Works vs. Faith

Jesus was asked one day, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" His answer, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

I am Arminian in theology, not because I feel any particular bond or loyalty to Jacob Harmenszoon, but because I believe the Bible clearly teaches that salvation is not accomplished without, and is predicated upon, the the conscious choice of the saved. It's not that God isn't involved in nor even providing the impetus toward that choice, but that belief in Christ is a response made by, not for, the saved. It's a question of personal faith, and, given the wooing of the Holy Spirit, it is possible for everyone.

Believing in Jesus is, in fact, the work that God requires of us. As Mark Knopfler might say, "that ain't workin'!" But that is the way we do it! Faith is not the product of sweat and toil, nor the fruit of planning and vision. It's a response to a circumstance, a reaction to a stimulus. The word of the Lord (stimulus) came to Abraham, faith was his response, righteousness credited was his reward.

Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day because of our justification (circumstance), the reaction of the saved to that circumstance is faith, eternal life is the repercussion. Where's the work in all this? The answer is that it is excluded. The believer did nothing work-like in order to be made righteous, he merely responded to something done by another.

It is by grace that we are saved, through faith, not of works so that no one can boast. The work was done by God, we only respond to it. Jesus was being tongue in cheek when he answered that question the way that he did on that day so long ago. It must have struck a perplexing note in his hearers. "What kind of work is that?" they might have asked themselves. That's the point-- it isn't one, and I think that's just what the Lord wanted to point out.

Abortion's Reluctant Champion?

Here's a remarkably well done analysis of Sen. Obama's response to the abortion question Rick Warren posed last week during the Civil Forum. Generally, I wouldn't put something this partisan on my blog, but it is wonderfully expansive and can be applied more generally to the arguments anyone uses to excuse abortion out of one side of the mouth while they despair over it out the other. Enjoy reading, and saying, "that's what I'm talkin' 'bout," (that's more fun than amen when dealing with political subjects!). Then come back and tell me if it's possible to be a reluctant champion of abortion.

How to Handle a Fallen Leader

The Todd Bentley affair has brought into sharp relief one reality church folk never seem to be able to remember: every minister who has ever lived, or ever will, is just an ordinary human being. Like anyone else they have strengths, they have weaknesses, they sin. Whatever gift they pass along is no more their fault than the waters of the Mississippi are attributable to the towns she meanders through. As gravity, not will, dictates her muddy course, so to the Spirit of God, not the merit of a man, decides who is gifted and how.

The thud of the mighty falling awakens us from reverie. Startled, we're aghast and thirsty for blood. They may not have actually been giants, but looking up to them, our perspective made them seem so. Their failure calls into question all we so readily received at their hands and shakes our very foundations. We've been had, we reason, and we want our dignity returned along with a pound of flesh from the guilty. In no time flat, we mob together at the Place de la Concorde, shouting, "off with his head!"

It would be nice if we never had occasion to get this right in the future (we will), but I fear we're already over the threshold of getting it wrong in the present. We seem unable to learn from the Bible or the past, and so we repeat the same missteps over and over and over and over again. Every time we do, the church looks more like a petty social club than the body of Christ--the only army in the world that kills its wounded rather than dressing their injuries, and especially so if they're officers.

What should we do?

Look to the word: 1 Timothy 5:19-21; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20; and 1 Corinthians 5:9-12 give us plenty of instructions about how to deal with this kind of thing. Matthew 18:15-17 is also helpful, but is trumped by the Timothean passage when dealing with an accusation against an elder. I think the process can be summed up this way: confrontation, admonition, contrition/excommunication, restoration. In the case of an elder (church leader), transparency is commanded and necessary.

What should be jarring about this process is that disqualification is not one of the steps. 

Disqualification is not a biblical concept in either the Old or the New Testament. Samson didn't cease being a judge of Israel, even as he milled grain before the derisive glares of his pagan enemies. David didn't boot Saul out of office before his time, despite God rejecting Saul's kingship. Saul was qualified by God when he became king and he remained the Lord's anointed until he died. David's only recess in service occurred as a result of rebellion, not justice. Peter never stopped being an apostle in Jesus' mind, though he denied the Lord in the time of trial.

In fact, one of the things I love best about the biographies in the scriptures is that we are shown the godly, warts and all--the good, the bad and the ugly! Their stories tell us that God's servants are his servants, even when they prove themselves all too human. Arbitrarily removing God's servant from service is a fleshly concept from the world, not even hinted at in the NT. The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. 

Though one must meet certain qualifications to embark in ministry, once the mooring line has been released, that ship has sailed. There is no indication whatsoever that a failing minister has to requalify (read: go through a lengthy process leading to restoration) in order to serve. As I see it, these automatic ministerial decapitations are completely unscriptural-- more akin to the ravenous French mob drooling in front of the guillotine than the body of Christ. God forbid!

So what would a biblical process of correcting elders look like?

When an accusation against an elder is substantiated by witnesses, that elder is to be confronted by the witnesses and a fellow elder. If the charges are admitted and the accused wants to repent, confess and go on with ministry, he should be publicly, and I would add specifically, rebuked before his church. The accused elder should then publicly acknowledge his guilt fully and honestly before his congregation, and humbly announce what actions are being taken to turn from the sin.

His ministry should then continue, but with transparency concerning the issues of the fall.

Hiding things under the carpet until the dust settles, or having experts beat that carpet clean in their secluded workshops is not what the Bible commands. Neither are arbitrary suspension periods, or restoration processes-- these are human inventions, not scriptural mandates. They have not served the body well, it seems to me, and only cover a wound rather than healing it. Healing and deliverance occur in the light: it's the truth that sets us free.

If a minister will not repent or accept correction, or is not willing to be transparent about the process, he or she should be publicly excommunicated, even if in absentia. There are, as well, certain legal transgressions that will make it impossible for a minister to ever lead corporately thereafter. Regardless, our aim and hope should always be restorative, for there are way too many wasted gifts and way too much avoidable damage done in the body of Christ all in the name of correction.

The cure should never be worse than the disease.

The Antichrist: From Head Wound to Armageddon

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist Part III

Will the Antichrist usher in and reap the benefits of an era of peace, security and unity unknown previously upon the face of planet earth? Although such a case could be made using some passages of the scripture, that's not quite the whole picture the Bible paints. Though the Antichrist may be a mesmerizing messianic figure to the world, ultimately, it's his use of the big stick that gets things done. The question the world asks that elicits its acquiescence is not about his program for peace, nor his prowess in the supernatural, it's his ruthlessness in war.

Because of the head wound passage (and this one), it is often supposed that the Antichrist suffers an assassination attempt and recovers in a seemingly miraculous way--a pseudo-resurrection of sorts. That interpretation is wrong because it mixes metaphors and thereby misses the point. The heads of the beast, its horns and its crowns do not refer to the physical person of the Antichrist but to the nations or kingdoms that make up his empire. A wound to one of the heads of the beast, therefore, is not a physical wound to the Antichrist's person, but the loss of political control over one of the kingdoms in his empire. 

My reading of Daniel and Ezekiel tells me that the wound will be a rebellion of the King of the South (Egypt). It is put down with such a ruthless, callous, cunning, and an overwhelming display of willfulness and power that whatever independent spirit might have remained in the Gentile world at that time evaporates. "Who is able to wage war with him?" they'll ask themselves acquiescently. The Antichrist will then be poised to expand his hegemony from the Middle East to the world, though he'll need a friend to do so.

Jay Leno learned a valuable lesson shortly after taking the reigns of the Tonight Show. When one is in the limelight, it can be very helpful to have a sidekick (a foil that makes the big dog look good). He hadn't planned for that when he took over for Johnny Carson, and Branford Marsalis wasn't willing to play that gig. Enter Kevin Eubanks who was willing, and voila, his rise into the spotlight.

For the Antichrist, that person is the False Prophet. He will provide a sense of spiritual legitimacy, backed up by signs and wonders, for the Antichrist's claims of divinity. He's the foil that makes the Antichrist look good and the lieutenant that advances and executes the spiritual component of the Antichrist's agenda. The need for such a figure is puzzling given the description of the Antichrist. 

Nonetheless, there he is, prophesied in intriguing detail, the third beast of the Apocalypse's unholy trinity. Is this figure identifiable before he actually appears? Yes, he is! We're told that he's like a lamb with two horns, but he speaks like a dragon (devil). Furthermore, we have the cryptic description of the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. She rides upon the seven-headed, ten-horned beast and she dwells in the city on seven hills.

What do these things this tell us? Believe it or not, that there is a connection between the False Prophet and the Whore. 

The False Prophet has the appearance of being of Christ (like a lamb); he has two horns, that is, power centers associated with him; and though he looked like a lamb, he did the bidding of and spoke for the Devil, not for Christ. The Whore is a mother figure but not wholesome; she dwells in Rome, the city on seven hills; she commerced with the kings and merchants of the world; she was fabulously rich, global in reach, multi-cultural; and she spread her idolatry (adultery) through a goblet of wine. It's hard not to see the writing on the wall!

The Whore ultimately represents the Catholic Church. The Mother Church which worships the "Mother of God" is actually the Mother-of-All-Harlotries. Although she was useful to the Beast and the Ten Horns in deceiving the world prior to their advent, and they did partner with her for a time (her riding), they actually hate her and want to destroy her. Understandable, I would say, for a Muslim tyrant ruling over a Muslim dominated empire. God's call to all true believers that happen to be in her at the end of days-- "Come out of her," lest you share her sins and the plagues of judgment upon those sins.

On an interesting side-note: both Rome and Constantinople are known as "the City on Seven Hills."

The False Prophet is the Pope at the time of the Antichrist's ascension to power. The lamb-like appearance with those horns representing his ancient Roman and Orthodox loci of power are a dead giveaway. His attachment to the Whore is not so much as mentioned-- so much for his faith-- as would become the chief promoter and spokesman for the Antichrist. This Pope will actually possess some dark, spiritual powers, unlike his ancient predecessors, who were merely performers. Evil signs and wonders, even the release of demonic hordes at his hand are the result.

Three and a half years into the treaty period, probably just prior to the Temple's dedication, the Beast will reverse course in two ways: 1) he will break his treaty with Israel, make war against them, and confiscate and defile the new temple; and 2) his nominal support of Allah will fall by the wayside altogether as he will declare himself god above all that is called God instead. With the assistance of the False Prophet, he will require everyone in the world to acknowledge his divinity by taking a mark on the right hand or upon the forehead.

Wonder where he got that idea?

This mark will not be coercive, despite the fact that no one can buy, sell or trade without it. The combination of the Antichrist's forceful will, the deceptive signs and wonders done at his bidding, and the strong delusional influence sent by God upon the Gentiles of that day will result in a ready capitulation by the masses. They will gladly take the mark, and it will seem the right and good thing to do. They would actually feel indignation toward any who would not! The mark, however, spells their doom.

Not so with the Jews. Under the ministry of Enoch and Elijah, and the 144,000 in the first 3 1/2 years of the pact, the Jews will embrace Christ en masse and resist taking the mark. Many of them will be imprisoned and some of them will be beheaded for doing so. Though tragic in human terms, it leads to glory in divine ones--  for Christ will raise them up when he returns, the last remnants of the First Resurrection, all participants of which will never die again.

Near the end of the 7 year treaty period, the armies of the nations will be mustered together in northern Israel to do battle against the anticipated invasion of Christ and his army of saints. When the sixth angel empties his vial of wrath upon the Euphrates River at that time, it will set in motion the events we call Armageddon. The river will dry up allowing the armies of the east to cross over it unhindered. Where will those armies be heading? Ultimately to the mount of Megiddo (Har Megiddo) in north-central Israel.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary to envision this as the armies of China and/or India, but it sure is possible, even if not specifically indicated by scripture.

According to Daniel, the Antichrist will find the initial news of these armies stirring alarming. He immediately puts the spin machine into gear and gets out in front of it. Whatever rogue quality these movements may have had at first will be transformed by spiritual deception into a patriotic effort which supports the mission of the Antichrist. Israel, as in the time of Hitler, will be made the fall guy, but I think the key to turning the situation around for the Antichrist may be convincing the world that an alien invasion targeted at Jerusalem is afoot.

Of course, it won't be aliens invading, it'll be Jesus Christ and his church  returning! On a rise, somewhere in the Jezreel Valley near Megiddo, the armies flying the banner of the Antichrist will be utterly destroyed. The Antichrist and False Prophet will be caught alive and thrown immediately into the Lake of Fire which burns forever. The Devil will be shackled and thrown into the Abyss, and Jesus and those who have believed in him will begin to rule here on planet Earth for a thousand years. 

Though the Devil has tried to accomplish the Antichrist scheme for so long, when he finally succeeds, he'll falter rather quickly and end up going out with a whimper rather than a bang. 

To all of which I say, Maranatha!

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

The Antichrist: A Muslim in a Muslim World

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist: Part II

Since the Antichrist's kingdom is typified by the King of the North (the Seleucid Kingdom) and his empire is bounded by the area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, we can make some fairly certain statements about what will and what will not be part of the Ten Horns. Western Europe is out, entirely-- not England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany... you get the picture. The ten horns will be in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa and nowhere else.

The specificity of a revived Kingdom of the North ensures that Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon will absolutely be included. Jordan and Saudi Arabia (Ammon, Moab and Edom) are specifically excluded in the biblical text, whereas Egypt, Libya and the Sudan (Cush) are specifically included. That leaves three others which would have to come from the Balkans (i.e. Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, or Albania) or Azerbaijan. Israel is not one of the ten, it merely signs a covenant with their leader, the Antichrist.

Daniel's prophecy has to be taken as locating this covenant in time with the ultimate abominator as opposed to the type of the abominator (Antiochus) or with the Romans. Additionally, the destruction of the city and the temple can only refer to the events of 70 AD and not with anything done by Antiochus. Furthermore, Jesus mentioned the abomination in question as yet to come, not as fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes, despite having been fully aware of that history. Because the events of 70 AD do not even remotely resemble what Daniel prophesied concerning this covenant, the actual fulfillment of it has to be reserved to a time after 70 AD by the actual Antichrist.

We have not considered the potential of Palestine being one of the ten nor the producer of the Antichrist, because Palestine is not a biblically legitimate entity. Even though the area had a large Gentile population in the days of Antiochus, and though there are efforts afoot to incorporate an Arab state in the Beautiful Land today, Canaan is Israel's, given once and for all time to her by God. The land of Israel is being restored to the people of Israel in these last days along with Jerusalem their eternal capital.

The notion of Palestine is a wisp of fancy from unredeemed minds that God will never allow to stand now that he's brought the Jews back to their promised land.

The Antichrist will worship a god unknown in Daniel's day. That is the implication of the descriptive phrases used by Daniel-- not the god of his fathers, not the one desired of women, a militaristic god unknown to his fathers, a foreign god. Whenever something is described prophetically that will only exist in the far future, it tends be a bit weird, hence the cryptic language. It is an important, identifying characteristic, nonetheless, or it would not have been mentioned from so many angles.

Let me ask you, "What new god has arisen since the days of Daniel, that is totally outside the bounds of previously existing pagan pantheons and is militaristic? A god of fortresses (literally, strongholds), who assists his followers in overcoming the mightiest of citadels? In my mind, this is a perfect description of the jihadist god of Islam, Allah, and really, nothing else. So, the Antichrist will be a Muslim, at least when he reaches power. Considering his locale and his international ambitions (one third of the current world population is Muslim).

Of course, he could only at best be a nominal one, because as his true heart is revealed, he ends up repudiating all gods and claiming himself alone as one.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

The Antichrist: His Rise to Power

The Rise and Fall of the Antichrist Part I

We return to the subject of eschatology with this series of posts by looking at the career of the Antichrist. I'll set out the narrative of his rise and fall and connect it to the key bits of information the Bible gives us about him. I can't name names or give dates and times (no one can at this moment, honestly), but what we can understand I will do my best to communicate clearly.

At some point in the days to come, a figure will arise to dominate the world. We commonly refer to him as the Antichrist. He will be a willful, even maniacally manipulative, ruthless, politician, a nominal Muslim, and will hale from Turkiye. It is possible that he will originate in the Balkans, in Syria, in Lebanon, or in Iraq, but my money's on the Turkish Republic. His first move to power will likely occur in his country of origin, and he will face a challenge which puts his rule in question in the early half of his reign. 

According to Daniel 7, what separates the actual from other contenders (or pretenders) for the title is his bold power-grab. The Antichrist rises to power at the expense of three of the ten kingdoms that end up constituting his empire. Furthermore, the Apocalypse locates the throne of Satan, the sponsor and inspiration of the Antichrist, in Pergamum (now Bergama, Turkiye). So Turkiye will be the nation of origin for the Antichrist. If history is the key to the future, that would make Syria and Iraq (possibly Lebanon or Azerbaijan) the prime candidates for the other two ripped out horns.

The Antichrist will be ceded imperial power by an alliance of ten nations, which include the ones he personally reigns over plus seven more. In totality then, the Ten Horns are Turkiye, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and three of Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Some of the ten are identified quite clearly in scripture, some are the fruit of my conjecture, but none are in western Europe, and none have anything at all to do with Rome.

Minimally, his empire will be roughly bounded by that area that was ruled by both Alexander (Daniel 8) and the Romans (Daniel 7) in the Levant, the Balkans and Africa. 

The Antichrist is typified by the prophetic figure called the "little (מִצְּעִירָ֑ה: littleness) horn" in Daniel 8. That figure is Greek and arises to power within (upon) the conquests of the "shaggy goat" (Alexander) in the Medo/Persian Empire (the ram). Given the division of Alexander's empire after his death, and the description of the little horn's growth toward the south, toward the east, and toward (yes, in the Hebrew, the "toward" is mentioned thrice) the glorious land (Israel), the little horn could only arise within the Seleucid Empire. 

The "little horn" prophecy was most immediately fulfilled in the Seleucid ruler named Antiochus Epiphanes. However, through the instrumentality of secondary fulfillment, this prophecy looks through him, past him, to the ultimate Antichrist yet to come. The domains of Antiochus included large portions of Syria, Israel, Lebanon, Turkiye, and Iraq, which is indicative of where the Antichrist will rule as well. The type/antitype relationship between Antiochus and the Antichrist is also demonstrated in Daniel 11-12. Daniel 11:21-35 prophetically points to the type (Antiochus); Daniel 11:36-12:4 points to the antitype (Antichrist).

The type of the Antichrist, Antiochus, not only demonstrates the evil persona of the Beast, but also indicates the general location his domain will cover in that kingdom, the Apocalypse styles, "...that was, now is not, and will be again."

In Daniel 11, the prophetic description of Antiochus' rule seamlessly morphs into that of the Antichrist at verse 36. That, in turn, is carried on through to the end of Daniel 12. So in understanding the rise and fall of the Antichrist, it is the type-- the King of the North (the Seleucid Emperor)-- that is most descriptive of the domain and action of the antitype, the Antichrist. Yet, the Antichrist's kingdom is Roman as well (as is determined by Daniel 7), so the domain of the Antichrist will be roughly bounded by that area controlled by both Alexander and the Romans, but arising after the Roman Empire as is necessitated by Revelation 17:8.

The Roman Empire could not possibly be described as "once was, now is not and yet will be" at any of the times the Apocalypse was supposedly written.

Daniel 7:8 uses a different word (זְעֵירָה֙: small, insignificant) than does 8:9 to describe the little horn, but the concept is the same. That makes sense because they're not quite the same: one is the type, the other the antitype. In 7:8, the little horn arises from ten other horns on the fourth beast of the vision. The four beasts represented Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome in succession. In the Apocalypse, those same ten horns are said to arise in the day of the Antichrist for the sole purpose of turning power over to him. Yet, they were not in existence at the time of John (Revelation 17:8) despite coming out of the fourth beast in Daniel 7.

That description, by itself, rules out interpreting the Ten Horns as a revival of the Roman Empire. That empire was in existence at the time John received the Revelation, so it was, in fact, "now," quite the opposite of "now is not." Since the ten-horned empire of the Antichrist represents a resurrection of a empire that was dead in the Apostle John's day, and it has to been seen as within the Roman Empire because of Daniel 7, and also within one of the Alexandrian daughter empires because of Daniel 8; therefore, that revived empire must be the realm of the King of North, the Seleucid Empire which expired in 63 BC.

In view of all the prerequisites and the facts of history, interpreting the Ten Horns and the "little horn" (the Antichrist) as arising in western Europe is unscriptural and just wrongheaded.

At some point after the Ten Horns have ceded imperial power to the beast, he will sign a 7 year pact with Israel. The treaty will give Israel control over the Temple mount and the right to rebuild that structure. Whether or not this is the reason that the King of the South (Egypt) rebels, I am not sure, but Egypt most certainly does rebel as signified by the apparently fatal head wound of the Beast. Since the ten heads represent kingdoms, the wound is not to the person of the Antichrist but to his control over one of those kingdoms. The Antichrist reacts so forcefully and utterly to this challenge that the rest of the world loses all desire to withstand him.

I'll talk more about the horns, and the Antichrist with my next post.

Index to the Entire Series
I, II, III

The List of Manifestations of the Spirit

There is but one list of manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the entire Bible. It is broad enough in its descriptions to include virtually every sign or evidence there is that the Holy Spirit is active. And that is, after all, what manifestations (phanerosis) are, signs that the Holy Spirit is producing something in the moment. These miracles are like a neon sign: the breath of God sparks into visible light which evidences that the Holy Ghost is at work, then the spark ceases and the light goes out. Shine on, shine off!

Though the Holy Spirit is resident in the believer, the spark is not. It ignites according to the will of the Spirit for the common good at whatever moment the Spirit deems appropriate. It is therefore an error to look upon the list of manifestations as ministries, THEY ARE NOT!!! They may reoccur in a believer's life, they may not. A believer may manifest all of them over some interval, he or she may manifest only a few. They are merely the signs that follow them that believe. The annotated list below, cross-referenced to scriptural examples of that sign occurring is offered for whatever benefit you might derive.

THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

A Word of Wisdom: a discourse of reasoning (i.e. how to best go about a thing) inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is not the same as being wise or experienced, nor is it the garden variety of wisdom--it is an instance, a flash, of dam-busting, mountain-moving inspiration whose insightful benefactions accrue to the church rather than the inspired. It's the sort of thing the human mind would not produce apart from the inspiration of God. (Acts 15:28-29)

A Word of Knowledge: a discourse revealing information or awareness that would be impossible to know apart from the inspiration of God. This is not about being intelligent, or well-learned, or psychic. It is God dropping, like a coin into a slot (clink, clank!), something into one's consciousness that he or she would otherwise never know, and which benefits the body rather than the "knower". Healings are wrongly attributed to this manifestation in many circles. If a healing is called out, that IS NOT A WORD OF KNOWLEDGE, that is a gift of healing! I suppose I shouldn't get too ticky-tack about that, at least those doing so have faith and are moving in the Holy Spirit, but sort of bugs me nonetheless. (Acts 5:1-11; 13:8-12)

Faith: a conviction inspired by the Holy Spirit which in turn inspires the body. We all need faith, it's the currency of heaven. It's what makes things possible, but there are moments when the Spirit zaps one of us with a faith which inspires the rest of us to believe and act. (Acts 27:21-26)

Gifts of Healings: God's grace multiplied through a variety of healings for the benefit of the body. This does not refer to therapy over time, but to instantaneous or timely cures, miracles not medicine. There is an unusual feature in this manifestation: both the word "gifts" and "healings" are plural, they don't travel alone! Like Santa with a satchel, the grantee of this manifestation passes out these gifts until they're all gone. When the Holy Spirit manifests healing, expect an outbreak--not just a healing, but healings.

There are gifted healers (see this for the discussion of such), but that is not quite the same as the manifestation in question. Undoubtedly, those so gifted will be visited by this manifestation over and over again, but the manifestation could fall on any at anytime, not just the healers. I should also point out that this is not the same as an answer to prayer. Healing is ours through the atonement of Christ and accessible to all through faith and prayer, but that is not the same as a Holy Ghost outbreak of healing determined according to his will rather than our prayers. (Acts 5:15-16; 19:11-12)

Operations of Powers: exercisings of God's powers resulting in miracles which benefit the church. The plural thing is working in this manifestation too, although the context is not as discreet as in healing. The performance of a miracle, let say raising the dead, actually involves more than one power (e.g., reanimation, reconstitution, healing, etc.), whereas a healing has remedying a malady in focus (e.g., leprosy). Therefore, the plural is not as indicative of an outbreak as it was in healing. On a side note, as much as my modern mind would like to classify casting out demons as a working of power, the Bible, almost uniformly, lumps that miracle in with healing. (Acts 20:9-12; 28:3-6)

Prophecy: a public discourse emanating from the Holy Spirit, spoken for the strengthening, encouragement, and comfort of the body. This is NOT prognostication nor handicapping the Spirit's move! The kingdom is not the stock market nor a horse race, and that kind of behavior is just out of order and illegitimate. I wish national ministry figures, like Pat Robertson, would stop fomenting that awful error! There is no need for prophecy to even mention the future, although it may. There is no NT precedent for prophetic words spoken privately, that would go against the stated purpose of manifestations profiting withal. Personal "words" spoken in private are out of order out of hand.

Prophecy is not to be taken as authoritative. Prophecies can never stand against Apostolic witness (the NT) and are subject to the scrutiny of the body to determine whether or not they are legitimate. If they don't measure up, they should be tossed aside as easily as a preacher would toss the rough draft of a sermon in the round can file. If a speaker is found to have spoken apart from the Holy Ghost, that does not mean he or she should be taken out and stoned! That's OT, and a different dynamic in prophecy. Correct the error, shrug it off, and move along.

Personally, I don't believe prophecies should be prepared in advance of delivery (note the exception below), recorded for posterity, nor vetted by the few, the proud, the ordained. Other prophets can judge prophecies without cloistering them for deliberations like the college of cardinals, and making the speaker or the congregation wait with baited breath to see what color smoke rises from the chimney. Even if something is really foul, we can always call fire down from heaven, or inspired by Ananias and Sapphira, call for the offenders to be slain in the Spirit. That certainly would produce an edifying, howbeit chilling, affect withal!

I could see one who is gifted as a prophet speaking prophetically without necessarily manifesting prophecy. At its root, prophecy is fundamentally public speaking; spiritually, the assumption is that the speech is inspired divinely. Since a prophet has an ongoing ministry of speaking prophetically, he or she may be inspired at times other than at the moment of speaking, and may in fact be prepared to speak in advance of delivery. For the non-prophet, however, I would anticipate prophesying to occur in the moment of inspiration-- shine on, shine off. (Acts 4:8-12)

Discernings of Spirits: discriminating what spirits are active [in people] to benefit the church. How do we tell whether or not a manifestation is inspired by the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, or an unholy spirit? How do we know that someone is demonized? If we don't see the obvious, we won't, and cannot with certainty, without God revealing it.

This is not psychic ability, there are no mind-readers or heart-sifters in the Kingdom of God, no freaky Rasputins that have the ability to stare into your soul. This is not sharp insight or perceptive wisdom. It is discerning of spirits, not discernment alone! It is an instant distillation of Holy Spirit acuity into what spirit is acting in a person, condensed in the consciousness of the recipient, for the moment it's needed for the good of the body. Shine on, shine off.

Plurals are present in the phrase for this manifestation too, for similar reasons, I think, that they are present in the gifts of healings. Since this will often be a companion miracle to casting out devils (one sort of healing), its manifestation is a prerequisite to, and must synchronize with those instances of healing that involve demons. (Acts 16:17-18)


Kinds of Tongues: an utterance in an unknown language. Whereas there are occasions when some hearer of the utterance will know the language, the speaker never does. This is always manifested when a believer is baptized in the Holy Ghost, and is volitional for the believer thereafter, but that does not translate into any believer speaking tongues at any time for public consumption. That is the error Paul was trying to correct at Corinth. To speak in tongues for public consumption, the Holy Spirit must inspire the speaker to do so specifically in that moment.

The use of the plural for kinds and tongues signifies that a person manifesting tongues need not speak in the same unknown language he or she has spoken before. The speaker does not even need to end an utterance in the same language that he or she began it in! Another level of mystery and marvel is added to this remarkable sign when we consider that kinds includes tongues that are not human language!

It is disrespectful and incredibly arrogant to label tongues as the mindless babbling of the ecstatically overwrought. Instead, we should see it as a miracle wrought by God. Any church that despises prophesying or prohibits tongues is clearly out of order and operating against the command of God. Any church doing so, and any purported teacher teaching so, is in rebellion and needs to repent.

Interpreting Tongues: giving the meaning of an utterance of tongues to bless the church. This is not literal translation (the interpreter is not given the power to parse the tongue), but a revelation of the meaning conveyed. The interpreter has no more understanding of the tongue spoken than the speaker! The plural in this phrase is limited to the word tongues, i.e. not the interpretations of tongues, which means there is but one meaning for an utterance, not a selection of possibilities. There may be more than one language spoken, but there is only one message.

The interpretation is always in a language known to the interpreter. When a tongue is spoken for public consumption (as opposed to personal blessing at a reduced volume), it must be interpreted. (Acts 2:14-28)

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

There you have it, the list of signs and wonders that make up the toolbox of the gifted. Any of the gifted may be inspired to use any of these tools in his or her ministry, but some gifts revolve around the consistent, repeated manifestation of certain of these signs. When the Holy Spirit decides it is time for one of the gifted to pick up one of these tools, the lights come on; when that instance of use is over, the lights go out. The tool is taken out, the tool is put back in the box. When practicing the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, we always need to remember this simple motto: "shine on, shine off."

The List of Spiritual Gifts

It's time for the list. This, of course, represents only my cobbling together of what the Word says about the subject. One could see it somewhat differently and still be correct. Hopefully, this will help you see things from the broadest perspective, while giving you the detail necessary to grasp what each gift is.

THE SPEAKERS

Apostle: one sent by God to a people to establish the church among them. There is an administrative (supervisory) aspect to this gift, but it not directly associated with hierarchical office (as with the Mormons)-- its authority is confined to its function. (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Evangelist: one who announces the good news to the public (which hasn't heard it yet). It's not foundational (like the apostle or teacher), because it's tasked with making people believers, not making believers into a church. (Ephesians 4:11)

Prophet: one who proclaims and interprets what God is saying to the church. The prophet speaks to strengthen, encourage and comfort God's people. This gift is not about prognostication, nor has it anything to do with hierarchical office. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

Exhorter: one who speaks to urge others on in matters pertaining to God. I really see this as a subset of the prophetic gift, but can see someone being an exhorter without being a prophet. (Romans 12:6-8)

Linguist: one who speaks and interprets tongues in public. No, you will not see it listed this way in the scriptures, this is my synthesis of what is said about it there. Not everyone who speaks in tongues in public will be a linguist, but those who are linguists will be interpreters. This (as in the case of the exhorter) is a subset of the prophetic gift, but it is possible to be a linguist without being a prophet or a prophet without being a linguist (I Corinthians 12:28)

Pastor: one who tends the flock of God. This gift has both administrative (supervisory) and speaking (teaching) aspects. Whereas the apostle establishes the church, the pastor maintains it. That is not an institutional task, but an interpersonal one-- it's about the sheep not the sheepcote. This gift is directly associated with the supervisory church office (elder/bishop) which is as close as the Bible gets to validating anything hierarchical in the church. The pastor is always a teacher and a leader, but it is possible to have teachers or leaders who are not pastors. (Romans 12:6-8 [leader], 1 Corinthians 12:28 [teacher/governor], Ephesians 4:11)

Teacher: one who instructs the church in the commands of God and how to apply them to daily life. This is a subset of the pastoral gift, but it is possible to be a teacher without being a pastor. (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11)

THE SERVERS

Server: one who attends to things that need to be done (similar to a Deacon). Everyone in the body serves in some capacity, but this gift does it in inspired, focused fashion. This is not necessarily the same as the office of Deacon, that is supervisory, this is functional, but I would think the office of Deacon would often be filled by those who are gifted as servers. By way of interest, Philip, the evangelist was a notable example of one who served in the office of Deacon, but was gifted as other than a server. (Romans 12:6-8)

Giver: one who shares his or her substance with the church. Some folk are appointed by God to be channels of blessing to the rest of the church. Everyone gives, but the gifted do so in ways enabled only by God. That, however, does not equate with being rich! (Romans 12:6-8)

Sympathizer: one who alleviates the suffering of others in the church. This is a mercy ministry. Everyone in the family of God is expected to show mercy to the family of God, sympathizers do so at an exemplary, Spirit-inspired level. (Romans 12:6-8)

Miracle Worker: one who exerts supernatural power. Everyone in the body of Christ can move in the supernatural, this gift does so on a marked, consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Healer: one who heals the sick. Everyone in the body of Christ can pray for the sick, anyone in the body can be used by God to bring a miraculous healing to someone who is sick, but the healer ministers this wonder on a consistent basis without any necessary connection to preaching. (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Helper: one who addresses the petitions of the needy. Everyone in the body should respond to the needs of their brothers and sisters, but some are enabled to do so in a particularly dedicated fashion. This may seem a replication of the gift of giver, but I think it involves more than substance and sustenance. Though this ministration is part of the duties entailed in the office of Deacon (as with the server), the gift is functional whereas the office is supervisory. Possessing this gift doesn't mean one will hold that office (1 Corinthians 12:28)

Leader: one who steers and superintends the church. The offices of Elder (overall oversight) and Deacon (service supervision) are the actual supervisory positions in a church, but their biblical descriptions do not necessarily specify what gifts one must possess in order to serve in them. In its formative stages, a church will be supervised by its apostle; thereafter, it may be supervised by some other gift acting in the office of Elder. The qualifications for that office specify functionally that an elder be instructive, but that is not quite the same as saying the elder must be gifted as a teacher. I could see the possibility of someone being gifted as a leader, capable of passing on effective instruction, but not gifted as a teacher, or any other speaking gift for that matter. What that implies in regards to the concept of church leadership vested in a plurality of elders I'll leave to you. (Romans 12:6-8 [governs], I Corinthians 12:28 [administration])

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

One could debate the way I condensed this number and these particular gifts from the stew of the three passages we have been discussing. Since all of the lists are representative and none is exhaustive, the possibility exists that there could be gifts that are not found in any of these lists. I don't think that's true, but I can't prove it. Someone could see the cross-referencing differently than I have as well. Regardless, what we all should be able to agree to is that God intends each of us to express the gift he's placed within us, and whatever your gift, God has given you the manifestation of the Holy Spirit for the benefit of all. I hope this series helps you express both.

Greater Gifts: Spiritual Ontogeny

There are two features of the gift list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that are particularly worthy of notice and dissection. Even though I've talked about one of them before here and here, the truth always bears repeating, so here I go again...

This list presents the gifts in an extending or telescoping fashion. The ordinals modifying the list are not rankings of gifts per se, but a demonstration of how they arise in time during the development of a church. The counsel in v. 29 may seem to indicate that a qualitative discrimination is intended, but I don't think it fits the context. Would Paul have spent all that effort to illustrate gifts with the body analogy-- pointing out how needed each gift was, how much care and respect each one needed from the others, how necessary it was to be the gift one was intended to be, only to chuck it all with one verse at the end?

In other words, would Paul have said, "Be a toenail, we need toenails, your unavoidable destiny is to be a toenail, but desire to be a head!" I don't think so! Even though Paul does use the comparative (μείζονα) in v. 29, he did not do so to negate all that he had said from vs. 12-27. Then what was he saying and why did he follow up his arguments with chapters 13 and 14? My reading is that the Corinthian church was completely out of order when it came to the practice of manifestations and spiritual gifts.

When they assembled, everyone was trying to one-up everyone else in speaking with other tongues. The spiritual development of the body was arrested, the telescope jammed, and the full scope of gifts was not arising and functioning as it should have. Everyone was stuck on what, really, was an initiation experience that everyone went through. Yes, it was a sign (manifestation), but it had no practical import corporately, other than to evidence that someone had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. 

After the experience of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, the only good publicly speaking in tongues has is when it was combined with interpretation.

Interestingly enough, the fact that tongues is listed at all in v. 28 means that somewhere along the line in the development of the body, people will be gifted with an ongoing ministry of speaking (and interpreting) tongues. Granted, it will be when other body parts are more fully developed, but it is most certainly envisioned as a viable, body-blessing ministry. The rhetorical question of v. 29, then, is a self-evident corrective which reminds the Corinthians (and us) to practice everything according to its spiritual ontogeny.