• About this site

Brian Crawford

• About this site

James Dyck

• About this site

Brian Elliott - God’s good news was always bad news to me. All it seemed to do was remind me that some day I was going to die and leave this world to meet God. It constantly reminded me I was going to hell. (more)

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Q: I have come out of the charismatic church. I am praying for wisdom and understanding. I am unsure of speaking in tongues now. I do have the 'gift' but now i am unsure. Well, I do understand the 'speaking in tongues' is actually a language that needs an interpreter that it was origionally designed to spread the gospel for other countries. Now I want to know why in the bible there is a verse saying, " continue to pray in the spirit at all times' what is then praying in the spirit? My brain is experiencing some conflict but I am at peace with leaving the cahrismatic church and its beliefs and I am now searching the bible and discovering truth for myself however there are some parts which i cannot fully explain as I was taught that tongues were a sign from God. Please can you let me know your interpretation of praying in the spirit. Thank you and God bless

A: I'm glad you are examining your experience in the light of scripture.  Often, we are more comfortable to interpret experiences based on feelings or advice of others.

Praying in the Spirit is mentioned three times in Scripture.

1) 1 Corinthians 14:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15 says, “So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.”

2) Ephesians 6:18" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:18 says, “And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.”

3) Jude 20" TARGET="_blank">Jude 20 says, “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.”

Some Christians understand these Scriptures to be referring to praying in tongues.  However, God usually communicates to us in our native language and we speak to him with understanding by using our own language.  As you mentioned in your email, when a person has the gift of speaking in tongues, it is sign to the audience that God is revealing new information through direct revelation.  The miracle of tongues authenticates the messengers.

So what does it mean?  “Pray in” the Spirit can have several different meanings. It can mean “by means of,” “with the help of,” “in the sphere of,” and “in connection to.” Praying in the Spirit does not refer to the words we are saying. Rather, it refers to how we are praying. Praying in the Spirit is praying according to the Spirit’s leading. It is praying for things that the Spirit leads us to pray for. 

1 Corinthians 14:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15 uses the words "my spirit" which means Paul's spirit - the inner, spiritual part of man that responds to God's truth.  Paul is using both his powers of reason and capacity to worship when he prays.

Ephesians 6" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6 tells us that we should be sensitive to spiritual necessities of every moment and every person.  A spiritual person recognizes these needs by being awakened to such needs - for example, how we see a financial crisis in a home can be interpreted as nothing more than poverty, or we can see a spiritual problem in a relationship as the root cause.  A spiritual insight means we see problems that have a spiritual solution which may be salvation, obedience to a commandment of the scripture or a clearer understanding of who we are in Christ.

Jude refers to spiritual growth in our faith.  Increasing understanding and appreciation to "the faith" or the doctrines of scripture will affect the way we pray - enlightened by the spirit of God in the understanding of His word.

Romans 8:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:26 tells us, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.”

• About this site

Was Caleb (see Joshusa 10:6) an Israelite?

The Lord’s injunction in Numbers 13:2" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 13:2 (R.V.) with regard to the sending of the spies was, “Send thou men . . . of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a prince among them.” In obedience to this, Moses “sent them according to the commandment of the Lord, all of them men who were heads of the children of Israel” (v. 3). There follows a list of their names and tribes, in which is included, “Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh” (v. 6). Thus in this passage, the first in which Caleb is mentioned, it is affirmed, not only that he was of the tribe of Judah, but that he was a “prince” and “head” of that tribe.

His being called “the Kenezite” (or “Kenizzite”) in Numbers 32:12" TARGET="_blank">Numbers 32:12 and Joshua 14:6," TARGET="_blank">Joshua 14:6, 14 has led some to assert that he was not an Israelite, but one of that Canaanitish race called “Kenizzites” in Genesis 15:19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:19 while others have associated this patronymic with Kenaz the grandson of Esau (Genesis 16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 16:II, 15), thus making him out to be an Edomite. But when we find that Caleb’s younger brother was called Kenaz (Josh. 15. 17;" TARGET="_blank">Josh. 15. 17; etc.), and that Caleb’s grandson was also called Kenaz (1 Chronicles 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 4:15), it becomes evident that the name was a popular one in the family to which he belonged, and that the term “Kenezite” in his own case merely connects him with some earlier Kenaz amongst his ancestors.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Does the procedure followed in Acts 15" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15 throw light on the question, whether business and oversight matters of an assembly?

Should be settled solely by its elders, or whether they should for final decision, come before the entire meeting?

Verses 2 and 6, with Acts 16:4," TARGET="_blank">Acts 16:4, appear to favour the former view, but verses 4,22, and 23, the latter.

Acts 15:6-29" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:6-29 should certainly prove helpful in this connection; but before we thus use it, let us clear our minds of any thought that the gathering which is described at length in verses 6-29 was an ordinary business or oversight meeting of a local Assembly. It was a conference presided over by apostles, the decisions of which were intended to be binding upon saints and gospel workers everywhere. Paul and Barnabas did NOT come all the way from Antioch to Jerusalem to obtain the views of the Jerusalem church on the questions which had been a cause of disturbance, but to consult with “THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS” (v. 2) regarding them.

And they did this NOT because they had any doubt as to the correctness of what they had been teaching (see Galatians 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:5), but to prevent a schism arising among the churches, which might become the means of rendering much of their work’ in vain” (Galatians 2:2)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:2).

Yet widely different though this meeting was from any to which we are accustomed, there is much to be learnt from the wisdom with which the apostles and elders acted in order to bring harmony out of what in verses 2 and 5 seemed to be hopeless discord. Let us note first that there was a manifest desire on the part of all those who were the real leaders to do everything they could to promote the unity of the saints, as well as to maintain “the truth of the gospel.” There was nothing to be seen of the spirit of “I-must-have-it-my-way” amongst them. And let us note further that these leaders were after all, in substantial agreement as to what “the truth of the gospel” was, though each might express it in his own particular fashion.

Moreover, it seems clear from the first clause of verse 7 that the lesser men, among whom were those who thought that circumcision should be imposed on the Gentile converts, were first permitted to say all they had got to say in furtherance of their point of view. Not until then did Peter speak, and remind them of how this work of God among Gentiles had begun; so providing an opening for Paul and Barnabas to relate the story of how it had gone on and increased, and of how the Lord had set His seal upon it. Finally James, the one of all their leaders in whom the saints with Jewish tendencies seem to have had most confidence, signified his agreement with the others, that the Gentile converts should not be brought into bondage, but at the same time suggested that they should go as far as they reasonably could to meet the prejudices of their Hebrew brethren, by abstaining from eating of blood, etc. With this all were in agreement; and from its wording, James appears to have been the one chosen to draft the letter, in which their decision was to be made known to the churches.
With regard to the specific point referred to in the above question, it will be helpful to notice who are the parties named in each of the verses mentioned, and what is there said about them. In verse 2, as already remarked, it was to “the apostles and elders” that the mission
of Paul and Barnabas was directed. In verse 4 a meeting of “the church” was held to welcome them, at which, of course, “the apostles and elders” were present, and at which Paul and Barnabas gave a report of their work among the Gentiles. This account stirred up the Jewish extremists present to protest that converts who were uncircumcised must submit to the rite, so raising the very point that had caused trouble at Anticoh. When verses 5 and 6 are read together, it will be clear that the matter was not allowed to develop or be dealt with at this open meeting; but that “the apostles and elders” came together later, to discuss it more privately; and what took place at that gathering has already been described.

Having come to a decision, verse 22 suggests that they made it known to the rank and file of the saints in Jerusalem, and that these heartily acquiesced in it. For we are told that it pleased “the apostles and elders with the whole church” to send to Antioch the letter and the men that are mentioned in it. As for the superscription of the letter as given in verse 23, the A.V. has it, “The apostles and elders and brethren,” but the R.V. follows the most ancient MSS. in reading, “The apostles and the elder brethren.” The latter is also in keeping with the purpose of the visit of Paul and Barnabas, as stated in verse 2, and with the expression afterwards used about the matter in ch. 16:4.

Thus the order indicated is that questions of importance, or of difficulty, should first be considered by the leaders, and a united decision come to, which should then be communicated to the assembly as a whole. Where things are in a normal or healthy condition, the judgment of the leaders will be assented to by all, and will thus become that of the entire body. And if, as was the case in Ezra 10:15" TARGET="_blank">Ezra 10:15 R.V., one or two “stand up against” their brethren, they will have as little power to hinder as the men there mentioned had. Generally speaking, however, action should not be taken in any matter, until there is substantial agreement among the saints regarding it; and when this is lacking, the Lord should be sought in prayer that it may be brought about. Above all, there should be no thought of settling the affair in the world’s way, by putting it to the vote, in which the young person, brought into the meeting but a few weeks before, would have the same weight as the oldest or wisest present. That would be a complete negation of all godly rule, as set forth mi Timothy and elsewhere.

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

Did Judas partake of the Lord’s Supper when it was instituted?

The only reference to the actual time when Judas left the upper room occurs in John 13:30," TARGET="_blank">John 13:30, where we learn that he did so “immediately” after the conversation as to who would be the traitor, a conversation which ended by the Lord giving the “sop” to him.

This conversation, according to Matthew 26:21-26" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:21-26 and to Mark 14:18-22," TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:18-22, took place before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; and if we possessed these three Gospels only, we should have no doubt that Judas did not partake of it.

But when we turn to Luke 22: 19-23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: 19-23, we find the order reversed, and the paragraph regarding the institution of the Supper (vv. 19, 20) placed before the one which mentions the conversation about the traitor (vv. 21-23); and thus an element of uncertainty is introduced. It is evident that either in Luke on the one hand, or in Matthew and Mark on the other, the order followed is not that of time; and from what we know of their Gospels elsewhere, it is much more probable that the adoption of an order other than that of time is in Luke.

In the circumstances, however, we cannot say with certainty that Judas did not partake of the Supper; but why it should be a stumbling block to any if he did so, is not apparent. His profession of being a believer in and a follower of Christ was as loud and as clear as that of any of his fellow-disciples. They had accepted him as their treasurer (John 13:29)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:29). One or other of them had preached the Gospel in company with him (Matthew 10:1-5)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:1-5). And he certainly in any case partook of at least some portion of the Passover feast (Matthew 26:23)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:23).

If he did partake of the Lord’s Supper, we have in that fact the most solemn warning possible that our being accepted by brethren as worthy to partake is not, however careful they may be, a sure proof that our hearts are right with God, and that we have been truly born again. Luke elsewhere mentions those who shall say, “Lord, Lord, we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence”; and to whom Christ shall reply, “I know you not,. . . depart from Me.”

W.R.

• About this site