Category Archives: Doctrine

United Church of God (Sabbatarians)

03 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by in Doctrine, Teaching

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, ,

United Church of God (Seventh-Day Adventist, Portsmouth, Ohio)

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-television-program/shocking-teachings-of-jesus-the-sabbath

Below is RT’s summary of a television transcript, including direct quotes. Participants are Steve Myers, Announcer, Darris McNeely, Gary Petty.

Steve Myers leads in with a series of questions, asking whether one can know if what is being taught by the various churches is the truth of God. “Do most churches really follow Jesus? How can you know whether the variety of teachings and customs faithfully represent the way Jesus taught and lived?”

Steve said the reason why division prevails among the church is because “only a weak understanding of what Jesus taught” is possessed by these churches that are divided. In observing this, a following question is asked, “Is any church just as good as another?” He answers this question with no, one church is not as good as another. Why is this the case, Because Jesus taught people must follow Him, not some teaching of a particular church. Referring to Matthew 7:21, “Christ Himself said: ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). The application of this, as in Luke 9:23, is one must take up the cross of Jesus and follow Him.

All of this leads to a question whether one is following Jesus in keeping the Sabbath. Here is how this is approached. 1) if one does not follow God’s commands, the one who says he/she loves Jesus is a liar and does not in truth love or follow; 2) the Sabbath is one of God’s commands; 3) therefore if one does not follow (observe) the Sabbath, that one is a liar and does not love God. This argument is based on 1 John 2:4-6.

From this, the following remarks are made: “Did you know that you cannot find anywhere in the Bible that Sunday is the day of worship? Search the Old and even the New Testament and you’ll find the biblical Sabbath is not Sunday. History and Scripture show that the New Testament Church worshiped on the true Sabbath—Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Shocking as it may be, most are surprised to realize there is no other day of worship mentioned from Genesis to Revelation.”

*******************

RT – This is simply false. Notice the Scripture: “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7, ASV). What day of the week? The first day! Was it called “Sunday”? It was not called “Sunday” in the New Testament, but that particular name, moniker or nomenclature is of no substance because, in the Scripture, it was on the first day of the week the Christians came together. Just to support the point of this being false, note the following:

  1. The Expositor’s Greek Testament Commentary says: “We must remember that 1 Cor. had been previously written, and that the reference in 1 Cor. 16:2 to ‘the first day of the week’ for the collection of alms naturally connects itself with the statement here in proof that this day had been marked out by the Christian Church as a special day for public worship, and for ‘the breaking of the bread’.” (E-Sword).
  2. Robertson’s Word Pictures says, “Either the singular (Mar. 16:9) sabbatou or the plural sabbaton as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1Cor. 16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In Rev. 1:10 the Lord’s day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though John 20:26 seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day.

To support their point of Sabbath-keeping, five translations are used to show the rendering of Mark 2:27. These translations all speak to the point of fact that Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath was made for all people, not just the Jewish people. “It’s certain that Jesus taught that the Sabbath was not made for the Jews…It’s not an Old Covenant thing made just for Moses and the Israelites—it’s actually a New Covenant thing—established at creation and continuing as true worship in the New Testament Church.”

RT – Really? Notice what Scripture says:

“Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He ceased from work and rested.” (Exodus 31:15-17, Jewish Publication Society). Notice the following points:

1)      The Lord said the command to observe the Sabbath was for the Israelites.

2)      Those who work on the Sabbath are to be killed (that is, the death penalty is rendered for violating the Sabbath command).

3)      It is a sign between the Lord and Israel, no one else. Moreover, with these words, the death penalty is applied if one does not observe. Will it be applied?  

Tie this in with the words of Nehemiah, “You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant” (9:13-14).

1)      From Exodus, it is a sign to the Israelite people

2)      In Nehemiah, it was made known unto them at Sinai.

3)      Made known by Moses.

Before the words of Exodus 16 there are no exhortations to observe the Sabbath, not even at the time of creation!

Then they declare, “Even after the crucifixion the apostles and the New Testament Church continued to observe the seventh-day Sabbath from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset as the day of true worship.”  RT – This is a lie; nothing in the pages of the New Testament teaches this is what they did. Neither is there any exhortation from any of the apostles this is what one should do! On the other hand, as one reads in Acts 20:7, they did meet on the first-day of the week to break bread, that is, to fellowship with the saints in the Lord’s Supper.  

“Nowhere in the Bible can you find the Sabbath changed to some other day. Imagine if it were changed, there would have been a huge discussion on it, and recorded for us—especially in the New Testament.” RT – No, one can’t find “The Sabbath has been changed to the first-day of the week” in Scripture. Nevertheless, one can find where the disciples did worship on the first day of the week (as mentioned above), led by apostolic authority. Moreover, to the saints in Corinth, Paul said they were to lay aside on the first day of the week, each week, every week that which the Lord prospered them. Why the first day? Because it was the day when the saints would gather together to worship the Lord. Thus, at best the remark is misleading; at worse, it is plain deceptive. The assumption there would have been a “huge discussion” if it were to have taken place is nothing but presumptive.

There is then a brief discussion concerning what people think relative to the Lord nailing the Sabbath on the cross. “Now there are multitudes who have been told and who honestly believe, that worshipping on the seventh-day Sabbath was abolished at the cross.” To address this perspective, they reply the Lord has a day, that day is the Sabbath day, and this was instituted at the time of creation. Confidently they assert the Lord’s day is not Sunday. This is maintained because of the 4th commandment in the Decalogue, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”. Moreover, it is declared that God is the same today, yesterday and forever (Heb. 13:8). Therefore, since the Lord does not change, then He did not change His day from the seventh to the first. “To claim to be Christian means we must follow Christ. To follow Jesus means we must observe the Sabbath!”

RT – This speaks much of their failing to understand Scripture. There are two points worth notice from Ephesians and Colossians. “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15, ESV). The context of Paul’s words is the relationship between Jews and Gentiles. What separated them was the law of commandments God gave the Israelite people at Mount Sinai, otherwise known as the Law of Moses. According to Paul’s words in Ephesians, the Lord nailed that teaching to the cross, thereby removing the wall that separated the two peoples from spiritual fellowship. How do I know this is the context? Paul said it is it in 2:11-13.

Again, “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:11-14). The initiation into the old Covenant was for the male via circumcision; this is no longer the case since Jesus was nailed to the cross taking the “hand-writing requirements” (NKJV) with him. As Albert Barnes said, “The word rendered handwriting means something written by the hand, a manuscript; and here, probably, the writings of the Mosaic law, or the law appointing many ordinances or observances in religion” (E-Sword).

If Hebrews 13:8 is applied, as they apply it, then the Lord’s directive of animal sacrifices given in Leviticus still is authoritative for Christians today, as is circumcision for the males at eight-days of age. If they say a portion of the Law of Moses has been nailed to the cross, let them declare what portion that is.

At this point, two others participate in the discussion (Darris McNeely and Gary Petty). Darris said since the Sabbath day was at the point of creation, “Sabbath has been in effect since creation.” By this he means that Sabbath day observance goes back to the time of creation. Gary supports this thinking when he says the “Sabbath is for all humanity, not just Jews, for all humanity. You put those two things together and it is obvious the Sabbath was created for everyone, and it hasn’t been done away.” Steve then gives his support to this also.

R T – What can be said about the Lord resting on the seventh day, after six days of creative work (since this is relative to the conversation of sabbath day observance)? This is all that can be said, nothing more. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:2-3). God finished His work in six days; He rested on the seventh day; God blessed the seventh day, that is, He made it holy. From this man draws what? There is no decree from the Lord that man is to observe and rest. A person can reasonably draw a conclusion that one should emulate the Father in heaven and thereby rest on the seventh day. But there is nothing from the Lord that speaks to this being a matter of obligation. The first obligation set forth by the Lord does not take place until Exodus 16, to Moses and the children of Israel.

Also, was it not the case the apostles took on the authority of the Lord when they preached the Gospel message to the lost in the world (1 Cor. 14:37)? If that is the case, and they worshiped on the first day of the week, then they established the pattern of worship in a New Testament context. The alternative is they disobeyed the Father of glories by not observing the Sabbath.

BeyondToday.tv or write to us at the address shown on your screen [Beyond Today, PO Box 541027, Cincinnati, OH 45254].

Sent to the television program on 7.20.2018

By Faith

02 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Atheism, Doctrine, God, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Well known atheist, Paul Davies, made a comment in 2007 that warrants repetition here. In an extended remark to the NY Times that scientists have to live by faith, he said: “Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith – namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.”

This is a significant remark, in my view. More than once, he said this. The evolutionary dogma of many in the world is a a matter of doctrinal faith; thus, those scientist who challenge this faith are on the verge of being “change agents” and, consequently, apostatizing from the faith of atheistic evolutionary origins.

It seems to e this a great opportunity to see (debate) which one’s faith system is more credible. RT

Source of quote is from Jeff Miller in “Does God Exist?” Apologetics Press, Montgomery, AL, pp. 64-65 (2018)

The Church of Sweden

02 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by in Doctrine, Faithfulness, Man-Made Churches

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/church-sweden-stop-clergy-calling-god-lord-bid-crack-gendered/

Church of Sweden to stop clergy calling God ‘he’ or ‘the Lord’ in bid to crack down on gendered language

The Church of Sweden is urging its clergy to use gender-neutral language when referring to the supreme deity, refraining from using terms like “Lord” and “He” in favor of the less specific “God.”

RT: Why is this taking place? Is it because the Greek text of the New Testament demands this, or is there some other reason? A good translation can‘t do anything but responsibly translate in an accurate manner the (a) word from the document of origin to the language of destination. Thus, when the word “theos” in Greek is translated, the language of destination (English) uses the word “God.” What Greek word is used to give us our English word “Lord”? That word is kurios. It’s a word that conveys power and authority, appropriately translated “Lord.” Does not the word “God” convey the same? It can and does, but the word “God” does not come, translationally (if you will), from kurios. The less specific “God” is not less specific (with regard to authority), except when one wants to eliminate an idea that permeates the Bible, especially the New Testament, such as the idea conveyed in the word “Lord”.

The move is one of several taken by the national Evangelical Lutheran church in updating a 31-year-old handbook setting out how services should be conducted in terms of language, liturgy, hymns and other aspects.

RT: Since the Evangelical Lutheran Church is not a term one reads of or about in the Bible, then their origin as a church is from the mind of man. Anything man conjures up is bound to change; he is as steady as the waves of the sea. The Holy Spirit gave warning in these words: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12, ASV).

The decision was taken Thursday at the end of an eight-day meeting of the church’s 251-member decision-making body, and takes effect May 20 on the Christian holiday of Pentecost.

A former state church, headquartered in Uppsala, some 60 kilometers (37 miles) north of the capital, the church has 6.1 million baptized members in a country of 10 million. It is headed by a woman, Archbishop Antje Jackelen.

RT: The Scriptures teach, “Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In today’s environment, such words as from the apostle Paul are not well received. Of course, this makes our point. With man there is constant change. With God, He is steady as a rock, the Rock. The Lord, in other words, does not support the head of any church filled by a female or, for that matter, a male. He (Jesus) is the head of the church, and what He says concerning it is not up for discussion. Paul, in writing to the church in Ephesus about Jesus, said this: “far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: and he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church” (1:21-22).

Jackelen told Sweden’s TT news agency a more inclusive language had already been discussed at the 1986 conference. “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human,” Jackelen was quoted as saying by TT.

RT: Yes, it is true, inherently speaking, God is beyond our gender determinations, but it is not true that God did not become human. When Jesus became flesh (He who was/is God), He became a man, a male, not a female. There is a reason for this, and the reason belongs entirely to God. Thus, God is not beyond our gender determinations!  Consider what Paul said about the Lord in his second letter to the Corinthians, “Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (5:21). Notice the pronouns; substitute those pronouns with a neutral word, then read it; for instance, use the word “it.” How does this help one to properly understand?

The change was met with criticism, however. Christer Pahlmblad, an associate theology professor with Sweden’s Lund University, told Denmark’s Kristeligt Dagblad that the move was “undermining the doctrine of the Trinity and the community with the other Christian churches.”

“It really isn’t smart if the Church of Sweden becomes known as a church that does not respect the common theology heritage,” he said.

RT: This is not an answer to the problem. It’s not a matter of heritage, but of truth as revealed in Scripture. Perhaps there are occasions when a neutral word is much better than a word specifically oriented; on the other hand, those who have an agenda to neuter language for the sake of psychology might also have an agenda to neuter and neutralize the Way of God. The Church of Sweden, the state church seems to have this approach (their denials not withstanding!).  

Gender-neutral terms | Checklist

Forefathers – ancestors, forebears

Gentleman’s agreement – unwritten agreement, agreement based on trust

Girls (for adults) – women

Housewife – shopper, consumer, homemaker (depends on context)

Manpower – human resources, labour force, staff, personnel, workers, workforce

Man or mankind – humanity, humankind, human race, people

Man-made – artificial, manufactured, synthetic

Man in the street, common man – average/ordinary/typical citizen/person

Right-hand man – chief assistant

Sportsmanship – fairmess, good humour, sense of fair play

Cardiff Metropolitan University’s Guide to Inclusive Language

 

A Contrast of Ideas

20 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Corinthians, Doctrine, history, Islam

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In 1 Corinthians 1, the apostle Paul addresses a problem that has plagued the Lord’s church since its beginning in the first century. The problem is in relation to competing ideas. There are three competing ideologies in the chapter, especially in verses 18-31. Those competing ideas are the gospel of Jesus Christ, the philosophy of this world, and a godly religion commandeered by fallen man.

The gospel of Jesus Christ stands without peer. The other two ideologies, however, will not let that go unchallenged. The gospel, of course, is God’s good news as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to this earth to redeem man, and as He lived on this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15). He fulfilled he law’s demands and all prophecies relating to His coming.

The wisdom of this world, as represented by Greek philosophical idea, is an ideology that looks upon what the Lord did as sophistically inadequate, too simplistic, and surely too naïve in today’s world. Yet, this same philosophy, or any idea that replaces it, is empty of spiritual and emotional substance that gives man answers to a chaotic world. All it really does is give answers and hope the hearer/receiver will be satisfied with that. That might be fine, but what good will that do for one when life is over?

The competing religious ideas, as represented in Judaism, are ideas that seek to grab the heart of man, teaching him that there is indeed something beyond this world. Not only is Judaism like this, but Islam also. In both cases they are false religions. Islam was false from its very start, but Judaism got its start with God on Mount Sinai. The Lord wanted the nation of Israel to obey, and when they obeyed, they were blessed. Unfortunately, as a nation, Israel took a path that was their destruction; after their national redemption they still failed to understand properly the Law’s intent (cf. Romans 9:33-10:3).

Paul understood the challenge, so he preached. “And my message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, in order that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, English Majority Text).

 

ETHICS

04 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Doctrine, Ethics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The word “ethic” is defined as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation” (Merriam Webster, p. 625). This is a word used often, but though it is expected some will know the meaning and standard used to judge, it is not always the case that it is known. In this section  of the bulletin we will be giving some consideration to the word from the Bible’s perspective. For instance, in Psalm 21, the NKJV used the word “evil” when speaking about the intentions of some people against the Lord’s way (Psalm 21:11). Though it is not explicitly stated, it is clear the standard used to determine exactly what is “evil” is the Lord’s standard of righteousness. In an ethical study or discussion there must be a standard accepted by which behavior is judged. Since the Lord’s standard of righteousness, as seen and revealed in God, is the ONLY standard that transcends man—it will be the Lord’s standard that is firmly in place to help us judge.

Taught of God

20 Monday Oct 2014

Posted by in Doctrine, Teaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Scriptures teach in John 6:44-45 that for one to come to Jesus that one must be taught by the Father. Jesus explained what He meant when He said that through the writings of Scripture one is taught by the Father. Interestingly enough, but just a few words later, the Lord said this with regard to Judas, “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ For Jesus knew from the beginning who were the ones who did not believe, and who was the one who would betray Him. And He said, ‘Because of this I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father’” (John 6:64-65, EMTV).

Why did Judas betray the Lord? Because he did not allow himself to be taught by the Lord. Though the Lord gave him ample opportunity to learn and apply the words of life that He expected in others, Judas, simply put, was not interested; that is, he did not allow the Lord’s teaching to find a home in his heart, stopping him from his betrayal.

What does this tell us? It tells us many things. First, proximity is not a teacher. Can one get closer to God than Judas did for the amount of time that he was with Jesus, and not learn? What did Judas learn? No doubt, he learned much, but the goal of teaching is more than giving information, it is giving information whereby a person’s life is changed. Second, there should be little doubt that Judas gained much information from Jesus concerning things in life that were (and are) important. This academic knowledge not transferred into one’s heart application is knowledge for knowledge’s sake, and, in the end, of not much value. Third, to be taught by God is not a matter of hearing an audible voice from heaven, and neither is it some silent voice that one believes comes from within. To be taught of God means to read, learn, and apply what the Lord said (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The truth of God applied sets one free from the bondage of sin (John 8:31-22), and this is exactly what Judas would not allow himself to apply. Whereas God granted unto him “repentance unto life,” Judas heard and considered what God said and did not apply it (cf. Acts 13:27).

 

Doctrine: PRAYER

10 Friday Oct 2014

Posted by in Doctrine, Prayer, Relationship

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

A Patient Response And Yearning towards Eternity’s Rewards. Prayer is the avenue the Lord gave His children that enhances one’s relation with the Father in heaven. It is a lot like one’s earthly dad who has a loving, firm, and nurturing connection with his child. A patient response is not asking the Lord for help/strength and then, in a weaken state, engage in that which one prayed to the Lord about to avoid. Eternity’s reward is more than eternal bliss, as we look at it from this “underneath” side, but it is rest for our weary souls. Speaking of reward, the reward for such a relationship is priceless. Well…almost. It did cost Jesus His life (Acts 20:28).

A New Groom

29 Monday Sep 2014

Posted by in Doctrine, Jesus

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

In Romans 7, the Lord’s apostle expounds on the significance of the Law of Moses in relation to the Lord’s New Covenant. In this exposition, he speak of marriage and adultery. To the Jew, to obey a law other than the Law of Moses, one was guilty of adultery, and adultery is punishable by death (cf. Deut. 17:1-5). In fact, this theme is seen throughout the writings of the prophets.

To those of Jewish persuasion, Paul knew he had a case to make. This he does in his letter to the church at Rome, just as he did when went into the synagogues each Sabbath day when the local Jewish community gathered for study of the Torah and Prophets (cf. Acts 17:3).

As long as the Law of Moses was sanctioned by God and in active force, for one who was a Jew, to obey something that was different than the Law of Moses was to be liable to punishment. However, if the Law of Moses was no longer sanctioned by God and in active force, to obey the New Covenant not only relieved one from the punishment of death, but actually liberated those who obeyed from the heart (6:16-18) from sin, something they could not be relieved from by the Law of Moses (Acts 13:39).

Using the illustration of marriage, Paul makes his point. A woman is married, but when her husband dies she is no longer married (but a widow). According to the Lord, the Law of Moses died (Colossians 2:14); thus, those who “marry” the New Covenant, now live life with a new groom.

1 Corinthians 14 – Decently and in Order

26 Friday Sep 2014

Posted by in Corinthians, Doctrine, Teaching

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

1 Corinthians 14

Decently and in order

This study pertains to how Paul used the word “speak” in 1 Corinthians 14. It is my contention that he did not use the word as we often use it today, as in casually talking to another. Rather, Paul used the word in the context of teaching.

There are two English words I want to consider; they are “say” and “speak.” These two words are similar, but there is a distinction.

SAY

  1. The English word “say” is used 27 times in 1 Corinthians. The Greek word legēte is used 33 times in Paul’s letter to the saints in Corinth (KostenBerger, p. 937). In 1 Corinthians 14, the word is used 5 times (14:16, 21, 23, 34), and in the context of the miraculous (chapters 12-14), it is used an additional 4 times (12:3, 15, 16, 21).
  2. This word is defined: to lay, arrange, gather, to say, to speak, to make an address or speech (Perschbacher, pp. 255-256).
  3. Bauer gives a little more than four columns of information in his lexicon to how this word is used in the New Testament (pp. 468-470). He defines it in general terms as: utter in words, say, tell, and give expression to.
  4. Balz does not give as much attention, but thoroughly enough (three complete columns in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 346-347). The basic meaning is pick up, gather, count, enumerate, narrate, speak, tell, say (“say” being the dominant understanding in the New Testament).
  5. In 14:16 the word is used 2 times: “will say” (epei) and “what you say” (legeis). In 14:21 the word is “says” (legei), in 14:23 “say” (erousin), and in 14:34 “says” (legei).
  6. SUMMARY: the context defines how the word is best understood. In 1 Cor. 14, the word is more closely associated with “utterance,” but is included in a “teaching” context. For instance, in 14:16, “how can one say amen” to that teaching which is not understood (also in v. 23)? In 14:21, “the Lord says;” it is clear the Lord teaches via the Scriptures (also in v. 34).

SPEAK

  1. The English word “speak” (speak, speaking) is used 32 times in 1 Corinthians (NKJV), 24 times in chapters 14, and 3 times in the context of chapters 12-13 (12:3, 30; 13:1). The Greek word laleō is used 34 times in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, 24 times in chapter 14 (with 4 additional uses in chapter 12-13; they are: 12:3, 30, and 13:1, 11). The word literally means to speak, to express oneself, especially “in contrast to keeping silent” (Bauer, p. 463). Does this word mean the same as the English say? It does have some overlap in meaning, but a distinction between the words is there. “Laleō is distinguished from legō in that it only rarely means say that...or is followed by indirect discourse” (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 366).
  2. The NKJV does not translate laleō as speak It is say in 9:8; spoke in 13:11; and spoke in 14:5. The translation variance is but little.
  3. How does Paul use the word?
  • 14:2. The word is used 3 times in this verse (lalōn, lalei). The words in this verse are used in a teaching and non-teaching setting. For instance, the word lalei (speak) is used in relation to God, but one can’t teach God, for He is the teacher of all people everywhere. The one who does speak to God, however, is communicating cognitive thoughts (even though he himself may not understand the particular utterances). On the other hand, the one who speaks in a tongue to man (anthropois) is teaching, for that is the purpose of speaking in languages not known (cf. Acts 2:6-11). To buttress this point: “Although [laleō] and [akouō] are regularly translated broadly to mean respectively to speak and to hear, the issue in these verses clearly turns on intelligible communication or effective communicative action between speakers and listeners” (Thiselton, p. 1084). In other words, teaching.
  • 14:3 (lalei). The word in this verse simply supports what was said in the previous. When edification, exhortation, and comfort are accomplished, the words spoken teach, educate, etc.
  • 14:4 (lalōn). Paul makes clear what tongues do – they edify (teach). In the context of the first 4 verses, Paul clearly understands the word to communicate cognitive thoughts to others (that is, teach). It is also clear there might exist a lack of understanding with those who had the capability, and thus a lack of teaching. The words used, when spoken to another, were nothing but unintelligible thoughts. Considered further: if “no man” (ASV) understands (14:2), then the one who spoke did not understand either. It is possible, I admit, that the “no man” can have application to all, but the one who spoke (14:4).
  • 14:5 (lalein, lalōn). Since tongues (languages) edify, those who are edified by that which the tongue (muscle) speaks are taught. Prophecy and tongues/interpretation are used in edification, teaching.
  • 14:6 (lalōn, lalēsō). Does Paul make a distinction between the speaking and teaching in this verse? Williams New Testament translation: “But as it now is, brothers, if I do come back to you speaking in ecstasy, what good shall I do you, unless my speech contains a revelation or new knowledge or a prophetic message or some teaching?” ESV: “Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?” In other words, Paul is making a distinction when the hearers on the other end of the word spoken (if you will) understand not a single thing spoken!
  • 14:9 (laloumenon, lalountes). See above
  • 14:11 (lalounti, lalōn). See above
  • 14:13 (lalōn). The next 5 verses are concluding thoughts to what Paul said previously. When one speaks in a tongue, he is to desire (and pray for) the ability to interpret; this is for edification (teaching) purposes. If he speaks in a tongue, but understands nothing about that which he said, he is not edified (taught), but only speaks to God. To that degree, then, he glorifies God, but nothing beneficial in the way of teaching for himself. “What Paul urges upon those who are zealous for gifts is that, if they have the gift of tongues, they also pray for the gift of interpreting whatever they may be given to speak with a tongue. The reason for this has already been stated, namely that the church may receive edification, v. 12” (Lenski 590).
  • 14:18 (lalōn). The word speak in this verse can be understood to be capability, but not capability apart from the end toward which tongue speaking was used by the Lord. In other words, Paul said, “I have the ability to speak with tongues more than you all…”
  • 14:19 (lalēsai). Continuing the thought: Paul said, “I have the ability to speak with tongues more than you all, but in a congregational setting, I would rather teach with few words that people can understand, than to show that I had the capability to speak with many words in a foreign language, but others are not edified (taught) by that which I said.” The B. Phillips translation reads: “I thank God that I have a greater gift of ‘tongues’ than any of you, yet when I am in church I would rather speak five words with my mind (which might teach something to other people) than ten thousand words in a ‘tongue’ which nobody understands.”
  • 14:21 (lalēsaō). The Lord says through His word a particular teaching (lalēsō).
  • 14:23 (lalōsin). The church gathers together, and someone comes into the confines of the church’s gathering, and all are speaking (teaching) in tongues (languages), what is the visitor to think? Whether in an orderly or disorderly way, that which is not understood (the words spoken), the visitor will dismiss what he observed as madness.
  • 14:27 (lalei). The hypothetical Paul speaks of in vs. 23, he now addresses particularly in vss. 26-32. With the spiritual gifts “in hand,” and with the church gathered together, let things be done orderly. If one has the ability to speak (teach) with the tongue (language), then let him do so, but only if an interpreter is present for edification of the church.
  • 14:28 (laleitō). If there is no interpreter, then let him speak to God only. Clearly, God is not taught anything when one speaks to God.
  • 14:29 (laleitōsan). The prophets who speak (teach) are to have that which they say judged by those who hears. “Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said” (NET). The speaking is teaching.
  • 14:34 (lalein). Silent in this context, therefore, pertains to teaching, and not to something other than that (an important point not to be missed). It does not address whether or not the women had the miraculous gifts that came from God; it only addresses that which pertains to what is done in an assembly context. The women are not to teach (speak) in the assembly in this context. This comports and compliments Paul’s words to Timothy in his first letter to him (1 Timothy 2:12).
  • 14:35 (lalein). This verse is, admittedly, difficult to interpret. We can begin, however, with continuing the theme that women are not to speak, that is, teach in the assembly context under discussion. The context, thus far, in no way addresses women uttering audible sounds, like putting words together to make a sentence. Perhaps here we have something different (though this is not certain). Maybe their “speaking” was an effort to teach. If the word “speak” is to be understood exegetically in the context as “teach” (and I maintain that it does), then there needs to be an adequate reason for why it does not mean the same in this verse. In any case, the Holy Spirit gave His teaching for the church then (and today). I offer the following as a reasonable interpretation: First, there seems to be a special assembly (14:26) wherein those capable of exercising the gifts that came from God did so. Second, evidently some women (wives) were present. Whether this was normal or not is unstated, but it seems reasonable to me it was. Third, there was teaching taking place. Fourth, with this teaching taking place, the women “want to learn something.” There is given to us nothing in the text concerning how much (if anything) was learned by the women. Presumably they had desire for further elaboration; maybe there was something said by a teacher that was not understood (but that is not something we gain from the text). Fifth, the women were not to disrupt what was going on, but to gain elaboration, additional teaching, or learning of some sort – they were to gain this at home. Brad Price has some very good words on a portion of this verse.

 

The word ask (eperotao) is a present tense verb that meant “approaching an authority for answers” (CBL, GED, 2:511); this same word and meaning are found in Luke 2:46; 9:45. This term may also “indicate intensity since it can mean ‘demanding’ rather than just ‘asking’” (ibid). The present tense plus the CBL [The Complete Bible Library] definition indicates women were being disruptive at worship. The point is clarified a little more by the fact that “speak” is a present tense verb (women were asking questions on a regular basis). Perhaps women justified their interruptions by saying they just wanted to “learn” (manthano. Paul also used this word in verse 31). Since the interruptions were leading to “confusion” instead of “peace” (verse 33), and they did not harmonize with a woman’s being “in subjection” (34b), Paul said ladies with questions had to “ask their own husbands at home. (E-Sword)

 

  • 14:39 (lalein). In not forbidding to speak in tongues in the assembly, Paul has in mind teaching.

 

  1. The conclusion of this study is that Paul had in mind teaching when he addressed these thoughts in the chapter. Thus, the speaking was not pertaining to some talking as one would talk with another in the church pew sitting beside one another. The miraculous gifts from God were given for two reasons, and one is addressed in this chapter, namely the edification (building up). Those who had gifts from God were to teach, instructing the local church, the local body of saints. Some useful words, again, from Brad Price:

 

Verse 40 again affirms that the Corinthians could use whatever abilities they received from the Holy Spirit if they abided by the rules governing these gifts. Paul ended the thought by saying “all things” were to be done (present tense) “decently” and “in order” (compare this point to the word “unseemly” and the discussion of this term in the commentary on 13:5). Decently (euschemonos) literally meant “of good external appearance.” In other words, there should have been “good behavior” at worship. This adverb occurs only here, Rom. 13:13 and 1Thess. 4:12. The church has never been a place for people to “cut loose” and behave in whatever way they want. The phrase in order comes from a single term (taxis) that meant “in an orderly manner.” Josephus used the negative form of this word to say “the Roman army did not erect its camp in disorderly parties” (Rienecker and Rogers, p. 438). Paul wanted these Christians to conduct themselves in a way that would end all the confusion and disorder (compare verse 33). If this were not done, non-Christian might have been puzzled or frightened (verse 23) and the Corinthians would not have received as much instruction and edification from the services as God wanted. Today worship still needs to have a good external appearance and be orderly. Two things that help accomplish these goals are good organization and planning. Good leadership (elders) is also necessary (for some information on these men see the commentary on 12:27-28).

 

  1. Not only did we consider the context and a proper application of that context, it is a misuse of the passage (14:40) to apply these words to females when females speak “between the prayers” (opening and closing of the worship service), unless, of course, the (or a) female is teaching. This is not to say that any female or any male should be talking in a way that disrupts worship of God, but the particular verse has no application to some saint who is talking to another. It can, however, have application if when the saints are engaged in worship, there is an effort by one (male or female) to be disruptive. The saints are participating in that which is sacred; thus, all attention should be on the Lord, not on the temporal, which in this context is disruptive. In an effort to make sure that things are done decently and in order, don’t run past the horse, putting the cart first.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. University of Chicago Press, 1958.
  2. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 3 volumes, Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Eerdmans. 1991.
  3. Kostenberger, Andreas and Bouchoc, Raymond. The Book Study Concordnace of the Greek New Testament. Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville. 2003
  4. Perschbacher, Wesley, J. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Hendrickson Publishers. Peabody, MA. 1990.
  5. Price, Brad. First Corinthians. http://www.abiblecommentary.com. 2010.
  6. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Eerdmans. Grand Rapids, MI. 2000.

WOMEN IN FIRST CORINTHIANS (3)

21 Sunday Sep 2014

Posted by in Corinthians, Doctrine, Leadership, Teaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

This is a third article on women in Corinthians; the second is here.

I want to revert back to a chapter that I did not address; I think this is a good place to do so. The questions the Corinthians asked Paul in chapter 7 needs some attention in my estimation (that is, in this context of “Women in….” series).

It is in this chapter that Paul addresses intimacy, marriage, and a particular circumstance, about which we know nothing. Each one deals with the roles of the male and female, but since I am addressing the female, I want to give some attention to the points.

With regard to intimacy, the Holy Spirit instructs (through Paul) the obligations the male has toward the female, and the other way around. Marriage is a relationship of people, their personalities, hopes, insecurities, and anything else that might be involved. Marriage is also an intimate setting for the husband and wife. There is no with-holding of conjugal obligations of one from the other.

There is also a marriage perplexity Paul dealt with that troubled some. What if a spouse who is not Christian no longer wants to be married; what should the Christian spouse do? The answer is to “hold on to the Lord.” Don’t hold on to the marriage, and give up the Lord. A disastrous decision to be sure!

Later in the chapter Paul addressed a problem concerning some circumstance that might cause a problem in the desires of a male and female to be married (7:25-40). While the male takes the lead in the decision making, it is reasonable that the female has a role in this also. Ultimately, however, due to the assigned roles by the Holy Spirit, the female is to submit to his leadership in this case.