Category Archives: Holy Spirit

Indwelling Of Spirit

THE LANGUAGE OF INDWELLNG

The New Testament clearly teaches that there is a special relationship between the Christian and the Holy Spirit. This rela­tionship is defined as an “indwelling” of the Spirit. It is an indwelling relation­ship that one does not have with the Spirit before he becomes a child of God through obedience to the gospel.

Though the Spirit works on the heart of the alien sinner before baptism through the spoken or written word of the gospel, He indwells the Christian in a special relationship after baptism. God maintains this special relationship with His people until King Jesus comes again. It is then that our relationship with God will be truly personal.

When discussing the indwelling of God in the Christian while in this world, we must be careful to not literalize metaphors of human location in reference to God, and thus, localize God. The very nature of words as “in,” “here,” “there,” and “indwell” in our human vocabu­lary car­ry with them an earthly meaning of loca­tion. We are either “here” or “there.” But God is “here” and “there” at the same time. Therefore, when earthly words are used in the Bible to refer to the presence of God, they must first be understood metaphorically.

We cannot place God in a particular location. When we use words as “in,” “with,” “enter,” “upon,” etc. in reference to God, we often force an earthly and human charac­teristic or action upon God. However, when such words are used to refer to God, there must be a metaphorical meaning that is implied. God is beyond the source of our metaphors, that is, He is beyond the earthly definition of our words.

We do not serve a God who is confined to a location as we are so confined. We would not locate God in the physical structure of a temple. We would not, as apos­tate Israel, place Him on top of a mountain or confine Him to a literal definition of our own bodies. Literaliz­ing beautiful meta­phors in reference to God leads us to misunder­stand the wonderful relationship God has with His creation. This relationship is explained with words that are of this world, but indicate something that is far beyond this world. We must not confine God to this world with a literal definition of our words that are used in the Bible to define either His existence or actions.

It is true that the Holy Spirit used “words of location” to explain the work, being, and presence of God. This is particularly true in His relationship with His people. However, we must understand that the Holy Spirit was limited to the use of our dictionary. If He would have used a “heavenly dictionary,” we would not have been able to understand the Bible. “Heavenly words” have no earthly definitions. One must understand, therefore, that earthly words fall far short of explaining heavenly concepts.

For the above reason, the Holy Spirit in inspiration used metaphors in order to explain those things with which we have had no experience. Simple words as “in” and “in­dwell” are often used in a metaphorical sense to explain something that is greater than our human experience. Therefore, something great­er than the earthly definitions of the words is being conveyed by the Spirit when these words are used in reference to the Holy Spirit.

Biblical interpreters have often made an unfortunate error here. In failing to understand the inability of human words to define that which is beyond the human expe­ri­ence, they have humanized numerous con­cepts concerning God. This unfortunate practice has led to a great deal of confusion in our attempts to understand the nature and indwelling of God. By forcing God to conform to the definitions of our earthly words, we have created a god after our own image and after our own desires.

However, we are not alone in failing to recognize the fact that God is beyond human description. In other words, He is far beyond the definition of the words of our dictionary. Because the Jews failed to understand this, they also had difficulty in understanding metaphors that were used in reference to their relationship with God. This was especially true concerning their tendency to localize God to Palestine, and specifically to a temple once it was constructed. Their localization of God was clearly brought out in their concept of the “God in a temple.”

By the time of the kingship of Solomon, Solomon knew that the people would seek to locate God in the temple that was newly constructed. When he completed the temple in Jerusalem, therefore, at the inauguration of the structure, he reminded the Jews,

“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain You. How much less this temple which I have built!” (1 Kg 8:27; see 2 Ch 2:6).

Solomon was right. Neverthe­less, the Jews’ earthly understandings persisted throughout their history. When Israel was deep into their apostasy of turning from the God of heaven, God rebuked them by saying, “Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build me? And where is the place of My rest?” (Is 66:1).

Israel per­sisted in localizing God in Jerusalem, and in particular, in the temple. Unfortunate­ly, they missed the metaphors, and thus, missed a true understand­ing of the omni­present Deity who created them. We often do the same today.


Since God is God, He does not dwell in a particular location, for it is superfluous to affirm that He dwells here or there in His cre­ation. He is! And the fact that He is God means that He cannot be confined to a “loca­tion.” He cannot be located somewhere in His creation. He is located everywhere. The words “here” and “there” refer to the position that material objects or individu­als have with one another.

God was not “there” in the temple while we are “here” in our houses. God is both “here” and “there” at the same time. Therefore, we do not go to the temple in order to encounter God. He is both in our house and in the temple at the same time. Such is the nature of His existence. God Is!

Stephen rebutted the Jews “localization theology” in Acts 7:48: The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands.” Stephen then quoted Solomon’s state­ments to remind the Jews that God never intended to dwell in a temple as they desired (At 7:49,50). It is simply not possible for God to be omnipresent, and at the same time, located. This is a logical contradiction.

Paul made the same argument to the Greek philosophers that Stephen made to the Jews, who also had the concept of placing God at a particular location. So Paul argued in Athens, “God, who made the world and every­thing in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands(At 17:24).

In the mythological religion of the Greeks, the gods were con­ceived to be in different locations at different times. The Greeks had a humanized concept of deity. They created gods after their own imagination, and thus, when they thought of their gods they thought that the gods behaved as man. However, neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament teach such a concept concerning the true God of heaven.

Solomon, Stephen and Paul all maintained the same argument that was based on the statement that God made to Israel: “Has My hand not made all these things?” (At 7:50; Is 66:2; see Ps 102:25). In other words, God was saying that He could not dwell in something that is innate or material that He Himself had created. How could that which is created, box in He who creates it?

Our earthly under­standing is that we build a house, and then, “dwell” in that house. However, God created the timber, the nails and all the construction materials. How do we think we can confine God by that which He has created? Israel could not confine God to the four walls of a temple. Neither can we confine Him in any “holy” structure that we would suppose to build for Him.

In reference to the omnipresence of God, the Psalmist wrote that the whole earth is full of His glory (Ps 72:19; see Hk 2:14). We cannot escape the presence of God, for in Him we live and move and have our being (At 17:28). We have our being in Him. He does not have His being in us. His existence is not dependent on our existence, nor on our imagination.

The fact that God exists means that He is om­nipresent. We are in His presence at all times. He is simultaneously here, there and everywhe­re. He cannot be local­ized on the far side of the planet of Mars, or in another galaxy. He cannot be localized in any part of His creation. We cannot escape His presence even if it were possible to travel at light speed beyond our galaxy.

The nature of Jesus’ incarnation argues the omni­presence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Paul wrote concerning Jesus,

“Who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men” (Ph 2:6,7).

John affirmed that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God … and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1:1,14). Before the incarnation, God the Son was in Spirit (Jn 4:24). However, He “localized” in the flesh of man in order to dwell among us in this world.

Though we may not understand all the implications of the incarnation of the Son of God, it is evident that God “localized” in some way on earth within the form of flesh that could be handled and touched (1 Jn 1:1-3). The flesh could be touched, nevertheless, the Deity that is spirit, could not. Therefore, the incarnation was necessary in order for the Father to offer for us His Son in bodily form.

At this point in time (the incarnation), a “personality” of God (the Son) focused here on earth in a fleshly body for a special purpose. Such affirms that beyond the physical dwelling (the body), Jesus as Deity before the incarnation was not here or there. He was God in omnipresent existence in eterni­ty. What He was on earth was in contrast to what He was in eternity. In incarnation He took on human characteris­tics, and thus, human location in respect to the position or relationship that people have with one another. Therefore, in the state of incarnation, God the Son was “here” or “there.” But in the heavenly state in the spirit, God the Son was neither “here” nor “there.”

When considering the omnipresence of God, David felt extremely human in under­standing. “Such knowledge,” he wrote, “is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it(Ps 139:6). He was right. These things are beyond human comprehension. By inspiration David tried in Psalm 139:7-12 to help us under­stand the marvelous omnipresence of God.

“Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the dark­ness shall fall on me,” even the night shall be light about me; indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You.”

We are not the servants of a God who is confined to some location in order to have a relationship with mankind. If one should so think that God must be in a par­ticular location in order to be close, then God would ask,

“Am I a God near at hand,” says the Lord, “and not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places, so I shall not see him?” says the Lord; “do I not fill heaven and earth?” says the Lord (Jr 23:23,24).

God is present at all times—He is close—because in Him we live, move and have our being.

The omnipresence of God the Holy Spirit, is a difficult concept to understand since omnipresence is not a characteristic of man. Nevertheless, we must understand the nature of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the context of the omnipresence of Deity. The metaphorical use of earthly defined words can take us only so far in comprehend­ing the being and presence of God the Holy Spirit. Our imagination must take it from there. When we discuss the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit, therefore, we must not debate over our imaginations con­cerning the interpreta­tions of metaphors. How can we possibly under­stand that which is beyond our experience?

Disputing over metaphors that were meant to take our minds into the realm of the supernatural is futile. The extent of our argument often defines the level of our inability to appreciate the Holy Spirit’s use of metaphor in order to explain His presence and relationship with man.

The Bible states that the Spirit indwells the Christian. However, determining the nature of the indwelling leaves us to ask some questions about things we do not understand. To ask the questions, and subsequently receive no answers, does not frustrate us. We will never understand everything about the indwelling work of the Spirit. However, we do need to caution ourselves about attaching human definitions to words that the Spirit used to explain a divine relationship that He has with us. The problem often comes when the Spirit used our words to communi­cate a divine relationship, while we argue over locations.

When we come to the Scriptures, we must therefore caution ourselves not to humanize God with our terms of location. Men in general often have a Jewish or Greek concept of God’s presence and existence. In some cases, we are still struggling to overcome a childish concept of God who supposedly has long gray hair, an old looking face, and sits on a great white throne on a cloud. In our literalization of figures of speech in the Bible, and lack of recognition of great biblical metaphors, we fail to allow the Holy Spirit to take our minds beyond this world. In literalizing the metaphors, we have cheated ourselves of greater under­standings concerning the nature and being of God and His relationship with His children. We must in the end conclude that God is far beyond our comprehension, and therefore, we must never confine Him to the definition of our earthly words.

[Chapter from a forthcoming book.]

Languages (G)

8. “Interpretation”: Some have misunderstood the meaning of the gift of interpretation. It has been claimed that Paul meant that one is to “decipher” an ecstatic utterance or gibberish, not interpret a foreign language. However, the Greek word diermaneutas (interpretation) is used in thirteen different places in the New Testament in one form or another. It is almost always used in reference to translating the words of one known language into another known language (See Jn 1:38,41; 9:7; At 13:8; Hb 7:2).
An exception to this would be Luke 24:27 where Jesus interpreted the Scrip­tures for the disciples. But even in this case it was the interpretation of thought from one known language into another that was under consideration.

In the context of 1 Corinthians 14, therefore, we must understand that the word diermaneutas was used in its most common manner. It was not used to refer to the translation of gibberish sounds into a language of man. The word was never used to refer to the translation of some unheard of gibberish into a language that is known by man. It was used in the sense that the interpreter translated a spoken language that was known by mankind into the language of others who were present.

There is no justification to read ecstatic utterances into the context of 1 Corinthians. Fudge rightly concluded,

“The idea of some ecstatic language, some unintelligible gibberish, or a mystical prayer-language finds absolutely no support in the text of First Corinthians. Any teaching growing out of that notion is based entirely on supposition and assumption, and finds no ground in the Scriptures – here or elsewhere” (Speaking in Tongues).

There are no unknown languages discussed in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. There was no ecstatic gibberish in the assembly of the Corinthian church. When Paul discussed the subject of tongues, Bible students must understand that he was referring to the languages of men. In fact, his instructions concerning tongues throughout the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14 can be understood only if we understand that he was speaking of known languages of men in the context of his instructions. This is the only consistent manner by which 1 Corinthians 12 – 14 can be understood.

[End of series: The forthcoming book, of which this material is one of the chapters, will be out as an ebook November.]

Languages (F)

  1. 5.“Pray that he may interpret” (1 Co 14:13): This statement is made to affirm that one should pray for the gift of interpretation. In the case here, it is made in reference to those who already had the apostles’ hands laid on them in order to receive the gift of languages or some other gift.

We must remember that it was the Spirit who distributed the particular gifts (1 Co 12:11). Therefore, those who already had hands laid on them were to pray that the Spirit might give them the additional gift of interpretation if they had already received another gift, specifically the gift of languages.

We cannot assume that Paul was teaching here that they pray for a miraculous gift if they had not had the apostles’ hands laid on them. It took more than praying to receive the gift of tongues. This gift did not come simply in answer to prayer. The Corinthian situation proves this. They were in a situation where there was no interpreter of the various languages that were being spoken. If prayer was the only thing necessary in order to receive the gift of interpretation, then there would never be a situation where an interpreter is not present, for one could simply pray and receive the gift from God.

God would give the gift of interpretation in order to stop the confusion. But in this case in Corinth, there were lan­guages being spoken without an interpreter of the lan­guage being spoken. Paul’s instructions in this case are mentioned in verse 28. If no interpreter was present, then the one who was speaking in a language that could not be under­stood by the assembly, must be quiet.

Other contexts prove that more than prayer was needed in order to receive a miraculous gift. If prayer alone were the only prerequisite for receiving a gift, then why did Paul desire to go to Rome in order that he might impart to them some spiritual gift (Rm 1:11)? Could he not simply have instructed them through the Roman letter to pray for gifts to be added among the Roman Christians? Why did the apostles Peter and John have to go from Jerusalem to Samaria in order to lay hands on the newly converted disciples in order that they receive miraculous gifts (See At 8:18)? Could not Philip have instructed them to pray for the gifts?

The answer to the preceding questions is simple. It was only through the laying on of the apostles’ hands that the gifts could be given. Prayer concerning the gifts was for the purpose of receiving from the Spirit another gift of personal choice, since it was the initial choice of the Spirit to distribute the gifts according to His will (1 Co 12:11).

Prayer for the gift of interpretation would be necessary because the gift of languages did not assume that one would also be blessed with the gift of interpretation. Languages was a gift of confirmation before unbelievers. For evangelistic purposes, those who spoke in languages to unbelievers did not need the language they spoke to be interpreted because the particular group of unbelievers to whom they preached the gospel already knew the language. It was their native language. In fact, the gift of speaking in languages to the foreign unbelievers was for the purpose of communicating the gospel to the foreigner in his own language. No interpretation was needed. Because of his mission to many language groups, Paul could say to the Corinthians, “I speak with languages more than you all” (1 Co 14:18).

But in the case of a mixed assembly of believers, and possible unbelieving foreigners, the spoken language of the assembly needed to be translated for the local Christians, or the visiting unbelievers. This is another point to prove that the assembly about which Paul was addressing in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14 was a special biannual assembly of all the Christians throughout Achaia who came together in Corinth for the Isthmian Games that were conducted in the city. In this assembly, the women were to keep silent, and the gifted prophets and language speakers were to sort themselves out in order that the possible participants of the Games who possibly attended this occasional biannual assembly not think that the assembly of Christians was an assembly of madmen.

We must keep in mind also that 1 Corinthians 14:13 addressed the brother who already had the gift of languages. Paul said that he must then pray that he interpret for the visitors. Therefore, he had already had hands laid on him to receive the gift of languages. His prayer would be that the Spirit also distribute to him the gift of interpretation (1 Co 12:11). Since one could possess more than one gift, then we assume from what Paul meant was that one should pray for other gifts if he had already had hands laid on him by a Christ-sent apostle.

1 Corinthians 14:13 could refer to one praying that an apostle be able to be present in order that one receive a spiritual gift (At 18:8). One should “desire spiritual gifts,” and pray that the medium through which they were distributed would come into his or her presence.

One who had not had hands laid on him by an apostle could not receive a spiritual gift simply by praying for it. A Christ-sent apostle had to be present in order that the gift be imparted by the laying on of his hands. Only if one had already had hands laid on him could he pray for another gift. Since there are no Christ-sent apostles today, it would be futile to word a prayer for a miraculous gift. This would be asking for more than what God has promised for us today. It would be a direct attack against the sufficiency of the inspired word of God that God says is sufficient to supply us unto all good works (See 2 Tm 3:16,17).

There is a practical argument concerning praying for the gift of interpretation that must also be considered in order to understanding what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 14:13. The one who was speaking in tongues was speaking the word of God. So it would be today if one stands up in an assembly and preaches in a language no one understands. If we have the miraculous gift of interpretation today, then certainly a brother could immediately pray for this gift, and thus, translate into the common language the meaning of what was being said. In this way, we could understand the message. If the speaker spoke in Mandarin Chinese, some brother could pray for the gift of interpretation in order to translate Mandarin into the common language of the assembly. The fact that this does not happen proves that we do not have the gift of interpretation today. In a practical sense, it proves that the gift of interpretation could not be arbitrarily received by the Corinthians.

6. “Understanding is unfruitful” (1 Co 14:14): This statement is misunderstood by some to refer to one not understanding some gibberish sound the speaker was supposedly speaking. Those who make this unfortunate interpretation affirm that they do not have to understand what they are saying. The fact is that if they are speaking gibberish they do not and cannot know what they are saying themselves. However, this is not what Paul is discuss­ing in 1 Corinthians 14:14.

Such interpretations of the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14 are certainly beneath the dignity of the Scriptures and certainly outside logical reasoning concerning the work of God. And above all, such interpretations make God use men as talking toys for His own amusement. The Holy Spirit does not work in a way to make God speak to Himself through the medium of men. God does not use the occasion of our assemblies to talk to Himself.

What Paul means is if the audience does not understand what is being prayed in a language, then there is no fruit produced from the prayer of those in the audience. If the audience does not understand the communication in prayer, then the prayer is useless to them.

The entire context of 1 Corinthians 14 is centered around the edification of the church in the assemblies (1 Co 14:26). The prayers that are under discussion refer to those prayers that are made in the assembly of the church. The church is not edified, therefore, if the prayers are in a language that cannot be understood by the assembly. This is why Paul said, “I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding (1 Co 14:15). In other words, if God’s revelation flows through the inspired individual, but straight back to God, then the assembly benefits nothing. It was not the work of the Spirit in the first century to inspire people to speak to God in public prayer in a language that could not be understood by the audience. This would be God speaking to Himself.

7. “Strange tongues” (1 Co 14:21): This statement in the original King James Version is also used to read the practice of speaking gibberish utterances into the context of 1 Corinthians 14. From the English word “strange,” it is assumed that the language that was spoken was unknown by any man. However, Paul was here quoting from Isaiah 28:11. In the context of Isaiah 28:11, Isaiah referred to the language of the Assyrians who took Israel into captivity in 721/722 B.C. He was not referring to ecstatic utterances, but to a specific language that was known by man.

The fact that Paul used the quotation of Isaiah 28:11 is proof that he was discussing the known languages of men in 1 Corinthians 14. Isaiah referred to languages when he wrote Isaiah 28. The same meaning must be carried with the quotation into the context of 1 Corinthians 14.

The “strange tongues” about which both Paul and Isaiah spoke were “foreign languages” to the Jews. In fact, this passage is better translated in recent versions to read “other” tongues or languages. The Revised King James Version reads, “With men of other languages and other lips I will speak to this people.”

[Next in series: Oct. 26]

Languages (E)

  1. 3. “Speaking mysteries” (1 Co 14:2): As stated before, the word “unknown” is not in the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 14:2. Therefore, Paul was not talking about some language that was not known by man. The word “mystery” in the verse does not refer to ecstatic sounds of gibberish. Paul was simply using the word “mystery” as it was commonly used to denote spiritual truth that is communicated to man by God (See Rm 16:25; 1 Co 2:7; Cl 1:25-29; Ep 3:3-5).

The phrase “in the Spirit” refers to inspiration. As previously discussed, a consistent understanding of this phrase as it is used in the Bible would lead us to understand that inspiration to speak in a language by the Holy Spirit is under discussion in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:2. Therefore, it was by inspiration of the Spirit that the Corinthians spoke the mysteries of the truth (See Ep 3:3-5).

In the context of 1 Corinthians 14:2, no one under­stood what the speaker was saying simply because there was no one present who had the gift of interpreting the specific language that was being spoken. This is why Paul made the exhortation of verse 13: “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.” This is also why Paul prohibited one from speaking in tongues when there was no interpreter present. “But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself and to God” (vs 28).

The phrase, “does not speak to men but to God,” does not assume that the speaker cannot understand what he is saying. 1 Corinthians 14:28 emphasizes the fact that if there were no interpreter present, then the individual was speaking to himself and to God. Therefore, he did understand what he was saying, though those around him did not. This is why Paul gave the instruction that this person should keep silent if there were no interpreter present. In other words, he should not disturb the assembly of the disciples for his own benefit.

Almost all of the disciples of the New Testament to which a Christ-sent apostle went exercised the use of the miraculous gifts if they had previously come into contact with an apostle. Because of the problems that prevailed in Corinth, confusion arose concerning the use of the gifts. The confusion that was occurring among the Corinthians led to Paul’s writing of the instructions of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14.

a. The Corinthians were speaking without consideration for one another. The gift of tongues was being used in Corinth without brotherly love. They were speaking in foreign languages in the assembly without respect to foreigners who did not understand the particular language that was being spoken. Because no interpreter was present, therefore, those in the assembly could not understand.

b. The Corinthians were speaking in confusion. Those who were speaking were speaking at the same time. They were thus causing confusion in the assembly by exercising a gift that was meant to edify instead of manifesting pride.

c. The Corinthians were speaking out of order. Those exercising their gifts were not respecting the orderliness by which the gifts were to be used in the assemblies. In 1 Corinthians 14:2, therefore, Paul gave them instructions concerning an orderly manner of using the gift of languages.

The point is that those who were speaking, were speaking mysteries because they could not be understood by the audience. They were only manifesting their pride by speaking. And in this way, they were speaking in a manner that caused confusion in the assembly. Paul exhorted them to check both their attitudes and the manner by which they used their gifts. 1 Corinthians 14:26-35 includes Paul’s instructions to correct the disorderly practices of those who were causing confusion in the assembly. They had been ignoring these courteous procedures because of their pride and divisive spirits.

4. “He edifies himself” (1 Co 14:4): Some have used this statement to prove that those who spoke should be seeking to edify only themselves, and not the assembly. But in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14, the edification of the entire assembly was under consideration. The use of speaking in languages was to be for the benefit of the assembly, not any particular individual in the assembly.

1 Corinthians 14:5 states that the assembly was not edified if there were no interpreter present who could translate the language that was spoken. Verse 6 states that there was no profit to the assembly unless there was communication of the teaching that was spoken.

Verses 7-11 affirm that such speaking was useless unless it could be understood by the entire assembly. For this reason, Paul exhorted, “Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret” (1 Co 14:13). What Paul was saying to the Corinthians in the context was that if there were no understanding, then there was no edification. If ecstatic or hysterical gibberish is what was being discussed in the context, then the meaning of what is said must be understood in order to edify both the individual and the assembly. But if the assembly could not be edified by what was said, then neither can the one who is gibberish sounds. This is why we must affirm that ecstatic gibberish was not in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. Ecstatic gibberish cannot be interpreted. It is simply unintelligible sounds made by an individual who is either emotionally out of control at the time, or is simply making gibberish sounds to draw attention to himself.

Paul did not address speaking in tongues as something that was self-edifying. But what was spoken in a language must edify. The action of speaking was not what edified. In other words, the gift of languages was not meant to be for the benefit of the one who was speaking simply because he was inspired with the ability to speak. This would also be true of the one who would utter ecstatic gibberish. If his actual speaking such sounds was meant to be for himself alone, then the one speaking has missed the purpose for which the gift of languages was given in the New Testament. He was speaking for himself, and thus not using his gift to minister to others.

All gifts were given for the purpose of ministering to the needs of others. No gift was given for the purpose of one to edify himself or to manifest pride before others. The gifts were given to individuals for the purpose of aiding the individuals in their ministry to others. Therefore, any gift that was used in the assembly that did not function in edification of the entire assembly, according to Paul’s instructions, must be silenced.

[Next in series: Oct. 24]

Languages (D)

In the following discussion we must emphasize the fact that Paul was discussing the misuse of the gift of languages in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14, not some strange gibberish sounds that arose from among some misguided emotionalists among the Corinthian disciples. In fact, understanding the context of these three chapters can be realized only when we understand that Paul was discussing the misuse of the gift of languages in the context of the Corinthian assembly.

The Greek word glossa is used throughout the context of Paul’s instructions. We must interpret this word as we would in Acts 2 and 10. If we are to be consistent in our interpretation of the speaking in tongues in the New Testament, we must bring the same speaking in languages we learn in other contexts into the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. When we do this, we interpret Paul’s meaning of tongues in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14 to refer to different languages that the Corinthians spoke as a result of the direction of the Holy Spirit.

The original King James translators unfortunately inserted the word “unknown” in 1 Corinthians 14:2. This word, however, is not in the Greek text. It is an addition by the translators of that version who sought to add an interpretive meaning to the text. On the other hand, they possibly added the word to explain the fact that the tongues that were spoken were unknown to those who heard. The tongues (languages) were languages of men, but unknown to the audience.

Regardless of the intentions of the King James translators, the charismatic movement of this century has assumed that the speaking was a gibberish that was unknown to man. Unfortunately, the addition of the word “unknown” has caused much confusion concerning our understanding of 1 Corinthians 12.

In a similar manner, the New English Bible transla­tors used the phrase “ecstatic speech” to translate glossa in 1 Corinthians 14:2. This is another unfortunate translation and one that has again caused much confusion. There is no reason why these translators should have added either the words “unknown” or “ecstatic” with the word glossa in this verse. Both textual additions reveal a bias on the part of translators who were seeking to interpret rather than translate. The word glossa should be translated as it is in Acts 2 and other passages in the New Testament where it is used. In those contexts, it is translated “tongue” or “language.”

The following points clarify what Paul discussed in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. We address these points in view of the charismatic world in which there has been so much confusion concerning the context of these chapters.

While examining these contexts, we must keep foremost in our minds that our personal experiences must not be used to define what Paul wrote. We must simply allow Paul to make clear statements concerning the misuse of tongues without the addition of our emotional experiences.

We must also keep in mind that what is discussed in the New Testament concerning tongues that occurred after Acts 2 must be defined by the context of Acts 2. The Holy Spirit would not confuse us by speaking of two different kinds of “tongue speaking” in the New Testament without alerting us to the fact. Since the languages of men is clearly understood in the context of Acts 2, then we must assume that the same is in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14.

  1. “Kinds of tongues” (1 Co 12:10): It is believed by some that this is a reference to different ecstatic utterances. However, the word “kinds” (genos) that was used by Paul here refers to that which is different, but at the same time, to that which is of the same nature, kind or species. In other words, Paul referred to the different languages the Corinthians spoke. Though the languages were different, they were all languages of men. He was speaking of the different kinds of languages that were spoken by men.
  2. “Tongues of angels” (1 Co 13:1): Paul wrote, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become as a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” This is not some heavenly language that was being spoken by some of the Corinthian disciples.

It is not necessary to assume that Paul even speaks of a real language of angels. This is indicated by the use of the subjunctive mood in the text. The word “though,” that is sometimes used to translate ean, should actually be translated “if.” Ean is subjunctive. The subjunctive “if” (ean) suggests probability. In other words, Paul used the subjunctive mood in this verse to express a hyperbole, that is, an exaggeration to express a truth.

This is the logical interpretation of this passage since angels are not physical beings. They are spiritual beings who do not have literal tongues and vocal cords by which to express speech through the reverberation of the air in the atmosphere. In the Bible, angels were manifested at different times and spoke in the languages of men in order to communicate the will of God. However, in their natural habitation, they are not as men who must use their supposed mouths in order to formulate words by which communication is made possible. When any angel spoke, he always spoke with the language of man by which he could be understood by man.

We could paraphrase 1 Corinthians 13:1 to say, “Just suppose that it might be that one could speak in the language of angels.” What Paul is saying was that even if he had the ability to speak with the languages of angels, but did not have a loving behavior, such an ability would be useless. There­fore, it is ridiculous to suppose that Paul, or any of the Corinthians, actually spoke in the language of angels. He spoke in the languages of men. He never claimed to have spoken in the language of angels. If the Corinthians were actually speaking in the tongues of angels, then they were blessed with a greater ability than even the apostles on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, for the apostles spoke only in the languages of men, not the languages of angels.

Paul used this same manner of argument in Galatians 1. He wrote, “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gl 1:8). Paul was not saying that an angel would actually be able to preach verbally the gospel to the Galatians. He was emphasizing a point. He used an exaggeration in Galatians 1:8 to prove his point. Even if it were possible, he emphasized, the Galatians should not even listen to angels, who if they could, preach another gospel to them. 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 1 are not affirming either actual languages of angels or the preach­ing of another gospel by angels. Paul was emphasizing an important point by using a hypothetical situation.

[Next in series: Oct. 22]

Languages (C)

D. Languages spoken in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 12 – 14 are some of the most controversial chapters of the New Testament. They are controversial simply because misguided interpreters have allowed their personal emotional experiences in speaking gibberish to be the dictionary by which they have understood what Paul discussed in these chapters.

These chapters in the New Testament have often been used to support the belief that Paul was discussing hysterical utterances or gibberish sounds among the disciples in their assemblies. However, a consistent interpretation of these chapters indicates that the tongues about which Paul spoke must be understood to be the spoken languages of men. In fact, the instructions Paul gave in these chapters makes sense only if the tongues among the Corinthian disciples were the languages of men.

The letter to the Corinthians was written to correct some unfortunate wrong behavior and attitudes that prevailed among the Corinthians. The Corinthians were boastful about their forbearance of the immoral brother. Some were arrogant by questioning the apostleship of Paul. Paul’s letter was a direct and loving condemnation of their present situation in a last minute effort to correct their sinful attitudes before his arrival. In the context of his judgments, he discussed their misuse of the miraculous gifts that he had imparted to them by the laying on of his hands (2 Co 12:12). These gifts were to sustain them in the absence of the written word of God. Unfortunately, they were allowing their dysfunctional attitudes to use their gifts to encourage division.

This discussion of miraculous gifts in the context of the first century disciples was incurred only because there were problems among the Corinthian disciples. We would not have the record of this material if it were not for the problem of arrogance that prevailed among these disciples. Since we do not have similar discussions in the New Testament concerning the miraculous gifts as Paul gives in this context, we would assume that the Holy Spirit did not consider the gifts to be a primary function of the body. At least other disciples did not encourage dysfunctional behavior and attitudes that were characteristic with the Corinthians. Nevertheless, we would give the Corinthians a break in this matter. After all, they were Gentiles who had been Christians for only about five years.

The miraculous gifts were originally distributed among them by Paul in order to mature them in the faith. The gifts, therefore, were only temporary in order to initiate the beginning of their faith in the absence of the written word of God. Edward Fudge correctly concluded,

“One wonders if tongues would have been mentioned in even this epistle had the Corinthians not been so confused and abusive regarding their proper use. The gift does not seem to demand attention apart from a problem. Even here, most of what Paul says about tongues is designed to play down their importance and to urge the Corinthians to completely revamp their attitude toward this gift” (Speaking in Tongues).

It is firmly believed by some that Paul was speaking of ecstatic gibberish or utterances in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 – 14. This assertion is made on the basis of the following:

  1. The speaking was addressed to God (14:2,28).
  2. The speaker was speaking mysteries (14:2).
  3. The speaker edified himself and not others (14:4).
  4. The speaker’s understanding was unfruitful (14:14).
  5. The audience may not understand what was said (14:19).
  6. Outsiders would call the disorganized speak­ing to be madness (14:23).

Though some affirm that the above thoughts of Paul should be understood in view of supposed gibberish or “unknown” sounds, the fact that he spoke of known languages is the consistent understanding of the context. Simply because the above points of Paul are twisted to mean that he was possibly referring to hysterical gibberish, does not mean that the context infers this interpretation. His instructions to correct the misuse of the tongues clearly reveals that he was speaking of known languages.

[Next in series: Oct. 20]

Languages (B)

B. Languages spoken in Caesarea:

Luke recorded in Acts 10,11 that when Peter and his company of Jews went into the house of Cornelius, Peter began to speak to them concerning the gospel. However, as he began to speak he was interrupt­ed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the entire household of Cornelius. The other Jews who were with Peter “heard them speak with tongues [glossa] and magnify God” (At 10:46).

Two very important events explain that Cornelius and his household spoke in languages, and not in some hysterical gibberish or “unknown” sounds.

1. Peter related this experience with the Acts 2 experience of the apostles in Jerusalem. When Peter arrived back in Jerusalem after the experience in the house of Cornelius, he explained to the Jewish Christians who confronted him that “the Holy Spirit fell upon them [Cornelius’ household], as upon us [the apostles] at the beginning” (At 11:15). The fact that the Spirit had fallen on them was evidence of the fact that the household of Cornelius actually spoke in discernible languages. The speaking in languages by the household of Cornelius was the same as the apostles’ speaking in languages in Acts 2. In Peter’s explanation to the Jerusalem brethren, therefore, he associated the experience of speaking in languages by the household of Cornelius with the languages of Acts 2. Cornelius and his house, therefore, spoke in actual languages, not in gibber­ish sounds.

2. The household of Cornelius was heard to be glorifying God. If the Jews who were present in Cornelius’ house could not understand what Cornelius and his household were speak­ing, then how could they have known what they were saying? Acts 10:46 plainly states that they heard them magnify God. If the languages were some unknown hysterical gibberish, then they would not have known if they were magnifying God.

Because of the fact that the attending Jews who had gone to the house of Cornelius with Peter could understand what the Gentiles were speaking, indicates that the Gentiles spoke in Hebrew, or Arabic. As Gentiles, we assume that the household of Cornelius normally spoke the common language of all the Gentiles. But in this case, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to clearly speak in the dialect of those Jews who were present. This certainly must have been a startling experience for those Jews who were present.

The fact is that Cornelius and his household were speaking in a language that they had not beforehand studied. They were thus speaking in “a new languages” to them. This is why the speaking in languages in this context was a sign from God. The gift to speak in languages was a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles had a right to the message of the gospel and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit.

As God had signalled to all the Jews with languages on the day of Pentecost that God had now turned to confirm the message of the gospel and those who obey it, so He also confirmed to the Jewish Christians that the Gentiles also were to be included as obedient subjects of the kingdom reign of Jesus.

C. Languages spoken in Ephesus:

When Paul came to Ephesus in Acts 19, he found about twelve disciples who had not been baptized in the name of Jesus. After he had taught them, and “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (At 19:5), Paul laid hands on them. As a result of the laying on of Paul’s hands, “the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues [glossa] and prophesied” (At 19:6).

Paul’s authority to lay hands on them in order that they receive the gift of speaking in languages manifested proof that he was a Christ-sent apostle. Paul here gave them the “sign of an apostle” about which he spoke in 2 Corinthians 12:12. According to Mark 16:20, their speaking in languages after he had laid hands on them proved that he was from God. The speaking in languages by the Ephesians, therefore, was also a fulfillment of the promises of Joel 2:23-32 and Mark 16:17.

The speaking in tongues in Acts 19:6 is not defined in the immediate context to be a spoken language. However, tongues do not need to be defined. In recording the incident, Luke assumed that Theophilus—the one to whom Acts was addressed—would use common sense in order to understand that the tongues here were the same as the miraculous events in the contexts of chapters 2 and 10.

Luke was writing to Theophilus who undoubtedly did not have any other New Testament documents in hand than the letters of Luke and Acts. Therefore, from how Luke defined the speaking in languages in Acts 2, he knew that Theophilus would conclude that the actual languages of men were under discussion in chapters 10,11 and 19. Since Luke connected the events of the speaking in languages as inspired speaking, then he assumed that Theophilus could make the connection of the apostles’ speaking languages in Acts 2. We must understand these chapters in the same manner. Acts 2 is the dictionary on languages throughout the New Testament.

In the context of Acts 19, Theophilus would understand the speaking of the Ephesians as the speaking in the languages of men. Luke would certainly not be stating that Acts 2 and 10 were references to languages, and at the same time, and without explana­tion, infer that the Ephesians spoke in some hysterical gibberish sounds as drunken people. We must understand the context of Acts 19 as Theophilus would have understood it. To be consistent, we must allow Acts 2 to be the dictionary. In doing this we understand that the speaking in tongues in Acts 19 was the speaking in languages that the Ephesians had not studied.

[Next in series: Oct. 18]

Languages (A)

LANGUAGES (A)
In the New Testa­ment there are four recorded cases when men and women spoke in each of these cases, we can clearly define the meaning of tongues and the purpose of the gift in the context of the evangelistic work of the early disciples.

A. Languages spoken in Jerusalem:

On the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-13, Jews and proselytes to Judaism from every nation of the Roman Empire were gathered in Jerusalem (At 2:9-11). The apostles were in an upper room in Jerusalem on this day when the Holy Spirit came upon them. They were empowered by the Holy Spirit and began to “speak with other tongues [glossais], as the Spirit gave them utterance” (At 2:4). Verse 6 states that “everyone heard them speak in his own language [dialekto].” Those who were present asked about what was happening, “and how is it that we hear, each in our own language [dialekto] in which we were born?” (At 2:8). They also stated, “We hear them speaking in our own tongues [glossais] the wonderful works of God (At 2:11). If one would simply read these verses without reading into them any modern-day ecstatic gibberish sounds, then we would clearly understand that Luke was describing a miraculous endowment of speaking in languages that was received by the apostles when they were baptized in the Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit inspired the apostles to speak in the languages of the people who were present. The people heard them speak in their own dialects the wonderful works of God. The people understood what was being said by the apostles because they said they did.

Luke records that they heard the apostles speaking the wonderful works of God. Therefore, the apostles were not speaking gibberish sounds because of some emotional state of hysteria. They were not speaking some language that was unknown to those who were present. They were speaking the wonderful works of God in the languages of the people who were present.

There is nothing difficult about understanding that the apostles miraculously received the ability from the Holy Spirit to speak the gospel on this occasion in “new languages” (Mk 16:17) to those who were present. They had not studied these languages in which they spoke. Therefore, we would conclude that the reason for the gift of languages for the apostles was evangelistic for the day. People from throughout the Roman Empire were present, many of whom spoke many different languages and dialects. These people needed to hear the wonderful works of God.

In the context of Acts 2, Luke used two different Greek words in reference to the languages that were spoken. The Greek word glossa is used in the plural (glossais) in verses 3,4,11 and 26. This word refers to a known foreign language. It is used in this manner in the context of these passages. The apostles were not speaking a language that was unknown to man. They were speaking known foreign languages that were new to them, for they had never before studied these languages. But the languages were not new to those who came from the areas where the languages were spoken. The people could have never discerned that they were speaking of the wonderful works of God if they did not understand the languages that the apostles used to explain these works.

In verse 4 the apostles “began to speak with other tongues [glossais], as the Spirit gave them utterance.” The tongues here are defined in verse 11 where the word glossais is used again. “We hear them speaking in our own tongues [glossais] the wonderful works of God.” Therefore, it is certain that the apostles were speaking in the languages of the people who were present from every nation. They were speaking languages that could be understood.

The Greek word dialektos is used in verses 6 and 8. This term can refer to either a dialect or language. It was used in this manner in the context of Acts 2. Those from every nation who heard and saw the apostles preaching, stated, “And how is it that we hear, each in our own language [dialekto] in which we were born?” Not only were the apostles speaking in the languages of the people who were present, they were also speaking in the dialects of the languages of the people.

A mother language may have several dialects that are unique to regions other than where a mother language is spoken. What seems to be indicated in the context of Acts 2 is that the apostles not only spoke the mother languages, but also the regional dialects of the mother languages. This fact may be what truly stimulated the curiosity of those who heard. They could not understand how these Galileans could fluently speak in their dialects.

From the use of the above two Greek words in the same context, it is evident that in some way Luke used glossa and dialektos interchan­greably. Dialektos was used in verses 6 and 8. Glossa was used in verses 4 and 11. Both of these words were actually used by the people in the context that Luke records. In other words, the audience used these two words interchan­geably in the context. Therefore, we would understand that these were synonymous words in the culture when used in reference to spoken languages. At least we must conclude that the people not only heard their languages spoken (glossa), but they also heard the derivatives of their languages (dialects) spoken.

The miracle of the apostles speaking in languages was magnified in the sense that the Spirit not only inspired languages to be spoken, He also inspired all the dialects of the mother languages to be spoken.

The Jews in Acts 2 came from areas where hysterical (or, ecstatic) gibberish was undoubtedly practiced among idolatrous religions. However, when they came to Jerusalem and experienced the events of Acts 2, they recognized that the languages that the apostles spoke were the languages of their homelands. The apostles were not speaking hysterical nonsense. They were speaking the actual languages of the people who were present. The proclamation of those who heard on the day of Pentecost proves that the “tongues” that the apostles spoke were languages.

In Acts 2:13 Luke recorded, “Others mocking said, ‘They are full of new wine.’” This statement has been used by some to affirm that the apostles were actually speaking in gibberish sounds that sounded like men who were drunk. But this was not the case.

We must keep in mind that the apostles were speaking in different languages. Those from Parthia would not have understood the language that was spoken by those from Libya. Those from Galilee, who knew that the apostles were from Galilee, would likewise not understand either of the languages of those from Parthia and Egypt. To them, the apostles’ speaking in any other language than what they understood would only sound like men who were drunk. And drunk men speak gibberish sounds. Therefore, the irreverent mockers dismissed as drunken the apostles who were speaking in a language that they did not understand.

This event of the apostles’ speaking in “tongues” on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 becomes the dictionary to define the rest of the New Testament when “tongues” are discussed. This is a consistent manner by which we must allow the Bible to interpret itself. Therefore, when we come to the next three records of miraculous speaking in languages, we must understand these biblical contexts from the commentary text of Acts 2.

[Next in series: Oct. 16]

Free Moral Choice

  1. 3. God expects us to exercise our free-moral agency. God holds us responsible for our behavior. The plea of the early evangelists, therefore, was, “Repent!” (At 2:38; 2 Pt 3:9). Such was a call for people to exercise their free-moral choice to bring their lives into harmony with God’s will. “Cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Co 7:1). “Do not touch what is unclean” (2 Co 6:17). Such pleas on the part of the Holy Spirit would be senseless if we could not make free-moral choices in relation to God’s plea through the gospel without the aid of the Holy Spirit. They would not make any sense if the individual could not make a choice to respond on his own accord.

In the context of these exhortations, we wonder why there is the absence of pleas to submit to the supposed inner workings of the Holy Spirit if indeed He is to do such in the life of the alien sinner or saint. The point is that God will hold each individual responsible for his or her own behavior, regardless of one’s beliefs concerning the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul warned, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Co 5:10).

The fact that we will be held accountable for behavior in judgment means that the Holy Spirit will carry no burden for spiritual growth that would end in the Spirit’s accountability for our behavior. The Spirit will not come into judgment for our bad behavior. Each Christian will be held accountable for his own moral behavior.

In order to influence the moral behavior of man, the Holy Spirit works through the medium of revelation. In this way the free-moral choice of each individual is guarded. We are without excuse if we refuse the Spirit’s pleas through the word of God to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Pt 3:18).

Our understanding concerning the work and influ­ence of the Holy Spirit must respect the free-moral choice of each individual. This is necessary because if the free-moral choice of man falls in any way, the justice of God in final judg­ment also falls. Therefore, God has shielded the heart of man (his moral behavior) by making man a free-moral individual. Camp conclud­ed,

“Any work of the Spirit that does not conform to God’s way of teaching His Word, or that would destroy or set aside man’s free moral agency, is a misconception of how the Spirit works.”5:35

Through our free-moral knowledge of revealed truth, we are allowed to either respond negatively or positively to God’s law. However, the influence of the Holy Spirit must not be viewed as directly influencing the our moral behavior apart from our responsibility to make choices for ourselves. If it is the work of the Spirit to directly control or influence our moral behavior, then our free-moral choice is violated. If our free-moral choice is violated, then the justice of God cannot stand in final judgment if one is lost. Boles concluded,

God has never forced man to serve him. In the long history from the first of Genesis to the close of the New Testament, not one instance do we find where God has refused to let man do as he pleased …. God never compels man to serve him; he has never coerced or forced man to do his will. He has always left man free and has never used any coercion, nor has he used any coercive methods to force man to obey him.6:262

While we speak of the restraint and constraint of the Holy Spirit, yet we recognize that the Holy Spirit leaves man free to choose his own course in the work that he does. Man can turn a deaf ear to the words of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit will not force him to hear.6:263

Can God stand just in final judgment if the Holy Spirit is allowed to directly influence the moral behavior of man? Can any Christian be justly condemned to hell if it is the work of the Holy Spirit to influence directly the moral conduct of that Christian in order to keep him saved? If only one apostate Christian is lost, then would we not question the ability of the Holy Spirit to keep one saved?

If it is the work of the Spirit to directly activate man’s response to the revealed word, then He must do so in a way that does not leave Him responsible if either a Christian is eternally lost. We wonder what effect the Spirit would have on the Christian’s moral behavior to the extent of guarding him from apostasy. Whatever understanding one derives from the Scriptures concerning the work of the Spirit, or influence of the Holy Spirit upon the moral behavior of man, his interpretation must not make the Spirit infringe upon the free-moral choice of the individual. If our free-moral choice is set aside by a supposed direct action of the Holy Spirit, then God’s justice would be brought into question if only one Christian was eternally lost.

[Next in series: May 19