Tongue Speaking: What was It?

Posted on May 26, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

There are two ordinary Bible usages for the word “tongue.”  (1) The word “tongue” in the Bible is at times used to refer to the body part within our mouth which helps us to speak (Luke 1:62).  (2) It is also at times refers to human languages.  The Douay Bible reads in Genesis 11:1, 7 – “And the earth was of one tongue, and of the same speech … come ye therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”  In speaking of the great exile of old, Isaiah says, “For with stammering lips and another tongue with he speak to this people” (Isaiah 28:11) or listen to Revelation 5:9 – “Thou… has redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.”  Here again the reference is to human languages.  This is an example of a figure of speech known as ‘Metonomy of the cause’ where the cause (human tongue) is put for the effect (human speech).

There is, of course, a third usage and that is of miraculous tongues (or speech).  The question is what was this?  Did it resemble what people refer to as “Pentecostal tongue speaking” today?

Usage in Mark and Acts

In Mark 16:17-ff the promise is given, “And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”  The reference is clearly to the miraculous.

The word “new” does not come from the word which means “new in time.”  But, the word of… origin means according to Vines – “new of that which is unaccustomed or unused…”

The next passage of significance is Acts 2.  Acts 2:4 reads, “And they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.”  What kind of language was this?

Remember there were present that day people from various places, and that Acts 2:6 says, “…every man heard them speak in his own tongue,” and that Acts 2:11 has the people saying, “…we do hear them speak in our own tongues…”  This certainly sounds very different from the unintelligible utterances of the charismatic groups today.

Some have understood that the miracle was upon the hearer’s ears.  But consider this: (1) Christ said they would speak in new tongues (plural) – cf. Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4.  (2) If the miracle occurred upon the hearers then the miracle occurred on those who did not have the spirit in a miraculous way, and not in the apostles who did have the spirit.

The next occurrence to study is Acts 10 and 11, Cornelius’ house.  In Acts 10:46 it says that Peter and his company, “…heard them speak with tongues…”  Is there anything in context which suggest that this occurrence was similar to the gibberish spoken today by various Pentecostal groups?  Absolutely not.

In fact, the event here was very much like the one on Pentecost (Acts 11:15, 17).  What happened on Pentecost?  Acts 2:6 says, “We do hear them speak in our tongues…”

The next case of miraculous “tongue speaking” is in Acts 19.  Acts 19:6 says, “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came upon them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.”  The nature of the tongue speaking is not described for us here.  But get this: (1) All three accounts looked at (Acts 2, 10-11, 19) occur in the same book (the book of Acts) which was written to the same man (Theophilus); (2) Miraculous tongue speaking described in Acts 2 was the miraculous speaking of human languages.  Acts 10 and 11 tied itself back to Acts 2.  With such before us, we must conclude that Acts 19 is speaking of the same for the nature of tongue speaking has already been described.

From the book of Acts it is impossible to draw the picture of unintelligible ecstatic utterances.  Instead we have the words, “every man heard them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6) and “we do hear them speak in our tongues” (Acts 2:11).

Now that we have determined that the miraculous tongue speaking found in the historical record of Acts  was that miraculous ability to speak in foreign, human languages, which the speaker was (without miraculous aid) unaccustomed.  Before we look to see if the same holds true in the book of 1 Corinthians, we should observe how drastically different the teachings of 1 Corinthians are in comparison with the practice of tongue speaking today.

Observations from 1 Corinthians

First, not all first century believers spoke  with miraculous tongues (1 Cor. 12:28-30; 14:5).  This is important to understand because some have taught that unless you speak in tongues, you are not of God.  Such simply is not true.

Second, first century tongue speaking was controllable.  I mean by this that the Holy Spirit did not so overwhelm the speaker that he could not control his own tongue (1 Cor. 14:27-30; Also see 2 Tim. 1:6).  “The spirits of the prophet are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).

Third, the Bible plainly teaches that not all are to speak in tongues at the same time.  Watch the words of 1 Corinthians 14:27-33 (NASB), “If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn … And let two or three prophets speak, and let others pass judgment (discern-ASV).  But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, let the first keep silent.  For you can all prophesy one by one … for God is not a God of confusion but of peace as in all the churches of the saints.”  Not everybody was to speak at once.

Fourth, if tongue speaking could not be done in such a way that those present could understand, then it wasn’t to be done.  Listen to 1 Corinthians 14:28, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church.”

Imagine for a moment that I could speak in Swahili and you could not.  Imagine that I stood in the pulpit Sunday morning an preached in Swahili.  Would you profit from it?  Listen to 1 Corinthians 14:13-16, 19, “Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.  For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.  What is it then?  I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.  Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at the giving of thanks, seeing he understand not what thou sayest?… Yet, in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.”  The Bible is clear – if it couldn’t be interpreted, then it wasn’t to be spoken.

Fifth, It’s the content not the tongues themselves which is the important (1 Cor. 14:6-9).  Paul wrote, “Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?”  (1 Cor. 14:6).

Sixth, tongue speaking (or any speaking) which is not understood does not edify.  Listen to 1 Corinthians 14:9, “So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?  For ye shall speak to the air.”

Seventh, far from impressing the unbeliever, the manner in which many Pentecostals speak is confusing.  Listen, “If therefore the whole church be come together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say the ye are mad?” (1 Cor.  14:23)

Usage in 1 Corinthians

Now we turn our attention to the New Testament epistle of 1 Corinthians.  Are there reasons to conclude that miraculous tongue speaking mentioned therein is the same?

The first chapter to look at is 1 Corinthians 12.  Three times is tongue speaking mentioned – 1 Cor. 12:10, 28, 30.  Look carefully.  Is there anything in these verses which demands that this is not a reference to the miraculous ability to speak in other human languages?  No!  In fact,  look at the words “kinds”  (v. 10), and “diversities” (v. 28).  In the original they are the same.  Thayer says the word means “the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort, species.”  Kind of sounds like human languages, doesn’t it?  (Especially since the historical record of Acts has already mentioned such).

The second chapter that we’ll consider is 1 Corinthians 14.  The subject is found throughout this chapter.  The tongue speaking of this chapter involves word (1 Cor. 14:19).  But what kind of words?  I believe that 1 Corinthians 14:21 helps answer this question.  Verse 21 quotes from Isaiah 28:11 where languages are in view.  The point of Isaiah 28 is that instead of listening to God’s plain words, they chose to have God speak to them in a foreign human language, that they did not understand.  Even so, the Corinthians were turning from plain speech to listen to foreign human languages that they did not understand.  Nothing here indicates that this was anything other than foreign human languages.

Is there anything in the words “unknown” which demands that this is speaking of ecstatic utterances?  Richard Black has written concerning the word “unknown”: “The ‘unknown’ of unknown tongues in the King James Version being italicized publicizes that the term is not in the original … unknown tongues does not mean ecstatic utterances… but means a language unknown by study to the speaker.”1  Wayne Jackson paraphrased 1 Cor. 14:2 this way: “He that speaks in a foreign language (if his audience is of a different language and no translator is present) speak not unto men, but unto God; for no man (of this alien audience) understands; but in the spirit he speaks mysteries (things which are hidden from the audience because of no interpreter).”2 There is nothing in this word “unknown” which warrants the idea of modern-day tongue speaking.

There is much in this chapter that sounds like human languages.  (1) verse 21 quotes from Isaiah 28 which is speaking of foreign human languages; (2) verse 19 indicates tongue speaking involves words [Vine’s indicates this means “the expression of thought” – not just strange emissions of sound]; (3) verse 11 uses the term “barbarian” – such refers to human languages (Acts 28:1-2).

What about 1 Corinthians 13:1, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal?”  It seems to me that this is language of hyperbole, given for emphasis sake.  Similar language appears in Galatians 1:8.  Brother Wayne Jackson wrote: “Paul neither literally expects angelic perversion of the gospel, nor his speaking in angelic tongues; he is simply stressing a point.”3  Moreover, some have suggested that the “tongues of angels” refer to the source.  Manna is referred to as angel’s food, not because angels at the food, but due to the source (cf. Psalm 78:25).

Historic records (such as Acts) describe what happened primarily for those not there.  The book of 1 Corinthians however, is a letter written to people who possessed this gift.  Such did not need to be described to them.  There seems no good reason however to conclude that both books aren’t speaking of the same.  In fact, 1 Corinthians 14 provides reasons to believe that such is the case.      Whatever the case, let us remember: (1) The standard of Final judgment is not emotions  but God’s word (John 12:48, etc.).  (2) It‘s the message that’s important (1 Corinthians 14:28).  If a message differs from God’s already revealed truth it is to be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).  (3) Tongue speaking has ceased (clear from proper study of 1 Corinthians 13:8-13).

Another thing, somebody tell me how unintelligible, incoherent words prove anything?  How would you know  whether or not the “words” were being faked?  And with such a wide range of religious groups speaking with ecstatic utterances (the Mormon’s, some Catholics, various ‘holiness’ groups, the Quakers, some Muslims, and even Pagan groups), which are you to believe if tongue speaking (ecstatic) be a sign?  They all teach different doctrines; the Mormons for instance even have their own books!

Notes

1.  “Studies in 1 Corinthians” The First Denton Lectureship, c. 1982, page 197

2.  Tract – “Speaking in Tongues,” Wayne Jackson (Haun Publishing, Pasadena TX)

3. ibid

Posted in Miracles, Pentecostalism, Tongue, Word Study | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

JESUS: a god?

Posted on May 23, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

The New World Translation (NWT), the product of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, renders John 1:1, “In [the] beginning the word was, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”  The do so because the definite article does not appear before the second ‘God’ of the verse.  Moreover, by changing the second ‘God’ to ‘god’ they imply that Jesus is somehow a lessor essence than God.

Ray Summers, in his classic work, “Essentials of New Testament Greek” tells of the use of the Greek article.  He writes, “The basic function of the Greek article is to identify … when the article is used with a construction, the thing emphasized is ‘identity’; when the article is not used, the thing emphasized is quality of character.” (page 129-130).  Thus, while Jesus is not the same personality as God the Father, He is in essence Divine.

Read John 1:6, 12, 13, 18.  The article is absent in each of these verses.  Yet, in each NWT has ‘God’ with a big “G.”  Why?  Because in some of these verses the reference clearly is not to God the Son, that is Jesus, but to God the Father.  In fact, look at John 1:18.  The NWT renders this: “No man has seen the one that has explained him.”  It is indeed inconsistent that both occurrences of “God” has the article missing, yet one they render with a big “G” and the other “g.”  In fact, of the 282 times the word “God” appears without the article in the New Testament, only 16 times (or 6% of the time) do they follow their own rule of “G” verses “g!”

Posted in Jehovah Witnesses, Jesus | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The “Thief upon the Cross” argument

Posted on May 21, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Many honest, sincere people will neglect baptism.  They will go to their graves thinking that they’ll be saved in spite of this neglect because, after all – “the thief on the cross wasn’t baptized, and he was saved.”  Let us look at this reasoning, made by so many, which is based upon the world’s most famous thief.

First, why do people insist that the man was not baptized?  He may very well have been.  How do they know he wasn’t?  Many of that land had been (Mark 1:4-5; John 4:1).  The man obviously knows of Jesus’ character.  He may have been baptized, and then forsook the right way, and now’s restored.  No one today could prove, if his life depended upon it, that this man wasn’t baptized; Yet, the argument demands that he was not.

Second, why do people always turn to this thief and not to the conditions Jesus gave to a rich young ruler (Luke 19:8-10)?  Both occurred prior to Jesus’ death.  While Jesus was upon earth He forgave sins (Mark 2:10); But the conditions varied (Luke 19:8-10 cf. Luke 18:18-23 cf. Mark 2:1-11).  {While Jesus was upon earth His conditions for healing also varied (John 9:6-7 cf. Matthew 9:27-30; also see Luke 17:11-14 cf. w. Old Testament account in 2 Kings 5)}.  Why the variety?  The answer is likely found in John 2:25.  Jesus knew the heart.  He knew what the rich young ruler struggled with, thus He set His conditions accordingly.  It is amusing that no one seems to want to return to the conditions given the rich, young ruler; Instead, all want to discuss the thief’s salvation.  Remember, both occurred prior to Jesus’ death.

Third, it must be kept in mind that the New Covenant had not yet gone in force (Hebrews 9:15-17).  The man lived under the Old Testament.  It was not until Christ was resurrected that He said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). 

Perhaps an illustration would be helpful.  While I’m alive I can give away my possessions as I see fit, based upon varying conditions if I so choose.  However, once I die the conditions of my will go in force and must be followed.  Even so, Jesus while on earth gave varying conditions to receive salvation based upon His understanding and knowing the heart.  Once he died however, His will must be followed.  Brother Dave Miller has written, “The last will and testament of Christ is the New Testament and consists of those teachings that apply to people after the death of Christ.  If we expect to receive the benefits of the New Testament (Salvation, forgiveness of sins, eternal life), we must submit to the terms of the will…”

Moreover, understand that New Testament baptism symbolizes the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Romans 6).  Yet, Jesus had not yet done these things.

Fourth, why is it the case that men want to go to this extreme case, and apply it to themselves, when they are not in this situation?  The thief couldn’t come down and be baptized if he wanted to; yet, those we talk to can be baptized; however, they continue to rest their souls on the thief on the cross.

Posted in baptism, Cross, Old Testament/New Testament, Plan of salvation | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Closer Look at Romans 10:9-10

Posted on May 18, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

This is a favorite passages of some who wish to deny the essentiality of baptism, and the need of living a faithful life.  Even some who know better than this, still struggle with explaining clearly, just what this passage teaches.  Therefore, we’ll take a closer look.

Verses 6-8

Let us back up in examining this passage (Rom. 10:9-10) to verses 6-8.  Read these verses.  The reference here takes one back to Deut. 30:11-14, with a few additional words added by the inspired Paul.

In Deut. 30:11-ff we find the people of that day being encouraged.  God’s will is not hidden high up in heaven, so that men have to ascend there to find it.  Neither, does one need to go on a long voyage across the sea to some mysterious land to find God’s will.  God’s will is as close to you as your own mouth and heart.  It can be accessed even now.

In Romans 10:6-8 Paul adds some words.  Some may have said, “If someone will go into the heavenly realm and bring Jesus back, or if someone will descend into the unseen realm and bring Him up, then maybe I could have faith.”  Paul says, “Such is not necessary for you to have faith.”  God’s will is so well revealed that one can even now believe in the heart, and confess it telling others about it (cf. Deut. 6:6-7; 30:14).  God sent forth His messengers (Rom. 10:15a).  The apostles preached a faith building message (Rom. 10:17 cf. John 20:31) and this message was confirmed (Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Thes. 1:5; Heb. 2:3; Mark 16:20).

Verses 9-10

God’s word (His will) is evident enough for one to confess Jesus as Lord.  One can believe that Jesus was raised from the dead [Keep things in context cf. v. 6-8.  Clearly in Moses’ day God expected more than mental belief alone and confession!].

Notice the type of confession mentioned is not just empty words or mere lip service.  It is from the heart (Romans 10:9-10 cf. 6:16-17).

Paul, what about repentance?  Obviously repentance is necessary  – yet such is not mentioned here.  However, repentance is the result of proper faith.

Is baptism necessary?  Absolutely! (see Romans 6:16-18 cf. 6:1-5).  But once again Biblical baptism grows out of faith.

Paul does not discuss living a faithful life.  Is such necessary?  Yes! (read Rev. 2:10; 1 John 1:16; 1 John 2:4).  But, again, such grows out of faith.

Why does Paul use this language found in Romans 10:9-10?  I think due to the context (see Rom. 10:6-8).  The point is that truth is revealed plainly enough to believe it, and tell others about it.

On confession, is mere lip service enough?  No, no, no.  (Read Matt. 7:21; Luke 6:46; Titus 1:16; Heb. 5:9).  Is Paul suggesting that confession by itself guarantees salvation regardless of how one lives?  Hardly.  Consider 1 John 3:15; 4:20.

No, it seems to me that what Paul has in view here is a person that (1) truly believes in the heart, and (2) truly (sincerely) acknowledges Him as Lord.  Such a one is the type of person that will be saved.  Andrew Connally has written, “Here Paul is considering the Jewish point in particular.  He has already shown men must believe (5:1-2), be baptized (6:3-5) and walk after the Spirit (8:12-14).  Now why hadn’t the Jews received salvation?  They refuse to believe and confess” (10:9-10) – (Great lessons from Romans and Galatians p. 46-47).

Watch the fact that righteousness and justification (Rom. 4:1-2), and righteousness and salvation (Rom. 10:9-10) are used interchangeably in this book.  A puzzle for your “faith only” friends is to ask them, “Does salvation (righteousness, justification) come at the point of faith or confession?”  If they say ’faith’ then confession has nothing to do with salvation – which is at odds with Rom. 10:9-10.  If they say ‘confession’ then they must give up their ‘faith only’ position.

In truth, Paul is not giving steps here to salvation.  What he is doing is this: (1) He is telling the Jews that they have no excuse.  God has revealed the truth unto them (and us), and (2) they (and us) must learn to believe and acknowledge Jesus.

Verse 11

Compare this with Rom. 9:33 and Isa. 8:13-14.  To stumble is to: (1) reject the Gospel (1 Cor. 1:23); (2) to reject Christ (Acts 4:11); (3) to be disobedient (1 Peter 2:8).

Now Paul quotes Isa. 28:16.  Those who don’t stumble over Him, but put their trust in Him – will not be ashamed that they did in the end.

Paul changes the “He” of the original quote to “whosoever.”  Thus, he emphasizes the universality of this truth (cf. Rom. 1:16).

A parting shot, what kind of faith is spoken of in this book?  “Faith only” without obedience? Or obedient faith (Read Rom. 1:5; 6:16-18; 16:26).  Also read Deut. 30:14 – God’s word was in their mouth and heart “…that they mayest do it.”  It all ties back to Deut. 30.  The point is God’s word is near enough for you to do what He would have you do, and say what He would have you say.

Posted in Plan of salvation, Textual study | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ever Changing Doctrines

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

When the previous Pope died, numerous news reports cited various polls which asked the people what the next Pope should change: Should he allow the priest to marry? Should he allow female priests?  Should the church change its views on abortion or birth control?  Have you ever noticed how fluid doctrine is to some?

Consider Jehovah Witness doctrine.  On July 1, 1945 Jehovah Witness publication, The Watchtower, indicated that all blood transfusions and blood products were prohibited.  On September 15, 1958 they indicated that the use of blood products (fractions) was a matter of individual judgment.

Concerning the storage of blood, on October 15, 1959, The Watchtower indicated that to store one’s own blood even for a brief time would violate the scriptures.  On September 15, 1964, the same publication indicated that blood transfusions were wrong even of one used his own blood.  But, on March 1, 1989 they changed saying, “the recovering and reusing blood during surgery… a personal decision.”

Concerning the worship of Jesus, the October 15, 1945 Watchtower said, “You must worship and bow down to Jehovah’s chief one – namely Jesus.”  Then in November 1, 1964 they changed saying, “It is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ.”   [Note: one must understand that The Watchtower is not just a publication for them.  It is their standard.]

Next, consider the Mormon doctrine.  Concerning polygamy their doctrine has varied.  Originally the Mormons rejected polygamy.  The book of Jacob chapter 2:27, “…there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.  Jacob 2:24, “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”  Ether 10:5 reads, “…Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines…”

In 1835 Doctrine & Convenants 101:4 reads, “We believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to remarry again.”  In 1843, D&C 132 was added which approves of polygamy.  D&C 132:34, “God command Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife.  And why did she do it?  Because this was the law… ” D&C 132:52 reads, “And let mine handmaid Emma Smith, receive all these that have been given unto my Servant Joseph…”  In 1876 D&C 101:4 was removed (see above).  Then, in 1890 when Utah was desirous of statehood then President Wilford Woodruff discontinued the practice of polygamy.

Also, consider Methodist doctrine.  It was not until the year 1910 that the Methodist church repudiated the doctrine of inherited sin.  In that year infant baptism became simply a baby dedication ceremony.  In 1948 Methodist Discipline reads, “we hold that all children by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement are members of the Kingdom of God, and therefore graciously entitled to Baptism.  The minister shall earnestly exhort all parents to dedicate their children to the Lord in Baptism as early as convenient, and before Baptism is administered he shall diligently instruct the parents regarding the vow which they assume in this sacrament.  It is expected of parents or guardians… that they use all diligence in bringing them up in conformity to the word of God…” More recent Disciples say essentially the same.

Moreover,  in the news of late is the Methodist position on practicing lesbian ministers.  It is now allowed after initially being disallowed.

Let’s also consider Roman Catholic doctrine.  Many areas could be looked at but let’s focus in on the election of a Pope.  The current method of the Cardinals electing a Pope has not always existed.  The current method developed from two councils: The Lateran council, 1059 A.D., and The Third Lateran council, 1179 A.D..  In 1179 A.D. it was determined that, “the election of popes exclusively in the hands of cardinals, to be decided by a majority of two-thirds, and threatened with excommunication and deposition any one who should dare accept an election by a small number of votes” (Schaff, History of the Christian church, volume 5, page 118).  Yet in 1986 Pope John Paul changed the rules.  He decided that if after two weeks the two-thirds super-majority didn’t occur then, a simple majority would do.  The rules changed.

As a side point, if they truly are guided by the Holy Spirit in this selection process, why isn’t the decision unanimous?  Why is it that the conclave became necessary?  One time it took thirty-three months to elect a Pope (Nov. 29, 1268 to Sept. 1, 1271)!  The word ‘conclave’ is from clavis, meaning key.  Due to how long the previous mentioned case took, the cardinals were locked into seclusion.  If after three days no decisions is made, the meals are reduced to twice per day.  Should eight days pass, the food is reduced to wine and bread (at least such used to be the rules).  In the 1200’s when the election took so long, the roof of the room they were in was actually removed in order to give motivation to reach a decision.  Yet, this process is supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit.  Hmmmm… does this sound like the way Judas was replaced?  (see Acts 1:21-26).  Consider the chart on the following page titled Departures from the Apostolic Way for just some of the changes that have been made in the Catholic church.

We could also add to this information about various denominations changing their position on women preachers, homosexuality, and the like.  However, the point has been made to some doctrines can be changed.  Bill Clinton was interviewed at the Pope’s funeral.  After his kind words for the deceased, he was asked about what the Catholic church had ahead of it.  His response was that if churches don’t change with the times, they die.

Folks, let us always remember that the Lord’s church is not a democracy where the rule of majority reigns.  It is not an oligarchy, ruled by the minority.  It is not a plutocracy, a rule of the rich.  It isn’t an aristocracy, a rule of the privileged class.  Nor, is it a monarchy, a rule of one (unless that one be Jesus Christ).    The Lord’s church is a theocracy, it is to be ruled by God.

Moreover, let us remember that the Apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13).  The system of Faith is complete (Jude 3).  It is by the words of the New Testament that we’ll be judged (John 12:48; Rom. 2:16).

Posted in Catholic, Doctrine, Jehovah Witnesses, mormon, Mormons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus: A Real Person

Posted on May 14, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Did Christianity really originate from a Jesus the Christ of First Century Israel?  Did Jesus really live?

Encyclopedia Britannica concludes, “In ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”  (15th edition, 1979 – Macropedia Vol. 10, page 145).  My friends, the evidence of Jesus’ existence is as good, or better than for the existence of George Washington.

Consider the following: (1) Flavius Josephus was a Jewish historian who lived from about 37 A.D. until 100 A.D.  He wrote Jewish history for the Romans.  In that history he wrote of the stoning of James.  He wrote, “James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ…”  (Antiquities XX, 200).  (2) The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus lived from about A.D. 55 till 120 A.D..  He wrote of Nero’s attempt to avoid personal blame for the burning of Rome, “Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men … whom the crowd styled Christians.  Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate…” (Annals XV).  (3) Pliny, the younger, while serving as the imperial legate of the province of Bithynia wrote a letter to the emperor Trajan in 111 A.D. about how he should treat certain ones.  He wrote, “An anonymous document was laid before me concerning many peoples’ names … some of these denied that they were Christians or ever had been so; at my dictation they invoked the gods and did reverence with incense and wine to your image, which I ordered to be brought for this purpose along with the statutes of the gods; They also cursed Christ; And as I am informed that people who are really Christians cannot possibly be made to do any of those things, I considered that the people who did them should be discharged.”  He also wrote of how true Christians sang hymns to Christ, “as to a god” (Epistle 10, p. 96-ff).  (4) A contemporary of Pliny, a Roman named Suetonius wrote in regards to the life of the emperor Claudius, “He (Claudius) expelled the Jews who had on the instigation of Chrestus continually been causing disturbances, from Rome (the city – Acts 18:2)” [Vita Claudii 25:4].

Brad T. Bromling has written, “Records of Jesus’ life come to modern man with impressive force.  Not only are there Christian writings (whose manuscripts number in the thousands), there are also Jewish and Roman sources which give testimony to the Lord’s historicity.  The latter may be termed ‘hostile’ witnesses since they have virtually nothing positive to say of the Christ … History is clear; His existence was recorded by both friend and foe.  Jesus Christ is an incontestable figure of history”(Reason & Revelation Vol. XIII, NO. 1 , p. 7).

Posted in History, Jesus | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What Will Future Homes Look Like?

Posted on May 11, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Some months ago, there was a big push for America to recognize homosexual marriage.  The mayor of San Francisco was licensing and performing such marriages, defying the state.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided to recognize such marriages.  While at the same time many states were considering propositions and amendments to clearly define marriage to be a union of a man and a woman.

During this time, I remarked to my wife, Melinda, that this might well open up a ‘Pandora’s Box.’  If two men can be considered married, then why not recognize polygamy as practiced by the fundamentalist Mormons and Islam?  Why not polyandry (one woman – multiple husbands)?  Surely, there would be some soon pushing for equal recognition in these areas if marriage could be expanded to include two from the same sex.  After all, if they love each other who are we to say no?

In The Weekly Standard, Dec. 26, 2005 there appeared a piece entitled “Here Come the Brides: Plural Marriage is Waiting in the Wings” by Stanley Kurtz.  Kurtz tells of three unique ‘marriages‘:

(1) A marriage recognized between a husband – Victor de Bruijn, his wife of eight years – Bianca, and a third – Mirjam.   Victor is heterosexual.  The two women are bisexual.  This marriage occurred in the Netherlands, in the town of Rosendale, on Sept. 23, 2005.  This legally is not recognized as a marriage by Dutch law, but is recognized as a cohabitation contract.  This isn’t  a typical polygamous relationship.  It is actually a ‘three-way marriage.,’ polyamory.  The writer asked the question, “If every sexual orientation has a right to construct its own form of marriage, then more changes are surely due.  For what gay marriage is to homosexuality, group marriage is to the bisexual..”  (2)  A marriage between husband – Serge Regnier, and wife of four years – Christine.  Christine’s sister, Katrina, wanted children so the two added her to their relationship.  Serge’s love from childhood, Judith, became ‘available’ so they all agreed to add her.  The man now has three wives, thirty children and more are one the way.  The three wives say that they don’t mind adding a fourth if  ‘she is nice.’”  This ‘marriage’ is not recognized as a legal marriage in the Belgian town of Marcinelle, where they’re from; But, this situation has opened arguments in Europe for multipartner  marriages.  (3) The marriage of Koen Brand and his wife in the Netherlands.  Koen is bisexual and has a relationship with another bisexual who is also married.  One wife is uncomfortable with the situation.  Koen’s own wife is open to forming a threesome.  It is possible one marriage will end and the three remaining will form a polyandrous marriage.

The Unitarian church, which was a power behind the legalization of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, is also calling for the recognition of polyamory (group marriages).  Unitarian ministers are already performing joining ceremonies for polyamorous families.

Folks, have we been silent too long?  Is it not time to take a stand?

Let’s teach very clearly that God instituted the home.  He created Adam and Eve.  He didn’t create Adam and Bubba and Eve.  He didn’t create Adam and Eve and Becky.  When Jesus was asked about marriage, He returned to the Garden (Matt. 19:4-5).  So should we!

Posted in Ethics, Marriage | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SNOW AND ICE

Posted on May 9, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

What can we learn about God from the snow?  Job 37:6 says of God, “For He says to the snow, ‘Fall on the earth’ …”  God controls the natural order of things.  He sends the snow.  The actual context (Job 37:6-8) is set forth to demonstrate God’s might.  He, by use of weather, can bring many of man’s activities to a halt (Job 37:7).  He causes men to cease working (Job 37:7).  He shuts down entire airports, schools, and even cities.  Moreover, even animals, the wildest of animals, submit to His control (Job 37:8).  So snow tells us how puny man really is in comparison with the might of God.  Brother Wayne Jackson once wisely pointed out, “Mark Twain’s quip that ‘everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it’ is still true.  He is in control.”

Snow is mentioned again in Job 38:22.  The passage reads, “Have you entered into the treasury of the snow?…”  The NASB renders this verse “Have you entered the storehouses of snow…?”  The word rendered “treasury” or “storehouses” literally refers to an “armory.”  God has used in times past the weather to fight against the wicked (Job 38:23 cf. Psalm 18:12; Psalm 78; Psalm 148:8;  Isaiah 30:30; Isaiah 32:19;  Ezekiel 13:11-13; Haggai 2:17; Joshua 10; Exodus 9:22-26; Exodus 10:5-15; Revelation 8:7; Revelation 11:19; Revelation 16:21).  But it seems  to me that the question really is: “Job, how do I do it?  How do I form these things and store them up in the air?  How do I use them according to My providence?  (cf. Job 38:23)?”  Again, such speaks of God’s might.

God can also use snow for man’s benefit (cf. Matthew 5:45; Job 9:30; Job. 24:19; James 1:17).  As snow melts upon the high mountains and descends in streams and rivers, it provides a source of water in areas that normally don’t receive much rain.  Moreover, snow fertilizes the soil by bringing nitrogen down from the air above.  Then, there is the fact of insulation.  Snow keeps the ground warm.  A blanket of snow insulates and protects seeds and plants in the ground (especially the root system) from extreme temperature and drying wind.  Do you thank God for snow?  Do you realize how he provides for you?

Now, we look at ice.  Job 38:29-30 says, “From whose womb came ice? …the waters are harden a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.”  To paraphrase, “Job, who created ice?”  What an amazing thing ice is!  It speaks well of God’s wisdom in design.  Ice floats.  H2O is one of the few substances that is less dense in its solid state than in its liquid state.   Talk about design!  God created ice to freeze in such a way so as to insulate the fish from the cold of winter.  “Job, would man have thought of this?”

Brethren, let us see beauty, design, power, wisdom and majesty in God’s created order.  Let us thank God for the snow and ice!

Posted in Nature, science, Weather | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus and God, Not Ashamed

Posted on May 7, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

“For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Hebrews 2:11).

The book of Hebrews tells us that Jesus sanctifieth us by His blood (Heb. 10:10; 13:12).  We are also sanctified by the Truth of the word (John 17:17) and the washing of water (Eph. 5:26).  However, the context of Hebrews speaks of sanctification through the blood of Christ.

The text says both the sanctifier and the sanctified are of one.  Perhaps this means of one nature (Heb. 2:11 cf. v. 14, 17).   Others think the reference is to being of one heavenly Father.  However, the context seems to favor the former.

Jesus lived among men, as a man.  He worshipped God with them (Heb. 2:12).  He exercised faith in the midst of trials (Heb. 2:13a), just as men on earth should do (Heb. 11:6).  He even carried on miraculous work with some of these He lived among (Heb. 2:13b, cf. Isaiah 8:18).  Thus, “he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb. 2:11).

“But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God…” (Heb. 11:16).

Abraham and Sarah could have sought to return to the land that they had left (Heb. 11:15).  However, turning back was not  a part of their vocabulary, though things weren’t always easy.

They considered themselves “strangers and pilgrims on earth” (Heb. 11:13).  They were looking beyond.  They “desired a better country, that is an heavenly” (Heb. 11:16 cf. 11:10; cf. 13:14).  Therefore, “God is not ashamed to be called their God (Heb. 11:16).

The Tie

Jesus came to this earth and lived among us.  Therefore, He is not ashamed to be called our brother.

Those who seek to dwell with Him on high, those that seek Him by faith, putting heavenly things above earthly (see Col. 3:2) – God is not ashamed to be called their God.

Let us live so that He is not ashamed to be called our God!

Posted in Phrase Study | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Careful Study of Matthew 24:1-35

Posted on May 5, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Religious history is filled with date-setters.  William Miller, a member of what later became the Seventh Day Adventist, was one such.  In 1843 he set a date for the Lord’s return.  The predicted year of His return was to be 1844.  The year 1844 came and went, but Jesus did not return.  He then set a date in 1845 for the Lord’s return.  People sold their homes and farms.  They quit their jobs.  They climbed to the tops of trees, hills, and barns and sat and waited for the Lord’s appearance.  He didn’t come.  Many of these, with their faith broken, never trusted in God again.

Another date-setter was Charles T. Russell of the Jehovah Witnesses.  He set the date for the Lord’s return to be October 1914.  October 1914 came and went without the Lord’s return.  He then changed the date to 1918.  He was wrong again.

In my office I have a book entitled, “88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988” (by Edgar C. Whisenant). I do think the writer missed it.  No doubt, he also shattered many’s belief in God.  They think God let them down!

One of the key chapters that these date-setters appeal to is Matthew 24 (along with parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21).        In this article, we wish to examine briefly, but carefully, this chapter.

I submit to you that Matthew 24:1-35 concerns not the end of time, but the fall of Jerusalem.  Consider this: (1) All spoken of up to this point was to occur in that generation (Matthew 24:34).  (2) Matthew 24:16 speaks of fleeing to the mountains for safety.  What good would this do at the end of time?  At the end of time, fleeing to the mountains would do you no good.  The mountains will be burned up with fervent heat, in that day (2 Peter 3:10-11).  (3) Whatever day is spoken of, we know that it would be especially difficult to flee to safety in the mountains if it was in the winter, if one had a small child, or was pregnant, or if it were in a Sabbath day (Matthew 24:19-20).  What difference could these things possibly make if we are speaking if the end of this earth?  But, if we are speaking of physically fleeing the city of Jerusalem before it  fell, such would make a difference (i.e. – the city gates were closed on the Sabbath Nehemiah 13:19-22; on women with children, compare with Luke 23:28-29).   (4) The disciples questions do seem to concern the Temple and Jerusalem’s fall (Matthew 24:1-3; Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7).

Next, Jesus sets forth various Pseudo / or weak signs.  (1) False Christs (Matthew 24:4-5).  Josephus and others of old claim that many such did come forth prior to Jerusalem’s fall.  The Bible also hints at such (Acts 5:34-37; Acts 21:38).  If this is a sign of the end of time, it is not much of a sign, for many have claimed over the years to be such (e.g. David Koresh).  (2) Wars and rumors of wars (Matthew 24:6).  At the time the word of Matthew 24 were spoken, the world had relative peace.  But, Roman internal difficulties would soon come.  Four emperors (Nero, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius) would come and go within 18 months.  Strife and uprisings would soon cost 20,000 Jews their lives at Caesarea; 13,000 Jews would be killed by soldiers at Scythopolis; 50,000 Jews were killed in an uprising in Alexandria; another 10,000 would die similarly in Damascus.  Caligula demanded that his statue be erected in the Jewish Temple.  When they refused, he threatened war (the war never happened though historians differ as to whether it was diplomacy or his death that prevented such).  They were not to be disturbed by such things, and neither should we be.  If one is looking at wars, and rumors of wars being a signal for the Lord’s return, he indeed has the weakest of signs.  There have been more than 290 major wars known in human history.  In fact, it is said that in the last 3,421 years of human history, only 268 have seen no war!  (3) Natural disasters (Matthew 24:7).  There certainly were many such occurrences from 30 – 70 A.D..  In those years there were great earthquakes in Crete, Rome, Phrygia, Laodicea, and all over Asia Minor.  Pestilence occurred in the days of  Claudius Caesar; 30,000 Romans suffered death.  Famines also occurred between 30 and 70 A.D. (see Acts 11:28; Romans 15:26).  These things were at best weak signs to those alive then (Matt. 24:6, 8).  (4) Persecutions of Christians (Matt. 24:9).  Surely I do not need to detail the scriptural references to demonstrate that this did occur prior to 70 A.D. (the year of  Jerusalem’s fall).  Why anyone would want to look for fulfillment of these things 19 or 20 centuries later is a mystery to me.  It is shocking, a shocking disregard of history.  All of these things have occurred long, long ago.

Now, we move to the true / or strange signs Jesus gave.  (1) The Gospel would be preached to all of the world (Matt. 24:14).  Has this occurred?  Indeed, it has!  In fact, it was fulfilled as early as 63 A.D. (Colossians 1:23, also se: Colossians 1:6; Romans 1:8; Romans 16:26).  This did occur prior to Jerusalem’s fall.  (2) The Abomination of Desolation (Matthew 24:15-16; cf. 23:38).  Admittedly this language could be difficult.  But, things become rather simple when we go to the parallel record of Luke 21:20.  The reference is to the Roman army surrounding the city (such was an abomination to the Jews).  This has occurred many generations ago.  We need not look beyond the events prior to 70 A.D..

It seems to me that in Matthew 24:23-26, Jesus warns that even Jerusalem’s fall and the events preceding it does not mean that Christ is actually returning to this physical earth.  “Believe it not,” He says Matthew 24:23, 26.

Objections

Bryan, doesn’t Matt. 24:27-30 refer to Christ’s second coming?  No!  it is clear by comparing the language here with the prophetic writings of Isaiah 13:10; 19:1-ff; 34:4; Ezekiel 32:7-8; Joel 2 etc.  This is merely prophetic language referring to the downfall of nations.

But, someone says, “It speaks of Christ’s coming” (Matthew 24:30).  Yes, yes it does; but, this does not prove the reference is to the final coming.  There have been various comings mentioned in scripture: (1) There was the first coming, when He came to live among men (John 1:11; 10:11; Luke 19:10); (2) Another coming occurred on Pentecost (Matthew 16:28); (3) A coming in Judgment is spoken of to the seven churches of Asia Minor (Revelation 2:16; 3:20); (4) And here, in Matthew 24:30, His coming is a reference to His coming in Judgment upon Jerusalem.

Another says, “Well, it does talk of salvation” (Matthew   24:13).  Yes, the reference though is not to spiritual salvation.  But, it is a promise of physical salvation to all who would remain true and faithful to Him.  Look at Matthew 24:16.  Just as the faithful of Noah’s day were saved, even so, were the people of that day who remained faithful.  God was providentially with them.  Not one Christian died in Jerusalem’s fall.  If one would read carefully Luke 21:17-21, it is apparent that the reference is to physical salvation.

Posted in end times, Jehovah Witnesses, Premillennialism, Seventh Day Adventists, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment