Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Uncategorized

  • My Dad’s Bible

    You’ve probably heard the saying, “A Bible that’s falling apart usually belongs to someone who isn’t.” Little proverbs like this can be misleading. I know some folks who are not believers in any sense of the word, and whose main purpose in studying is to find new ways to attack the faith of those who do believe, and who wear out Bibles quite regularly.

    But in general, I think this one is quite accurate, and that fact concerns me. The problem is that folks that I encounter in various churches are much more likely to have Bibles that are weighted with dust, than ones that are falling apart. I have learned that I cannot assume that individuals in my classes know the outlines of such stories as Ruth, Esther, Elijah, or King David. That applies even to churchgoers who are active enough to show up for a weekend with a visiting teacher, and thus to be meeting me on a Friday night! It’s hard to teach about more difficult topics when one can’t refer to basic stories without actually tellling the whole story right then.

    Our words indicate that the Bible is important to us. I don’t encounter many Christians of any flavor or tradition stream who will say that studying the Bible is unimportant. But if I ask just what they do about that, it’s a different matter. One common request I get is for a quick way to study the Bible, perhaps “How to Know your Bible in 5 Minutes Per Day.” I haven’t invented such a plan, and I think it will always fail, because to study and know the Bible is in many ways also to study and know the God of the Bible, and we will never actually finish doing that (Ephesians 3:18-19).

    I have a Bible that I inherited from my father. He was no longer using it for the simple reason that it’s very hard to use. Pages will fall out as you try to turn them. It’s also a pocket Bible, and the print was a bit small at the time he gave it to me. The margins were filled with notes, and there was marking from cover to cover. He obviously needed a new one. But I wanted to keep this one.

    Last week, my father finished his race. I was there, and then I preached the funeral. As we were talking about him, my mother commented on how often I talk about that little pocket Bible. She offered me his current Bible, since I was most likely, amongst my generation, to appreciate it. There turned out to be a problem, however, because there were actually two Bibles. One had a replacement cover my sister had made, and was really the last Bible he used. The other was also marked up, with no space left on the flyleafs, and marginal notes throughout. I was paging through it before I wrote this, thinking I might comment on some of what he had marked, but that would largely be a futile exercise. There are markings everywhere, including Leviticus and Numbers. (I’ve heard people claim to have read the Bible through, but admit to skipping those books.)

    Now I have a new Bible to treasure in memory of my father. But the question is this: Is this just a book and a memorial, or does it have meaning?

    My father was never very demonstrative. He was a physician who served as a missionary. He rarely preached, only occasionally gave Bible studies, but regularly witnessed. His witness remained simple and straightforward. His strength was in Jesus, his Lord.

    I recall my parents praying regularly, at least morning and evening, but if possible three times a day, as did Daniel the prophet. (If you don’t know, go find the reference for that. It’s in the midst of some very worthwhile reading!)

    My father made it a habit to pray with each patient that he saw, before every surgery, and on his rounds. Sometimes he and my mother, an RN, would even sing for patients when they made rounds.

    After emergency surgery in Guyana in 1971, my father was told he would never work again, and that he would not live more than 10 more years. It was suggested that he return to the states. He and my mother responded, “God sent us here to do a mission, and we haven’t done it yet.” They called for the elders of the church, anointed my father with oil and prayed for his healing. Two weeks later he became the sole physician for a 54 bed hospital and worked at that task for a year before he had any relief. He lived until about 1 1/2 weeks ago, and went home at the age of 86.

    When he was being taken into the operating room for his last surgery, my mother asked him how he felt. He said, “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness. It doesn’t matter how I feel!” Before he was given the anesthetic, he called the surgeons and asked to pray with them. He did this when he was so weak he could not walk.

    It sounds to me like these “falling apart” Bibles belonged to someone who wasn’t!

    My question for myself, and for all of you is this: Are you so sure of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that you can say, “It doesn’t matter how I feel?” Dad didn’t get the ability to say that all of a sudden. It was a lifetime of wearing out Bibles, wearing out the knees, and exercising the faith that God had given him (and he would not accept credit for any of this–“It is the gift of God,” he would say) that let him face the end of this life and the prospect of eternity with simple confidence.

  • Ephesians 6:18: Always Pray in the Spirit

    Today as I was driving I noticed a church sign with a message that went something like this: “As a child of God, prayer is like phoning home every day.” Perhaps I’m being too tense about it, but it seems to me that prayer is very much unlike phoning home every day. In fact, to paraphrase the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “phoning home every day” is almost, but not quite totally unlike phoning home every day.

    Phoning home every day, or even somewhat less, was quite adequate for my relationship with my parents when I went away to college. They were happy even with a weekly phone call. There weren’t so many flat rate long distance plans in those days, so they preferred a few letters, and something like a weekly phone call that we kept short.

    But there was a big difference between my developing relationship with my parents when I was in my late teens, and my developing relationship with God today. I was establishing independence from my parents, as is appropriate. I am hoping to get closer and closer to God right up to the end of my race here on earth. My parents were not always present, always aware, and always available, nor did they have “the plan.” God, as I know him, does. “E.T. phone home” is not the formula for an active prayer life.

    (more…)

  • Genesis 6:1-4: Sons of God and Human Beings

    These four verses provide a rather unusual interlude, coming between the genealogy of the patriarchal line in chapter five, and the story of the flood that truly begins in verse 5. I’m attributing them to the redactor who combined the J and P sources of the flood, though I think they work better with the P source. This is not the standard interpretation. The reason I suggest it is that:

    1. The style is neither that of J or P, despite the use of YHWH as the divine name.
    2. The instance of YHWH could well be the work of the redactor.
    3. The J source has explained the presence of evil in the world through the fall of chapter 3 and Cain’s sin of chapter 4.

    I could easily be wrong about all that, but it’s just a quick suggestion. Now to the interpretation.

    Wherever it started, this passage fits quite well into the final form of the story, giving us a reason for God’s action in sending the flood.

    1Now when human beings began to get numerous all over the land, and they gave birth to daughters, 2the sons of God {or “sons of the gods” or “divine beings} saw the daughters of the human beings. They saw that they were good looking, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose.

    There are three major suggestions for the meaning of “sons of God.” Before I list those, let me note that the translation could be “sons of the gods” as well, and that this would present the option of “divine beings.” The three major options are:

    1. The sons of the gods are divine beings such as angels. (The New Bible Commentary)
    2. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and followers of God (Matthew Henry)
    3. The sons of God are human beings who are possessed by or under the control of demonic powers (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    (Commentary listings are just examples. There may be many more commentators who hold the same position.

    If the “sons of the gods” are divine beings, then the “sons of men” should be translated “human beings” or something similar, as I have done. If they are the descendants of Seth, then the “sons of men” would be the Kenites or descendants of Cain. If you take the third option, that they are human beings controlled by demonic forces, you would reverse the situation in option three, and in terms of physical form, at least, the sons of God would be the Kenites, while the sons of man would be the descendants of Seth.

    I think that the best parallel to the use of the term in this passage is Job 1:6, in which it is clear that supernatural beings are intended. In this case, the marriages between these supernatural beings and the human women result in ancient heroes and the “nephilim.” At the same time, wickedness increases, with very little in the way of limitations, because people live for so long. The long lives, as noted in chapter 5, help with passing on the patriarchal tradition, but this long life also allows some pretty incredible planning for evil.

    3Then YHWH said, “My spirit will not always work among human beings, considering that they are flesh. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” 4There were giants {Nephilim} on the earth in those days, and also after the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and bore children by them. These were heroes, the famous men of ancient times.

    God quickly reminds everyone that he is the one that is in charge. There’s to be a reduction in the lifespan, but don’t miss the way it happens. God withdraws his spirit, his breath of life.

    (29) You hide your face, and they are disturbed;
    You bring their breath to an end,
    And they return to their dust.

    (30) You send forth your breath, and they are created;
    So you renew the face of the ground.

    — Psalm 104:29-30 (from my paper Psalm 104: God, Creator and Sustainer

    It’s easy to forget as we rebel against God that all life, and even all existence depends on him. So rebellion against God, while it may seem to be a liberated way to live, is actually simply the way to death. As we look at the flood, we will want to consider this option of God withdrawing himself, and at the same time withdrawing his protection.

  • The Two Flood Stories Updated

    I’ve just reposted my essay The Two Flood Stories, correcting some links, improving the notes a bit, making some verse numbering a little bit clearer, and adding a section concluding the flood story. This editing was in preparation for continuing my Genesis series here by discussing the flood story. Thus far, I’ve discussed through Genesis 5. Probably later today, I’ll make a general post on Genesis 6.

  • Hebrews 2:10-18: Like His Brothers and Sisters

    While chapter 2 is not the core or torso of the argument of the book of Hebrews, it is at least one of the legs on which it stands. To prepare yourself to look at these last few verses, re-read the entire chapter, and then consider looking again at my posts:

    I believe that many of us have trouble with the humanity of Jesus. It’s easier to present Jesus as totally divine; that doesn’t risk his holiness, his sinlessness, and his otherness. And all of those elements are important, as I have discussed before. In the atonement, Jesus brought infinite, holy, omniscient, omnipotent God into contact with a humanity that was anything but those things. It’s really hard to imagine. I believe seeing Jesus as truly human is much harder than it is to see him as the divine coming king.

    There are three key reasons for this, I believe. First, we have convinced ourselves that despite much scripture to the contrary, human beings are truly wretched creatures without a shred of value. The atonement should, at a minimum, make one think about that proposition. Value is determined by what buyers are willing to pay, and look just what our buyer was willing to pay. (Note that I’m not saying, “self-sufficient” or “capable of saving ourselves.”) Second, we have become afraid that the human side of Jesus will defame his majesty. Third, however, I think that the human Jesus challenges us more directly in a moral and ethical sense, as exemplified by the words of verses 1-4 or chapter 2. If Jesus was less that truly human, then we have a ready-made excuse for our own failures.

    Hebrews is a book that is not strong in the excuse department; it’s strong in the challenge department, and that’s where we’re getting here in chapter 2. Jesus is like us. He suffered (v. 10), he’s our brother (v. 11), he shares flesch and blood (v. 14), he even shared death with us (v.15), all this was not for angels, but was rather for human beings (v. 16). Because he is one of us, he can sympathize with us (v. 17). He has suffered like us, and so he can sympathize with those who are being tested (v. 18). All this relates closely to Hebrews 4:14-16 as well, which we will study more later.

    Comments

    10For it was appropriate for him {God}, because of whom everything exists and by means of whom everything exists, in bringing many sons into glory, to perfect the pioneer of their deliverance through suffering.

    Note that this does not refer exclusively to the suffering of the cross, but rather to the suffering that is involved in being human. Jesus was made perfect or complete as a priest and as a sacrifice by sharing suffering with us as human beings. Thus he became the pioneer of our deliverance.

    11Indeed, the one who is making holy and those being made holy are of one essence. For this reason he {Jesus} is not ashamed to call them brethren. 12For he says:

    “I will proclaim your fame among your brethren,
    In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise songs to you.”
    [Psalm 22:22]

    13
    “I will continue to put my trust in him.”
    [Isaiah 8:17 LXX]

    Again, the humanity of Jesus is affirmed. In the next few verses we will see a little bit more about this. We can truly use the pronoun “we” when we refer to Jesus and the rest of us.

    . . . and again 14Since then the children share blood and flesh, he himself likewise shares the same things. In this way, by means of death he can do away with the one who has the power of death, namely the devil.

    It’s interesting that we usually talk about the lies the Devil has told about God, and indeed he has lied about God, but we don’t always see the lies that he has told about human beings. One of those unsuccessful lies was telling us that we would not die. But the first parents, and every one of us know that we will die, and for us that is a frightening prospect. No matter how much intellectual evidence a person has, there seems to still be some fear of death. That’s because this body, this person cannot experience what is beyond. As Christians we have a great hope.

    Jesus is the pioneer. How does Satan hold us down here? It’s largely through fear. Before my son had cancer, from which he eventually died, I did not really understand this aspect of fear. In the oncologist’s office, on the hospital ward, amongst our friends, even in church, the essence of being ill with cancer was fear. That was really the greatest enemy. James conquered that fear. No, I don’t mean that he was no longer afraid at all, but he didn’t let it stop him. He was able to live those last months of his life. Why? Because Jesus gave him that power. The pioneer had gone before. When he died there was sorrow, but there was also peace.

    15So he can release those who were subject to servitude all their lives by fear of death.

    The problem here is that the fear of death prevents us from living. Our lives are stolen away from us not by death, though that terminates this life, but by the constant fear of death along the way. The resurrection gives us another option.

    16For clearly he is not concerned with angels, but rather with the seed of Abraham.

    We are further reminded that all of this discussion is truly of human beings and not of angels. There are twin dangers. On the one hand we can decide we’re good enough on our own, and not seek salvation. On the other we can decide we’re not good enough even for God to rescue.

    17For this reason it was necessary for him to be like his brethren in all ways, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest concerning divine matters {matters dealing with God} in order to cleanse the sins of the people. 18Because he was tested by the things he suffered, he is able to sympathize with those who are tested.

    Notice this “like his brethren in all ways.” I think that Jesus left behind the powers of divinity, but not the character of God. He lived as human beings must live. He grew (Luke 2:52) and he agonized in prayer even in Gethsemane. I think he had to learn of God’s plan as we do, listening to the Holy Spirit. This was not because he was, in fact, less than God, but rather because, though he was God, he chose not to exercise those extra powers of divinity and to depend on the Father for that guidance and that power.

    Thus he becomes not only capable of being our pioneer, he becomes a challenge to everyone. Can we depend on the Father in the way that Jesus did? Can we submit so totally to God’s will that nothing will take us aside? That’s the challenge of this chapter.

  • Hebrews 2:5-9: Lower than the Angels

    I’m finally getting back to my series on Hebrews. I apologize for the delay. I will also be posting new entries soon in the series on Isaiah 24-27 and Genesis, where we will be going to chapter 6. In the meantime . . .

    I’m taking a very short piece of a passage for this entry to try to keep things at a workable length. I will tie this into the larger message of chapter 2, which deals with Jesus as an appropriate savior because he is like us as humans. We’ve already looked at part of this in discussing the human and divine aspects of the priesthood of Jesus.

    5Now it was not to angels that he {God} subjected the world to come, which we are discussing. 6Rather, somewhere it is affirmed:

    “What is man that you remember him,
    or the son of man that you are concerned with him?
    7You made him lower than the angels for a little while;
    You crowned him with glory and honor.
    8You placed everything in subjection under his feet.”
    [Psalm 8:5-7 LXX]

    Now in subjecting everything to him, he leaves nothing that is not subject. Yet now we do not yet see everything subject to him. 9But in the phrase “a little while less than the angels” we see Jesus, through the suffering of death, “crowned with glory and honor,” in order that by the grace of God he might taste death on behalf of everyone. — Hebrews 2:5-9 (TFBV)

    Let me outline the message first, and then discuss a couple of interesting problems. Having established in chapter 1 that Jesus is greater than the angels, our author is about to tell us that Jesus is (or was) lower than the angels. You could do worse than to take as your outline Philippians 2:5-11. Jesus is first greater than the angels, then God made him lower “for a little while” and then after that he is crowned with glory and honor. While the sequence is not established here, in both cases “crowned with glory and honor” is inextricably linked with being temporarily made lower than the angels, i.e. a human in all ways.

    Our author gets the words for this from Psalm 8. Now if you have a couple of different translations, or if you know both Greek and Hebrew, you may encounter an interesting problem. The NASB, for example, reads “a little lower than God” in Psalm 8:5. Obviously this wording is not in agreement with our author’s use of the passage. While the NIV uses “heavenly beings,” which will work with “angels” as quoted in our passage, but they still translate “a little lower.”

    In order to make his point, our author needs the reading of the LXX, which is the Bible he’s using. There the Greek word bracu, which can mean “for a little while.” Only in the particular translation that he is using is does this passage mean what he needs it to mean. Indeed, though there may be an alternate reading in some undiscovered Hebrew manuscript, this is not a probable translation of the Hebrew text as we have it.

    There are two elements of difference. First, does the verse mean “a little” or “for a little while.” Does this speak of someone who, for a period of time, became lower than the angels, or does it speak of someone who is, by nature, a little bit lower. Second, is it “angels” or “God”?

    The Hebrew word here is “elohim” which is plural in form, but may be singular of plural in meaning. I think that it is rarely correct to translate this as “divine beings” or angels. It refers to the gods of various nations in many cases, and one could use “divine beings” in that case, but that is to conceal the normal intent of the authors which is to specify that they were thought of as gods by their worshippers, but were not so regarded by the Israelites. Thus I prefer the NASB and NRSV translation of this passage.

    As for “a little while” as opposed to “a little bit” the only evidence in favor of this reading for the Hebrew passage is the translation from the LXX. This does not mean that it is impossible, simply that we seem to have no good evidence for it. In addition, in the context of Psalm 8, time does not seem to be in view. The subject is humanity and its place in creation. God made human beings a little bit lower than himself, and crowned them with glory and honor, subjecting all of creation (on earth) to them.

    For translators, this presents a problem. Do you harmonize the passages? Do you present a footnote informing people in the two places? Some people do call for harmonization, but most translators would not consider that ethical. It would be a lie–concealing the actual statements of scripture in order to protect people from knowledge of a scriptural difficulty.

    Personally, I don’t regard the author of Hebrews as presenting us with an exegesis of Psalm 8, but is rather using the wording and epanding it into his own point. It’s a different look at the words. If the passage depends on an exegesis of the Psalm, then we would truly be in trouble, but the wording itself works wonderfully with his subject.

    But is there a further theological connection? I think that there is. Human beings were originally created a little lower than God, and in becoming our redeemer Jesus became our representative. This is one of the aspects of our extended discussion of the priesthood. As such we see a tie here between the creation and the incarnation. God emptied himself into his own creation, making himself in some sense subject to the laws of the physical universe, and even to the choices made by the creatures he created. As I go back to Genesis 6, we will see that God can be grieved by his creation.

    In the same way that he created humanity in the first place, God placed himself in the same state as humanity, with the final result that both Jesus, our priest, and all of humanity might be crowned with glory and honor.

  • Devotionals on Mark

    Recently I have been writing a number of devotionals for my wife Jody to use on her devotional list. Since one of my devotional readings right now is working through the book of Mark, I thought some readers of this blog might be interested. You can find these entries starting at: Monday Morning Devotion 7/31/06. There may be others interspersed. I’ll be reading in Mark 6 this morning and writing, though those devotionals may not appear on the list for some time.

    These are devotional thoughts and not exegetical notes. The purpose of the devotional list is quite different from this blog.

  • Christ’s Restraining Love

    12We’re not recommending ourselves to you again, but we’re giving you an excuse to boast about us again, so that you may have a response to those who boast in appearance and not in the heart. 13For if we are out of our minds, it’s for God, if we are wise, it’s for you. 14For the love of Christ keeps us on track, because we judge that one has died for all, therefore all have died. 15And one died for everyone, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but rather for the one who died and was raised. — 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (TFBV)

    Look at the CEV as well: 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (CEV). (I’m going to make a practice of helping people practice what I preach. Due to copyright concerns on the amount of Bible that I quote online, I generally use my own translations for reference, and I post these in my totally free Bible version project. But it is a project not a translation, and is not even intended to replace any existing translations. What the project does is allow me to have all my working translations, going back more than 20 years, in one place, and to use them as placeholders for commentary. So to help people practice what I preach, I’m going to link to a favored translation on Bible Gateway as I’ve done above.)

    Over on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog I’ve been discussing essentials of the Christian faith. In addition, in a discussion sparked for me, at least, by Peter Kirk (latest post and by lingamish (Is charismatic a slur?), we’ve been discussing “charismatics” and the gifts of the Spirit.

    In looking at this short passage I’d like to tie these together just a bit. To me the gospel has a simple core, which is God’s presence in the world through Jesus Christ for the purpose of redeeming the world. That core can be expanded and discussed until the universe comes to an end and beyond, but the center remains simple. A good Christianity, then, is Christ centered, and a Christianity that is off-target is one that is no longer Christ-centered.

    That’s Paul’s message here. I translated it, “The love of Christ keeps us on track.” The CEV has “We are ruled by Christ’s love for us.” In either case, Christ’s love is defining. Now go back one verse, where I translate “If we are out of our minds, it’s for God.” The CEV adds the word “seem” there, and I think there’s some justification. But the relationship is that anything that we do that might seem crazy is done in relationship to God. Christ’s love, which is God’s love manifested in Jesus the Christ, is what puts the restraint on it. That’s why in the second part of the verse Paul’s says that if we seem (or are) in our right minds, it’s for you.

    The controlling factor is the love of Christ, shown to us, that “keeps us on track” or “rules us” and makes us keep our focus on the people we serve or to whom we minister.

    Seemingly good theology, or seemingly good spiritual gifts, or anything “seemingly good” can be destructive. What constrains it (ASV), what “keeps it on track,” what “rules it,” is the love of Christ, specifically incarnational love.

    I was visiting a United Methodist Church that had a history of being very charismatic. I was soon going to teach there, and I simply wanted to get a feel for the congregation. I was asked to talk about spiritual gifts in a Sunday School class. In that class was a couple who would not identify any spiritual gifts that they believed they had received. With very little encouragement others in the class commented on their service, their hospitality, their helping, and so forth. After the class they came to me in tears and said that they had felt like second class citizens because they did not speak in tongues. Nobody was telling them they had to, but there was an atmosphere that suggested that the really spiritual people spoke in tongues.

    Now I don’t want anyone to be less joyful in the gifts that God has given you, but people in that church who were rejoicing in their own gifts were failing in the second half–being wise for the sake of others. The love of Christ keeps our practice of the gifts on track. It’s no accident that we see this command here, and it’s no accident that in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 is placed between 12 & 14. The love of Christ keeps us on track!

    There is one more point I’d like to make from this passage. Paul doesn’t just refer to the death of Jesus, but also to his resurrection, the power of life that was in him. We can take the fruit of the Spirit as an ethical mandate, but as such it’s always going to seem a bit limp and ineffective. But when we empower the fruit, especially love, with the presence of the Holy Spirit manifested in the gifts of the Spirit, we will have ministry in power. Fruit alone, as a dry ethical mandate will be insufficient. Gifts alone will be powerfully dangerous. Gifts ruled by fruit are just powerfully good.

  • Ben Witherington on Supercessionism and Dispensationalism

    Ben Witherington has an excellent post on Hebrews and supercessionism and dispensationalism. I don’t agree with every point he makes, though I do agree with the bulk of it, and I consider this a good article to read to help clarify the theology of Hebrews.

  • Tongues and Hearing

    Adrian Warnock has quoted a section from Martin Lloyd Jones on the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. (Thanks for Peter Kirk for linking to earlier parts of this discussion.)

    There are two comments I would like to make on this issue, both of which relate to the Biblical background material.

    First, commenting on the view that Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians refer to two completely different gifts, he says (as quoted by Adrian Warnock):

    But, again speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to accept that view because I find that the terms which are used in Acts and in 1 Corinthians are precisely the same and it seems to me to be unnecessary to postulate two different meanings, if one will account for it all. ‘But,’ someone may say, ‘we are told that on the Day of Pentecost everyone heard the apostles speaking in their own language.’ Of course. That seems to me to be a part of the miracle that took place. In other words, I suggest that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the people who were listening were enabled to hear in their own language though their own language was not being spoken.

    I think there is a bit of a problem here in that the use of the same terms in different contexts need not have precisely the same meaning. Terms generally have a range of meanings, and we might better ask the question of just what range of meaning these terms can have. They are clearly used in different contexts. In Acts there is no mention of any problem with understanding. There are those who say they are drunk, and presumably do not understand the speech, but that is not an example of a problem with the gift in action, but rather with the response. In the Corinthian church we have the gift used in a worship service, not in a purely evangelistic setting. We clearly have some people exercising their tongues (double meaning intentional), while nobody is understanding, and thus nobody is being built up. We have individuals giving the interpretation, indicating that only some were able to understand, at least on a regular basis.

    Dr. Lloyd-Jones has a good point, I think, when he points to a miracle of hearing, rather than one of speaking. But are these differences sufficient to show that this was a different gift? I question whether this is so. I would suggest that the gift of tongues should be given a broader range, as a gift of divine communication, perhaps an impartation of God’s control over language itself. This was applied in Acts through a miracle of hearing, because that fit the situation. It can be applied in prayer individually to a form of spiritual communication, and it can be applied in the worship service with interpretation. All of these instances would refer to the same gift, but in different circumstances.

    I would note here that often in discussing spiritual gifts we take a restrictive sense, determining that only the precise application of a gift that we can find described in scripture is appropriate. I would rather apply an inclusive sense, determining the outer boundaries of the gift of tongues scripturally, and allowing the actual application of the gift to flow within those boundaries.

    A second point I would like to note is this, again quoting Dr. Lloyd-Jones:

    So if you meet people who say they speak in tongues, or if you have been at a meeting where this is claimed, and if there was disorder and confusion, then you are entitled to say, in terms of the scriptural teaching, that whatever else it may have been, it was not the gift of tongues as described in the church at Corinth.

    Adrian Warnock commented earlier on his post on this part of the quote:

    The Doctor is not easily pidgeon-holed and seems to want to, in one sense, go further than most charismatics would go by saying that tongues in Acts AND 1 Corinthians were not, in fact, foreign languages. He is eager to stress the need for decency and order, however, to the point where he believes that tongues not done in order cannot actually be tongues at all – which seems a bit strange since Paul seems to be addressing a situation where disordered tongue-speaking WAS in fact occurring.

    I think I see here possibly the result of another difference in understanding the gifts of the Spirit. I don’t know Dr. Lloyd Jones’s work well enough to know how he approached this, but it’s worth calling attention to the difference anyhow.

    Some interpreters who do belief that the gifts continue, don’t see the gifts as given to the person for that person to exercise, but rather see the gift as given for a specific occasion. One description I have heard is: “I have been given the gift of healing (or some other gift) at some times.” In this view, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a specific time and place, and thus if something that appeared to be a gift was exercised out of order, one could not attribute it to the Holy Spirit; that would be accusing the Holy Spirit of disorder.

    I believe it is more in accord with scripture to view the gifts as given to the individual Christian (though distributed according to the will of God for the needs of the church), and that the individual must choose to exercise them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Due to our own imperfection, we could exercise our gifts improperly. That improper exercise could involve the gift of tongues just as easily as it could involve the gift of teaching. I don’t lose my ability to teach just because I’ve taught error. I’m given the responsibility to exercise my gift properly.

    As an illustration, the first time I encountered a word from the Lord given in a tongue followed by an interpretation, the individual with the word spoke first, and then the pastor called for the interpretation. In the end, we had both the tongue and the interpretation together and thus order. But I happen to know that the interpreter didn’t really want to give that word; she was obedient and spoke, but she could have chosen to be silent. Would the Holy Spirit have been retroactively less present in the original word because the interpreter refused to present the hard message she would rather not have presented?

    I acknowledge that I don’t have a slam dunk on this, but I do think that it is much more in accord with scripture, especially with the stories of God’s servants, to see gifts as given with the one who receives them having the opportunity and responsibility to use those gifts appropriately.