Should Women Function as Translators in the Assembly? (Wayne Jackson)November 15 2014 at 12:01 PM
|Justice (no login)|
from IP address 22.214.171.124
Should Women Function as Translators in the Assembly?
by Wayne Jackson
With the fall of the iron curtain, thrilling evangelistic opportunities have opened up in Russia and Eastern Europe. Our hearts have been genuinely warmed as the news reached our ears that thousands have embraced the gospel of Christ and have organized congregations after the New Testament order. May Jehovah bless such efforts, and may we lend our support to these new kinsmen in the Lord.
Whenever the church is introduced into a new cultural environment, problems are bound to arise. Such were the circumstances during the first century, and it is no less true today. One difficulty that we are encountering in formerly communist nations has to do with the role of women. In those countries women have long been a force in the educational and industrial aspects of society. They have assumed a great variety of leading roles. Accordingly, it may be difficult for some of our new sisters to adjust to the idea that woman’s public role in the church is limited. The divinely imposed restriction is grounded in spiritual principles that are universal and ageless, not in cultural peculiarities.
As our brothers have worked in Eastern Bloc countries in recent years, they occasionally have encountered situations in which no male was present to translate for the American preacher. Accordingly, some have employed native women who, standing alongside the evangelist before the assembly, translates his message for the group. I have been told that on occasion a woman was selected to do the interpreting even when a qualified man was present. I have no doubt that those who are operating in this way are very sincere and honestly believe that they are not compromising the teaching of the Scriptures. But are they? Perhaps the pressing demands of these new opportunities caught us unprepared, without our having had the opportunity to study these matters as carefully as we might. This study is offered in the hope that we can calmly examine the biblical data and draw only such conclusions as are consistent with truth.
That women were employed as teachers of the gospel in the early church is beyond controversy. No one will dispute the fact that the Great Commission applies to women, who are required not only to submit to the gospel, but to proclaim it as well (Matt. 28:19,20). On the day of Pentecost, Peter hinted of woman’s teaching role in the Christian economy (Acts 2:18). Priscilla, along with her husband Aquila, was involved in instructing the eloquent Apollos more accurately in the way of the Lord (Acts 18:26). The evangelist Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). Women in the church at Corinth prophesied (1 Cor. 11:5). Older Christian women were responsible to teach younger women the duties of domestic demeanor (Tit. 2:3,4). Women taught.
While the foregoing passages indicate that women functioned as teachers in the primitive church, it is equally clear that their instructive capacity was restricted by additional inspired information. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul required that women, in a certain sense, remain quiet in the church assembly (34). In the apostle’s first letter to Timothy, he declared that the woman may not teach in a situation during which she acts as an authority-figure over the man (2:12). For a further discussion of this matter, see the author’s article, “Woman’s Role in the Church” in our “Archives” section.
First Corinthians, chapter 14, has frequently presented a difficulty for Bible expositors. To what extent does it prohibit a woman speaking in a church assembly? Some, focusing upon the term “silence” (sigao – vs. 34) contend that the assembly under consideration is one in which a woman could not utter a sound. It was, they allege, a unique first-century situation, hence the restriction of this passage really is not applicable today.
These brethren, I believe, have overlooked an important point. The term “silence” of verse 34 is not employed absolutely, but relatively; i.e., it is qualified by the context. For example, in his discussion of the abuses of spiritual gifts, Paul says that the brother who has the gift of tongues should keep “silence” if there is no one to interpret for his alien audience (28). That obviously does not mean that he could not utter a word during the entire church service; rather, he was to keep silence insofar as the matter under consideration was concerned (cf. 30).
Similarly, the woman’s requirement to keep silence was not absolute. There was only a certain sense in which she was not to “speak.” No one will argue that the women at Corinth were forbidden to sing, and yet singing is a form of speaking (see Eph. 5:19).
Some respond by suggesting that the assembly of this setting was not the public worship assembly. That does not seem to be true, however, since teaching, praying, and singing are all mentioned within the context (cf. 14:15).
Furthermore, reference is made to “the whole church” being assembled (cf. 11:18,20) — with even unbelievers being present (23). It is obvious that this was a public assembly. But consider this — even if it could be established that the meeting of 1 Corinthians 14 was not a public gathering, how would this alter the basic instruction? If the apostle forbade a woman to teach in this allegedly private situation, does it stand to reason that he would condone her serving as a teacher in a public gathering? Surely not.
Moreover, even if one could somehow dispense with 1 Corinthians 14, he would still have to reckon with 1 Timothy 2:12, which disallows a woman to assume the role of a teacher in the assembly.
What then does the injunction regarding silence mean in the Corinthian context? Many scholars would argue that Paul is teaching these saints the very same truth that he later enunciated to Timothy.
Here is an interpretive principle that is worthy of reflection. Whenever a biblical writer addresses the same topic in different places, and yet one context is clearer than the other, the more obscure should be viewed in light of the plainer.
When 1 Corinthians 14:34ff and 1 Timothy 2:12ff are placed side-by-side, it is obvious that they deal with the same general theme. The Corinthian correspondence is the more difficult to comprehend due to its lack of details. Thus, let the apostle’s more lucid instruction in his letter to Timothy bring the former passage into focus. There are striking similarities in the language.
1 CORINTHIANS 14
1 TIMOTHY 2
Woman not to speakWoman not to teach
Keep silence/subjectionBe quiet/subjection
As saith the lawFor Adam was first
A consideration of these parallels suggests that the type of speaking forbidden in the Corinthian letter was the same as the authoritative teaching prohibited in the epistle to Timothy.
That being the case, it appears that Paul was cautioning the Corinthian women in two respects: First, some were to cease interrupting their husbands during the services (perhaps they were inquiring as to the meaning of certain oracles; they could satisfy their curiosity at home).
Second, even if a woman possessed a spiritual gift, she could not publicly exercise it in the church assembly, for such violated her appointed role in the divine constitution of things, as evidenced by the order of creation, and as a consequence of her part in humanity’s original transgression (cf. 1 Tim. 2:13,14).
Now to the issue at hand. Does standing before the assembly, translating a message from God, constitute a violation of 1 Corinthians 14?
In this chapter, Paul discusses three spiritual gifts by which divine revelation was conveyed to the congregation.
First, there was prophecy. This was the proclamation of truth to a group of the same language as the speaker.
Second, there was the gift of speaking in a tongue. This involved the supernatural communication of revelation to an alien audience, the teacher having been granted the ability to converse in a language he had never learned naturally.
Finally, there was the gift of interpretation (translation). This allowed a person with a language gift to convey a message (by means of an inspired translator) to an audience unable to discern the particular language gift which he possessed.
What seems apparent from a consideration of all the details is this. Each of these persons addressing the congregation functioned in the capacity of a public teacher — whether by a message in the native dialect alone (as in prophecy), or by a message in a foreign language (the case of tongue-speaking), or by a message, a language, and a translation combined (the interpreter).
There seems to be no difference, from the divine viewpoint, in the teaching role being exercised by these speakers. Yet, it is within this very context that the apostle plainly commands: “… let the women keep silence in the churches [assemblies] ….”
If it was permissible for a woman to stand before the church and teach by means of the translation process, just because the message did not actually originate with her, but rather from a man ultimately, why did Paul not acknowledge that exception in his discussion?
But some brethren -respectable brethren- believe the use of women translators is defensible. The following is a review of some of the arguments being offered in support of this practice.
“The woman translator is merely serving as an instrument-much like an amplifier. She is not actually doing the teaching.”
But the fact is, she is not a machine. She is a person, and she does not lose her feminine personhood just because the message does not emanate from her.
Could a woman stand before an audience, receive her message from a distant place via electronic transmission, and preach the gospel to a mixed group? If not, what would be the objection?
Here is an interesting question. Could a Christian woman memorize one of N.B. Hardeman’s famous tabernacle sermons, deliver it to the church, and be justified on the ground that the material did not originate with her — that she was merely functioning as a “recording machine”?
Exactly what is “teaching”? Does it not involve communicating an understandable message? Two people stand before an audience — a man and a woman. He speaks in a language the people do not understand; she conveys the message in a language that is understood. Who is doing the teaching? Not the man alone. A mere sound does not teach. It was on the basis of this principle that Paul forbade tongue-speaking to an alien audience when no translator was present. If the woman stops speaking, the teaching ceases. In concert, both are teaching. Paul attributes the edification to the interpreter (14:5,12,13,26-28). An interpreter instructs (cf. 19).
In logic there is a principle that states that things which are equal to each other are equal to the same thing. If it is the case that the man speaking to the assembly is preaching, and if it is likewise the case that the woman beside him is doing exactly the same thing that he is doing, then it logically follows that she is preaching as well.
Or to make the point even stronger — if it is the case that the man who speaks to the audience is preaching (even though the group understands not a word he says), then surely it is the case that the woman who speaks beside him (with the assembly understanding every word she says) is similarly preaching.
“The woman translator is not exercising authority over the audience.”
But if it is the case that she is functioning in the role of a teacher of the group (as the paragraph above clearly indicates), then she is exercising the type of authority that is prohibited by 1 Timothy 2:12. The grammatical construction of this passage demonstrates that the position of a public teacher is a role of authority.
Consider this analogy. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. It was the authoritative Word of God in that form. Does it lose that authority merely because it passes through the translation process? It does not. Similarly, a mere change of language does not alter the fact that both the original speaker and the translator are teaching in the same authoritative way.
“If a translator is actually a teacher, when we hire a non-Christian translator (as has been the case in some mission situations), then we are hiring an unbeliever to preach the gospel.”
This is a valid point. The question is — is either practice right? When Paul discussed a situation in the Corinthian assembly where someone had the gift of tongues, but no interpreter was present, he told the tongue-speaker to keep silent. He did not suggest that some unbeliever, who might be present (cf. 14:23,28), could be employed as the translator if he were qualified.
When we go into a mission field, we need to go prepared to speak the gospel in the native language. Would it be permissible to go into a mission region, hire a non-Christian translator, leave with him printed materials, and tell him to do the teaching for us?
“Though Paul’s restriction of a woman’s speaking in the church assembly would prohibit the ‘interpretation’ of a language, it would not forbid simple translation. Interpretation and translation are different.”
The Greek term hermeneuo, and its related forms, are used in two different senses in the New Testament. The word can denote an “explanation.”
Following His resurrection, Jesus encountered two disciples on the road to Emmaus. In the course of their conversation, the Lord “interpreted” (explained) to them the things that had been written concerning Himself in the law of Moses and the prophets (Lk. 24:27).
On the other hand, these kindred terms can have to do with the “translation” of words from one language into another. For instance, at Joppa there was a disciple whose name was Tabitha, which by “interpretation” (i.e., translation – from Aramaic to Greek) was rendered Dorcas (Acts 9:36). The context must determine whether an “explanation” or a “translation” is in view.
Clearly, in 1 Corinthians 14 the gift of “interpretation” was the inspired ability to translate a divine message, initially given in a foreign tongue, into the vernacular of the audience. This is clearly evidenced by Paul’s allusion to the many kinds of voices in the world (10), and his reference to the barbarian (a non-Greek-speaking person) in verse 11 (cf. Acts 28:2). I have discussed the nature of these tongues more fully in my tract, Speaking in Tongues.
Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider note that:
“Paul demands that tongue speakers express themselves in the assembly only when an hermeneutes is present and able to translate and make intelligible to the congregation what has been said in the tongues” (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1991, Vol. 2, p. 54).
I have examined a number of language authorities on the use of “interpretation” in 1 Corinthians 14. Those who suggest that the term is employed of “explanation” invariably contend that the “tongues” of this chapter are “ecstatic utterances” — not human languages. And so, when the apostle enjoins a woman to silence, it is within a context that includes audible translation.
“The context of 1 Corinthians 14, which forbade a woman to speak, dealt with the miraculous. It is thus not appropriate to introduce that situation as a precedent for the present circumstances.”
The fact that the speaking in 1 Corinthians 14 was miraculous has nothing to do with the argument. A woman’s silence is enjoined because of her gender, not the miraculous nature of what is done. Are we to believe that the apostle would forbid an inspired woman to exercise the gifts mentioned in chapter 14 (which included translation), and yet he would allow the practice for an uninspired woman of our day? Does that really ring true?
“If we can utilize a woman to ‘sign’ for the deaf, then we can employ a woman to translate for the preacher.”
First, in some situations, “signing” may not be parallel to publicly preaching the word. A woman might sit silently, sign to a few nearby folks, and the arrangement be more comparable to an informal conversation.
Second, if there is a parallel between public teaching (as in the translating procedure) and signing, and the former is shown to be inappropriate, then signing should be limited to men. Two wrongs do not make a right.
What if there were a congregation composed of those who can hear and those who are deaf. The only qualified preacher in that church is a deaf brother, and the only person qualified to interpret sign is a woman. Can the brother sign to one group while the sister audibly preaches to the remainder of the church? If those who are advancing this argument would object, they must analyze why such should not be done.
“If we do not use women translators, many will be deprived of the gospel.”
The same argument could be made regarding women preachers. Suppose there is a mission region ripe for the gospel, and the only available person to go is a woman. Can she preach, establish a church, and direct its worship simply because there is no man to carry on these functions?
Again, we need to fully prepare to do the work upon which we have embarked. We must not compromise the truth in order that good may abound.
Some are saying: “If there is no man to do the work, I don’t see the harm in it.” If it is intrinsically right for a woman to serve in this capacity, then it is right for her to do it regardless of whether there are qualified men to do the work.
“When we engage in ‘part singing’ within our assemblies, sometimes the women have parts where they alone are singing. This is comparable to the woman translator circumstance.”
The analogy is false. The woman who is singing has not assumed the “teacher” role over the male (as addressed in 1 Timothy 2:12). Paul did not forbid women to sing in his letter to Corinth, but he did prohibit them from speaking in a context where translating was being discussed (1 Cor. 14:15,33,34).
That aside, this is the very argument that some have used in defense of women preachers in general, and more recently it has been employed to justify women singing solos in the worship assembly.
“The woman-translator is doing no more than the lady who comes to the front of the assembly and confesses Christ prior to baptism.”
Surely this cannot be a serious argument. Suppose a woman responds to the invitation and states her desire to become a Christian. The preacher asks: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”
She responds: “I do, and with your permission, I have prepared a presentation — which will not take more than thirty minutes. It expresses the nature of biblical faith as I see it. May I speak to the church?”
What do you suppose his response would be? There is a clear difference between making a simple confession of faith and functioning in the role of a teacher.
Brethren who are working in foreign fields need to give this matter some protracted study. We do not question their motives. They are sincere and dedicated people. We understand the situation of being caught in a novel arrangement without having had the opportunity to carefully analyze the circumstances and make a more deliberate decision. Still, we must be scriptural.
The practice of using women translators in the public assembly should be reconsidered for the following reason.
1.It is without scriptural authority.
2.It transgresses explicit apostolic instruction (1 Cor. 14:33,34; 1 Tim. 2:12).
3.The practice will create dissension among sound brethren.
4.It is setting a precedent that will escalate and have long-range consequences in the mission field and at home. Already we have heard of cases where women have taken the initiative to lead prayers and singing because they felt they were the best qualified.
May God help us to give serious and prayerful consideration to these matters.
|This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 126.96.36.199 on Nov 15, 2014 12:30 PM|
Re: Should Women Function as Translators in the Assembly? (Wayne Jackson)
|November 16 2014, 3:19 PM |
I really don't have a problem with women translators in church or on the mission field. I believe it is just fine biblically speaking. However, women must dress appropriately (no pants). JMHO.
|November 18 2014, 2:52 PM |
Why in the world would you want the women to translate without their pants on? This is crazy.
Re: no pants??
|November 18 2014, 9:11 PM |
A woman not wearing pants means that she is dressed appropriately (as a woman, not like a man)? Justice, what sayest thou?
A woman translator on the mission field [overseas] may be required to "dress appropriately" ("no pants"). Culturally speaking.
Re: no pants??
|November 18 2014, 9:25 PM |
I agree with Donnie.
However, Justice thinks the bottom line is she will not stop talking or "translating" whether she has her pants on, or off.
Re: no pants??
|November 19 2014, 12:47 AM |
We know it's "human" nature to react ... to be happy ... to be angry ... etc. When she doesn't stop talking -- is that "woman" nature?
|November 19 2014, 12:35 AM |
I know of a very conservative church in the South that around 15 years ago had a Christian woman stand to the side to communicate with sign language for the deaf during the assembly. Were they unscriptural? Was she usurping authority? Should a man have been used for this need? Is Wayne Jackson's teaching and 4-part conclusion right and biblical, or opinion?
|November 19 2014, 12:59 AM |
Hmm!!! A sign language is a form of communication. Or, translation. In this case, though, the Christian woman was "in silence."
|November 19 2014, 9:15 PM |
I knew a lady in a not-too-conservative congregation about 18 years ago that sat or stood on the front row right and did sign language to only two or three people who needed it. The same lady is now involved in the front row-center sitting with microphone as part of a "Music Praise Team". She is performing the role of the elders as pastor teachers but ignoring the command to "teach that which has been taught." She or he can do the job just as well in the back pews so that she doesn't do away the command which is both silent and sedentary.
Most women will bleed off all of the attention we would like to give to Jesus and His WORDS. The authority is the word AUTHENTIA which is called errotic and murderous. Paul doesn't give the men the authority to rule over by teaching beyond the Word: Logos as the regulative principle outlaws rhetoric, singing, playing instruments or any kinetic energy.
Logos is defined as the REGULATIVE PRINCIPLE. Any sight, sound, performing lights or motion nullifies the Word unless you are better than the masses and can give attention to more than one thing at a time.
1Tim. 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to [public] reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1Tim. 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy [teaching],
..... with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. [But BY Paul's hands]
1Tim. 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
1Tim. 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine;
.....continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, [keep safe]
.....and them that hear thee.
In the never-musical passages Paul wrote the same thing:
SPEAK that which is written for our learning (Romans 15)
ODE and PSALLO in the PLACE of the Heart because
The LOGOS words are opposite to ODE and a hymn in the Greek world is a PRAYER.
That was the pattern for the Church of Christ (the Rock) in the wilderness onward.
Acts 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that PREACH him, being READ in the synagogues every sabbath day.
2Cor. 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the READING of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
Col. 4:16 And when this epistle is READ among you, cause that it be READ also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.
The changelings laid out their hidden agenda as Machiavelli commanded and was articulated by Rubel Shelly. The gradualism as a terminus. Machiavelli said that if you want to invade and rule other people's lands you have two choices: prayer or force. Since prayer rarely works you will have to use force.
So "can we just USE women to tippy-toe. The NACC-Jubilee agenda was to GIVE women the same authority that WE have." [which is none] We are not allowed to use theology (The Apollyon pattern) or our personal opinion if we want to be DISCIPLES who by guarantee do not go to WORSHIP OPERATIONS because Jesus said the kingdom won't be there. Godly men or women won't have the lust to perform.
|November 20 2014, 10:17 AM |
Ephesians 2 verses 4-6.
“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in sin—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus.”
Re: Praise God
|November 20 2014, 1:37 PM |
ALL saved concepts mean that we are saved FROM something or someone meaning we are SAFE. neither grace nor faith "washes you with water INTO THE WORD or into the School of Christ."
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you,
not as a removal of dirt from the body
BUT, as an APPEAL to God for a good conscience,
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
That does not mean a punched ticked to eternal life. The flood saved the godly little flock FROM the ungodly and condemned them
Acts 2:40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves FROM this crooked generation.
If you try to rationalize you follow Wayne into speaking excathedra.
BUT means READ the context to define FROM WHAT AND WHOM Grace (which teaches) and faith (which obeys)save us FROM.F You are not SAFE from latter day "worship services" replacing the "School of the Word."
Re: Praise God
|November 20 2014, 3:01 PM |
The ekklesia or body of believers in isolated areas or towns SYNAGOGUED by command and example once a week for what they called a school or READING ASSEMBLY. It lasted formally for a short period of time and then disassembled itself. They were prepared for the "ministry" and there was no restrictions on anyone. Women were the sponsors of young evangelists and could teach anyone anyplace. In the synagogue the elder on duty read or "oversaw" the reading of the Word. Preaching was text specific and many people had portions of the prophets for further study. Remember that the eunuch had a copy of of Isaiah (at least) and understood the need for baptism.
In the new gal328.org follows the Atchley etal pattern of demoting or firing the deacons and hiring male and female ministers, the facts are clear that the feminists and effeminate want to clear the Church Plant and instution of any male influence who would question them. Paul used the word NEITHER and not BOTH. In 2 Corinthians 6 Paul MARKED an evangelists to disqualified those who hand infiltrated Corinth and charged for their own sermons. Paul DID NOT authorize women prophesying in Corinth:
A. to be a prophētēs or interpreter of the gods, “manteueo, Moisa [always female], prophateusō d' egō” Pi. l.c.; tis prophēteuei theou; who is his interpreter? E.Ion 413; “hoi prophēteuontes tou hirou” Hdt.7.111; prophēteusasa with oracular power, Pl.Phdr.244d:—Pass., ta prophēteuthenta Sch.Od. 12.9.
Only women were prophetesses of Abaddon-Apollyon at places such as at Phillipi and in Corinth. They got drunk on something, gibbered and a priests "interpreted" and the poet set the prophecy to meter and sang it. The old "sealed envelope trick." The female oracles often spoke in a foreign language as proof that they were inspired.
Without Theology, the TEXT said but is often called a lie says:
1Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches:
.....for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
.....but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cor. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
.....for it is a SHAME for women to speak in the church.
When the ekklesia assembles in small groups it is a synagogue which was commanded to READ the Word and translate or explain anything not understood. The synagogue was a visible Syllogism which gathered the thoughts of everyone so they could return home having memorized and mutually confessed a portion primarily of the prophets.
Only women easily fell into charismatic ecstasy or MADNESS Paul warned about with the tongue speakers. F. Lagard Smith said that if women stopped speaking in tongues then tongue speaking would stop. The "trinity" dogma is strangely connected to the worship of the mother goddess and only the MAN Jesus had a mother. Speaking in tongues is also connected to playing lifeless instruments. EVERYONE had a song but Paul told them to keep it silent as in singing IN the spirit or mind.
In 1 Timothy 2 the PURPOSE was that everyone be SAFE and come to a knowledge of the truth. The women were to be silent because Paul said there is only ONE GOD and ONE MEDIATOR the man Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians noted for the Mad Women of Corinth Paul has the same warning: The women kept silent in the CLASS ROOM where men are also silent and a pretend Prophet be silenced by Pauls cutting irony. In chapter 12 the terms or A or another indicates that there would be no more than one inspired teacher BUT there were none in Corinth.
THE PUNCH LINE proven when FEMINISTS took control of the major universities.
1Cor. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
.....let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you
.....are the commandments of the Lord.
1Cor. 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
If the Corinthians--who never recovered as a faithful church--needed to know anything further then PAUL WOULD WRITE THEM A LETTER and the command would be to READ the letter.
Plutarch defines the Therion or BEAST:
Plutarch: For in the city of Ephesus, women, attired as they go in the feasts and sacrifice of Bacchus, came out to meet him with such solemnities and ceremonies as are then used: with men and children disguised like fauns and satyrs. Moreover, the city was full of ivy, and darts wreathed about with ivy [for stabbing], psalterions , flutes, and howboyes ; and in their songs they called him Bacchus, father of mirth, courteous and gentle: and so was he unto some, but to the most part of men cruel and extreme.
Just like God prophesied of David: For he robbed noblemen and gentlemen of their goods, to give it unto vile flatterers: who oftentimes begged living men's goods, as though they had been dead, and would enter their houses by force. As he gave a citizen's house of Magnesia unto a cook, because (as it is reported) he dressed him a fine supper. In the end he doubled the taxation, and imposed a second upon Asia.
But then Hybraeas the orator, sent from the estates of Asia, to tell him the state of their country, boldly said unto him: "If thou [p. 173] wilt have power to lay two tributes in one year upon us,
thou shouldest also have power to give us two summers, two autumns, and two harvests." This was gallantly and pleasantly spoken unto Antonius by the orator,
Re: Praise God
|November 20 2014, 6:34 PM |
Hey K, I think someone is calling for YOU. More Churches--David Young School of Christian Thought-thread. Ensure yore speakers are on. Bye.
Re: Praise God
|November 20 2014, 6:53 PM |
Here is a picture of the
ANTI-christian WORLD (kosmos) view. You have to watch those Indians seeking gifts for the Lord. Reads like he has been in lots of trouble trying to build an empire. His VISIBLE doctrines are decidedly ANTI christian. I kinda doubt that David can build such an empire with 60,000 new congregations. I slipped up on wineskins.org and they quit posting the bulletin so we can watch the grand GROWTH of the new Kairos Church Planting plot: Kairos as noted is the demon (spirit) son of Zeus son of Chronos and it is the mark of THRUSTING IN THE SICKLE to reap.
Maybe you can find a picture of the suffering servant defined by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6 for those not OF the World.
Here is the image of the latter day WORLD VIEW OF CHRIST or as they breath out the term Jee Zeus or "hail Zeus." Jesus doesn't even PRAY for the WORLD fish they are seeking.
WOULD YOU WEAR A FEMALE GARMENT?
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 188.8.131.52 on Nov 20, 2014 6:58 PM|
Re: Praise God
|November 20 2014, 9:44 PM |
Jesus said that He was not OF the World and those lost spirits who can recognize the invitation are not OF the World: Here we are but straying pilgrims.
The christian WORLD view is ANTI Christian because it refutes the Spirit OF Christ in the prophets and the direct connection between sons of God because we accept the invitation and are baptized INTO Christ to be clothed with Christ.
K.P.Yohannan preaches: We believe that when people repent of their sin and accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord, trusting Him to save, they are immediately born again and sealed by the Holy Spirit, their sins are forgiven, and they become the children of God.
If you present Yohannan as your PATTERN for the christian world view then you call Christ in the prophets a liar and Jesus who commanded baptism TO ENABLE the Remission of sins then you are ANTI christian. Saying that God commanded something He did not command is despising the WORD (regulative principle) and that word is BLASPHEMY.
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Those who received His Word were given the power TO BECOME sons of God.
Yohannan: John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Those who received His Word were given the power TO BECOME sons of God.
Heb. 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him:
for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,
and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Yohannan and those who endorse him and use him deny that last part. The pilgrims at Pentecost believed but they were not "saved."
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Yohannan etal believe that one receives remission of sins by just believing in Jesus: belief, pistis means to COMPLY.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly RECEIVED his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them
about three thousand souls
Why were they not added to the church BEFORE they were baptized.
So, they are not added to the Church as SONS (students) of the FATHER (teacher) only by making application. We are to call no man FATHER which means call no man TEACHER. Russ Adcox says that He is the Authoratative Teacher taking the place of Jesus.
Jesus said that those who believe (comply) in baptism are saved.
Yohannan--if he collects all of India--says that those who just believe (no action) are saved.
That makes Yhoannan ANTI-CHRIST based on Isaiah 1 and the fulfilment in Mark 16.
Rev. 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short KAIROS.
Kairos is the DEMON son of Zeus.
Daimons: Apollon, ephē, daimonias huperbolēs ! Id.R.509c.
2. Of persons, “tō d. hōs alēthōs kai thaumastō” [lying wonders] Id.Smp.219b; ho peri toiauta sophos d. anēr lokhos gunaikōn, of the Furies,
ib.203a; “daimonios tēn sophian”
Sophia , A. cleverness or skill in handicraft and art, tektonos,
in music and singing, tekhnē kai s. h.Merc.483, cf. 511; in poetry, Sol.13.52, Pi.O.1.117, Ar.Ra.882, X.An.1.2.8, etc divination
cunning, shrewdness, craft, Hdt.1.68, etc.; to loidorēs ai theous ekhthra s. Pi.O. 9.38.
dēmēgorikos from dēmēgoros of or for public speaking, qualified for it, Xen.: hē -kē (sc. tekhnē), = dēmēgoria,
Re: Should Women Function as Translators in the Assembly? (Wayne Jackson)
|November 21 2014, 4:57 PM |
Everyone lusts to be an ANTICHRIST meaning they hold the WORLD VIEW by failing to understand that we are saved by grace through faith, BUT, SAVED OR SAFE FROM WHAT?
If you tamper with the Word and God sends you strong delusions it seems quit fitting the crime that you would call in the people identified as witches or sorcerers: Spiritual Formation and Lectio Divina speaks to the Hag-Witch-Sorceress who howled at the moon. That is ANTI-Christian because LECTIO is defined from the wilderness onward as READING out loud the Divine Revelation for comfort and doctrine. PERIOD, end, SPEAK a hymn and GO OUT since Jesus cast out the takers of shekals and collection plates called TRUMPETS. Yes, the Lord's Supper remembering that JESUS died to become the sole mediator, our lips just get zipped so our ears will come open.
Ephesians 2 in fact MARKS FOR AVOIDANCE those who hallucinate that there is such a thing as a Christian World View you can conjure by mocking God for 40 days to get Him to certify your agenda.
Have you noticed that facts do not change the agenda of people? Jesus had John call the religious craftsmen, singers and instrument players SORCERERS. He said that they HAD deceived the world world once: "In the first place the elohim CAST DOWN the heavens and earth (peoples) and everyone was in darkness meaning IGNORANCE.
Judas was prophesied to try to defeat Jesus in Psalm 41: we know that the weapons of carnal warfare were instruments used to turn the enemy or "audience" cowards. Here is a picture of Judas who appears on may Greek Vases and the little box on the flute case was always connected to the flute case of men "drunk on wine" so that Judas was Judas SICARRI or Assassin.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Nov 21, 2014 5:04 PM|
|November 21 2014, 9:41 PM |
Re: Off Topic
|November 22 2014, 1:48 PM |
Re: Off Topic
|November 22 2014, 6:31 PM |
The Pharisees couldn't say it better. Here is the proof text:
1Cor. 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth
The LAW of tithing or giving is a LAW: legalism. if Christ didn't give you a ROLE you have to work really hard to get a DOLE.
David speaks beyond the sacred pages and thinks that you can buy and sell a "spirit" person as your personal geni.
Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Prov. 13:11 Wealth gotten by vanity shall be diminished: but he that gathereth by labour shall increase
Vanity is: Festino: hasten, oratory, imposed, To wish, desire, entreat, bid, decree, prescribe “honores,” i. e. obtained before the proper time
2Th. 3:8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th. 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Here is the direct command of Jesus for the ONLY money exchanging.
Matt. 6:1 ¶ Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Matt. 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Matt. 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Matt. 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Maybe you are able to listen and give us his rationale for thinking that God made him the Chief Money Laundering Minister.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Nov 22, 2014 6:42 PM|
Madison began grubbing by promises and threats.
|November 22 2014, 7:51 PM |
The tithe as part of the neo-Babylonianism imposed on Israel, was 10 percent or your INCREASE or Profit: that means the NET. A believer has a little or no INCREASE or profit to be given at HARVEST TIME: once a year. About 3 out of 7 INCREASE of FOOD PRODUCTS ONLY from the Lands, orchards, vineyards, flocks "swiped" from the owners went to the LEVITES. They gave 10 percent of that to supply animals to sacrifice and eat: God said they offered the animals to Him but ate the flesh themselves.
If the tribe did not give you lands with a FLOCK then you did not give a tithe of the NET PROFIT of that which you did not give.
Aaron the Tentmaker or Carpenter did not TITHE.
Pr 3:9 Honour the LORD with thy substance,
and with the firstfruits of all thine increase:
Honoro does not speak of the honest worker giving to any religious operator: God did not command but imposed animal sacrifices and this was to keep the system behind closed gates as part of the Civil-Military-Clergy complex. The godly people were then SAFE in their local areas to Rest, Read and Rehearse the Word. It was reasonable that if someone gives you a food-producing farm (only) then you should tithe as RENT.
Wealth implies ENOUGH. Wealth does not mean 10 percent of your GROSS income or shaming old people to give out of their welfare check.
Fruit in this passage is : produce of the fields, pulse, legumes (whereas fructus denotes chiefly tree-fruit, and frumentum halm-fruit, grain), sometimes also, in gen., for fruits (grain, tree-fruit, etc.). FRUIT OF THE LIPS.
In maybe a parallel explanation beyond the Temple Complex:
Proverbs 18.20] A man's stomach is filled with the fruit of his mouth. With the harvest of his lips he is satisfied.
Only the evangelist obeying the command to GO and preach exactly what Jesus commanded to be taught is worthy of his food, housing and transportation but he NEVER collects on the receiving end.
Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: in the Ezekiel 33 version Christ names popular preachers for hire, singers and instrument players. While they made long prayers (hymns) and made up their own songs and sermons, they went out and bought something vegetable and never bought a perfect lamb.
Matt. 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Jesus paid it all and Christ in Isaiah 55 commanded us not to pay for the free water of the Word.
H8393 tebû’âh teb-oo-aw' From H935 ; income, that is, produce (literally or figuratively):—fruit, gain, increase, revenue.
Pr 3:10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty,
and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.