BUSINESS, OR MINISTRY?

Taken from my Facebook, first posted several years ago.

A recent post on social media has me concerned that many people treat ministry like it was business. While the two endeavors are similar, especially concerning logistics, acting as if ministry is just a business produces reduced and sometimes negative results.

   The post in question told the story of a man who presented himself as a "professional" soul winner. He showed up in a California city with a plan to get the whole town saved. He invited the city's pastors to a special meeting where he would present the plan to them.

   He displayed a large street map of the city and marked with push pins the location of each pastor's church building. He then drew a circle around each pin.

   Then he told the pastors that the people who lived in each circle were members of the congregation represented by the circle, and the pastors just need to go out and tell them.

   When I read that, I immediately recognized that it was a business plan, and not a ministry plan. It resembles the plan used by large corporations that have multiple locations in large cities; chains such as McDonald's, Quik Trip, Autozone, etc.

  The problem with this approach to ministry is that it shifts the focus of ministry from obedience to results, and the responsibility for results from spirit to flesh.

   I could go on about how often I see this happen, because I don't see the need to do that, but I will give one example. Years ago, a local Tulsa pastor spoke at a ham radio club meeting about applying church growth techniques to club growth. The methods he presented were the same as those used by businesses to recruit and retain new customers. Obviously, someone learned how to apply those business practices to congregational growth. Denominational organizations must have picked up those practices and taught them to their pastors.

   Now, I must state that God will bless and use any ministry effort that lines up with His will. How much He can use them depends on how much they line up with His will. The closer the alignment, the bigger the blessing.

   How should we conduct ministry? Let's look at what Jesus said and did.

   When Jesus called His first disciples, He said, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men."

   Before we consider what He said, let's look at what He didn't say.

   He didn't say, "I will make you soul winners." While you chew on that, look into the origin of the term "soul winner."

   He didn't say He would teach them the business of fishing, and how to apply those lessons to making converts. They were professional fishermen. They already knew how to catch and sell fish. What could a carpenter-turned-rabbi teach them about that? They knew He was talking about something beyond their daily lives of boats, nets, smelly fish, and spending hours out on the lake.

   In John chapter 3, Nicodemus wanted to know how Jesus was able to perform miracles, for might have wanted to work miracles too. Jesus talked about the New Birth instead of His success in ministry.

   Later on, in the Gospel of John, Jesus claimed that His teaching was not His own, it came from His Father, and He only did what He saw His Father do. When the people asked Jesus how to do the works of God, He said, "Believe on Him whom He has sent."

   We see throughout the Gospels that Jesus spent large amounts of time in prayer. That's how He was able to receive teaching, and to see what His Father was doing. When He said, "Follow Me," He meant, "Stay close to Me, as I stay close to My Father."

  When the Corinthian believers began to separate into groups based on their favorite preachers, he told them those preachers were merely servants through whom they believed, that one sowed, another watered, but God gave the increase. Paul did not take credit for the results of his ministry.

  What this all comes down to is this: the best approach to ministry is to pray and listen continuously, until God speaks. Then do what He says. While obeying, trust Him to provide whatever is needed to complete His plan, and continue to pray and listen in case He has further instructions.

Since then, I have learned that some ministers started their ministries with the intention of running them like businesses.  They turned worship services into entertainment without real ministry.  Megachurches would open up new campuses (campi?), just like franchises.  Angels cry "Holy! Holy! Holy!"  Posing pastors think, "Money! Money! Money!... MuuuuuhNEY!"

ENOUGH!!!

DOCTRINE BOMB! INCOMING!!!

Sometimes a false doctrine goes around like a battleship.  It sinks other ships, or attacks a coastal or island installation.  After it has done its damage, it returns to a friendly port for refuel, resupply, and repair.  While docked, command and crew assume the ship is safe.  But wait, what is that flying this way?  It's a doctrine bomb!

Well, I have seen a doctrine go around that has subtly caused damage by misdirecting focus.  What doctrine is that?  The doctrine that we can live by the faith of the Son Of God.

I know what Galatians 2:20 says in the King James, and the modern translations.  The KJV says "of," the recent versions say "in."  I wanted to see what the original Greek said.  I found out something surprising.  They are wrong!

What I found was that the Greek language does not have an equivalent to the English word 'of,' so it can't be there.  When I checked further, the Greek text does not say 'en,' the equivalent of 'in' either, so no word is there between 'faith' and 'Son.'  Now you see why I say that those translations are are wrong.

So the text should read like this:

Galatians 2:20 

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith _  the Son _ God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

What shall we put in the blanks?

I will admit that 'of' could fit between 'Son' and 'God.'  But the other blank presents a problem.

We could put in 'of,' but if we do, we should show it in italics to show that the word was the translator's choice.  How can we defend or explain that choice

What does 'of' mean anyway?  We usually use 'of' to indicate origin, possession, or nature.  Examples: 'man of steel' (nature), 'the heart of the matter' (possession), 'balm of Gilead' (origin).  Did Paul mean that he lived by faith that belonged to, or came from, or was made of Jesus?  I can't say for sure, but I can see danger in all these choices.  When I hear someone defend the KJV choice, they often speak in line with the New Thought based Word of Faith doctrine.  This doctrine emphasizes miracles, signs, and wonders, and minimizes salvation.  It also changes faith as a relationship feature into some mystical force that we can somehow manipulate or use to manipulate our environment.

I would favor 'in' for a very good reason.  Most people put their faith in their parents, their siblings, and their friends.

I see another option for filling in the blank.  It is not a word.  It is a punctuation mark, a colon.  That makes the phrase, "the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself up for me," into a statement, a confession of the faith Paul lived by.

We often forget the cultural environment that the Good News of Jesus was born in, and began to spread.  Most people grew up believing in many gods, and they saw their monarchs as gods, or descendents of gods.  They connected their gods to their homelands.  When one nation defeated another, they saw it as a victory of one god over another.  To prove one's citizenship and loyalty to one's god and country, they would confess their faith in their god.

When one expressed faith in a different god than the local god, they often faced opposition.  This could range from mild ridicule to death.  We can all read of the opposition Paul and the other early disciples faced.

Consider the following passages, and you can see they are, or contain, confessions, or statements of faith.

1 Timothy 3:16 NASB1995

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.

2 Timothy 2:8-13 NASB1995

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned.  For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.  It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;  If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we deny Him, He also will deny us;  If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Titus 3:4-8 NASB1995

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.  This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.

That first passage calls the mystery of godliness a common confession.  I believe this indicates the early disciples may have developed this statement of faith, and other statements, as standard confession of their faith in Christ.  Since the cannon of Scripture was not yet complete, and the Gentile disciples probably did have copies of the Jewish books, these statements may have also served as tools to help them remember doctrine as well.

Does it fit the context?

Well let's see -

Galatians 2:16-21 NASB1995

... nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.  But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be!  For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor.  For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.  I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith: the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.

Paul lived by trusting the Jesus who died for him, because he knew he didn't deserve such love.

THE RICH YOUNG RULER - A STUDY IN HUMILITY.

If you have been in Christian circles for a while, you have probably heard this episode in the life of Jesus as an example of someone who didn't make it to heaven.  I've had a problem with that interpretation, and, after considering factors that no one else presents, I now have a different view.

Luke 18:18 - 30 Legacy Standard Bible

And a ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good?  No one is good except God alone.  You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery,  Do not murder, Do not steal,  Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’ "

And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”

And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack: sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven. And come, follow Me.”

But when he heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.  And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!  For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

And those who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?”

But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”

And Peter said, “Behold, we have left all that is our own and followed You.”

And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.”

I recommend you also read the other accounts in Matt. 19: 16 - 30 and Mark 10:13 -16.  They contain valuable information that I will mention in this article.

Mark's record said the young ruler knelt before Jesus.  That is an act of submission and humility.  How many of us started our relationship with Jesus that way?  (Those crickets are getting loud, aren't they?)

The deeper meaning of the initial exchange between Jesus and the young man is something we often miss, because we don't consider the cultural context.  Jesus and the man were Jews.  They thought, talked, and acted like Jews.

The young man called Jesus good.  Jesus replied that only God was good.  Was Jesus correcting him, or was He implying something?

Deuteronomy 6:4 - 5 LSB

“Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!  You shall love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."

These two verses are central to the Jewish faith.  They are to the Jews what John 3:16 is to Christians.  The Jews call them the Shema, from the Hebrew word for "hear."

That statement that "Yahweh is one," not only means not only one being, but the only One Being!  Jesus was asking the rich young ruler, "By calling Me good, are you calling me God?  Are you recognizing my divinity?"

Well, did he?  Did he recognize Jesus as God?  Did he really humble himself?

I believe he did.

Why do I think he did?  Geography, and chronology.  In other words, where and when this took place says a lot about this event.

 Map of Judea Province

I confess,  I like to look at maps, even Bible maps.  Not too often do preachers or teachers refer to maps or terrain or locations but some do like to organize, promote, and conduct tours of the Holy Land.  I wish more people paid attention to the the layout of the area.  They don't have be as nerdy about maps as I am.  I just want people to know and understand truth.

In the map I linked above, locate the region of Galilee towards the top.  Now picture a line starting on the east (right) side of the Sea of Galilee going south (down) to just above the north end of the Dead Sea.  Now imagine the line going west (left) across the Jordan River to to Jericho.  Continue the line to Jerusalem.

That is the route that Galilean Jews would take to Jerusalem.  They went that way to avoid passing through Samaria.

This matters because Jesus was on His way to Jerusalem...for the very last time!  He met the young ruler before He crossed the Jordan.  We know this because in the next two events we see Jesus at Jericho, then He enters Jerusalem.

Back to the story.  We know Jesus tells the young man to keep the commandments.  He says BTDT, however they said that in first century Aramaic, but still no tee-shirt.  Jesus says more and the man leaves.

This is where the typical assumption is made, that the guy failed to make heaven because he LEFT.

But, what was the first thing Jesus said?  In the other accounts, the very first thing Jesus said was "go."  So, when he left, was he intending to do what Jesus said?

I believe he was.  Why do I think that?  Because of HOW he left.

Again, Matthew and Mark add information.  M&M (now I got you thinking about candy, don't I) say the man went away grieving.  Why does that matter?

Grief isn't just sorrow, it is sorrow felt at a loss.  Let me illustrate...

Let's say you are driving down a busy street or highway, and you approach a traffic accident.  You pass by, and you can see signs that someone has been injured.  You feel sorry for them.

Now imagine that you recognize a car that was in that accident.  Close to that car is a coroner's vehicle, and responders are loading a body into it.  You realize you know the deceased, and you start to grieve.

Back to the story again.  Why would someone grieve over property he intended to keep?

Another argument made for the traditional interpretation is that the rich young ruler is not mentioned again in the New Testament.  Well, we need to consider the time factor again, along with some cultural background.

The man had a lot to sell, and that included land.  He most likely held an appointed position in the government.  They usually gave official posts only to landowners.  That was a common custom throughout history until the last couple of centuries.  We have no idea how much time he would need to sell everything, then give the money to the poor, then come back to follow Jesus.

This encounter probably happened 2 or 3 days before the Triumphant Entry.

As the man left, Jesus compares the entry of the rich into the Kingdom of God to the passing of a camel through a needle's eye.  I'm not going to rehash that statement.  All it means is that getting the rich to have a relationship with God will be very difficult.  The major moral problem for rich people is not greed, but pride.  Pride in what they own, what they have accomplished, what they can do with their wealth.

Jesus didn't say it was impossible, just extremely difficult.  Difficult enough to require God's grace.  Another way to say it is, true repentance requires humbling yourself as you recognize not only God's immense power, but His vast love and grace.

A PHARISEE, A PUBLICAN, CHILDREN, AND A RICH YOUNG RULER

What do these have in common?  First of all we find them in Luke 18:9 - 30. These verses all have a common theme: humility.

This article will deal with the first three, as the last one will require a post of its own.

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican

And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood and was praying these things to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’  But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his chest, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’  I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other, for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Luke 18:9 - 14. Legacy Standard Bible

Who were these men?

If you haven't heard, the Pharisees were a sect within Judaism that put an emphasis on keeping the law of Moses.  This emphasis goes back to when the Jews returned from the Babylonian Exile.

Before the Exile, the Jews saw themselves as God's people; living in God's land; their capital, Jerusalem, was God's city; and within that city was God's house, the Temple.  They saw the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the Exhile as God's judgment on them for not keeping the law.

Tax collectors were called pupblicans under the Roman Empire, but they were not on the government payroll.  They were contractors.  They would pay the tax for a given jurisdiction, a city or a district, and then recover that plus a little bit extra from the people.  They got to keep that extra for their pay.

The Roman government would specify how much that extra was.  But, the tax collectors would tell the people a larger amount than what the government specified.

That was fraud, but the people couldn't do much about it.  The tax collectors would be granted Roman citizenship, and so they had the backing of the Roman Army.

Most of the tax collectors in the province of Judea were Jews.  The taxes they collected financed the government operations in the region, from the army to building projects, including pagan temples.  The other Jews didn't like seeing their money go to pagan temples, so they saw the tax collectors as traitors to God and His people

What did these men have in common, besides being Jews?

They most likely were rich.  The Pharisees made a show of their religion, and people supported them for it, having been deceived into believing these "holy men" deserved to receive money.  The publican took his by force of law.

Rich people like to spend money on nice things.  The best food, housing, clothes, furniture and furnishings.  Also entertainment, including the proverbial wine, women, and song.

What was the major difference between these men?

Pride, humility, and how they saw God.

The Pharisee saw God as a God of Judgment.  When he looked into the Old Testament, he saw God acting in judgment, from the Garden of Eden, to the Babylonian Exile.  When he looked at himself, he thought he was safe from judgment not just because he kept the law, but because his "devotion" to God went beyond the law and even the Jewish traditions.  When he "prayed" he didn't talk TO God, he talked AT God.  That is, he assumed God would hear him because of his righteousness.  Self-righteousness is spiritual or religious pride.

The tax collector knew God was a God of Judgment, but he also saw God as a God of Mercy.  When he looked into the Old Testament, he saw God acting in mercy every time he saw Him acting in judgment.

His view of God caused him to humble himself, and ask God for mercy.  And he received mercy!

I see these two men in the Temple.  The Pharisee is standing up, ramrod straight, nose up in the air, and speaking in a loud voice, not because he wants God to hear him, but so he would impress the people.

The tax collector is probably leaning up against one of the pillars at the edge of the Temple.  His eyes are bleary, his head is pounding from a hangover, and his stomach is doingsomersaults, back flips, cartwheels, and pirouettes all at the same time.  He knows he can't  deny what he has done, or what he is.  But he also knows God will hear him! That is why he cried out for mercy.

What about the children?

In verses 15 through 17, Jesus rebukes His disciples for preventing people form bringing their children to Him.  He goes on to use children as an example of humility.  Notice, the children did not come on their own.  Their parents brought them.  The parents wanted blessings for their children, and so the children submitted to their parents first.  Jesus implies that as children in humility submit to loving parents, so we must humble ourselves to God as our loving 

Father to be part of His Kingdom.

Most false religions, doctrines, and practices have a false view of God.  A true view of God leads to humility.

MORE ABOUT THAT FIVE-FOLD THING

Since the post about Paul being a pioneer for the Gospel by opening up new areas, I have come to consider the implications for the Five-Fold Ministry.

One aspect of this is the chronological appearances of these ministries within a given geographic or demographic area.  Once an apostle opens up the area, prophets then appear to support the Apostles' doctrine to give direction to the new disciples' assemblies.

Once a sufficient number of disciples have been trained, elders are appointed, or recognized, to shephard, or pastor the flock.  All the elders are pastors, and not a board that rubber stamps the actions of a single leader.

Of course, other people in the given area still need to hear the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus.  So, comes the need for evangelists.  I am not a Greek scholar, but I have looked into the meaning of evangelist.  The English word is taken directly from the Greek word.  The best I   can determine is that an evangelist is a Good Newser, someone who is full of good news, and not just a travelling preacher.

The new disciples need a foundation of sound doctrines.  The elders may not be able to explain the truth of Scripture to every new disciple, possibly because of the number of new disciples.

This might have been the pattern of the early disciples of Christ.

This chronological view might also apply the list of gifts at the end of 1 Cor. 12.

FIVE-FOLD WHAT??

That title refers to a doctrine known as the Five-Fold Ministry.  This doctrine was first spread through Pentecostalism by a movement known as the Latter Rain.  Today it is a major part of the New Apostolic Reformation.

The major emphasis is on the restoration of apostles and prophets to the Body of Christ, along with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in order to produce a revival that will bring Jesus back to Earth.

Seems legit doesn't it?  Well, hold on to your Bible belts, muh frens...

But first, let's start with some Scripture:

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.  Therefore it says,

 “When He ascended on high, 

He led captive a host of captives, 

And He gave gifts to men.”

(Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also descended into the lower parts of the earth?  He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) And He Himself gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ, so that we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming, but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, that is Christ, from whom the whole body, being joined and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the properly measured working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Ephesians 4:7 - 16, Legacy Standard Bible

Hmmm, that passage does mention apostles and prophets, but it doesn't say anything about restoration or revival or bringing Jesus back to Earth.  Well, those other parts are taken from cherry-picked verse elsewhere in the New Testament.  I might cover those later if I see a need.  That last part is actually very dangerous, as we shall soon see.

Now, let's break down this passage.

First we see that we have received grace "according to Christ's gift."  Thank God!  We often forget, or we don't know, that Christianity is by His grace.  We don't deserve it, and we can't do anything to earn it, or to make ourselves worthy to receive it.  It's all Him!

You should be able to see why I said that part about us bringing Jesus back is so dangerous.  It shifts the responsibility for His return onto us and off of Him.  As if we were capable of doing that!  No, the only contribution we can make is to trust and obey.

The verse that mentions apostles, prophets, pastors, evangelists, and teachers, says He gave "some as..."  What does that mean?  Did He give men as gifts, or did He give men the gifts they needed to serve in the roles He called them to fulfill?  Which is more consistent with His grace?

Also, notice this passage doesn't contain the words five-fold or ministry.  We do see five roles, so that part is okay.

But, when we read or hear the word "ministry," we often think of clergy.  But ministry means service.  Not every member of the Body of Christ is called to one of the five roles mentioned, but we are all called to serve.

In the Gospels, Jesus said several times that "many are called, but few are chosen."  Sounds mysterious, doesn't it?  But to someone who worked in recruiting, it makes perfect sense.  A nation goes to war, and recruiters hit the streets, looking for bodies.  The branches of service compete for those bodies.  Young men and women sign up, and they go through a screening process.  Not everyone passes through the "screen." Many have been called, but few are chosen to continue in military service.

One thing I need to add here about the doctrine.  The proponents of the Five-Fold Ministry have labelled these roles as "offices."  They turn the whole concept into an authoritarian structure, with apostles at the top.  The ministers then become intermediaries between the people and God.  You need them to tell you what to believe, what to think, what to say or not say, who to marry, etc.  This just opens the door to abuse.

Contrast that with the rest of the passage.  The last phrase can tell if a congregation is lining up with this Scripture: "building itself up in love."

That's all I have for now.  I will post more about the "offices" later.

A WORD ABOUT CHURCH

That word, "church," gets thrown around a bunch.  It has come to have many meanings.  In its broadest meaning, we use it as a synonym for religion.  We also use it to designate a building dedicated for the instruction and practice of a religion.  A worship service is also called church.  

Those are okay uses for the word, but I  need to point out that we also use the word to mean the people who follow a religion, whether it's a local or worldwide group.

Do those other uses match what the Bible means when that word appears on its pages?  No.  Not at all.

When ever "church" appears in the English Bible, it is always a translation of the Greek word "ekklesia."  Ekklesia refers to people, especially citizens, that have been called out to assemble for a purpose.  At no time does it refer to a building or a religion.

You might be thinking, "So what?  Why is this information important?"  It is important so that we don't misinderstand God's Word.

So, why do we use "church" to mean so many different things?  Some of the words in Christianity have been taken from the Greek New Testament and transliterated into English, such as "baptism" and "Christ."  Why didn't that happen with Ekklesia?  Where did "church" come from?

The English word "church" does come from a Greek word, but not "ekklesia." The original Old English word was "chirchon." It came from the Greek, "kyriokos.". That word comes from two root words that mean "lord" and "house." So, it means "lord's house."

I surmise that once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the government let Christians use government facilities, or even gave them buildings. Some of those buildings where called "basilicas" in Greek. That word means, "king's house."

Since Greek was the predominant language of early Christians, they changed basilica to kyriokos.  Then any building used for Christian worship became kyriokos.  The word then migrated through other European langues, including German, "kirche."

GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT AND THE BODY OF CHRIST: PART TWO

If you haven't read my previous articles on prophecy and signs, please read them now.  I'll wait...

Now, in this article, I will continue this discussion by focusing on areas where I have seen misunderstanding of certain gifts.

TONGUES

Might as well start at the deep end...

All you have to do is read the read the Acts of the Apostles to see that speaking in tongues was part of Christianity.  I'm not going to get into the controversy over whether or not tongues are for today.  I have already studied and researched that issue for my myself, and decided that they are for today.  Not only that, they are needed.

The first thing I need to point out is the tongues I am speaking about are languages that are unknown to the speaker.  How can someone say something in a language they know nothing about?  Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:1 mentions tongues of men and angels.  We are well aware that humans have thousands of languages.  Apparently, angels have multiple languages too, but we don't know how many.  We don't need to know that.  What we do need to recognize is that the ability for someone to speak an unknown tongue does does not come from one's own mind, but it happens through a miracle.  Before I discuss this miracle, I need to address other issues.

Most of the confusion I see about tongues relates to their uses.  Not many realize that tongues have more than one or two uses.  But they are there in black and white in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 14.

In verses 2 and 13 through 17, Paul talks about tongues used in prayer.  First, he states that one speaking in tongues speaks to God.  Later, he talks of one blessing or thanking God in tongues.  But people around him won't be able to understand what is said.  As a matter of fact the one speaking in tongues doesn't know what he is saying.  Paul said that when he speaks in tongues this way, his spirit is edified, but his mind is unfruitful.  Why is his mind unfruitful?  Because his mind doesn't know what he is saying.  But he decides to pray with both his mind and his spirit.  This is why Pentecostal and Charismatic people talk about tongues as a prayer language.

So the first use of tongues is for a private prayer language.  The other uses of tongues are public.

The next use of tongues is to deliver a message to a local gathering of believers.  These messages need to be interpreted so the hearers will be able to understand what was said.  A message in tongues with interpretation equals a prophecy.

The next use of tongues is provide a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:20 - 25).  We see an example of this in the Acts of the Apostles in chapter 2, on the day of Pentecost.  The disciples had gathered in the Upper Room for the feast when they began to speak in tongues.  A crowd heard them outside, and they wanted an explanation of what and how this was happening.  Peter preached a short sermon, and 3 thousand got saved!  If you read Peter's message carefully, he pointed out how the speaking in tongues was a fulfillment of prophecy, and Jesus was able to fulfil the prophecy because He was risen from the dead.

Now, most of the remaining confusion I see concerning tongues relates not to what they are used for, but how to use them.  When it comes to prayer, the choice is yours when to start and when to stop.  For the other two uses, the choice is mainly up to the Holy Spirit, but you still have a choice.

In 1 Cor. 14:26 - 33, Paul gives practical instructions for the use of the gifts during disciples' meeting.  His emphasis is on orderly conduct so that all may be edified.  Towards the end, he indicates that those who speak, can still choose not to speak, in the interest of the benefit of all present.

I have more to say, so I will have to save that for Part Three.

ABOUT THAT TEN COMMANDMENTS THING...

I was thinking about that the other day, the move to put copies of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, school rooms, and other public places.  I know many people got behind it because they are concerned about crime and the "moral breakdown of society."  They think that putting the Ten Commandments up in public view would remedy that.

Others opposed it because they saw it as an attempt to impose religion on people through government effort.

While I can see truth on both sides, I have often considered other aspects of this issue.

Of course, the Ten Commandments are found in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, which is the Bible of the Jews.  The Ten Commandments have been at the heart of Judaism for thousands of years.

Most of the people backing the Ten Commandments have been Christians.  But, I wonder how the Jews feel about having God's word to them posted by government institutions...

The earliest Christians were Jews, but since the Second Century, most have been, and are, Gentile.

As Paul pointed out in his letter to the Christians in the Roman province of Galatia, Gentile Christians are not under the Law of Moses.  So, why do Gentile believers want the government to post Jewish commandments in government institutions?

Moses received the Commandments while on a mountain.  Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount early in His ministry.

The letter to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus is better than Moses, the angels, and the Law.  He brought us a better priesthood, a better covenant, and made a better sacrifice for our redemption.

In light of this, what if the Body of Christ focused on the Beatitudes instead of the Ten Commandments?

PROPHETS, PROPHECY, AND PROPHESYING.

I see a lot of confusion about these topics.  While this article is not going to go in depth, I hope it brings some clarity.

Throughout history, prophecy is the speaking or delivery of messages from the supernatural realm.  It mostly has been redarded a form of divination, a means to gain information about future events, or the outcome of planned events.  When one was curious about such things, they would seek out a prophet, a seer, a fortune teller, or a shaman, or some other kind of mystic.

Prophets in Christianity

We do see prophets in the Bible, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Are prophets in the Bible the same as they are outside the Bible?  Yes and no.  In the early OT books, people viewed all prophets the same.  But the further we look forward through the Scripture, the more we see God speaking through His prophets, men who spoke only for Him. Those who spoke their own thoughts, or thoughts of unclean spirits, were exposed as false prophets.

Now, I am speaking in generalities here, because to provide chapter and verse for every act or word of an OT prophet would require a book.  We already have that Book; we just need to read it and pay attention.

God used the OT and NT prophets primarily to provide direction to His people.  Sometimes that meant information about upcoming events, but it often came down to one word: REPENT!

In the NT, things start out the same.  John the Baptist came preaching a message of repentance.  He preached it to the people.  He preached it to priests and Pharisees.  He preached it to King Herod.  The only one he didn't preach it to was Jesus.

After Jesus rose from the dead, things changed, even for prophets.  God still uses them to give direction.  However, the Holy Spirit, speaking through Paul has given clarity.  After the Gospels, the prophets spoke to the body of Body of Christ.  When prophesying to believers, the guideline is now this:

But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation.  1 Cor. 14:3 NASB.

So, if you hear someone prophesying, or preaching, and their messages do not edify (build you up), exhort (tell you to do the right thing), or console (remind you of God's grace when things go wrong) anybody... Well, I'm not going to say they are a false prophet, but you will be right to not believe what they say, no matter what title they may hold, or how many visions, dreams, or angelic visits they claim to have had.

PROPHETS TODAY?

The previous paragraph brings up a point of controversy: Does the Body of Christ have prophets today.  Many believe not, but I do.  I could go into the Scriptures predicting restoratation, but I will leave that for another article.

I will address one question relating to this issue: do we need prophets today?

Jesus served as a prophet.  During his life, the Old Covenant was still in effect.  Through His life, death, burial, and resurrection, He fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant to establish the New one, which granted access to everyone, and not just the Jews.

In the time between His resurrection and ascension, He served as a prophet of the New Covenant.  So, He was the last OT prophet, and the first NT prophet.  Since Christ has the preeminence in all things (Col. 1:18), some say He is the last prophet they need.

But, the real question is: Is He the last prophet His Body needs?

Remember (or go back and read for yourself in John 13:26 - 17:26), what Jesus said about sending the Holy Spirit:

I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now...  John 16:12 - 15 NASB

We do see prophets in the Acts of the Apostles.  So the ministry of prophets was a real thing back then.  The early saints must have needed them.

But do we need them today?  Look at the news and social media.  Preachers accused of, and even arrested for, sexual or financial offences. False doctrines proclaimed from pulpits and over the airwaves, allowing for occultic practices to come into worship services and the personal lives of believers.  Shrinking attendance and donations lead to staff layoffs.  Even popular Christian singers have become embroiled in scandal.  Scandal has even touched a church related university.

Quite a number on ministers today claim to be prophets.  I doubt the validity of most of them.  WHERE ARE THE TRUE PROPHETS?