Dear Pastor John,

Thank you for tonight’s message. It was very straight-to-the-point, direct, and exactly, to a T, what I needed. In a world full of influences and spirits, I am very thankful to have a pastor with discernment to see passed it all and to help point the way to the right track. Getting our minds on God, having that bigger thing (the holy Ghost alive in us) to conquer the flesh, makes life so much easier, because we don’t have to weed through the wrong thoughts and ideas- we just need to turn to Him and respond.

Now, I have a question that stems from the message on liberty and relates to tonight’s message about being in the spirt/living in righteousness. For most of my life, I have followed rules, not knowing true liberty of the spirit, which tended to be a bit hard and easy to stray from. Since your message about having liberty and walking in righteousness, I’ve been wondering/praying to know what God’s righteousness really is. I know it’s not following a set of rules, because He is ever-changing, and what good would having liberty be if I only followed rules? Sometimes I’ll think I’m having a thought from God about something, but other times I will just juggle back and forth about whether it’s me or not; I just don’t want to question. I want to know what is truly righteousness, what is truly of Him, and not have to sift through my thoughts to figure out where they derived, meanwhile, missing the point or the opportunity. I’m just sensing a struggle there and I want to get over that and just live in peace and righteousness. It’s easy to say that, but I’m not sure what the righteousness really means.

Thank you for your feedback.

Love,
Anna

===========

Hi Anna.

It’s simple, really. Living in the righteousness of God is living according to the holy nature which God implanted within you when He gave you His Spirit. That’s all. Of course, you will need help in order to grow in that new life. That’s why there are elders, and when they function as they should, the “little ones” in Christ have a much better opportunity to “grow straight and tall”, happy and grounded in the faith.

To “grow in the knowledge of God” is to grow in the knowledge of ourselves because our new nature is His. As we grow in Jesus, we discover new things about ourselves all the time. This “new creature” that we now are is fascinating! It really is as if, as we grow along the way, Jesus is repeatedly introducing us to our new and improved selves, often to our great surprise and pleasure.

Hope that explains it well enough. Rules play a part in the development of an immature saint’s soul (and I will impose rules on this little body of believers as it is necessary to that good end), but the goal is always to teach the children of God to live so well according to their new nature we have that they do not need rules.

Pastor John

1_Name: Bobbie

3_Comments: Explain 1 Corin 14:34, where it says “women should keep silent in the churches”

===================

Hi Bobbie

First thing to understand here is the word incorrectly translated as “churches”. The Greek here is a word for an assembly of people. It is not an institution, a denomination, or a building or anything that in modern times is commonly thought of as “church”. Paul is referring to assemblies of God’s saints. Second thing is to understand who these saints are: They are men and women who have been baptized with the holy spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. Nothing Paul says applies to any other situation than a gathering of spirit-baptized saints of God. Paul is talking about what is to go on during the assemblies of these spirit-baptized people in Corinth.

Throughout this chapter Paul is referring to people addressing the assembly as a whole. People are not to speak in uninterpreted tongues to the assembly but if there is no interpreter they are not to be forbidden to speak in tongues but rather to speak to God and to themselves.

As for women, Paul is teaching that women should not speak to the assembly as teachers. Paul also wrote this to Timothy: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

However, I do not believe that Paul is forbidding a woman to say, tell a testimony or deliver words that God has given them. Philip, a holy man and evangelist had four daughters who all prophesied. Paul also accepted testimony against saints from a household he refers to as being of a woman. “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”

None of this stops God from using a woman in any way He sees fit at any time. God is not subject to rules.

Damien Callaghan
webmaster
www.goingtojesus.com

From HERBERT F.

I was Saved in 1950 and received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit in 1953 while studying for the ministry at a Pentecostal Bible College. I am currently attempting to find the answer to a question that seems to be hard for anyone I talk with to explain. Would be glad to hear your response. The question is: What has to happen to change the manifestation of public tongues in the church from madness to meaning?

In verse 22 of 1 Cor. 14 Paul writes: Wherefore tongues are for a sign – not to them that believe but to them that believe not…”

Verse 23 of 1 Cor. 14 states, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

How does the transition from madness to meaning occur for the unbeliever? How would tongues be a sign to the unbeliever since Paul seems to insist that there always be an interpretation to tongues spoken? I could go on with questions, but you get my drift. Can you help me grasp this?

Herbert Carter

=================

Dear Herbert,

Thank you for writing. Your questions are understandable and typical. Hopefully, I will be able to help you understand Paul’s language here.

First, I would like to point out that your testimony of “getting saved” in 1950 is contrary to the teaching of Jesus, Paul, and the entire NT. To make such a claim is a twentieth century spiritual fad that swept practically all of God’s children off their feet in that century, but one that has no biblical basis. You do not have salvation yet, nor do I, nor does anyone else who is still on this earth. Salvation is synonymous with “glorification”, not with “conversion”. This is why Paul could say such things as “our salvation is nearer than when we believed”, and Peter could describe salvation as “the end of your faith”. In the twentieth century, Christians altered the definition “salvation” and made it the beginning of their faith instead of the end. This was a great error and has led to a widespread misunderstanding of some of the the most fundamental elements of the gospel of Jesus Christ, including speaking in tongues. This happened in spite of the fact that throughout Church history, no Christian leader, included those famed “church fathers”, ever claimed that they had “gotten saved”, as you and many others have been taught to do. Romans 10:9-10 is an exhortation to the saints (see 10:1) to “endure to the end”, as Jesus repeatedly said we must do if we hope to be saved; it is not instructions to sinners concerning how to be converted.

As for your comments on Paul’s words in 1Corinthians 14:

The question is: What has to happen to change the manifestation of public tongues in the church from madness to meaning?

In verse 22 of 1 Cor. 14 Paul writes: Wherefore tongues are for a sign – not to them that believe but to them that believe not…”

Verse 23 of 1 Cor. 14 states, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues and there come in those that are unlearned or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

How does the transition from madness to meaning occur for the unbeliever?

“From madness to meaning”. That’s a catchy phrase. I’ll have to use that some time. Hope you won’t mind.

Herbert, think about what you are saying. There is no transition “from madness to meaning” for the tongues themselves. The tongues are from God and are not madness to start with. Therefore, they have no transition to make. Sinful men are the ones who are mad. And if those “ignorant and unbelieving” sinners hear God’s people speak in tongues and are touched by what they hear, then they may be translated out of their madness into God’s meaning. Speaking in tongues will never seem anything but madness to ignorant unbelievers who have a hard heart toward God. You know that.

Paul did not say, nor did he ever suggest, that speaking in tongues was madness. What he said was that speaking in tongues would be called madness by those who were without the knowledge of God, by those who did not yet believe. But nothing the Spirit does is madness. The power of the Spirit is the only thing that can make us truly sane.

Part of your confusion concerning Paul’s teaching springs from the mistranslation of the word ekklesia that we find in so many Bibles. That word refers to an assembly of God’s people, not a building. The Greek word for a building (“church”) is kuriakon, and it appears nowhere in the NT. The word “church” has been imposed upon the holy text by ignorant and unbelieving churchmen who have always considered an assembly of holy-ghost filled people to be madness, and have always persecuted them for their fellowship in the holy ghost.

When you read Paul’s counsel to the saints to testify/preach only in a language that can be understood instead of speaking in tongues when “in the church”, you should understand that Paul is referring to a person speaking to the assembly. He is not forbidding them to speak in tongues inside a church building! It is really silly to suggest that he did. In fact, Paul specifically commands the saints NOT to forbid anyone to speak in tongues.

=======================

How would tongues be a sign to the unbeliever since Paul seems to insist that there always be an interpretation to tongues spoken? I could go on with questions, but you get my drift. Can you help me grasp this?

=========================

It has never seemed to me that Paul was suggesting that in a gathering of the saints, no one should speak in tongues unless there is an interpreter present, so I cannot tell you why it seems that way to you, unless it be that you are thinking “building” when you read the word “church” (for ekklesia). Sorry. Wish I could help with that. The truth is that Paul is speaking of saints who are addressing the assembly. Nothing he says in this chapter has anything to do with a building.

I hope that helps.

God bless, and please stay in touch!

Pastor John

Found a couple of interesting items…

Samuel build an altar in Ramah (1Sam. 7:17)! That was contrary to the law, no? That is quite startling really. Maybe I forgot something from class that day.

Also, I noticed “three men going up to God to Bethel” in 1Samuel 10:3. It is interesting that they were going to Bethel, not Jerusalem, and they were carrying 3 kids, 3 loaves and wine. Also, it says they were going “up”, not “down”. Maybe they were angels headed for the ladder?

john david

=============

Yes, that is correct about the altar at Ramah. To do such a thing was, ordinarily, against the Law. Much later in Israel’s history, you will remember, the prophet Elijah also built an altar, contrary to the Law, on top of Mt. Carmel when he had a contest with the prophets of Baal. And there were some other religious acts which holy men of God performed along the way that were contrary to the law of Moses, in special circumstances. At times when the nation of Israel was a spiritual wreck, God ordained deeds to be done contrary to what He would have allowed if His people had been obedient to Him, such as commanding the prophet Hosea to take a man’s wife from him, and commanding Isaiah to walk around Jerusalem naked for three years, and commanding Ezekiel to eat dung. All those things had a holy prophetic purpose.

As for the three men going “up” to Bethel in 1Samuel 10, it may have been that they were planing to worship God there because God’s presence makes any place “up”. But we are not told enough about those men to know who they were or what their expectations were, concerning Bethel. It’s an interesting thought, but I don’t know about them being angels on the way to Bethel to climb the ladder. But then, who can say for sure?

Love,
Dad

Hi Pastor John,

Does the word, “forsake”, in Psalm 27:10, mean to die?

Thanks,
Billy M

============

No, Billy — at least from a purely grammatical viewpoint. That verb “forsake” is translated from a very common Hebrew word in the OT, aztav, which is used well over a hundred times. It’s dictionary meaning is simply to forsake, to leave, or even to loose. It’s poetic meaning, however, can certainly be “to die”, especially in a context such as Psalm 27:10: “When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will take me up.”

In that verse, I think that atzav is, in fact, a reference to the death of the parents of the Psalmist. But then again, the one who wrote the Psalms (or the Son of God who inspired the Psalmist to write them) was such a despised man that he could have been speaking of his parents’ joining with those who despised him and, so, rejecting him as their son.

Pastor John