W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New


II. A QUESTION OF GIFTS ...
~ Endnotes appear at end of each File ~

For long Pentecostalism has been a challenge or an affront to, or a variation from mainline denominations. There has, very often, been reason both for the challenge and the affront. In fact, though a detailed analysis takes many pages, there is clear indication that gifts such as are stressed generally by Pentecostal denominations, are intended for our era.

There is however also indication that they are not to be featured or focussed in any distractive or glorying way (cf. Jeremiah 9:23-24). It is the Giver who is to be glorified, and HIM ONLY: neither the gift nor the beneficiary who uses it - ordained or other. Again, there are rules for such use, and provisions; and there is reason for the gift of tongues in particular, itself a prominent ground of division. Extremes on all sides seem more rife than justified.

1. GIFTS IN GENERAL

Three passages of the New Testament bear heavily on this: Romans 12, Ephesians 4 and I Corinthians 12. I Cor. 14 bears on tongues as a special consideration. Romans 12 fortifies the 'body language' or analogy of Paul in the universal context of ALL JEWS who are to believe, and ALL Gentiles believing (cf. Romans 11:33, and 12:1). ALL make ONE body (Ephesians 4:4). I Corinthians 13 however is a crucial chapter in two ways: to tell first the character of the whole work, and second, whether these gifts still operate.

Some would declare that they do not still operate, and try for example to equate the 'then' of I Cor. 13:10,12, to the completion of the New Testament Canon. However, for my own part, I do not yet, following its completion, KNOW AS I AM KNOWN! THAT is for the resurrection. It is the mirror of faith (II Cor. 3:18) which we now use, which is not done away with yet... Others try to make it that some nuance of meaning attaches to 'prophesying' which prevents its occurrence outside inscripturation. The latter is done; so therefore is 'prophesying'.

This however will not do. Not merely did prophets prophesy in the Old Testament whose books or words are not, or not in full incorporated in the Canon (I Chronicles 25:1-5, Joshua 10:13), but there is the case for example of Peter who (Matthew 16:17) had 'revelation' without in his name committing this to scripture - that is, the Father revealed to him the identity of Christ. Nor did Paul reveal his revelations noted in II Corinthians 12:1-4, or even consider it lawful to do so; and they included words in particular.

It is important here not to confuse inscripturation, into the Bible, definitive as the only authorised body of written revelation from God Almighty to mankind: and revelation at the pleasure of the Lord which has no such commission, adds nothing to doctrine, functions according to it and accords with it.

Revelation can certainly occur without inscripturation, and this revelation can incorporate truth. However, since the scripture IS finished, clearly any current exercises of this gift will not include doctrine. Doctrine may be USED but not provided anew now. Does this mean that future prediction has ceased ? Not necessarily, although in this area caution is needed.

In the Covenanting days in Scotland, some sweet (or consoling) predictions were made as saints would sense the peril of some loved saint; but this was not in any way regarded as binding on the consciences of others, as the exercise of the gift of prophecy in its full scope would be thought to entail, following the Old Testament model. Agabus made a prediction (Acts 11:27-28) on which he expected action; though this of course was before the completion of the canon. Does this really however affect it ? COULD not someone exercise a gift in this way now; and if not, why not ?

Perhaps the most obvious cause of caution is this: In the Old Testament model, the use of such a gift would tend to be associated with the deliverance of doctrine, and with the preparation of the people for the work and will of God. Prophets had to meet stringent tests, with the death penalty given for misuse of this office (Deuteronomy 13).

THAT is past. There is no longer a theocracy (I Peter 2:9). The test is past and the exercise of such a gift is now without this control. Thus it would be understandable if any who were moved to make any such prediction, even as they did not live where the test could properly be applied, should not expect others to 'heed' them; though the LORD WHO IS NOT LIMITED BY MAN, may indeed elect to grant such a knowledge on some point NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECTING OR ADDING TO DOCTRINE AS SUCH; doing this perhaps for kindness and in sympathy, as appeared to have happened in the Scottish case.

Hence we are left with the fact that I Corinthians 13, indeed in a survey leading from NOW to GLORY (13:8-13), makes it clear that tongues and prophesying are in order. The power of God is always in order, for it is always there; and it is always available to His people (Ephesians 1:19, II Timothy 3:5).

HOW it is available, in what spirit, for what purpose, in what seemliness, through what command, with what relationship to His inscripturated words: that is ANOTHER QUESTION. To all this the Bible gives clear answer; and to this we shall attend. It is sad that so much liberalism denies the power of God, and so much Pentecostalism betrays it by a sensationalism that incorporates specific disobedience. Gifts ? Certainly there are gifts.

2. SEEKING GIFTS

On the other side, it may be urged that gifts should be SOUGHT, asked for, even itemised like a spiritual shopping list... However, this is clearly unscriptural on two grounds. The first is this. LOVE is to be sought differentially from all gifts, with priority over all of them; and that so that such gifts at this level are null without it; and love, we recall, involves not least ... OBEDIENCE TO THE WORD OF GOD ( John 14:21-23; 12:48-50; Matthew 5:17-19; II Peter 3:15-16). In fact I Corinthians 13 comes in the very midst of the expositions of the apostle on the body of Christ; on its specialised gifts*1 and the gift of tongues which occasioned so much trouble through disorganisation, confusion and lack of edification in public; and on the heady horsepower, as it were, of expressiveness dangerously bordering on self-expression - I Corinthians 14:26... There this 13th. chapter makes its transcendent emphasis. Arching over this sort of gift in its operation, relative to the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4,16) which of course is not limited to Corinth, is love - love indeed which "rejoices IN THE TRUTH" - 13:6 . Here lies the criterion over the gifts.

Secondly, I Corinthians 12:11 makes it clear that GIFT SELECTION - rather like selection of Christmas presents in a way - IS SOLELY THE CONCERN AND THE UTTER PREROGATIVE OF THE GIVER, WHO IS GOD. HE distributes "AS HE WILL". What however of the intimation to seek 'spiritual gifts' ?

In fact, it is spiritual 'things' which we are told to seek, as may be found if one consults the Greek text of I Corinthians 14:1. If moreover there is anything that one should seek, it is TO PROPHESY (14:1). One should wish to be endowed with spiritual usefulness; but if there were any one thing as to gifts to seek, "rather" let it be prophecy. Thus there is an enormous emphasis placed on that area; and any sound church should accordingly be far better known for emphasis on this phase of knowledge of the word of God than on tongues. (The things given being complete - Revelation 22:18... "these things" are to have NO additions, cf. Proverbs 30:6, Galatians 1:6-11. Notice with due care the prohibition on 'any other gospel' than that which WE HAVEPREACHED', v.8.) That is thus quite a good initial test of a church. Is it apostolic ? This is one objective criterion: distinctive emphasis on God's word.

Thus usefulness is to be sought, some sort of giftedness; prophecy, if anything specific were to be sought, would be sought; and love rejoicing in the truth, is put above them all; so much so, that if this is subjected to disregard, then the rest is of zero value. And that of course is just the precise impact of Paul's 'tongues' reasoning in I Corinthians 14:7-17. Much is 'sounding brass', or perhaps sounding psyches...

But if any want to disregard Paul, and follow like an undisciplined, authority-rejecting, anti-apostolic church, this absurd, non-edifying emphasis on tongues, then such might receive a name: it would be a CORINTHIAN CHURCH, yes, perhaps a HYPER-CORINTHIAN CHURCH; certainly not Pentecostal. THAT would ADD to the disobedience so many such bodies practise, as we shall shortly see ! and be gross distortion of the word of God. Why ? for this reason: IN PENTECOST, an INABILITY to make the gospel clear, because of LANGUAGE BARRIERS in the bustling multitude from many nations, was the problem. The birthday gift the apostles received for this walking stage of the New Testament Church, following Christ's ascension, was MIRACULOUS INTELLIGIBILITY, through clear-cut COMPREHENSIBILITY of DATA provided in FOREIGN LANGUAGES TO MEET THE NEED.

The Corinthian case was, on the contrary, DYSFUNCTIONAL AS TO COMPREHENSIBILITY, REMOVING COMPREHENSION FROM THE SPEAKER WHO NORMALLY COULD GIVE IT TO THE AUDIENCE IN QUESTION. Anything more wholly contrary would be quite difficult to find.

It is an undisciplined CORINTHIAN CHURCH problem which so very many Pentecostal churches exhibit; just as, to be fair, so many other bodies dismiss the apostolic provisions altogether, in flagrant disregard of I Corinthians 14:39. On the latter side, however, it should be faithfully acknowledged that it is at least better in the DIRECTION of the apostle's teaching, in that EDIFICATION is insisted on, as he also insisted, and DISORDER is rejected, just as he rejected it (I Corinthians 14:26), even in dealing with these very phenomena. Yet it is a sad fact that so many must rush to this or that extreme, hostile or disaffected through the oddities of some, and thus give more scope for the error, by seeming to prohibit even the authentic.

Thus, then, it is in order to wish to be useful and hence to have some sort of spiritual contribution to make to serve via appropriate gifts, as GOD WILL DIRECT; but the WAY in which this is to be conceived is in the sense of NOT parading2 oneself, NOT seeking one's own ( I Corinthians 13:4-5) - way, desire or gift selection. ONE OUGHT TO BE CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST (Galatians 2:20), NOT mesmerised by social movements to which one makes self-fulfilling, non-edifying, assertive and even disorderly, non-apostolic ... contribution. (Cf. the parallel to the Corinthians passage: Romans 12:1-17.)

One ought to be crucified in this way so that "the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"... so that indeed, "I live: yet not I; for Christ lives in me" ... for "I have been crucified with Christ". Now this does not suggest an autonomous little vainglorious shopping-list. Gifts are for service; and here as elsewhere, he who exalts himself will be humbled; indeed, it is better so.

3. GIFTS AND SALVATION

GIFTS do not secure salvation; fruit does not plant trees (Matthew 5:17, Galatians 3:1-5). Gifts are an APPORTIONMENT for service WITHIN the BODY OF CHRIST, which is HIS HUMAN BODY OF BELIEVERS IN ALL THEIR ACTIONS, always alive, always in existence, always Christ-headed, provided indeed with pastors for work in and out of church, administration and giving - all service. They're therefore for those already saved (Ephesians 2:8, I Corinthians 12:11), who as such have of necessity already and at the outset been baptised by one Spirit into one body (I Corinthians 12:13). THAT is a spiritual birthday gift.

Particular gifts following this incorporation into Christ, who is no part-time head, are action elements for His body, and they relate just as long as He is head of all; and what HE is not head of, it is not HIS! Yes, 'ALL' are baptised into this body, and it is this body which we are discussing. THAT is part of being a Christian as Paul tells us in Romans 8:9. If anyone does not have the Spirit, he is none of His.

If, then, anyone is NOT baptised into Christ's body by one Spirit, THEREBY becoming under one Head, he also is no Christian. NO ONE Christian is NOT so baptised, according to Paul. This is a simple equation: IF Christian, THEN WITH the HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU (cf. John 6:53-57); and IF CHRISTIAN then BAPTISED into ONE BODY UNDER ONE HEAD. The CHURCH IS HIS BODY (Ephesians 1:22); and the Church does many things in many places, whether dispersed or aggregate (Acts 8:1). HE is never a bodiless head; nor are Christians ever a headless body; nor is it ever untrue that "we are members one of another" - a fact which includes all ethical action.

ALL then are Christians by virtue of being in Christ, and in His body, so called and so universally organised by Him. Indeed if one member suffers, all do; not only in one phase of life, but in any. The word of God cannot wisely be added to; and the figure is clear as to the operational facts of Christ AS HEAD, and believers AS SUCH. "YOU," says Paul, "are the body of Christ, and members in particular" ( I Cor. 12:27).

Let us further emphasise the point of being IN CHRIST. John 6 tells us that if we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we are IN HIM ( v.56); indeed have eternal life and will be raised up at the day. Whoever once drinks3 of the water Christ gives, shall have the welling Spirit within him - John 4:14. If HE is your Lamb-sacrifice, HE is IN YOU.

If He is not your Head, how are you part of His body ? If He is, how are you not ? If you share His life, and abide in Him, how are you not in Him ? if His sacrifice is yours, how are you scripturally not IN HIM, and HE IN YOU, as He says! but if in Him, then are you baptised there by one Spirit, like ALL the rest of the so often erring Corinthian Christians in the Church at Corinth.

Being in His body, it is best to do as you are told, by the Head. Hypocrisy is a fearful situation, and one Christ stingingly rebuked: "Why do you call me Lord, Lord and not do the things I say?" - Luke 6:46.

ONE of the things the word of God tells us concerns edification in the whole range of church assembly operation; and another thing it tells us is this: You get the gifts you are given; they are sovereignly disposed to recipients (as is rather normal in gifts).

They are to be used always in love, never as bogus (mere lusts masquerading as gifts); and when in assembly, they are to be used strictly as laid down by Paul. Let us now look at the last point more particularly, as to emphasis.

4. SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Various provocative errors come from certain Pentecostal segments here. It might seem as if the mistaken denial of such a gift by some, led to the mistaken emphasis on it - or even more or less grave distortion of it - by others. First, some extremists allege, almost unbelievably ( but what IS unbelievable when the seducer of spirits grows bold!) that tongue-speaking is necessary to, or a necessary sign of conversion; that this is necessary, for conversion to be validated: such things as these may lead to sad inveiglement. This monstrous nonsense may appear in the scriptures of some religion; they have no hint in the Bible. As well have all apostles as have all speak in tongues in the church of Jesus Christ.

In terms of historic occurrences, for a moment, it is true that in Acts 19, conversion is accompanied by 'tongues'. That is a choice of God who divides to all, as we are instructed, SEVERALLY (that is NOT en masse!) as HE will - I Corinthians 12:11 : NKJV renders "individually as He will". We may not even assume that such a case is a norm, for that a mere addition to the word of God, something making walking through unchecked mine fields look safe by comparison (cf. Proverbs 30:6, Psalm 19:13). Far less may one following rather than pretending to 'create' the word of God, assume that the non-happening of tongues evidences non-conversion; for indeed in that case, to presumption would be added simple and flat contradiction. If that principle were true, and applied, then all would be apostles, healers and the like (I Cor. 12:29). In fact, all are not, and God does not yield to mass-production techniques in His DIVIDING SEVERALLY, INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH AS HE WILL FROM THE GAMUT OF GIFTS.

It may be socially useful for manipulation purposes to teach otherwise: the Bible neither teaches this, nor tolerates it, nor is in any need of such psychic techniques. It is the word of the God who is God alone, and has power to perform without cultural... methods.

Such assumptions as those here exposed would be rather like the case of some novice assuming that since some great surgeon used a certain anaesthetic - X - for one particularly difficult operation, that any other case where this very anaesthetic is not used is not an operation at all!

In the Acts 19 case of course, the disciples were in a rare condition, one almost unduplicable nowadays. They had never heard of the Holy Spirit and had the baptism of John: Christ crucified had not even been preached. God there saw fit to send tongues.

On the other hand, in the Samaritan case (Acts 8:5ff.), when Philip went down and they 'believed Philip', it was the personal coming of Peter and John (the former in terms of the 'keys' in the way the scripture provides without adding to doctrine, or personalising his role - I Peter 5:1-5, 2:1-9) which 'opened' the door to the Samaritans. Then God brought their hearts so to active faith in Jesus Christ that they received the Spirit. Yet no 'tongues' are recorded. God acts at His own discretion; perhaps here, as Tennyson has it, the principle - "Lest one good custom should corrupt the world", is applied. At that, the 'custom' was not so customary, but rather a device as we shall see, when we study its Old Testament context, as cited in the New Testament.

Tongues were however, it might appear, a useful device when, in context of historical progress, the Gentiles were visited with the Gospel: indeed, Cornelius sent an emissary seeking for Peter to come! THERE was a missionary opportunity, and the Lord on that day saw fit to send a version of tongues after the impact registered - Acts 10:25 (cf. I Cor. 12:10; pp. 13 ff. infra)... delivering them from the danger of man-placed trust! Just as any tendency to rely on Philip was earlier avoided when the apostles added their testimony, so here in Acts 10 tongues were used. God distributes, as Paul declares, dividing to each severally as He will.

Thus, just as the Spirit came with great impact to the Samaritans who had been prepared, but who apparently had not as yet received Christ through the Spirit by faith (Acts 8:5-16, cf. Matthew 16:17,11:27), here tongues surprise the meeting. The case varies, and even at the outset of the New Covenant Church's fully equipped crusading, God sovereignly resolves what step He will take. Similarly, God elected to use many miracles, healings at first - Acts 3, 6:8, 5:15-16.

Not even at Pentecost did tongues come on converts, according to the divulgements of the record; and this was so when the apostles themselves spoke with the very opposite of 'tongues' - that is with intelligibility not naturally available to the different language speaking groups there assembled. No, from this we do not find they came, though thousands were then being added to the Church and though, moreover, articulation was a prominent topic!

To revert to Acts 19, there a vast movement in kind occurred. Those there being historically very specially placed, having heard John the Baptist without being confronted with the full and immediate Messianic Gospel, the tongues additive was provided: where Christ had not been received and only the foothills of the plan of salvation were clear, God made this intervention. What then of the 'straight' case at Pentecost ? Here, rather amusingly in view of the extreme misnomer of Pentecostalism in not calling itself 'Corinthianism' but rather misusing this name, convert 'tongues' were not only not recorded. More than this, the apostles' speaking was such that would rejoice Paul's heart, not cause concern: it was FULLY EDIFYING AND FULLY INTELLIGIBLE. Interpretation was instant, because the language was used not to CREATE a barrier to understanding, but to REMOVE it!

We conclude that God's particular discretionary decisions are not for us to enshrine in dogmas beyond His word. In fact God condemns any addition forcibly (Proverbs 30:6). Tongues, like baptisms (I Corinthians 1:10-17), come and go (cf. I Corinthians 12:30, 14:19); but the Gospel (Revelation 14 6, Galatians 1:6-9) goes on for ever.
 

5. SEEKING IN TONGUES

Indeed, tongues are not even itemised as to be sought: prophecy is, but God statedly gives to each as He will, so that no specification is in order. Further, Paul would rather speak "5 words" with his mind than 10,000 in a tongue. Now if a master craftsman told me of some process, that he would rather perform it 5 times than do what I did 10,000 times, I would not feel motivated to seek the lesser option! not, that is, without disrespect for him (I Corinthians 14:36,37). In fact, in this case, that would involve a rejection of scripture, and a contest with Paul. People who want this are welcome to the exercise of their wills; I am not among them, nor could I recommend it. Anti-apostolic, they create a new Bible, with an authority from themselves. Such are not wise (cf. II Corinthians 10:12).

Further, Paul gives reason. It is because in teaching, he wants to be effective: not a showman. He is a teacher-preacher; and though it is far from him to act as if to remove God's options (I Corinthians 14:39) like some intrusive official making an ass of himself, equally he does not enforce fairy floss at every main course; or even encourage its use! Tongues have a place as and if God so elects; especially for any receiving from God the gift. (This then will operate in a willing heart in public, ONLY according to specifications of:

i) order,

ii) limit of 2 or 3 as Paul showed earlier (I Cor. 14:26-28),

iii) the presence of an interpreter who will in fact intervene and proceed to give the meaning)... Such an (admittedly limited) affair however is only one of several possibilities: DO ALL SPEAK WITH TONGUES ? he asks, ARE ALL APOSTLES ? Is THIS what the church of Christ, at work, at worship, at ease, at attention, HAS!

To ask it is to see its absurdity; to study I Corinthians 12 for the full working week operation of the church of Christ, is to see that such a thing is as much to deny truth, as it would be if the speaker of such doctrine were by some parody, to become all mouth! It is not really fitting; and it does not fit

(I Corinthians 12:29-30; cf. 14:19).

Thus Paul attacks any vamping view, any sensationalistic substitute for spirituality as if all were apostles (you have some who might want that too!), or are to be tongue-stutterers (the term is apt, as will be seen when the Old Testament background appears), as if all went to the works of charity for the church to the poor, administered all the business and so on: Paul teaches wholly to the contrary. To say otherwise is both to add to and to contradict the word of God; as well as to orate against its lessons.

Worse still, just as citing 'speaking with tongues' as necessary evidence of conversion, is like invasive cancer: so deeming it a required prelude to conversion is a flat contradiction of Paul, who makes the occurrence a GIFT of function in body to which by ONE SPIRIT the convert is BROUGHT, and in which he/she only then (of course!) may operate. We do not have arms waving as they grope their way towards... the body. There is a limit even to folly. Tongues may be a specialised gift at times conferred in Christ's body on those factually converted. For this, it is neither substitute nor necessity.

Paul might speak in tongues privately (I Cor. 14:18), but in the worship meeting, give him 5 words without them, for his part, any day! The preference is explicit. The contrast is complete: he Paul would rather speak

They are bleakly dysfunctional in the church, for his part. Mere speech with a tongue has NO value, in comparison with the result obtained when Paul speaks with his understanding, which tends to make one intelligible! So FAR from the 'tongue' being an enhancement of intelligibility, so that foreigners whose tongues one did not know, could yet follow one's thought, for Paul in THIS context, they are shown to be what PREVENTS ALL understanding; for they neither use it nor induce it. Indeed, the possibility of TEACHING OTHERS ALSO is OMITTED when a 'tongue' in this context, is in play (I Cor.14:19). Similarly (14:14), praying 'in a tongue', his understanding is automatically deemed unfruitful.

Hence (14:15) he will, unlike the case just mentioned, that of using the 'tongue', instead embrace with his understanding also, what he is to say. Without qualification of any kind, Paul goes on, 14:17, to state that 'the other' is not edified if one is acting in the 'tongue' mode in a church, per se. Further, 14:23, if the WHOLE CHURCH were to speak in tongues, then Paul categorically declares the result: the listeners will say, 'You are out of your mind.'

Here then is no case of some hearing , some not, this possibility or that. On the contrary, THE RESULT of such an action WOULD BE AN ASCRIPTION OF MADNESS, of mindlessness. Instead of all marvelling that each heard in his own tongue, as at Pentecost, there would be a distaste at the unedifying, non-instructive gabble.

Tongues are mindless in this, that the understanding of the speaker is not engaged -

PAUL would far rather pray WITH HIS MIND, he declares, than in tongues, in church -

while the mind of the hearer is GUARANTEED without exception, to be left obscure.

Comparing the Biblical facts with some "Pentecostal" meanders, then:

First, the person must have been accorded the gift, not be presumptuously seeking it.

Second, there is a great liability in principle in such behaviour in an actual church meeting, for there is URGENT NEED OF INTELLIGIBLE INSTRUCTION, and we must redeem the time, as the apostle also teaches.

Third, if it occurs, there is to be NO SIMULTANEOUS SPEAKING IN TONGUES: IT MAY GIVE THE APPEARANCE OF MADNESS, AND BE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE FOR THE GOSPEL ( I Cor.14:23). Only as we see later (vv.27) by "interpreters" can ANY value come from tongues in the public meeting; and even that is severely limited: per se, 'tongues' of this Corinthian kind are obscure to the understanding, involve a failure to use one's mind and to meet the mind of another.

Fourth, the numerical limit for the only permissible case, ONE AFTER THE OTHER, is two or perhaps three; and as we shall shortly confirm, this applies to all unintelligible substitutes for speech which edifies, all vocalisation. HOW OFTEN however is this obeyed ? And what does James say: IF YOU OFFEND IN ONE POINT, YOU OFFEND IN ALL. Rebellion here is as bad as rebellion in female elders or any other unscriptural eccentricity4 , from which, after challenge, one must withdraw (Romans 16:17), should it be uncorrected. As to rebellion, Samuel would prefer ... witchcraft: for even it is better than that! (I Samuel 15). For my part, such workers hold less than no charms. Unwise is he who dabbles in such things, and their parallels, scripturally defined. And what might be one application ?

Thus no interpreter means no tongues; and the God of order provides! (I Cor.14:26). How often however is this also rigorously obeyed ? Did not The Challenger, with its $1600,000,000 price tag, fail because simple specifications were not met!

Fifth, the prophesying function, the exposition, preaching and application of the word of God must be given primacy: in function, in exposure, in regard, in atmosphere, in significance, in signification! This other phenomenon, this prima facie bizarre (but as above, disposable) function of tongues, it must, if God sovereignly sees fit to use it, be STRINGENTLY LIMITED, and seen in the light of its VERY LOW PROFILE and RELATIVELY LOW-YIELD position as assigned in the word of God. As we shall see, so far from there being glamour and hype about it, it checks, challenges and may even chide severely.
(Cf. Appendix 4, Multifunctioning of Gifts, pp.125 -132..)

Hilarity is sometimes discerned in the Bible, or better, scornful irony at the follies of supposed spirituality (cf. Jeremiah 13:12-13, Isaiah 58:2, Matthew 23:21-31).So is it with these 'tongues' when they even are made a signal, sign or perception of ... sanctity! Obviously they are far indeed from this if:-

i) the speaker has been seeking this gift in the exercise of his/her own will.

ii) the speaker has been using the gift SIMULTANEOUSLY in church, with others - that, as disobedience, is sign of no holiness at all!

iii) the speaker has not secured or made use of the services of an interpreter in any church assembly situation.

iv) the speaker vaunts him/herself, on the gift, or allows others to act so concerning this matter, making it in any way appear that tongue-speaking is important (contra I Cor. 12:21); for this is unscriptural, divisive and foolish.

v) the speaker in word or deed suggests this is necessary for or a sure sign of conversion, as shown; for this is false doctrine, moreover demeaning to the gospel and a distortion of it.

vi) as a result of the performance; there is any shortage of time for 'prophesying'.

vii) the effect is not spiritually, with the use of the MIND, to EDIFY. If any act or function were to be made a sign of personal superiority, that would be prophecy; but even there, any such attitude is explicitly forbidden (I Cor.4:7). The emphasis is: simply serve, having been saved; and then abide and obey...

Moreover, how can anyone use a gift that is not given - anywhere ? The church is believers and such it is true, at times go to 'church', the external meeting format. However, whether here or elsewhere, gifts if sovereignly given by God, are used at the Lord's own pleasure; and what is used, not being given, is a false gift, briefly: a fraud. Indeed, of this element in life, there is no lack. The church ? It is Christ's body and He does not cease to be the Head outside the assembly as in it (though the false lives of some might alert .. even the undiscerning!). Apostles ? They did not exist only in Church services. That is an office; and the tongues (I Cor. 12:29-30, Acts 1:21-26) ? they join apostles in Paul's list: individualised, specialised gifts.

THESE are covered whether here or there, as were the apostles concerning ALL their goings and their dealings, in writing, in speaking or in functioning, as for their roles in formal assemblies, informal, in conversations and communings, in confrontations and in stonings - I Cor. 4-9-13, II Cor. 4:13-18. Similarly, TONGUES by nature do not REQUIRE assemblies, are possible provisions as gifts, and certain subjects of divine direction.

6. SPEAKING, SINGING AND PRAYING "IN TONGUES"

The apostles accordingly have given us our directions for these gifts: which are neither for auction nor autonomous. Let us then consider the mind of Christ further.

We therefore observe I Cor. 14:13. Here we find the very broad term 'speak' (as it is in the Greek), used of speaking in a tongue; with the requirement of an interpreter. What is the context, the reason, the ground for this exhortation ? It is this.

i) Voices in the world without meaning have the impediment that one may not know what is spoken (I Cor.14:8-10). This is an uncertain, if you will, an obtuse, an unpatriotic trumpet that gives uncertain sound, not helping the troops. If, says Paul in I Cor. 14:6-9, he comes speaking in tongues, he does not profit, unless he speak in prophecy, revelation, knowledge, teaching; and indeed, he has just contrasted tongues in 14:5, with prophecy.

There is, he indicates, no distinction in the sounds in tongues; it is a confused call, not recognised, and useless for the battle. Speaking to the air being useless for others, THEREFORE the tongue speaker HAS TO pray for an interpreter. This means of course that as such, the tongue speaker has the value of one speaking to the air. The additional role of interpreter alone will redeem the time, for the tongue speaker's edifying function in church.

ii) The 'tongues' practice in view makes one like being a foreigner to one's own people, so to speak (I Cor.14:11).

iii) HENCE the speaker in a 'tongue' among men, is to pray that he/she may interpret. SINCE edification, meaning is essential, "THEREFORE," says Paul, ANYONE speaking in a 'tongue' MUST pray that he may interpret (or of course, an interpreter may be provided in answer to this prayer, as an officer of performance of that phase) - 14:13.

As to fruitfulness, understanding and mind, it is with this variety of 'tongues' 100% the same case. NOTHING profitable is the result. There are no exceptions, it is always the case. Prayer in a tongue has unfruitfulness as the predictable consequence, BECAUSE the understanding is SURE in this case, to be unfruitful. It is not somewhat unfruitful, or unfruitful only to some: it is simply "unfruitful", and God forbid we start to re-write the Bible in order to 'make it' conform to our prejudices. This is what is said; this is what is meant.

Thus Paul indicates that he, for his part, would pray with and speak in church with his understanding. 14:14-15 and 14:19 have precisely the same message to the point, whether the case be 'speaking' or 'praying'. It is a two-way choice. His? With his understanding. The extent of it: 5 with the mind (and hence not in tongues) OR 10,000 with tongues (and hence not with his mind): compare! The 5 win because they are sure to work; the 10,000 fail because they cannot, per se, be edifying in public.

Let us then review and extend this.

The principles:

a) seek to excel in EDIFICATION of the church (I Cor.14:12).

b) seek to interpret, on pain of being unfruitful (cf. Matthew 7:15-20).

c) "Let all things be done to edification" - I Cor. 14:26.

THIS being said, Paul proceeds to apply it (14:14) :

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays,

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS UNFRUITFUL." Here the sheer enormity of it all is brought out.

I Cor. 14: 15 shows the implication of this option: he is to pray "WITH" the understanding also. THAT is the outcome for direction. Praying "with" it makes it fruitful. The alternative clearly is praying WITHOUT THE UNDERSTANDING. This is condemned here. Why? The CONCLUSION from the case of praying so that the understanding is unfruitful is this: that HE WILL PRAY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING. In other words, the alternative rejected, praying in tongues, is praying WITHOUT the understanding. Interpretation or nothing.

The application, emphasised by the word "for" in 1 Cor. 14:14, then, demonstrates that prayer is relevant to the principles of speaking in tongues' (I Cor.14:14 based on 14:13). "Let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. FOR if I pray in a tongue..."

Let us then emphasise the position. Fruitless confusion of tongue is rejected. So in verse 15, Paul proceeds to delve: " WHAT IS IT
THEN ?" and he acts to apply the point just made. "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. Otherwise," he pursues it, "when you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the unlearned say, Amen" - I Cor. 14:16. YOU give good thanks but HE is not... edified. The issue is whether or not you use your understanding, and in church, directly or otherwise, it MUST be used.

Thus Paul's applications of the principles for 'speaking in tongues' by means of the thrust of the passage, the use of "for" and "what ?" apply no less, and indeed apply emphatically no less, to other unintelligible worship practices in public. NO assembly use of the tongue may be unintelligible5 except for whatever exemptions Paul is to make. What applies to one such phenomenon is subject to the same edificatory principles as for any other. The exemptions apostolically allowed, which meet the case that "all things" should be done "to edification" ?

What are these ? 2 or perhaps 3 tongues cases, and those in order, in functional subjection, and with interpreter. THAT is all. No glamour, this maximum with the rider that 5 mind guided words are his preference in church, over 10,000 with ... tongues. No sanctification mark, no great thing. Just a permission if it must be, within order and great constriction.

It is almost never however that one even hears a claim of a Pentecostal body abiding by these clear, rigorous and emphatic rulings.

What then ? If someone rejects the apostle's teachings (I Cor.14:37-38), so far from being a hyped up 'spiritual' Christian, he/she is "ignorant". Is such a person "spiritual" ? Why, says Paul, "if any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that THE THINGS THAT I WRITE to you are the commandments of the Lord"...

THIS is the nature, and such is the function of the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:12,28): it is as broad as is the work of the apostles whom "God has set in the church", and so it is "in all the churches of the saints" (I Cor.14:33). Paul indeed himself is master builder and apostle to the Gentiles without limit or qualification, just as Christ does not have two bodies, or thirty-two; nor is He Head of any body which is not subject to His dominion as ONE HEAD! (Ephesians 2:20-22,16, 1:22, 4:4).

We similarly note that Paul does not ONLY address the Corinthians in I Cor. 1:2, but equally "all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" - 1:2. It is a UNIVERSAL requirement for ALL churches in ALL circumstances, and EXPLICITLY so. Views to the contrary are not interpretation, but simple contradiction of the defining statements of the epistle. This has been the basis of much of the confusion on tongues, or better, the avenue to it.

The fact is that Paul gives fundamental principles, and he gives reasons in his exposition of the will of God, the mind of Christ, for His body, the body of Christ.

What then shall be said of bodies not conformable to the will of the head, what are these ? Really, the body of someone else.

Paul speaks not of A body, but THE body of Christ; and it is THIS body in which He has set apostles (I Cor.12:27-28). Accordingly, where He demands as a principle what the apostle relates both for this church and for ALL in the churches (I Cor.14:33), abhorring confusion, but blessing order and edification and the peace that Paul prescribes in His name, this is what goes as "the commandments of the Lord'. And those ? Breaking them, whether on the part of many pentecostals or others, in this or in that: it is always a messy business.

Further, giving with the word "for" (v.33) the link between the principles enunciated in Christ's name, and the performances just required, he doubly binds it in "all the churches of the saints." It would be unthinkable that the confusion, profusion, abuse of order, misuse of gifts and the like, as just portrayed by Paul, could except in rebellion, be indulged in any church where the Lord rules, and Paul is apostle. Maybe other churches using the name of some other founder could do it differently: but as for the churches of the saints, so it is, and it is to them all he addresses his letter.

Indeed, at the end of this chapter, he rehearses some of these features, denoting the place of gifts, their exercise and in fact their relationship with love. In this following chapter, the famous definitive chapter for the church, Ch.13, he again sets the practice and principles for all the churches, for the ONE body of Christ Ephesians 4:4), in perspective

a) with love and

b) with the distant time when Christ re-appears,

for the application of the word of the master-builder in that period, which of course is our own. That is his topic; of this he gives applications. He does not minister for a spiritual hydra, or to spiritual careerists; but to the body of Christ, explicitly, didactically, emphatically, exegetically, principially.

NOW is the time for obedience (Matthew 28:20, I Cor.14:37, 3:10, II Peter 3:16). Another body may be spastic through severe disorders; THIS one is His! These are for it principles and procedures till that day. These cover the nature of God, the resurrection and look forward to the great end.

ALL of this is written to ALL the church, to ALL the body (Ephesians 4:4); for it is ONE body with ONE head with ONE set of principles which Paul reveals as the commandments of the Lord, just as He exposes the very character of the body of Christ, one Lord, one Head, over all the church, "which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all."

Variable christs are antichrists; but this one is not merely ONE but the SAME and unchanged, yesterday, today, forever (Hebrews 13:8). Those who have some other rules and order for the body corporate of Christ, have some other head to which they are yielding submission.

It is then they partake in the apostasy of false christs, false prophets, false teaching and - to compare with Leviticus 10 - false fire .
 
 

A WARNING FROM FORMER TIMES
TO CURRENT FOLLIES

Just as there, in the Old Testament, Nadab and Abihu used incense (as prescribed) and used a censer (as prescribed) but failed to offer it in the

ONE PLACE prescribed in the due ministrations of the

ONE PERSON authorised, the High Priest, a figure of Christ,

and in the

ONE TIME frame, in the one ministrations of the one appointed (cf. Hebrews 9:6-28),

thus abusing and degrading the right in terms of wilfulness:

so here the misuse of these gifts, the abuse of their heavily circumscribed usages, the transgression into the realm of sovereign ordinance with human invention is abhorrent. (Cf. *9 infra, pp. 34-35 infra.) Its focus can readily become as far from the "God forbid that I should glory except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" - (Galatians 6:14), as is Romanism with its repetitive arrogations of Christ's one offering with their many, His work being subjected to theirs, till the whole sinful substitute reeks to heaven. (Cf. SMR Ch.10, pp. 1032 to the end.)

Indeed, it is no coincidence that multiple tongues speaking is increasingly shared between some Pentecostal bodies and Rome, with its own strange fires at Smithfield and in the centuries long Inquisition in Spain, offering as well the bodies of saints in judicial murder.

Strange fires can lead very quickly to divine ire, for they represent an invasion, as it were, of divine privacy, primacy and prerogatives till almost anything can befall the unwary, as has indeed happened in the Holy Laughter irreverences (see Section XII infra).

The strange fires of Nadab and Abihu are a reminder.

It may be profitable to pursue this point.

Nowadays, there is a profound parallel to this error of these two Jews of Old Testament times. These today take the form of existential, experiential lust of the flesh for ever new excitements, virtual one act plays wrought in 'church' where contortions and contrivances abound in things called holy, which often are the very essence of irreverence and presumption, and where the fires of the flesh which can "choose" God like some negotiable instrument (John 15:16, Romans 9:16, I Corinthians 2:14, cf. Love that Passes Knowledge, in The Kingdom of Heaven). In all such invasion and intrusion into divine things, this strange, or profane, exotic, and certainly unauthorised FIRE of Nadab and Abihu, which led to their being CONSUMED by fire from the Lord, provides a vast warning ( II Timothy 3:16).

Easy indeed, apart from any more direct divine judgment, is immersion in the very powers and preferences so glibly chosen, until the appearance of help becomes a fire to consume the very places of the heart, in all confusion and even blasphemy, as the name of the Lord comes to be used vainly for these carnally aggrandising pursuits.
 
 

CONFUSION, PRESUMPTION AND JUDGMENT

It is therefore time to look at the results of disobedience in such categories as these, in the "strange fire" of tongue misuse and exaltation, licensed by libido rather than authorised by God.

7. A SIGN TO BELIEVERS, UNBELIEVERS ?

Very well, then: if someone comes to an assembly with tongues in operation, is it a sign ? does it depend ? what is the outcome ?

I Corinthians 14 has words in this area which occasion consideration and lead to insight - for example, verses 22-23. Thus multiple tongue speaking simultaneously might convince, says Paul, an unbelieving spectator that you are mad : not a wholesome or edifying result! But then, this is precisely what has been forbidden. On the other hand, multiple, orderly, one by one edifying prophesying might lead to a wholly diverse result: "He is convinced of all," and "thus are the secrets of the heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is with you of a truth." THAT is precisely the point made earlier, applied in detail; but with what a beautiful description of preaching the word of God!

Yet 'tongues' (v.22) may be used as a sign to unbelievers ? How ? PROPERLY executed, they are as we shall see, scripturally a rebuke to sophistication and humanism, a breach of learning not properly so-called, which would destroy the supernatural reality of the gospel, as though it might have proceeded from man (versus Galatians 1:6-14). Whether the unbelievers like it or not, it is like a warning light on your dashboard (cf. Isaiah 7:11-14).

Tongues may be used to afflict the conscience. Similarly, prophesying, though in expository function, a work for believers, may become in the power of the Lord an attack mode for penetrating and discovering the secrets of the heart: so that some will be "born by the word of God"

(I Peter 2:23-25).

8. THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND AS CITED BY ST. PAUL

In I Cor. 14:21, Paul cites Isaiah 28:11-12. He follows this with the word "therefore", as before showing that this is an application. Tongues are an application of an Old Testament passage; and we should then see what it is.

In Isaiah 28, God censures the people for their drunkenness (the point was not wholly inept about stutterers, babblers, then). Verses 7-8 make the point that drinking has led to loss of judgment and righteousness: both. There has been gross disregard of duty in the nation. This is the charge.

As we proceed in Isaiah 28, it seems - in the teaching method employed - as if God is looking around to see, in view of the licentious - seeming laxity of some who OUGHT to be QUALIFIED to teach spiritual things, just who remains usable, actually to serve this function. Which parties are available in such a fallen State ?

Remember, it was not the fine looking brother of David, but the tender youth who was chosen. God elects! The Lord then asks a rhetorical or almost rhetorical question: Will He then seek BABES from the breast as suitable human beings for ... teacher preparation, to become students with Himself, as their teacher, so that they might pass these things on as faithful messengers ? Must He, as it were, go back so far to the very babies who babble to avoid the degeneration of arrogant follies, the cultural conformism, the moral breaches which mar and coarsen His people when grown! In the fallen Nation, where was better material ? Must it be babes?

How the position reminds one of the present, where David Wilkerson, years ago, pointed out the degenerations of youth were reaching right back to the 8 year-old level!

In Isaiah 28:10, God mocks their quasi-learned pomposity. Oh they knew SO much, and their overbearing and supercilious 'scholarship' was just SO wonderful! HERE A LINE, He mocks them, THERE A LINE, bit by bit they SHOW how knowledgeable they are. Yet in fact they miss the very point of His word. (Cf. Mark 7:7: when God came to earth, He showed His scorn at formal pretenders direct!) This they do, while with all the assurance of bumptious oafs, whose own hearts are not right with God, and whose heads are insufferably swollen in the profundity of their ignorance6, (cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38) they creep on, 'Here a little! There a little!' precisely teaching all that a blind man can see.

Thus again, Jesus Himself rebuked the lawyers (Luke 11:52), theological lawyers, saying, "You have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in, you hindered." You see it in both modes, the ancient equivalents in this of the Roman Catholic heresy, in that they added their traditions, giving them weight beside His word - incredible audacity (the Mark 7:7 case). A further element is seen when Jesus announces that they are failing to see the MAIN POINTS, while dealing with the tiniest details (Matthew 23:23)... neglecting judgment and mercy and faith. On such things, they have a blind eye to turn; or an ecclesiastical cataract condition: it hinders them!

Such people were like (and of course are so still!) elegant stammerers (Isaiah 28:11). They know, oh they KNOW so much, so emptily, so airily, and with so little sincerity. They, as it were, BABBLE, as sophisticated ignoramuses. Small wonder they received some of the deepest scorn ever accorded man by any speaker! They MAR the work of God while marvelling at their own traditional attainments and scholarly superiority!

This making vain the word of God is a folly of all ages! Thus God resolved to PROVIDE a prophetic signal -"FOR WITH STAMMERING LIPS AND ANOTHER TONGUE HE WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE" (Isaiah 28:11). HE had provided the "rest" for them - "the rest with which you may cause the weary to rest" - BUT instead, "the word of the Lord was to them, 'Precept upon precept, precept upon precept...' that they might go and fall backward and be broken".

In providing this STAMMERING SIGNAL, this babe-for-teacher syndrome, so droll, so scathing, so rebuking, the Lord, then, will be reproving the supercilious and deadly ignorance of the arrogantly mistaught, who do not realise they are blind. (On that, compare again, John 9:39-41!) WHO, God asks (Isaiah 42:19) is BLIND EXCEPT MY SERVANT! When religion is astray, HOW FAR ASTRAY it can be! If what it is all about, moreover, is on the wrong path, then how far out will the misdirected travellers go!

What then will He cause to happen, and what is the prophetic item ? It is this. God will use speakers who stammer, who are so far from sophisticates that they may seem to be very babblers. In Isaiah 28:13, God continues to exhibit the contempt with which He views the scholarly blindness, as we saw in the last paragraph. What is its end ? That too we saw: "that they might be broken". .. and as one rendering has it, "broken and snared and caught".

Is that not it ? Were not the radical liberal Protestants swarming in the Church, like that, when they re-grouped to join Rome, itself active in suppressing the word of God ? This Rome did by its God-forsaken traditions, adding to it; while in the former case, they subtracted from it, similarly adding their own thoughts instead. What horror has their arrogant pride produced in a multitude of churches in this century! How foolish thus to speak, and approvingly to listen!(Cf. I Timothy 6:1-6, 4:6, Ephesians 5:3,11, Romans 16:17-19, Titus 3:10,1:13, 2:15,II Timothy 3:14-16.) So, each body erring in its own way, many go astray7, who must faithfully be warned.

How foolish it was to have such teachers in our century; how foolish also in that of Isaiah, who rebuked them soundly, as rebuked they must be by faithful Ministers (cf. II Timothy 4:1-5, I Timothy 4:6). What, says Isaiah (8:20):"Seek the law of God, the very book of it: if they do not speak according to this book, there is no light in them!" THAT is clear. Listen then, when the teaching leaves or even criticises God's word, and be instructed, if THIS is your choice. If this is the way you want it, then you look for an inheritance, one where there is 'no light' to use a rendering of Isaiah 8:20.

To revert to the lessons still to come from Isaiah 28: lies, he

says, these you have made your refuge (28:15). The prophet proceeds to show the only Saviour whose knowledge is to be

real (Isaiah 28:16), the precious and exclusive FOUNDATION STONE (cf. I Corinthians 3:11). The Lord resumes this aspect in Isaiah 29:13-15. He will show up the alleged wisdom of the wise, HE will engender a way which is simple enough for a child. ALL this is within the tongue-speaking phenomenon. What follows then ?

It is this. To speak with tongues is to be a SIGN AGAINST SOPHISTICATED REBELLION, but it is FAR from SUPERIOR SANCTITY! It is, if you like, a walking CARTOON, almost like a Gillies report mockery. A sign ? Yes. Useful ? If in order, yes it can be. The intense irony ? It is this: EVEN THIS SIGN IS NOW BEING MISUSED as if the world were determined to use mockery for substance and reproof of folly for food! A signal, then, yes in two ways:

1) It signifies the intense supernatural origin of the gospel, so powerful that as from God, as it were, even a child may be found in it.

2) It shows now the intense folly of men. Many even in some churches (of this variety or that) will misuse even a form of rebuke as ONE MORE DELICIOUSLY VAIN METHOD OF OBTAINING THE VERY SNOOTY SPIRITUAL SANCTITY WHICH THE SIGN ITSELF WAS INVENTED TO REBUKE! 'Tongues' as sanctity ? Oh the mockery of mockeries of it all... Small wonder R.C. and other word-adders begin to join hands8!

How imperative it is to consort and to walk with the Lord, in blessed obedience! to follow Him, and not to lead.

9. TONGUES, MOCKERY AND MATRIX

It is time to review the supernaturally crafted simplicity in the basic Gospel; loving in design, deep in execution, sacrificial in outcome, manifesting God in the flesh, sin on the Cross and divine power in the resurrection. Milk is what Paul calls the basis God has given. It is needed for 'spiritual babes', just as 'meat' which follows, makes for strength in service.

I Corinthians 1 makes this point at large, and Paul uses this theme in his own exposition, and this very area of Isaiah in teaching the nature of the Cross message (I Cor. 1:18-25; citing in v.19 from Isaiah 29:14). The Gospel message is an offence itself, to the sophisticated pretensions of those who insist on making salvation a product of their own predispositions.

God mocks man's 'marvellous brain waves' because they have there intruded into His profound and divine counsel. This is surgery: correction is the signal coming from tongues. However, the essence of health is not surgery; and the essence of spiritual life is not mockery: though it is true, mockery may be useful 'surgery'!

One does not however glory in surgery; but rather seeks health: it is morbid for patients to be pre-occupied with surgery. Mockery is not, in particular, essential to salvation; though it may sharpen some slipping to damnation. As a SIGN as Paul calls it, this particular gift or mode of worship has a peculiar flavour and function: and this is as depicted in the quoted scriptures, the case for tongues: a highly specialised sign to the slipping, an historic rebuke, to correct. Will all then seek to be rebuke purveyors ... Would all, damning divine direction, speak in tongues!

Let us therefore avoid being carried away with GIFTS, far more being guilty of generalising the particular, reconstructing the agenda, distorting the purpose or discarding the astringent that carries its own role, when GOD uses it. As we have seen, there would be the supreme irony: MISUSING gifts just the way the ancients did, for whom this predicted sign was a REBUKE! THAT creates in the New Testament era, exact parallel to the old follies with this difference: Even the vehicle of reproof would become a source of pride, rebellion or both! How truly incorrigible this would seem to make the whole thing, man messing with the mouth of God, even in churches! even indeed using the divine rebuke as a way to do it worse! From such folly may the gracious Lord deliver all HIS people.

Rather in robes of humility and goodwill, such as shown in the intervening Chapter 13 of I Corinthians, where Paul as it were takes time off his expositions in order to focus the crucial elements, let us serve one another. There it is on the nature of God, on the very character of

things acceptable to Him, on what precedes mere power but is sustained by power that Paul dwells (cf. Micah 6:8). Let us serve one another IN CHRIST, being crucified with Him. Let us PREACH THE WORD, IN SEASON AND OUT OF IT (II Timothy 4:2).

Here lies the urgency. HERE lies the need. THIS is what needs concentration (cf. I Corinthians 14:1), just as the CHARACTER of things is found placarded in I Corinthians 13.

Pantomime may have its place; but pre-eminent preaching, prophesying within the limits of the completed Canon of Scripture (Revelation 22:18-19), forthtelling of what God has said, applying it and living it, making sound use of one's mind (cf. I Corinthians 14:15): THIS is what requires concentration. People, to be taught, must be teachable; and teaching must be done so that the matter may be understood. GOD has something to SAY.

Let us then listen with the ears of our minds and of our hearts.

Be FOUNDED (I Corinthians 3:11) in Jesus Christ rather than founder, glory in "the cross of Jesus Christ" - Galatians 6:14, 3:10-13) rather than cross His glory with the graceless pandemonium of unrestraint: parading gifts9, like children captivated with clothes, and forgetting their parents, and the purpose of dress. IF you know God, glory in this that you KNOW HIM (Jeremiah 9:23), and if your sins are cancelled at the Cross of Christ, glory in His "cross", in the whole plan of salvation in which the Christ was made manifest in flesh and was obedient even to the Cross10 (Philippians 2), crossing out the handwriting of debts due and payable which was against us (Colossians 2:13-14), that you a child of wrath even as others (Ephesians 2:3),should now be "blessed in the heavenly places"(Ephesians 1:3), having been chosen "in Him before the foundation of the world"(l:4), so that indeed:

In Him also we have obtained an inheritance,

being predestinated according to the purpose of Him

who works all things after the counsel of His will (1:11).

Ensure meanwhile that you work with Him in the wise ways of His works, not being carried away with deceitful doctrines which take away from the Head (Ephesians 4:14-16); and as to your mind which God has given you, USE IT (I Corinthians 14:20):"Brethren, do not be children in understanding: however in malice be babes, but in understanding, be MEN", "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all ... thy mind" - said Jesus, Matthew 22:37. That, incidentally, is part of the first and greatest ... commandment.

Let us ponder the deep blessings from the Lord, apart from the meretricious display of peacocks, the flutter of fancy and the futility of mere experientialism; for whoever heard of a love which dotes on experience rather than on the One to whom it is directed. It is He who must be served with reverence, while we rejoice with trembling (Psalms 92,2), knowing the wonder of the stability in the Lord (Isaiah 33:6), from whom comes intelligence and meaning, the stutterer, the stammerer coming to SPEAK PLAINLY (cf. I Corinthians 14:19-20, Isaiah 32:4), for when the "King will reign in righteousness", being as a "shadow of a might rock", then will "the heart of the rash understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers will be ready to speak plainly." While we do so, listen to the music of beauty of the ancient blessing of peace:

"The Lord bless you and keep you, the Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace" - Numbers 6:26.
 
 

III. M A R K 16:17 and A C T S 11:17

on T O N G U E S

Before looking at Acts 10-11, under the heading THE TONGUE OF TRUTH AND BROTHERLY LOVE, let us consider a much misused text: Mark 16:17.

Does Mark 16:18 suggest that ALL heal (contrary to I Cor. 12 ?) or even that all cast out demons? It would contradict Paul if it did. In any case, it does not. Nor does it suggest gibberish tongues for all, in 16:17. Far less does it suggest a sensationalist, experientialist or mindless substitute for the objective Gospel of Jesus Christ (I Cor. 15, Galatians 3).

1. As for the words, "these signs will follow those who believe", is this distributive or generic ? Does it apply to each, or to all? Is it a statement of what FOLLOWS the CLASS; those who believe, or does it in fact state that each one who believes does this and that ? Of course, it is the former.

To illustrate: if you say doctors follow an Army camp, or litter follows it, for that matter: this is a generic, and by no means would it imply that ALL have doctors, or need them, or even that no Camp exists which did not lack them. It would simply connote a norm on the one hand, and that it may be found in conjunction with the WHOLE. It is an item produced from within, or serving the TOTALITY. SOME may never litter or use doctors, and some camps may not use the one or provide the other; but the trend overall is to the contrary. What then shall we say of Mark 16:17 ?

'Signs' shall 'follow' therefore specifies for the whole, a place; it does not cover each. Similarly, tile text does not mean that no Christian can ever die of poison; but that this is the kind of thing which can operate at divine discretion, so that in a whole collection of believers, it is a function by no means inoperative. Indeed, "new tongues" will arise!

2. Moreover, Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 96:1, 98:1, 144:9 show another inflection for praise of the Lord in a "new song", for which a new tongue would be apt. Thus there is the "new man" (Colossians 3:10) for whom "all things have become new" ( II Cor. 5:17), who sings as it were "a new song" with new inspiration (Colossians 3:16, Ephesians 1:17-18).

3. Thus in Revelation, they sing (15:3), they articulate the words of the song of Moses and of the Lamb, in heaven; and there is moreover a "new song" (14:3) - fresh inspiration apparently bringing new depths, as in point 2. (Cf. Zephaniah 3:13, Isaiah 50:4.) This song they "learn".

4. Although these things are sufficient to show the truth we summarise in point 5 below, let us add a new datum. It is expounded in THE TONGUE OF TRUTH, AND BROTHERLY LOVE (see pp. 16ff.), but in application here, let us note it.

Acts 10:45-47 with 11:16-17 shows that the Pentecostal, and not the Corinthian gift was given to these new believers, who indeed are said to have spoken simply 'with tongues'; just as Mark 16 refers to 'new' tongues. One meaning of the Greek word here for 'new' is recent, unused, fresh, and the result would therefore resemble that in points 2 and 3 above.

The fresh, original, deeper, illuminated speech of bold and overwhelmed praise would pour out from new hearts with new lips with empowered articulation expressing new wonder. NEW is the word and that is the concept. It is not uncommon in scripture, where it has a substantial base and spiritual contour.

5. The contextual force for intelligibility is what will be shown in Section IV, not only in terms of the RESULT and the ACTION following these 'new' tongues, but in terms of the gift being the SAME as that given at Pentecost, where intelligibility was not only present, but crucial, perhaps the most astounding thing about the whole performance; for here was Babel reversed. Thus here could comprehension of the CONTENT of the OBJECTIVE GOSPEL concerning the objective Christ be taken in and acted in terms of repentance, with pierced hearts, crying -"What shall we do ?" To them as by Peter in Acts 10, was the gospel preached.

The apostles had allowed every man to hear in his OWN TONGUE the FACTS. In Acts 10, the gift given, the same as that of the apostles at Pentecost, enabled every one to SPEAK with wonder and power in a way that was likewise intelligible at the very least. Indeed in the original case, this was a crucial feature, a source of wonder, the functional reality enabled in the polyglot (Acts 2:9) audience BY the gift which WAS UNDERSTOOD, not obfuscated; which needed no interpreter BECAUSE it gave out the message so that each UNDERSTOOD. This gift specialised in clarity and in comprehensibility.

In fact, it is for this reason that the concept of gibberish tongues should never be associated with Pentecost, but rather allied with the Corinthians. Such a phenomenon is therefore CORINTHIANISM rather than PENTECOSTALISM. The misuse of THIS name is in fact one of the greatest breaches of nomenclature, in modern times (reminding one of Communism being 'democratic'). It not only, indeed, misuses a name, but in so doing here, misuses a most blessed concept - and that ? It is nothing less than Babel in REVERSE, the intelligibility miracle of LUCID AID in giving the GOSPEL to all.

THAT, Pentecost did!

Thus whether the question be the DISTRIBUTION of the activities in Mark, or their NATURE, it is not possible to affirm unintelligible tongues to be in view, or for that matter, that all speak them. It is not possible circumspectly to equate 'new' with 'other' or 'follow' with 'will apply to each individual': one could not do so without adding substantially to the text - a feature alien to the spirit of things (Proverbs 30:6), or more precisely, to the word of God. It is, after all, with this that we are occupied, knowing Christ declared the one who loves Him to be the one who keeps His words (John 14:23-24). Indeed it is love which rejoices in the truth, as I Corinthians 13 tells us.

The liberty of the Spirit is not licence, but implies loving conformity to what is written for us. We do not become gods because we are liberated from sin; nor is obedience unimportant because grace and not works is the formula for salvation in Christ. We are saved by faith without works; but as to faith ? it works. CHRIST Himself was obedient, even to the death of the Cross. Let then no mistaken 'liberty' that ignores the words of its source, or expands like Rome what is written, imagine itself to be spiritual. IF, says Paul, any man thinks himself spiritual, let him acknowledge the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord (I Corinthians 14:37).

To add, in this case, the INDIVIDUATION of each gift to the simple statement about it following believers is one lapse; to assume 'new tongues' to be gibberish is another presumption. To presume twice is simple robbery of the word of God: making it null by the commandments of men, as Christ indicated indeed occurs (Mark 7:7).

EXCERPT
  THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM SEPARATION, IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, pp. 108-113. added for contemplation at this point. Some of it appeared earlier, but the whole section is given in its integrity here.

E) LONG DIVISION DOES NOT MULTIPLY

How broadly does Romans 16:17 apply, and what is the situation with Pentecostalism, for separation from it?

i) APOSTOLIC REQUIREMENT OF THE WORD OF GOD

We note that Paul does not ONLY address the Corinthians in I Cor. 1:2, but equally "all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" - 1:2. He gives fundamental principles and gives reasons in his exposition of the will of God, the mind of Christ, for HIS body. Bodies unconformable to the will of the head, what are these ? Really, the body of someone else.

Paul speaks not of A body, but THE body of Christ; and it is THIS body in which He has set apostles (I Cor.12:27-28). Accordingly, where He demands as a principle what the apostle relates both for this church and for ALL in the churches (I Cor.14:33), abhorring confusion, but blessing order and edification and the peace that Paul prescribes in His name, this is what goes as "the commandments of the Lord". And those ? Breaking them, whether on the part of many pentecostals or others, in this or in that: it is always a messy business.

Further, giving with the word "for" (v.33) the link between the principles enunciated in Christ's name, and the performances just required, he doubly binds it in "all the churches of the saints." SINCE God is not the author of confusion, but of peace as in all the churches of the saints, THEREFORE, says Paul, there is subjection of prophets to prophets in this New Testament setting, AND it is one at a time; and it is tongues by one or two, and one at a time.

This is the policy; this is the principle; it is founded on the name and nature of God; it is promulgated with apostolic authority. Maybe other churches using the name of some other founder could do it differently: maybe those of some godlet or other, some idol could manage another effort. But as for the churches of the saints, so it is, and it is to them all he addresses his letter.

Indeed, at the end of this chapter, he rehearses some of these features,

In this following chapter, the famous definitive chapter for the church, Ch.13, he again sets the practice and principles for all the churches, for the ONE body of Christ (Ephesians 4:4), in perspective :

a) with love and

b) with the distant time when Christ re-appears,

for the application of the word of the master-builder in that period, which of course is our own. That is his topic; of this he gives applications. He does not minister for a spiritual hydra, or to spiritual careerists; but to the body of Christ, explicitly, didactically, emphatically, exegetically, principially, till He comes and we who are Christians know as we are known (I Corinthians 13:12).

NOW is the time for obedience (Matthew 28:20, I Cor.14:37, 3:10, II Peter 3:16). Another body may be spastic through severe disorders; THIS one is His! These are for it principles and procedures till that day. These cover the nature of God, the resurrection and look forward to the great end.

ALL of this is written to ALL the church, to ALL the body (Ephesians 4:4); for it is ONE body with ONE head with ONE set of principles which Paul reveals as the commandments of the Lord, just as He exposes the very character of the body of Christ, one Lord, one Head, over all the church, "which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all." Variable christs are antichrists; but this one is not merely ONE but the SAME and unchanged, yesterday, today, forever (Hebrews 13:8). Those who have some other rules and order for the body corporate of Christ, have some other head to which they are yielding submission. (See A Question of Gifts, pp. 34ff., *9.)

What have you , asks Paul, that you did not receive ? (I Cor.4:7). So why glory in such things. Glory not in tongues, in being slain, in multiple gabble as expressly forbidden in I Corinthians 14:19, 23, 27ff., 37; 12:29-30; 14:1. (See the Appendix to this volume, Question and Answer on the Cross - but not cross purposes with Christ, pp. 231 infra.)

It is well to heed the apostle, not only ethically but in recognition of the Lord's direction.

ii) PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT

Indeed, Paul, master builder (I Cor.3:10) wrote all these chapters to one and to all, concerning the gifts, the tongues, the principles of order, edification, relative merit of gifts, modes: for he explicitly expands with the preface "for" linking the principles to the performance in I Cor.14:33: "As in all the churches of the saints".

Moreover, he proceeds to categorise and to characterise these utterances as "the commandments of the Lord" (I Cor. 14:37 cf. I Cor. 2:9-13, the latter showing the precision of the gift of the word of God, to which Proverbs 8:8, I John 2:27 also relate).

This means, in I Corinthians 14, 2 or 3 tongue speakers at maximum, always interpreted, without panache, with a preference for 5 words spoken with the mind to 10000 without it, NOT all speaking with tongues as a criterion, either at a meeting or elsewhere, NEVER seeking to speak with tongues and so on. It is set forth in detail in my book, A QUESTION OF GIFTS *2 . {For convenience, see below, Appendix 4 , V Pentecostalism, and above.}

Such temperance is very rarely met in the tongues field. Their absence is very acceptable; but their restraint is imperative if ever present. Hence in all such cases fellowship is not appropriate; separation is Biblically required. The alternative ?

Breaking the Lord's commandments is never to be recommended. It is however the only alternative. Yet He proclaims and exhorts to the contrary. "Why do you call Me Lord, Lord," He queries, "and NOT DO the things that I say!" - Luke 6:46. But let us rehearse one point still further.

First, to whom is he speaking ? I Cor. 1:2 - reveals it is not only to the Corinthians but to "All who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Of course: there is ONE body (Ephesians 4:4), "the fulness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:23), which is under His sovereign direction, who is called Lord; and a head which directs it differently, orders the "all" otherwise, is one belonging to someone else, for this Jesus Christ, is the same "yesterday, today, for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

He has built His church solidly on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles ... nay, indeed, in Eph.2:20, we learn the church to be one "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone". It is done. And as to the self-proclaimed 'prophets' who are not subjectible to the correction of the commanded prophets of the Lord who gave the scriptures, or who pronounce contrary to the Scriptures ? this: Isaiah 8:20, 44:25-26, and Jeremiah 23:28-32, I Corinthians 14:37, 14:29-32, II Peter 3:16.

This word IS THE CRITERION of doctrinal assessment, and the Lord WILL PERFORM and CONFIRM it (Isaiah 44:25-26, 45:18-25). Contrary to it ? there is no light. That is what it says. What is so mysterious about the word of God, that it MUST NOT be done! Such is ever the way of rebellion.

It is precisely similar in the book of Romans. PAUL, there is "called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God" (1:1), and has "received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name: among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ." Can he declare it ? Yes. Is it to all ? yes.

Can people alter this by qualifying it ? - or by giving 'liberty of opinion' where God commands and expresses actual abhorrence ? (Cf. Chapter 3, p. 41 supra.) Yes, if they care to fiddle and tamper with the word of God (II Corinthians 4:12, I Corinthians 2:9-13), expressly given with plenary inspiration that covers both the substance and its expression, rebuilding the church from its foundations with other words. That however is to build someone else's structure, and it is better not to call it "church" because of the confusion involved in talking of two quite contrary constructions with the same word.

The practice is popular but polluted since Babel (II Corinthians 11:3-4,13-15), and there are no marks for enterprise when it comes to stealing God's words (Jeremiah 23:21.29-32). The only thing Christians can be inspired to do with the text and construction of the commanded word of God these days (Revelation 22:17-21) is to endorse it.

What then is Paul's place? Apostle...(Church HAS BEEN built on apostles & prophets as FOUNDATION, Christ the corner stone - Ephesians 1:22, 2:20. Moving foundations is... dangerous to a building.) His stress ? "OBEDIENCE to the faith" (Romans 1:5). Those to hear him in his role? "all nations" - v.5. Why ? "For His name". When ? till we know God as we are known (I Corinthians 13;10,12). How spiritual can you be in contradicting these words ? Not at all(I Corinthians 14:37).

How does the apostle address them,

with this international authority?

"Now I BESEECH YOU brethren

MARK THOSE WHO CAUSE DIVISIONS AND OFFENCES

CONTRARY TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH YOU HAVE LEARNED;

AND AVOID THEM" - (Romans 16:17).

"Avoid" causers of variants from this faith so presented, with its obedience requirement. Is there qualification or limit stated? No. Is he a master builder (I Cor.3:10), and a wise one appointed? Yes.

Are we licensed to defect? No. What did Christ say in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20): "Teaching them to obey all things whatever I have commanded you."Do we then assume that He could not possibly MEAN what He says, or that the characterisation (Romans 16:18 in terms of self-will, self-gratification) of those who simply rebel against His word is somehow less because we know them or have heard of them! Are not rebels often, if not indeed almost characteristically self-assured (as for example seen in Numbers 16:3, 9, 12-16). It may be remedied , such dissidence, or departure from the word, at times with relatively minor travail as seen in Numbers 12; but that requires repentance (Cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock pp. 568ff., for the pastoral aspect.) The word of the Lord is not transgressed casually, let alone in terms of some fearful verbal manipulation, as if its breach were made in terms of "the liberty of the Spirit" (II Cor. 3:18), a beautiful grace which in fact transforms to Christ-likeness, not to contumacy against Him (I Cor. 2:9-13, II Cor. 3:17-18, Ephesians 2:20-22, John 14:21-23, I Cor. 14:37, Luke 6:46, John 16:14, Matthew 7:24-26).

How far can you vary from a command by adding whatever comes into yourmind ? As far as you like; you can take it in bits and pieces, in qualifications and promulgations: it is all one, and all contrary to what was commanded in Moses and through John in Revelation (cf. Jeremiah 23:28-29). Do not add; do not diminish.God has copyright over His own mouth!

When God speaks, it is wise not to talk your words into His mouth; for you see, as to His mouth, it is a place from which comes infinite wisdom (Psalm 147:5, Jeremiah 23:29). When it comes to infinity, it is not good to compete with it, or to seek to complete it, to purge or purify it; nor is it acceptable to qualify, crucify or multiply its pronouncements. What does the word say further in this area ? This (Psalm 19:13):

"Keep back Thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression."

Endnotes for this Section:

1. In fact, Paul has already in I Cor.12, not only dealt with the diversification of gifts to individuals in the corporate body of Christ, but with tongues as one of these strictly limited gifts - I Cor. 12:29-30. It is the invasion of phenomenalism, sensationalism, experientialism, not to mention disorder and confusion that is addressed.

Thus in I Cor. 13, we find Paul, moved by the Spirit of God, lifting the topic to the time when we shall "know as we are known". Here he makes it clear that at that time, that epoch, knowledge and prophecy and tongues will all be transcended, for when that which is perfect has come IN THIS ULTIMATE SENSE, in the consummation of all things, then the specialised GIFT of knowledge, like others of this kind, such as tongues and prophecy are to fade into the light of a glory which reveals all things simply as they are.

This I Cor. 14 gift of prophecy is of course quite distinct from the infallible word direct from God in His name which was the work done through the inspired speakers designated for this purpose, whose words were subject to no revision, no critique - as seen in I Cor.14:29 compared with Jeremiah 23:28-29, Matthew 5:19-20, I Cor. 2:9-13. Even this however will find its height and depth exposed to sight, in the time when we are with the Lord, at His coming. It is likened to a child growing up: the difference is vast. (Cf. Sections VII -IX & XI infra, pp. 73-91, 102ff.) In the interim, the word of God is to be obeyed and the love of Christ is to be shown (I Cor. 13:1-2, 14:37).

2. Refer End-notes 9-10.

3. This is the sense of the Greek tense and of the context. Such statedly WILL NEVER thirst again.

4. Female authority in the Church is clearly forbidden on historic grounds in New Testament times (I Timothy 2:12-15), and elders per se HAVE just such authority (Acts 20:17-18,28). Not only the eldership, but in the Biblical terms, 'elders' have it: thus to the assembled elders of Ephesus, Paul spoke of and to them in the plural, without equivocation or qualification, in terms of the flock "over which God has made you overseers" or supervisors. The term rendered 'oversight' in wholly unambiguous, and the body concerned? the church. (Cf. A Spiritual Potpourri, The Significance of Specialisation, and The Dance of Life, where the topic is given thorough treatment).

5. Wild laugher is only a consistent development of this disorderly trend confronted by Paul at Corinth (cf. Exodus 3:5, Psalm 89:7, 111:9, Hebrews 12:28, I Cor. 13:5).

Equally it has no place in the apostolic role for (I Cor. 14:23,26) or roll of gifts (I Cor. 1:7, Chs. 12,14; Romans 12, Ephesians 4).
Cf. Sections IX-XI infra.

6. Cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38.

7. Though some churches have not been corrupted, this has been by the very power of God (Matthew 28:18-19).

8. See: The Shadow of a Mighty Rock, Ch.10; and pp. 743-744, 1031C.

9. What have you , asks Paul, that you did not receive ? (I Cor.4:7). So why glory in such things.

It is well to heed the apostle, not only ethically but in recognition of the Lord's direction.

Indeed, Paul, master builder (I Cor.3:10) wrote all these chapters to one and to all, concerning the gifts, the tongues, the principles of order, edification, relative merit of gifts, modes: for he explicitly expands with the preface "for" linking the principles to the performance in I Cor.14:33: "As in all the churches of the saints". Moreover, he proceeds to categorise and to characterise these utterances as "the commandments of the Lord" ( I Cor. 14:37 cf. I Cor. 2:9-13, the latter showing the precision of the gift of the word of God).

Breaking the Lord's commandments is never to be recommended. "Why do you call Me Lord, Lord," He queries, "and NOT DO the things that I say!" - Luke 6:46.

But let us rehearse one point still further.

First, to whom is he speaking ? I Cor. 1:2 - reveals it is not only to the Corinthians but to "All who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." Of course: there is ONE body (Ephesians 4:4), "the fulness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:23), which is under His sovereign direction, who is called Lord; and a head which directs it differently, orders the "all" otherwise, is one belonging to someone else, for this Jesus Christ, is the same "yesterday, today, for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).

He has built His church solidly on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles ... nay, indeed, in Eph.2:20, we learn the church to be one "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ the chief corner stone". It is done. And as to the self-proclaimed 'prophets' who are not subjectible to the correction of the commanded prophets of the Lord who gave the scriptures, or who pronounce contrary to the Scriptures ? this: Isaiah 8:20, 44:26, and Jeremiah 23:28-32, I Corinthians14:37, II Peter 3:16.

This word IS THE CRITERION of doctrinal assessment, and the Lord WILL PERFORM and CONFIRM it (Isaiah 44:25-26, 45:18-25). Contrary to it? there is no light. That is what it says. What is so mysterious about the word of God, that it MUST NOT be done! Such is ever the way of rebellion.

It is precisely similar in the Book of Romans. PAUL, there is "called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God" (1:1), and has "received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations, for His name: among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ." Can he declare it? Yes. Is it to all? Yes.

His place? Apostle...(Church built on apostles & prophets as FOUNDATION, Christ the corner stone - Ephesians 2:20. Moving foundations is... dangerous to a building.) His stress ? OBEDIENCE to the faith (cf. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20). Those to hear him in his role? "all nations" -v.5. Why ? "For His name". How does he address them, with this international authority? "Avoid" causers of variants from this faith so presented, with its obedience requirement. Is there qualification or limit stated? No. Is he a master builder (I Cor.3:10), and a wise one appointed? Yes. Are we licensed to defect? No. [ See also Separation, in The Kingdom of Heaven ...pp. 108ff..]

10. Because of which God has highly exalted Him. Paul says: "God forbid that I should glory EXCEPT in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the World."
 

Go to next section.