‘Witness’ in the Book of Acts: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 98-100). It is reproduced here with permission.

Acts 1:8 is the charter of the neo-pentecostal movement: ‘But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.’

Here is the source for the vital concept of ‘power for witness’. It is assumed that witness is the equivalent of evangelism and that the text is a promise of power for every Christian. Without this text the neo-pentecostal would find it hard to explain what the second coming of the Spirit is for.

However, it is clear that Acts 1:8 cannot be read in this way. For Luke the word ‘witness’ is very specific—it applies to those who see, handle and hear and who can therefore testify from first-hand experience. In Luke and Acts it is particularly applies to the small and unique band of disciples who could so testify to the risen Jesus. Definitely not every Christian was a witness, for not every Christian could say that he had seen the Lord. ‘Witness’ is not a synonym for ‘evangelist’, even though it is used that way in contemporary religious speech.

That this is so can be established by studying the contexts in Acts where the word ‘witness’ occurs. To take some examples:

So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us… one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection (Acts 1:21, 22).

but God raised him on the third day and made him manifest; not to all the people but to us who were chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead (Acts 10:40, 41).

But God raised him from the dead; and for many days he appeared to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people (Acts 13:30, 31).

The only exceptions to this are Paul and Stephen (Acts 22:15; 22:20). However it is highly significant that both these men had special encounters with the risen Jesus, and so although ‘born out of due time’ could take their place as authentic witnesses.

H. Strathmann observes of the concept of witness in Acts:

Nor are these witnesses in general. They are those who are qualified to be witnesses because they themselves lived through the events. They are indeed specifically called to be such (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8, 22-26). They were given the necessary equipment for their task (Luke 24:48; Acts 5:32)… This concept coincided with that of apostle in the narrower sense, and, unless it undergoes reconstruction, it is equally bound to disappear as historical development proceeds…

After quoting from Acts 1:8, he goes on:

The primary thought is that they can and will proclaim from first-hand knowledge the story of Jesus (1:22, 10:39)… It is apparent that this condition can be met only by a select circle whose members had the honour of personal encounter with the risen Lord (10:41, 1:22).1

It follows that the words of Acts 1:8 are words of promise to a group of unique persons, to perform a unique activity, and can in no way be construed as a promise to Christians as a whole. It is therefore more improper, since not true, to assure Christians that they will be supplied with power to evangelise on the basis of this text. Yet is there any other text which will function to provide the neo-pentecostal with the rationale for his experiences?

---

1. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1967), Vol. IV, pp. 492, 493. We differ from Strathmann in the discussion of Paul and Stephen, but this has no bearing on the main issue of Acts 1:8. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 81-82). It is reproduced here with permission.

This is the only passage in which Jesus is reported as having mentioned glossolalia. In verse 17 and 18 he predicts that:

Signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

However the manuscript and other difficulties that surround this passage force most Biblical scholars to the opinion that Jesus did not say this, or at least that it is improbable in the extreme that he did.1

Some neo-pentecostal literature uses this verse in connection with tongues speaking, however,2 and without apology, so it is necessary to set out the reasons why the verses are regarded as non-authentic. Basically these are:

(a) After verse 8, at least four different suggested endings are found in early manuscripts. The verses numbered 9-20 and used by the Authorized Version as part of the text (though not by the RSV, NEB, or TEV) are only one of a number of possibilities.

(b) The variety of possible endings suggests that the gospel ended at verse 8, which is rather abrupt, and that later editors compiled various pieces of material to round it off.

(c) Verse 9 to 20 are written in Greek uncharacteristic of Mark’s style.

(d) Although a majority of manuscripts have the verses, several good and ancient manuscripts do not. In this branch of study it is not the number of witnesses that matter, but their age and independence from one another. By these tests, their absence is most significant.

(e) A number of important ancient writers either did not know or rejected these verses. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, reported their absence from almost all the Greek manuscripts known to them.

This adds up to a well-nigh unassailable case for rejection. However, even if they were found to be authentic, it ought to be noted (as does Schep3) that they do not support a neo-pentecostal position, since the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Furthermore the passage promises rather more than is wanted: note the handling of snakes. On this point Harper is silent.4

---

1. So, for example, commentaries by C. E. B. Cranfield (p. 470 f.) and R. A. Cole (p. 257 f.); note also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964, p. 226 f.); J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking (p. 99).
2. E.g., M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, pp. 33, 37.
3. Schep, op. cit., p. 99.
4. M. Harper, As at the Beginning (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1971), p. 103. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 83-88). It is reproduced here with permission.

Speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as a sign

The fact that on three occasions in the book of Acts (2:4, Jerusalem; 10:44-46, Caesarea; and 19:6, Ephesus) the reception of the Holy Spirit was marked by men speaking in tongues has been adduced by some as evidence that such speech is the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Some suggest that the Spirit-baptized believer should speak in tongues, and if he does not then there is some prejudice or lack of faith in him.

Thus the position appears to be that some neo-pentecostals claim on the basis of the Acts that speaking in tongues is the usual sign that a person has received a ‘subsequent’ baptism in the Spirit.1

However, certain points need to be raised about this teaching.

First, glossolalia did accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit on several occasions, but this was in the context of men’s first commitment to the Lord Christ.

Second, it is possible to suggest quite cogent reasons for the gift of tongues being given on the occasions when it is mentioned in the Acts. Outward evidence of the Spirit’s coming was very appropriate on each occasion—for example, note the crucial nature of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius. The Jewish church had to be told thus that God had received the Gentiles; the Ephesians’ ‘false start’ made it important for them and for Paul to be assured that the Spirit had come.2

Third, historical events are not commands. That men spoke in tongues on three occasions does not amount to a command or a promise. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever command or promise glossolalia.

Fourth, the phenomenon of tongues occurs in other religions and even in non-religious circumstances, showing that it cannot be an infallible sign, if sign it is, of the lordship of Christ or the coming of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, owing to the possibility of self-deception in the area of tongues, interpretation and prophecy, we must be careful before presuming that use of it is evidence of Christianity, let alone a special baptism of the Spirit not commanded in scripture.

Tongues as a gift

1 Corinthians 12-14 contains the New Testament’s only discussion of this subject. It is possible to take various statements by Paul in isolation and build them into a case for glossolalia being normative Christian experience. For instance 14:5, ‘Not I want you all to speak in tongues…’; 14:18, ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all…’; 14:22, ‘Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers…’; 14:39, ‘…do not forbid speaking in tongues…’

However, this is not fair to Paul’s argument, for the following reasons.

First, in the case of each quotation mentioned above an important modification follows or precedes. This cannot be ignored. Also, it is of more than passing interest to note that when Paul makes what appears to be his strongest statement, ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues…’ (14:5), it is paralleled in 1 Corinthians 7:7 where, speaking of marriage, he says, ‘I wish that all were as I myself am…’, that is to say, unmarried. Now in 1 Corinthians 7 he obviously does not mean that he wishes all in fact to be single, for not all have that gift as he admits. A man cannot exercise a gift he does not have, and this applies to tongues. It is quite clear that only some Christians have the gift of glossolalia. So in 12:27-31 Paul asks, ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? … Do all speak with tongues?’ Here the Greek construction indicates without doubt that the answer ‘no’ is expected. It follows that we cannot demand that other Christians have this gift.

Second, Paul’s discussion taken as a whole leads to a minimal assessment of glossolalia. Tongues are mentioned last in the three lists of Chapter 12.3 The gift does not edify the gathered members (14:6-11), whereas prophecy edifies, exhorts, and consoles (14:3-6). Tongues do not edify the understanding of the speaker: therefore he should pray for the ability to understand what he speaks (14:13-15). Tongues speaking damns the unconverted in church, whereas prophecy converts him (14:20-25). Thus one cannot lovingly speak in tongues without interpretation.

Third, when Paul allows tongues, it is within strict limits. Meetings are not to be tongues dominated; two or three at most, and then only if interpretation is supplied so that it is edifying (14:27, 28). Further, glossolalia must be orderly and in turn (14:27, 40). The total effect of chapters 12-14 is not to condemn but to discourage.

Actually, the possession of gifts is not a matter for praise or blame (1 Cor. 4:7). Nor is it a guarantee of spirituality; the Corinthians were jealous and strife-ridden, arrogant, tolerant or immorality, litigious, insensitive to the weak, compromising with idolatry, self-assertive and unbelieving.

The neo-pentecostals will be quick to agree with this. They will point out that the baptism in the Holy Spirit leads to power for witness and service or other Christians, not sanctification. But by dividing evangelism and ministry from our sanctification they have divided the work of the Holy Spirit and gone contrary to the New Testament message:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35).

The Spirit’s work in sanctification gives power for evangelism and the service of the body of Christ. The use of gifts is the vital thing. Gifts are merely tools at the disposal of love, and are quite useless (and worse) without love (1 Cor. 13). This too provides the criteria by which to judge the usefulness of a gift—does it edify the brethren?

When all this is said we would like to make clear that we agree that this is a gift God can still give his people. We are told that great joy and peace flow from the experience, and again we rejoice that our brethren have been blessed by God.

Further, we wish to say that there is no room for an arrogant faith which coldly excludes those Christians who are of a different temperament, or who have received different gifts from the Lord. We rejoice to see gifted people as an evidence of God’s hand at work.

However, a problem arises with those Christians who seek to make their experience of tongues a norm for others. This is contrary to Paul’s word in 1 Corinthians 12:30 and to the very nature of gifts, which are varied.

Private tongues speaking

Some believe that there is a vital form of glossolalia which is available (or necessary) to every believer and which provides a revolutionary spiritual liberty (perhaps referred to in 1 Cor. 14:2, 4a, 17). However, one must note that it cannot be an experience open to all in the light of 12:30, ‘Do all speak in tongues?’

Further, private tongues speaking is never held up for praise as a superior form of prayer. We are nowhere encouraged to practise it, and we must therefore conclude that it is not of great value. This is a fair assessment in view of the fact that glossolalia ‘in the spirit’ (14:2) is not ‘in the Holy Spirit’ but in the area of non-rational as opposed to the rational part of the personality (see 14:15). In the light of the New Testament emphasis on knowledge, it is no wonder that Paul commands the tongues speaker to seek understanding (14:15).

‘He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself’ (1 Cor.14:4a) is often quoted in praise of private tongues speaking. It is to be noted that the tongues speaker is instructed to pray for the power to understand (14:13) so that in singing and praying he may comprehend what he says. How can a person be edified if he doesn’t understand what he is saying? Thus we see an apparent contradiction between Paul’s sentiments in 1 Corinthians 14:4a and 14:13-15. But is this really the case? When we return to 14:4a we notice that it is one part of a verse which is being unfavourably compared with the other half:

He who speaks in a tongues edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

We conclude that in 1 Corinthians 14:4a Paul is speaking ironically. Thus his meaning is that the tongues speaker is locked up in his own world; he doesn’t edify the church; he doesn’t fulfil the idea of the previous chapter which is love. His gift terminates on himself; it is useless for the church. 1 Corinthians 14:4a is not therefore to be seen as a commendation of private tongues speaking; it merely puts tongues speaking in an unfavourable light next to prophecy.

It is of interest to note D. W. Burdick’s conclusion in Tongues—To Speak or Not to Speak? (Moody Press, Chicago, 1969): ‘But, if the previous suggested explanation of present-day tongues is reasonably accurate, the glossolalic experience in such instances is abnormal. It is a form of dissociation within the mentality of a person. It is in reality a separation which blocks off the rational function of the brain with the result that action is produced apart from rational control. Temporarily the tongues speaker has entered a pathological condition…’ (p. 84). Unrestrained non-rational religious activity is sub-Christian and apparently open to Satanic influence. It must be tested by allegiance to the lordship of Christ (12:3) and love (chapter 13).

---

1. So, e.g. Harper in Power for the Body of Christ, p. 33 f.
2. This is so, too, if the Samaritans spoke in tongues, as seems likely (Acts 8:16 f.).
3. Some have queried the relevance of the ‘tongues are last’ observation. The problem is resolved by the use of language in 12:28: ‘first… second… third…’; obviously a descending order is in mind. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Healing: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 89-97). It is reproduced here with permission.

There has been a good deal of publicity given recently to healings reported among Christian people. These have often been linked with the worldwide ‘charismatic’ movement. It is said that just as Jesus and his disciples worked miracles, and miracles were reported in the first centuries of the church’s life, so the same power for miraculous healing is available today. It is sometimes alleged that the church’s inexperience of the miraculous has prejudiced the proper understanding of the Bible, but now Christians are realizing the enormous potential of their faith, and reading the Bible aright.

Influential theologians have maintained, indeed, that miracles ceased after the New Testament period. Augustine was one (fourth century). John Calvin (sixteenth century) was another. Calvin’s argument was that the purpose of Biblical miracles was to attest the validity of the message; they are linked, therefore, with the revealing word of God. Since that word has now been spoken, miracles are no longer necessary.

It was certainly not through lack of experience that Calvin took this line. On the contrary, he knew of all too many miracles—the spurious wonders used to bolster up the unbiblical and sometimes superstitious theology of the opponents of Protestantism. The real problem was not lack of the miraculous but the abundance of it. This remains the problem.

The Roman Catholic Church has always endorsed the possibility of contemporary miraculous healing. The histories of the saints were filled with such tales. Over five hundred miracles were associated with Becket and his shrine, for example. Images, relics, shrines, holy water, all had reputations as healing agents. Nor did all Protestants reject the notion.

To take one example, George Fox, the Quaker leader, was credited with a hundred and fifty cures. But it was not only the Quakers who made these claims—other sects did too. Even more interestingly the King of England was said to be able to heal the disease of scrofula (called the ‘King’s Evil’) by touch. Hence, for example, Charles II touched 90,000 sufferers over the years, and did so in the context of a piece of ritual conducted by his Anglican chaplain. Many claimed to have been cured.

Claims for miracles, especially healing miracles, were common in the nineteenth century—we have only to think of Lourdes and Mary Baker Eddy. They continue to this day. There is thus nothing especially new about this phenomenon.

One thing is clear, that there does not need to be any Christian content to the situation. Some healers are orthodox Christians, some are heterodox, others are spiritualist, others have no religious faith, others have led immoral lives. Claims have been made and believed on behalf of all such groups, and the claims are of equal impressiveness.

It is true that Christians must rejoice when God heals the bodies and minds of men, and especially when he gives them a new heart in regeneration. However, they realize that wholeness is God’s ultimate, not his immediate, purpose. Without a doubt God’s aim is to create a new heaven and a new earth, to dwell himself among men, to wipe away every tear from their eyes and to put an end to death and mourning and pain (Rev. 21:1-4). In that time God’s people will have ‘spiritual bodies’, that is, bodies ruled by the Holy Spirit.

Since the resurrection of Jesus the last days have set in; the world to come and the old age are overlapping. Christians, for example, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but we still groan inwardly as we wait for God to make us his sons and set our whole body free. We have been saved, though only in hope (Rom. 8:18, 23, 24). We have much, but we are not yet perfect for we still sin (1 John 1:8), and we still groan. Christians still wear glasses and undergo the ageing process at the same rate as others. Wholeness is God’s ultimate purpose; it is not with us yet.

This may be seen by the fact that not every disease is cured. Not one of the early Christians escaped old age, sickness and death. Paul observed the process of decay at work in his own body, but did not check its progress by a healing miracle. On the contrary, he fixed his gaze on the eternal and declared that death would be preferable to life since he would then be with the Lord (2 Cor. 4:16-5:10).

It is worth noting some words of Dr. D. Treloar at this point, speaking of degenerative diseases:

These diseases start at birth, at which time we start both to live and to commence dying. During childhood and adolescence they are masked by the physical and functional development of the individual. ‘Middle age’ is the euphemism applied to the time at which they commence to become apparent and ‘old age’ to the time when they are unmistakably so. NO ONE HAS EVER DIED OF ‘OLD AGE’, nor, for that matter, of ‘NATURAL CAUSES’. People do die, IN old age OF degenerative diseases. Normally they are those of the heart, circulation, brain and kidneys. The treatment of these diseases is difficult, unspectacular and usually palliative. Because of their slow progression, their common incidence and the common acceptance of ‘wearing out’ as a general principle, the very nature of these diseases is usually overlooked.1

The Holy Spirit is certainly at work within us, but as a guarantee of our future life with God, not of present healing (2 Cor. 5:5).

We can understand, then, why it was that a man like Paul, who did work miracles by the power of God, did not always do so when confronted with disease. He reminds the Galatians that it was a bodily illness that originally led to him bringing them the gospel, ‘and you resisted any temptation to show scorn or disgust at the state of my poor body’ (4:14 NEB). When Timothy is afflicted by frequent ailments he suggests a medical remedy, ‘use a little wine …’ (1 Tim. 5:23).

It may be that Paul suffered from chronic illness. The word translated ‘weakness; in 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 is the same as that rendered ‘sickness’ in James 5:14. At any rate, Paul’s fervent prayer in respect to this disability, that it may be removed from him, was not granted. Whether or not we understand Paul to be unique at this point, it is the testimony of people who exercise a ministry in the area of healing that there are occasions when, despite the offering of faithful and persistent prayer, no cure is granted.

We also hear of Epaphroditus who was dangerously ill (Phil 2:26, 27) and Trophimus, who was so sick that Paul left him behind (2 Tim. 4:20); there does not appear to be any question of a miraculous healing.

Thus we must be very careful of statements which assure us that God’s will is perfect soundness of body (or ‘wholeness’) for every Christian. Such sentiments are only helpful if they apply to that day when Jesus returns, for that is when they will be true for all. However, this is not to deny that there is healing, nor that God can if he so pleases work quite independently of natural means to cure anyone.

In fact, Christians have always believed that God can heal people, and prayed for the sick privately and in church. Doubtless many have been cured as a result of these prayers. Certainly, too, Christians have not been bold enough in seeking God’s favour at a time of sickness, and have shown lack of faith.

But the fact of healing does not necessarily indicate a miraculous intervention by God for two main reasons.

First, the devil can do signs and wonders. This is the teaching of the Bible at several points. For example, the false prophet of Deuteronomy 13:1-5 is capable of miracles, and Jesus himself warns us, ‘False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect’ (Mark 13:22). Paul says, ‘The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved’ (2 Thess. 2:9, 10). Thus a person’s ministry can never be recommended to us on the grounds that ‘it works’. So does the devil’s! We must always ask, ‘Is it true?’, and the only measuring stick is the word of God.

This is a vital point. It is natural to conclude that a healer’s ministry is authenticated by the miraculous. Yet miraculous cures are produced in the ministries of spiritualists and agnostics as well as Christians of all descriptions and they can quite possibly be the devil’s work to lead men astray. It may even be said that the presence of the miraculous is a warning sign for us to listen all the more carefully to the accompanying message, testing what we hear against the Bible.

Second, due notice must be taken of the ease with which mistakes are made. In 1956 the British Medical Association gave a list of six factors which help to account for magical ‘cures’: (a) mistaken diagnosis; (b) mistaken prognosis; (c) alleviation of the illness; (d) remission; (e) spontaneous cure; (f) simultaneous use of other remedies.2 We need to remember particularly the evidence, as yet not fully fathomed, that our minds have a big influence on our bodies. Certain types of disease are very susceptible to treatment of the mind—or the increase of ‘faith’.

Naturally, we rejoice when any good thing befalls us, explicable or not. But when it comes to knowing what God says, we should read the Bible. Failure to observe this can lead to situations of personal torment as does failure to observe the Bible’s teaching on the conditional nature of prayer.

There are magnificent promises in the in the scripture to do with prayer. Take James 5:15, where we read, ‘… the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up’; and again, ‘… whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you will receive it, and you will’ (Mark 11:24). These are encouragements to faith in God, for this is a necessity in prayer.

But of course we must realize that God does not give us the things which are contrary to his will. If I prayed that the ocean would dry up, then it is hardly likely that God would grant my prayer, even though I evacuated my mind of any doubt that he would act. Jesus exemplified this principle in Gethsemane: ‘Remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt’ (Mark 14:36). Many of our prayers, unlike his, are malicious or foolish or ignorant, and the loving God does not heed them. Note the clear teaching of 1 John 5:14, 15: ‘And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.’

It is interesting also to hear Paul’s comment on prayer in Romans 8:26, 27: ‘Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words. And he who searches the hearts of men knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.’

Thus we cannot force God’s hand by the intensity of our prayer for a particular object; we may indeed well doubt that it is God’s will for us to be healed, for example, for in our ignorance we do not know his plans for us. He may want to make us perfectly whole by allowing us to succumb to disease and take us to heaven. What we ought not to doubt is God’s fatherly care and protection for us whatever the outcome. Here is rest indeed and about this Jesus says, ‘Doubt not.’

In fact, to criticize those who remain unhealed as men of small faith is to make nonsense of the commitment of those numerous Christians who have suffered for long years but have been shining lights to those around them. These are heroes and heroines of faith—who dares accuse them of faithlessness?

Concerning the promise of healing in James 5:14-16 there are several observations to make.

First, there is no one who takes it on face value, because this would mean that Christians would never need die, and also because of considerations like Paul’s thorn.

Second, this provision is not to be classed with the Lord’s miracles or the apostles’. Those had the quality of immediacy and directness, whereas the arrangements suggested here are more akin to that which was open to any devout Jew with the Old Testament in hand (e.g., Psalm 41).

Third, the language is ambiguous, since both the word ‘healed’ and the word ‘raise’ can refer to an earthly experience or a post-death experience. It may be that James has in mind here the ultimate salvation (or healing—the word is the same) assuredly available to the Christian, whatever the outcome of his present disease. That is to say, we may read the passage like this:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save [heal] the sick man [i.e., either save him from the disease, or eternally], and the Lord will raise him up [i.e., either from his bed or on the last Day]; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven [in either case]. Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed [or saved eternally].

This is not to suggest that James had one or other of these readings in mind—rather that he had both. This accounts for his perfect confidence in the future of the sick person.

Fourth, the ‘prayer of faith’ spoken of reminds us of the conditional nature of prayer—God’s will for individuals has yet to be seen. It would be unbearably cruel to torment a patient with the exhortation to have more or better faith if all the time it was the Lord’s will to perfect him in heaven. There is no justification whatever for combining the words ‘prayer of faith’ exclusively with the passage that speaks of belief in prayer in Mark 11:24. Further, the unwillingness to submit to illness under God can have deleterious effects on the person’s family and character. This impatience to be ‘whole’ does not constitute real faith.

Fifth, perfection of our bodily and spiritual prowess is not promised or envisaged by God before the return of Jesus. Our present position in the fallen world needs to be taken into account.

There is, therefore, a way of thinking about healing which is dangerous for the children of God.

First, it assures men that God’s will is for their cure, or their ‘wholeness’, but it misses the Biblical emphasis that suffering is the lot of the Christian, and that our hope lies in the coming of Jesus. Sickness and sin and all kinds of imperfection characterize this present age and individuals have no promise that they will escape this. Sometimes God does cure; sometimes he does not.

Second, it teaches that faith in prayer is not so much fixed on God but on the thing which is prayed for. Thus, if you believe sufficiently strongly in a particular request, then it will be granted, even if God does not approve. This pernicious thinking leads people into great torment; when God does not answer a prayer in the positive, the fault must be their own, for not believing hard enough! This time, let us summon up enough ‘faith’ for it to work… The result can be mental torture and self-scrutiny, not faith in God.

Third, it commends itself to people on the grounds that ‘it works’, while forgetting that false prophets and teachers will do the same. In so doing attention is distracted from the central question: ‘Is it true?’ The great danger then is that men and women will wander off into the delusive fog of mystical experience, ignoring the light of the Bible, perhaps finding health for the body, but losing the very things which made for health of the soul.

---

1. Reproduced by permission from a paper presented to the Diocese of Sydney Commission of Enquiry into the Charismatic Movement by D. Treloar.
2. Diving Healing and Co-operation between Doctors and Clergy (B.M.A., 1956), p. 10. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Prophecy: Barnett & Jensen

Some notes on prophecy in the New Testament

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 101-106). It is reproduced here with permission.

Most people would agree that a definition of prophecy must allow for the inclusion of prediction while showing the concept to be wider than merely seeing the future. The prophet’s business is to make known God’s will, now and for the future.

The Old Testament prophets predicted events. But they also applied the teaching of the law of Moses to the actual situation in which they found themselves. We see both elements of the prophetic task in Nathan, for example, as he confronts the guilty King David:

… Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? … Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house … (2 Sam. 12:9,10).

It is an inadequate reading of the Old Testament which separates prophecy from preaching or the exposition of scripture. The prophetic word was checked against the law (Deut. 13:1-5), but it was also filled with insight by the law. It was exposition with a contemporary edge. It is significant that the prophet Elijah journeyed to Mount Horeb in his day of depression, for it was there that Moses received the law (1 Kings 19:8ff.).

In the New Testament there is evidence of a class of person called a prophet, who seems to have functioned in a parallel way with the apostles in proclaiming God’s message. Hence we read that the church is being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) and that the revelation of the coming of Jews and Greeks into the one body was committed to apostles and prophets (Eph. 3:5). It is not surprising therefore to hear that when Christ gave gifts to men it was only some who were apostles and some prophets (Eph. 4:11). Paul makes it clear that not all can expect to be prophets (1 Cor. 12:29).

Yet since Paul also exhorts every Christian to desire the gift (1 Cor. 14:1), it may mean that it is the office of a prophet that is exclusive, rather than the occasional exercise of the faculty (cf. Acts 2:17). Not every Christian may prophecy, but the group may be wider than those designated ‘prophets’. It is necessary therefore to investigate what may be involved.

The prophet must have an authentic knowledge of God’s mind (1 Cor 13:2). The communication of that knowledge is for the purpose of upbuilding, encouragement and consolation (1 Cor.14:3). Since it is rational speech, as opposed to unintelligible glossolalia, learning and instruction ensue (1 Cor. 14:19,31). These observations comply with the evidence in Acts, especially Acts 15:32. There,

Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, exhorted the brethren with many words and strengthened them.

The use of the word ‘exhort’ in connection with prophecy is significant. The word itself has a range of possible meanings—to summon, to call for help, to appeal, to encourage, to request, to comfort, to conciliate. In the noun form it is the word translated ‘encouragement’ in 1 Corinthians 14:3. It certainly entails, therefore, a warm-hearted speech, calculated to move the hearer.

For his part, the hearer must be discriminating. Not all that calls itself prophecy can be classified as God’s word (1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thess. 5:20, 21; cf. 1 Cor. 14:37, 38). There must be good order, so that no one with a message from God is denied the opportunity to speak (1 Cor. 14:30).

There is evidence that specific prediction played a part in prophecy. Agabus is twice reported in this role (Acts 11:27-29, 21:11). So, too, men were designated for certain jobs (1 Tim. 1:18, 4:14; cf. Acts 13:1, 2). But concern for the future was wider than this.

If we examine 1 Thessalonians it appears that words of Jesus are used by Paul as a basis for his teaching about the future, especially the aspects of judgement and the second coming. For example:

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep (1 Thess. 4:15).

Significantly, the Thessalonians are to ‘exhort one another with these words’ (4:18 RV mg.). This passage fits easily into the Old Testament category of prophecy, and not surprisingly it contains the exposition of a word of scripture (i.e., Jesus’ words)—all geared to the specific problems of the readers.

The same is true of Hebrews 3:7-4:13. The whole epistle is called a ‘word of exhortation’ by the author (13:22 RV) and this section is to stimulate the recipients to exhort one another (3:13).

The passage is an exposition of Psalm 95 with a sharp application to the present situation of the readers. The author begins with his text (3:7-11). He then proceeds to draw out its significance, referring back to it when necessary:

For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end, which it is said, ‘Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’ Who were they who heard and yet were rebellious? … So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief. Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it.

He concludes his exposition with a reference to the future:

So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labours as God did from his (4:9,10).

The suggestion that we have here a piece of prophecy preserved for our inspection is strengthened by the way in which he apparently identified what he has said with God’s word (4:12) and the remarkable similarity that this word of God has with the prophecy which is described in 1 Corinthians 14.

In Hebrews, as the writer concludes his exhortation, he writes of it:

The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do (4:12, 13).

In 1 Corinthians 14:

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you (14: 24, 25).

The passage in Hebrews and 1 Thessalonians are characterized by an appeal to future judgment. It may well be that the prophetic word of 1 Corinthians 14 is the gospel, since men worship God when they hear it. If this is so, then it too will have a strongly futuristic and judgemental theme (cf. Paul’s preaching to the Gentile outsider in Acts 17).

The same is true of the one New Testament book which calls itself prophecy, the Revelation (22:19). It is actually that form of prophecy called an apocalypse, carefully thought out, and suffused with Old Testament allusions. Its theme is Christ’s victory and judgement; it is in part predictive; and it exhorts, encourages and edifies.

While it is true, therefore, that the prophet and the teacher are distinguished in some passages (Eph. 4:11; Rom. 12:5f.; 1 Cor. 12:29), yet this ought not to lead one to the conclusion that their ministries exclude one another. The explanation of God’s word figures in both. It may be that the prophet’s role arose more from the situation, whereas the teacher’s arose from the scriptures. But the list of gifts in Romans 12, for example, does not preclude the possibility that the one person may have several gifts, nor that gifts like giving and showing mercy (12:8) or prophecy and teaching (12:6,7) may overlap.

There is a distinction discernible from the Biblical texts, on the level of securing the revelation. To the prophet there may come ‘a revelation’. Thus we read in the case where one prophet is already speaking,

If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent (1 Cor. 14:30).

However, neither the mechanism whereby such a revelation comes nor the style in which it is uttered is described anywhere, and we are free to see it as a non-ecstatic and ‘natural’ process, especially in light of verse 32:

… and the spirit of prophets are subject to prophets.

Or, as the NEB has it,

It is for prophets to control prophetic inspiration.

Nor are we told that such a revelation is necessary each time a prophet speaks. In fact the reverse is probably the case, since some of the mysteries about which they speak will be of such importance that the prophet will repeat his message many times (see Eph. 3:5, 6).

Perhaps we are bound to see it as a ‘natural’ process in the light of John 11: 50, 51, where the enemy of Jesus, Caiaphas, prophesies all unknowingly, that Jesus will die for the nation.

If this discussion is correct, then it will follow that a neo-pentecostal author like Michael Harper in his book on prophecy has been too rigid in distinguishing prophecy from preaching and teaching:

A preacher usually prepares, speaks and expounds the word of God. But a prophet speaks directly under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Both have a part to play in the edification of the Church—but they should not be confused.1

The quote also shows that he insists that prophecy has a different method from that employed in preaching—the revelation comes directly from God. It appears that the natural mind ceases to operate. We would not deny that this can be the case, but we would maintain that this is too narrow a view of prophecy in the light of the careful human thought and interaction with existing scripture evident in the writings of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or Paul, or in Hebrews or Revelation.

Certainly we do not intend to reclaim the possession of sole right to speak afforded to most teachers in the churches. This may indeed be necessary in some few places, but surely the teacher can exist side by side with the men and women who come with a word of upbuilding, encouragement and consolation, especially fit for the situation of the hour.

---

1. Prophecy, M. Harper, 1964, p. 8. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

How to get really rich: Brian Rosner

Who does not want to be rich? Most of us are unembarrassed by our desire for prosperity, only stopping short of approving that greed is good. “There is nothing wrong with wanting to get really rich,” says Brian Rosner, “as long as riches are properly defined.” In Beyond Greed, Rosner diagnoses the problem with the modern materialistic mindset in terms of unacknowledged greed – the forgotten vice – before treating it with the Bible's vision of riches beyond riches, outlining for us the gospel of God's prosperity for those who want to be truly wealthy.

Our desire for riches

In Beyond Greed, Brian Rosner demonstrates from the Bible that the problem with material riches is a deficiency of value: their true worth is so little that their acquisition is of no real and lasting gain. What is worse, over desire for material riches, known of old as greed, is the religion of our world and as such is to God nothing less than idolatry of another kind.

Greed is primarily a theological problem: what the greedy do with money is what idolaters do with their idols, and what Christians ought to do with God – they offer money their love; they give riches their trust; they give wealth their obedience. But this love is debasing, this trust misplaced, this service enslaving – and all instead of loving and trusting and obeying God with these riches, which is true life and reward and freedom.

Real riches

Contentment begins with the knowledge of the God who is himself content, who promises us true riches, and whose goodness ought to be trusted. Rather than fight our insatiable desire for riches, Rosner, following the Bible, redirects us with the offer of an alternative vision of real riches. In doing so he rightly identifies the solution to materialism and the prosperity gospel as a renewing of our modern mindset with a passion for the true wealth that Christ in the gospel gives.

The God who in jealousy competes with money for our affection not only stresses the futility of worldly wealth but also bids us to desire and seek after the riches that he offers because they are of undebatably greater worth. Throughout the Scriptures spiritual goodness, godliness and spiritual blessing is promised as true riches both now and for the age to come.

The development of the Bible's emphasis on prosperity through the Old Testament into the New is an unfolding revelation pointing forward to the future when the people of God will come out of the city of this world, doomed in all her riches (Revelation 18:4-19), and into the wealth of the new city, which is coming down out of heaven to us, with the eternal and incorruptible wealth of the glory of God, its radiance describe in terms of the brilliance of rare jewels, clear crystal, and pure gold, and whose people will be adorned as with the fine clothing of a bride (Revelation 21:1-21).

How to get really rich

Who wants to get really rich? Disturbingly, Revelation 3:17-18 describes the materially rich as actually pitifully poor, but also suprisingly appeals to them with a gospel of prosperity: The invitation of Jesus to those who are both rich and spiritually poor is to come buy without money what they can never afford, the spiritual riches of God – come in your poverty purchase without cost from God the true gold of godliness (Rf. Isaiah 55:1).

And for those who would, laying up this treasure starts now. Rosner's purpose in Beyond Greed is to renew our thinking, not only that we would turn our desire from money back to God, but also to free up our wallets, effecting an increase in our generosity: “The book is an attempt to disturb our pockets, not with practical tips and specific appeals, but rather by warming our hearts and clearing our heads” (p. 9).

The other (prosperity) gospel

Until relatively recently Christian attitude recognised greed as destructive, deceitful, and as nothing less than idolatry against the God who would have us love him using our money, not the other way around (loving money using God). But today the prosperity gospel of Pentecostalism gives greed a theological grounding.

In Australia the prosperity gospel is a growing message and is now increasingly adopted into the Pentecostal mindset, encouraged by the likes of Brian Houston of Hillsong College in Sydney, who wrote, You Need More Money: Discovering God's Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life (Castle Hill: Maximised Leadership, 1999).

Rosner is right to be sharp at this point: “The consequences of misreading the Bible on the subject of poverty and riches are grave. To claim that the benefits of peace with God include health and wealth... ignores the Bible's clear teaching on the dangers of greed and the freedom contentment brings. Further, it sets up false expectations so when hardship or trouble of whatever kind comes, believers are not equipped to cope, and may become disillusioned with the faith. With tragic irony, the real problem with prosperity preachers is that in focusing on material benefits, they undersell the gospel of beneficial hardship and glorious hope that boasts in knowing and being known by God.” (p. 41).

--

Rosner, Brian. Beyond Greed. Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2004. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Negative tendencies of Pentecostalism

Having already described some of the many positive characteristics to its credit, here are some of the negative tendencies of Pentecostalism. In Keep In Step with the Spirit, J. I. Paker gave 10 negative aspects of the Charismatic movement. Here again, I've adapted these for the purpose of highlighting what dangers may both impede the Christlikeness of Pentecostals, and threaten the growth in Christian maturity of those who would be influenced by Pentecostalism.

1. Superiority

Pentecostalism has a predisposition towards elitism built into its theology. Restoration theology gave birth to Pentecostalism when it taught that only a new band of Spirit-filled Christians would be effective in winning the world before Christ's return. Now Pentecostalism's basic theology of Spirit-baptism insists that only those having a second-stage experience are fully empowered for Christian service. This two-class emphasis breeds an inevitable degree of pride within Pentecostal circles. Ironically, for a movement that speaks so much of unity, it by nature creates dis-unity.

2. Divergent

Pentecostalism is by habit an insular movement, as Pentecostals tend to limit their 'world' to their own movement, restricting their reading, listening and fellowship to Pentecostal sources, or at best broadening themselves to charismatic evangelicalism. Such religious isolation has an effect across generations of creating intra-cultural adaptation so that Pentecostalism is continuing to be a divergent branch of Christianity. This sectarian trend brings with it all the dangers of any cult-like movement.

3. Experience-based

By appealing too frequently to inward feelings and focusing too often on human and spiritual experience the Pentecostal movement tends towards a preoccupation with the emotional element of spirituality. Experiential and personal knowledge is set against theological knowledge. This leads to a culture of ego-focused spirituality with members who increasingly become absorbed by their own individual quests for self-fulfilment through personal encounters with God. It also creates the sub-Christian tendency to rely on, as a basis for faith, personal experiences and group culture.

4. Counter-intellectual

Pentecostalism often sets the spiritual over against the intellectual and devalues academic study and argument, which by consequence are perceived to be essentially unspiritual. What can be anti-intellectualism regards as a higher form of knowledge that which cannot be known by natural understanding, for the Spirit goes beyond words. Pentecostals tend to major repeatedly on central home-grown themes within the movement, and as a result, omitting massive sections of Scripture and Biblical doctrine. Such gross imbalance is not helped by Pentecostalism's often unwillingness to engage in in any serious consideration of counter-currents within Christianity which would disagree with their teaching or emphasis.

5. Intro-spiritual

Insistence on the importance of direct divine revelation and an over-emphasis on the importance of the Spirit's personal guidance makes Pentecostalism extremely susceptible to the influence of new movements, new teaching, and new leaders. Deluded claims, fake showmanship, false testimony, heretical teaching, all abound in a Pentecostal environment that so easily falls for every strong charismatic leader who would trumpet new insight, testify to special encounters with God and boast of closer intimacy with the Spirit than others.

6. Meritocratic

Pentecostalism so often betrays a belief in the false principle that giftedness is related to maturity and spiritual power to the visible manifestation of the Spirit's working. Pentecostal's emphasis on the 'faithfulness = fruitfulness' motto results in a culture in which spiritual health becomes proportional to the impressiveness of one's ministry. Fall out from burn out in ministry is common because, although character is esteemed in principle, in practice immaturity and unhealthy spirituality tends to run rife among Pentecostal leaders who are more focused on their performance and outward achievement than the Spirit's fruit of Christlike holiness.

7. Miracle crazed

As a movement fuelled by an expectancy of God's constant supernatural demonstration of his power and presence, Pentecostals look to see God's activity in miracles and healings. Pentecostalism sets the supernatural over against the natural. Without a solid doctrinal foundation of providence and the sovereignty of God over all things in creation, Pentecostals expect God's normal working in ways contrary to nature and common sense. Clear warnings to any movement running after signs and wonders in the last days are plainly set out in the New Testament.

8. Eden idealism

The Pentecostal ideal is Eden-like peace and prosperity in this life. Kingdom-now theology has Pentecostals hoping to achieve heaven on earth, spiritually, physically, materially and socially. Happiness is equated with godliness since victory over any type of negativity – whether doubt, sickness, poverty or anxiety – is a matter of faith in God's promises. Spiritual shipwreck from disillusionment is common among Pentecostal victims of this false hope.

9. Angelic engrossment

An over-emphasis of demonic activity and reliance on spiritual warfare tends to create an unhealthy deliverance mentality among Pentecostal circles, who can become obsessed with a fixation on angelic forces and the interpretation of end-time events, providing an enormous diversion from attention to growth in moral and spiritual maturity.

10. Majority mentality

Strong group peer-pressure is a powerful influence within Pentecostal culture, which is self-enforcing by its now enormous tidal current of conformism. Like any large movement where majority rules the persuasion of cultural norm means any attempts to buck the trend or reform from within by individuals or small groups tend to be drowned or pushed effectively to the side into schism movements. Ironically, Pentecostalism is now entrenched in tradition, perpetuating a new form of legalistic bondage.

None without need

No movement is free from weaknesses that threaten it. Many movements are endangered by elitism and other negative tendencies that characterise Pentecostalism. We should never attempt to remove grit from another's eye without first the planks from our own.

This granted any one of these negative aspects would be sufficient to keep any movement in a state of spiritual childishness and Christian immaturity. The Apostle Paul in his epistles to the Corinthians set more than a precedent for the identification of weaknesses within the Church and the calling for their correction. My thesis is that each and every one of Pentecostalism's negative trends arises from deficiencies in the theological framework that underpins them. Here's to hoping and praying that this site will help in some small way to rebuild more adequately that foundation for some.

--

Paker, J. I. Keep in Step with the Spirit. IVP, 1984, p. 183-197. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.