Islam: Religion of Peace?

Most of us know that not all Muslims are terrorists.

If you don't know it, you must live in a bubble somewhere.

For those of us who have Muslim neighbors, or who go to school (or work) with Muslim people, it's a non-issue.

They aren't all that different from the rest of us, except that their women wear head scarves. We know them. They work hard to support their families, just like the rest of us do.

Yet we have to admit that Dennis Miller makes a good point when he says that the so-called "moderate Muslims" frighten him more than the radicals. Why? Because at least you know where you stand with the radicals. They're in your face and they say they want to kill you. There's no ambiguity and no pretense.

But with the moderates, it's different. They are friendly and cordial enough; but at the same time, they're not standing up to the forces of extremism within their own faith-community. Where are the moderate Imams who denounce terrorism and who say that the perpetrators of 9/11 were criminals rather than heroes? Who is standing up and disavowing the notion that Islam must rule the world and subjugate the Christians and the Jews?

Those voices are few and far-between—probably because they know that they themselves could become the targets of Islamic "justice."

The Quran itself is inconsistent. The text was written over a long period of time—so the content depends on whether Mohammed was in a good mood or a bad mood during the period when he was writing. When things were going well, he tended to be more magnanimous and willing to tolerate Christian and Jewish people, whom he kindly dubbed "People of the Book." But when he was grouchy, it was more like, "Death to the infidels."

And clearly, in those less charitable times, the man practiced what he preached. Tens of thousands of non-Muslims were slaughtered in his crusades.

On a more light-hearted note, it's interesting that Islamic radicals have targeted various cartoonists and satirists for death because of their unflattering depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. I guess the message is, "If you insist on portraying us as blood-thirsty and intolerant, we will kill you."

So let's see. If you create a work of "art" depicting someone peeing on a crucifix, you get money from the National Endowment for the Arts. But if you cast the Islamic prophet in an unfavorable light, you die. Is that how it works?

The British have flirted with Islam since the early 1900s, when King George donated land for the construction of a large mosque in London. There are now over 1,500 mosques all over Britain and 10% of the population of London is Muslim. The Brits' experiment with Islam has yielded some interesting results: click here.

Is Islam a religion of peace? The best way to make that determination is to see how the majority of its followers live out its precepts.

The Lord Jesus said, "A tree is known by its fruit" (Matt. 12:33b).

I'll close with a question: does the silence of the "moderate" Muslim majority signify its tacit approval of the goals of radical Islam?

Let us know what you think!

Significant Scholarship for Pro-Israel Evangelicals

We all know there's a dearth of in-depth, yet accessible scholarship in the messianic evangelical world these days.

It seems like most of our publications go to one extreme or the other. Either they're dumbed down to a sixth-grade level (no offense to you sixth graders out there) or they're so academic and technical, you need a Ph.D. to understand them.

I don't really like either of the extremes. They both put me to sleep. Why can't we hit a happy medium?

I think we can—and I have proof!

Jim Sibley and our friends at the Pasche Institute of Jewish Studies at Criswell College have done it. (That is, they've hit that happy medium between the two extremes.) Their Mishkan theological journal is a wonderful blend of outstanding scholarship and smooth readability. I just received my copy of Issue #64 (2010). The theme is "The Gospel and the Jewish People." A few of the articles in this issue are:

• "In What Sense Was the First Coming of Jesus Messianic?" by Colin Barnes
• "Messiah As Wisdom: The Delight of God and Men (A Theological Exposition of Proverbs 8:22-31)
• "A Compositional Analysis of Zechariah 12:10" by Jason Blazs
• "Circumcision and Jewish Identity" by May Samuel-Whittington

Then there are also several excellent book reviews by our longtime friend Rich Robinson (of Jews for Jesus) and others.

You can order your copy of Issue #64 at our store, Messianic Specialities.

I don't often promote other peoples' ministries, but this is an instance where I just can't help myself. So if you share my enthusiasm for biblical, readable, scholarly articles about the church's relationship to ethnic Israel and our responsibility to share the Good News of Yeshua with our Jewish friends and neighbors, I would strongly encourage you to subscribe.

You won't be sorry.

For subscription info, go online to: www.mishkanstore.org.

Dennis Prager: The Middle East Problem

The Middle East peace process is stalled again and no one is surprised.

It's virtually impossible for me to say anything else beyond that without repeating myself.

So this time, I'm going to let someone else say it:

Dennis Prager: the Middle East Problem

Thanks, Mr. Prager. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Christ or Messiah?

From time to time, people ask why we often use Hebrew terms rather than their more traditional English counterparts.

Here are some examples of what they're talking about. We say things like ...

• Yeshua rather than Jesus
• Messiah rather than Christ
• Kehila rather than church
• Covenant (as in "New Covenant") rather than Testament
• Tanakh (or Jewish Bible) rather than Old Testament

We sometimes even quote from the Hebrew New Testament. Many Christians don't even know there is a Hebrew New Testament.

So what are we up to? Well, first let me assure you that we're not some weird "sacred name" pseudo-Jewish sect. We know there are extremist Hebraic movements where they say it's wrong to use the name "Jesus Christ" because it's rooted in paganism. One group even tries to link the English name "Jesus" with the name of the Greek god Zeus. They say Jesus is really "Gee—zeus."

This is the sort of skewed conclusion you come to when you don't have your linguistic ducks in a row. It's like saying that John 1:1-3 teaches that the world was created by a chunk of wood (logos = log). Or like saying Joshua in the OT had no father because he was "the son of Nun." (Get it? "Son of none"? And yes, there was reportedly a "sacred name" group that actually taught this.) The "evidence" is based purely on phonetics—which is virtually always misleading.

So then, why do we like to intersperse Hebraic terms with their more traditional, Greek- or Latin-based counterparts?

Answer: we use Hebrew terms because it's a reminder of the Jewish roots of our faith. After all, Christianity is essentially and historically Jewish. The Messiah was born in Israel and grew up in a Jewish family. He had a Hebrew name (Yeshua). His birth had been prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures. His followers were Jewish. The writers of His biographies (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), as well as the rest of the NT, were Jewish. The early church was so Jewish, in fact, that they had to convene a council at Jerusalem to decide if and how non-Jewish people could be admitted into their ranks (Acts 15:6-29).

This practice of using Jewish terms also makes for some interesting conversations with Jewish people, especially in Israel. If you're speaking with a typical, non-religious Jewish Israeli and you use the anglicized term "Jesus" or "Christ," they will understand that you're a Christian (Notzri)—and they're okay with that. They lump all "Christians" together (making no distinction between Catholic and Protestant) and they know those are the folks who bring lots of tour groups to the Land—and that's good for the economy. They also know that evangelical Christians in North America are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. So if they classify you with the Notzrim, chances are you'll be well-received.

But if you use the Hebrew term Yeshua ("Jesus") or Meshichi ("Messianic"), that's an entirely different ball game. When you say you're Meshichi, they know the pope is out of the picture. Now you're talking about a first-century Jewish rabbi who's quite controversial in polite Jewish society (some things haven't changed much in 2,000 years). And they know that there are Jewish people, many thousands of them in Israel, who follow Him as their Messiah and Savior. This input (for the culturally sensitive Jewish ear) is harder to process.

It's a historical fact that the Lord was known as Yeshua centuries before He was known as Jesus. It was His original name—and that's the Name the Apostle Paul was talking about when he said it's "the Name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9-10). (Remember, Paul lived 2,000 years ago and never spoke or wrote a word of English. We find the name "Jesus" in English translations that have appeared only in the last 500 years or so.)

Some folks really need to get up to speed on the history here. They think the Savior's first name was "Jesus" and His last name was "Christ." So they imagine that if you could be transported somehow back to the first century, you could go to Nazareth and ask where the Christ family lived. You would be directed to the home of the Christs—Joseph Christ, Mary Christ, and their son, Jesus Christ, and His other siblings.

But that's not how it was in first century Israel. They didn't have surnames like we have today. In His day, the Lord would have been known as Yeshua ben Yossef (Jesus son of Joseph). The term "Christ" was a title—not a surname. It derives from the Greek word christos, which means "Messiah" or "Anointed One." In Hebrew, then, He is Yeshua haMashiach, or Jesus the Christ. In Aramaic, the Jewish street language of His day, it would have been pronounced something like Yeshue Meshikha. Not much different from Hebrew.

I could go on and on—but I won't belabor the point. You're probably already way ahead of me on this.

It's really very simple. We use Hebraic terminology from time to time because it's our way of keeping the conversation going about the Jewish roots of true, historic Christianity.

It also helps us keep the focus on interpreting the Bible from a messianic perspective.

That is, in fact, the name of our bimonthly paper and our daily radio program—Messianic Perspectives.

It's what we're about.

It surely doesn't mean we think it's wrong to use non-Hebrew terms for these same names and concepts.

Whatever language we use, God knows what we mean. He's more interested in what's in our hearts than He is in the words we use (Psalm 66:16-18).

And whether we call Him Yeshua or Jesus, He knows we're talking to Him.

Recommended reading; Christianity Is Jewish by Edith Schaeffer.

Putting the Heat on Israeli Messianics ... Literally

We have to be careful when we talk about issues like the one I'm about to bring up because sometimes it can play into the hands of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel forces.

Whenever we talk about how messianic believers in Israel are sometimes targeted for persecution, and sometimes even attacked violently and brutally, the anti-Semites gleefully throw up their hands and say it proves their point. They say it confirms their premise that "the apostate Jews" are an evil and sinister race.

Even when we point out that the violent lunatic fringe of the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) movement in Israel consists of a very small minority, the anti-Semites don't care. They prefer to paint everyone in Israel with the same, broad brush—even if the result is distorted and misleading.

The truth is that every group of people has its lunatic fringe. We don't like to talk about it, but conservative Christendom has one, too. It's very small and fragmented, thank God, and it goes by many names—like Christian Identity, Aryan Nations, Kingdom Identity, White Aryan Resistance (WAR), various forms of Posse Comitatus, and others too numerous to mention here. Some of these groups maintain camps in the mountains where they train their own paramilitary militias. They have secret compounds where they stockpile guns, ammunition, gas masks, grenades, and other implements of war.

And yes, there are Jewish nut-jobs, too. They're extremists who are mentally imbalanced and have an axe to grind with Arabs, other Gentiles, and of course Jewish people who believe in Yeshua. One of these guys took a machine gun into a mosque in Hebron a few years ago and cut down dozens of Muslim worshippers in cold blood. Many of them died. And to the Haredim, this killer (who took his own life) became a hero and a martyr.

Sometimes the Haredim have been known even to kill fellow Israelis. One such extremist assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. He was upset because Rabin signed the Oslo Accords with Yassir Arafat.

Hey, I didn't like what happened at Oslo, either. But I didn't go out and shoot anybody because of it.

Sometimes these extremists see the messianic movement in Israel as a cancer that needs to be blotted out. And sadly, they occasionally work the venom and hatred out of their system by carrying out acts of violence.

Just this past week, for example, a Christian and Missionary Alliance (CMA) facility in Jerusalem suffered an arson attack. Miraculously, everyone in the building at the time escaped without injury, despite the thick and blinding smoke that enveloped the first two floors.

Another incident took place several years ago in Ariel, Israel—north of Jerusalem. Leah Ortiz, the pastor's wife from Kehilat Ariel (the congregation there) started sending out periodic updates when the attack first occurred. For Leah's latest report, go to "AMI UPDATE NOVEMBER 2010" Their son, Ami, was critically injured when someone left a holiday gift basket on their front porch. Ami stepped outside, picked it up, and brought it into their apartment. He had no way of knowing that the basket was booby-trapped with a powerful bomb. It exploded and shrapnel and splinters tore through Ami's body, nearly killing him. He survived, thank God; but the numerous surgeries and extensive rehab are still ongoing. The police finally tracked down and arrested the perpetrator of this horrible crime and the case is currently in the court system. The man is a Jewish extremist who is suspected of having actually killed people on other occasions and his legal team is trying to get him off the hook with an insanity defense. You can read more about it on the Ortiz website (link above).

What can we say about these developments? Well, I think they tell us that the battle is heating up in Israel, not only in terms of literal fires and bombings, but also in terms of spiritual warfare. The battle is on for the heart and soul of Israel. The devil wants to keep Israel and her Messiah apart—and he will stop at nothing to accomplish that objective. The evil one also delights in the forces of extremism that reflect badly on Israel before a watching and often less than sympathetic world.

Will the politicians in Israel continue caving in to the forces of Jewish extremism, or will they get serious about having a democracy in which Jewish believers in Yeshua—like everyone else—enjoy equal rights under the law?

Here's a link to the State Department's recently declassified report on Yad L'Achim activities against Jewish believers in Israel. Yad L'Achim, of course, is a rabid "anti-missionary" group in Israel. We've had occasional run-ins with them over the years.

This link will take you to an excellent article from the Israeli media about the persecution of Jewish believers in Israel: "Israel's State-Sanctioned Persecution of Messianic Jews Must End"

Interestingly, in the aftermath of the bombing in Ariel, many people from the local Jewish community came to see the damage and pay their respects to the Ortiz family. These people were not believers in Yeshua, but they were deeply concerned, and some even heartbroken over what had happened to Ami. So again, we need to remember that the violent fanatics represent a very small minority in Israel, just like they do here in North America.

Why not take a moment today and pray for the Body of Messiah in Israel? In this country, we admittedly have our problems and times are tough for many of our families. However, we don't really know what persecution is. Seriously folks, we don't. But many of our brothers and sisters in Israel do. They live with it every day.

So let's remember them in our prayers.

And while you're at it, please pray for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6).

Thanks and God bless you.

Vatican: Israel Isn't the Promised Land After All

Wow, talk about a revelation!

Arab News reported in its October 23 (2010) edition that a Vatican synod on the Middle East declared that “Israel cannot use the biblical concept of a 'promised land' or a 'chosen people' to justify new settlements in Jerusalem or territorial claims.”

How could I have been so wrong?

For all of my adult life, I've been under the impression that the Land of Israel was promised unconditionally to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:

“See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which the LORD swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them” (Deut. 1:8).

I'm being facetious, of course. This latest Vatican boondoggle is really nothing new. The liberal-ecumenical religious establishment (irrespective of whether it's Catholic or Protestant), with precious few exceptions, has never been a friend of the State of Israel or the Jewish people. Virtually all of the mainline religious denominations worldwide are anti-Zionist to one extent or another.

Some people have said the Jewish people forfeited their identity as the people of God (and the promises He made to them) because of their bad behavior in biblical times. However, the Bible says just the opposite. It tells us that the promises continue to be in force in spite of Israel's bad behavior:

Thus says the LORD: “If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD” (Jer. 31:37).

In numerous instances, in fact, God went out of His way to make a distinction between Israel's behavior and His keeping of the covenant promises. Here's one example from the Torah:

“It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Deut. 9:5).

What about the passages in the Torah that talk about Israel's blessings being conditioned on her obedience? Here's one of the classic passages:

“Then it shall come to pass, because you listen to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the mercy which He swore to your fathers. And He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your cattle and the offspring of your flock, in the land of which He swore to your fathers to give you” (Deut. 7:12-13).

So then, are the promises to Israel conditional or unconditional? It can't be both ways!

Let's begin by thinking about the distinction the NT makes between relationship and fellowship. A father-son relationship, for instance, cannot be broken. It's written into their DNA and even if they wanted to change it (which, sadly, sometimes happens), they couldn't. No matter what either of them does, they will always be father and son.

The Lord Jesus powerfully illustrated this truth in His parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). That young prodigal did everything he could to break his father's heart. He left home and squandered his inheritance on reckless, worldly pursuits. But when he came to himself and realized what a horrible mistake he had made (v. 7), his father gladly welcomed him back (v. 20).

Why? Because no matter what the young man did, he was still his father's son. They didn't have any fellowship while they were apart, of course; but the relationship was always there.

It's the same way with Israel collectively, as a nation. Even when the nation is out of fellowship with God, the relationship is still intact. It's in their spiritual “DNA,” as it were. It cannot be changed.

Another important distinction in this discussion about Israel and her Land is the one between ownership and possession. They are two different concepts. It's possible to own something without possessing it.

A lawyer friend once explained this to me. He said the distinction between possession and ownership is of particular importance in criminal law. In drug cases, for instance, being in possession of a cache of a controlled substance is not the same thing as being its owner. The owner may never have seen those drugs; but if he paid for them, and he controls them, they're his—even if they're not in his possession.

Israel's ownership of the Land is unconditional (you won't find the conditional word “if” anywhere in Genesis 12:1-3); however, her possession and enjoyment of it is always conditioned on obedience:

“You shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your God, His testimonies, and His statutes which He has commanded you. And you shall do what is right and good in the sight of the LORD, that it may be well with you, and that you may go in and possess the good land of which the LORD swore to your fathers” (Deut. 6:17-18).

In some biblical passages, aspects of both concepts (ownership and possession) are intertwined; nonetheless, the distinction is still there.

Before we fall for the notion that God disinherited and disenfranchised His people Israel because they behaved badly, maybe we'd better consider our own situation. Does God disinherit us when we behave badly? Does he sever the relationship and turn the wolves loose on us?

Or is our heavenly Father more like the brokenhearted papa in the story of the prodigal son? The Bible doesn't say so, but I'm sure the old man prayed every day for his boy and scanned the horizon anxiously for some sign of his return. And when he finally got a glimpse of his wayward son off in the distance, he probably rubbed his eyes to make sure he wasn't seeing things—and then the Bible says he ran to meet his son, and hugged and kissed him (Luke 15:20).

The allegory applies to each of us individually, as God's children, and also to Israel corporately, as a nation. Someday, God will welcome His people Israel back “home.” They are, after all, His “son”—and He is their Father:

“Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son'” (Ex. 4:22).

In the meantime, Israel owns the Land because God gave it to them. Is she entitled to possess it in her current state of unbelief? Of course not. But that's God's determination to make, not ours. There were many periods in OT history when Israel/Judah possessed the Land while in unbelief and/or idolatry.

My question for Pope Benedict and his Vatican colleagues is this: if Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) doesn't belong to the Jewish people, whose land is it?

Whatever answer you give to that question, sir, I hope you have Scripture to back it up.

Special thanks to Katherine Curry, a longtime friend of CJF Ministries from Colorado, who called this report from Arab News to our attention.

Speaking in Tongues, Part 5 of 5

Conclusion

When we look at the panorama of Bible history, both past and future, we find that miracles happen in clusters—and they’re not arbitrary. They have a purpose.

For instance, one cluster of miracles took place during Moses' ministry, another during the overlapping ministries of Elijah and Elisha, a third cluster accompanied the ministry of Yeshua and the Apostles, and (as I said earlier) a fourth one will occur during the coming Tribulation. Miracles at other times have been very few and far-between.

Note that the biblical miracles were always real and verifiable. It wasn’t Grandpa tossing aside his cane and dancing around on a stage, or Aunt Bessie being healed of that annoying bursitis in her elbow.

Instead of someone being "healed" of blurry vision in one eye (the sort of imprecise ailment we tend to see in modern healing meetings), the Lord healed actual blindness (Matt. 9:27-31); and instead of lengthening one leg that was shorter than the other, He repaired birth defects so that crippled people could walk (e.g., Acts 3:2-9).

Furthermore, the messianic and apostolic miracles had staying power. You could go back the next day and verify that a true miracle had occurred (4:14).

There were no bright lights, no mass hypnosis, no swooning crowds, and no Elmer Gantry-style hucksterism. Yeshua and His Apostles healed people who suffered from some of the most tragic diseases of their day—like leprosy, for example (Mark 1:40-45). Leprosy is a chronic condition that was incurable in those days and caused irreversible damage to the skin, nerves, extremities, and eyes.

In looking at the first three clusters, we see that the miracles called attention to something God was doing during each of those three periods. Once the miracles accomplished their purpose, they tapered off and things returned to normalcy.

After all, if miracles were an everyday occurrence, that would defeat their purpose, wouldn’t it? People would just yawn and say, “Look, it’s another miracle. Ho-hum.”

The rarity of miracles is precisely the reason they’re useful. A miracle gets everyone’s attention—and a cluster of miracles, even more so. That’s why magicians like David Copperfield are so popular; they give the illusion of being miracle-workers.

In the first century, God wanted everyone to know that the Messiah had come—and that they could be saved by believing in Him. Hence, the messianic and apostolic miracles. The miracles Yeshua and the Apostles performed weren’t illusions. They were the real thing. They were a code, of sorts, to signal that Yeshua was the One for whom they had been waiting.

Yeshua himself gave this message to the disciples of John the Baptist:

"Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Luke 7:22).

He knew that John would be able to read the code. He would know that it meant the Messiah, at long last, had come.

Bottom line: we need to keep our eye on the ball. We are too easily distracted by carnal sensationalism and religious "dog and pony" shows. Love trumps all of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 13:1-3, 13), even the sensational, miraculous ones. That means our focus needs to be on love—that is, loving God, loving the Family of God, and loving people all around us who need the Lord.

Speaking in Tongues, Part 4 of 5

Please Note: Some of the hyperlinks below will take you to YouTube or other secular sites where you may see profanity or other objectionable content. We recommend that children not be allowed to click on these links without adult supervision.

Regarding their view of supernatural gifts, theologians generally fall into one of two camps: cessationist or continuationist. Cessationists say the supernatural gifts (like miracles, healing, and tongues) ceased early in church history while continuationists claim that they are still in operation today.

My problem with strict cessationism is that it can lead to an anti-supernatural worldview where people think and act like God no longer works miraculously in our world. I don’t see much difference between this view and old-school deism (that is, the notion that God created the world and got the ball rolling but hasn’t intervened since).

Years ago, a preacher in Illinois told me that he didn’t believe in divine healing. His viewpoint was that miracles were only for the Apostles and now we live in an age when God allows natural processes to run their course without divine interference. I asked him if his church held prayer meetings. He said, “Yes, of course.” I asked him if he and his people prayed for the sick during these meetings. He replied, “Yes.” I said, “Why do you pray for the sick if God doesn’t heal anyone today?” He said he hadn’t thought of it quite like that before.

On the other hand, however, the continuationist position has its own problems. Perhaps the most obvious one is a simple matter of observation: we don’t see the miraculous, apostolic gifts in operation today. Some people go to great lengths in their attempts to duplicate what happened in the NT, but those efforts are strained and invariably come off as religious quackery and fakery. As skilled as some preachers are in techniques of manipulation like crowd psychology and the power of suggestion, they cannot duplicate what God did in NT times. Instead, they’ve given birth to a “signs and wonders” movement that’s riddled with religious frauds and scams that are embarrassing and make a mockery of the Gospel. This movement creates an environment where con artists can take advantage of gullible and naive believers—and in many instances, that’s exactly what happens.

Furthermore, the fakery and trickery (and all the nonsense that goes with it) provides fodder for enemies of the Gospel to use in their attacks on the Christian Faith.

Sometimes it’s dangerous to try to duplicate biblical miracles, as in the case of Pentecostal snake-handling sects in the Deep South. These sects have been outlawed in many jurisdictions because of the number of people who have been killed by poisonous snakes in their services.

Our position on tongues (and other miraculous gifts) may be described as “modified cessationism.” What we mean by that is that we believe these supernatural manifestations occurred mainly during the lifetime of Yeshua and His apostles—but not necessarily exclusively so. In Apostolic times, their purpose was to signal the coming of the Messiah, to build up the Body of Messiah (before they had the NT), and to assist in the spreading of the Gospel during the fledgling church’s early history.

We don’t insist that the miraculous gifts have ceased permanently. They are rare, yes; but nothing in the Bible indicates that God no longer works miracles. We believe, for instance, in praying for the sick (James 5:14-15)—and sometimes (not often, but sometimes) we see those prayers answered in ways that even the doctors agree defies any natural explanation.

Yes, the NT says that the gift of tongues will “cease” (1 Cor. 13:8); however, as we saw earlier in this study, Paul doesn’t say when it will cease. Does Verse 10 mean it would end once the NT (“that which is perfect”) was completed? That is indeed a possible interpretation; but many commentaries see it differently.

Iraeneus, one of the earliest church fathers (he had a direct connection to the Apostle John through his teacher, Polycarp), indicated that the gift of foreign languages was still in operation in the late second century AD. He wrote (c. AD 180): “In like manner do we also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light, for the general benefit, the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God, who also the apostles term spiritual” (1.531).

Frankly, it wouldn't ruffle my theological feathers in the least if one of our English-speaking workers said he had miraculously shared the Good News of Yeshua with a Jewish person in Hebrew, French, or some other language he had never learned. My response would be, “Praise God!”

Furthermore, I believe there are indications in Scripture that there will be a resurgence of miraculous events during the coming Tribulation, including divine dreams, visions, prophecy, and even the raising of people from the dead (Joel 2:28, preliminarily but not ultimately fulfilled in Acts 2:17; Rev. 11:7-11).

You see, these are some of the reasons for my not being a strict cessationist. So I describe myself as a "modified cessationist." Here at CJF Ministries, this has been our position for over half a century.

Continued in Part 5

Speaking in Tongues, Part 3 of 5

Most of the NT references to the gift of foreign languages ("tongues") are found in 1 Corinthians 12, 13, & 14. The congregation at Corinth (in ancient Greece) was the most dysfunctional of all the NT congregations. Roughly 85% of the content of 1st Corinthians is corrective in nature; that is, it was written to correct (either directly or indirectly) specific, identifiable errors in belief and practice. The Corinthian believers were hindered by such things as divisiveness (1 Cor.1:10-17), carnality (1 Cor.3:1-3), immorality (including incest; 1 Cor.5:1-13), rampant divorce and remarriage (1 Cor.7:1-16), idolatry (1 Cor.8:1-10), social snobbery (1 Cor.11:17-34), and the abuse of spiritual gifts—especially tongues.

So how do we sort out Paul's teaching on tongues? Well, in 1 Corinthians 14, the KJV translators wisely made a distinction between an "unknown tongue" (singular, referring to gibberish) and "tongues" (plural, referring to coherent, foreign languages). They supplied the word "unknown" (in italics) in contexts where they understood that Paul was talking about unintelligible, nonsensical speech. They never connected "unknown" with tongues in the plural (that is, real foreign languages). I personally think it's unfortunate that this distinction has been lost in our modern translations (although, admittedly, it's an editorial and not a translational issue).

The singular "tongue" refers either (1) to ecstatic utterance or gibberish, or (2) to a singular, specific earthly language (for instance, today we would say "the English language," not "the English languages"), depending on the context. The plural "tongues," however, found in Chapters 12, 13, & 14, always refers in these chapters to genuine foreign languages. Paul encourages the gift of foreign languages; but he discourages any "unknown tongue," especially in public meetings. Here's how the distinction between "tongue" and "tongues" helps us decipher Paul's meaning in these chapters:

• 1 Cor. 12:10 — Here the word is plural. "Tongues" and "interpretation of tongues" are both listed as gifts from the Spirit given "for the profit of all" (v. 7). Remember that the ancient world was much more provincial than today's world. Most people never traveled more than a few miles from their birthplace and spoke only local dialects (of which there were hundreds across the Roman Empire). The gift of languages was an indispensable tool in carrying out the Great Commission.
• 1 Cor.12:28 — "Varieties of tongues," or foreign languages—again, plural. If tongues was the language of heaven, it wouldn't come in different varieties.
• 1 Cor.12:30 — "Do all speak with tongues?" Not everyone should expect to receive the gift of languages. Gifts are distributed among members of the Body (v. 12) according to each person's special calling and function (vv. 14-26). The gift of languages was mainly for evangelism and was therefore for the benefit of unbelievers. Prophecy, on the other hand, was for the benefit of believers (14:3-4).
• 1 Cor.13:1 — Paul talks here about "the tongues of men and of angels." This doesn’t necessarily make a distinction between the languages that men and angels speak. We use languages to communicate. The multiplicity of earthly languages is a consequence of God's judgment on humankind at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11:9). Angels communicate with us in these languages. Whenever an angel speaks in Scripture, it's always in an earthly language (e.g., Gen. 21:17; Zech. 1:14; Rev. 8:13, 10:9).
• 1 Cor.13:8 — He says here that the miraculous gifts are (1) inferior to love and (2) impermanent. Prophecies (in the sense of divinely-imparted truths and/or foreknowledge) will "fail," tongues (plural; that is, divinely-enabled speech in foreign languages) will "cease," and knowledge (that is, according to Hodge, the “gift correctly to understand and properly exhibit the truths revealed by the apostles and prophets”) will "vanish away." Remember that when Paul wrote these words (around AD 55), the NT didn't yet exist in its final form. The only Bible they knew was the OT. Can you imagine being put in charge of a group of believers who've never seen a NT? You can see the problem—and that's why their leaders needed supernatural endowments and revelatory gifts of the Spirit to help them protect, teach, and nurture the flock. What Paul is saying here is that love is permanent, but the miraculous gifts (including tongues) will stop either when the NT is finalized ("that which is perfect has come," v. 10) or when the Lord returns (some commentators say the latter view better reflects the meaning of the Greek teleios, or "perfect").
• 1 Cor.14:2 — This is Paul's first use of the word "tongue" (singular) in this discussion about the use and misuse of spiritual gifts. He says that gibberish (or ecstatic utterance) is something only God could decipher, so it's better to prophesy in a language that people understand (see v. 1).
• 1 Cor.14:4 — Paul says if someone speaks in an unknown "tongue" (again, singular), he's not building up the other brothers and sisters in the congregation. Instead, he's only building up himself (and possibly attracting attention to himself), which Paul discourages.
• 1 Cor.14:5 — He says the gift of prophecy (i.e., spontaneous promptings to speak out boldly and declare God's truth) is greater than the gift of foreign languages and should have precedence in their public meetings. An exception, he says, is when an interpreter is present. In that setting, with a translator, the entire congregation can be edified through a message or teaching in a foreign language.
• 1 Cor.14:6 — Speaking in foreign languages (plural) is of limited value unless it's accompanied by corresponding teaching, prophecy, knowledge, or revelation (we'll define the latter term later) in whatever language the hearers understand.
• 1 Cor.14:9 — When we speak in a tongue (singular; that is, unintelligible utterance or gibberish), we are essentially "speaking into the air." That is, no one understands it and it accomplishes nothing.
• 1 Cor.14:13 — This is an exception to our rule that the singular "tongue" refers to unintelligible utterances. In this instance, Paul uses the singular word "tongue" because he's referring to someone who speaks in a singular foreign language (which would have made the plural, if he had used it here, grammatically incorrect). His point is that when we speak in a foreign language it should be interpreted so the hearers can benefit.
• 1 Cor.14:14 — "For if I pray in a tongue [singular], my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful." The fact that Paul speaks in the first person here doesn’t mean that he spoke in gibberish any more than my saying, "If I rob a bank, I go to jail" means I committed the crime. This becomes clear in the next verse, where he says it's better to pray "with the spirit" and "with the understanding" (v. 15), than to have one without the other.
• 1 Cor.14:18 — Paul says, "I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all." The Apostle traveled extensively, covering much of the first-century Roman Empire during his three (or possibly four) missionary journeys. He was well educated and no doubt knew several languages by training (at the minimum, Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic) and may have exercised the gift of tongues to speak in other languages, as well.
• 1 Cor.14:19 — He says he would rather speak five understandable words than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue (singular). This is self-explanatory.
• 1 Cor.14:21 — Paul quotes here from Isaiah 28:11, where "another tongue" is the language of the Assyrians—an earthly language. Just as God spoke words of warning to unbelieving Israel through people who spoke a foreign language (Assyrian), the NT gift of foreign languages is also a sign to unbelievers. It’s intended to get their attention.
• 1 Cor.14:22 — Again, Paul contrasts the gift of foreign languages ("tongues," plural) with the gift of prophecy. Tongues is a sign to unbelievers (see the notes on 12:30 and 14:21 above), but prophecy is for believers, who are predisposed to receive God's truth.
• 1 Cor.14:23 — If an unbeliever comes into the congregational meeting and hears everyone speaking spontaneously and simultaneously in foreign languages, he might wonder if he’s stumbled into an insane asylum. But if everyone prophesies instead, the spontaneous proclamation of God’s message (although, again, that message is primarily directed to believers) may nudge that outsider toward a personal relationship with the Lord (vv. 24-25).
• 1 Cor.14:26 — There's a certain synergy that occurs when the various components of a public meeting complement each other. That is, someone sings a song, then another person offers a teaching from Scripture. If unbelievers are present, someone may share the Good News in the visitors' native language (provided that an interpreter is present so the whole group knows what's being said). In this verse, "tongue" is singular not because they're speaking gibberish, but because “each one” is speaking (that is, in one language at a time). Paul here says there might also be a "revelation" from someone as the Spirit of God begins peeling back layers of the proverbial onion and uncovering deeper applications of the truth of His Word. (The Greek word for "revelation" simply means to uncover something.)
• 1 Cor.14:39 — Paul says, "Do not forbid to speak with tongues." Evidently, some people in the Corinthian congregation were fed up with the confusion caused by people who were trying (without success) to speak in tongues (but only gibberish was coming out). They were ready to ban the practice altogether. Paul admonishes them, however, saying that they should allow the exercise of the legitimate gift of tongues. In other words, don't throw out the baby (the gift of speaking foreign languages) with the bathwater (a nonsensical tongue).

Speaking in Tongues, Part 2 of 5

Now we come to our analysis of the tongues phenomenon. Due to time and space limitations, this will be a condensed study.

1. There are two types of speaking in tongues—glossolalia and xenoglossia.

The term glossolalia (from two Greek words meaning "tongue" and "speak") refers to the phenomenon of ecstatic or unintelligible speech. Practitioners of glossolalia typically assert that they are either (1) speaking to God or worshiping Him in a heavenly language or (2) delivering a message directly from God to people here on earth.

Xenoglossia (lit., "foreign tongue") or xenolalia ("foreign speech") refers to a gifting from God that enables a believer to speak in a foreign language that he/she has never learned. It would be like me going to Germany and sharing the Gospel with someone in flawless German (which I have never studied), or going to Africa and speaking in some other language that I don't know.

Which came first? According to the biblical text, xenoglossia (foreign languages) was first. Does this mean that glossolalia (unintelligible utterance) was a later attempt to conjure up the original, biblical gift? Is it a counterfeit of the original? We cannot answer this question with absolute certainty because Paul does not specifically make such a connection between the two; however, it does seem to fit the biblical data. What we know for sure is that xenoglossia came first and Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, commends it; at the same time, however, he was wary of the practice of glossolalia and clearly tried to steer the early believers away from it.

Interestingly, even the founder of the modern tongues movement, Charles Parham (1873-1929), originally taught that the biblical gift of tongues was foreign languages. He established a Pentecostal Bible school and some of his early students traveled to foreign countries with the intention of using the biblical gift of tongues to share the Gospel with non-English speakers. These abortive forays into the mission field ultimately ended in failure. They tried to speak in tongues, but only gibberish came out—and there were no converts. Bewildered and disillusioned, they returned to the US and tried to regroup. However, Parham's ministry waned in later years amidst reports of sexual misconduct and allegations that he had ties to the secretive and racist Ku Klux Klan.

2. Tongues-speaking is mentioned in three books of the NT: Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians.

• The reference in Mark includes "new tongues" (Gk., glossais kainais) in a list of "signs" that "will follow those who believe" (16:17). Proponents of glossolalia say this refers to ecstatic speech as a manifestation of God's power. Proponents of xenoglossia, however, would say it refers to a supernatural gift whereby believers, as they take the Good News of Yeshua into the world, are enabled to speak in languages that are "new" (that is, unknown) to them. (If I suddenly started speaking in German, as I mentioned earlier, that would certainly be a "new" language to me.) Note that this verse in Mark occurs in a context where it's talking about carrying out the Great Commission (vv. 14-18), which, in my view, tips the interpretation toward xenoglossia. Also, the Greek word kainos means "new" in the sense of "unused" (see Bauer's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 394). Here, it’s the idea of speaking in a language one has never used before.

• There are three references in Acts, all of which are xenoglossia:
• Acts 2:4 — The Holy Spirit enables the 12 apostles to preach the Good News in the numerous languages of the thousands of people who were gathered in Jerusalem for the celebration of Shavuot (or Pentecost). Luke specifically mentions people from 15 different nations (vv. 8-11) and says they all "heard them speak in his own language" (v. 6).
• Acts 10:44-46 — This is the passage where God uses an object lesson to show Peter and his messianic Jewish brethren from Joppa that the new believing community (the ekklesia, or "called out ones") would include both Jewish and Gentile believers. Peter and the others had come from Joppa to visit the house of a Gentile God-fearer named Cornelius. When Peter shared the Good News with the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house, the Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke "with tongues" (v. 46), just like the Jewish believers had experienced in Jerusalem a few years earlier (Acts 2). We know it wasn’t gibberish not only because it followed the pattern of Pentecost, but also because there were people present who understood that they were glorifying God. As a result, the sometimes-cliquish Jewish believers clearly saw that God was doing something new—and it would also include non-Jews who adopted the grace-based faith of Abraham and its fulfillment in Yeshua the Messiah (see Romans 4:2-16).
• Acts 19:5-6 — After baptizing a dozen or so OT believers (that is, followers of John the Baptizer) in Ephesus, Paul lays hands on them and when they receive the Holy Spirit, they begin speaking in tongues (foreign languages) and prophesying (that is, speaking out spontaneously and praising God; cp. 10:46, 11:15).