Confusion is being sown in the Church of Jesus Christ. We ourselves, in our haste to meet publishers' deadlines, or in our haste to correct others and prove ourselves right, fail each other by passing on gossip, or by innaccurately reporting what God has said and done. There is no hope for you, dear reader, until you yourself take the Word of God into your hand, and become more familiar with it than with any other thing. We must begin to utter the Word to one another, not in argument, but in encouragement. As we begin to seek Jesus, our silly differences will fade in the light of His wonderful splendor. These pages seek to answer biblically and honestly objections made to outward manifestations witnessed in churches. These are no substitute for the Truth found only in the Christian Bible. Read, then with this in mind: The author has already been forced to change what he had innaccurately reported, once better information was provided. This, therefore, is but one man's limited opinion of what God is doing on the earth. Take it as opinion, and seek God's perspective above all.
Read Pastor Pete's blog at the River's edgeThe Outline for the Biblical Response:
Principles of New Testament study:
All scriptural discussion of the nature of revival should be based on the following assumptions:
To summarize then, faith demands that we believe what God has said, that the weight of our search be on what He has said, that the goal of our lives be to obey His commandments, and that we not go beyond what He has said in our judgment of others.
Consider the following scriptures:
God is not man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do it? Has He spoken and will he not make it good? Numbers 23:19
I watch over my Word to perform it. Jeremiah 11:11
Every word of God is pure (tested, refined); He is a shield to those who place their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He reprove you and you be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6
For the Son of God , Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us--by me, Silvanus, and Timothy--was not Yes and No, But in Him was Yes. For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us. 2Corinthians 1:19-20
Thus a knowledge of His Word and a willingness to obey, and not a knowledge of the controversy or any other matter, will bring the ultimate understanding to all controversy.
return to the outline of this study
Manifestations and strange happenings in the Old Testament
It has been shown that the nature of the controversy swirls around the physical manifestations, the prophets, and the nature of the prophetic. If a study of the revelation of God in the Old Testament reveals similar mystical practices, then this present day anomaly will not be so controversial.
The physical manifestations in the presence of God.
It has been maintained that the outward, physical manifestations seen in the present-day revival meetings are aberrant and unbiblical. This position is impossible to maintain, given the absence of in depth descriptions of any physical behavior. However there are several arguments that can be made that would lead one to conclude that a decorum in the Biblical sense is not decorum in the Sunday-go-to- meeting sense of present-day, Western Christianity.
The argument from language.
The high level of emotionalism displayed in the language of the Old Testament often goes unnoticed by the lay reader, merely because the translators did not offer the shades of emotion that the original language suggests. Consider the following examples:
Strong's number 8055 samach-(used over 150 times)
to rejoice, to be glad a) (Qal) 1) to rejoice 2) to rejoice (arrogantly), to exult (at) 3) to rejoice (religiously) b) (Piel) to cause to rejoice, to gladden, to make glad c) (Hiphil) to cause to rejoice, to gladden, to make glad. (Strong's)
This word, translated rejoice, appears throughout the Old Testament. Westerners have forgotten the meaning of rejoice in a religious sense. Although joy is at the root of the English word, it is felt in the West that joy can be expressed without emotion. However this word rejoice is most parallel to the emotional response felt when the home team scores a goal. Westerners are not wont to behave this way in church, but they do not hesitate to behave this way in a stadium. Consider the following verse:
Ps 5:11 11 But let all those rejoice who put their trust in You; let them ever shout for joy, because You defend them; let those also who love Your name be joyful in You. (NKJ)
Note that rejoicing is accompanied by joy and shouting, manifestations not found in a funeral parlor, but manifestations that are always found throughout the Bible in the presence of God (You will show me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore. Ps 16:11 NKJ), and that always accompany the present-day revival.
Another word even more indicative is found as Strong's number 1523 giyl (gheel); or (by permutation) guwl (gool); (used over fifty times in the OT, see the similarity with the Greek word) it is a primitive root, defined properly, to spin round (under the influence of any violent emotion), i.e. usually rejoice, or (as cringing) fear: (Strong's) Notice that in the King James the reading is far more sedate:-- be glad, joy, be joyful, rejoice. Few in the present day church connect worship with violent emotions. The present-day revival is drawing comparisons of worship to a bride and groom on their wedding night. Such intimacy without emotion would be inhuman. But many say these emotional outbursts are unbecoming, unattractive, and are driving "many" away from the church and to the kingdom of the cults. There is One in the Old Testament, however, who is not ashamed to show this kind of emotional excitement over His bride: The LORD your God in your midst, the Mighty One, will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness, he will quiet you with His love, he will rejoice over you with singing." (Zeph 3:17 17 NKJ)
Could it be that the Church has grown cold in expressing this kind of love? Consider the behavior of a man "after God's own heart" (whose heart was like unto God's heart): David, the anointed king of all Israel, was so excited that the ark of the Covenant was at last coming into Jerusalem that he danced in front of it. The word used in Hebrew is Strong's number 3769 karar- which Strong's defines as (Pilpel) to whirl, dance; whirling, dancing (participle) As it is written: Then David danced before the LORD with all his might; and David was wearing a linen ephod. (2 Sam 6:14 NKJ emphasis added) Spinning and whirling, therefore, are not at all unbiblical or demonic. One of the great men of faith practiced it. Disdaining the emotionalism of the display is not unbiblical either: Michal, David's wife, saw David's emotional display and despised him. Embarrassed, she even went on to scold him. The Church must decide whom she will emulate: Michal, the religious spouse, or David, who wanted with all his might to take after his Father.
The argument from circumstance.
There are several manifestations that are being subjected to ridicule, disdain and scornful rhetoric. Two will be scrutinized here. It is said by these critics, that "spasmodic jerking" is characteristic of the demonic, and that "being slain in the Spirit", the common practice of falling, usually backwards, during a service, is characteristic at least of hypnotic suggestibility, weak will-power or worse. Does the Bible comment on these practice?
"Spasmodic jerking", affectionately called "crunching" by adherants to the revival who have been affected by this manifestation, is not new to any religion. It is commonly manifested during worship, especially during the song service, or during the ministry time, as concentrated prayer is going on. Worshippers typically bend over, sometimes violently, at the waist or knees. To raise an uproar over the practice is disingenuous, and relies on the cultural ignorance of the critic's devotee. One need merely to stand at the western wall in Jerusalem, commonly called the Wailing Wall, to see Jews from all over the world praying and manifesting various forms of "spasmodic jerking." If one were to criticize one of these, one would be accused of anti-semitism or total ignorance.
In addition, one need merely to go to any old line Pentecostal church, and one will see some form of the manifestation. I often remember with humor the testimony of one of the worship leaders currently making an impact in the church. He was raised in one of the old line Pentecostal churches (and suffered no apparent emotional or nerve damage from the experience) and recalled how the women of his church behaved. In those days, in that particular denomination, women were not allowed to wear makeup or wear their hair any way but up in a bun. However, as the singing progressed, the women would take to dancing and jerking their heads around so violently that the hair pins would go flying. On a particularly good Sunday, he would recall, the women's hair would all be down in long strands, buns abandoned, and the floor strewn with bobby pins. This was called "shouting your hair down," and was considered quite spiritual. Notice the cultural nature of the practice and of the response. Being raised in the environment, the child thought nothing of it, and is now, as an adult, writing songs that even the critics of the revival are singing in their worship services!
Looking to Abraham, the father of our faith (Romans 4:16) and the rock from which we were hewn (Isaiah 51:1-2), we see a variety of physical responses in the presence of God. Much more importantly, we see a man with a very personal relationship with a very personal God. The following passage has great bearing on the faith of a Christian. Because it takes place before the circumcision, Paul uses it to demonstrate that the promises of God in Abraham are for all his seed, circumcised and uncircumcised, that is all who are of like faith. Consider then the faith of Abraham as seen in Genesis 15:3-17, in light of a modern day critic:
3 Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
No scripture came to him. It was the Word of the Lord. How did he hear it? We don't know, and theologians argue the point. How did he know it was the Lord? We don't know...or do we?
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
God is using visualization techniques to increase Abram's expectations. Can this truly be biblical? What will Abram be thinking from this point on when he looks at the stars? And yet this is the verse that unites us all. He heard the word, knew the Word, believed the Word, acted on the Word, and righteousness was put to his account. That is all we know. But this man had a personal relationship with the living God of the universe. Surely that relationship is not possible in the setting of a revival on an individual basis! Is it?
7 Then He said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it." 8 And he said, "Lord GOD, how shall I know that I will inherit it?"
I thought the Scripture said he believed Him. Why would he ask this question?
9 So He said to him, "Bring Me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon."
Here is a mystery. How do a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon answer Abraham's question?
10 Then he brought all these to Him and cut them in two, down the middle, and placed each piece opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds in two. 11 And when the vultures came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
Abraham obeys and carcasses of dead animals are strewn upon the ground. He then spends the day beating away the buzzards? Was this God's plan?
12 Now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and behold, horror and great darkness fell upon him.
Beating away the buzzards put Abraham to sleep? And the word for sleep is not sleep but "trance." (This gets discussed at length on another page.) Abram fell into a trance-like state, much like Peter on the roof in Joppa. The Bible does not say if Abram fell forward or backward, because it is pointing at what happens next. Something appears. Anyone with the least strand of religious knowledge knows that God doesn't appear in horror and great darkness. Why great darkness comes from that other place, doesn't it? How can this be of God? Remember, the same deep, trance-like sleep (the Hebrew word is tardemah) also fell upon Adam at the cutting of his side. The result was Eve, his bride. Here Abraham, too, received:
13 Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14 "And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 "Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16 "But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." 17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. (NKJ)
A covenant made with a smoking oven and a burning torch and no explanation or identification? How does one understand that? The practice is known among historians of the period. Two kings, to enact a suzerainty covenant, would cut an animal in half and then walk between the halves. In essence they were calling a curse upon themselves, saying, "If I don't keep the terms of this agreement, may my fate be as the fate of these slaughtered beasts." Abraham anticipated a covenant with God, and thus he knew to cut the animals in half and to lay their halves opposite each other without God telling him to. Yet here it was God alone, acting as both parties, walking out the ritual. And we see Jesus, the slaughtered lamb, receiving the curse upon Himself for our sakes, proving eternally the faithfulness of God's promises.
The critic says, "That has nothing to do with crunching, and 'spasmodic jerking'." Quite rightly put. It has everything to do with God, who moves in darkness, horror, power and friendship with individuals who behave as their personalities would dictate, but who place their faith in Him. No one was there to criticize Abram.
In the Old Testament Hebrew, there is a word that embodies this crunching, jerking reaction. It is Strong's number 7812 shachah (shaw-khaw'), a primitive root, it is defined as to depress, i.e. prostrate (especially reflexive, in homage to royalty or God). In the King James Version it appears as: bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship (emphasis added). Consider another case with Abraham:
1 Then the LORD appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant..." (Gen 18:1-3 NKJ)
Again Abraham behaves in a way, if this weren't written in the Bible, we would find reason to criticize. It is clearly written the LORD appeared to Abraham, but all he saw were three men. How could he know it was the LORD? Why would he bow himself to the ground? Or then knowing it is the LORD, how could he dare to talk to the sovereign LORD in the following manner:
30 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not do it if I find thirty there." 31 And he said, "Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?" So He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty." 32 Then he said, "Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?" And He said, "I will not destroy it for the sake of ten." (Gen 18:30-32 NKJ)
If the LORD is sovereign, how could Abraham be foolish enough to try to dissuade His sovereign will? Certainly if this were happening today, we could criticize Abraham! But this passage, written for our instruction, demonstrates the power of intercession, and the willingness of God to listen and be swayed by those unto whom righteousness has been ascribed. Abraham knew God. His bowing to the ground was in worship to the living God. He had a relationship with Him in a personal way. No one could criticize his behavior before Him.
Consider Lot, who saw two men, not three, and yet recognized in them the Angel of the LORD.
Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. (Gen 19:1 NKJ)
Lot is bowing to angels, and yet treats them with the fear of the LORD. His behavior, if witnessed at the gates of Sodom, would have raised eyebrows from the critics who presume to know the hearts of thousands of worshippers. Yet, thanks to the written word which blesses this act of worship, we are safe to pronounce our blessing on his behavior.
Being "slain in the Spirit", also known as "going down under the power," "resting in the Presence," and affectionately referred to as "carpet time", is the common manifestation seen at any Pentecostal service, where the subject being prayed for simply falls, forward or backward, and lays for a time on the floor of the church. It can happen spontaneously, with no one touching the worshiper, but the norm is for the minister to pray, the worshiper to fall, and another, standing behind, called a "catcher", to catch the worshiper so that he not hit his head upon the floor. This practice, like "crunching", is criticized by those who call it unbiblical because the rely on the ignorance of their devotees. The simple fact is that one cannot say a practice is unbiblical because it is not referred to in the Bible. Sitting in pews, listening to a sermon and then returning home is unbiblical in that sense. Much is not said in the Bible, and the only possible conclusion one can draw is that it need not be said. There is, however, some indication in the Bible, that leaders behave in a manner outside the norm when found in the manifested presence of God. Consider the human response to the arrival of the Holy Spirit after Solomon's prayer of dedication for the temple
11 And when the priests came forth from the holy place (for all the priests who were present had sanctified themselves, without regard to divisions), 12 and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and their sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps, and lyres, standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty priests blowing trumpets 13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one voice to praise and to glorify the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice accompanied by trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and when they praised the LORD {saying,"} {He} indeed is good for His lovingkindness is everlasting," then the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, 14 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the LORD filled the house of God. (2 Chr 5:11-14 NAS)
There is another time when a temple was being built, and one hundred twenty were gathered in one accord. At that time, the Holy Spirit came down with a noise like a rushing mighty wind and tongues of fire. That temple was being built of living stones.
The Hebrew word for cloud is "cloud" as in what brings the rain. The Hebrew word for stand is "stand" as in using two feet. The Bible says the priests could not stand up in the presence of almighty God. It does not say further. It is clear that the normal order of worship was interrupted. It does not talk at all about the physical response of the worshipers. What conclusion can and should be drawn, then? Only that the presence of God in the Holy Spirit is powerful and affective, unpredictable and astonishing.
The point has been made that this passage cannot be analogous to the manifestations in the present-day revival. It was a one-time occurrence at the dedication of Solomon's temple. This reasoning is flawed for two reasons. Everything in the Old Testament is given to us as examples, and something very similar occurred when the Holy Spirit came on the New Testament temple, the Church, in Acts Chapter 2.
return to the outline of this study
The Strangeness of the Old Testament Prophets. Another criticism leveled at the revival points to the behavior of the principals, the leadership involved. Although no excuse need be made for mistakes made (see the FAQ), strange behavior under the influence of God is not unusual or unbiblical.
Samuel, Saul and the prophets.There is a passage that is very strange for its lack of clear description, in which prophets prophesy, although not a single prophecy is recorded, and behave in a highly suspicious manner, and Saul comes, seeking David, receives the Spirit of Prophecy on himself, and behaves in a highly suspicious manner:
20 Then Saul sent messengers to take David. And when they saw the group of prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as leader over them, the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.
This is the one of the most analogous instances in the Old Testament, as the Holy Spirit comes on normal human beings, and they begin to behave in a way unlike their own accustomed behavior. How did they behave? The Bible is undescriptive. We only know that these were not prophets, but servants of Saul, David's sworn enemy, and yet the Holy Spirit came on them, and they prophesied. There is no indication that they repented or became men of God. We only know that on that day and in that hour, something strange happened. Looking at the word used in Hebrew does not clarify their behavior, or the behavior of the prophets and Samuel, either. Vine's Expository Dictionary defines prophesy, the verb like this:
naba'
^5012^, "to prophesy." This word appears in all periods of the
Hebrew language. It seems to be related to the ancient Akkadian word nabu,
which in its passive form means "to be called." The word is found
in the biblical Hebrew text about 115 times. Its first appearance is in
<1 Sam. 10:6>, where Saul is told by Samuel that when he meets
a certain band of ecstatic prophets, he too will "prophesy
with them, and... be turned into another man."
This incident points up the fact that there is a certain amount of
ambiguity in the biblical use of both the verb and the noun forms,
just as there is in the English "to prophesy" and "prophet."
Thus, there is a wide range of meanings reflected in the term in the Old
Testament. Most frequently naba' is used to describe the function of the
true prophet as he speaks God's message to the people, under the influence
of the divine spirit <1 Kings 22:8; Jer. 29:27; Ezek. 37:10>. "To
prophesy" was a task that the prophet could not avoid: "The Lord
God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?"
The narrative continues:
21 And when Saul was told, he sent other messengers, and they prophesied likewise. Then Saul sent messengers again the third time, and they prophesied also. 22 Then he also went to Ramah, and came to the great well that is at Sechu. So he asked, and said, "Where are Samuel and David?" And someone said, "Indeed they are at Naioth in Ramah." 23 So he went there to Naioth in Ramah. Then the Spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. 24 And he also stripped off his clothes and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" (1 Sam 19:20-24 NKJ)
Critics of the revival maintain that the Holy Spirit was purposely humiliating Saul. But, as was noted in Vine's, there is no way one can say how the true prophets behaved. It is clear that someone in Saul's day would look at the prophets prophesying and say, "they are prophesying," but a twentieth century observer would not be able to. It is also clear that the Spirit of God fell on the godly and the ungodly alike. Saul prophesied, and there is no indication at all that he prophesied falsely. The comment at the end of the passage establishes that. It became a proverb among the people that "Saul is also among the prophets."
Isaiah in the buff Strange behavior is exhibited even by prophets considered the most staid. Consider this prophetic technique, inspired by God and used by Isaiah to prophesy, not concerning Israel, but concerning Ethiopia:
2 at the same time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, "Go, and remove the sackcloth from your body, and take your sandals off your feet." And he did so, walking naked and barefoot. 3 Then the LORD said, "Just as My servant Isaiah has walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder against Egypt and Ethiopia, 4 "so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians as prisoners and the Ethiopians as captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. (Isa 20:2-4 NKJ)
The claim is not being made that walking around naked should become normative for the church. It is clear that prophets, under the influence of the Holy Spirit behave in a way that the Church in the flesh would reject outright as aberrant.
Ezekiel on the side The Old Testament is full of examples of strange behavior on the part of the principle leaders of revivals. Ezekiel is told to lie on his side for days and lay siege to a model of the city of Jerusalem. He eats bizarre bread. He travels in the spirit from the river of Babylon to the temple in Jerusalem. Prophecy is a spiritual activity. It can never be comprehended in the flesh, but must be spiritually discerned.
return to the outline of this study
The strangeness of the prophetic in the Old Testament. The unpredictable nature of the prophetic is very apparent in the life of Elijah. Consider his life from the perspective of Ahab, king of Israel:
Elijah appears And Elijah the Tishbite, of the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Ahab, "As the LORD God of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, except at my word." ( IKing 17:1 NKJ) We know nothing at all about Elijah when he first appears in the court of the King. He comes from Tish in Gilead. We are given no lineage, no credentials, no title. "Until I say so, it won't rain. As sure as the Lord lives." How can anyone be so arrogant as to claim to stop the rain? But the proof was in the drought. The Wind blew, and Elijah appeared.
The mantel falls Elishah will receive the double portion of the first-born heir, if he sees Elijah depart. He sees, receives, and picks up the mantel. He walks to the river, hits it with the cloak, saying, "Where is the LORD God of Elijah?" and the river dries up. No command. No word. Just a question, and the river dries up. What is the principle to be drawn from this? The prophetic is spiritually discerned and spiritually understood. How can the unexpected be expected and the unexplainable be explained?
Elijah will return? It gets stranger: in Malachi the return of Elijah is predicted. It is written, Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. 6 And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:5-6 NKJ) Elijah the prophet was not sent in person. Christians know that Elijah "came" in the person of John the Baptist. But Jesus himself implied there might be a "fulfillment" and a fulfillment that we can only now guess at, when he says, "Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. 12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands." ( Matt 17:11-12 NKJ) Such loose interpretation of a clear prophecy would not be tolerated of anyone less than Jesus Himself. Since it was him, we gladly accept the mystery implied, and leave it mysterious.
Deuteronomy 18 and the fulfillment controversy It is written, And if you say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'-- 22 "when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deut 18:21-22 NKJ) This is the passage to which reference is often and specifically made to disprove and impugn the present-day prophetic movement. The problem with using Deuteronomy 18 as a measuring device for prophecy is that it refers to time-specific prophecy. Unfortunately, more than ninety percent of all prophecy is character related, or, as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 14, it is for exhortation, edification and comfort. Shall a prophet be judged false if edification does not come to pass? A word is often given specifically to harden a heart, and to reveal its true nature. How then shall it be judged.
Unfortunately, and once again, prophecy is a spiritual activity and can only be spiritually discerned. It is impossible to judge prophecy under a written criterion. Look at the prophetic as seen in the New Testament.
return to the outline of this study
Manifestations and strange happenings in the New Testament
It has been shown that the nature of the controversy swirls around the physical manifestations, the prophets, and the nature of the prophetic. If a study of the revelation of God in the New Testament reveals similar mystical practices, then this present day anomaly will not be so controversial.
The physical manifestations in the presence of God.
Close attention to biblical narrative is necessary to see any behavior at all. Very often, a specific behavior is overlooked, due to familiarity with a passage, or distraction.
Jesus and the gospels Jesus is the ultimate measure of any activity. If we could see how He behaved in any circumstance, we have a precedent we can follow. Unfortunately, his behavior is not specifically described. We know from the writer to the Hebrews that when He prayed he prayed loudly with groanings and cries. Certain other behavior is hinted at:
Dancing in the Spirit Luke describes Jesus reaction when the seventy returned from casting out demons and healing the sick: In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 22 "All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him." 23 Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see...(Luke 10:21-23 NKJ) The Greek word for rejoice used here is agalliao (ag-al-lee-ah'-o); Strong's dictionary says it is from agan (much) and 242; and that it means, properly, to jump for joy, i.e. exult: (notice the similarity with the Old Testament rejoicing that the Father does over us). In the King James Version, it is translated as to be (exceeding) glad, with exceeding joy, or to rejoice (greatly). It is impossible, then, to describe with precision just how Jesus behaved, but it is erroneous to presume that He behaved as a revered prelate before a gathering of the faithful, with hand upraised in blessing, and beatific smile. A human being exhibits exceeding joy in a physical way. One standing afar off, though unschooled in religion, could point out that the man is exceedingly glad. Only religious tomfoolery could sterilize such joy.
Worried family Mark describes a time when Jesus was behaving in such a way that his family thought He was out of His mind. Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:20-21 NIV) It seems that they were so concerned for Him that they left Nazareth and came to Capernaum to rescue Him. The chapter ends with this narrative: 31 Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you." 33 "Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother." (Mark 3:31-35NIV) If this weren't Jesus, the prophet could be condemned for not honoring his mother. But this is Jesus, so the fact is ignored, because we know He is so much more spiritual than we, that He must be honoring His mother in a more spiritual sense. Which of course He is. But the honor can only be spiritually discerned.
Grain on the Sabbath Another spiritual lesson is learned when the activity of the disciples is brought into question. They are actually gathering ripe wheat from the fields and eating it on the Sabbath. A parallel can be drawn with the man who gathered wood for his fire in Numbers 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." (Num 15:32-35 NKJ emphasis added) Now compare this with Mark's version of the narrative: Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to Him, "Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?" 25 But He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: 26 "how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?" 27 And He [Jesus] said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. 28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath." (Mark 2:23-28 NKJ emphasis again added) In this case, Jesus, Man fully in the Spirit, is able to discern the spiritual nature of the Law. It is the same One who said, "Stone him with stones," who said "Have you never read what David did."
The book of Acts shows the New Testament man in the presence of the Holy Spirit more clearly than any other book. Starting in chapter 2 and continuing throughout, the saga of the Holy Spirit in and on man is presented. There is no conversion experience presented without the eventual manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and when He is not immediately manifested, steps, sometimes determined steps are taken to bring about that manifestation.
Acts 2 sets the stage for the rest of the book. Much happens as the Holy Spirit is poured out for the first time. More significantly, much is not said, and much is said. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples (altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty)...(Acts 1:14-15) This is not the first time that one hundred twenty saints were preparing a dwelling place for the living God. Nor is it the first time that unity brought about strange and wonderful manifestations. Now when the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. Wind has been witnessed in the present revival, in more than one service throughout the world. To say wind is not biblical is not correct. To say those who witnessed the event did not witness the event, or to say they were "victims of suggestibility" is at least presumptuous. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "They all" is significant. All were included in the event, and the indication is, they all participated in speaking in other languages. 5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. It was Pentecost. Devout Jews were required by Law to come to Jerusalem. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." Significant here is the misunderstanding that the disciples were speaking the languages of the thousands of witnesses. Logistically, that would be impossible, and that is not what is written. Each was hearing in his own language, doubling the nature of the miracle. Interpretation is taking place simultaneously, in the lives of those who are not yet part of the Body.
12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine." This verse is often referred to to show that the disciples were acting drunk. The fact is one cannot know how the disciples were acting, because Luke does not spend time describing behavior. It is doubtful that they were standing still looking skyward with their hands folded, but nothing can be definitively deduced.
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. The Greek is even more descriptive of what is happening. In Greek, Peter does not say, "These men are not drunk," but "For not as you imagine these men are drunk." The significant fact is that the negative adverb is ascribed to the verb imagine, and not to the adjective drunk. A better rendering in English of the statement Peter made would be "These men are drunk, but not the way you think..." This being the case, the mockers are vindicated in their choice of language describing the behavior of the disciples. Why then is this translation never applied in English? Because translations are necessarily limited by the experiences of the translators. Unless you imagine the disciples walking tipsy, falling down and laughing uproariously joyfully, you will never imagine why some would accuse them of drunkenness. (Doctrine, too, is victimized by experience or lack thereof.)
Peter continues: 16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 17 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, that I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; and they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above and signs in the earth beneath: blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord. 21 And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'" ( Acts 2:2-21) This is the promise, as Joel describes it and as Peter proclaims it. Notice that the promise includes prophesying without defining it and dreaming dreams and seeing visions without limiting them. Peter goes on to proclaim just who is included in that promise: 36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." 37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" 38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call." 40 And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation." (Acts 2:36-40 NKJ) Everyone. No one, having called on the name of the Lord, is left out of the promise. This is significant, as we shall see later on.
Samaria In Acts Chapter 8, after the stoning of Stephen, there is a dispersion, for fear of the Jews. Philip the deacon goes to Samaria and immediately starts preaching the gospel. Miracles happen to the point where the leading warlock, Simon, is attracted. Many are baptized in water, John's baptism, but no one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, Jesus' baptism. Here is how Luke puts it: 6 And the multitudes with one accord heeded the things spoken by Philip, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, came out of many who were possessed; and many who were paralyzed and lame were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city. 9 But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great, 10 to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the great power of God." 11 And they heeded him because he had astonished them with his sorceries for a long time. Simon knew the dark ways of Satan and had experience in signs and wonders. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized. 13 Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and was amazed, seeing the miracles and signs which were done. Simon saw miracles, and was amazed. He saw the cacophony of demonic deliverance, some of which he had probably induced in the first place. All his work was being undone by the power of God. One thing, however, was missing. 14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. As yet the Holy Spirit had not fallen? How was this possible. The case is always made for the ability of the apostles alone to baptize in the Holy Spirit, but that would severely limit the promise. But remember, this was a new experience. No systematic theology of the Holy Spirit had yet been developed. It was right for the one who prophesied the universality of candidacy for the gift to be the one that brought about its fulfillment. Succinctly, Peter, who had prophesied the word concerning the promise, clearly had more faith in that promise than Philip, who merely heard the promise for the first time.
17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit." Once again, Simon saw something. Once again, Luke is frugal in his description. Apparently, what Simon saw did not matter in eternity as much as his reaction to what he saw. It is, however, important for us, in the discussion of what is and what is not "biblical" to emphasize that it is not biblical to emphasize physical reactions to the coming of the Holy Spirit. We do notice, however, that the Holy Spirit, on two occasions, has produced astonishing physical responses that surpass anything out of witchcraft, and anything like miracles and casting out demons. (Simon didn't offer Philip a penny for his secrets.)
20 But Peter said to him, "Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! 21 "You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. 22 "Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 "For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity." (NKJ) Just as a side note. It is written that Simon believed. It is written that he was baptized. It is not written as to whether or not he received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Did he, then believe? Did he get the gift of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible to be a believer without getting baptized in the Holy Spirit? Is there something Simon was missing?
Cornelius In Acts chapter 10, a Roman centurion has a vision, sees an angel and sends for a stranger named Peter. In the meantime, Peter is on a roof top, has a vision, and goes with strangers to talk with a stranger about Jesus. There is much more to this story, which will be covered later, when we talk about Peter as a prophet, but it is important to notice what happened when he spoke to Cornelius' household: 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" Here it is important to notice that all theology is being undone. The preacher is preaching, no one has had a chance to receive Jesus as his Lord and savior, and yet everyone gets filled with the Holy Spirit and speaks in other languages. Not only that, no one is interpreting the languages! Cornelius is a perfect stranger. If he is speaking Peter's native Aramaic, Peter would not recognize it as tongues. In order for the gift to be recognized as the Gift, it would necessarily have to be a language no one had ever known before. And there was no one there to recognize it as his own language. 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:44-48 NKJ) Later on, in Jerusalem, Peter is being criticized for going to Cornelius' house. When he relates this story, he goes so far as to say that they had received the gift exactly as the apostles had received it at the beginning. One wonders what Peter saw as the Holy Spirit fell. Three times Luke has described the coming of the Holy Spirit, and three times something visible and distinguishable has happened.
Antioch was a city in northern Phoenicia, miles from Cornelius' household in Caesarea. Disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene that is an island in the middle of the Mediterranean, and a city in northern Africa, came and settled there. They had no way of knowing what Peter had done in Caesarea, and yet, look what Luke says they did: 19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only. 20 But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists (that is Greeks, that is gentiles) preaching the Lord Jesus. There is a tradition in the church that Peter was the first to bring the gospel to the gentiles. The scattering took place in chapter eight. Peter went to Cornelius in chapter ten. Which happened first, Antioch or Caesarea, is a matter of conjecture. The Cyrenians and the Cypriots had the necessary faith to preach to gentiles. Maybe they, too, got a vision. Luke doesn't say. But more significantly, what takes place in Antioch is remarkable. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number believed and turned to the Lord. 22 Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. They did not send out Peter or John this time, but Barnabas. (This, by the way, is where Barnabas becomes an apostle for the first time, being sent out) 23 When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. (Acts 11:19-23 NKJ) Most significant of all, Barnabas saw something. The grace had manifested in Antioch. We are not told what he saw, but he did not have to add to the Church, as Peter had in Samaria. Here a church had generated itself for the first time. Notice to what extent the church had generated itself: Now in the church that was at Antioch there were certain prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." (Acts 13:1-2 NKJ) Names are being mentioned here for the first time. Lucius, a Cyrenian, was presumably one of the original preachers to the gentiles and fathers of the church at Antioch. All of these hold offices in the church that were given without official record. What makes them prophets? What makes them teachers? How can we know they're prophets, if we have no record of their prophecies? How did they hear from the Holy Spirit? Luke takes great pains to leave these questions unanswered.
Ephesus was a city in western Asia Minor. Paul had visited the city briefly in Acts chapter eighteen, where he dropped off his co-workers Priscilla and Aquila. They had relatively little impact on the city, until a preacher from Alexandria appeared upon the scene. His name was Apollos. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; 26 and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. Here is one of the verses applicable to the situation of the Church today. Many teach accurately the things concerning the Lord, but they have no understanding concerning the baptism of Jesus, the baptism in the holy Spirit. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. Priscilla and Aquila had been in Ephesus since they had arrived with Paul. Aquila was originally from the area, and had apparently decided to stay on. They had not done any active evangelism. But when they heard Apollos speak, they recognized that something was missing. They filled in the blanks, and told him of their experiences in Corinth. Apollos then decided to go there and see for himself: 27 And when he wanted to go across to Achaia (the Greek province in which Corinth is located, see verse one of the next chapter), the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he helped greatly those who had believed through grace; 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. He obviously left behind some disciples, because when Paul comes through in chapter 19, he discovers disciples who had the same deficiency their teacher had: And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples, 2 and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" Paul was obviously deficient in twentieth century theology, and did not know that one always receives the Holy Spirit when one believes and is saved. Fortunately, for the Ephesians, the context is the book of Acts, and not the twentieth century church. As we have seen in the book of Acts, every act of salvation is accompanied by manifestations of the baptism of Jesus, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul had ascertained, as Priscilla and Aquila had with Apollos, that these disciples of Apollos were lacking the Gift of the Father. And they {said} to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." These disciples had been victimized by incomplete teaching. Were they therefore incomplete Christians? As Paul put it, in this case Apollos planted, and Paul watered. There is nothing wrong with the process, as long as the whole process is followed. 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism (the baptism of water)." 4 And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they {began} speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 And there were in all about twelve men. (Acts 18:25-19:7 NAS) They spoke in tongues. They prophesied. They fulfilled Joel's prophecy that Peter brought to light in Acts chapter two. How did they behave? Would Simon have wanted to buy the power? Luke does not say, but for the fourth time, we have visible, audible, distinguishable manifestation.
The letters and manifestations The letters are written to churches where characteristic manifestations are taking place. Every one of Paul's letters to churches, with the exception of the letter to the Colossians, a church which he had not yet visited, mentions the miracles, signs and wonders that accompany the gospel. They are not mentioned as aberrations, or as singular occurrences, but as point of fact, constantly pointing to the continuous presence and participation of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers. Signs, wonders, miracles follow believers, just as Jesus Himself prophesied they would in Mark 16. If the signs and wonders do not follow believers, if manifestations, strange as they might seem, do not happen, then the church is an aberration in the biblical sense and her faith is suspect. We must see this and repent!
return to the outline of this study
The strangeness of the New Testament Prophets. The prophets of the revival are criticized for the way they worship and the way they speak. The critics of the revival say that adherents seek "altered states of consciousness," and point to new age doctrines to show that Christians have strayed from "biblical" doctrine to a doctrine of "experience". Such writers never expect to experience the relationship with the Holy Spirit as described in the biblical narrative. One author called even the thought "blasphemous." Unfortunately for the critics, the Bible they claim to proclaim admonishes us to have an altered state of consciousness: "With eyes wide open to the mercies of God, I beg you, my brothers, as an act of intelligent worship, to give Him your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to him. Don't let the world around you squeeze you into it's mold, but let God transform your mind from within." (Romans 12:1 paraphrased from JB Phillips' New Testament in Modern English) Elsewhere we are told to walk in the Spirit, and [we] will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Westerners alone, with no understanding of spiritual things, would claim that you can walk "in the Spirit" without altering your state of consciousness. How can you be conscious of the Holy Spirit, which brooded over the waters, which breathed life into Adam, which raised Christ from the dead, and have your average, western state of consciousness? It is clear that none of the New Testament Christians did:
Peter in a
trance The next day, as they went on their
journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray,
about the sixth hour. 10 Then
he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he
fell into a trance 11
and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four
corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. . (Acts 10:9-11
NKJ) One can argue that this is not to be expected of the average Christian,
but neither Peter nor Paul ever claimed superiority due to their apostleship.
More significantly, when Peter narrated this experience
in the next chapter, he did not claim it as anything unusual. Nor did those
listening mention the experience as extraordinary or extra biblical.
Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles
had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem,
those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went
in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" 4 But Peter explained
it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 "I was in the city
of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a
vision, an object descending like a great
sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me.
(Acts 11:1-5 NKJ) Remember once again, it was Peter who had proclaimed
Joel's prophecy as being the operative prophecy in the baptism of the Holy
Spirit. Perhaps Peter, having had a vision, was more indicative of his
age than anything else (Your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.) The people objected to Peter visiting
a gentile. They had no objection whatsoever to his trance. Are we to believe
that this trance was not an altered state of consciousness?
Perhaps the Greek word could give us more direction: It appears as Strong's
number 1611 ekstasis (ek'-stas-is), from which
the English word ecstasy or ecstatic is derived; it comes from 1839; a
displacement of the mind, i.e. bewilderment,
"ecstasy": In the King James Version it is alternately
translated-- + be amazed, amazement, astonishment, trance. Thayer's lexicon
defines it this way: ekstasis- 1)
any casting down of a thing from its proper place or state, displacement
2) a throwing of the mind out of its normal
state, alienation of mind,
whether such as makes a lunatic
or that of a
man who by some sudden emotion is
transported as it were out of himself, so that in
this rapt condition, although he is awake,
his mind is drawn off from all surrounding
objects and wholly fixed on things divine
that he sees
nothing but the forms and images lying within,
and thinks that he perceives
with his bodily eyes and ears realities shown him by God.
3) amazement, the state of one who, either
owing to the importance or the novelty of an event, is thrown into a state
of blended fear and wonderment (Emphasis added) Vine's Expository
Dictionary is even more clear: [extasis] denotes
"a trance" in
Perhaps this was a singular experience, which simply occurred because Peter was so special:
Paul taken to the third heaven Something happened to Paul, and he's not willing to define the experience categorically: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man-- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows-- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2 Cor 12:2-4 NKJ) Paul does not even know if he was in the spirit or in the body. Wouldn't he know? How often has he traveled out of the body? How could an apostle have an out of body experience? What state was Paul's consciousness in? What kind of experience was Paul used to having? No one can say, because God does not spend time describing experiences in the Spirit in His Word. In the Spirit is an In that must be and can only be experienced personally. And here, Paul's experience taught him things that the Bible does not say! A theology was born of experience. What a dangerous truth! Until it is acknowledged that the Bible was born of Man's experience with God, and as such it becomes shared experience. Perhaps Peter and Paul are the only ones to have such a strange experience in the Holy Spirit. There is one more occurrence:
John in the Spirit on the Lord's day John, on Patmos, describes an experience with Jesus Christ that can only leave one wondering, and longing for more: I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, 11 saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea." (Rev 1:9-11 NKJ) What state was John's consciousness in? What condition? We are told to walk in the Spirit, to live in the Spirit, to be in the Spirit. Who, today, could write, "I was in the Spirit on such and such a day at such and such a time and...?" Who would not want to be able to say that? There are those who would teach that such a state of consciousness in not desirable for a Christian. What, then, does it mean to be "in the Spirit?"
Paul nails Bar Jesus Children of the revival are constantly admonished to speak gently of the critics. They are criticized for speaking harshly, even when the critics impugn their reputation, the reputation of their churches and the reputation of all those who attend their churches on national television. They are criticized for speaking harshly of a teacher who openly proclaims that the miracles witnessed daily are of Satan himself. There is, however, scriptural precedent for harsh words being spoken. Now when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-Jesus, 7 who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, an intelligent man. This man called for Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so his name is translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who also is called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit (one wonders about his state of consciousness), looked intently at him 10 and said, "O full of all deceit and all fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease perverting the straight ways of the Lord? 11 "And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time." And immediately a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand. (Acts 13:6-11 NKJ) Paul might have been exhorted in today's church. Who could have looked at him at the time, and said, beyond a shadow of a doubt, "That man there is full of the Holy Spirit, I better not stop him from being so mean!"? Do we know when one is full of the Holy Spirit today? Is anybody full of the Holy Spirit today? Is being full of the Holy Spirit for the church of today?
Agabus' prophecy of famine The prophetic in the present revival is criticized. Ignorance and poor doctrine, more than anything else, bring this about. It is thought that a New Testament prophet is different from an Old Testament prophet in the way in which they behave. If anything, as witnessed above, they have more authority, and more assurance. Agabus was a New Testament prophet. He behaves much as the prophets of old: Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:28 NKJ) How does one show by the Spirit? There is no explanation anywhere for this strange behavior. We do see him showing by the spirit in another passage to be discussed later, but one wonders. The fact is clear that prophecy told of future events. Research shows that the famine of which Agabus prophesied occurred within a couple of years of the prophecy itself. Would he have been criticized today, if the famine had not occurred right away. The reaction of the church of Antioch was to take up a collection and send it to Jerusalem. How does today's church measure up to Antioch's standard?
Paul apologize to Ananias the High Priest John Kilpatrick prophesied falsely that God would bring Christian Research Institute down after a ninety day period. He was wrong, and The Bible Answer Man broadcast continues its assault on the revival to this day. Paul, too, made mistakes. There were times when he spoke out in a way that was less than in the Spirit. And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. 3 Then Paul said to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?" 4 And those who stood by said, "Do you revile God's high priest?" 5 Then Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'" (Acts 23:2-5 NKJ) Paul apologized, not because the high priest was not a whitewashed wall, but because he was high priest. This is not a defense of Pastor Kilpatrick's prophecy. False prophecy is false. According to Deuteronomy, you need not fear the prophet. According to Paul, you need to fear the office.
return to the outline of this study
The strangeness of the prophetic in the New Testament. Finally, it is important to see how Christians responded to the prophetic in the New Testament, because insight can be gained from it. Going back to Peter's trance, we will look at the entire experience this time, because a powerful impact was made, that changes forever the objective interpretation of scripture.
Peter disobeys the written word in favor of an esoteric revelation Read the passage one more time, carefully. The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
Here, an esoteric experience is about to nullify the written word. This is accepted, because the Bible says it's so, but the fact remains, one man's experience nullifies the Old Testament Law.
16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate. 18 And they called and asked whether Simon, whose surname was Peter, was lodging there. 19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you. 20 "Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."
Peter was given one instruction, seemingly unrelated to the vision. Go with the strangers. He does not as yet know who these men are. He goes:
21 Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, "Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?" He wants to know why they have come, because God did not tell him. 22 And they said, "Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you." Another esoteric experience, this time non-apostolic, brings more instruction to the apostle. He now knows that he must go and say "words" to a Roman centurion. And he must do it "nothing doubting." 23 Then he invited them in and lodged them. On the next day Peter went away with them, and some brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And the following day they entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. Peter gets worshiped, just as Paul does later on. His reaction is either a lie, touching humility, or the truth. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself am also a man." As any other man, led by the Holy Spirit, would be just a man. 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Here, the vision clicks for Peter, and he makes the connection.
29 "Therefore I came without objection (overlooking the objections he had to arising, killing and eating in the vision) as soon as I was sent for. I ask, then, for what reason have you sent for me?" He still does not know what words he is supposed to speak!
Cornelius then explains the angelic visitation: 30 So Cornelius said, "Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, 31 "and said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God. 32 'Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.' Peter receives no clues as to what he is supposed to say. A twentieth century Christian would assume that the four spiritual laws should come into play right about now. Peter had to ask. Cornelius continues, 33 "So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God." 34 Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. 35 "But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. 36 "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ-- He is Lord of all-- 37 "that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: 38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. This is not the four spiritual laws, just the testimony of Jesus, and specifically, testimony concerning signs, wonders and miracles. He corroborates the evidence by proclaiming himself as a witness: 39 "And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. 40 "Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, 41 "not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 42 "And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. 43 "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. Peter did not get to finish. He was interrupted by the Holy Spirit. The interruption was of the worst possible nature, in the context of criticizable phenomena: 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. He was interrupted by speaking in tongues, without interpretation. Peter was in a stranger's house, a Roman's. Romans speak Latin or, more typically Greek. Peter speaks Aramaic, some Hebrew, and poor Greek (as witnessed by his own second epistle). He could not know what languages the stranger knew. If Cornelius were speaking in Aramaic, so that Peter understood him, he would just assume that Cornelius had learned the language, having lived for some time in the area. No, Peter was hearing languages he was unfamiliar with. That is why he could identify the gift as genuine. Then Peter answered, 47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days. (Acts 10:9-48 NKJ)
This is not the end of the story. Peter opens himself up to criticism, as we have noted, not on the basis of the vision that reinterprets scripture, but on the basis of the Law that is being broken. Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 2 And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, 3 saying, "You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!" 4 But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: 5 "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. (He goes on to explain the vision in detail, in order to justify his action. Therefore, an esoteric vision is used to justify this breach of tradition.) 11 "At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. 12 "Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man's house. 13 "And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, 'Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 'who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' 15 "And as I began to speak (Peter acknowledges the fact that he had not finished his message.) the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. This, again is by the prophet who prophesied that the promise was for all. He saw no difference between this occurrence and that he had experienced when the Holy Spirit first fell. 16 "Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' Jesus said this just before His ascension into heaven, in Acts chapter one. Two baptisms are clearly recognized here, that of John, and that of Jesus. In the case of Cornelius, the baptism of Jesus came first. 17 "If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?" 18 When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life." (Acts 11:1-5 & 11-18 NKJ) Doctrine was established by the combination of a vision during a trance, an angelic visitation, and a word that Jesus spoke. They were very careful to test the spirits before deciding on the outcome. Esoteric experience is very useful to open fresh, new vistas to the Word of God, and the Word itself will establish the truth of that experience. Critics of the revival reject experience out of hand, as if there were no biblical basis for it. The truth remains, that their own lack of experience, and the lack they have in common with other critics, is the tool they use to measure another's experience.
Paul's reaction to the Word of God prophesied clearly It is interesting indeed to see how the man of God reacts to the Word of God spoken over him in prophecy. Paul is the example. He has made up his mind to go to Jerusalem. On his way, on two separate occasions, valid prophecy comes to him, telling him not to go. The first is in Tyre, where several disciples prophesy over Paul: And finding disciples, we stayed there seven days. They told Paul through the Spirit not to go up to Jerusalem. (Acts 21:4 NKJ) In Caesarea, Philip, the evangelist of Samaria and deacon of the church in Jerusalem, had four daughters who did not remain silent, but they prophesied. Once again, unkindly stating that these women prophesied, Luke left no record of what they said. In context, Luke places their prophesying between that of the disciples of Tyre and that of Agabus, which is on the same line as that of the prophesying of Tyre:
Agabus "shows in the Spirit" what will take place to Paul. 10 And as we stayed many days, a certain prophet named Agabus came down from Judea. 11 When he had come to us, he took Paul's belt, bound his own hands and feet, and said, "Thus says the Holy Spirit, 'So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man who owns this belt, and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.'" 12 Now when we heard these things, both we and those from that place pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered, "What do you mean by weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus." 14 So when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, "The will of the Lord be done." (Acts 21:10-14 NKJ) As much as Paul sounds heroic in his words, this is no Asia to Macedonia trek. Remember, Paul, in Acts 16, was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia. 7 After they had come to Mysia, they tried to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit did not permit them. 8 So passing by Mysia, they came down to Troas. 9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night. A man of Macedonia stood and pleaded with him, saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." (Acts 16:6-9 NKJ) Here, Paul was obedient to the esoteric revelation he had received (which revelation, once again, Luke does not describe in detail), and brought the gospel to Europe. But now, later in his ministry, in spite of the fact that the Holy Spirit has told him more than once not to go to Jerusalem, he is willing to go and die. The end result, upon arriving in Jerusalem, is that the apostle of grace, the apostle of faith apart from works, is obligated by the elders of the church of Jerusalem to agree to return to sacrificing the blood of goats and sheep to mollify the disidents of the church (Acts 21:24-26 talks of the offering of purification that Paul was to make. By Old Testament Law, such an offering was to be an animal sacrifice, not money). Arrested, Paul's ministry languishes ineffectual for at least two years in prison. Unlike any other recorded time in Paul's ministry, there is no biblical record of any fruit from this lengthy period of time. The testimony demonstrates clearly that having the Holy Spirit and being a major leader in the Church is not insurance against mistakes and disobedience. It also demonstrates that high sounding words do not replace obedience to the heavenly revelation duly received and duly recognized.
return to the outline of this study
FAQ (Frequently asked questions)
One cannot say. There is ancient record of a false prophet and teacher named Simon Magus who went on to preach an extremely destructive gospel of gnosticism. Writers of that period have maintained that that Simon and Simon of Samaria are one and the same.
He's wrong. Flat out wrong. It is not the first time that a false teacher has tried to turn congregations against their leaders. It is tragic to hear the number of callers he receives who admit they "know nothing of the revival except what he is saying over his radio program."
I'm saying Hank is wrong. Flat out wrong. I am neither apostle nor prophet. I teach French. When I set out to write these pages, I set out to answer the accusations leveled against the church. He has made specific accusations against certain pastors of the revival. He, as a teacher, will be responsible for the words he has chosen, and the stumbling he has caused. Do I believe that a teacher is held to stricter accountability for his teaching? James the brother of Jesus does. So do I.
Jesus wasn't exactly gentle with the Pharisees. Paul was outright abusive. I try not to be mean-spirited, but I have vowed to treat others as I would have them treat me. There is a time to say and time to remain silent, as it is written in Proverbs: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. It is clearly a no win situation in which the innocent are being misled. If, in this work, I have demonstrated that the leaders and pastors of the revival might not be misled and demonically inspired, I have accomplished what I set out to do. If you have read this, and are no longer afraid that God would allow you to be possessed simply because you are seeking Him, I have achieved much. And if, having read this, you are determined to discover the truth on your own, in His word, through the Spirit that lives in you, I have much cause to celebrate.
This isn't a love letter to Hank. It is a response to his book. I didn't ask him to write what he wrote, but he wrote that I am deceived, highly suggestible and emotionally unstable, subject to hypnosis and on and on because I enjoy listening to Rodney Howard-Browne. And you are too, if you have ever been slain in the Spirit. When he comes over for pizza, I'll demonstrate love. Right now I want to demonstrate reason, and I'm talking to you.
It failed. John Kilpatrick is not a prophet, he's a pastor. As pastor, he lost his temper one Friday night in April, because Hank Hanegraaff claimed on national television, on Larry King Live, that he was a cult leader, like the Heaven's Gate cult, and that he was leading his people and innocent, credulous Christians toward suicide. Angered by the arrogant ignorance of such a preposterous claim, he "prophesied" Sunday morning. I know that he said he was in the Spirit. He wasn't. He has admitted publicly that he was angry and hurt. It takes a strange and twisted nature to believe that Pastor Kilpatrick is going to lead into suicide the thousands who have visited him and thrown away drugs, pornography and cigarettes in repentance.
Not by a French teacher in northern New England. And not by you either. Every church has it's government and every structured denomination, too. I am not called to put pastors that are thousands of miles away in their place.
Hank has attacked every innocent lamb that has had an experience through the ministries of the current revival. Kilpatrick attacked Hank who was attacking his sheep. Hanegraaff's targets are the babes, who don't know how to defend their faith, and only want to please God. They need to know that the Bible does shroud biblical behavior in mystery. The big guns can take care of themselves. They're big boys. The newcomers, the new believers, they need to know there is an answer to Hank's criticism.
This is another strange ploy on Hank's part. If he knows Greek, he knows what "devil" means and where it comes from. Diabolos, the Greek word from which "devil" is derived, simply means accuser. If you read the page on Hank's criticisms of the revival, you saw numerous accusations that Hank made. Hank is relying on the listener's ignorance of biblical vocabulary to elicit sympathy. Hank is an accuser, and spends hours every week publicly accusing John Kilpatrick and everyone else involved in the revival of wild and outrageous acts.
Hmmmmmmmmm. You need to listen to his radio broadcast.
Who said they were unbiblical? How can you define "biblical behavior" when behavior is not specifically described in the Bible. You cannot find one instance in the Bible where it is written, "No one barked like dogs." Neither can you find where it is written, "Thou shalt not bark like dogs." The fact is, though we know people in the Bible who were under the influence of the Holy Spirit consistently acted remarkably differently than the norm, we have no idea just how they acted. If you yourself are not acting strangely, don't concern yourself. If the barker goes out after the service and serves the Lord in obedience, humility and love, you look awfully silly criticizing a manifestation that is at least temporary and that bears more fruit unto salvation than you do. Be careful, lest you be a weed in the garden.
What about you seeking the Lord your God with your whole heart, with a mind bent on obeying Him whatever the cost. Then allow Him to touch you and see what happens. You might begin understanding theology better, based on your experiences! And enjoying it more. But put Jesus as absolute first. First love, first thought, first action, first to imitate, first to recall, first to call on in times of trouble, first to think of when criticism comes. Then you can be sure of the results. When you can say, "I was in the Spirit on such and such a day," write me and let me know.
Rodney Howard-Browne tells the story of his uncle, a bee-keeper whom he would visit as a child. Once he saw his uncle standing over two bee hives sprinkling baby powder on all the bees. He thought, "My, my. Won't that flavor the honey?" It turns out that his uncle had two hives that he wanted to combine as one. If he simply put them together, the bees would smell different to each other and fight. The baby powder got them all dirty. By the time the bees were done cleaning themselves off of the powder, they'd all smell alike. When one is on the floor, confessing his sins and receiving forgiveness, he's not occupied with the souls to his left or to his right. One might be a Methodist pastor, the other a Catholic nun. They're all receiving equal treatment under the baby powder. When they get up, they all smell surprisingly alike, with a common bond of experience. When others complain or criticize, these can pray the baby powder of God to fall on them too!
When the Bible instructs us to let our minds be renewed, what state of consciousness are you advocating? This is not the mind-numbed, empty headed state of perfect nothingness called nirvana. This is the Christ centered, spirit-filled, we-have-the- mind-of-Christ consciousness whereby we live for Him alone.
Cornelius was rebuked for worshiping Peter. Those in Lystra were rebuked for worshiping Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:14-15). John was rebuked for falling down and worshiping an angel (Rev 22:8). All this because they were mere men. Peter admitted it. Paul did to, and lost a perfectly good outfit to prove it. Elijah was a man just like us. He prayed earnestly, and got what he got (James 5:17). Should I presume that the gift which was promised to all who were afar off, which like gift Cornelius received, would be in some way different when it came upon me? How would I dare to change scripture in that way? Would Elijah feel that way? Would Peter or Paul agree that the gift in me was different than that which was promised, of which Peter prophesied?
This is not a question. This statement bespeaks an attitude that not only has all the answers, but is not open for further discussion. It is contrary to scripture, and based solely on a dead tradition that, once again, nullifies the word of God to protect a moribund faith. Blasphemy does not come from believing what Jesus said. Blasphemy comes from saying "Jesus said" something Jesus did not say, or from saying that what He said, he did not mean. Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. And whatever you ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:12-14) If we are to continue this discussion on a congenial tone, you need to take the time to do me a favor: You believe it is blasphemous to presume that the Christian is called on to work the miracles Jesus worked, e-mail me. In the subject state "I believe in Jesus." Then, in the body of your letter, list all the works that Jesus did that you will not do. Of which of His mighty works was He not speaking when He said "the works that I do." Jesus said, "If you ask anything in my name..." Write a list of things Jesus will not do. Then close off your letter with this statement: "I believe in Jesus and I believe everything He said."
Let us get one thing straight. You are saved if you are saved. If you believe God and obey God, you are saved. If God says, "Fall down," and you say, "I'm sorry, I don't believe in extra-biblical revelations," there is, in your faith, something lacking. God is extra-biblical. You must know God to be saved. That is why Jesus exhorted us to seek the Kingdom and His righteousness first.
My simple rule in life is this...go by what you see to a certain extent. Never go by what you hear. Gossip is deadly, especially if told to discredit another Christian who loves God and feels called to obey Him at all cost. The best example I can give is in the old cessationist argument with the charismatics. In the heyday, when much money was to be had in the writing of books, they used hearsay evidence against us to refute what God was doing. They saw churches split over the phenomena, and blamed the phenomena. It never occurred to them that God was much bigger than the phenomena. I, myself witnessed a tragic church split in my own Episcopalian church. The pastor had brought Dennis Bennett to the church to light the Holy Spirit fire among his parishoners. All the believers in his congregation received, believed, and spoke in tongues...except for him. As young as his elders were in this new-found faith, they were dismayed at the "lack of evidence" in their pastor, and left en masse to go to a charismatic Lutheran church. That testimony could have landed in any critics book to show the destructive nature of tongues. Fortunately, God doesn't stop working once the book is written. The pastor careened downward to alcoholism, depression and the brink of divorce. For ten years he struggled with all the necessary struggles of the Faith. God visited him at the end of this dark period and transformed his heart, his life, his wife and his ministry. At the same time, God came to his former parishioners and revealed their sin and foolishness to them. One by one, they all came back and asked forgiveness of the pastor, who of course received his old friends back with joy. But those he received back were not the same as those who had left. They had been under powerful and excellent teaching for ten years (I too attended the Lutheran church for a time, and knew the pastor there well!) The end result was a powerful, established charismatic ministry in a little Episcopalian church in suburban Ohio.
(As a tragic footnote...the Lutheran pastor, years later, had an affair with his secretary and left the ministry in disgrace...which demonstrates that a good teacher is not exempt from the dangers life extends to the unwary.)
If you read this page on the biblical response, or just look at the book of Acts on your own, you will see that Christianity started out and remained a phenomenal religion...in the literal sense. The apostles sought the phenomena in any church they planted, because there was the manifestation of grace. A church wherein nothing phenomenal happens is hard pressed to prove itself a true "new testament" church...and the problem is, perversely, Luke fails to describe the phenomena they were looking for adequately for us to have a "true" measuring stick. We're stuck prayerfully accepting brethren who act strangely in our eyes, as uncomfortable as that is, knowing that in obeying Jesus great commandment, the great commission wil also be fulfilled.
return to the outline of this study
Conclusion
Discussion is not unusual. Persecution and criticism are not unbiblical. If you are involved in criticizing other groups of Christians, you are in very dangerous ground. Groups have been excommunicating each other for centuries. In any discussion, only three possibilities exist: either side "A" is right and side "B" is wrong, or side "B" is right and side "A" is wrong, or both sides are wrong. In the current debate, Hank says the manifestations of the revival are demonic, brought on by hypnotic suggestion, and there is nothing spiritual involved. Pastor Kilpatrick says Hank is a "devil." There is no compromise here. What position should we laymen take? We must love each other and regard each other as spiritual, loved by God and righteous. We must pray for each other that our love would abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight. If you agree with Hank, that I was hypnotized when I fell backwards unexpedtedly as I was prayed for, but you're willing to accept my love for Jesus as valid and saving, we can perhaps work together. I promise that I will not teach, "You will fall down after that I have prayed for you." I will teach Jesus and Him crucified, like Paul did in Corinth. You will not, then blame me, if people I pray for happen to fall down, once in a while. Jesus warned us this was coming:
18 "You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you." (This, by the way, is one of the most convincing proof texts that extra-biblical, inspired speech is to be expected. It is not surprising that many ungodly men oppose such revelation being given over to common men.)
21 "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. 22 And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." They think they'll be doing God a favor. It is clear that Christians doing the Father's business exclusively will not be appreciated.
23 "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! 26 Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. 27 "Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. 28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." The final verdict is: no big deal. Let them talk. We must be about the Father's business. They have nothing in us; they care nothing for us; and they can do nothing to us.
29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. 33 But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven." In Proverbs it is written, "The fear of man brings a snare." God must be our strength and shield. We must obey Him at all cost. To hear Jesus say, "I never knew him," what grief that would bring. And here is the constant reminder:
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'" They will try to get you to stop behaving as you have been taught of Him, though Jesus himself said, "They shall be taught by God."37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is notworthy of Me. 39 "He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. 40 "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41 "He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward." (Foolish verse, if there are no prophets to be found.) "And he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 42 "And whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward." (Matt 10:18-42 NKJ)
Violence does not surprise God. Vehemence is required at our hands. "And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 "And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear! 16 "But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, 17 "and saying: 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we mourned to you, and you did not lament.' 18 "For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Look, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children." Seek wisdom, and you will find the savior. It is not in the outward manifestations that truth is found. Both John and Jesus were from God. Neither's ministry was like the other. Judging from the outside lead only to confusion.
20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 "But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 "And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 "But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." 25 At that time Jesus answered and said, "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes." (Matt 11:12-25 NKJ) It is not the miracles that save. It is not the signs and wonders. Faith and faith alone saves, and it is only faith in God, in His Word, in His promises that are all, all, all revealed in His Word. That will save, and signs and wonders will follow.
Blessed be God the God and Father of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ forever more.
Amen
Antichristian teachers are easily recognized. They attack people and denigrate leaders. Their major concern is to stop any experience that they themselves have not had and cannot understand. To criticize the revival, to ask questions, to seek answers, this is not a blasphemous or damnable endeavor. But to pretend that you know what God is doing in the lives of untold millions, to disdain the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of countless thousands, to attribute to hypnosis and suggestibility the powerful work of repentance and cleansing and to publish your claims, this is to despise the Hand of God and to hate the Blood that bought us. You are not criticizing the revival .You are passing judgment. You are not asking questions. You are answering them. You are not seeking answers, you are diverting the attention of true seekers from the path of Truth. This is no longer warm and open discussion of doctrine. Instead it is an attempt to make the least of these to stumble. Let the reader beware.
You are visitor number
since November 25, 1999
Copyright © 1997 - Peter L. Mehegan- All Rights Reserved This page contains personal opinion and commentary. We reserve the right to have our own opinions and the right to state them publicly. We believe that the Constitution of the U. S. gives us this right. Last Updated 11/25/99
If you have comments or suggestions,
email me: 
click
here
These pages created with Netscape Navigator Gold
