QUESTIONS   
   From a minister in Africa:

 

Richard,    (replies are in red.)

For some time now I have been contemplating some important issues which to me have not been very well addressed by the churches of God. (See note at the end of this reply) I believe as shepherds of the Lord’s flock, it is our duty to “Search the Scriptures” and come out with the true biblical position on every biblical subject or doctrine. I equally believe that, since we have the Holy Spirit abiding in us, if we will be humble, flexible, open minded and willing to learn, God through His Spirit will lead us to the TRUTH in the Bible. John 16:8-13
With that in mind, I pose these questions:

 1.   What is the Baptism of Holy Spirit and fire?

[Mt. 3:11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
[Mk.1:8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
[Lk. 3:16] John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: These synoptic accounts prophesy of a unique event. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which was at that point in time pending, but possible only after Christ’s ascension to intercede for us at God’s Throne in heaven. Where people today confuse themselves is with the idea that this manifestation can be repeated anywhere and at any time. Was this intended to be more than a one-time event?

What we need to first answer is whether or not this prophecy refers to a repetitive situation, or to one specific watershed event. Being such a dramatic and unique event, it certainly fulfilled the prophecy. On what basis do we deduce that this was not unique to that initial outpouring? Even the second event in Acts 10:44-47 didn’t repeat what occurred in Acts 2.

Now, some represent the position that these two items: the Holy Spirit and fire, are contrasting baptisms. Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, OR being burned up for having rejected it. Considering that a person is not assigned to the Lake of Fire except after having been offered the Holy Spirit, salvation, and then having rejected it, the placement of the word ‘and’ seems more indicative of the event seen in Acts 2, a dual manifestation. In support of this contrasting understanding is Hebrews 10:26-29.

Others pose that being whipped-up into a ‘spiritual frenzy’ is reminiscent of that event in Acts 2. (Despite the absence of any audible sound or visible flame.) It relies heavily on the mistaken understanding of what ‘tongues’ means. That will be addressed below under question 4. The manifestation of John’s prophecy centered around the sound and the appearance of flames, not just the utterance of unintelligible ‘words’. We should also remain cognizant of the fact that the timing of this event was exquisite: occurring exactly on the long-observed Day of Pentecost, and involved selected believers, not a sampling of the general public assembled there anticipating any extraordinary ‘religious experience’. Each and every disciple present was specifically deemed ‘ready’ to receive the Spirit, and the timing was by God’s choice, not mans’. They were startled by what happened! They weren’t trying to elicit such a manifestation by their own self-generated zeal.

A third take on the ‘baptism of fire’ aspect is that when converted, we often experience ‘fiery trials’ in life. A great number of genuine and faithful Saints through history gave their lives for their Faith. (Heb. 11 & 1st Cor. 15:29-32 & 1st Pet. 4:12, etc.) Along with the power of God working in us is the testing and resultant growth we experience by what Satan throws at us. (Eph. 6:16)

[Ac. 2:1] And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
[2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. The first component of a dual manifestation.
[3] And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Here, the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit was accompanied with a visible manifestation of flames (tongues) of fire. Notice there is no reference to heat, but associated sound. A sound imitated in advance by Christ in John 20:22, providing them with a preview of what they would soon hear.

We might also note that this didn’t involve just the ministry, or just the pre-eminent members.

[11:15] And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Apparently, a lesser but similar manifestation occurred later with the first outpouring upon Gentiles. This was not something that occurred regularly, but on just these two special occasions only. This was not something Peter was intending to cause. It came as a surprise to him at the time. Again, God chose the situation and the timing. It was another ‘watershed event’.

 2.   Should the Gifts of the Holy Spirit as outline in 1 Corinthians 12:1-11, 29-30 be operational in God’s church today?

[1] Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
[2] Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
[3] Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
[4] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
[5] And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
[6] And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
[7] But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
[8] For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
[9] To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
[10] To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
With the exception of the latter two, all are definitely present to varying degree among God’s True Saints today. With languages today having available so many secular means of translation, the same phenomenon isn’t as needful as it once was. More than that is the matter of interpreters. Modern imitators of the perceived phenomenon focus on the ‘speaking’ (in unrecognizable / non-functional languages) but few seek to ‘interpret’ or translate. It’d be interesting to record a typical ‘tongues event’ and have different people separately interpret. The likelihood of two being identical is remote. But more, those ‘interpretations’ this commenter has heard has the ’speaker’ uttering vague, trite or common generalities that we all know anyway. What is the value of hearing, by that means, simple ‘kindergarten level’ phrases repeated over and over? It edifies no-one, where edification is the main intended purpose of this ‘gift’ as we see in 1st Cor. 14:5-19!

Note: ‘Tongues’ in these places is the Greek word ‘glossa’. (Strong’s #1100) A word meaning ‘languages’, with implication of ‘recognizable languages’. The addition of the word ‘unknown’ doesn’t necessarily suggest unknown to everyone, though perhaps to the hearers there present. Not every sound we may be able to make with our voices cold be rightfully called a ‘language’.

[11] But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. Reminding us that not every one of these ‘gifts’ is awarded to every individual. Not having a ‘tongues experience’ as some covet to exhibit, shouldn’t be suggestive of any inferiority on the part of any other worshipper. Not all have the same gift, and there are better gifts!

[29] Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
[30] Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? The obvious answer to this rhetorical question is NO!

 3.   In Ephesians 4:11-16, the Apostle mentioned what we called the 5 fold ministry which Christ gave for the edification of His Body, the church.

Perhaps we should recognize these as separate and distinct operations within the Church. How they differ, we would not expect to be doctrinal, but operational. Our question would be, "How do they differ?" Some would pose that they represent ranks of authority. That may be presumptuous, missing the point. Who or what are these ministries? See below. Are they needed in God’s Church today? Absolutely. How can we identify them if they are needed today? Once a people are brought into an awareness of God’s Truth, more of the responsibility falls on the supposed ‘lower end’ functionaries. They are Pastors, to hold together and lead a flock, and teachers to bring the called-out ones to greater levels of understanding. As we see in verse 12, these ‘levels’ of operation are not for some to vaunt their positions for personal aggrandizement (a common carnal characteristic) but to bring the body of Christ to greater degrees of perfection and edification.

[11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

apostles; Strong’s #652: apostolos: a delegate or an ambassador of the gospel; messenger; one sent out. The presumption is often one sent directly and solely by God, thus placing the individual subject to no lesser authority. An apostle can be one sent out by a congregation. Self appointed apostles were the bane of the early Church. (see Rev. 2:2. Apostles are always subject to congregational scrutiny, irrespective of their sponsor.)

prophets; #4396: prophetes: an inspired speaker, with implication of being able to foretell future events. This particular category is suggestive of unique understandings. But with it, having a high risk of mis-statement, except for the degree of direct inspiration from God, which is often claimed, but not always given! All of these separate ‘categories’ of servant prophesy in the limited sense of proclaiming God’s Truth. They would have no value in God’s Church if they did not also accurately represent the Truth.

evangelists; #2099: euaggelistes: a preacher of the gospel. Where this ‘office’ differs from pastor is that it suggests more of an ‘at large’ capacity, not someone directly involved with any particular local flock.

pastors #4166: poimen: a shepherd. One responsible for a local congregation and personally involved with the membership.

teachers; #1320: didaskalos: instructor; doctor; master; teacher. Suggestive of a person with higher levels of training, and with abilities of instructing members to a higher degree of understanding.

Though quite similar, each of these ‘titles’ suggests a nuance of function differing from one another. To one degree or another, ALL of these, including members of the congregation, can and do ‘prophesy’. (See verse 23 in question 4.) NOTE: These are not just ranks within a ‘ministerial class’! For example, Paul chided the members for their failure to have attained ‘teacher’ capability after being so long in the Truth! (Heb. 5:12) We are all expected to attain sufficient understandings that we can edify others in our fellowship sphere. Also consider, depending on ones’ service opportunities, any minister (servant) of God’s people can function in any one of these, from time to time. The sad result of viewing these just as ranks is that the operation of God’s Spirit in each individual can often be dampened, and congregations are set up to fail in developing through exercising their spiritual senses. (Heb. 5:14) Few things will destroy a congregation’s vibrancy more effectively than that!

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: This specifically tells us what these are all for. Providing the Saints with something of real substance.
[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: To replicate the character of Christ in each of us, not to provide a structure for a ranking system among ministers.
[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
[15] But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
[16] From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 4.   I am studying 1 Corinthians chapter 14 with regard to the unknown tongues, prophecy, and the law regarding women’s attitude in public service. What’s your explanation of this chapter?

[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.
[3] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
[4] He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Longstanding presumptions create a mental definition of what is meant by ‘unknown tongues’. They being ‘unknown’ to the hearers. Does it anywhere indicate being ‘unknown’ to the speaker? But if the particular language (aka tongue) wasn’t known locally, an interpreter was needed for them to know what was being said. An obvious oversight is the account in Acts 2, where many attendees, from many foreign regions, with one person speaking one language, heard in their various native tongues. In other words, a single language was being uttered, but in its trip between the speaker and the hearer, was translated into another language, and in fact many ‘other known languages’ simultaneously. That was the phenomenon on the Day of Pentecost! The Holy Spirit itself acted as the interpreter! Nothing like what modern ‘imitators’ pose as being repetitions!
[5] I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. A major objective is ‘edification’. Let’s be honest as to what ‘edification’ would happen IF a series of two or three tongues speakings, after being interpreted into the hearer’s language, were strung together into a full ‘sermon’, as is suggested in verse 27. How much ‘edification’ would we derive from that exercise under the modern presumption of what ‘tongues speaking’ is? This writer long ago witnessed ‘tongues speaking’ events. Often, it was a woman ‘speaking’ and when ‘interpreted’ by the minister, the content was nothing having any real spiritual edification. It was just a show!
[6] 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? He’s asking about the content of such ‘speaking’. If absent of useful knowledge or significant ‘doctrine’, what value could it possibly have?
[7] And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? It’s one thing to not understand a particular language, but if the utterances aren’t even a recognizable tongue, it casts serious doubt on it being an ‘inspired’ event. Anyone can imitate unintelligible jibberish!
[8] For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
[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 into the air. Even when ‘under interpretation’, the words need to be easily discerned. The interpreter shouldn’t have to ‘ad lib’ what he thinks the speaker might have meant! Interpretation is also a direct function of inspiration, which would have to be ‘true’! God’s Spirit wouldn’t inspire anything that wasn’t true. The uttering of ‘things easily understood’ also suggests the speaker is exercising a choice as to what he is saying.
[10] There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Again, kinds of voices in the world, referring to the many valid and recognizable spoken languages that exist. Each one has ‘significance’ in its syllables and words. In other words, you can transmit discernable messages between people using them. Again, helping define what is meant by ‘tongues’.
[11] Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
[12] Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. This is the ultimate purpose, not a side show demonstration.
[13] Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. This isn’t the usual desire of people engaging in what is regarded as a modern ‘tongues manifestation’.
[14] For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
[15] 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. Think what the hearer would think if a singer sang random notes, not in any recognizable musical pattern. Why any different with the speaking of a language?
[16] Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? Here again, we are admonished that the speaker ought to have regard for the hearer when speaking, not his personal prestige.
[17] For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
[18] I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: So, where’s there record of Paul uttering ‘unknown tongues’? Paul was multi-lingual! Is his being able to speak in different languages what he was referring to? Is that his definition of a ‘tongues speaker’? If so, what re-definition does that impose on the modern take as to the meaning of the term?
[19] 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.
[20] Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
[21] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. What is this telling us? Men of foreign origin, not of their ‘accepted’ language or ethnicity would proclaim God’s Truth to them in known languages of foreigners, yet they would reject it! Apparently, tongues, by itself, was not a great persuader in their case. This too gives us a definition of what is meant by the term, ‘tongues’.
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
[23] If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
[24] But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: This verse and the next warrant further explanation. Another time!
[25] And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
[26] How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
[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 church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Then this ‘tongues speaker’ would KNOW what he is saying in the language he was speaking. So then, why not speak in the language his audience could understand, except that he didn’t know the local language. Why then would not the Holy Spirit inspire the same phenomenon seen in Acts 2, where one known language was translated - midair - into another recognizable language? Is there any interest anywhere to repeat that phenomenon? Do we know of it ever happening? That would demonstrate the genuineness of a person desiring to ‘speak in tongues’, more than any other thing. Speaking in one language, but being understood in another! This isn’t what typically happens! It’s what the ‘interpreter’ provides.
[29] Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. At this point, Paul seems to be leaving the subject of ‘tongues speaking’. Consider the possibility that he actually wasn’t changing subject when reading the following scriptures.

Before we leave this subject, we should consider the purpose of the phenomenon of ‘speaking in tongues’ as presented by Paul. We are repeatedly acquainted with the requirement that there be ‘interpretation’. Perhaps not the best choice of words, as in English, ‘interpretation’ suggests the interpreter can put his own take on what he is hearing. This would allow the possibility that different interpreters might say the speaker is saying quite different things. An honest approach to this would be to ‘test’ the interpreters by having them interpret separately, and compare their interpretations of what they said the speaker was actually saying.

(Of course, if not in any real language, we’d never be able to prove which interpreter got it right!)

But the ‘interpretation’ requirement injects its own consideration. First, if the speaker knows the language of his audience, then why speak in a language unknown to them, only to have it translated back into a language they DO understand? Wouldn’t that impose ‘double duty’ on God’s Spirit? First, having to ‘inspire’ the utterer with whatever ‘different tongue’ he sets forth, then that same Spirit, thru an interpreter, reverting the utterance back to the original language. What would be the point of such an exercise? The general picture of these passages suggests it refers to speaking known languages, tho’ not known to the hearers, with the interpreter functioning in the same capacity as did the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. There, the Holy Spirit ‘interpreted’ a single language - mid air - into multiple known languages simultaneously. We ought to take particular note of that phenomenon, as it helps us dispel the mis-conceptions imposed into this activity by modern charismatic religionists.

[30] If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
[31] For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
[32] And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Here we are reminded again that the speakers retain full awareness of what they are speaking, and as in verse 9, are choosing their words. In other words, not in any kind of a trance! Not ‘other spirits’ taking over..
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. Is this a carryover from the previous subject? Speaking in tongues? Or any speaking capacity? That could change things! Why would ‘speaking’ in Church amount to not being ‘under obedience’ to their husbands? (On the any speaking situation, more clarity is offered in 1st Tim. 2:11-15).
[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 church. The apparent severity of this warrants our consideration. Asking a simple question, it would seem, is not shameful conduct. What thinking (or cultural consideration) prompted this position? Would the same carry over to a woman using her voice in, say, singing? Do we today adequately understand Paul’s point? Is there more to this?
[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. [38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
[39] Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Apparently, we are not done with this particular ‘tongues’ subject. This suggests an answer to the question in verse 34. In my past personal experience, women were often the ones exhibiting the phenomenon. Also, should we regard prophesying and speaking in tongues as contrasting phenomenon, or is one a facilitator of the other?
[40] Let all things be done decently and in order.

Postnote: Earlier, in the introductory comment, it was posed that the Church of God hasn’t done an adequate job addressing certain biblical questions such as this. As a response, I would fault our various over-controlling and exclusivist organizations with not being willing to distribute what research has been done, in large part due to the researcher’s particular affiliation. (One Church group doesn’t like to suggest their members read the writings of "other" groups! Organizational jealousy?!) I have in my possession a very thorough 15-page treatise addressing the “Speaking in Tongues Question” written by Frank Nelte. Any question a person might have on the subject is well-addressed therein! Golden Sheaves can provide a printed copy on request.      RT

 

Return to GoldenSheaves.org