Tongues, gifts and the end of this world
Not that it's necessarily a new character trait, but most of my life now is spent in disagreement with people around me. Non-believing family and friends disagree with my faith, and believing friends often disagree with my doctrine. I'm far more interested in the second group - disagreement with God fearing brethren where we challenge each other on Scripture is generally a great source of new revelation and deeper understanding of the Lord's will. With false doctrine and wolves in sheep's clothing so prevalent in these times, I do wonder if YHVH has called me to be one that calls it out without concern for not making any friends in the process. As I say that, I should be clear that it can never be about our own will or ego (as I've written about recently) - any genuine disagreement between brethren must be based in the Word. For example - your position on this is not sound, have you considered these verses which contradict your position?
This weekend I've had a very genuine and non-personal or emotional debate with a fellow brother in Christ. We hold opposing views on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as the end times timeline. The discussion (done over a messaging app) had a lot of meat regarding some important topics, so I thought I'd see if I can turn the content into a blog post. Apologies for any grammar issues as I've typed this all up on my phone rather than a laptop.
The first part of the conversation is regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues.
We're introduced to tongues in Acts 2:4, then immediately following it we're given the explanation of what it is. Quite clearly and undisputedly the rest of Acts 2 is explaining foreign languages that are understood by others who speak that tongue. Now if we're to say that tongues can either be a foreign language, or an unknown Spirit language then we need to 'split' or add on an understanding from Acts 2. I say you can't do that, but if someone says you can then fine - but clearly one of us is right and one is wrong (we can't both be right). Therefore whoever is wrong is following incorrect doctrine. We know that the enemy 'creeps in unaware' and deceives the elect through false doctrine - it's clearly one of his most important tactics. I'd be prideful to say that I'm not currently being deceived on one doctrine or another - that doesn't make me intentionally immoral, mentally unwell but it does make me doctrinally remiss. As Brethren, we are not doing ourselves any good by only discussing doctrine that we agree upon so as to not offend - we ought to challenge each other when one may have an incorrect interpretation to grow in our knowledge of Him together.
I really dislike the retort that I've heard from proponents of modern tongues (a spiritual language that cannot be understood by many) that we need to come as a little child, and that because it's a spiritual gift it can't be understood using our rational brains. It's not what was meant in Matt 18:2 - being as children doesn't mean we ignore what is in the Word, it means we humble ourselves and rid ourselves of things like pride and worldly wisdom that we develop over the years. John 3 regarding being born again a perfect example - makes perfect sense Scripturally, but zero sense naturally. Being a little child in the way we come to God doesn't mean that we throw out His Word - His Word is given to us and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction (2 Tim 16).
So if we use His Word to understand tongues - we still can't go past the explicit definition of it that is given to us in Acts 2. Using that explicit definition of it being foreign (and real) languages, 1 Cor 12-14 makes perfect sense. For example - 1 Cor 14:2 is saying that if you're speaking in an unknown tongue with no one able to understand it, then only God (the Creator of language from Genesis 11) can understand you. 1 Cor 14:2 is the negative of what NOT to do, not an encouragement of what to do!
Corinth was a port town - therefore people of different languages were passing through every single day. Speaking foreign tongues was an important spiritual gift to spread the Word, and so was interpretation! Where is the interpretation of tongues in the modern Pentacostal movement?
If we treat 1 Cor 12-14 tongues as being an incomprehensible language, it becomes a really awkward passage with contradictions and not much meaning. Chapter 13 is all about love/charity being the most important gift and that it will endure forever. Verse 8 literally tells us that tongues will cease! So Paul is telling the Church that all these spiritual gifts now are great, but the time will pass where they're gone, so ensure that you are focused foremost on love and sharing the Word.
Then he opens chapter 14 saying to desire gifts, but most importantly prophesy. 2nd verse he shows why gifts without prophesying is fruitless, then 3rd verse gives the opposing positive example. When you don't bring in a new outside interpretation, it makes perfect sense and flows seamlessly in the context of the letter.
The alternate interpretation just makes no sense contextually. Why talk about love and sharing of the Word then just randomly drop a verse in there about how good it is to use this gift when it does not benefit others? An unknown tongue = unknown language. If I speak Chinese to someone in Australia, that is an unknown tongue to them. Therefore unknown tongue in this context is exactly what Paul is speaking about - there is no point using this gift if no one can understand you!
I don't understand how can we not ring fence the definition of tongues in Acts 2? It's an explicit definition that is not only clear,but fulfils a very clear and prophetic purpose for the Lord's plan. The Bible interprets the Bible, particularly so when we see the Greek wording being consistent. When we allow ourselves to ignore a clear Bible interpretation and then add our own in for a future usage, we can get into dangerous territory very quickly. Unless I have a very good reason to change an interpretation in a future passage, I'll always use the first interpretation particularly when an additional one is murky.
My position on tongues and the gifts of the Spirit might be better understood when I clarify my position on end times and the age we live in today.
'End of the age' is obviously mentioned extensively in the Bible. I just believe the mistake we've made is to assume this age is talking about us (and there may even be a bit of pride in this given we want to feel like we are the important ones).
There's just too many verses that you can't get away from regarding the time period on that 'age'. 'Some of you won't taste death' (Matt 16:28), 'this generation' (Matt 24:34) etc. Then add to that the fact that the Apostles were given a specific commission, their titles have not been passed down and their commission ties in perfectly with what was to occur during that 'age' and the whole narrative makes a lot more sense. The ‘age’ that is being spoken of in all these verses I believe is quite clearly shown to be the age of the Mosaic Law - the age that would end once the Temple was destroyed and replaced entirely by the New Covenant.
The Bible is written for us, but not to us. The Scriptures show things that were said privately to the Apostles, then things which were said openly to the masses. This distinction isn't an accident. Same thing with the Epistles, as well as the whole OT. Each book has a purpose and many of those purposes have been fulfilled - eg Daniel was written so that the first century Jews knew the Messiah was due (literally to the day). It doesn't mean we shouldn't read Daniel, obviously we ought to, and we can learn a lot from it - but the prophecy was not written to give to us. Paul's Epistles show us the work of the Apostles as they carried out their commission - again lots to learn, but these letters (mostly) weren't addressed TO us. When I came to this realisation it totally changed the way I read the Bible - I have so much more clarity and I'm not having to do all these mental gymnastics to 'make verses work'.
If we take the alternate position and say that the age has not passed, then where have all the other gifts gone? Where are the healers who make the blind see or the deaf hear? Where are the ones who do miracles? Where are the new Prophets? Where are the ones who can interpret foreign tongues? Sorry if I smell a rat when the only gift that appears to have continued (after what seems like an 1800 year hiatus) is the ability to speak tongues, particularly when we've created a new definition of that gift (that has a very vague actual purpose) that is vastly opposed to the explicit definition given of that gift when it first appeared.
I hold the view that God is sovereign - He gives gifts when and as He pleases and they are not received by effort, work or will. When they are received, they are received perfectly - the healer CAN heal the paralytic, not just the odd person here and there. Non-believers know that the power of the mind can overcome many ailments and sicknesses - so when we think deep in our minds that we can be healed, then we often are. This isn't the work of YHVH, this is the work of man. The work of YHVH heals the man who cannot be healed by man - the blind, the dumb, the paralytic, the leper, even the dead (John 11). He needed to give these gifts in the first century to support the Apostles in their mission to publish the Gospels to all Nations, but I do not see why He needs to give them now. We have the Gospels and the testimonies of the Saints - we are saved through faith by Grace, not the witnessing of new miracles.
So if that age has passed, then what age are we in? I think we're in the period described in Rev 20:7-10. There is the final battle. Christ has already come in the clouds to receive His throne (as He said He would in Matthew 24) - He rules in the midst of His enemies (Psalm 110). I think we are in the period that leads up to that final battle - the short season - which appears to be a 200-300 year period that commenced somewhere around the 1700’s. Throw out all preconceived ideas of end times and read the Word - I believe this understanding fits better than any others.
I think this God vs Satan paradigm we hear about a lot from modern evangelicals is wrong. God is the Creator of all things - including evil. Rev 20:7 Satan is *loosed* - he doesn't escape. 2 Thes 2:11 *God sends*. He is the sovereign one, He is the all powerful one, nothing comes without Him allowing it. In Revelation 20 Satan is loosed. And he is given the power to deceive. And deceive he has done. It is a deliberate tactic from the LORD, no one else.
In my opinion Dan 9:27 is clear from the KJV, but even more clear from Septuagint that it's a prophecy that was fulfilled perfectly in Christ (not some Antichrist who would appear after a 2,000 year gap between the 69th and 70th week). Matthew 24 we need to do some serious gymnastics to say it's not past. Look at every single mention of 'this generation' in the NT - every one refers to what it says, that generation (eg 40 years). Look also at every OT reference to 'coming in the clouds' - always the LORD moving to issue judgement on a nation. The corresponding chapter in Luke clearly explains the armies surrounding Jerusalem (as per the Temple destruction). And it references Daniel which confirms the time period. If we make Matthew 24 past (as I think is clearly shown), then it significantly changes the modern ideas regarding Revelation.
If Satan was given power to deceive all nations and the thousand years have past, we would expect to have very little idea of what happened (with totally corrupted historical reports) of a period between Christ and the 1000-1500s or so. And we'd have a whole bunch of relics that make very little sense. Sounds a lot like now!
We're not in the millennial age now - that's my key point. It's past. We're in the midst of Rev 20:7-10 - an era defined by total deception, lies and cover up of a thousand odd years period that came before it.
If God looses Satan and allows him to deceive the 4 corners of the earth - what possibly could he be doing differently from what's happening now? There's thousands of different choose your own adventure paths that each lead people away from God. Islam, Catholicism, Eastern religions, New Age, atheism, denominations within the 'church' all built on subtly false doctrine.
Read 20:7-10 - during this period you're not going to know of or see Jesus as the victorious King.
I think the final battle is a bit of a nothing burger too. Rev 20:9 just says that when God calls time He sends fire down and it devours them. It's not Jesus and the Saints all rising up together to 'battle' them - it's just God calling 'game' and putting an end to this world so that He can bring in His new one.
Now don't get me wrong - I remain teachable and open minded on this whole topic. There's too much deception in historical events to know anything for sure. As it stands, reading Scripture only (and putting aside history or even live events), this position makes the most sense to me. I was always Matt 24 being past previously - then I stopped and just read it myself more and more. If Matt 24 is past, then we need to work out where we are at - Rev 20:7-10 makes most sense but I am not ruling out earlier.
So here are some of the issues that felt unresolved to me with my old Revelation understanding. One where we have the millennium as being future - we're all saved Christians reign with Christ then we have a future event where Satan is loosed to clear out any who don't want to be there.
There's never a resolved 'end'. If this final battle clears out the saved Christians who rebelled again against God, then why would we believe that the remaining group will remain clean for eternity? We can't. So you end up having this unresolved loop - does Satan come back every 1,000 years to clear out the remnant that want out? It just felt unresolved and unfinished to me - which isn't in line with my understanding of God's perfect character.
The follow up to that is that we aren't the same as Adam. Christ was the last Adam, we became a new creation in Him. That's the only way we could ever join Him in an eternal Kingdom - He couldn't let the old creation in as they would fall into sin over and over. He needed to give us a new heart, a new circumcision of the heart to seal us forever to dwell with Him forever.
The other key point is that we know from the Psalms, Daniel and many other places that the Messiah would receive His throne. Psalm 110 the perfect and clearest example. Then I'm not sure how many times (but it is a lot) we know from the NT that He is already seated at the right hand. So we're told He would sit at the right hand in the OT, then confirmed in the NT that the event has taken place.
Ok so maybe there are two thrones - 'an already but not yet' idea, but again it seems awkward to me. Psalm 110 says He rules in the midst of His enemies - that has to be past or now. I can't see anything in Scripture that suggests to me that He would be given a throne with limited power, then at least 2,000 years later receive a new and different throne with full power? I can only get there by bringing in this concept from outside of the Word and making some big assumptions.
That essentially leaves 3 options - He is on no throne, a limited throne, or the final throne. In my opinion Scripture only really supports the final option.
Then we have this strange little reference to the thousand years that only shows up once explicitly and that's in Revelation 20. Well what's it talking about? Is it something brand new that's not referenced in any other Scripture, or is it referring to something in earlier Scripture but just using a new name? I struggle with option 1 - it's inconsistent with the rest of Revelation which leans heavily on OT prophesies and sheds more light on them. Again, I get to the situation described in Psalm 110 (which is the theme through many other passages) that He rules in the midst of enemies before a very final judgement and new Heaven & Earth.
If we get there, then Revelation doesn't leave us with many options as to where we are at! We're either in the thousand years now (it is a Spiritual reign), we're in the period after where Satan has been loosed, or it's all historic and we're in the new Heaven & Earth. I consider the world around me now and I find it very very hard to say anything other than option 2.
Next thing to consider is current events. By current, I mean say the last century. I find it very hard to believe that we're living in times that haven't been prophesied - particularly the 1948 Israel situation. I doubt we have the 2 world wars, Babylon taking over Israel (and the beloved City) & a state of total ungodliness without it being in the Scriptures. So then where is it? I've not heard a single good explanation that links current events to Revelation - yeah sure some of them 'sorta' fit, but none fit even close to perfectly (which is what is necessary for prophecy....it's never 'half right'). I think the most compelling is that we have this fall of Babylon then a new age of aquarius - but I really struggle to match that to Revelation for more than a couple of verses.
No way Israel 1948 isn't prophesied, so what is it? Only verse that possibly works for me is Rev 20:9 where the deceivers compass the beloved city.
Now let me finish by summarising my position.
Christ came. Israel was given 40 years to receive Him. The Lord delivered His judgement on Israel in the first century. He utterly destroyed them (no stone unturned). The Temple was cut off, the New covenant is established. This is the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and judgement - it's OT language that explains *exactly* what happened.
The transition period was the Apostles carrying out their commission. As prophesied, some would not taste death until it happened. This is the period of Acts and the Epistles - it describes the Gospels being published and given to all Nations. That happened in that first century and most of Revelation is explaining/prophesying these events.
The thousand years starts there. What that actually looked like I really don't know - maybe it was an earthly reign, maybe it was spiritual. I have NO idea what the world actually looked like (or even what year we're actually in today) but I do know there's been all sorts of deception and scrubbing of records regarding what did happen.
The thousand years is completed. Just like Israel was given a fair chance to accept the Messiah, so were the Nations. This is why a future 1,000 years also makes little sense to me - why not just judge the Nations right now? We've all had enough time to see Christ, know about Him, decide if we want to follow Him.
The short season where Satan is loosed is for the Nations what the transition period was for Israel. It's necessary, it aligns with Scripture and it makes perfect logical sense too. It helps to explain this bizarre reset and total scrubbing of history that appears to have happened pre 1700s (mud floods, tartaria, castles with no toilets, photos of empty cities, orphans, no family trees from before then, destruction of things from fervent heat, Pompeii, Roman structures all over the world, incredible architecture that no way they can recreate now, 'dark ages' etc etc). And that's the time I think that we are living through now. Satan is loosed, we are deceived on EVERYTHING, but when YHVH sees enough He will call game and destroy him in an instant. Our eternal reign with Christ in the New Heaven & Earth starts then.
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done. Amen.