What has ceased?

Good points MEE!

Also true - so instead "uttering their ideas on better gardening practices" they spoke on those subject of the Spirit's choosing.

But DHK is correct when he notes that this is for the "edification" (instruction) of the church and that when the "ungifted" enters the church it is "gibberish" if done wrong. This gift is a "sign" to unbelievers. That means a pagan, an atheist a non-believer "of any stripe" will be "favorably impressed" by the gift - when it is done right. That could only be the case if it was a known language.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,
About what you posted to atestring about the women speaking (or not)? I thought in the book of 1Corinthians, Paul was answering some of the questions brought up in a letter from the church in Corinth?

After Paul reads the questions he answers them with
1Corithians 14:36-40 KJV
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

1 Corinthians 14:36-40 NLT
Do you think that the knowledge of God's word begins and ends with you Corinthians? Well, you are mistaken! 37 If you claim to be a prophet or think you are very spiritual, you should recognize that what I am saying is a command from the Lord himself. 38 But if you do not recognize this, you will not be recognized. 39 So, dear brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and don't forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But be sure that everything is done properly and in order.

*FOOTNOTE: v 38. Some manuscripts read If you are ignorant of this, stay in your ignorance.

After reading this it looks like it is ok for the men to speak tongues and its also alright for women to speak in church. The way v.36 reads to me Paul pretty much says who did they think they were to set guide lines (for lack of a better word)? v.37 Paul says that what he is saying is a command from the Lord and that is.......v.39 & 40Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. 40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Really though.....I guess its all how you determine what the meaning of the word brethren is defined in verse 39. And what you choose to belive.

Music4Him

 

I think you are wrong about that. The 1Cor 12 gifts (include the gifts listed in 1Cor 14 and they apply until the 2nd coming according to Ephesians 4 instructions about the purpose of gifts of the Holy Spirit in general).[/QUOTE]
I believe that tongues have ceased on two counts:
1. The completion of the revelation of God (the Bible--1Cor.13:8-13), and,
2. The cessation of a sign for the unbelieving Jew, for the judgement has already come in fulfillment of prophecy in 70 A.D.
Thus, if tongues have ceased, as I believe they have, I also believe that the other gifts (especially the sign gifts) have also ceased.

I agree, that Paul was complaining about the abuse of a legitimate gift. There was a legitimiate gift of tongues. That truth is quite evident. It is also evident that that gift is not operative today. I as well as many others have never seen it, just as we have never seen a genuine faith healer--one that can heal all that comes to him. The two gifts have ceased, along with the other sign gifts. What goes on today in the name of the gift of tongues is a travesty and a shame to the name of Christ.
I know of at least one country where it is more difficult for missionaries to get into now because of the antics of tongue-speakers. How true the verse is: "Will they not think that ye are mad (crazy)?" They did.
The gift is false, because today's "gift" is gibberish and not a true foreign language that can be identified and interpreted as such.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speaks in another language, let it be two, or at the most three, and in turn; and let one interpret. (WEB)

What does this verse mean? At the very most--the maximum that can speak is three; and they must speak in turn--not at the same time; And they must have an interpreter.

There is no verse that allows anyone to sing or pray in tongues--none!

"By their fruit ye shall know them. A good tree brings forth good fruit."
"God is a God of order, and not of chaos."
It is the devil who is the author of confusion.
When you see dozens, or scores of people all speaking at the same time, causing general chaos and pandemonium, you know that it is not of God. Even if that was a service conducted all in English it would not be of God for all to speak at once. Paul also addresses this problem in the same chapter.

1 Corinthians 14:29-30 Let the prophets speak, two or three, and let the others discern.
30 But if a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first keep silent.

Not mentioned in the text? C'mon Bob? Is this a cover for your founder?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
--This is the same text, and it is very plain:
Let your women keep silence in the churches.
"Each of you has a tongue to share?" You have taken that out of context. Paul teaches the exact opposite.

1 Corinthians 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
--The obvious answer to all these rhetorical questions that Paul asks is NO. No one has all the gifts. Not every one had the gift of tongues, just as not every one had the gift of healing, just as not every one was an Apostle!!

This is where you are wrong. The nation of Israel is mentioned in verse 21, a verse which cannot be divorced from verse 22.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--Who is "this people" Bob? The quote is taken from Isaiah 28, an Old Testament prophecy. "This People" refers specifically to the nation of Israel, for whom the gift of tongues was a sign. Thus the statement, "In the law it is written...
with men of other tongues and lips will I speak unto this people (Israel)."
And as Isaiah prophesied, "yet they will not hear me." And they didn't, and judgement came.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
--Wherefore ("wherefore" a word connecting the two verses) tongues are for a sign. A sign to who?
A sign to the Jew--verse 21
A sign to the unbeliever--verse 22
A sign to the unbelieving Jew (vs.21,22)
Put everything in its context.

No it is not allowed. Let me help out here. Paul refers to praying and singing in the Spirit. He never mentions praying or singing in tongues. It isn't there. When I pray, I don't pray carnally; I make sure that I am in the right frame of mind--I pray "in the spirit, or of the spirit--spiritually. It has nothing to do with tongues whatsoever. Tongues was a gift given to edify the entire church; not a selfish gift for one's prayer life or singing life. Name one of the gifts that is given for just one's own edification, and not the entire church's. You can't. How about the gift of helps? Did God give me the gift of helps so I could just help myself?? So it is with tongues. It had to be for the edification of the entire church. It was not for prayer or singing.

If you read others posts you quickly realize that the Charismatics use thier supposed gift of tongues as their own private prayer language, which is not taught anywhere in Scripture.
DHK

 

I don't guess when it comes to Scripture. I have done a thorough study on the word "adelphos," the Greek word for brother or brethren. The reason being that it is the same word that the Catholics would like to translate it cousin in Mat.13:55 to avoid admitting that Mary had children after the birth of Christ. The word means "brother" or "brethren." It is in the male gender, and the Lord used that word for a particular purpose. There is a definite prohibition against women speaking in tongues. It says for women to keep silence in the churches. What do you propose? Just snip that portion out of your Bible with a pair of scissors? You can't ignore. It is Scripture, and it still remains to this day.
"Forbid not to speak in tongues." Taken in its context you would do well to add on the words "in the first century." That's when the tongues were in use. Since then they have ceased. He was addressing first century Christians. We need to keep that in mind as we read the Scripture, and only apply that which pertains to us.
Jesus commanded Peter to walk on water, but He didn't command me. He doesn't command us to speak in tongues either.
DHK

 

DHK,
What law is Paul talking about in 1 Cor.14:34 that says...... "as also saith the law". Thats in the old law...the one that Jesus set us free from. If you will read on down you'll see that Paul tell us just as much. The men of Corinth was trying to put regulations on the gifts and on the men and women while in church.
Paul told the brethren (males and females) of the church to seek to prophesy and don't forbid others to speak tongues and compleates his instruction with just keep the service in a orderly fashion.

In some of the books/letters that Paul wrote he asks those that he is addressing asking why would they want to go back under the law? (I'm sure you know which scriptures they are) Why would we want to go back under the law as well? Women hear from the Lord also are is it only the men? Thats why Paul said in Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I guess thought this would be another topic though and the distinctions in the words brethen, men, women, male and female. Thats why I use the word Ya'll alot....it adresses both ladies and gentelmen.

Have a great day ya'll~
Music4Him

 

Jesus commanded Peter to walk on water, but He didn't command me. He doesn't command us to speak in tongues either.
Peter asked Jesus if it was really Him then to let him(Peter) come to Him (Jesus).... Peter said bid me come to you, just as one day whenI seen I was a sinner and knew that I need a savior to save me. Jesus never commands us but He bids us to come unto Him, the choice is ours whether we want to walk on the water with Jesus. (As ya'll can tell I've been reading parables agian.)

Music4Him

 

You said, 'He doesn't command us to speak in tongues either.'

The Scriptural answer to this comment is found in I Corinthians 14:39. 'Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy {preach} and FORBID NOT TO SPEAK WITH TONGUES.'

All Christians have been warned about expunging or removing or adding to the Word of God. [Revelation 22:19] I caution you--be careful.

 

Ray, that was in 50AD when the "sign" of the coming judgement was in full operation. Of course he wouldn't have wanted it forbidden because the tongues were serving a purpose. Not just way off purpose but one that was fast approching. Paul wanted the nation of Isreal warned. Tongues had no purpose after 70AD, when the judgement hit. Tongues are not talked about in later writings by Paul and others. Not Forbid has to be taken in the context of when it was written.

In Christ,
Brian

M4H, Paul says in the Law it is written and then quotes a scripture all in the same line, the same breath as it were. He simply by law is saying in the scriptures it was written. You just can't conclude anything else then that unless you are looking to conclude something else.

 

Briguy,

I do not see any reason to make the Destruction of the Temple as a defining moment, except that the Lord judged Israel and her people for not accepting Him as their Lord and Savior. They were expelled into all of the then known nations. This has nothing to due with 'speaking in tongues', or 'the interpretation of tongues' or the end of all eschatological prophecy. The judgments of the Book of Revelation have not even begun.

Even without a thriving church made up of Israelites-as to nationality, the Christian church continued under the same mandate and rules of engagement. Gentiles became the blessed ones because of their faith in Christ.

If we start diminishing chapter of the Bible as in I Corinthians 12 & 14, then perhaps we can say that we need not preach the Gospel to all nations because Israel, to some people's way of thinking, is not allowed to come into the faith because of some kind of eternal decree that they are forever lost to Christ's forgiveness. With the millions of Jewish people in NYC we should just ignore them too.

I rather think that Matthew 28:19 is still in force; and if this is true--- then the gifts of the Holy Spirit are never to be deleted from the Bible, God's holy Word as recorded in I Corinthians chapters 12 & 14.

We are to preach to 'all nations' [28:19] and we are not to 'forbid {Christians} from speaking in tongues.' [I Cor. 14:39 & I Cor. 14:5a] Although Paul wished that everyone spoke in 'tongues' he realized that not everyone was going to receive this gift from God. [I Corinthians 12:30b] 'Do all speak with tongues?' The answer is no-not everyone speaks in tongues.

The best gifts from God to us and through us---is to love people, [I Corinthians 13:1-13] and to preach the Gospel according to the Word of God. [I Cor. 12:10b] I believe preaching and witnessing to our faith are more important than some of these other gifts, although we are not to act as if they are not viable within the church.

 

I would caution you to be careful too Ray. The Bible commands us in 2Tim.2:15 rightly dividing the Word of Truth.
It means taking things in their proper context, and making sure that all Scripture agrees with each other. Here are some examples that John MacArthur has collected of people who use the Scripture for their own purposes, or taken out context.

How to Study Your Bible

You see, not every command in the Bible is directed for us. The command "Forbid not to speak in tongues," was directed to first century Christians, and in particular it was directed to the Corinthian Church. Everything must be taken in its context. If we are to obey all New Testament commands, I ask you what is your state of obedience in relation to these New Testament commands:

1. And he said: One thing you lack, Go, Sell all that you have. Give to the poor, and come and follow me.

2. Let the dead bury dead, but you come and follow me.

3. Luke 9:13-14 But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. For they were about five thousand men.
--Have you ever fed 5,000 with physical bread?

4. Luke 9:21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;
--An interesting command: "shut up"

Do you obey all the commands of Christ?
Are all the commands of Christ for us?
DHK

 

EPH 2:20 * And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

The job of NT Apostles and Prophets was to provide the foundation for the church [body of believers]. The church is a referred to as a building which rests on the foundation. A foundation is always finished first. Therefore prophecy stopped with the completion of the foundation, and by the same time the gifts of tongues and knowledge stopped also. The foundation would have to be the completed Bible.

 

First, Paul is not a confused old man who contradicts himself, forgetting what he wrote just a few verses earlier. He never, never gives permission for women to prophesy or speak in tongues.
Second, "as also saith the law," has nothing to do with the "law that Jesus set us free from." It is a reference back to Genesis 3:16. The word "law" often refers to the Old Testament in general, as is the case here.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
--This is what the law (Torah) said, and this is what Paul was referring to.
Third, Brethren, means exactly what it says--brethren--males, men. He has already excluded the women. He is not addressing his remarks to them in the context of speaking in tongues.

Genesis 3:16 refers to the Torah, also known as the law. That verse refers to the curse, which will only be removed at the time of the coming of Christ when he sets up his Millennial Kingdom. We are still under that curse. And women are still in subjection to their husbands. If they are not, they are in disobedience to God's Word.
Paul in the "Pastoral epistles" wrote extensively about the qualifications of a pastor. He always used the male pronoun. He said that HE had to be the HUSBAND of one WIFE. That excludes both homosexuals and women.
"If a MAN desire the office of a bishop..." It doesn't say woman, and for good reason.
Verse 5: (For if a MAN know not how to rule his own house.
Read the qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 for yourselves. You might also ask yourself the question why the church in Jerusalem chose 7 MEN in Acts 6, to serve as "deacons" or servants in the church. The problem, if you notice, was the women.
DHK

 

DHK,
There are some things that every one will dissagree on about the bible. I have made my beliefs known anout women ceasing to speak in church as you have as to why you think they should be quiet.
Like Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation? If I haven't said this before DHK there are certian subjects that not all will agree with. My husband listens to John MacArthur when he can in his commute from work. The issue about a woman not speaking in church is one that he disagrees with John about.

When Paul answered the Corinthians about the hair issue, with the men and women in 1Cor.11:2-16, after stateing the ordinaces (traditions) he said in verse 16.:
But, if any man seem to be contentious (ie contest, quarrel i.e. wrangling), we have no such custom, neither the churchs of God.

On the position about women speaking.........The word pastor defined is to tend a flock ie pasture it. Pastors defined is shepherd. Are you saying that women aren't allowed to tend the sheep?
Preach is defined to announce the good news, to herald, to proclaim, to call out. Preacher defined is to herald assembler i.e. lecturer. What? came the word of God out of you? or came it to you only? (This taken from 1Cor.14:36 after Paul read the law about women keeping silent in church and told to ask their husbands at home if they learn anything.) Are men the only ones who hear from God? Why can't women tell the good news to others that are lost. If there is a chance for woman to tell a sinner about the good news of Jesus and the salvation that Jesus offers...... then who would shut her mouth?

In Romans 16:1, Paul indicates that women possibly serve or minister as Deacons (Diakonon) in the church. Then in I Timothy he sets forth the qualifications for a Deaconess.
1. Dignified
2. Not a gossip
3. Self-controlled (temperate)
4. Faithful
5. Have a reputation for good works
6. Have well-behaved and faithful children
7. Hospitable
8. Served well in the church (washed the saint's feet and served the sick and needy)

"Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised."
~Proverbs 31:30~ NIV

"Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate."
~Proverbs 31:31~ NIV

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
~Galtians 3:28~ KJV

Music4Him

 

Let's consider what you say in the light of Scripture. But first let me say that women definitely do have a place in the ministry and in the church. Please remember, that I have been emphasizing that 1Cor.14:34,35 is a prohibition for women to keep silent in the churches, in the context of tongues, not in all other areas. Paul was addressing the specific abuse of tongues.
Considering the word for "pastor" it is never used in a feminine sense, always in a masculine sense. There are three words that define the role of a pastor: elder, bishop, pastor. The word for bishop means overseer. The word for pastor means shepherd. They were always used in a masculine gender, never for women.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

In the above two verses in Acts 20 we have the three words or functions of a pastor used:
1. Elders or presbuteros
2. overseer or bishop (episkopos)
3. feeding the sheep—the work of a shepherd or pastor.
--In Acts 20 Paul called the men of the church together. There were no women there. These men were a plurality of elders or pastors. The gender of the nouns indicate this. There were no female pastors in the Bible.

Every pastor, elder, bishop, (all words describing different aspects of the same office) in the Bible is always a man, and never a woman. The qualifications for both a pastor and a deacon in 1Timothy 3 are for a man and not a woman. Women are never pastors in the Bible. There is no Biblical evidence for it.

Here is one of many passages that speak of the role of women in the church.
1 Timothy 2:9-12 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Verse 9 speaks of the woman's dress and modesty.
Verse 10 speaks of the woman's example of godliness and good works
Verse 11 speaks of how the woman should keep silence in the service of the church. She is there to learn; not to preach. And when she learns she needs to do it quietly.
Verse 12 Paul speaks plainly. I do not allow a woman to preach, or teach, or to have any authority over a man, but rather to be in silence.

Within the confines of the above verses we define the role of the woman in the church. Remember that the word church simply means congregation, and not building. Thus a woman cannot be a teacher or preacher over a congregation of men, or men and women. But she can teach women, and children. That is why we have Sunday School teachers that are ladies. They can serve in other non-teaching areas—in ministry such as music. But as the above verses teach, they have a great ministry simply by the lives that they live, in setting an example of living a godly life full of good works in submission to their husbands.

Concerning deacons:
The word for deacon is simply an Anglicized word transliterated from the Greek diakonos, which means servant. The better translation is servant. That is what the word actually means: "servant." My position (a bit different than others) is that there is no office of a deacon. Deacon simply means servant. The qualifications of the men that are willing to serve are set forth in 1Tim.3. The church would also establish similar standards for women who would serve in their own ministries, which Paul does mention. The word deacon in 1Tim.3 is in the male gender, unlike Rom.16:1, where the word for servant, the word "diakonays" is used, which is the feminine form of the word for servant. It doesn't mean that there are deaconesses, but rather that there are women in the church that serve in various capacities. It is dangerous to (IMO) to elevate the word or person of "deacon" or "deaconess" to an official office, when the word simply means servant. Today the word "office" carries the aura of authority. 400 years ago the English word "office" meant service. When one thinks through our government positions this becomes more evident.
Our government has a "Public Works Ministry," and a "Minister of Public Works." His "office" is to oversee those that work under him. The Public Works Service has a Servant, the "Servant of Public Works." His "service" is to oversee those that work under him for the betterment of the country. The old English word office was always used in the sense of service. Today it is used too much in the sense of authority, so much so that a board of deacons has more authority than the pastor himself which is unscriptural.
Phoebe, was a female servant, sent by Paul to serve in the church in Rome.
Robertson has this to say about deaconesses:

What we do know is that there were no women that were pastors.

Thus the Bible teaches:
That women are not to teach or usurp authority over the men in the church.
That they are to learn in silence (in the services of the church.)
That they are to be quiet (silent) in the church and not to speak at all (especially in respect to the gift of tongues.)
That women still have a ministry among other women and children in the church.

And "groanings which cannot be uttered are just that—sounds which are impossible for one to utter. It is the work of the Holy Spirit, not of man, and therefore not even audible to man. They cannot be spoken by, or heard by man. They cannot be uttered.
DHK