Is God an Egomaniac? Part 4

Here’s one more illustration of those who sincerely cannot get beyond God’s self-exaltation in Scripture. Brad Pitt did an interview for Parade in 2007 in which he explained why his boyhood faith did not work for him anymore. He was raised a conservative Southern Baptist. But it stopped working:

“Religion works. I know there’s comfort there, a crash pad. It’s something to explain the world and tell you there is something bigger than you, and it is going to be all right in the end. It works because it’s comforting. I grew up believing in it, and it worked for me in whatever my little personal high school crisis was, but it didn’t last for me. I didn’t understand this idea of a God who says, “You have to acknowledge me. You have to say that I’m the best, and then I’ll give you eternal happiness. If you won’t, then you don’t get it!” It seemed to be about ego. I can’t see God operating from ego, so it made no sense to me.  So there’s the heart of the matter. There is no doubt that this is exactly what God, and the Son of God, Jesus, say repeatedly in the Christian Scriptures: “You have to acknowledge me. You have to believe that I’m the best, and then I’ll give you eternal happiness.”

Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32–33)

So is Jesus and the Father egomaniacs?

Let’s look into this matter a little more closely.

The answer can be given in a syllogism.   Remember how this works?  

Premise #1: All men are mortal.

Premise #2:  Plato was a man.

Conclusion: Therefore, Plato was mortal.

Two premises, which if they are true, lead to a true conclusion.

I will try to use at first logic to make my point and then conclude with the authority of Scriptures.

Premise #1: Authentic love desires, works, cares, and is willing to suffer to give to others the fullest and long lasting happiness.

Premise #2: Being eternally raptured with Jesus as the decisive and complete revelation of God is to know the fullest and long lasting happiness in the universe.

Conclusion: Therefore, when Jesus tells us that we must love Him — treasure Him, be satisfied in Him — above all others, He is showing and demonstrating to us authentic love.

Here is the bottom line: God is the one being in the universe for whom self-exaltation is not the act of a needy ego, but an act of infinite giving (unselfish love). The reason God seeks our supreme praise, or that Jesus seeks our supreme love, is not because He’s needy and won’t be fully God until He gets it, but because we are needy and won’t be fully happy until we give it.

This is not arrogance. This is grace.

This is not egomania. This is love.

And the very heart of the Christian gospel is that this is what Christ died to achieve — our full and everlasting enjoyment of the greatness of God.  He is desiring and working and willing to suffer in order to enthrall us with the fullest and longest happiness, namely, Himself.

Christ suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God. (1 Peter 3:18).   And once He brings us to God, what are we hoping to find?

In your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psalm 16:11)

End of Part 4 - Conclusion

Praying in Tongues - A Rebuttal, Part 11

It is now time for me to conclude by rebuttal on Robert Morris’ message on “Praying in Tongues.” I appreciate his ministry and how God is using him to do mighty things in order to build the kingdom of God. I do not want to insinuate that just because I do not agree with his views on praying in tongues, that the man himself is not a godly man who does not love and serve the Lord from a genuine heart. That part I cannot judge, only the Lord judges us all with regards to our hearts.

But for those of you who still persist in praying in tongues, good for you. I got no issue with that. Pray gibberish all you want. It is no skin off of my back. I do not make praying in tongues an organized issue unless someone brings it up to me personally and ask for my thoughts on it, which is what occurred here when a good friend of mine, Roy Graham asked me to listen to Robert Morris’ message.

So in conclusion, I have some questions for those who are passionate tongue praying enthusiasts.

1. Why do different charismatic groups have different vowels and accents of praying in tongues?

Russian is always Russian no matter who speaks it. French is always French no matter who speaks it. My point? Whatever language is spoken, it does not change from culture to culture in its basic natural linguistic sense. But when it comes to praying in tongues, whatever nationality does it, they impose on it their own vowels and accents. Maybe there are various forms of gibberish!

2. Why did praying in tongues exist prior to the birth of Christianity?

The birth of the church can be biblically traced back to Acts 2 -- on the Day of Pentecost. This is where the Pentecostal movement traces its origin. This is the time speaking in tongues (2:4) was first introduced in the Bible as a gift from the Holy Spirit. This phenomenon was the result of people speaking languages that had not been previously known.

Yet praying in gibberish can be traced back for hundreds of years since then. Praying in gibberish had been practiced for many years along with other ecstatic phenomena by the prophets of the ancient religions of the Near East. Prophets and mystics of Assyria, Egypt, and Greece reportedly spoke in gibberish during states of ecstasy and uttered unintelligible phrases said to be revelations from the gods…The practice was known in ancient India and China, and ethnographies describe glossolalia in almost every area of the world. How can this be if this gibberish praying is said to be from the Holy Spirit?

3. Why did Jesus forbid gibberish praying if He knew what one day soon the Holy Spirit would give it as a gift?

Matthew 6:7: “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition (battalogeó) as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.”

The Greek word that was translated into “meaningless repetition” means “to blubber nonsensical repetitions; to chatter, using empty (vain) words.” and “to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate.” Here Jesus clearly tells us this is what the “pagans” (Gentiles) do. So pagans can pray in tongues without the aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

4. Why do non Christian religions include praying in tongues as part of their worship?

To make matters even worse or more confusing, not only are forms of praying in tongues present before the advent of Christianity, but are even now practiced in the more ecstatic fringe elements of other religions. In a large scale survey of American Christianity, the Pew Forum found that not only did 24% of Orthodox and 18% of Catholic responders claim to have spoken in tongues, but also groups like Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses have 11% and 8% of their adherents engaged in the practice of praying in a tongue.

Now it may be argued that the above are merely examples of the real gift being counterfeited. But remember, tongue praying was taking places years before the birth of Christianity. So why was there a need to counterfeit gibberish since Christianity had not yet been born?

5. If interpretation is said to be the missing ingredient mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14, then why don’t we see more of it?

This is what Paul said: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret: but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28). So Paul clearly states that if there is no one to interpret, keep silent!

6. If praying in tongues is the same as in the Book of Acts, then why isn’t it identified as a language?

Some would say, “It is a language. The language of angels!” Please, every time an angel in the Bible spoke, he spoke with a language that was understood by the listener. We have no account anywhere in the Bible where angels are babbling.

7. If praying in tongues is a bona fide language, then when interpretations are given, why different interpretations are given for the same vowels, accents and syllables?

If you ever been part of a praying in tongues gathering and someone who claims to have the gift of interpretation will interpret the meaning, and then sometime later, the same person saying the same gibberish will have it interpreted with a different meaning by someone else. How can this be?

8. If praying in tongues is a supernatural gift from the Holy Spirit, then why are so many who practice it are trained beforehand to do so?

When I prayed in tongues for six years, I simply learned how to do so. I could pray in a tongue while being deep in sin! Why? Because I learned how to.

9. If praying in tongues is so much a part of Christianity and a vital communication with God, then why didn’t Jesus show us the way?

In fact, of all the three places where spiritual gifts are mentioned -- Romans 12; 1 Cor. 12-14; Ephesians 4 and 1 Peter 4 -- tongues is never mentioned by Peter, James, John, Jude, and only mentioned by Paul because he had to correct the Corinthians who were abusing it.

And how is this: Tithing is mentioned in the Bible but hardly practiced. Praying in tongues is not mentioned and widely practiced!

10. Why do most of those who pray in tongues are only able to justify their practice by their experiences and not by using correct hermeneutical methods?

Every person praying in tongues that I have spoken to and listened to, always spent more times justifying their practice with their experiences than with sound hermeneutical principles of seeking truth from the Bible.

Then when they try to use the Bible, they do the following:

Leave out the context of the passage they use.

Skip over verses that goes contrary to what they are practicing.

Come up using eisegesis by which they add their interpretation to the text of Scripture.

Simply rely on the voice and wisdom from their favorite bible teacher or some well-respected personality within Christendom.

Conclusion: There is so much that just isn’t right and too many questionable areas regarding praying in tongues. I find it ironic that for some reason, tongues prayers believe that the highest point and potential of their prayers to God is to use gibberish that no one can understand, including the one praying, rather than simply pray in a language that can be understood.

Can I serve alongside of those who pray in tongues? Absolutely. Can I fellowship with those who pray in tongues? I do! I simply cannot support the practice of those who pray in tongues because I do not find scriptural support to do so.

End of Part 11 - Series Complete

Praying in Tongues - A Rebuttal, Part 10

In Robert Morris’ message on praying in tongues, he gives three points:

1. Praying in Tongues is Scriptural
2. Praying in Tongues is Beneficial
3. Praying in Tongues is a Choice.

I have already spent considerable time on points 1 and 2, now let’s tackle his third point. Robert Morris says praying in tongues in a choice. He uses 1 Corinthians 14:15:  “So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding.”

I am not sure why he uses this text. I think he is seeing this as a “both/and” and not as “either/or.” If you see this passage as “both/and” then Paul is saying, “So what shall I do? I am going to pray with my spirit.  And I am going to pray with my understanding. I will sing with my spirit, and I will sing with my understanding.” In other words, “I am going to do both. There will be times that I will pray in a tongue, and there will be those times that I will not pray in a tongue.  There will be times when I sing with a tongue, and there will be those time when I will not.  This verse is simply offering me two choices:  Pray with your mind or you can choose to pray in your spirit with a tongue.” In other words, do both!

However, if you take this passage as an “either/or,” it would read like this:  “What is the outcome then?  I shall pray with both my spirit and mind, and not just with my spirit only.  I shall sing with my spirit and mind, and not just sing in the spirit only.” So then, either I pray with both my spirit and mind, or I should be praying at all (or speaking at all - v. 28).

From the way the context of this passage flows, it would be best to see the second option as the more favorable one. For example:

Paul wrote earlier how he would prefer them to speak words of prophecy (14:4-5), since it is prophecy that edifies others and not gibberish. Paul goes onto tell them that if he should visit them and spoke in such a way that they could not understand -- such as in tongues without interpretation and meaning, what will it profit them? (v. 6)

Then Paul uses the example of musical instruments such as a flute, harp and bugle (vv. 7-8).   Even lifeless musical instruments have distinct tones that help to give meaning to what is being played. A musical instrument that is merely played or a bugle that is just blown without providing a certain common sound distinction by which others can understand what is being played and called for, what good is it?  Both musical instruments without meaning and praying in tongues without meaning is simply “speaking into the air” (v. 9).  

All the languages that are in the world, not one of them is without meaning (v. 10).  If someone speaks to me and I do not understand him, or if I speak to someone else and he or she does not understand me, I shall be to him a barbarian and he shall be the same to me (v. 11).   The word “barbarian” simply means “a foreigner.”

So having said all this, Paul makes this statement: “So also you, since you are so zealous of looking and sounding spiritual, seek to abound for the edification of the church” (v. 12). In other words, practice serving and speaking in such a way that others in the church will be built up.  No one can be built up without understanding and the meaning on what is being said.

Paul continues in v. 13, “Therefore (having said all that he has about the importance of meaning and understanding for the purpose of building others up in the church), let the one who speaks in a tongue, pray that he may interpret” (or provide understanding of what he is saying).

V. 14 - “For (or because) if I pray in a tongue, only my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.”

V. 15 -- “So what choices do I have?  I can choose to both pray in my spirit and my mind or I can choose to remain quiet” (v. 28).

This is all Paul is saying. He is not giving a choice to pray in a tongue (in your spirit) and you can also pray in your native language (with your mind).  Paul is not giving a both/and, but an either/or.

Otherwise, if you simply bless in your spirit only, how will others be able to say with knowledge and understanding, “amen” to what you are saying? (v. 16).

Because you may be busy giving thanks in your spirit, but the person next to you is not being built up by what you are saying (v. 17).  

Therefore, Robert Morris does have this somewhat right. Praying in gibberish is a choice. But the bible teaches that praying with words of understanding is a more preferred choice that honors God and edifies others.

End of Part 10

Is God an Egomaniac? Part 3

Here is another example of how certain passages in the bible when interpreted wrongly can lead to bad conclusions

Oprah Winfrey stumbled over one of these expressions and walked away from traditional Christianity. She described being in a church service where the preacher was talking about the attributes of God, His omnipotence and omnipresence. She mentioned that the preacher said,

“The Lord thy God is a jealous God,” [quoting Deuteronomy 5:9,] she adds, “I was caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said, “jealous.” And something struck me. I was 27 or 28, and I was thinking God is all, God is omnipresent, God is . . . also jealous? A jealous God is jealous of me? And something about that didn’t feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love, and that God is in all things.”

You see, the jealousy of God for the worship of his people is not marginal in the Bible. For example, in Exodus 34:14, God says, “You shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.”

In other words, God made us so that He would be our highest value and greatest pleasure, and when our hearts go after other things as more valuable and more pleasurable, then He is jealous of our affections. And if we don’t repent and return to Him, He gets angry, “For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God” (Deuteronomy 4:24).

So the jealousy of God is virtually the same as the heart of Jesus when he said, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.” In other words, “I am jealous for your supreme affection.”

So then, is God an egomaniac?

End of Part 3

Is God Love Unconditional?

I have been hearing some Christians postulate the idea that God’s love is unconditional? I kind of think I know what they are trying to get at, but I think this is a topic that deserves a deeper analysis.

Is God’s love unconditional?  Insofar as God extends his love to all people without distinction, it is true. But many have bought into the sentimental notion of unconditional love evidenced in the old popular song, "Though it makes him sad to see the way we live, he'll always say, 'I forgive.' " This is fuzzy romanticism and cheap grace, not the good news of Jesus Christ nor the love of God that is taught in the Bible.

God loves all people (John 3:16) and offers salvation to all without conditions of merit or worth, such as race, color or economic conditions.  But make no mistake about it, God's love has conditions. When God created humanity, conditions were there from the very start. "You are free … But you must not … " (Gen. 2:16-17). God's love requires conditions, and in this sense it is misleading to call God’s love "unconditional."

You see, when we talk about love, people’s love in general and God’s love in particular, we often think of the word, “acceptance.”  We put together both “love” and “acceptance.” I do not think this is a bad thing, just as long as we know what we are doing. Because if you are doing to keep attached to the idea of love -- “acceptance,” then you need to be very careful how you use the word “unconditional.”

Here are a couple of illustrations to show what I mean:

First, a mother is having a test of wills with her two-year-old. The young boy wants to continue playing, but it is time for bath and bed. Mom has already given him a five-minute grace period. Now she insists he will do as she says. If the child could speak articulately, he might say, "If you really loved me, you'd let me do what I want." As adults, we can identify with Mom here. She is expressing love, but is it unconditional? Yes, in the sense that she will love her son even if he disobeys. But no, in the sense that she is requiring conditions.

Second, Dick and Jane have been married for almost 20 years. But Jane has discovered that her husband has committed adultery, and Dick wants to continue the relationship. He also wants his wife to accept it and continue the marriage. What does real love mean for Jane in this situation? If she loves him unconditionally, won't she accept her husband on his terms as an expression of her love? Or will genuine love require Jane to say, "It's either me or her"? Authentic love requires conditions.

Do you see how “love” and “acceptance” goes together? Do you see why using the term unconditional loosely can send the wrong idea?

The good news is: God loved our sinful race so much that he sent his Son. He will not, cannot, forgive and accept us except on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice. To do otherwise would betray the integrity of God's own holy character. The condition for God's love to reach us was the Cross.

True love is impossible without the potential for freely given response. The reason for this is that love is about relationship, about reciprocity.

If God loved unconditionally in the sense of offering unconditional positive regard, he would forgive and accept every person no matter what, requiring no Cross. But then the Christian message would be logically incoherent. It would be as shallow as the love of a person who always accepts another's destructive behavior without ever calling him or her to account.

Why does God not simply accept people (sinners) on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice, irrespective of their responses? Again, the answer lies in the nature of love itself. Without repentance, faith, and discipleship, a woman or man cannot know God's love in its redemptive and transforming power. Without such a response, what a person is conscious of is something less than God's love. It may be relief, psychological peace, or even a (false) sense of security. But it is not God's transforming love, and therefore not salvation.

God's love has conditions, not because he is a tyrant, but because God is love. Th is a moral and psychological necessity. It is grounded in God's character as demonstrated in his acts in history.

If Jesus' Cross was necessary, then so is ours. To rely on God's "unconditional love" apart from Jesus Christ, or even in him but apart from personal faith and discipleship, is to trust in mushy sentiment. The good news is that God's love in Christ forgives, transforms, and empowers for righteous, compassionate living. These are the two essential conditions for experiencing God's love: Jesus' death on the cross (costly grace) and our self-committing trust (genuine faith).

What is the great act of God that demonstrated His love for us?  Would it not be the giving sacrificially of His Son on the cross to save us from sin? Yet, even the love of God in salvation has conditions.   God’ offers His love through salvation freely, but in order for me to appropriate it, there are conditions (not works) that I must meet -- repentance, belief, trust, obedience.

You see, love and acceptance do often go together. Love without the conditions of acceptance is merely sentimental, costless and void of power.  But true love -- God’s love is conditional if acceptance by God is going to be achieved and experienced.

Again, to go around proclaiming that God’s love is unconditional is to provide a partial truth. But when you add the word “acceptance” to God’s love, one can see that it is not totally unconditional.   

Is God an Egomaniac? Part 2

There are passages in the Bible that trouble some to the point that they walk away from the faith. They see God has an egomaniac. They take offense at the self-exaltation of God.

In the March 30, 2003, issue of London’s Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote:

Worship is an aspect of religion that I always found difficult to understand. Suppose we postulate an omnipotent being who, for reasons inscrutable to us, decided to create something other than himself. Why should he . . . expect us to worship him? We didn’t ask to be created. Our lives are often troubled. We know that human tyrants, puffed up with pride, crave adulation and homage. But a morally perfect God would surely have no character defects. So why are all those people on their knees every Sunday?”

So Erik Reece says, “When Jesus commands us to love him more than we love anyone, he is acting like an egomaniac,” and Michael Prowse says, “When God commands us to give him adulation and homage, he is acting like a human tyrant with character flaws.”

And yet, this is precisely what the Scriptures view God as doing. For example:

For my name’s sake I defer my anger,

for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you,

that I may not cut you off. . .

For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,

for how should my name be profaned?

My glory I will not give to another. (Isaiah 48:9–11)

That kind of language is as self-exalting as one can imagine. And it comes in many forms. Different people have stumbled over different ways that God expresses it. One can easily see how some can be offended by this. Is it true that God is an egomaniac?

End of Part 2

Jesus Does Not Love Everyone The Same

This may shock and surprise some of you. In fact, some of you may become so upset by this that you may “unfriend” me from Facebook!  LOL! The ultimate rejection! (smile).

But hey, just hear me out first before you go and write me off as someone who has spent too much time in the water paddling that he has taken in way too much water to his brain.

Jesus does not love everyone the same. Why do I say this?

In the most definitive prayer time recorded of Jesus in the Bible, this is what He prays to the Father:  John 17:9 – ^“I am praying for them (His disciples). I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.”  Then in verse 20:  “I do not ask for these only (His disciples), but also for those (believers only) who will believe in me through their word.”

Here Jesus plainly states that He does not pray for the world (those who are not His own). You can call this “intercessory love.”

Where is Jesus now? He is in heaven, right? What is He doing there? Romans 8:34 says, “who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” Who is Jesus praying for while at the right hand of God? Not for the world, but for “us.”  Jesus does not love everyone the same.

Here, how about this one. Jesus had twelve disciples who followed Him. Two of His disciples denied Him. Now in a sense, they all did, but the Bible emphasizes the two prominent ones – Peter and Judas.

What did Jesus say to Peter before his denial? Luke 22:31-32: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,  that he might sift you like wheat, ³² but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when (not “if”) you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

Jesus did not pray this for Judas. In fact, concerning Judas, Jesus referred to him as “the son of destruction” (John 17:12 ESV).  Jesus didn’t love Judas the same as He loved Peter.

Finally, don’t forget this one:  As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13; Mal. 1:2-3).

God does not love everyone the same. He loves His own in a more special way. 

Praying in Tongues - A Rebuttal, Part 9

After giving the Scriptural evidence for praying in tongues, Robert Morris goes into his second point which is the Benefit of Praying in Tongues. According to Robert Morris, praying in tongues ought to be pursued because it benefits the user (1 Cor. 14:4).

But this is both selfish and wrong. Paul did say, “He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself” (14:4), but then he added, “Even so you, for as much as you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that you may excel to the edifying of the Church” (14:12). The gifts were given for the edification and profit of the entire Body of Christ, not merely one member. “The members should have the same care one for another” (12:25).

Self-edification is contrary to the principle of love as taught in Chapter 13, for “love seeks not its own” (13:5). The gifts were given for the common good of all (12:7).

Here, let’s try this: Can you provide one example of anyone in the Bible using a spiritual gift for the purpose of self-edification? Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where it is taught that a gift from the Holy Spirit can and should be used in such a manner? But praying in a tongue is not a gift. It is a man-made, human induced, self-centered experience that can only be explained as an origin of the flesh.

The spiritual immaturity of the saints in Corinth called for instruction, so in the middle of his discourse on tongues he writes, “Brethren, be not children in understanding: nevertheless in malice be children, but in understanding be men” (1 Corinthians 14:20). The Greek word for “men” (teleios) means mature. In their misuse of speaking in tongues they were showing their immaturity, a behaviour pattern which characterized the believers at Corinth. The Apostle reminded them that they remained “babes in Christ” (3:1).

I find it humorous that in order to give an example of gibberish praying, Robert Morris uses his children and grandchildren as examples. Robert Morris said that his older son understood his younger brother quite well when he used baby talk. My goodness look at the connection that is being made: As an adult, Robert Morris could not understand what his younger son was saying. But the older brother who was also a child could.

So then, why didn’t Robert Morris just relate to his younger son in the baby talk he was using? Because to do so would not be the right or normative thing to do. Why didn’t the younger son just speak mature words so his father could understand? Because as a child, he couldn’t.

By using Robert Morris illustration, we can conclude that praying in tongues is equivalent to baby talk. And baby talk is for who? Babies! Adult talk is for who? Adults! Adults cannot understand babies and babies cannot understand adults (except in limited ways). No wonder Paul said this: “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me” ( 1 Cor. 13:11).

Notice the three areas Paul covers: “Talked” like a child (speech); “Thought” like a child (knowledge); and “reasoned” as a child (understanding).

These are the areas that we all need to grow up in as we mature in Christ. It is okay to talk, think and reason as children if you are a child. But for a person in an adult body to do so is quite comical since it is so childish.

Look at the passage even more closely. Paul said, “When I WAS a child. . .” and then the transition, “When I BECAME a man.” The state of childhood ought to be temporary. The transition to adulthood ought to be the permanent goal.

Tongue prayers are still functioning in the state of being a child and have not yet gotten to the goal of becoming an adult. They seem to be fixed in the state of “I am still,” rather than transitioning to “ I became or have become.”

The Corinthians failure to grow up spiritually resulted from their neglected study of the Scriptures. The Epistle to the Hebrews stresses this point. “For when for the time you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that uses milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:12-14). Peter wrote, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the Word, that you may grow thereby” (I Peter 2:2). One will find confusion and license where the study of God’s Word is neglected.

Now let us return to 1 Corinthians 14:20. Immediately upon rebuking them with the words, “Brethren, be not children in understanding,” Paul adds, “In the law it is written . . . ” (Vs. 21), thereby pointing out their weakness, namely, their failure to acquaint themselves with that which was written in the Old Testament Scriptures. They had failed to study God’s Word, therefore they had become victims of arrested development.

Speaking in tongues was a gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit, but it, or any other gift, can be misused. Speaking in tongues was no mark of spirituality, because the Corinthian church was unspiritual, having manifested carnality (3:1-3) and even gross sin (5:1). And so Paul points them to a Scripture they should have known, saying, “In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, says the Lord” (12:21).

Paul is here referring to a prophecy God had given through Isaiah. The nation of Israel had failed to heed God’s message which He gave through their own prophets, so the Lord told them that at a future time they will hear His message through tongues (languages) other than their own. “For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people “ (Isaiah 28:11). Thus Paul sees in this Isaiah prophecy the gift of tongues as a sign to Israel. The words “this people” in Isaiah 28:11, in its context, can refer only to Israel. The abuse of tongues-speaking in Corinth did not arise from the belief in speaking in tongues, but rather in the neglect of the Scriptures which teach its proper use.

If the church would have understood that tongues and any gift given by the Holy Spirit is to be used for the purpose of building up others and not oneself, they would have excelled in their spiritual growth. After all, the majority of the church was into praying in tongues. And yet, with all the tongue praying that had been occurring in this church, Paul still called them “babes in Christ” (1 Cor. 3:1) and children in their understanding (14:20).

End of Part 9