design and the Holy Spirit’s determination, have you not elevated your wisdom above God’s?

Pneumatology: The Study of the Holy Spirit

Since the Holy Spirit determines the distribution of spiritual gifts in accordance with God's design of the body and assignment of its members to roles in the body, the Holy Spirit exercises intelligence.

Since the Holy Spirit determines to distribute spiritual gifts as He wills, He is volitional.

If the Holy Spirit is intelligent and volitional, the Holy Spirit must be a Person. An impersonal force would distribute gifts indiscriminately. 

Since there's no evidence that God delegates planning and decision-making to angels, the Holy Spirit must be divine.

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, provided that this notice and standard bibliographic citation accompany the article.

Holy Spirit's Gifts, Common Good, and Authenticity

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:7

Verse 7

Chapter 12

The Spirit manifests Himself through spiritual gifts given to all believers. 1 Corinthians 12:7

Only a minority of believers experience an alleged “second blessing” whereby they receive spiritual gifts.

• If the consignment of spiritual gifts were a second blessing conferred on only some, then the second blessing and the gifts it conveys would not be given to all believers.
• This would contradict the Holy Spirit’s words in the scriptures.
• Consigning spiritual gifts to all believers would require consignment at the time of conversion.
• If the Spirit speaks truth through the scriptures, then the Spirit must consign spiritual gifts at the time of conversion. 

The manifestation of the Spirit through spiritual gifts serves the common good of the body of Christ. 

• “Common good” implies that exercising spiritual gifts serves multiple members, not just the person exercising a gift. 
• Privately exercising a gift to “edify” oneself does not serve the common good. 
• Therefore, private exercise abuses the gift by violating its purpose.
• Privacy merely emphasizes that that particular usage does not edify others. Therefore, anybody exercising a spiritual gift for their own edification abuses the gift.
• One apparent exception might be gifts required for teaching, exhortation, and encouragement to build oneself up in knowledge. However, the end goal of such an exercise is -- obviously! -- to prepare oneself for teaching, exhortation, and encouragement. Knowledge for its own sake puffs up the ego and leads to injuring fellow believers (1 Corinthians 8:1). So it holds that exercising a spiritual gift for one's own edification is a selfish abuse of the gift.

Any imitation of a spiritual gift attempts to imitate the Holy Spirit, Himself.

• Any counterfeit manifestation of the Holy Spirit would constitute "bearing false witness" about God.
• Any counterfeit manifestation of the Holy Spirit that conveys error (for example, an unbiblical teaching or a prophecy that goes unfulfilled) assigns the error to the Spirit. 
• Assigning error to God the Holy Spirit through counterfeit manifestations is a form of blasphemy. 
• Counterfeit prophecies in the Holy Spirit's name render the speaker a blasphemer and a false prophet. Due to the blasphemy and the damage done by misleading hearers, the sin of counterfeiting this gift of the Spirit was dealt with very severely in the Mosaic Law. 

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, provided that this notice and bibliographic citation accompany the article. 

Unity of Trinity in Consigning Spiritual Gifts

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 12:4-6

 
(Hint: When scripture mentions God in proximity to mentions of the Son or Spirit, it means the Father.)
 
(Hint 2: You might want to read the verses, read the whole chapter, and then read the verses again, before reading the rest of this post.)
 
God the Father determines various activities of the church and composes the body, like Beethoven with a gazillion-piece orchestra, only infinitely better. (See also verses 11, 18, and 24) (or is it 25?)
 
Activities of the Father are carried out by services of the Son in members (believers) of His body (the small-c church). Think of a corporation with different divisions working on different projects or operations in different markets, and each employee working on a facet of the business. 
 
The Holy Spirit assigns spiritual gifts that correspond to and empower the services to be performed by each believer.
 
If spiritual gifts are consigned only in accordance with the Father's design* and the Son's services, then:
 

• Spiritual gifts must vary from believer to believer.
• If no believer is involved in all services, then the Spirit will not consign all gifts to any believer.
• If not all believers are involved in a particular service, then the Spirit will not consign any gift to all believers.
• If not all believers receive a particular gift, then that gift cannot be a confirmation that a believer is saved.
• If each believer has an assigned service to fulfill some activity of the body, then every believer will be enabled by at least one gift.

 
(* This does not deny the possibility that the Holy Spirit would consign a gift in response to a request, provided that the motive for the request aligns with criteria in chapter 13. The motives for such requests usually don't.)
 
If some activities of the body are needed in one place but not in another, then the services and gifts will vary accordingly.
 
If some activities of the body are needed at one time but not at another, then the services and gifts will vary over time.
 
If services and gifts vary by place or over time, then the offices will also vary.

If manifestations of the Spirit are given for the common good, then the exercise of any spiritual gift should benefit the whole church, not just the one with the gift. 1 Corinthians 12:7. 

If the Spirit gives to one, one gift, to another, another gift, and to another, yet another gift (etc.), then nobody receives all gifts, and no gift is given to all. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10

If the Spirit individually consigns gifts, then we should view the gifts we have as special, like a gift that was personally chosen and crafted, just for you. 1 Corinthians 12:11

If the Spirit individually determines your gift, then demanding a different gift implies questioning the sufficiency of your gift for your life as well as the Spirit’s wisdom and authority. 1 Corinthians 12:11

If the Spirit individually determines your gift based on the place in the body to which the Father assigned you, then demanding a different gift implies questioning the Father’s design, wisdom, and authority. 1 Corinthians 12:7, 11, 18, 25

Copyright 2021, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, provided that this notice and accepted bibliographic citation accompany the article.

Praying for Wealth

From a question on Quora 

Is there a specific mantra or prayer for financial prosperity and wealth?

I answer from a Christian perspective. If you are considering mantras, my answer is probably irrelevant. Hopefully, it will help other, future readers. I had three points to make in answer to the question.

Jack Richards’ answer made my first point. Christians should concern themselves with what good they can do for others and what sort of persons they are, not with how to be come healthy and wealthy. God chooses to make some wealthy so they can help others, but His heart goes out to the lowly and He rewards those who love serving others.

The standard for what Christians should believe is their Bible. There is a type of Christianity called the Prosperity Gospel that deviates from biblical teachings. It emphasizes health and prosperity instead of emphasizing growth in holiness, service to God and others, and spreading the good news that God redeems people at His own expense if they will only receive it.

The prosperity gospel works for its leaders — at the expense of gullible people who love being flattered and whose minds are on materialism. Its mass manipulation and prestidigitation appeal to people who lack knowledge of such matters. It also appeals to people with shallow faith, who need extraordinary proofs before they can trust God for deeper relationships.

Prosperity gospel preachers often teach people to say specific words, such as commanding wealth to come to them. This is not only unbiblical, it is antibiblical. It is so American — and so human. It is a wrong mindset, as described in Marcus Anderson’s answer.

Marcus made my second point by giving an example of a prayer from the Bible about wealth, made with a right mindset. The prayer asks for enough prosperity to meet needs. We need enough wealth to buy food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation. We need enough left over to help others. So asking for income, or, better, ways to earn income, is right.

However, prosperity is a trap for most people. It tempts us to think we are the source of prosperity and forget to thank God for giving us the ability to earn. We become self-sufficient instead of depending on God. Gaining and protecting wealth tempts us into moral compromise and even into treating others unjustly. And every week, we read about how wealth gave some celebrity the means to indulge in self-destructive vices. Whatever we give a higher priority to than we give to God becomes an idol.

My third point is that Christianity is not a religion of magic. Words have power to inform, convince, and motivate people; but they have no power over physical things. Words can deceive or show disrespect. In that sense, they have power to cause a negative reaction. This is especially true when treating labels for God as worthless or usurping His titles. Fortunately, we can also use words in prayer to convince God to do things. But in prayer, there are conditions; primarily:

• God is Spirit, so the thoughts and intents of our spirits are as real to Him as our actions are. Our words are powerless with God if our intents do not correspond.
• God has plans of His own for running the universe. Our prayers must be moral and must fit with God’s plans.
• God loves His family and provides for them. He sometimes demonstrates His presence for the sake of those not yet in His family. But He has no obligation to creatures who owe all their obligation to Him. 

Christianity is not like magic or like other religions in which words have power of their own. Mantras and pre-written “prayers” do not impress God. Jesus of Nazareth said, “When you pray, do not babble on like pagans, for they think that by their many words they will be heard” (Matthew 6:7). The word in the ancient Greek manuscripts was βαττολογέω (battalogeó), which meant to stammer, utter nonsensical repetitions, be long-winded, or use empty, formalistic words. It describes practices from those requiring prayer beads (e.g., Catholic, Buddhist, shamanic), Pentecostal / Charismatic tongues-speaking, formulaic prayers heard in liturgical churches, and bloviating prayers anywhere else.

Christianity is a relationship, and a prayer is one side of a conversation within that relationship. Prayer is simply reasoned asking in humility and dependence. If your heart drives you to repeat yourself, it is not wrong. It is even commendable to think deeply about your request and present reasons as part of your request. The power, there, is in examining your own intentions and opening up your heart to God.

But manipulative repetition is disrespectful, and God will not respect it. Many Christians fall into using pre-written prayers. That is an acceptable method for those who cannot stay focused or who find prayers that express their hearts. They must take care, however, that such prayers do not become shallow formulas, lazy ways to avoid thinking deeply, or evasive ways to avoid opening up their hearts before God.

Copyrighte 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use; and I trust you to give credit where credit is due. 

1 Corinthians 13:13

From a question on Quora:

What does 1 Corinthians 13:13 mean?

Three things abide

[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (verses 8–10)

But now these three things abide: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love (verse 13).

Chapter 13 compares the fruits of the Spirit such as faith, hope, and love, to verbal, revelatory gifts of the Spirit, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. From the perspective of the early 50’s AD, when the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, spiritual gifts of prophecy and knowledge would be done away with (passive voice), and the spiritual gift of speaking in unlearned foreign languages would do itself away (middle voice).

This, in fact, happened before the end of the first century. The bit-by-bit Word of God revealed through knowledge (of the existing, incomplete scriptures) and prophecy was completed with the apostle John’s writing of Revelation. Chapter 14 explains that tongues was a sign to educated Jews that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed and the Roman diaspora of the Jews was about to happen. (Chapter 14 does this by invoking prophetic Old Testament passages.) The prophecy was fulfilled in 67–70 AD.

So the Spirit stopped endowing people with the spiritual gifts or prophecy, tongues, and knowledge within less than 50 years of when the passage was written. In contrast, the fruits of the Spirit would continue.

The Corinthians had been emphasizing the wrong things. They went for the showy, the novel, the impressive, the ego-boosting gifts of the Spirit and missed the greater things, holiness and the fruits of the Spirit.

If you miss this contrast, you miss why Paul was correcting their priorities.

The greatest of these

Verses 4–6 describe characteristics of love. For example, contrast “Love… does not seek its own” against 14:4, The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. Each phrase in verses 4–6 describes a characteristic of behavior that flows from love.

Specifically, in verse 6, love “believes all things, hopes all things….” The word translated believes is the verb form of the word translated faith in verse 13. So we can see that love not only has many characteristics, but believing/faith and hoping/hope are two of those characteristics. In a hierarchy (an ontology), love is expressed or enacted through faith and hope. Hierarchically, then, love is greater than faith and hope.

Tangent

I’m surprised how some people link passing away (verse 10) to faith and hope (verse 13). Doing so, they break up the sentence that defines passing away’s context:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (verses 9–10)

The partial is prophesy and knowledge. The partial, prophesy and knowledge, will be done away.

True, when prophesy is fulfilled and knowledge is based on first-hand, entire observation, faith and hope will become moot. But the topic is types of verbal revelation. Don’t miss what was to be done away: prophesy, tongues, and knowledge.

The looking-glass in verse 12 is a mirror (compare the same word in James 1:23, For anyone who hears the word but does not carry it out is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror. The mirror in which they saw themselves dimly was the Old Testament scriptures, discerned through knowledge, plus prophecy. The thing to be completed was the scriptures, at which time the partial, prophesy and knowledge, became superfluous.

The passive verb for prophesy and knowledge is not the same as the middle-voice verb for tongues. The meaning of tongues is explained in chapter 14 and in Old Testament scriptures that chapter 14 refers to: It was a sign to educated Jews of coming judgment, which was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora in the first century.

So within 50 years of Paul writing 1 Corinthians, the Holy Spirit stopped distributing spiritual gifts that revealed new truths. The fruits of the Spirit, however, will continue throughout this age. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

The Looking Glass Is God's Verbal Revelation

Response concerning the looking glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12 

(Author's name withheld to prevent embarrassment)

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Barnes said in his commentary that Paul here may have referred to the imperfect and discolored glass which was then in extensive use in his era, for we have no reason to suppose that it was then as transparent as that which is now made. It was, doubtless, an imperfect and obscure medium, and, therefore, well adapted to illustrate the nature of our knowledge here compared with what it will be in heaven.

But then - In the fuller revelations in heaven.

Face to face - As when one looks upon an object openly, and not through an obscure and dark medium. It here means, therefore, "clearly, without obscurity." 

That would be a great illustration, but in this case, Albert Barne’s work is outdated. Mr. Barnes died 31 years before Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues and 37 years before the Azusa Street scandal began. Wesleyan teachings had evolved into a Holiness movement, but Charismatism was not on his radar. That affected his interpretation because there was, in his time, no need to respond to various interpretations of the passage. Plus, Greek scholars have learned more about the language since then.

1. The glass in 1 Corinthians 13:12 was a looking-glass rather than a window. 2072. ἔσοπτρον (esoptron) -- a mirror (i.e. an object for looking into). A completely different word is used for transparent materials such as glass and crystals (e.g., in Revelation).
   
2. The same word is used in James 1:23–24. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.
   
3. The mirror is a metaphor for the verbal revelation which reveals our sins and our foolishness. Since 1 Corinthians was one of the first New Testament epistles or books written, the metaphorical mirror comprised the Old Testament, plus bit-by-bit revelation through the gifts of the Spirit (knowledge, prophecy, tongues).
   
4. 1 Corinthians 13:12 sits in the middle of three chapters focused primarily on verbal revelation, so interpreting the looking glass as the Word is consistent with that pattern.

This informs a correct interpretation of verses 9–10. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Paul has not taken a detour into eschatology; he’s writing about verbal revelation the whole time.

The infant and juvenile church had need of special gifts of revelation because all they had was the Old Testament and the addition of the 27 books of the New Testament over the 60 years after the resurrection. But as the complete collection of written revelation became available, it was time for the church to mature and put away the showy things. When the complete writings became available, the hypothetical “I” would “know” through access to the full written revelation, even as the earliest believers had access to revelation when “face to face” with an apostle.

Bonus tidbit: Gifts of prophecy and knowledge would be done away with (passive voice) by an external condition 2673. καταργέω (katargeó) -- to render inoperative, abolish, and tongues would simply cease themselves (middle voice) 3973. παύω (pauó) -- to make to cease, hinder. This is stated in the context of a paragraph about the written revelation, the mirror, the Word, reaching completion.


Usual disclaimer: If you use this material, please give credit where credit is due.

God Brings Samaritans Into the Church

Question from Quora: Can you explain Acts 8:12-17?

Few people catch the meaning of this passage, so this is a good question.

The theme sentence of of Acts is chapter 1, verse 8. Before departing Earth for heaven, Jesus told the disciples, you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth. 

The events in Acts 8 form one of the high points of the outline.  If you understand the outline, you understand the significance of 8:12-17.  That outline unfolds as follows:

Jerusalem

In chapter 2, the Holy Spirit makes His grand entrance. The Holy Spirit descends on the disciples, causing the believers to speak in languages they had no way of knowing, along with other signs. This is followed by Peter preaching the gospel and many joining the disciples.

The language phenomenon had prophetic significance. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul cites Old Testament prophecies to explain the primary purpose of miraculously speaking in foreign languages. The spectacular event that day was a warning to the Jewish nation that they had come under God’s judgment for rejecting their Messiah. As prophesied by Daniel and other prophets, Judea was destroyed by waves of Roman armies in 67 to 70 AD.

The Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit marked a revolutionary change. Previously, He had come upon just a few believers for specific purposes such as guiding a king, empowering a warrior, or delivering revelation through a prophet. Now He had come upon all believers, not just for a narrow ministry, but to abide. What had previously been a temporary or conditional gift now became a permanent, sealing gift. Whereas only a chosen few had received ministries from God, now all received ministries and were empowered with “spiritual gifts.”

Judea

Chapter 8 briefly describes how the believers were scattered throughout Judea by persecution. Jerusalem represented the initiation of the gospel among the Jews, and Judea represents spreading of the gospel among the Jews.

Samaria (chapter 8)

The Samaritans had a mixed heritage, having descended from a mixture of Israelite and local ancestors.  Some followed the God of Israel, but most followed the religions of their non-Israelite ancestors or of the occupying armies.

The Jews descended primarily from Judah, one of the few families of Israel that had not been scattered into the world by invaders.  They were very inwardly focused.  God had commissioned Israel as a nation of priests to the world, but they had failed to maintain their own religion, let alone spread it.  In their minds, they were God’s chosen, and that was that.  They considered their half brothers, the Samaritans, unclean, second-class, and enemies. So what was about to happen required a major shift of thinking. 

Up to that time, all of the Christians were Jews.  Some began to recognize what God was doing, but it took decades for others.  Phillip went among the Samaritans anyway and preached Christ to them.

• 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

(The story of Simon is a tangent, so I'll skip verse 13.)

Shockingly to the Jews, the Samaritans converted. But something was missing. There was no miraculous evidence that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Samaritans.

At this point, we need to reach farther back for context. In Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells Peter,

• I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Acts 8 is a an example of the fulfillment of Peter using those metaphorical keys. (It has nothing to do with creating a permanent office or making Peter into a “pope.”)

• Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (verses 14-16).

Here, Peter fulfills his commission. He and John pray for the Samaritans to receive the full blessings of salvation, just like the Jewish believers had in Jerusalem. So the gospel expands outside of the Jews, and the Samaritans are now included.

• 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.

The passage does not state how Peter and John knew that the Samaritans had received the Holy Spirit, but it is safe to infer that something miraculous happened. The likely possibilities are that some began prophesying and speaking in foreign languages in a manner similar to what had happened in Jerusalem.

You may notice that I don’t call it speaking in tongues. According to Acts 2:5–11, it was not the unintelligible babbling that you hear today. People from foreign lands heard the speakers in their own native languages, and 15 specific languages were understood by unconverted bystanders.

The evidence showed several things: God had expanded the blessings of belief and ministry beyond the Jews.  Previously, the Holy Spirit had only come upon people of Israel.  The Jews thought they had a unique claim on their relationship with God. This destroyed that misconception.  Since the Holy Spirit came upon people for the purpose of ministry, this meant that not only belief, but also the priesthood, was being taken away. And again, the sign warned the Jews of the destruction to come.

Thus, Peter had fulfilled his role, bringing, so to speak, the Grand Entrance of the Holy Spirit to the Samaritans.

To the Ends of the World

In chapter 10, we see the gospel and the Holy Spirit expand to a Roman soldier, Cornelius, and his household. The Samaritans were half Israelite, but Romans were unclean occupiers from a distant land!  Even Peter needed special visions to prepare him for dealing with a Roman.

After Cornelius converted and spoke in foreign languages, Peter had some explaining to do back in Jerusalem before the council of apostles.  They were offended that Peter had even eaten with gentiles.  Once again, God had expanded the group called “God’s people,” and the Jewish Christians had to adjust how they saw themselves and the rest of the world.

The remainder of Acts mostly describes the continued expansion of the gospel to Asia Minor and Greece. We even see the church’s first heresy when Jewish believers demanded that gentile believers start living according to Jewish customs. Although Acts shifts to following Paul's evangelistic journeys, Peter had used his "keys" to reflect that God had unlocked the kingdom for the Jews, the Samaritans, and the rest of the world.

Note to Charismatic and Pentecostal brethren: Christ’s prophesy in Acts 1:8 was fulfilled. The opening of the gospel and the grand entrance of the Holy Spirit to expanding circles of people does not constitute a pattern that applies today, and the prophetic meaning of “tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:20-22 plus Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 28:11,12, and Jeremiah 5:15, and their contexts) was fulfilled over 1900 years ago.

Note to Catholic apologists: Peter in Matthew 16:18 is a masculine noun, denoting a stone by itself, whereas rock is a feminine noun, denoting a formation in the ground.  The difference denotes a play on words in which Peter and the rock cannot be conflated or confused.  In addition, throughout the Old Testament, Rock is a name for God, in general (Psalm 18:2), and for Christ, specifically (1 Corinthians 10:4). Even Peter used the word that way (1 Peter 2:8). This rock could not, therefore, refer to Peter. It had to refer to Peter’s confession.  To call Peter the Rock on which Christ founded the church is to equate Peter with God, and that is blasphemous.

Copyright 2019, Richard Wheeler; permission to use excerpts is granted for personal, not-profit use.  Please give credit where credit is due.  

Did Christ Die "for" Only the Elect?

Reformed / Calvinist / Particular versus Arminian / General

The Reform movement began a Century before Calvin's time, but one of the debates that divide Protestants from Catholics and Reformed Protestants from other Protestants came into clear focus as a result of conflict between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius.  For this reason, the Reformed school is often called Calvinist and the non-Reformed school is called Arminian.  Within Baptist history, the Reformed position is held by Particular Baptists and the Arminian position is held by General baptists.

The differences break down into many points.  In general, the Reformed beliefs are far more biblical than the Arminian beliefs.  Here, I'm going to focus on just one point: For whom did Christ die?  The Reformed belief holds that Christ died for the elect; that is, for, and only for, those whom God saves from damnation. The Arminian belief holds that Christ died for the world.

Both sides oversimplify by failing to separate the value of Christ's sacrifice and its application into two issues.

Reformed interprets "Christ died for the elect" too restrictively

The Reformed side errs by interpreting "Christ died for the elect" as meaning that the Sacrifice of Infinite God has finite potential value.  First, this mathematical absurdity is reverse-engineered from the Catholic assumption that God's grace and sacrifice are quantifiable.  Some argue that if all the value of Christ's sacrifice is not applied, then all is somehow wasted.  However, dead is dead, and eternal God is infinite. It is absurd to quantify and limit the infinite.

Second, it is a logical absurdity to assume that having one purpose, dying for the elect, excludes having other purposes. For example, Christ's sacrifice glorifies the Father and Himself, so it would be correct to say that Christ died "for" glorifying God.  By Reformed logic, Christ could not die for the glory of God or for vindication of the Father's plan to allow the Fall because He died (only) for the elect.

Third, Christ's sacrifice not only redeems the elect, but also, after the removal of the lost in the Day of Judgment, redeems the whole of creation.  Yes, Christ died "for" the elect, but His sacrifice has far more value.

Arminian interprets "Christ did for the elect" too loosely

The other side understands that the Sacrifice of the Infinite has unlimited potential value but errs by confusing unlimited value with universal application.  Arminianism holds that God applies the value to all men by freeing them to choose to receive or not receive Christ and His gift of salvation.  This flies in the face of New Testament teachings about how the lost are enslaved by sin and how the carnal mind is at enmity with God.  Paul makes it clear that even faith is a gift from God, and without that gift comes no conversion.  

Many denominations, the Roman Catholic Church among them, carry the error further by falling into forms of Universalism, the belief that all men will be redeemed (or at least purged) and enter heaven.  Pentecostals and Charismatics carry unlimited value to an absurd extreme by applying it to carnal desires for wealth ("it's in the atonement"), health ("by His stripes you were (physically) healed"), and personal pride ("he who speaks in tongues builds up himself").

On this point, both sides err by dragging along Catholic baggage.  The error on the Reformed side does not affect any critical points of the gospel that I know of, but the errors on the Arminian side can be damning.  

That is not to say that all Arminians are unsaved.  One can believe the gospel before being taught Arminian errors, and not everybody who belongs to a given church believes all that their church teaches.  However, I have only discussed one of many points.  Those who have accept Arminian errors before conversion fall short of the grace of God.  Their conversions are false, and those who mislead by preaching false gospels shall have much to answer for.

Saved by Grace but Secured by Self Righteousness

"I believe i am saved from this ungodly world by the grace of God. but to continue in that salvation or saving grace requires effort on my part."

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Galatians 3:3

If the potter makes a pot for honorable use, does the pot need to take action to remain a pot? If God turns a goat into a sheep, does the sheep need to take action to avoid turning back into a goat? 

Doctrines of piecemeal justification (Catholicism) or perishable justification (Arminians) contradict the very definition of grace. They do not recognize that the new birth changes a believer's very nature.

The new birth

• Changes strangers into members of the household
• Changes citizens of the kingdom of darkness into citizens of the kingdom of light
• Emancipates slave, turning them into free persons
• Changes children of satan into children of God and brethren of Christ
• Gives sight to spiritually blind
• Gives life to those who were spiritually dead
• Gives an inheritance to the disinherited
• Turns the condemned into the glorified

If God turns a lump of coal into a diamond, a little bit of dirt does not turn it back into coal. Diamonds continue to be diamonds because that's what God has remade them into, and diamonds will shine because that's what diamonds do.

Living in insecurity and in fear of your fleshly nature is not God's will for believers. IFF (if and only if) you are a believer, your spirit is a diamond embedded in a fleshly lump of coal. God promises, indeed predestines, that in the resurrection or rapture, He will transform your old coal into a new diamond, too. You cannot break God's promises or defeat His predestination.

Living in insecurity and fear is wrong for believers, but it is right for those who have not received The Gift, as a gift, from the Giver. God does not take away what He has freely given. Neither does He give the gift to those who insult His generosity.

If you received the "gift" of salvation as though it were something that you would have to pay for on the installment plan (Catholic) or would have to earn through other do's and don'ts (Wesleyan), then you may not have received the gift as a gift. Please make sure you receive the gift God's way.

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Differences between the Persons of the Trinity

Raymond, a Oneness Pentecostal, challenges the Trinity. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are One in nature and One in substance, how can we tell them apart? If there's no difference, the Trinity must be pointless and a Unitarian God makes more sense.

Oneness refers to the Unitarian belief that God exists as only one Person. Some Unitarians believe that God is a quick-change artist who switches costumes to appear as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Others believe the Father is God, the Son was just a man, and the Spirit is an impersonal force.

Raymond says no Trinitarian has ever answered his question, How can we distinguish between the Persons or personalities of the Persons of the Trinity? With that claim he implies that the Trinity does not make sense.

Differences in Person

The question has two answers because it has two parts. By Person, we mean all that makes up the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. There is no reason to expect any difference in nature (the characteristics) or substance (whatever spiritual stuff they are made of. If there are differences, no mortal mind could grasp them.

We except from that statement the body of Christ Jesus. God translated the body of Jesus from physical form into spiritual form when Jesus ascended to Heaven. So the Son may have that additional "substance."

I'm sorry, but I have to hedge even on the exception. Jesus said, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me" (John 14:11). Also, after His baptism by John, Jesus "returned from the Jordan [river], full of the Holy Spirit" (Luke 4:1). Therefore, the Father and the Spirit may share the the body of Jesus in Heaven. That brings us back to the Three having identical substance, even during and after the Son inhabited a physical body!

More than one in one

How does one program in a computer differ from another? They share the same hardware. They share access to all the power, interfaces, and data within the computer. Since a computer's existence is limited to the physical universe, the programs have to take turns checking the keyboard buffer, executing instructions in the CPU, storing data to or retrieving data from RAM, displaying information on the monitor, and so forth.

They differ not in substance, but in information. Each contains instructions and data that correspond to their roles. You cannot look at a computer and see the programs. Even if you examined the magnetic states on the hard drive, the logic states in the CPU, or the electrostatic states in the RAM, you would need yet more information to know where to look and to decode it. 

One, but more than One

Since God is spirit in nature, omnipresent, and eternal, it would be unrealistic to think we could "look" with our mind's eye at God or at the three Persons of God, let alone have the ability to recognize differences in what we see. It's not like the Father would have flowing white hair and a bald spot, the Son would wear gold chains and would have his pants hanging down below His butt, or the Holy Spirit would wear a butler's uniform.

The difference until the incarnation would appear to have been strictly informational. The three Persons have self awareness and, although we could not tell them apart, they know each other. Even if there were no differences in nature between the three in their transcendent reality, each would still be able to distinguish the other two because, to the extent that they exercise such knowledge, they know each others' minds (for example, Romans 8:27, "He [the Father] who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit"). 

As a result of accepting different roles and executing the functions of those roles, the three Persons accumulate differentiation in "their" memories. Yet even in that I must again hedge because, since the Trinity shares a common substance, the three Persons can share in each other's experiences.

Differences in Personalities

I would define personality as the aggregate of inward and outward attributes. Inward attributes would stem from one's nature. Having the same nature and shared substance, the three Persons of the Trinity would have identical inward attributes.

Outward attributes would result from the combination of the inward attributes and the Person's role. Whereas inward attributes express the nature, outward attributes put the role into action consistent with the inward attributes.

Listing the personality differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit rockets past my pay grade (if I had one). Having just enough knowledge to be a danger to myself, though, I'll attempt to name at least one unique outward attribute for each Person.

Personality of God the Father

• Christ said that not even He knew the day or hour of the end of the age; only the Father knew, so the Father is the Planner.
• The Father deploys the Son and the Spirit to execute His plan, so the Father is the Coordinator.
• The Father receives Change Requests from the Son and Spirit and issues Change Orders, so He presides over the Change Control Board.

These tell me that the Father is the Manager among the Three. Although the Father delegates certain judgments, He takes responsibility for the divine plan and its execution. Would He be better than the other two at those roles? No, His leadership does not indicate a difference in nature; but we perceive a recognizable outward attribute that ensues from a difference in role.

Personality of God the Son

• Since the Father fulfills a role of Leader, the Son and the Spirit fulfill roles as Followers. 
• Following requires obedience. While the Spirit obeys, the Spirit does not need to obey sacrificially. For a time, the Son forsook the glory of Deity and the comfort of Heaven. He took on the weakness and vulnerability of a child and a man, took upon Himself the weight of the guilt of the world, and suffered torture and physical death. He "learned obedience," not just as a matter of being obedient by nature, as all three Persons are, but by experience.
• As a follower of the Father, the Son demonstrates humility by representing and obeying the Father.
• As one who experienced the discomforts, risks, temptations, and agonies of earthly life and death, the Son understands our experience, so He has empathy.

This tells me that, although the nature of any of the three persons would have led to identical behavior, the Son acts with humility and grace in ways that the other two members do not have opportunity to express. Moreover, all three Persons can sympathize, but only the Son can empathize with us because He shared the human experience. As we consider the Son's sacrifice and see His humanity and brotherhood, which presents God as accessible, relateable, and an object of affection.

Personality of God the Holy Spirit

• The Spirit enlightens man that he might see and births believers into life.
• What the Son demonstrated, the Spirit enables. The Spirit imbues and empowers spiritual gifts in accordance with the Father's plan.
• The Spirit glorifies not Himself, but the Son and the Father by teaching, through the Sword of the Spirit, the written Word of God, all spiritual knowledge that we need.

This tells me that the Spirit enacts the quiet humility of a servant, teaching and equipping the saints for their own role in the spiritual economy that they might enjoy the benefits of God's love and glorify their Father and Brother.

The difference is also intuitive

It should be obvious to anyone that, although the Trinity is one in substance and its members are equal in nature, if we relate to the Father as our Father, to the Son as our Big Brother, and to the Holy Spirit as our Teacher, Quartermaster, and King's Messenger, we innately recognize differences of personality, even if we fail to consciously recognize them.