Back to sermon search

Full transcript

Tonight, as you have heard, I have been asked to do, or at least attempt to do, three things. The first of them is to comment on the final verses of chapter fourteen of one Corinthians. Secondly, I'm asked to respond to a whole sheaf of questions that have been handed in to me, and thank you, incidentally, you who are the authors of the questions. And thirdly, uh, to answer as well I can, you'll see, uh, all the other questions that you will bring, uh, to me or against me or whatever, or upon me in the course of the proceedings. So first, to the first task, to comment on the final verses of one Corinthians fourteen. And as we shall all be aware, these are verses that deal with one thing that Christian women are asked not to do. I mustn't complain, else I shall be thought to be one of those in Israel that is forever complaining. But one of these days, what a lovely thing it will be to be asked to talk on all those things that, uh, Christian women are asked to do and can do, and in fact do. What a marvelous thing it would be. It would want two or three sessions to do it in, and to remind ourselves what a healthy task it would be, how much we do owe to the ministry of sisters right from our very birth to our death, and how much the church is indebted to their ministry and to their enriching ministry, as indeed our own Apsley Assembly is to their ministry and enormously hard work. And when I think of the state of affairs as I know it on some mission fields, and I think of the situations in which such as our dear good sister Ruth Hadley has worked, and people like Paul Winterb- uh uh uh Pearl Winterburn pioneering in Zambia all by herself. And one hears, as one goes around, the repeated cry, but where are the men? Then I feel like hanging my head in shame on behalf of the brethren. I don't know where they've got to, do you? That it is so often left to women in savage parts to be translating Holy Scripture and pioneering in the gospel when the men are goodness knows where. Rather than talk about what the, the sisters are asked not to do, I feel prompted to talk to the men about what they ought to be doing. But then the Sanhedrin have decreed otherwise, and I must obey the Sanhedrin. So let's begin on the first topic, and begin by reading. And for that purpose, let me point out that the paragraph that we are now about to read starts actually, as Paul originally wrote it, halfway through verse 33. Now, you may have an English translation that reads as something like this, for God is not a God of confusion, verse thirty three, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints, full stop. As though those final words, as in all the churches of the saints, were the end of verse thirty three and the end of the topic thus far dealt with. And that in verse forty we turn to a different topic, but actually the end of the previous topic comes with the word peace in verse thirty three. And the better punctuation, as nowadays generally agreed, the better punctuation puts a full stop at the word peace and begins the next paragraph, as in all the churches of the saints. So let us read the paragraph thus. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own. Many translations at this point say husbands, and maybe that is the best way to translate it in English. The Greek word can mean a husband or a man, a male. In my humble estimation, it would be better to understand it as ask their own menfolk at home. For it is a shame, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. What, was it from you that the word of God went forth? Or came it unto you alone? If any man thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord. But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues, but let all things be done decently and in order. Our first thing then is to notice what it is that the women folk are asked not to do. It's mentioned twice, once in verse thirty four and again in verse thirty five. It is not, says Paul, permitted to them to speak, verse thirty four. And in verse thirty five, it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church. That we might understand some, at least, of the whys and wherefores of this thing, though I am persuaded I shall not be able to satisfy you on all the whys and the wherefores, uh, tonight, but that we can understand some of them and the basic sum. Let's notice to begin with, shall we, the basic distinction that controls this particular exhortation. It is the question of the difference between the church on the one hand and the home and other places on the other. A distinction that anyway is important in the New Testament, not only in this matter, but in other matters as well. Let me try to demonstrate that to you, if I may, within the compass of these particular chapters. Would you care to look back to chapter eleven, for instance? Where, uh, we meet for the first time in this particular context, this distinction between the church and the home or elsewhere. Verse twenty: When therefore you assemble yourselves together, that is in church, of course, it is not possible to eat the Lord's supper, says Paul, for in your eating each one taketh before his own supper, and one is hungry and another is drunken. What, have you not houses to eat and to drink in? Or despise you the church of God? Verse thirty four: If any man is hungry, let him eat at home. But your coming together be not unto judgment. So in chapter eleven, we notice this distinction between church and home. Something that would be inappropriate in church, of course, perfectly appropriate in the home. It would appear, Lisa, the experts tell us, that in some of the early churches, the believers had developed the custom of having a fellowship meal along with and as part of the Lord's Supper, and they were doing it in church, and it had led to grievous abuse, as you see here, and not least the fact that the distinction between the Lord's Supper and the fellowship meal got obliterated, and nobody knew who was doing what when, if at all, so to speak. And therefore, Paul lays down now that this business of having a fellowship, a meal along with the Lord's Supper should cease. It's a question of having a meal to satisfy hunger, let it be done at home. And if it's a question of the Lord's Supper, let that be done in church. A clear distinction between the two, and from a practical point of view and from a spiritual point of view, very important and necessary. Look again at verses we covered a week or two ago, chapter fourteen. Chapter fourteen, verse eighteen. here's Paul speaking, and he says, I thank God I speak with tongues more than you all. How be it in the church. How that's different. I had rather speak five words with my understanding that I might instruct others also, and ten thousand words in a tongue. What might be perfectly suitable and appropriate for Paul to do in private or elsewhere, when it comes to in the church, that is different. Or, still keeping to this matter of the qu- of speaking in tongues, let's look at verses twenty seven and twenty eight. If any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most three, and that in turn. And let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God. His keeping silence in the church doesn't stop him from worshiping. Do pray notice that. Some, uh, good ladies have said, well, if I cannot audibly pray in church, then I can't worship. That isn't quite true, is it? Here is a man being told to be silent in the church. He has a gift of tongues, but if there be no interpreter, he is to keep quiet in the church. But that doesn't mean that he cannot worship. He is, so Paul says, and let him speak to himself. That's not a sign of incipient insanity. Let him speak to himself and to God. It doesn't cut off the possibility of worshiping the Lord if you cannot, for some reason, speak audibly in church. But here then is the distinction that we now meet again in verses thirty four and thirty five. It is not good for a woman then to speak in church. So, if they would ask anything, says verse thirty five, if they, sorry, would learn anything, let them ask their own menfolk at home. What is very good and appropriate at home, not appropriate in church. Now, as you will see, I am of old, and not say old fashioned, you'll see. I was brought up after the Queen Victoria died, that is to be sure, but a long while ago. And in those days, of course, importance was attached to things formal and public, as do things distinct from things informal. Nowadays, if I have read the thermometer right, our modern generations are not so keen on the formal side to life and prefer very much more the informal. You see it everywhere. So that it could be that some would be impatient with this dinosauric attitude, this business of the distinction between the formal church and elsewhere. Allow me to suggest to you that nonetheless it remains of immense importance. There is such a thing as the official public meetings of the church, as distinct from all other kinds of meetings, whether elsewhere and in the home, that are not official public meetings of the church. And that is very important. It's important for all sorts of reasons. Let me mention now a negative one that is a positive one. A church is a place where you are a member, but can be, if occasion required, excommunicated. And the earlier chapters of this epistle have shown us the exceeding importance of this very grave function. If someone who claims to be a believer has so misbehaved as to drag the honor of Christ in the dust and to cause even the Gentile shock and dismay at his behavior. Then the man is to be excommunicated. Why? Well, for the Lord's sake and for the sake of the testimony of the church, because if the church officially and publicly allows that per- kind of behavior to go on. They might as well pack up preaching the gospel. Because the outside won't listen to you. If you let a child abuser, convicted in the courts of child abuse, come into your assembly and be a member of it, and, uh, prominently a member of it, well, the church outside are not going to send their children to your Sunday school, nor are they going to listen to your gospel. Whereas if you have just an informal group that has no inside or outside, like some folks do in some places, and content themselves with just that, then when it comes to this kind of thing, they have no safeguard against scandal. I remember a group once where I was invited to be. There they were in their zeal for the gospel, and they got a good man who had professed conversion, and there they had him informally in a drawing room, and then they thought it would be a good idea to hold the Lord's Supper, and they held the Lord's Supper. It wasn't but a day or two, uh, after that that the man was in prison for crime. What kind of a testimony would that be? So that this idea of the formal public meeting of the church is very important. It is important even if the group meets in a house. You will remember that Gaius, mentioned in one of John's epistles, was such a wealthy man and he had such a big house, so the church met in his house. Yes? Is this often so? You'll see. But suppose now one of these days, uh, for some reason, Epsley decided, uh, that it was going to give up this hall and it was going to meet, uh, you'll see, in Brother Tompkins' house. Right, who's going to meet in Brother Tompkins' house. He kindly opens his house, you'll see, to the assembly. Now, what's the situation now? Well, that's important to me. Suppose, let's take two different examples. Suppose of an odd Thursday night or a Sunday night or a Saturday afternoon, who knows, his brother Tompkins is in pleased to invite some believers round to his house, and they have a Bible study. Oh, lovely. Why shouldn't he? But it's his own house, and it's his own meeting, and he invited the folks, and that's his meeting. And I turn up at the door, uh, and he says hello, nice to see you. And I say, yes, yes, yes, yes. Well, he says, sorry, I, you know, I'm hung up this afternoon, tied up. I've got a meeting in my house. And I say, yes, I know you have, but I'm coming in. There are all actually folks there, and I, I know them all, so I have a right to come in. Brother Tompkins might say, oh, but I'm sorry, you're not invited. Oh, but I have a right to. Yes, but what do you mean? This is my house. This is a private meeting. This is a group of folks. We're meeting scripture. This is my house, and if I don't invite you, you're not free to come. Yeah. And perfectly within his rights, isn't he? But suppose the aforesaid Brother Tompkins has opened his house for the church to meet in. That's a very different story, isn't it? Because now when I turn up at the door and say I want to come in, he says, no, you're not coming in, this is my house and I don't like you. I shall say, well, now it's a meeting of the church, it's not for you to decide who comes into this meeting in your house. That's for the elders of the church to decide. And mighty great ru- eruptions and scandals and disasters have happened in that kind of situation, when a church has met in met in somebody's building on the person's own premises, and then the man who owns the premises suddenly decides that because it's his premises, he's going to control what the church does. That is disaster. And you see, if a gentleman in that situation says, this is my house and I'm not going to have that doctrine taught here, is it for him to decide or the elders to decide? If it's a church meeting, it's for the elders to decide what is taught in that gathering, if it's a church meeting. How many times have one noticed it all around the years that you have the little meetings in people's houses, and they teach all sorts of funny things, and because it's in a private house, then, then the man says, but you can't control it. Well, if it is a private meeting, so. If it's a meeting of the church, that's a very different thing. So it isn't a question of the building you meet in, or how many people are present. When the New Testament talks of church, it's talking of the official meeting of a church, whatever that meeting be for, and a meeting that is not an official meeting of the church. In official meetings of the church, therefore, says Paul, now my, uh, apostolic direction is that the good ladies shall not speak in the meetings of the church. He was, of course, doing what the Jews had done in contemporary Judaism. You will remember that in New Testament times there was a very famous woman prophetess. God bless her memory. Her name was Anna. She was a prophetess recognized by her nation as a prophetess, a woman of tremendous presence and respect. She had been a widow, I don't know how many years, God-fearing woman, valued by the nation, and exercised her ministry in the temple, as you'll see the story tells us. So much so that when, uh, Joseph and Mary brought in the child Jesus, first of all, Simeon received the child and spoke about him, and Anna the prophetess coming up at that very moment, she spoke about him and spoke to those that stood around who were waiting for the consolation of Jerusalem. A woman prophetess who fulfilled her ministry, as you see now, in the presence of men, didn't she? There were two men there at any rate, there possibly three, and there could have been more. There was our Lord, there was Joseph, probably Simeon was still there and he hadn't yet gone off home, and in the crowd around, we don't know, so we can't be told. But now notice where she was when she was exercising her gift. She was in one of the courts in the temple, in which courts there would have been numbers of people around, such as today, in a lesser fashion, you would find if you went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. If you've been there, you'll know what you find. There's a man up against the Wailing Wall, and he's bending at his prayers in that fashion as they do. And here's another group, and they're holding forth in praise, and here's another group, they're showing each other what they bought in the market, and here's another group, and they're holding a bar mitzvah ceremony, and all sorts of things are going on. So it would have been in the courts of the temple in our Lord's day, here would be a group like Mary and Joseph coming up with a good turtle dove in a cage to give to the priest, they're going to talk to the priest, and others are saying their prayers, and others are having a word with the relatives who have just come up from Timbuktu, and so on. In one of the colonnades and courts of the temple, Anna was frequently to be found, and there exercised her ministry as a prophetess. What she didn't do was to exercise her ministry as a prophetess in the formal ceremonies of the temple, of course not. Nor would she in Judaism have exercised her ministry as a prophetess in the meetings of the synagogue. That distinction between the formal meetings of temple, the formal meetings of the synagogue, and other less formal places. That distinction, as distinction known to Paul, of course, from his youth up, is a similar distinction as he now here insists upon in the Christian communities. Next, what is it that they were not to do? You've seen the reason of the distinction. Now, what is it they were not to do? Well, honestly, and before the Lord, as far as I read the verses, they say quite plainly that they were not to speak in church. Now, uh, various other, uh, uh, suggestions have been made. Let's, uh, consider two of them. They have been made because in chapter eleven, directions are given as to how a woman should behave when she is praying and prophesying, as also directions are given for how a man should behave when he is praying and prophesying. And because many people have thought that the praying and prophesying concerned is necessarily to be done in church and only in church. Ah. They have then s- uh, felt that there must be some contradiction between chapter eleven that talks about women praying and prophesying, and chapter fourteen that talks, says that they should not be, uh, uh, speak in church. How can you speak, uh, how can you prophesy without speaking? As you see, it seems to me that there is no contradiction. Women certainly prayed and prophesied, and on occasions before men, of course they did, not in church, any more than Anna did. The exercise of prayer and the gift of prophecy, of course, was not confined to the church. As you also see in the case of this man with tongues, to whom we've already made reference, um, if there's no interpreter in the church, well, he doesn't exercise his gift in the church then. He exercises it elsewhere, not in the church. But because some people have felt there is somehow a contradiction, they have suggested another meaning to the word speak in one Corinthians fourteen thirty four and thirty five. The suggestion that used to be made in those dim and distant days to which I referred when I was a boy was that the word doesn't really mean speak, it means chatter. Let the women keep silence in the church, for it is not permitted unto them to chatter. What a remark. And if you ponder it a moment, you may decide that such an interpretation offers a gratuitous insult to the ladies. Oh yes, they say, the situation was, you'll see, that in these early assemblies, um, uh, the women, you know what women are, they'll be chattering to themselves all through the meeting, and this is what Paul is saying, now look here, ladies, you're not to chatter. I think that's an explanation thought up by men, isn't it? Because who else would have offered such an insult to the ladies? Hmm. The last time I was in the synagogue, and that wasn't in the wilds of Africa, it was in the civilizations of Belfast. When I was, uh, last in the Jewish synagogue in Belfast, of course, they sat me among the men, the women sit elsewhere. Whether the women chattered, I cannot tell you. I can inform you that the men chattered from beginning to end and all the way through. Now and again, they they said amen and Baruch, uh, you know, Hashem, Baruch Hashem, and things like that to make out that they were following what was being said or read, but for the most part they were discussing their holidays and about their yachting and their friends, and then George saw Michael over the way, and he got up and walked across and had a word with him, and thus it went on all the while the law was being read. It wasn't just women that chattered, men that chattered, and if Paul had been wanting to stop chattering, it wouldn't have been just the women he would have talked to, and the men. Oh, I know women are good at it, but then are are not men likewise? I won't do to insult the ladies like that, no. So in more recent times, the most, uh, well, supportive view that I know of is rather complicated, but I owe it in all honesty to tell you about it, for it's a view that if you haven't met before, you will meet very widespread nowadays. It says that the key to the understanding of verses thirty four onwards is to read them in their immediate context, and you say, what is that? Well, the immediate context, they say, of verse twenty nine onwards. And if you care to look at it, verse twenty nine is talking about the prophets. And the prophets are to prophesy, only one at a time, of course, and uh, the most three of them. And says verse twenty five— twenty nine, and let the others judge. And it was the habit, you see, in the early churches that if a prophet was moved to give a prophecy, they didn't say, oh, that's of the Holy Spirit, so that, that, that must be right. No, no. The Holy Spirit calls on them that the rest were to judge and examine what the man said to see whether it was right or not, whether it was true doctrinally or not. And that would involve maybe in asking the, uh, the prophet, now what did you mean there? Because we didn't quite understand that, and to be frank, that didn't sound quite right anyway. Uh, what did you mean? We'll see. So the prophets were to prophesy, and then the others were to judge, and presumably judge publicly in the course of the meeting, so that there would be conversation, as there is, of course, in our Bible reading, for instance. Ah, beauty. Right. And they say this is what the verses mean. The good ladies, they're allowed to speak in church in order to pray and prophesy themselves, but these verses mean that when it comes to examining and judging the other prophets, then they're not allowed to take part in that. Why not? Well, the answer comes back as follows. Because, I must put it as fairly as I can and not to make it sound ridiculous, because suppose a good man, uh, was a prophet and he got up and gave a prophecy, and when he sat- sat down, uh, people started to judge, of course. And suppose the- the ladies were allowed to judge and enter into this judging. Then it might be that the man's wife started questioning him, hmm, in front of the gathered throng, and tut, tut, tut. You know, she might use the occasion to put him down a peg or two, and that wouldn't do because, well, eh, the poor man, even if he's got it wrong, is her husband anyway, and he mustn't thus be humiliated in public. And so some would say that the word is let the women keep silence, that is the married women keep silence. Because what Paul is afraid of is the married women might put their husbands down a peg or two publicly in church. Well, I must leave you to decide on that matter, for I haven't the necessary experience, as you know. There might be a woman who would take the occasion, I suppose, see my innocence, to put her husband down a peg or two in church. I don't know. They do it at home. It says here they should. Uh, uh, but uh, is that such a common thing that, uh, now Paul would think that necessary to legislate against it? But uh, is that such a common thing that, uh, now Paul would think that necessary to legislate against it? And why only the married women? You suppose Paul is saying that senior Christian women, godly women, because they are married women, mustn't join in the judging, but a single sister converted five minutes may? Well, that would be surely foolish. And then, of course, as they say, but you'll see why they're not allowed to take part in questioning the prophets is because in the course of questioning, they might stray into the dangerous area of teaching, and that isn't permitted anyway. One Timothy two says that. But they could ask a very subtle question, you know, who hasn't done it. Did you really mean that? Didn't you really mean this? And before you know where you are, they're in fact not examining the prophets, they're putting across their own view and teaching in the church, crafty lot. Do you see? And therefore they're not allowed to do it at all, they're not allowed to speak in this context, that is to stop them teaching. But wait a minute. If that were the true answer, when the dear lady herself, as these people say, is allowed to prophesy in church, and then she is examined as to what she has said, wouldn't she be likewise brought over to teaching? Such explanations, of course, are seriously given by men and women who have thought about these things, and seriously before the Lord. I must not slight them or misrepresent them or caricature them. For my part, it seems to me that the explanations do not hold. For what reason? Why, uh, uh, look, if you will, at verse thirty five. if they would learn anything. It is, after all, possible, ladies and gentlemen, for somebody to ask a question without any ulterior motive whatsoever, not wanting to teach, not wanting to put her husband down or anything. Simply, what, uh, does that really mean? And if she would want to learn anything, let her ask her men folks at home why. For it is a shame for a woman to teach in the church. Therefore, that I give as my, uh, my reasonings. I have only sketched them out briefly, as you'll see. What more can I do with the time? Finally, the reason that is given. I haven't any need to remind you that I didn't write it, but this is the apostle's sense of decorum. It is shameful, says verse thirty five. What does he mean by shameful? What kind of category of thing is he talking about? Well, the other place where he uses the phrase is in chapter eleven. Chapter eleven, verse six. If it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven. To be shorn or shaven for a woman would be a shameful thing. Ghastly thing, I think most of us would think. It's the same word that Paul uses here. It's an indecorous thing for a woman to speak in church. And there I want to leave it. Oh, how I would want to talk about all the other lovely things. Wow. Oh, I don't know, one of these days I might be given permission by the Sanhedrin to speak about all the marvelous things and places and occasions where they are not only allowed to speak, but need to speak. Where mere men like me, where mere men teachers in the church couldn't speak anyway. I think of the tremendous task that is laid upon the senior women of a church, according to Paul writing to Titus, to train and teach the younger women. If ever we needed a battalion of serious godly women to do that task, it was nowadays, surely. In first century churches, when you got people converted out of raw paganism, they needed to be told what how Christianity would apply to home life, to go no further. In a society where fornication was thought to be normal. Nobody ever questioned it was wrong. When folks got converted, as you'll see from the New Testament, they had to be taught Christian ideas and how they applied to the running of the home and for women to be taught to love their husbands and husbands how they must behave and children. In our day and generation, we've gone back to pre-Christian paganism, haven't we? And if I may say a very bachelor word, it is my humble, uh, opinion that it is the women of any society that control its morality. I was brought up, and you'll say what a macho man he is, in a society where men, godless though they were, wouldn't swear in front of a woman. Now the women have told the men it's okay and swear themselves. Listen to Women's Own Hour on the, on the BBC four. Lost to all shame. And when the women say it's okay, the men don't need any encouraging in that direction. How does Christianity apply to these tremendous things in the family? What can a bachelor like me say in public about it? And when you come across believers and assemblies and Christian unions, where under pressure of modern circumstances, students and the Lord's people are tainted with the immoralities of the world. Oh God, give us women who will give themselves to the teaching and the training that they only could do in the church. Let alone all those other things, but I mustn't go on, or else we'll say, but listen to him. Uh, so now the questions. And of course, on another occasion, but then I shan't be here. Doubtless you'll have all your questions upon what I have just said. It's an endless business, isn't it? Those you must bring to the Sanhedrin itself. Uh, on the questions that were handed to me, three questioners raised the same matter, so let that be given precedence. Uh, the Holy Spirit administers the gifts according to one Corinthians twelve. Please explain, one, how I can be receptive to the Holy Spirit doing this work of giving the gifts, and two, how I can recognize the gift he gives me. Number two, I take first, how can I recognize the gift God gives me? Question I've been asked many times, how do I know what gift I have? And I should have thought the answer in part is, one, that we discover what our gift is, just like our hands discover what their gifts are in the physical realm, and what our feet discover their gifts are. How we discover whether we have any gift for music or gift for cookery or gift for dressmaking or gift for anything. We discover it as we grow. Similarly, in the body of Christ, we're put into the body of Christ at our b- uh, uh, uh, at our new birth. As we grow. It seems to me, in one sense, things will naturally happen so that we perceive what kind of gift we have. Secondly, it seems to me that we do need to get a very wide idea of what further gifts are. One of the gifts is mentioned in the list is helps, isn't it? And what vast amounts of possibilities there are who, for people who really want to do something. It isn't just the man who stands and preaches publicly, is it? That helps. There is a vast field. We thought last week of the missionary need in Tanzania, missionaries galore. Look abroad a moment. Oh, what a vast thing there is to be done. And we could get working, gift or no gift. We could write to missionaries. We could become part of their teams if we wanted to, in the sense that we're home-based members of a team, and know about this particular group of missionaries and what their needs are, and set about working for them. And if we wanted to make some little extra cash, we could find some time to do it, couldn't we? Deny ourselves some, uh, some recreation, perhaps, and do a little bit extra work to make a little bit extra money to support, uh. There are a thousand and one things we can do with a little ingenuity. How can I be receptive to the Holy Spirit doing this work? Well, to encourage other folks. I raised up of your sons for prophets, says God, to the children of Israel and Amos, and to be Nazarites, but you gave the Nazarites wine, and you said to the prophets, don't s- don't prophesy. I suppose, uh, we should all prefer, wouldn't we, to have the Apostle Paul with all his charm, um, preaching at every meeting of the church. You wouldn't develop many other preachers that way, would you? And to be frank, uh, if you're going to develop, say, preachers, you've got to be prepared to listen to the beginners, haven't you? Yes. Uh, so that we must be aware of the gifts of other folk and seek to encourage them and develop them. As my elders surely know, they're always on the lookout for people that, uh, uh, say in time to themselves, now what gift has Mrs. So-and-so, and how could we encourage her to explore her gift, aren't they? And what is Joe Bloggs? What gift could he do, and how could we encourage him to exploit his gift? Two. Uh, now we come across a very big question. It is, uh, mentioned in a number of things, and I will do my best to be miraculously brief. It runs like this in one version: Do the theory, does the theory that some gifts are for now and others, such as sign gifts, were for times past, hold any weight? And the scripture is quoted to illustrate what the question means, Hebrews two four, that you could, if you cared, look at. Hebrews two four. We better read verse three. How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard? God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will. And the question, basing itself on that verse and similar verses, says now, isn't it possible to argue that sign gifts, as you here read, were given in the days of the early church to validate the gospel, God bearing the early preachers witness by these gifts, to validate the gospel, but that when the gospel was validated, we no longer need the signs, and therefore the signs have disappeared. Is there any weight to that, uh, idea? Well, my first answer is, of course, there is a very big weight, in the sense that many very serious biblical thinkers and expositors have held that view. Three weeks ago, I think it was, I quoted the great Benjamin Warfield, that tremendous, uh, biblical scholar of America. He held that view, and so do a great many more of his particular s- persuasion to this day. And there is a sense, of course, in which they are biblically right, isn't it? Because of all the gifts that are, uh, mentioned in the New Testament, one has passed forever and has ceased, and that, of course, is the gift of an apostle. Let me quote you the definitive scripture, one Corinthians fifteen, where Paul is pointing out that in resurrection our Lord Jesus appeared first of all to Peter, he was the first of the apostles, of course, then to the twelve. this is verse five, P- one Corinthians fifteen five. Then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, verse seven. then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all, as unto one born out of due time, he appeared to me also, who am the least of the apostles. There is Paul telling you straight that he is the last apostle. Beyond him, no other apostles in the classical sense of that word apostle. And he appeals in, uh, one Corinthians, uh, nine to his qualification. one Corinthians nine verse one: am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Necessary qualification for an apostle in the classical sense. He had seen the Lord. And in two Corinthians twelve and verse twelve, he says as follows, truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. That is to say, apostles it was that were marked out by the doing of certain signs. And if you read the Acts very carefully, you'll find, particularly in its early chapters, that it wasn't all the believers that went around doing miracles. It was the apostles that did the signs. Oh, Acts chapter five, if you will, notice how carefully it is said. Acts chapter five, verse twelve: and by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. So God did special signs to validate the apostles. Why is that important? Well, we want to know who apostles are because of the doctrines we're meant to believe on. Who has authority to lay down Christian doctrine? You listen to Paul. Behold, I, Paul, say to you. I, Paul, say to you. What's he got the right to talk to me like that for? If I started to stand up in front of you and say, behold, I, David, say to you, you'd say, yes, it's about time you went home, old boy. No, but Paul does. Why? Because Paul is an apostle in the classical sense. He was the last of them, and those apostles were validated by special signs. If everybody could go around doing signs, you wouldn't know who were apostles and who weren't, would you? In that sense, signs have ceased. But as you will notice, tongues and prophecy were not the signs of apostles, were they? Paul tells you in one Corinthians twelve and fourteen that many folks spoke with tongues and prophesied. They weren't signs of an apostle. Some say that one Corinthians thirteen, when it says, when that which is perfect is come, various of the gifts will be done away, was a slightly different thing. That was the completion of the canon. Well, if that's what it means, then tongues and prophecies and knowledge have ceased. But on the earlier occasion, I gave you reasons for thinking why I do not believe that that is what Paul is saying. That which is perfect is, when that which is perfect has come, as far as I'm concerned, refers not to the canon, but to the coming of the Lord. Uh, so then let's push on then. Uh, here we come then, number, uh, three. Although tongues and prophecies are mentioned extensively in chapter twelve to fourteen, are they examples of how we should treat gifts in general? That is, we are to go for the greater gift, or is there some other reason for it? Well, I want to agree with the first reason given there. Yes, mentioned because they do not only, uh, give practical instructions about those gifts, they do teach us the basic principle to go for the bigger gifts, that is those that, um, edify the church. More questions. Uh, many Christians exercise faith at some time, help other Christians, treat somebody else, witness to an unbeliever, that is, evangelize, can test the spirits, prays for healing, and so forth and so on. In these cases, every Christian exercises many gifts, but is not given all these gifts by the Spirit of God. Does this imply that there is a two-tier system operation in this area? Well, I wouldn't have put it so like myself, but I think I know what you mean. Yes. For instance, uh, I now and again try to do what Timothy was told to do, do the work of an evangelist. No one is more conscious than I am that I'm not an evangelist, yeah. And if I were billed to preach the gospel and Apsley and Billy Graham taught that one night, the elders would not be slow in coming along and saying, now, David, you are a marvelous preacher, but please sit down tonight and and let a real evangelist take over. Yes, we all do our bit, don't we, to evangelize without being evangelists. And if you'd like to call that a two-tier system, well, I have no objection to it. And what is more, sometimes what our gifts are depend on what locality we are in. A dear brother who's been converted a year and a half in Tanzania may be called upon to be teacher, pastor, evangelist, and everything else under the sun, and do it effectively in his own community, whereas if he stepped into Belfast tomorrow, would scarcely be an elder in the Crescent, would he? Nor lead, uh, an evangelistic campaign in the middle of London. It partly depends on where you are in the body. Now a question. Do you believe that when a man speaks in tongues, he speaks one of the four thousand languages spoken on our planet, or could he be speaking with the tongues of angels? Seems to me Paul allows for the fact that a man could be speaking with the tongue of angels. My only comment on that would be, hmm, pray observe that if a man speaks in the tongues of angels, it's got to be a proper language. Not here, of course not, but sometimes the question is put to say, look, you can't ask that all these languages that people profess to speak when they speak in tongues should be translated, because some of them could be the language of angels. Or other minute. Uh, if I don't know Russian, I couldn't understand that either, could I? But it's a real language. It isn't so much noise. And if a person were to speak the tongue of angels, wouldn't that be a real language? Not so much noise. To think that Michael the Archangel says this ba ba ba ba ba, and he's making a lot of noise, and it isn't a language, that would be very irreverent, wouldn't you? Angels speak languages no less sophisticated than ours. Be you assured they don't. They have a little long time to do it. That means this, that if it's a genuine language and God the Holy Spirit gave the translation, he could translate angel language as much as he could human language. This is no ground for people behind, to hide behind when they say you can't demand a translation of it. Very important. E, now here we go again. For I have often wanted to quote John three sixteen in French and listen to the interpretation translation. I wonder, would I be tempting God, putting God to the tent- test in a sinful exercise? Would I be pleasing the Lord by testing the spirits? My answer to that would be you would be pleasing the Lord by testing the spirits. This is a very important principle. Allow me just to say one or two words, uh, uh, uh, on it. It seems to me that there is an idea, very prevalent and unspoken, that somehow when people speak tongues, this is a direct miracle of the Lord, and so evidently a miracle of the Holy Spirit that it is a direct miracle that you must not question. If you do, you're like the Pharisees and dan- in danger of committing the unpardonable sin. That is not so, my brothers and sisters. That relies on absolute false diagnosis of the situation, that does. The speaking in tongues is, in that sense, just like any other gift. You wouldn't say, would you, of a teacher, all he's got to do is to get up and and talk, led by the Holy Spirit, and we mustn't question what he says, otherwise we should be sinning against the Holy Spirit. You must question what the teacher says. Let me tell you that just because a man has the gift of a teacher, it doesn't mean that every time he gets up on his hind legs, it's the Holy Spirit speaking. Teacher can be wrong. He can be carnal. You must test what a man says. And because we're frail human beings, even when the Lord uses us, you know, we mustn't say, well, that means everything I said was a hundred percent correct. Ninety five percent of it could be correct, and there could be some incorrect in it. And says Paul, when I speak in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, not necessarily that the Holy Spirit pray. And what is more, when you test a teacher or you test somebody speaking in tongues, you're not questioning the Holy Spirit, of course you're not, you're questioning whether that person is really speaking what the Holy Spirit would have him say. And is he speaking by the Holy Spirit, or is it not so? You wouldn't be insulting the Holy Spirit if you question what I say tonight, and some of you will most ferociously. Ha ha. Josie, God bless you and help you. Uh, Josie, you're not insulting the Holy Spirit. You're saying, yes, blogs is a good chap, but not everything he says is right, not even when he's preaching. To suppose that just because somebody speaks in a tongue, this is the Holy Spirit, is an exceedingly dangerous thing. We must test the spirit. One Corinthians has made the point. We must make sure whether what is being said is of God or not, whether it is true or not. That means we must understand the translation and be sure that the translation is a translation. Not to do it opens one up to all kinds of error. You'll say somebody gets up and speaks in the church in tongue, and there's five of them speaking in tongues at once, you may know that isn't of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is forbidden it. Somebody gets up in the church and speaks in the tongue constantly, and there's no interpreter. That's not of the Holy Spirit either. It contradicts Holy Scripture. You'll see. We must, as the Holy Spirit himself says, in intellect be men. And finally here, one thing, uh, uh, uh, should we say that the whole thing of tongues is ridiculous? No, of course not, unless you're prepared to call Paul ridiculous. He spoke with tongues more than anybody. Is it so that because the church became unspiritual, that gifts like tongues and healings dropped out? No, that isn't true either. One reason why they dropped out is because people listened to the Holy Spirit saying, don't seek tongues, seek prophecy. And the Lord's people obeyed the Holy Spirit. And instead of encouraging vast multitudes of people to speak in tongues, encourage them to do what the Holy Spirit tells us to do, not to seek tongues, but rather to seek prophecy. That's why they dropped out. Now let me finally say... that we all do need to be more aware of the Holy Spirit, don't we? You'll say, hmm, when I first came to Ireland, you won't mind an old man reminiscing with you, but when I first came to Ireland, there were great conferences that were left open. Why? Because the belief was the Holy Spirit is the Lord President of the meeting, and he would guide. Then I found the local report was that these occasions were abused by people who rushed to speak or pray or so, so on, and were evidently not guided by the Holy Spirit. So that type of meeting fell out of favor and was thought to be old brethren teaching, to use a curious phrase. Oh. Pity that, wasn't it? Because when it started, it was a genuine attempt to let the Holy Spirit be Lord President of the meeting. Now we have a generation that is trying to rediscover that and saying we should be conscious of the presidency of the Holy Spirit. Of course we should. Shame on us if we just organize meetings and are not conscious of the leading and the guiding of the Holy Spirit. So let nothing I say be construed as discouraging people from waiting on God and knowing more about the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their ministry for the Lord. Now we need to know more of him, but at the same time we do need to hear the Holy Spirit's own injunctions and to go for those gifts that, uh, uh, edify the church. Shall we pray? Now, Lord, we have listened to thy word through the imperfect lips of thy servant. There are many things, Lord, that we need to think about. Give us grace to do in the coming days as thy Holy Spirit has exhorted us to do, in love and gratitude, to love thee with all our mind, and rigorously investigate and think if this is indeed the true interpretation of thy word. And give us all ever increasing hearts to be ready to obey what thy word actually says. Lord, we pray that above all things thou would fulfill to us thy gracious promise. In promising thy Holy Spirit, thou did say, the world cannot receive him because it knows him not, but you know him, and he shall be with you and shall be in you. Help us so to know him as a reality in our life and work through Jesus Christ our Lord.