John,

I know you have told me before, but one more time please. Is this scripture refering to the disciples in a negative way or was it supposed to be percieved as a compliment? I know the disciples were not calling themselves Christians.

Were there Christians in the land and to someone who had not been touched to know the Truth, the disciples appeared to believe similar to those Christians, and that is the only title people could relate with the disciples, or is this another case of translators inserting the word Christian?

Did the disciples suffer persacution in Antioch? It looks like they had a very sucessful stay in Antioch.

Rob

Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the LORD Jesus.
11:21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
11:25 Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the congregation, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Rob

Rob:

Good morning! These Scriptures tell us a few things about the word Christian. We have to be liberated by Jesus to be able to rationally consider the text and ask ourselves what the text itself is telling us. I mentioned the liberty of the Lord last night in the restaurant while we were eating. A wonderful part of that liberty is the liberty to examine honestly what we think and say and do! When we are truly made free by Jesus, the love of God comforts us, so that we do no longer fear finding out that we have been wrong. What a freedom! Jesus is good to us! God's people fear an examination of their faith. Their best hope of obtaining the liberty of the Lord is for us to love them with the consuming love of God. I hope God fills us so much with His love for others that they feel from us that it's ok if they are wrong. Feeling loved will encourage them to open up their locked closets to the Light. Charity never fails.

Now, concerning your questions.

First, since the verb is passive ("they WERE CALLED"), we know that non-believers invented the word. The congregation did not invent that title for itself; neither did God give it to the congregation.

Second, since they were non-believers who invented the term, then they did not believe that the disciples were following God's Promised One, the Messiah (or "Christ") of Israel. That's what makes a person a non-believer, not believing that Christ Jesus is the One. In all likelihood, those who invented the term "Christian" did not even believe that there was such a thing as a Christ.

Third, if non-believers in Antioch did not believe that the disciples were following God's Messiah, then what did they think the disciples were following? They had to think the disciples were wrong, or pathetic, or even deluded. That question is an important question because the title "Christian" reflects what unbelievers thought of Jesus and his followers; it does not reflect what the disciples thought of Jesus. Rob, that statement is so important that I want to write it again.

The term Christian, in its original sense, reflected the attitude of unbelievers toward Jesus and his body; it did not reflect the body's attitude toward itself or Jesus.

That is the key thought. What did the word mean to those who first used it? And the Bible is clear that those who first used it were not disciples of Jesus but were unbelievers.

To my knowledge, there was no other group out there anywhere in the ancient world called Christians prior to this time, with whom the unbelievers at Antioch were confusing the body of Christ. And the translators did not add the word; it is in the original text.

Let me know if I didn't make something clear.

jdc

WOW! So, when Paul was brought before King Agrippa, Paul was not being sarcastic in verse 27, was he? And King Agrippa's reply in verse 28, was that a sincere reply? And King Agrippa (being a non believer) was using the only description he knew to use (Christian) when, if he had known better, he would have said: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a follower of Christ".

I love learning the Truth and learning WHY I love the Truth. The Truth does set us free! Praise God!

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.
26:25 But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.
26:26 For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner.
26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
26:29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.

Rob

P.S. I know Webster's has the definition of Christian wrong. I think I remember you telling me a few years ago that the definition for Christian was "jack ass". Am I remembering that correctly? In the Greek dictionary is there a nicer way to say "jack ass" or is that already the nice way to say it? :)

Rob

Rob:

The word "Christian" itself does not mean "jackass", but in the beginning of its usage, that was the sort of insult it was intended to be. Webster's Dictionary follows the typical usage of the term. Everyone all over the world uses "Christian" to mean "a member of the religion of Christ", so Webster's has to have that as its definition. And actually, that is correct, original meaning, but what kind of feeling toward Jesus did those people have who invented the term? We have to remember that those who invented the word were unbelievers mocking the saint's faith in Christ, not praising the saints for it. And it was one of those few very clever sarcastic remarks that catches on very fast with everyone oin the world and spreads quickly. By the time Luke wrote the book of Acts, he already felt the need to explain to his reader where that term originated.

Some early non-believers actually spread the rumor that Christians worshiped a jackass that had been nailed to a cross. There is even some ancient grafitti on a wal in Rome that depicts a crucified jackass, with an inscription that reads, "Alexamenos worships his god." (Alexamenos, apparently, was a believer in Christ.) That is why I compared the original meaning of "Christian" to "jackass".

What would God's people have felt, do you think, when unbelievers used the word "Christian" to persecute and ridicule them? If they were free and happy in Jesus, they would have felt just as Peter told God's people to feel: "If any of you suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

God never called His people Christians. Jesus never called his followers Christians. The apostles never called the saints Christians. (Peter was not himself calling the saints Christians in the verse quoted above.) Then how is it that God's children have become addicted to the word, even to the point of anger at any questioning of it?

You know, I still think it is an insult to be called a Christian!

Yes, both Paul and Agrippa were very sincere with each other in that conversation you quoted from Acts (above). Agrippa was not being sarcastic at all, but was feeling so much conviction from Paul's preaching that he almost was willing to repent and be called one of those Christians. Paul discerned the conviction that Agrippa was feeling, and that is why he said to him what he did.

1PETER 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia . . ."

John, why would Peter call these people strangers? It looks as if they are Jewish believers. (?) Are they strangers just because Peter has not personally met them yet?

He called them strangers because they were Gentiles, not Jews, and strangers to the land and covenants of Israel. He probably had not yet met them, but that fact alone wouldn't have made them strangers to him. In spirit, as God and Paul taught Peter, he was one with them.

4:16 "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

I wonder why Peter did not say: "Yet if any man suffer as we, Christ-believing followers have suffered, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

I think another way to say today what Peter was actually saying, "Yet if any man suffer as we, whom non believers call a Christian/jack ass, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Whew, the world cannot understand, nor can they take it away from us, with God on our side!

Rob

You are reading this verse from Peter the way the earliest congregation would have read it, and the way Peter intended it.

jdc

One viewer's comments in regard to the questions above...

Hi John.

When I read these verses about "Christian" in the apostle's time, I think that an amount of "intimidation" they must have felt has really been lost. That word Christian then, must have carried a lot of "weight" and "shame" - and must have come with a great price attached to it.

I think in our generation, a similar weighty word might be "cult member". It has a degree of the same intimidation and ridicule attached to it (in most parts), and one must be very persuaded of the truth to endure the shame to be part of "a cult" (if publicly we ever have to go through that.) Of course, due to all the nuts in the world today, most people just ignore the word "cult" too. Even with that, I think God in His purposes, has taken the sting out of things in this time... but who knows what could happen down the line somewhere. Gary

Gary:

Yes, that is right. The weight of shame that attached itself to the sarcastic term, "Christian" has been replaced somewhat now by the term "cult member". When Christians now accuse someone of being a cult member, the condescending contempt they feel is about what I imagine the inhabitants of Antioch felt when they called the disciples of Jesus "Christians".

jdc

More comments from another viewer...

Dear John,

After reading the past e-mails about the word "Christian", am I right in thinking that we could feel "privileged" to be called Christians today if man had not distorted the original gospel, even though Jesus did not use the term? Thanks.

Jim

Hi Jim:

Yes, we could, much the same way that Peter felt privileged to be beaten for the name of the Lord (Acts 5:40-41). To be beaten, or hated, or called Christians aren't things that the children of God wanted, any more than we would want to be called cult members today, but if obeying God led to that, then the saints rejoice that it is worthy to suffer shame for the name of Jesus.

jdc

And more comments!

Glad to have all the emails that talks about the word Christian. It really gave me further knowledge on the subject.

In Nigeria here, they have made it so good that it will only take God Himself in your heart of hearts to believe that being a non-Christian is not a BAD thing. Here they said that the last three letters in Christian (IAN) means I AM NOTHING. Which is another way of saying that I Am Nothing without Christ. But they have forgotten that the meaning of the word Christ is Anointed.

I think it will be right to tell them that without the anointed (Christ) they cannot see that being a Christian is not of God. Does not the bible say that it is the anointing that breaks the yoke. For us, our yoke of ignorance of calling ourselves Christians had been broken and until theirs is broken, it is not worth arguing or debating the issue with them.

And maybe we should save ourselves a lot of time by telling them what someone told me recently that to be a Christian is to be religious and to be a non-Christian is to be Holy Spirit minded!

J.O.E.
Nigeria.

Hello Pastor John:

I'd like to say hello and introduce myself. My name's Nic'Kole and I'm a woman of God. I was referred to you by a brother in Nigeria named Joseph (you may also know him as Odinikpo). He said that you all may have a worship/fellowship group that meets in my area. I live in Martinez, California. If you'd be so kind to provide this information if possible, I'd be very thankful.

I have a few questions. When replying, would you please give Scriptural references.

*Is it true that we no longer need the water baptism, only the Spirit baptism?
*Is it true that some of the Commandments don't apply to us such as: Working on the Sabbath day?
*If two unbeliever's marry and one becomes a member of the Kingdom as time progresses, is it still true that the unbeliever is now saved because of the spouse?

This is all for now. I do thank you in advance for your response.

Have a great day.

Love; Your Sister in Christ,

Nic'Kole

Hi Nic'kole:

Thank you for your questions. They are all answered in much detail in the tracts and e-mail Q & A available on several of our web sites: isaiah58.com, pioneertract.com, and gospeltract.com.

I will briefly answer your questions, but for much detail. please visit those sites, and you will find many articles on such things as Works of the Law, Baptism, and Marriage and Divorce that will help you.

Question #1: Is it true that we no longer need the water baptism, only the Spirit baptism?

Answer: Yes, it is true. We are only to serve Christ in the way he suffered to provide. Paul called it a "new and living way", and that is what the way of the Spirit is. Jesus called it, "in spirit and in truth". Peter's gospel for the Jews included John the baptist's message and baptism (Acts 2:38); Paul's gospel for the Gentiles did not. For us, there is only "one baptism" (Eph.4).

Question #2: Is it true that some of the Commandments don't apply to us such as: Working on the Sabbath day?

Answer: No, that is not true. Every article of the Law is still in effect; the only difference is that now, those commandments are spiritual, not carnal. We keep the sabbath day now by walking in the Spirit every day and not following our own will and doing our own works (see the tract on The True Sabbath).

You will find that in this New Testament sacrifices are still required (the sacrifices of ourselves to do the will of God-Rom. 12), circumcision is still required (the circumcision of our hearts by the Spirit-Rom 2), baptism is still required (the baptism of our spirits with the holy Ghost), and every other commandment of God through Moses is still required BUT IN A NEW FORM! Not in the flesh, but in the Spirit.

Nic'kole, there is no day holier than another in this covenant. That is in the flesh. But we are commanded to observe God's rest, which is in the Spirit (see the tract #81, "Speaking in Tongues")

Question #3: If two unbeliever's marry and one becomes a member of the Kingdom as time progresses, is it still true that the unbeliever is now saved because of the spouse?

Answer: Whoever told you this was very foolish. No, your conversion does not mean that your spouse will be saved. Find and read the tract titles "Unequally Yoked in Marriage". It will explain the truth about the verse from 1 Cor. that someone has misrepresented to you.

To my knowledge, there is no group in your area such as you described. Brother Joseph may have been referring to Gary Savelli, who lives in Daly City, near San Francisco, but he and his wife are alone with God's truth. Also, he may be moving to Kentucky within a year or so.

Thank you so much for writing, and please feel free to write again if the materials on our web sites do not make something clear to you.

Your Servant in Christ,

John David Clark, Sr.

Carol wrote:

John,

Is there a way to know when you actually come out of christianity in your heart?

Carol

Carol:

I think there are several ways to know. One is by the feelings you have. When the elements of Xty feel strange to you and you know in your heart that you are a stranger to them, you have come out. When we come out of Xty, though, there remains the need to go through a cleansing period in which God gradually cleans up all the wrong thoughts and ideas that our Xn ministers and culture planted in our minds over our lifetime. This is a happy process that we can enjoy; it isn't a bad thing to experience.

jdc

Dear Pastor John,

I have been busy exploring all the information on your site, and it looks like you have a lot for me to study!

I did order your CD, and I tried to get on your mailing list, but you used ListBot, which said it has stopped service. May I please receive your newsletter?

I have had the Holy Ghost with evidence of other tongues since 1980, but I am now interested in learning more about the theology behind it - Charismatic/Pentecostal apologetics, if you will. I have found other sites that offer free Bible courses, even on a ministerial level, but many of them teach against the move of the Spirit. Do you offer any correspondence courses that are at least low in cost? Is there anything specific on your site I should start with? What other resources/authors/sites are recommended?

There is so much to learn. Thank you for taking the time to read my E-mail. I look forward to hearing form you soon.

In Christ,

M H

Dear M:

Thank you for your e-mail. God said through Isaiah that He would make this new covenant so simple that a fool "need not err". There really is no systematized theology behind the baptism of the holy Ghost, though there is truth to be gained by searching for it. And I congratulate you for your interest. Expect to be surprised by Jesus by what you find, when you seek his truth with your whole heart.

My suggestion is that you take your time and read the Bible along with the materials we have on line, and then write me with any questions that come to mind along the way. I would be thankful for the opportunity to explain to you what Jesus has taught me.

Why not start your search with this simple question: "When were the disciples born again?" Look for the answer to that, and let me know what you find.

Your Servant in Christ:

Pastor John

Dear Pastor John,

I have read the article on your site entitled "When Were the Disciples Born Again" and have copied the first book I saw on your site "Spiritual Light" into MS Word for study.

I recently completed a study on the Holy Spirit from a Baptist continuing education site. They use the same Scripture you do (1Cor.12:13) to try to say that every Christian has been baptized in the Holy Ghost, which I know is wrong. They also try to say that the baptism in the Holy Ghost occurred once at Pentecost for the entire body of Christ, again I know that is wrong.

My question is, although I do have the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues, on the doctrine of it being necessary for salvation. When I first receieved the Holy Ghost, I was taught that it was something like making chocolate milk with Hershey's syrup: the syrup sinks down into the bottom of the glass (a person getting saved and having the Holy Spirit) but it's not chocolate milk until you stir it up (the Holy Spirit baptism).

I still have only scratched the surface of all the teachings you offer on your site. May you have a blessed day.

In Christ,

Michele Hayes

Dear Michelle:

Thank you for writing again. I feel blessed by that and am willing to do what I can to guide you along.

First, I want you to consider an exhortation from Solomon concerning, in your case, the teachings you have received from Baptist Christian (Xn) ministers, teachings that you already know, by your own experience with Jesus, are wrong. Solomon warned his young son, "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." It is a matter of constant irritation to the Lord that His children continue returning to Xn places of worship--even AFTER they know that the doctrines they will hear are not the truth. Why do the saints feel so obligated to return to an evil thing? Won't God take care of His own, if they will only trust Him? His Spirit WILL guide you into all truth, Michelle, if you have the faith and courage to forsake the beautiful high places of Christianity (Xty).

Michelle, Solomon's earnest desire for his son was to know God, and his fear was that his son would listen to men who claim to speak for God but who do not know God. That is both my desire and fear for you. If you really want to know your heavenly Father, then do not seek the truth among those whom YOU ALREADY KNOW are ignorant of it. Mark them off your list, never go back to them, and then continue your happy search elsewhere. It is as vain for you to search for truth among those who do not know it as it was for Mary Magdalene to "seek the living among the dead". I hope that Jesus lets you know how important it is for you to do what Solomon said to do. May God give you that kind of faith and love.

Michelle, dear sister, remember these words of Solomon, too: "The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead." Listen to what the Spirit is saying to you, Michelle. You understand, at least, that certain Xn teachers are not from God. Don't "wander away" from that. Rejoice that you know, at least, who some of the liars are--and then stay away from them forever! That is a gift from God to you!

Second, the notion that a person is born again before he is baptized into the body of Christ is an idea that is not of God. It is, however, the foundation stone of the religion of Xty. That is why God is calling His children to "come out of her, My people!"

We all know that a person must be convicted of sin and must repent before receiving the holy Ghost baptism, but being convicted of sin and turning from it is not the same thing as being born again. Read Jesus's description of his disciples, in John 16, after they had followed him but before they were baptized with the holy Ghost. Conviction for sin is spiritual conception. And if men will get out of God's way and leave men alone with their doctrines, that wonderful conviction for sin will lead to a spiritual birth (holy Ghost baptism) every time, just as it did the disciples.

I will try not to write so much next time. I know you have much to read.

Your non-Christian Servant in Christ Jesus:

jdc

ps The analogy of comparing the Spirit baptism with chocolate milk is more Xn nonsense; it is the flesh trying to avoid the simple truth that the baptism of the holy Ghost is the new birth. You may safely forget that parable.

Hey!

I have a real quick question about paying tithes. Should I pay tithe on money that I recieve for my birthday and other holidays? In the past I have always paid tithe on things like that, but my mom mentioned that you said we didn't have to pay tithe on things that are not taxed. Well, that's all. Get back to me when you can. Thanks! It'll be good to see you again!

Sarah

Sarah:

Yes, in general, you should pay tithes on money given to you, with the exception of money given to you by your parents as long as you are their dependent.

Your mother misunderstood my comment about tithing on money not taxed. I was talking about tithing on the net profit on business income as opposed to gross income of a business, not one's personal income.

Pastor John

Hey!

Thanks for the email. I have always wondered about paying tithe on things like that. Now I know for sure that we're suppose to. My mom has a question for you.

She says: Some in Louisville say people who get tips don't pay tithe on tips or consider it taxable income, such as barbers and waitresses. What about used items i'm selling at a yard sale? I've tithed before on $20 that I found in the grass. I have more questions I've wondered about for years and I'll ask them when I see you next time. Thanks for being there.

Sarah and Mom

Sarah:

The simple directive from the Lord in the Bible concerning tithes and offerings is that God's people are to bring to him tithes "on all your increase". That is why people who own businesses should pay tithes only on the net profit of their business, not the gross income of the business.

Tithing is way of acknowledging that God is the one who gave you the increase. So, if you find twenty dollars in the grass, faith causes you to say within your heart, "God gave this to me." Tithing is also a means of showing gratitude for increase. Tips are obviously increase, and whoever refuses to bring tithes to the Lord on tips has been influenced by some spirit other than God's.

As for yard sale stuff, there are too many nuances involved in such situations for me to be able to make very many cut-and-dry statements. Generally speaking, however, if the furniture, toys, etc. being sold were purchased by you, and if you have already rendered tithes and offerings on that money, it is not necessary to tithe on the money made from the yard sale (assuming of course, that you don't make a profit on the sale of that stuff). On the other hand, some people might look at all their yard sale "stuff" (God said He would give you more than your house could contain!) and feel so blessed that they want to bring tithes and offerings from that yard sale income to the Lord. Every person in those cases should be fully persuaded in his own heart as to what is right, and there are too mnay variances in a yard sale situation to go into.

The main thing, Sarah, is to keep a happy and clean heart. God is not oppressive in His commandments, and men are more "picky" about the details of life than Jesus is. If we worry and fret about what is going to happen to us if we make a mistake, we don't know God. If we expect Jesus to keep us from mistakes and to encourage us and help us if we do make one, then we do know God.

Hope to see you soon.

jdc

AW wrote:

Dear Pastor john,

I have seen an abbreviation in your writings that I don't understand. What is "Xns"?AW

AW:

Xn = Christian, Xns = Christians, Xty = Christianity

Thanks for the question.

Pastor John

Hey Pastor John!

Well I have a question for you. This summer a very good friend of mine (18 years old) was killed by a train. Did it happened by coincidence or did God want it that way. He was a very good boy and I always thought he had something special in his heart for God . . . but who am I to know? But if it was God, does it say anywhere why God chose him to die so young? I mean is that just the way life goes, or does God have it happen for a reason? Well hopefully you can clear that up for me. Thanks!

Love, Maleah

Thank you for writing, Maleah.

I remember when I was 15 that a very good friend of mine and her whole family, except for her father who was driving, were killed in a car wreck. I cried myself to sleep that night. Those things are hard to take, and God will not always allow us to know His reasons why. There is no way to feel any relief in times like that until we learn to trust God to be doing the right thing all the time. He does always have His reasons. We can put our faith in God because even if we don't know everything, He does.

Jesus told his natural brothers in John 7, "My time [to die] has not yet come, but yours is always at hand." So, whether one is 18 or 80, it is incumbent upon us to be prepared to die. If your friend did not prepare, then he wasn't wise. And Jesus said that no one, including himself, is good, except God. So, no one can be good without Him.

Pastor John

Hi John ,

I have a question. I know the Bible mentions that some in the body of Christ have died before their time. Is this just the children of God or all people? I am referring to 1Cor 11:30: " For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. " Does that verse mean the children of God in Corinth died before they would have if they had obeyed God, or is it talking about them just being dead?

I know Paul is talking about eating and drinking unworthily, and not discerning the lord's body. Did some in the body die that could have lived longer?

SH

Dear SH:

You are reading that verse correctly. Yes, some of God's children die prematurely because of disobedience. Their premature death is the punishment for their sin. As Paul explained in the next two verses (1Cor. 11:31-32), "If we would judge ourselves [listen to the judgment of those who are over us in the Lord], then we would not be judged [by God]. BUT [if we fail to submit to the government God institutes in the body, and God then brings His judgment upon us] when we are judged [by God], we are chastened by the Lord THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED WITH THE WORLD."

In other words, SH, premature death is the punishment for some saints, so that they will be saved on judgment day. I believe that I have known some saints whom God has taken before man's allotted time of seventy years (Psalm 90) in order to save them. They were weak in certain areas of their lives, and God saw that they would err greatly as time went on. In mercy, then, He took them home, that they would not be condemned with the world in the end. Being punished with premature death, they have already suffered the punishment ordained for them. John said that there is such a thing as a "sin not unto death" (1Jn.). That is, one of God's children may commit a sin that is sufficient evil to be punished severely for, but not bad enough to cost him his soul. Paul mentions some things here in 1Corinthians 11 that God may do to His unruly children when they refuse to submit to the judges that He ordains for the body.

I hope that answers your question.

Pastor John

Thank you Pastor John. That answers all my questions. It shows me how much more love God has for his children than I even know.

Thanks SDH

Drew Davis wrote:

Hey Pastor John!!

I was reading today in I Corinthians Ch. 14 and ran across some things that were unclear to me. I know that you have already addressed most of them; either in tapes that I have listened to (New Birth series) or just in sermons and stuff.

Anyway, here they are:

-In verse 2 of this chapter, is Paul including speaking in tongues in the category of spiritual gifts? I was not sure about this. I know he uses the phrase "divers tongues" in Ch. 12 of this book I believe, but I know that divers tongues and speaking in tongues are two different ball games. The answer to this is probably found in the previous chapter, and if it is, could you tell me where it is?

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Drew, I think your answer is given to you in that same verse, not in the previous chapter. Using the simple phrase "speaking in a tongue" (KJV: "unknown tongue"), Paul explains that he referring to "speaking not unto men, but unto to God", whereas the gift of diverse tongues would be employed as an aid in speaking to men and not to God (e. g. Acts 2).

-Are the following verse commandments or just suggestions? Could you explain to me what point Paul is trying to make with these verses? I know he can't be saying (with a pointed finger) "You are only to speak in tongues when in a group smaller than 3 and one of you must interpret what is being spoken!" That is unreasonable.

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the congregation; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Paul was exhorting God's people to follow after the things of the Spirit. I would take it as a commandment, principally because anyone who has heart for God is going to do that, anyway.

Two things:

First, I wish that the body of Christ now was so acquainted with the gifts and power of the Spirit that we had this problem. Xty has no such problems, and often is condescending toward this confused Corinthian congregation because of the problems they had adjusting to their new-found liberty and power with God--as if they were inferior to this mess we have now! Would to God that God's people today had this problem!

Second, Paul is referring to addressing the assembly of God's people. In other words, what is the point of delivering a sermon in a language that cannot be understood.

As for the two or three things, Paul is merely trying them to be reasonable in their use of the gifts of the Spirit. Charity, which, when in operation, is greater than gifts of the Spirit, "is never rude" (Chapter 13).

Have you ever heard my sermon on 1Corinthians 14 from ten years ago or more? Earl still has a copy of it, I think.

-Finally, what was Paul saying here? I know what he was saying literally, but why did he want the women to be quiet? Was there a problem with this in the early body? Were they confusing people when they spoke or something?

34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the congregations: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the congregation.

Thanks.

Drew

Contrary to the attitude of our times, and contrary to what you will probably hear from the faculty in a prestigious university such as yours, women are "the weaker vessels" among people. Typically, their tongues are less easily controlled by men, and the body of Christ is often caused problems by their interruption of the flow of the Spirit by their unbridled talking. Those who walk in the Spirit are safe from transgressions such as this, but for the body, it was safe for Paul to issue this general statement as a guideline for the women in the congregation of Corinth. Matters were getting out of hand there, and in such delicate situations, a "headless woman" could be a great hindrance to the body's recovery. Again, "in the congregation" is a phrase referring to addressing the assembly of believers in an authoritative way.

Paul recognized the abilities and gifts of certain women to bless the body, among them Priscilla and Philip's four daughters who prophesied. God also occasionally used women in the Old Testament as both judges and prophets. So, we know that Paul was not saying for women never to say or do anything by way of serving the body of Christ, if God chooses then to do so. But the fact is that God chooses men far more often than women for the ministry. Paul's commandment here concerning women is nothing more than an acknowledgment of that fact.

Xty's recent attempts to equalize the numbers of women and men ministers is just another pathetic example of men trying to play God. What difference does to make to God or His kingdom whether Xn ministers ordain a man or a woman to be another one of them? Their ordination ceremonies are a bad joke in heaven; it evokes no laughs.

Pastor John

One viewer's comments regarding the question above...

Jim K. wrote:

Hey John,

Just catching up on emails and had a question after reading Drew's. Apparently the apostles spoke in diverse tongues on the day of Pentecost. I guess I had thought in the past that when we were born again, the Spirit spoke to the Father for us (crying"Abba Father"). I am now assuming that one can be baptized by the holy ghost and speak in diverse tongues.

Also we use the verse in 1 Cor. 14:22 that tongues are a sign for the unbeliever when we speak of the new birth. Paul seems to be using this in the context of spiritual gifts. I'm a little unclear on this also.

Write when you have time or we can talk about this on Tues.

Thanks,

Jim

Brother Jim:

There have been many cases over the years when a person, even an iliterate person, received the holy Ghost and spoke Latin or French, etc. I have included a story in the collection of my father's stories about that. Jimmy Swaggart, years ago, told of a man receiving the holy Ghost in his Sunday morning service and speaking in a very unusual way, so unusual in fact that he even wondered if what was happening to him was really of God. When he was discussing that experience at lunch that same day with some folks, a lady at the next table overheard him. She had been in that morning service and had heard the man speaking in that strange way. She told Jimmy Swaggart that she was a missionary to China, and that she recognized the language that man was speaking. It was an obscure and very unusual dialect of a group of people in remote region in China. It may have sounded weird, but it was a real language.

As far as tongues being a "sign of unbelievers" goes, I would think that whether or not a person speaks in a language that is recognizable as belonging on earth, it would still be a sign, because it is unknown to the speaker, not necessarily to the hearer. After all, on the day of Pentecost, those who heard the holy Ghost speaking through the followers of Jesus knew the languages being spoken, but they recognized that at something miraculous was taking place, and that made the event a sign to them.

Thanks for the question.

John