Truth Magazine

By William V. Beasley

Someone may be thinking, “What a dumb question. Everyone knows that one is one.” Another may be saying, “Well, one is more than none, but less than two.” Both of these are right. It is a dumb question; it is more than none and less than two.

Now that we understand how many one is, let us turn to the Bible and apply our understanding of numbers to the word of God. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:4-6). Using our knowledge of arithmetic we can see that there is less than two “Gods and Fathers of all who are above all and through all, and in you all,” and at the same time there is more than none; there is one. The same thing is true of the other “ones” listed. There is more than none, but less than two. It is even true of the “one body.” There is “but one body” (1 Cor. 12:20), and that body is, according to Ephesians 1:22-23, the church. There is, my friend, one church. More than none, less than two.

Are you a member of the Lord’s body, the one body, the one church?

Truth Magazine XIX: 8, p. 126
January 2, 1975

By Olen Holderby

Self-control is urged upon us by the Word of God, and for obvious and good reasons. Through many years of working with people in varying situations, I have observed what a lack of self-control can do. Few indeed are the faults of a man that can cause more difficulties than a lack of self-control. Self-control is not to be confused with self-esteem, self-devotion, self-determination, or self-defense. Neither does self-control always suggest independence. Through a study of God’s word we can come to understand that self-control is a must for the Christian, and advisable for all. What, then, does God’s word teach on this subject?

The word “self-control” comes from a Greek word (Kratos) meaning “strength.” God has given man various powers and these can easily be abused. Proper use depends, to a great extent, upon self-control. In Paul’s discourse with Felix (Acts 24:25), “self-control” follows “righteousness” (ASV). In this case, it would seem that the word “righteousness” represents God’s claim on man, and “self-control” would be man’s response to God’s claim. In 2 Pet. 1:6 (ASV) it follows “knowledge,” suggesting that what is learned is to be put to practice. Here, it should be noticed, “self-control” is one of nine things of which it is said, “He that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.” Paul gives “selfcontrol” as one of the fruits of the Spirit in Gal. 5:23, suggesting, to me, that one who follows the instructions of the Spirit will be practicing self-control. It is used as an adjective in reference to certain individuals: elders (Tit. 1:8), older men (Tit. 2:2), older women (1 Tim. 3:11). In 1 Cor. 9:25, it is used, as a verb, in reference to the athlete with a view of winning the prize. In this passage Paul affirms that he practices “self-control” to win the “incorruptible” crown. These references are enough to clearly establish the fact that “self-control” is required by God, for all who would faithfully serve him. There are three basic areas in which self-control plays an important role: thoughts, words, actions. And, in each case the control can be seen to be both positive and negative.

Aspects of Life Affected by “Self-Control”

Control of our thoughts can be seen to be both positive and negative; there are some things that we are not to think and some things which we are to think. Love “thinketh no evil” (1 Cor. 13:5) well establishes the negative aspect. In Phil. 4:8, we have fully stated the positive, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Most will recognize that right here is where a great deal of difficulty begins; the thoughts running astray from these divine principles. Jesus, of course, taught this same truth in Mk. 7:20-23.

As it is in the case of our thoughts, so it is with our words. There are some which we should say and some which we ought not to say. The Psalmist said, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer” (Psa. 19:14). “A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.” These statements of wisdom are in Prov. 18:6-7, and are in excellent parallel with James 3, that excellent New Testament commentary on the proper use of the tongue. The seriousness of proper control of the tongue is well expressed in James 1:26, “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.” In Christianity, every man is to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). However, it was left to Paul to lay down the crowning principle for all our speaking: “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know haw ye ought to answer every man” (Col. 4:6).

The control of our actions is no less important. If the reader will notice such passages as Rom. 12:2; Rom. 14:13; or 1 Thess. 5:22, he easily will notice the negative feature. 1 Thess. 5:21; Eph. 4:1-3; and Phil. 1:27 will just as easily set forth the positive aspects. Every Christian recognizes that there are some things which he should not do and some things which he must do.

Application

Having noticed, briefly, some thugs concerning self-control with reference to our thoughts, words, arid actions, we are now ready to state more precisely the application of the meaning of self-control. Self-control is not just refraining from thinking wrong things, but the thinking of right things; it is not just refraining from saying wrong things, but the saying of right things; and, it is not just refraining from doing wrong, but the doing of right. Who, then, has self-control, according to the Bible? It is not an impossible feature, for we are instructed to possess it. Wherever and in whatever circumstances a Christian may find himself, he is under obligation to practice self-control.

According to Rom. 6:16, there are two powers to whom we may yield ourselves to serve. A failure to obey the Lord is to place oneself under the control of Satan. On the other hand, to obey the Lord is to practice the self-control taught in his word. This is why it was stated near the beginning that self-control did not always suggest independence. Soul-saving self-control is submission to God’s Word. We need to believe that Word so strongly that we find ourselves in somewhat the same condition as Joseph in Egypt when he saw his brothers for the first time in many years; he “could not refrain himself” (Gen. 45:1). When this is really so, we shall willingly embark upon that never-ending task of maintaining that self-control taught by the Almighty.

Truth Magazine XIX: 8, p. 125
January 2, 1975

By Wallace H. Little

Recently, flooding brought on by two typhoons caused serious want among God’s faithful in the Philippines. Although the disaster this year was much smaller in scope than a similar event several years ago, those. within the affected area were hurt as much as earlier. An appeal was made for financial help for these brethren.

You responded generously. The Scriptural injunction of 2 Cor. 8:14, “but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want; that there may be an equality:” is satisfied. More than $5000.00 has been sent to relieve the privation. There is probably more I do not know about. Excepting for isolated situations, the need is pretty well taken care of. One item still lacking is clothing, but with the import tax imposed by the Philippine Government, it is next to impossible to send this. I have written, seeking a method by which it may be done legally, without the receiving brethren being charged this tax. I am not hopeful for a solution, however. If it does exist, I will advise you through these pages.

Incidentally, not one cent was controlled by any organization or individual. All went directly to the need. This proves again, God’s method of assisting needy Christians is far superior to the schemes of our institutionally-minded brethren. And not so incidentally, God’s method has another advantage: it has His approval . . . something their’s lacks. See 2 Jn. 9 and Mat. 7:21-23.

You are to be commended for your openhanded and rapid response to the needs of our brethren in the Philippines. God will surely bless you for this.

Truth Magazine XIX: 8, p. 124
January 2, 1975

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

The best way to determine what the spiritual gift of tongues involved is to listen to the testimony of an eye and ear witness. To rely on current “testimony” is to be at the mercy of emotionalism and subjectivism, a precarious position for one who is seeking the truth. We can put implicit trust only in the evidence supplied by an unimpeachable source, Luke, the doctor-historian, for example. In his inspired account, recorded in Acts 2, Luke provides for us an irrefutable description of the nature of “tongue-speaking.” It is unfortunate that translators, past and present, have chosen to perpetuate the confusion surrounding this gift by tendering the Greek form glossa as the ambiguous “tongue.” Clearly, by definition(1) and by context, glossa is a language, a known language spoken by given nationalities. In the Acts 2 account, the apostles “were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (vs. 4). In the next verse we are told that devout men “from every nation under heaven” were assembled in Jerusalem for the Pentecost observance. We cannot underestimate the colossal cultural and lingual barriers that existed in those circumstances! Imagine today attempting to address an assemblage of nationalities which included Russian, Chinese, Mexican, Norwegian, African and French, without the help of a translator!

We readily can understand, then, the amazement of the crowd which assembled at the sound of the “rushing of a mighty wind” as “each man heard them speaking in his own language” (vs. 6). The apostles “spoke in tongues;” the multitudes heard “in their own languages.” The implication is clear: “tongues” are foreign languages. The assemblage was confounded. They marveled. And why not? These were not learned linguistic professors sounding forth the gospel,-these were Galileans, common men like tax collectors and fishermen. “How hear we,” they exclaimed, “every man in our own language, wherein we were born?” (vs. 8). And lest we miss the impact and implication of this feat, Luke records in some detail the varied nations from whence they came: “Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God” (vs. 9-11). Can there be any doubt that the “tongues” of Acts 2 were foreign languages, unknown by the relatively ignorant men who spoke them, yet understood by them whose native languages they were?

Cornelius

The next time “tongues” appear we find Cornelius the Gentile centurion, and his household involved. In response to a vision, the apostle Peter had travelled to Caesarea to preach the gospel to this godly man. In the course of his remarks, Peter was abruptly interrupted: “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word” (Acts 10:44). The Jewish Christians that had accompanied Peter in this evangelistic endeavor were as amazed at these sudden events as were the devout Jews who had heard the apostles at Pentecost, “For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (vs. 46). Cornelius and his household had received the same gift as that the apostles had exercised on the Day of Pentecost, as Peter explains: “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon hem, even as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). In order to explain the extra-ordinary circumstances which led Peter, a Jew, to have “fellowship” as it were, with a Gentile, he pointed to the gift; and this gift he identified with the one he and his fellow-apostles had demontrated “at the beginning.” How indeed could they refuse Cornelius, if the Lord granted him the very same gift as the Jews?

This gift of speaking in foreign languages previously nstudied and unknown by the possessor was a sign to he unbeliever that the message proclaimed was omething which found its source in heaven, not men (1 Cor. 14:22). A similar case could be made regarding the “tongues” of Acts 19 and Mark 16; they undoubtedly reflect the same definition of “tongues” as has been observed in the two previous cases, viz., that they are languages, subject to grammars and syntax.

What About 1 Corinthians 14?

The only instruction regarding the specific use and design of spiritual gifts, and tongues in particular, is found in 1 Corinthians 14. Edward Fudge has described the Corinthian church as one which possessed “infantile carnality, multiple-preacheritis, creeping immorality and a terrible reputation for confusion in worship assemblies.”(2) It is unlikely that the gifts of tongues would have been specifically mentioned and thoroughly discussed had there not been some problem associated with it in Corinth. It is therefore somewhat ironic that the same gift is today being misunderstood by contemporary religious people. Again the problem of understanding is compounded by the fact that translators have by and large abused the text by inserting unwarranted interpolations. Notice the following renderings from some popular translations and paraphrases that have no warrant from the text itself:

1. “unknown tongue” – King James Version (1 Cor. 14:2)

2. “language of ecstasy” – New English Bible (14:2)

3. “strange language” – Beckwith Translation (14:2)

4. “speak in ecstasy” – Williams Translation (14:5)

5. “ecstatic speaking” – Goodspeed Translation (14:22)

6. “strange languages” – Today’s English Version (14:2)

Such epithets as “strange”, “ecstatic”, and “unknown” are simply not in the original Greek textl Indeed, the idea that “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14 were something radically different than those in Acts 2 never would have occurred to anyone had the erroneous practice of Pentecostals of today not been established.

The meaning of the term “interpretation” used in connection with “tongues” affords us additional insight. “Interpretation,” as used in 1 Corinthians 12-14, is the common word for the translation of a foreign language.(3) In 1 Cor. 14:21, Paul quotes Isa. 28:11, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people and not even thus will they hear me, saith the Lord”; the expression “strange tongues” (heterai glossai) occurs twice in the Greek Old Testament, both times with the clear meaning of a foreign language (cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer: 5:15; Isa. 33:19). Thus what Paul has in mind is nothing less than the interpretation of a foreign language, a gift of “translation” which enabled the possessor to explain the message of one who was speaking in a language unknown to the audience. It is here clearly seen that the gift of tongues was not as profitable or as practical for an assembly as that of prophesying which all could understand at any time without the help of an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:4-7; 11-25). The concept that in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul refers to some kind of mystical, heavenly “prayer language,” some unintelligible mouthings from one in “ecstasy” has no basis whatsoever in this text or any other. The notion is based solely upon presumption and assumption, a typical source of 20th century denominational error.

Summary

The “tongues” we have considered from the Scriptures bear no resemblance to those of current practice. To call the contemporary “exercise” of this gift “Pentecostal” is a colossal misnomer bordering on the absurd. What transpired on the day of Pentecost in actuality serves to refute the modern Pentecostal position on the nature of “tongue-speaking.” Pentecostals seriously err in their approach to authority, being content to test Scripture by their “experience” rather than their experience by Scripture. They seek to adapt 1 Cor. 12-14 to fit their current practice, perverting it and rendering it out of harmony with other Scriptural contexts. What they attempt in this case is a classic example of rationalization, of coming to the Bible to prove rather than establish practice. Their attempt to impose a biased 20th century interpretation upon first century revelation is reminiscent of attempts to defend institutionalism and instrumental music.

The Pentecostal claim that “speaking in tongues” is the “normative experience for all believers” falls flat in view of Paul’s clear statement in 1 Cor. 12:30, “All do not speak in tongues, do they?” The very gift that the apostle diligently sought to downplay in showing the greater profit to be derived from the “more excellent gifts” has once again surfaced as a source of confusion and division, though in an unBiblical, unsupernatural form. The pre-occupation of so many with the “gift of tongues” cannot but reveal the great inroads the philosophies of existentialism and materialism have made into major religious institutions of our society. The emphasis upon the mystical and subjective, coupled with the denial of the absolute and objective, is a familiar historical path which ultimately leads to a News ,Briefs complete departure from the God of the Bible and the Son who died on the cross for our sins.

Endnotes

1. “The supernatural gift of speaking in another language without its having been learned;” W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 142.

2. Edward Fudge, Speaking in Tongues (Athens, AL: The C.E.I. Pub. Co., 1971), p. 20. For a good summary of the teaching of 1 Cor. 14. see John Clark’s The Charismatic Movement, pp. 36-40.

3. See Fudge, pp. 20, 21.

Truth Magazine XIX: 8, pp. 121-123
January 2, 1975