by Scott
I continue with posting some videos of Craig Keener’s discussion about miracles, one in which he bases it off his newest 2-volume set, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.
In this video, Keener not only speaks of eye-witness credibility in biblical times, but also in our present-day. What was to be a footnote in a book slowly and surely became a 2-volume work. And he learned a little bit about miracles from his own family members.
Continue reading
By Marv
The question is “How do you know?” We contend, based on the Scriptures, that God’s Spirit continues to communicate with believers today, as He has throughout history, and even more so, since Jesus prophesied and commanded his disciples to be led by the Spirit after He returned to the Father (John 14-16).
Okay, so given this instruction, how do we know when the Spirit is speaking? Does “speaking” equal an audible voice? If it is non-audible but internal, how it this communication to be distinguished from our own thoughts?
How do you know? The question comes both from skeptics of “modern-day” revelation–the classic “maybe it’s just last night’s pizza,” as well as a sincere learner, seeking practical understanding of the ways and means of this ministry that our Lord has called us to. It’s a fair question either way, and I want to touch on a few shreds of how it can possibly be answered. Largely, it depends on exactly what is being asked.
If “how do you know?” means “by what means does one arrive at absolute certainty,” I think the answer is–rather obviously–you don’t. If it is a matter of objectively verifiable assurance or nothing, then, I admit, we will be stopped before we begin. Very freqently a friend of cessationist persuasion puts this kind of chalenge to me.
It’s a strange notion though–because in no other area of life may we depend on this level of knowledge. I mean, I wish engineers and architects to have their facts and figures straight, and doctors and pharmacists to exercise care and precision every step of the way.
But for the most part, we go through our day, sensing and approximating and relying on unconscious recognition and “good enough” knowledge. When I was learning to drive, I recall my instructor asking how we know when we are in the center of the lane. I imagined some mental calculus about lines on the road and the position of the hood ornament or some other practical measure. His answer was none of these. Essentially, one learns just to know–to do it by feel.
Generally, we do the same with spelling and grammar, using the “sounds right” and “looks right” principle. These are far from fool-proof, of course, and accuracy varies from person to person, but unconscious awareness is a powerful tool, and we use it far more than we do conscious calculation.
Some people object to the notion of the Spirit speaking through an “impression.” What we experience as a “hunch” or “impression” is an extremely common mental phenomenon. That “I’ve forgotten something” feeling often happens when I’m walking out the door, and experience has shown me that I ignore it to my own regret. It usually reflects reality, though the specifics don’t rise above the surface of awareness. It is a very real, useful, and valuable part of our mental processes.
We perceive many things without that awareness achieving the precision of “knowledge.” Recognizing voices is another prime example. When my wife calls me from across the house–as she does not infrequently–though I cannot see her, though the sound is muffled, and though I may not make out the words–I know it to be her though I cannot begin to prove it. Likewise in a crowd at the park or at church, it is usually possible (though not infallably) to identify which call for “Dad” coming from behind is for me and which is not.
Recently our cat went missing. After several days, my presumption was that she had been accidentally killed and I was resigning myself to the idea that we would not see her again. But arriving home one evening, when the neighborhood was still and quiet, I heard the faintest sound of a meow. I would not have thought it possible, but instantly I “knew” it was our cat. Though I could offer no objective evidence, I also had no real doubt, and was convinced enough brazenly to wake my neighbor and ask him to open his garage door. I suspect she (the cat) knew the sound or our car, as we somehow mangaged to discern our pet’s voice from all the nearly identical sounds in the neighborhood.
So the answer, much of the time, is you don’t know–even if you do “know.” We are made to operate on perception and awareness that are perfectly elusive and hardly able to be objectified or proven. So it is, much of the time, with the Spirit.
Practically, then, once we are convinced that the Spirit of God does communicate to our spirit, we do ask ourselves the same question “How do I know” all the time. Frankly, I have noticed something about perceiving something prophetic for someone–my typical reaction is to feel fairly certain that it is “just me.” In this case I’ve learned–paradoxically–that when it “feels” as if it is “just me,” very often it turns out to be what I later conclude to be genuine communication from the Lord. I can be much more certain afterward, when my “word” correllates strongly with several others from other sources, ties in with, say, something the person was reading or what he/she was recently praying, or some other connection, and ends up giving significant upbuilding, encouragement, and consolation. These kinds of “impressions” are often well-verified after the fact, but all-too easy to dismiss ahead of time.
What is the Lord liable to use, to bring an idea to our attention? When I was still a cessationist, one day I was chatting with a missionary friend, a lady who struck me at the time as–well, rather “spacey” in this regard (though I changed my opinion and honor the memory of this saint who served the Lord even to martyrdom.) She told me once she was praying in a room where several boxes were stored. One of these had “chain saw oil” printed on the side. Her thoughts were immediately carried to a brother back on “the field” whose name was Chang So. “And oil represents the Holy Spirit” she told me. My first reaction was that the notion was a bit silly–the Spirit speaking by a play on words and a simple coincidence. I wish I had a great story of precise timing–the beloved national Christian being plucked from danger at the precise instant my friend’s prayer rose to heaven. But I have nothing to prove anything here. I just know that one way or another he came to mind and she prayed for him.
Was that the Lord? How do we know? We don’t know. But I’m pretty sure of a couple of things: it was sufficient to cause my friend to pray for the man. Why should the Spirit disdain to employ a “silly” method such as this, if it effectively brought the result it did, to one open to it? Second, given my disposition at the time, I would have missed it, the idea being altogether too “silly,” and it is I who would have missed an opportunty of service to the Lord.
But is this Biblical? Consider the Lord’s communication to Jeremiah, at the very beginning of his prophetic career, when he was just learning to hear the voice of the Spirit:
And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” And I said, “I see an almond branch.” Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.” (Jeremiah 1:11-12 ESV)
I’m afraid that the mechanics of what is happening in this brief exchange is obscured in translation. What Jeremiah sees (either in a vision or physically) is the branch of an almond tree, in Hebrew shaqed. Upon which the Lord replies with a pun: “I am watching (shoqed) over my word.”
Now, here’s a bit of something I definitely cannot prove, and even has the virtue of being a bit “silly.” Even the apostles would have had to know when the Lord was indicating He was about to act. Jesus Himself said He only did what He saw the Father doing (John 5:19).
Peter said to the lame man “I have no silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk!” (Acts 3:6) How did he know he had healing available for that man at that time? The text doesn’t tell us.
Paul “saw” that a man had faith to be healed (Acts 14:9). How did he see? How did he know? The text does not tell us.
Peter prayed for a woman named Dorcas or Tabitha and raised her from the dead. How did he know this woman would be raised? I’m not sure he did know, but someting about the circumstances may have struck him as almost déjà vu.
Once Jesus healed the daughter of a man named Jairus. Mark records the incident this way:
But he put them all outside and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Talitha cumi,” which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up and began walking. (Mark 5:40-42 ESV)
Now here is Luke’s account of Peter raising Dorcas:
So Peter rose and went with them. And when he arrived, they took him to the upper room. All the widows stood beside him weeping and showing tunics and other garments that Dorcas made while she was with them. But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up. And he gave her his hand and raised her up. Then calling the saints and widows, he presented her alive. (Acts 9:39-41 ESV)
Now the Dorcas event had to recall the raising of the little girl by Jesus. But there is a “silly” coincidence of Dorcas’ Hebrew name Tabitha (both mean “gazelle”). It differs by one letter from “little girl”: talitha. Is this significant? Maybe. Maybe not. But, though Luke does not tell us the Aramaic, the words Peter spoke would have differed from Jesus words on that previous occasion by that same single consonant:
Is it possible, that as the Lord was using Peter to continue the works of Jesus, and as Peter was learning to trust the voice of the Spirit, that He used coincidence and a play on words to direct Peter’s prayer? I don’t know, but it certainly looks to me as if Peter consciously imitated Jesus at that moment–building on the similarity of two words.
Posted in Uncategorized
by Marv
What is the general subject of 1 Corinthians 12-14?
“Spiritual gifts“? That seems to be the received rubric for the aspect of Christian life and ministry that Paul discusses there. I offer a mild objection. This is the phrase and concept people tend to use, but I wonder if it is quite adequate, and not a bit misdirecting.
Why do I say this? Well, for one reason, the phrase “spiritual gift(s)” occurs nowhere in 1 Corinthians 12-14. It occurs nowhere in 1 Corinthians at all.
Sure it does, you say: 1 Cor. 12:1 and 1 Cor. 14:1. All right, sure, but what I am referring to really is the underlying Greek phrase χάρισμα πνευματικὸν (charisma pneumatikon), “spiritual gifts.” It’s not there in 1 Corinthians. We do have “spiritual” and we do have “gift,” but not together as a phrase.
In fact that phrase only occurs one time in Scripture: Romans 1:11, and there I think it has a rather different meaning than we usually associate with “spiritual gift”:
For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you—
Perhaps it does correlate closer than I am thinking, but that’s not my point today. I want to look at the terminology that does actually occur in 1 Cor. 12-14, and see what this can tell us.
1. Pneumatika
Here are the two verses I referred to above, as they read in the ESV:
Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. (1 Corinthians 12:1)
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. (1 Corinthians 14:1)
As I observe above, the underlying Greek here for “spiritual gifts” is not the phrase charisma pneumatikon, but a single word, the adjective pneumatikon, used substantively in the plural: pneumatika. This is the rendering of the ESV, NIV, NASB, and KJV, though this has “gifts” in italics.
The supposition behind this rendering, I take it, is that the bare neuter plural adjective modifies an elided neuter plural noun, which being resupplied by the translators, turns out to be charismata, “gifts.” Maybe–I guess–if we do assume that “spiritual gifts” was the ready phrase in Paul’s day that it is in ours. I’m not so sure of it, however.
One note: in 12:1 this word appears in the genitive plural, the form being penumatikōn. Ostensibly this could be any of the three genders, though feminine being difficult to account for (sorry, ladies) that generally masculine and neuter are in the running. Paul does use the term in the masculine for “spiritual people” (of either sex). He even uses both masculine and neuter forms in the same sentence earlier in the epistle:
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths (pneumatika, clearly neuter) to those who are spiritual (pneumatikois, clearly masculine). (1 Corinthians 2:13)
However, the 14:1 reference is unambiguously neuter: pneumatika.
Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts (ta pneumatika), especially that you may prophesy. (1 Corinthians)
In the context, I think it is reasonable to take these two instances, when he introduces the topic in 12:1 and reintroduces it in 14:1 as the same usage. Thus the latter informs us that the former is indeed neuter plural. That’s what the translation “spritual gifts” understands anyway.
But if the plural adjective pneumatika modifies an understood charismata, and so “spiritual gifts,” can we say that in the singular, a single spiritual gift would be a *pneumatikon? The asterisk is a linguistic convention to indicate a hypothetical form never actually found in the data. Of course, the adjective in that form does occur as we saw in Rom. 1:11, and elsewhere, but as a lone substantive, meaning a “spiritual gift” it occurs nowhere. In other words we have no evidence in the text of a “pneumatikon” being used to refer to prophecy or tongues or such.
Now not having an example does not disprove anything, but it also doesn’t confirm that we are on the right track with the rendering “spiritual gifts” for pneumatika.
Let me suggest something else. In both 12:1 and 14:1 the word is reasonably understood as a general category term. Greek has a well established usage which resembles these forms exactly. That is, frequently an adjective (especially formed with -ik-) in the neuter plural has an abstract sense which indicates a general subject or field of inquiry.
This is the origin of several of our English subject terms as well, those ending in -ics:
“Physics” from ta phusika. Not because of of some thing called a “phusikon,” but because it concerns things of phusis “nature.”
“Ethics” from ta ēthika, concerning things of ēthos “custom.”
“Politics” from ta politika, concerning things of the polis, “the state.”
Following in this line, ta pneumatika would simply be a general cover term for things concerning pneuma, “the Spirit,” rather than referring to a set of abilities or the instances of their use. I don’t know if “Pneumatics” has a future as a rubric here, especially as it is already used as a term for physical effects and related technology. But this would be consistent with similar terms.
2. Charisma, Diakonia, Energēma, Phanerōsis.
These four occur as rough synonyms in a sequence of four verses: 12:4-7, translated as follows:
Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
a. Charisma means “gift,” as in an object that someone gives you. Our sense of “gift” as a talent, as in a “gifted musician” presumably derives from the use here. I’m not sure it had that sense in Greek prior to this concept. It can also be an untangeable gift, a favor, as in “do me a favor.”
It is frequently tied to charis, grace, and indeed this is true, but it is more parallel to charis than derived from it, I think. Let me explain the derivation:
Both are derived from the verb charizomai, which has a variety of uses meaning to grant to give freely or generously, most especially to forgive. The etymology of this verb is also pretty clear, with the –iz– suffix (our –ize, Brit. –ise), suffixed to the root chara “joy.” To “joy-ize” someone is to perform an act which will immensely please or gratify them for its generosity. Thus charizomai (some kind of deponent middle voice).
The act of charizomai or quality of one doing it, is thus charis, “grace” as we ususally render it.
The ending -ma signifies a result or object of an action. So take –omai off chariz-omai and you get charis-ma (mutatis mutandis): thing given: gift.
b. Diakonia is a very general word for service, and a diakonos is a servant. This has become transliterated and technicalized in our word deacon. In the NT we do see it used for this office (Phil. 1:1 ESV), but probably never really dissociated mentally from the menial sense of “servant.” Deacon has nothing of this feel. Much less does minister, also a frequent translation of diakonos (e.g. Col. 1:25 ESV). Our word minister, meaning either a professional clergyman or a state official has moved far afield from what the Greek would convey.
c. Energēma has at its base ergon “work” (an actual cognate, originally wergon). With the prefix en– “in” it is obviously the source of our word energy. The verb energeo means “to be operative, at work, active.” Therefore, with the suffix –ma, it signifies and effect, operation, or activity.
d. Phanerosis indicates that which is normally invisible becoming seen or otherwise perceptible to the senses, i.e. becoming manifest, a manifestation.
3. Pneuma
You will recognize here the common word for “spirit,” which has a range of uses, such as:
a. God’s Spirit, the Holy Spirit.
b. the human spirit
c. another spiritual being, i.e. an angel
d. an evil spirit, a demon
I submit there is an (e) sense of pneuma which refers to an instance of one of these gifts, services, effects, or manifestations, not so much the potential or ability (as we tend to think of a gift) but its actual use. We can see this in comparing two similar statements from ch. 14:
1. Pursue love, and earnestly desire (zēloute) the spiritual gifts (pneumatika), especially that you may prophesy. (v. 1)
2. So with yourselves, since you are eager (zēlōteai) for manifestations of the Spirit (pneumatōn), strive to excel in building up the church. (v. 12)
Note that the Greek underlying the ESV’s “manifestations of the Spirit” is not phanerōsis as in v. 7, but simpy the single word pneuma (in the genitive plural). Now this is translated “spiritual gifts” by such versions as NIV and NASB and KJV, just as pneumatika is, but with rather less justification. This is particularly true if we conceive of “gift” as an ability rather than an act or perceptible phenomenon.
Based on what follows then, examples of a “spirit” in this sense would be an utternce in tongues or a spoken prophecy. Or v. 26 may be a list of such:
…a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.
Now based on this usage of pneuma, I’d like to look at a couple of exegetical applications.
1 Cor. 12:10 makes the following reference: “to another the ability to distinguish between spirits.” Frequently this has been understood in terms of demonology. In other words, the ability to have supernatural insight into evil spirits that may be afflicting someone.
The underlying Greek is diakriseis pneumatōn, often rendered “discernment of spirits” and the word for “distinguishing” or “discernment” here corresponds exactly with the verb in 14:29:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh (diakrinetōsan) what is said.
“Discernment of spirits” then would not be so much identification of demons as it would be evaluating prophetic utterances. As such “distinguishing of spirits” in 12:10 would be the same as the “weighing” of prophecy is in 14:29.
This also impacts on our understanding of 1 John 4:1-3:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
(1 John 4:1-3 ESV)
I think this makes sense out of something that has bothered me. John says not to believe every spirit? We ought to believe the Holy Spirit, of course. What, are there a few others we should believe? Surely he doesn’t mean we might encounter an occasional demon who might be trustworthy.
But if “spirit” (pneuma) here be understood, for example as a prophecy, I think it makes rather more sense. And it explains why he mentions false prophets. So he’s not telling his readers to believe some demons and not others, but not just to accept every utterance of prophecy that someone speaks.
This may mean that the phrase which the ESV renders as “the Spirit of God” is not here actually a reference to the Holy Spirit. The phrase is to pneuma tou theou, and certainly does look as if it refers to the Holy Spirit, I grant. But John goes on to explain, referring to “every spirit” (pan pneuma), which certainly sounds like he means a plurality of spirits. And if this spirit confesses Jesus it is–now John doesn’t say THE Spirit of God, but “from God” (ek tou theou). By the flow of argument it seems to me he is rather saying:
By this you know a spirit (prophetic utterance) coming from God: every spirit (prophetic utterance) which agrees that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God. Every spirit (prophetic utterance) which does not confess Jesus is not from God. It’s a spirit (prophetic utterance) from antichrist which (neuter!!! i.e. antecedent is “spirit”!) you have heard was coming and is in the world already.
Understand, this is by no means my discovery (granted there’s even any truth to it), but I don’t think it is a well-known option.
I suspect though this is what lies behind the use of “private spirits” in the Westminster Confession. There is some controversy with this term. Some suggest it simply means “opinions.” Others do take it to refer to individual revelations, either accepted, tolerated, or else simply recognized as a claim by the Confession.
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. (I.X.)
…with which I heartily concur.
Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Gifts of the Spirit, Holy Spirit, prophecy, tongues
Tagged spirit, spiritual, spiritual gifts
by Scott
I wanted to post up a series of videos over the coming weeks in which Dr. Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, discusses the miraculous works of God today. He looks at both Scriptural arguments and church history evidence of such realities. They are short video bytes, so easily digestible.
Here is the first one.
by Scott
Just to summarise for this extremely in depth series, I’ve shared three articles thus far as to why people object to apostles existing today:
With each of these arguments, I truly believe there has been a misunderstanding of particular Scripture passages used as proof-texts as to why apostles no longer exist. Misunderstanding particular Bible verses will lead to the formulation of wrong conclusions. I don’t say this arrogantly, but rather to challenge us to re-think the particular passages usually quoted with regards to the reasons that apostles no longer exist post-first century.
The fourth objection usually surrounds this issue: Apostles are foundation layers (as it states in Ephesians 2:20) and a foundation only needs to be laid once. Since the apostles laid this once-for-all-time foundation in the first century, and with that foundation being faithfully recorded in the New Testament Scriptures, we no longer need apostles.
So let’s consider this objection. Continue reading
 | Best Johnd on Four Questions For Worship… |
 | Derek D on The Prophetic Body of Chr… |
 | Wade Strickland on The Church Did Not Begin at… |
 | benio84 on Four Scriptures From Cess… |
 | Wayne Shaffer on The Pneuma Review & Craig… |
To Be Continued... 