This is a good rule of interpretation to follow. With this in mind some have erroneously taught that various verses in Genesis suggest that Eve had children prior to the Genesis Fall and that people and entire cities existed before the children of Cain and Abel. Some have gone so far to say that some kind of Pre-Adamic race or previous earth-age existed before Adam that was destroyed because of sin and they actually call it a previous earth age. This reasoning is faulty. First, In Genesis 1:31 God said that all His creation (including the angelic world) was good. This could not be true if there was a previous Adamic race existing on earth prior to Adam’s creation that was deceived by Satan. Second, if God allowed death to occur before Adam, then God is the author of death.  The Bible says Adam (not God or Satan) is the author of death (I Cor. 15:21); therefore, no human race fell before Adam’s time.  Not until man deliberately rejected the known will of God did death make its first appearance on this planet (Romans 5:12). Third, and more importantly, the Bible clearly tells us that Adam was the first man that God created. Let the Bible speak for itself.

1 Corinthians 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Romans 5:12

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Adam was the first man, death came to the world through Adam, and in Adam all mankind has sinned. This is the clear revelation of Scripture. There was no previous race of people before Adam. The generations of man began with Adam (Gen. 5:1). To say that there were people existing on earth before Adam is a weird and wacky conclusion that has no Scriptural base. To say he was the first man after a prior race of millions of men would be severe eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures something that is not there).

But what about Adam and Eve bearing children before Cain and Abel? Is there any logic to this reasoning? Some claim that Genesis 3:16 alludes to the fact that Eve had previous children before Cain and Abel. Genesis 3:16 says, “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.”

The point is made this way. Since God told Eve that He would greatly multiply the woman’s sorrow and her conception in sorrow that there had to be children before the Fall and before Cain and Abel. This is because God said He was multiplying (Hebrew “rabah” – increasing greatly or exceedingly) the woman’s sorrow. You can’t multiply something that did not previously exist.

Several observations can be made about this faulty interpretation.

First, God gave the original command to replenish the earth with offspring back in Genesis 1:28. This verse is a summary of God’s original intent for mankind while He lived in a state of innocence. Naturally, since the Fall took place, God was now adding a new feature or dimension to His original intention and plan for child birth. The idea of multiplying has to do with changing God’s original intention (pain free child birth in a state of innocence) to another plan of childbirth that now involves pain and sorrow, due to the entrance of sin in the human race. It has nothing to do with making something worse than it was before. It’s understood that before Eve had children the curse came upon mankind. A logical and factual reading of the Bible places conception and childbirth after the Fall (Gen. 4:1-2). No one knows how long or short the state of innocence was for Adam and Eve. The Bible simply states that after the Fall children were born. We must allow the Bible to speak for itself on this matter.

Second, God in this statement was simply telling the woman that He would greatly multiply her suffering in general, and more particularly that of her childbearing. Her pains would exceed that of men and particularly during the period of childbearing. And all the ladies said, “Amen!” In a general way, women would experience greater suffering than men (multiplied suffering) and this would be seen when she brings forth children. The idea of multiplying may simply be a comparison between the woman’s suffering and the man’s level of suffering. The woman’s suffering would be greatly multiplied in comparison to the mans suffering, childbirth being a prime example. Her multiplied suffering over the man, especially in childbirth, is a constant reminder that a woman gave birth to sin in the human race and passes it on to all her children. Notice, she can be delivered from this curse to some degree by raising godly children, as indicated in 1 Tim. 2:15.

Third, to interpret the statement (“greatly multiply thy sorrow and conception”) as meaning that Eve would continue to bear children as she did before, but with greater pain, would suggest that there must have been pain in childbirth prior to the Genesis Fall. This is erroneous. The Bible clearly says that pain and death go together and were associated with the Fall (Gen. 3:14-19). They had no existence prior to the Fall. The Bible indicates that nature’s curse (“groaning and travailing in pain”) is a result of the Edenic curse, which came after Adam’s fall (see Romans 8:20-22).

Fourth, the understanding of Genesis 3:14-19 is that none of the curses mentioned by God occurred before the Fall. To say that they did occur prior to the Fall in some form or other is illogical. If pain occurred before the Fall in childbirth, to some degree, then to be honest with the text, you must also say that Adam and Eve faced the battle of the sexes to some degree before the Fall (Gen. 3:16), the ground was also cursed to some degree before the Fall (Gen. 3:17-18), man had to work vigorously to some degree before the Fall to make ends meet, and that death to some degree existed before the Fall (Gen. 3:19). Furthermore, sin must have then existed to some degree before the Fall. All of this is untrue (Rom. 5:12). Interpreting the phrase “multiplying thy sorrow” as a greater sorrow that previously existed opens up a can of interpretive worms. If you interpret one part of the curse as being greater in intensity and existing prior to the Fall, then you must interpret them all in the same way.

Fifth, to suggest that there were children born to Adam and Eve prior to the Fall means that there were sinless babies and children. This too is a faulty conclusion. David declared that children are born in sin (Psalm 51:5). The Bible never talks about a sinless race of people in some kind of prior earth age. To say that there was such a race is pure conjecture. The only race that existed was the one race that existed before the Genesis Flood (2 Pet. 3:6)

Sixth, the Scripture in a clear and understandable fashion suggests that Cain was the first son born to Eve (Gen. 4:1). Eve in this verse said that she had “gotten a man from the LORD” (not another man or the second, third, fourth, or tenth man). Let’s believe what the Bible simply states and says. Cain was the first son. There were no sons or children prior to Cain. Furthermore, Scripture speaks of the three sons of Adam and Eve (Cain, Abel, and Seth – see Gen. 4:25) – not the three hundred sons or children that lived before them.

Seventh, if there were other children born to Adam and Eve before Cain and Abel then why doesn’t Scripture (the final source of our authority) record this anywhere within its pages? Why would God hide this from us? What the Bible does tell us is that Adam and Eve were the first human parents of Cain and Abel. To make assumptions otherwise by reading human reasoning into texts causes us to huckster the intended meaning of the Bible (2 Cor. 2:17 – “For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God”).

It is also suggested by some that there must have been people living before Cain because of the mention of people living in a city. But let’s read what the Bible actually says. What saith the Scripture (Rom. 4:3)?

Genesis 4:17

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

The Bible says that Cain was the progenitor of the city as he tried to reverse the curse of wandering that God had placed on him. He brought the city into existence or the first civilization that perished in the judgment of the Genesis Flood. This civilization marked a civilization that wanted to exist apart from God.

Cain said in Genesis 4:14-15:

Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

But God replied:

And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Some suggest that since there were people living on earth that could find Cain that there must have been a race of people or children born to Adam and Eve prior to Cain. But once again Scripture debunks this idea (1 Cor. 15:45). Adam was the first man. Cain was simply recognizing that as the earth became populated (Gen. 6:1) he would become a marked man and a moving target for causing such problems in the world. But God made sure that this would not be the case by protecting Cain with some mark or sign that would become a deterrent to others and keep them from killing him. The same mark that saved him was the lifelong sign of his shame. In any event, to claim by this statement (“every one that findeth me shall slay me”) that there was a race of people existing on earth before Cain, or that Adam and Eve had children prior to Cain, is to read into the Scriptures one’s own fantasies. Cain simply was recognizing that as the earth rapidly expands in population he would need God’s protection.

In conclusion, to use hypothetical reasoning with the statements that are presented in Genesis 3:16 and 4:15-17, without studying the context or entire Biblical record on creation, causes one to arrive at anti-Biblical conclusions. The natural reading of Genesis records accurate truth. So remember this old interpretive saying: The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things!

By Pastor Kelly Sensenig

Prelude to Judgment (Genesis 6:5-7)

“Only evil continually.” Now that is a perfect description of unredeemed men and women of any era—including our own. Human beings are not basically good. Because of the curse brought about by Adam’s sin (see Gen. 3 and Rom. 5), human beings are basically bad—completely sinful. How can I say such a thing? We can look around the world and see good things being attempted and noble tasks being achieved. But the problem is not simply with our attempts and our achievements. The problem is with our hearts. Until we come to bow the knee to Jesus Christ as King of the universe, our own agendas remain on the thrones of our hearts—we are without God in the world. And that means that even our best acts are godless acts. And for all the good that homeless shelters, cancer research, or AIDS orphanages will do on this earth, those efforts will not carry over to eternity unless they are done in the name of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To put it another way: if our hearts are godless, then even our most altruistic deeds are filthy rags because they are done by our own self-effort and not through the strength that God supplies. And that, even in the most loving and giving among us, leads to secret pride: “Look at what I achieved”; “Look at who we helped”; “Look at what mankind has accomplished.” And in that kind of thinking, subtle or unspoken as it may be, there is a robbery of the glory of God who made us and who alone gives us the ability to accomplish what is meaningful.

Some of us do “only evil continually” by blatantly rebelling against God. Others of us do “only evil continually” by failing to acknowledge God as the giver of every good and perfect gift—including the gifts we ourselves give to others. But both lifestyles are equally godless and, as we shall see, worthy of judgment.

Global Judgment

The water covered the entire earth: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” Genesis 7:19

All people and animals not on the ark died: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” Genesis 7:21-23

Arnold Murray doesn’t agree, but Peter does: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” 1 Peter 3:20

Here’s a couple of great articles for more on the flood:
http://www.icr.org/article/842/ “Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood”

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark

According to John 15:19, the believer is IN the world, but ought not to be OF the world, because the Lord has chosen us OUT of the world. Separation does not mean we must move into a compound or hide from everyone who is unsaved! The Lord has set us free from our old masters (the world, the flesh, and the devil) and has given us the power to live a life of righteousness that honors and pleases Him. So why should we desire to remain attached to the world system from which we have been delivered? John commands us, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world…” (1 John 2:15). The “world” is the ungodly world system in which we live. As citizens of heaven, we must not become attached to the things of the world nor gain affinity for the world’s ideas, philosophies, and programs that oppose God’s Word. John goes on to give three reasons for our separation from the world in 1 John 2:15-17.

Because of it’s Opposition to the Father

“…If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Love for the world is incompatible with love for God. The world system is at war with God and with His followers (see John 15:18-20). “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:4) The Bible makes it clear that we cannot love the world system and simultaneously live for God. Scripture gives us many principles to discern what is worldly so that we can please God with our lives.

Because of it’s Offers

Verse 16 effectively describes the nature of the world’s offers: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” Peter clearly commands us to separate from the ways of the world which characterized our lives prior to salvation, “As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:” (1 Peter 1:14).

Because of it’s Outcome

“And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” The world is only temporary. The pleasures of sin are only for a season (see Hebrews 11:24-25). Our lives should reflect this spiritual priority of striving for eternal rewards.

Separation from False Teachers

Usually this area is the easiest for believers to be obedient. We automatically know not to invite the local Jehovah’s Witness leaders to speak for our revival meetings! Sometimes the right action is not so obvious. Consider the following key New Testament passages about false teaching.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

All believers are commanded: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Instead of coming into close partnerships with the lost, we are to “come out from among them” and be separate. Any religious or spiritual endeavor (worship, evangelism, prayer, etc.) with those who have rejected Biblical truth or who preach a false gospel is a direct violation of this Biblical commandment of separation. In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul tells us to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh (carnal, physical sins) and also from all filthiness of the spirit (spiritual infidelity by uniting with unbelievers).

Ephesians 5:11

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” We must not only separate from unbelief, but we must also sound a warning to others who might subtly be drawn into the apostasy so prevalent today.

Romans 16:17

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Notice that Bible doctrine is the dividing line. Those who do not teach true doctrine are to be “marked,” or noted, and “avoided.”

2 Timothy 3:1-5

Paul describes the actions and attitudes of evil men and false teachers and warns Timothy that even though they possess “a form of godliness,” they actually deny the power of God and the gospel message. The believer’s response to these proud, conceited apostates should be to “turn away” from them.

Galatians 1:6-10

All who preach a false gospel are under the curse of God, and believers are commanded to refrain from any fellowship with them. The very fact that they have perverted the true gospel means that believers are to “let them be accursed.” We are to separate from false teachers and their false teachings.

From the Apostle John

The entire first epistle of John informs believers that one of the primary ways they can abide in Christ is to watch out for false teachers and “try the spirits” to see whether or not they are truly of God (1 John 2:18-20; 4:1-5). In his second epistle, he commands us to separate from false teachers (2 John 7-11). Those who accommodated the false teachers were described as being “partakers” of their evil deeds. In the book of Revelation, John records Jesus Christ Himself commending several churches for separating from false teachers and rebuking several other churches for failing to separate from dangerous false doctrines (Revelation 2:1-3:22).

Separation from Brethren

We are living in an ecumenical age where all religions and branches of Christendom are coming together in religious unity. When Bible believers refuse to have any part with the World Council of Churches, or fellowship with non-Baptist religious groups, or even work together with other Baptists, they are often called “narrow-minded,” “unloving,” “extremists,” etc. Yet the Bible clearly states that we are to separate even from fellow brethren when they fail to heed and obey the Word of God.

The Problems

Some brethren embrace those who teach false doctrine. Others possess an affinity for the world and seek to employ ideas and philosophies of the world in their lives and ministries. Some actually embrace and teach false doctrine. Others repudiate certain Biblical doctrines such as separation from error and false teachers. In each case, the fellow believer is compromising the truth and failing to heed the Word of God. To separate does not mean to act in an unkind or unloving manner toward the offending brethren or to refuse to speak to them or have anything to do with them. Rather, it means we must not associate ourselves with their ministries or their ministry endeavors. We must make sure that others know we are not identified with the doctrine they teach or with the philosophy of ministry to which they subscribe.

The Principles

Paul commanded the Thessalonian believers to “withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). How were these brethren walking disorderly? They were not obeying the tradition, that is, the words and inspired writings of the apostle Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Paul writes, “And if any man obey not our word by his epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15). Those fellow believers who do not obey the Scriptures are to be marked and avoided (see Romans 16:17).

The Purposes

1. Maintenance of church purity. 1 Corinthians 5 presents a case-study. Paul charged them “not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or coveteous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Corinthians 5:11). Whether this individual is a sinning believer or an unsaved pretender, the command is the same – “purge out therefore the old leaven” (1 Corinthians 5:7), that is, separate from him. When such church discipline is not enforced, unconfessed and unforsaken sin in the fellowship will harm and corrupt others (1 Corinthians 5:5-7). God has ordained separation in order to stem the leavening, spreading influence of sin.

2. Restoration of a disobedient brother. Unless the errant believer is rebuked according to God’s Word, he might continue his sin indefinitely. Separation should make the disobedient brother “ashamed” (2 Thessalonians 3:14). He is not an enemy, nor should he be treated as such (2 Thessalonians 3:15. One purpose for our separation from him is to bring him to a place of repentance and restoration (see Galatians 6:1).

3. Reception of a full reward. Believers should obey God’s Word and separate from disobedient brethren in order to receive a “full reward” at the appearing of Jesus Christ (2 John 8; see also 2 Timothy 2:5). It is possible for a disobedient Christian to lose reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ due to his compromised fellowships while on earth (1 Corinthians 3:13-15; Revelation 3:11). Anytime a believer is identified with any religious activity that it is not true to God’s Word, he will meet with God’s disapproval.

4. Consistency in the midst of theological confusion. As the promoter of confusion about God’s Word, Satan is busy sowing falsehood in churches today. A separated believer can maintain a strong, consistent testimony in the midst of the confusion of our day. “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33).

Although the doctrine of separation is prominent throughout the Scripture, difficulty arises when actually attempting practice this truth. In some cases, it is very easy. For example, to reject the false doctrines of the cults is not too difficult and does not usually involve any great sacrifice. However, many believers have difficulty understanding and obeying God’s command to separate from churches or ministries that have compromised or failed to follow God’s Word. Yet God’s directive concerning evil is the same whether the sin is found outside or inside the church.

The Basis of Separation

Separation sometime has a bad reputation. Some folks imagine a great list of “taboos.” Certainly the Scriptures label certain things as off limits for God’s people, but it is important for us to grasp the principles involved in determining what pleases the Lord. How should we decide what is “taboo” for us? Isn’t it unloving to shun people or things? Why should why separate from anything or any person?

The Holiness of God

Separation springs from the very nature of God. 1 Peter 1:15-16 affirms, “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”

The Reality of Conversion

“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17)

The Command of Scripture

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

Defining Separation

Four Related Words

“Separation”, “sanctification”, “holiness”, and “saints” all have the same basic meaning – set apart. When we say that God is holy, that means He is “set apart” from all other in His righteousness. When we say that the Bible is holy, we mean it is “set apart” from all other books. When we are taught to sanctify the Lord in our hearts, this means we are to set God apart from idols.

Two Aspects

Separation necessarily involves two things – one to be left and one to be joined. For the believer, we are to separate from the ungodliness to the Lord. Paul clearly expresses this concept in Romans 12:1-2: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

more to come….

I know that eating healthy and exercising regularly are important. I’ve read about it, listened to others discuss it, even browsed some statistics. I don’t doubt it. I know I should do it – the benefits are enormous. I could make the time to exercise. I could watch what I eat. I’ve probably got more reason than others to take the plunge. But there is one problem – I am not willing to commit to actually doing it.

Just because I believe in health facts does not mean that I am a heathly person.

In evangelizing, I have encountered many who know the basic facts of Christianity. However, the vast majority of these showed no signs of actually being born again. It’s not enough to know the facts or even believe the facts. Every person has to be willing to actually yield to Christ and rely on His work on the cross to save them.

Tragically, many know the facts, understand the benefits and consequences; yet they will die in their sins because of an unwillingness to yield to Christ and rely on Him for salvation. The devils believe and wisely fear because they understand the consequences of their rebellion.

Just because a person believes in Christian truths does not mean that person is a Christian.

Let’s be clear in evangelizing: don’t settle for having someone agree with you on a few facts, and then pronounce them saved. Salvation is not just a matter of the mind. It is also a matter of the heart and the will. Look for evidences of repentance & faith – like a feeling of guilt over sin, a desire to be rid of it, a hopelessness without Christ, etc. ]]> http://jacklamb.name/2009/05/03/not-ready-to-commit-to-christ/feed/ 0 http://jacklamb.name/2009/02/19/church-history-and-the-tongues-movement-by-george-dollar/ http://jacklamb.name/2009/02/19/church-history-and-the-tongues-movement-by-george-dollar/#comments Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:11:35 +0000 Jack Lamb http://www.rediscovergodsword.com/?p=223 Advocates of the tongues movement rely upon two sources for their arguments. First of all, there is an appeal to instances of speaking in tongues in the New Testament and, secondly, late nineteenth-century and twentieth-century instances on a widespread scale are given large place in arguing for the present-day resurgence of this apostolic gift. However, it is rather remarkable that very few, if any, of the writers of this movement refer to the grand stream of church history from apostolic times until our present day for proof of God’s plan to perpetuate this unusual occurrence and to use it in the entirety of gospel outreach. The silence for many centuries ought to sober many of the more vocal exponents of this new movement, but it seems that a new doctrine has clamped itself upon the imagination, if not the mentalities, of these exponents. Simply stated, this new doctrine is that we are now in the last days and therefore we should see again a special reoccurrence of those things of apostolic days; gifts, privileges, blessings, and “the power” which have been noticeably lacking in church life for these long centuries. If this doctrine be true, then God has kept from His people for these two millennia the full extent of the workings of His grace, and the constant gifts of the Holy Spirit (if these are within His will), resulting in a terribly impoverished church to carry out His grand design in this world. Again, this doctrine heightens the importance of the days in which we live and also lends some plausible credence to the centrality of the tongues movement if it can be proved that this was central in apostolic days. 

Some thirty-five years ago a distinguished American educator, Dr. George B. Cutten of Colgate University, took a close look at any historical instances of this speaking in tongues. After thorough research, it was Cutten’s conclusion that in the ancient church at least, the church of the fathers, there was not one well-attested instance of any person who exercised speaking in tongues or even pretended to exercise it. Here it possibly should be added that in the second century Irenaeus wrote that he had heard that there were some who spoke in all sorts of languages.

It is worth noting that his contemporary, Justin Martyr, also “heard” of prophetic gifts, but he does not specifically mention tongues. Another group of that same period was the Montanists who are often alleged to have engaged in it, but actually their sin, if so it was, was that of enthusiasm, ecstasy, and in some cases emotional forecasts of prophetic type. Another group was the Marcionites. Against them Tertullian alleged that there may have been some instances of tongues. Origen in the next century claimed that there were some prophets in his day who spoke in tongues and yet the particulars which he enunciated would indicate prophetic utterances rather than the use of other languages. Again, in his case as in several, it is not clear whether these prophets were within the orbit of Christian activity or prophets of other religious groups. It was Chrysostom of the fourth century who attested to the fact that speaking in languages had stopped altogether even among fringe groups where suspicion had held that they occurred.

The Middle Ages constituted a long millennium of darkness and yet the light shone largely through those of the line of descent or the trail of testimony. But here we are dealing with so much that is superstitious, mystical, inexplainable, awesome, weird, and monastic that one must be extremely careful in ferreting out instances of deep-rooted New Testament spirituality, and especially would that be true in the case of gifts. Gorres has listed some hermits by name who had a use of another language such as Clarenus in 1300, St. Dominick, St. Vincent Ferrier (b. 1347), and even Francis Xavier (b.1506), the last claiming to have ability to speak to people of India. The latter instance is rather interesting because it was officially sanctioned by Pope Urban VIII who had time in which to lend ecclesiastical auspices to such a nebulous event while all the time overlooking the horrors and wickedness of the Inquisition. Here a statement by the venerable B. B. Warfield is helpful for it was his scholarly conclusion that “pretension to possession and use of miraculous powers in a permanent endowment are a specialty of Roman Catholicism.”

The Reformation era was marked by a tremendous outburst of vitality in grasping again the great, Scriptural doctrines of sin, justification, the inspiration of the Word, and the true nature of the church. Among those who have been classified as radicals of the Reformation there are some hints of the ecstatic and the uncontrollable. Some few among the Anabaptists have been charged with this as in the case of the Munsterites, as well as some of the hounded and hated Albigenses of Lanquedoc. In every such case as this, however, one must reject these charges because all of them are based upon the bitter hatred and intense dislike of these groups by their enemies. Among the persecuted of the Reformation period there were many who reacted violently not only to the Roman Church but the arrogance and intolerance of main Protestant groups, and in a time of great emotional stir and hysteria did and said things which are not to be counted as in the mainstream of the group to which they professed they belonged. Actually, speaking in tongues played no part in the Reformation movement. This should give us cause to pause and reflect. Thousands of earnest Christians all over Europe sought to re-establish earnestly and completely New Testament doctrine and holy living. Scriptures were searched diligently by some of the finest minds that the church has known. Excellent treatises were produced, outstanding credal statements were formulated, and men set themselves to discover again the full-orbed teaching of the New Testament. Not one of these even intimated that the doctrine of speaking in tongues had a part in the continuing stream of God’s work or in the present-day activity in which the Holy Spirit directs.

In the history of the church of modern times in lands outside our own nation there have been a few scattered instances when this matter of speaking in tongues flared into open profession. In the last few years of the eighteenth century the “little prophets” of Cevennes in France arose in which children three years old and up preached, it is alleged, in correct French. Their experiences were accompanied by faintings and swoonings at which times they seemed to be insensible to pain and others were unable to stop them from their strange preaching. The most commonly known occurrence seems to be that of Edward Irving who was a London pastor in the third decade of the nineteenth century. A very able and successful preacher, Irving made a public declaration of healing and tongues in 1832, allowing them as being in order at regular services of his London church. Prophecies also occurred and Irving’s views on these matters were easily discernible in his collected writings. It was Carlyle’s eye-witness report that his views were accepted by the “fanatical.” In another letter the essayist added that evidently “God was working miracles by hysterics.” The London Times sent reporters to watch the services and to look out for “ravings, screamings, bawlings.” Of course, Irving was ousted for his part in this by the Presbyterian Church but this did not stop him from starting another, namely, the Catholic Apostolic Church.

Speaking in tongues is indeed a new thing in American Christianity. The historically informed will not need it to be repeated that in the founding days of our country our Pilgrim fathers, Puritan leaders, Baptist preachers, Presbyterian divines, and Methodist laymen did not at all indulge in this practice. They indeed did have times of great emotional conviction and were moved to show their convictions through their fervency and feelings. However, they did not feel led of the Spirit of God to demonstrate this through miracles, healing, gifts, speaking in tongues, or in interpretation of tongues. Even in the strenuous days of the Great Awakening and the days of spiritual heat of the frontier revivals these things did not occur. Thousands were greatly moved, convicted of their sin and sins but they found no expression of relief from these in such as is claimed by Pentecostals today.

Actually, Pentecostalism began in the nineteenth century. Two groups must be given credit here for the early occurrences, namely the Mormons of Joseph Smith and the Shakers. It will be remembered by the students of Mormonism that Joseph Smith believed in the gift of tongues along with visions, revelations, etc. To him tongues would accompany the reception of the Holy Spirit and would open the door for visionary understandings and revelations. After all, this is the way the Book of Mormon had come to him. Other historians of this movement, such as J. H. Kennedy and J. W. Gunnison, relate the unbelievable and weird episodes when this gift was claimed to have been enjoyed with the interpretations that followed. At the very best, one can only look upon this as the unbiblical braying of wide-eyed and hot-minded men. Something similar took place among the Shakers, especially with its founder, “Mother” Ann Lee who claimed that she could discourse in seventy-two languages. The gift of tongues was also accompanied by times of unspeakable joy and dancing during which many of the hymns of this movement were composed, although made up of unintelligible and unheard of words.

Pentecostalism itself cannot be dated much earlier than 1900. Some did live before that time who claimed “Pentecostal Holiness,” and “Pentecostal Fullness,” while others engaged in “Tarrying and Speaking” meetings. However, very few of these things occurred before 1900. A Rev. David Awrey of Delaware, Ohio, claimed he had the Spirit of fullness in 1890. In 1897 a Holiness convention was held in New England composed of “gift people.” In the year 1900 Charles F. Parham opened the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas, and this school held that the signs of tongues and healing should be normal for the church. Then W. J. Seymour became greatly enamored with the message of Pentecost and started the Azusa Street Assembly in Los Angeles in 1906. This may be as good a date as any for the birthday of the modern Pentecostal movement. One of the members of this group, G. B. Cashwell, left Los Angeles and went to North Carolina, and in 1908 preached at the annual meeting of the Church of God in Cleveland, Tennessee, where the leader, H. A. Tomlinson, got the baptism and the Church of God became Pentecostal. Even the Christian and Missionary Alliance could not escape the influence of it and in 1907 some tongues appeared on the campus at Nyack, but A. B. Simpson refused to commit himself to say that tongues were necessary. However, his hymns have been used by Pentecostals since. The Assemblies of God have always noted their indebtedness to A. B. Simpson. The first General Council of the Assemblies of God was held in 1914 in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and from this has come the largest group of Pentecostals in this country, the Assemblies of God, which currently claim over one half a million members out of a total of approximately a million Pentecostalists in the entire nation.

It is interesting that histories of tongues movements and Pentecostal groups do not go back much before 1875. Therefore, it is admitted by all that this is an extremely modern movement. It has not been, it is not, nor can it be based on church history and a stream of witness to tongues down through the centuries. Indeed, from a few instances of it in New Testament times there has not been an occurrence of it since, unless allowance is made for the rather spotty and questionable practices among some medieval mystics. The voice of church history, when read in its total ramifications, would indicate that God has been guiding His people and that He has been teaching them His Word down through the centuries. The voice of history also is that God has majored on those things which are given priority in His own Word and not on those things which men claim by experiences, however hectic or calm. The voice of church history, therefore, is against the modern tongues movement and would stigmatize it as being an unscriptural and unhistorical phenomenon arising out of the experiences, tempers, moods, tensions, upheavals, upsettings, fears, frustrations, longings, desires, and emotional impulses so common in the last century.

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. (1 Corinthians 14:4)

Tongues were used for a very definite purpose, which we will see in a moment. But first, Paul presented three arguments showing the reasons why they should not speak in tongues in Corinth. The three arguments are these:

I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:5)

Even if tongues were in the church, there must be an interpretation in order that there might be edifying of the church.

Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? (1 Corinthians 14:6)

Paul was using himself for an example. He was saying, “I’m an apostle, and I’m not going around speaking in tongues. I speak by revelation, knowledge, prophesying, and teaching.”

Then he used an illustration:

And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? (1 Corinthians 14:7)

It would make just as much sense for me to speak in tongues as to go to a piano and bang on it – and that’s all I could do. It would help no one to hear me banging on a piano, but let an accomplished pianist sit down there, and we would have music. Just as you have to make sense with music, you also must make sense with your tongue.

Now I want you to notice how the tongues were used in the early church.

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. (1 Corinthians 14:21)

Who are “this people”? It’s Israel. Here is a quotation from Isaiah, written about seven hundred years before Christ came to earth. God said, concerning His people Israel, that He had sent them prophets, He had given them the Word of God, He had chastised them, He had tried to speak to them in every way possible to bring them back to Himself, but they would not hear Him. Then He said He would give them at some future time a sign:

For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (Isaiah 28:11, 12)

In other words, God told them that there was a day coming when He would speak to them with other tongues – not unknown tongues, but other tongues. More than seven hundred years later, in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, the apostles of our Lord spoke in many different tongues. All the people who heard them were Israelites and had come to Jerusalem from various parts of the Roman Empire. There wasn’t a Gentile in the crowd that day. And these instructed Jews were reminded of Isaiah’s prophecy.

A number of years later Paul was in Corinth and began his ministry at the great synagogue (as recorded in Acts 18). That is where he preached the gospel until the unbelieving Jews finally put him out. Those who believed formed a little church made up of both Jews and Gentiles, largely Gentiles. And these new believers spoke in tongues (see 1 Corinthians 14). What did it mean? It meant this: these proud unbelieving Jews were walking around saying, “That little crowd of Gentiles over there say they are God’s chosen people. Don’t they know we are God’s people? We are the chosen people. We’re it.” Then they heard that little group speak in tongues, and the instructed Israelites said, “Wait a minute. Is God giving us His final word? Is this His final message to us? He said in Isaiah that He would try every means to speak to us, and we would not hear.” And some of the Jews turned to Christ. Most of them did not. But it was God’s final word to the nation.

In Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he reminded them of the purpose of tongues:

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. (1 Corinthians 14:22)

To those unbelieving Jews, it was a sign.

Now as far as I know, there is not a group in existence today using tongues as God intended them to be used. If they are using them to speak to the nation Israel, I’ll buy it. Tongues were meant to be a sign to the nation Israel. That is the reason why thousands turned to Christ on the Day of Pentecost and during the days that followed. It was God sending out His last call to His people.

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? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: (1 Corinthians 14:23, 24)

We do not want a stranger to step into the church and think he has entered into a group of people who have gone mad. If there is one thing we need today, it is the logical, meaningful presentation of the Word of God. People in this world are intelligent, they are scientific, they are sophisticated. They want a logical message that can be understood. The Word of God needs to be presented so it can be understood.

Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:39)

As I have said, prophecy is a gift we should want in order to get the Word of God out. To me, the most thrilling thing in the world is to see people who want to hear the Word of God. Oh, that God would give His church a desire to get the Word of God out today!

Source: Thru the Bible

There are many comments on the old post, but none actually addressed a question that I asked. What does “Kenite” mean? On his “Answer to Critics” page, Murray states:

What about the use of the word Kenites? It is a Hebrew word that has only one meaning, “sons of Cain.”

Strong’s Concordance and the Brown-Driver-Briggs’ lexicon do not give this definition. None of the commenters addressed this issue (other than Kendall Rycroft, who simply says that I am wrong), this is probably because they just pasted in comments they previously posted on a “I-know-Murray-is-right-because-I-can-look-up-words-in-Strong’s-concordance-and-anyone-who-criticizes-him-is-Satan’s-seed” forum (e.g., Bill). Strong’s concordance is a valuable tool for Bible study, by the way, it is not my intent to disparage it.  I plan on addressing its value in my upcoming post of Arnold Murray.

To help me with the next post, I would like to ask two questions for my commenters.

1. Could you name a source (other than Arnold Murray) for the word “Kenites” meaning “sons of Cain”?
2. Are there any printed materials or materials that Arnold Murray has written online?

I asked for printed materials because I do not have the time or desire to go through a lot of audio messages. I will be glad to compare Murray’s own words with the teaching of the Scriptures. I realize there is some information on his website, but there is really not much there. Any additional sources would be appreciated.

About commenting:

• If this is your first comment, I will have to approve it before it is public. If you have had comments approved in the past, it will show up immediately. 
• I am looking for resources in this comment thread, not arguments. If you think Murray is right, then you can post your arguments on my next post about him.
• Don’t expect me to answer comments on this post. I will on the next and I’ll give you a chance to defend Murray…

Thanks in advance!

The confusion has arisen for this one reason. People try to equate the present day ‘ecstatic’ meaningless gibberish with the miracle languages of Pentecost. These are two entirely different things. The New Testament ‘tongues’ were known, understandable, interpretable languages brought on by the supernatural working of the Holy Ghost. They appeared suddenly, were equally abruptly withdrawn, and never appeared again after the Apostolic era. They come under the category of ‘the signs of an apostle’ (2 Cor. 12:12).

Modern tongues are not languages at all. There are no rules of grammar, or syntax, or vocabulary. They cannot be understood, neither can they be interpreted. They are not exclusive to Christianity, being commonly found in heathen and idolatrous tongues-speaking groups. They are certainly not the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now, we come back to the question: have tongues ceased?

Answer: Positively, YES. The Holy Spirit-inspired foreign language-speaking of New Testament times has ceased. Being one of `the signs of an apostle,’ they ceased with the passing of the apostles.

After the Apostles, the earliest post-apostolic Church records report nothing of this miraculous occurrence. Since then, and throughout the 1900 years of Church history, all the Church fathers, great saints and men of God have expressed the same consistent conclusion:

In the following, we have summarized from the Sword and Trowel (1987 No. 2) the pronouncements of many recognized church leaders spanning 1,600 years of Church history, from Chrysostom to Arthur Pink. All of these, without exception, are agreed that ‘tongues have ceased.’

a. John Chrysostom (c 347-407) Concerning the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians: “This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to, and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place” (“Homilies on 1 Corinthians,” Vol. XII, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Hom 29:2).

b. John Calvin (1509-1564) “…the gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles, which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the Gospel marvellous for ever” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk IV:19, 18).

c. John Owen (1616-1683) “Gifts which in their own nature exceed the whole power of all our faculties, that dispensation of the Spirit is long since ceased and where it is now pretended unto by any, it may justly be suspected as an enthusiastic delusion” (Works IV, 518).

d. Thomas Watson (c 1620-1686) “Sure, there is as much need of ordination now as in Christ’s time and in the time of the apostles, there being then extraordinary gifts in the church which are now ceased” (The Beatitudes, 140).

e. Matthew Henry (1662-1714) Speaking of the ‘gift of tongues,’ he said, “These and other gifts of prophecy, being a sign, have long since ceased and been laid aside, and we have no encouragement to expect the revival of them; but, on the contrary, are directed to call the Scriptures the more sure word of prophecy, more sure than voices from Heaven; and to them we are directed to take heed, to search them, and to hold them fast …” (Preface to Vol IV of his Exposition of the OT & NT, vii).

f. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) “Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given ‘in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased” (Charity and its Fruits, 29).

g. George Whitefield (1714-1770) “… the karismata, the miraculous gifts conferred on the primitive church … have long ceased …” (Second Letter to the Bishop of London, Works, Vol. IV, 167).

h. James Buchanan (1804-1870) “The miraculous gifts of the Spirit have long since been withdrawn. They were used for a temporary purpose” (The Office and Work of the Holy Spirit, 34)

i. Robert L. Dabney (1820-1898) “After the early church had been established, the same necessity for supernatural signs now no longer existed, and God, Who is never wasteful in His expedients, withdrew them … miracles, if they became ordinary, would cease to be miracles, and would be referred by men to customary law” (‘Prelacy a Blunder,’ Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 2, 236-237).

j. Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892) Speaking of the office of the apostles, “an office which necessarily dies out, and properly so, because the miraculous power also is withdrawn” (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit 1871, Vol. 17, 178).

k. Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) “These gifts were … distinctively the authentication of the apostles. They were part of the credentials of the apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confirmed them to distinctively the apostolic church and they necessarily passed away with it” (Counterfeit Miracles, 6).

from The Banner, October-December 1987 source

Recently an article in our local paper asserted: 
“The real PLAN of SALVATION is this: Acts 2:38
1. Repent of your sins
2. Get baptized in Jesus’ Name for the remission of sins
3. Receive the Holy Ghost
4. Continue in the Apostle’s doctrine.”

Let’s examine Acts 2:38

In Acts 2:38, the Greek word eis (which is translated as the preposition “for” in the phrase “for the remission of sins”) can mean “on account of” or “on the basis of.” In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist baptized on the basis that people had repented. Consider this simple illustration of many different meanings for the same word:

In World War II, we fought with Germany.
In World War II, we fought with England.
In World War II, we fought with guns and planes.
In World War II, we fought with courage.

All of these statements are true, but the preposition with means different things based on context. The context of the Bible clearly indicates the correct meaning of the word “for” in Acts 2:38. Baptism is to be completed “on account of” or “on the basis of” forgiveness through Christ. Baptism is essential for obedience to Christ and every believer should submit to baptism; however, baptism is not part of the plan of salvation.

Acts 2:38 should not be used to teach salvation by baptism. It is Peter’s answer to the question “What shall we do?” in verse 37. When Paul was asked the narrower question “What must I do to be saved?”, his reply did not include baptism: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:30).

If baptism is essential for salvation, it seems strange that Peter said nothing about baptism in his other sermons (Acts 3:12-26; 5:29-32; 10:34-43). Cornelius and those with him in Acts 10:43-48 were first saved, as shown by their having received the Spirit, and spoken in tongues, and only then were baptized. 

If baptism was essential for salvation, then Christ did not save anyone (because He did not baptize anyone – see John 4:2). This strange doctrine even makes Christ a liar when He promised salvation to an unbaptized thief! (see Luke 23:39-43). 

Paul apparently was not as successful of an evangelist as we thought either because he baptized only a few people (see 1 Corinthians 1:14-16). “I thank God that I baptized none of you…” (1 Corinthians 1:14) seems like a strange statement for someone who believed that baptism was essential for salvation. Clearly this was not Paul’s belief; he makes a sharp distinction between the gospel and baptism: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Since believers are commanded to be baptized, it is important that we have a clean conscience by obeying (1 Peter 3:21), but we must not think that baptism is a part of salvation. Any gospel that adds man’s work to Christ’s work should be disregarded because it is false (Galatians 1:9).

What is the purpose of baptism?
Valid baptism is by immersion after salvation.
1. Obedience to Christ (Matthew 28:19-20)
2. Identification with Christ and His church (Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 12:13)
3. Illustration of salvation (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-5)