วีดีโอ

the glorious love of God

Great song!

Glory to God marvelous love and provision

A very good and gifted teacher of God's word. I'm thankful I was introduced to him through my friend who attends five points. I went there quite a few times and listen every week. I hope and pray that this church grows.

I feel u

Thank God!!!❤ Thank you for sharing

Good job this Sunday

When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter. If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” - usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering. This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference). It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language. In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken. So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part… The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from. Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any argument there. Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. The Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile - they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity. To try and use a more modern analogy - think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born - that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic. Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both. Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption. The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them. The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority. To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner. No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didn’t need to be. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages. This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language “ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible - real rational language(s).

PART 2 - It seems that this diversity in languages was seen as something instantaneous and probably quite miraculous and mysterious - Again, there was no concept of languages changing and diverging very slowly over long periods of time. People just knew that at one time, there was one language spoken by everyone, and now there were several. Let’s examine a few facts which I suspect are typically glossed over by most people. It is important to note that, while the Babel account does indicate a common original language, it does *not* claim that said language was Hebrew (as many people think/assume). I think this is assumed due to the fact that Hebrew is the sacerdotal (the holy) language of Judaism. For Jews, the language of God. There is also zero indication in the narrative that God necessarily used a supernatural process in ‘confounding’ the languages. The narrative is completely silent in this matter. Further, and perhaps most importantly, though most people interpret and assume it as such, the account does *not* claim that this diversification of languages was an immediate event. This is perhaps the most common concept that is read, or perhaps I should say, ‘misread’, into the text. There’s no reason not to think that a very natural process in language development took place. It seems that people felt this was an important part of their tradition and culture and thus should be remembered. But given that only an oral tradition existed, how does one get people to remember an important story and not forget it in a few generations? In many ancient cultures, the best way is to tell such a story, and have it remembered, is in a religious context; it’s much less likely to be forgotten over generations because it becomes part of both the cultural and, more so, religious traditions of the people. Thus, one might imagine, the Babel narrative was woven - a combining of history (as it was understood back then) and religion into a powerful story with a specific message. The Babel narrative is also interesting in that it relates that these original speakers came from the East. This is generally regarded as the “migration route” of Proto-Semitic, i.e. the original Sprachgebiet (language area) was to the east of what is now Israel and the surrounding countries and moved westward. If, however, the religious context is extracted for a moment, the result is a fairly accurate historical account of what happened - speakers of Proto Semitic migrated towards the west and as they migrated and became isolated nations, groups, etc., their languages eventually splintered off into what would have been at first just dialects of P-Semitic, but over time, separate but a very closely related group of languages (a “confounding” of languages from one parent tongue). When the religious context is added back in, the notion commonly assumed is that _God used the confounding of languages to scatter the people,_ however, it may be equally argued that _“God scattered the people to cause a confusion of languages ”._ An interesting take on the narrative as it fits more closely with what actually happened historically. The story in Genesis makes an interesting play on words, seemingly deriving the name Babel, from the sound of sheep because of the confusion of languages; sounding like a bunch of sheep bah-bah-ing). Babel, however, comes from _Bâbilim_ - the Akkadian/Babylonian word meaning the “gate of the gods”. So the Babel narrative from the viewpoint of historical linguistics. A fascinating account as it is only one of a very few stories worldwide where the history of a people’s language is remembered.

A bit more on the babel narrative... PART 1 - The Babel narrative is really quite fascinating from the perspective of historical linguistics in that it is one of very few ancient accounts of a people remembering (in a manner of speaking) the history of their language(s) - told of course in a religious context but remembered nonetheless. To best understand this and before any type of analysis can begin, a working definition of a few somewhat ambiguous terms must be defined. Perhaps the most important term needing a more concise definition is (quote) “the whole world”. One must try and put into context and perspective the concept of what would have been considered “the whole world” to the original author(s) of the Babel narrative. The answer is rather simple and straightforward: to a person or people living in what we know call the Middle East several thousand years ago, the "whole world" would have been just that; a small part of what we now call the Middle East. The concept of a larger world existing beyond the lands these people inhabited (and those they were already familiar with) just didn’t exist. Their entire ‘world’ was confined to a relatively small area of the Levant. It is quite possible that lands even on the far borders of the Mediterranean were completely unknown to them. The same holds true for the expression (quote) “all mankind”. Again, this term was confined to only the known people, tribes and nations encompassing their ‘world’. So to summarize, in taking the narrative into historical context, the expressions “the whole world” and “all of mankind” must be understood to refer to a very small part and population of what we today call the Middle East or the Levant. Now that we have a better understanding of just what was meant by these two expressions, we can examine what language or languages would have been spoken in that area several thousand years ago. Was there or could there indeed have been a common language spoken by (quote/unquote) “all mankind”?! From the point of historical linguistics, this is certainly an intriguing question! The answer is, perhaps surprisingly, yes - *however* , this ‘yes’ must also be understood in context of the aforementioned definitions. It is recognized that almost all languages of what are today the Middle East and parts of North Africa derive from one parent tongue: _Proto Afro-Asiatic._ This proto-language, due to several factors including the migration and isolation of people from each other over time, split off into several dialects, one of which was what is called _Proto-Semitic;_ the parent tongue of all Semitic languages. The general consensus seems to be that Proto-Semitic had its ultimate origins in Arabia, Mesopotamia or perhaps even Africa and spread _westward._ The timeframe for this split is still somewhat debated. Proto-Semitic subsequently splintered off and developed into the various Semitic languages found in the ancient Middle East. This again was due to several factors including the migration of peoples and the general isolation of these peoples from one another over time. It is important to note that this process was not immediate; it took several hundred years for P-Semitic to develop into multiple separate languages. It should also be noted that in ancient times, there were quite a few Semitic languages. It was a good-sized language family. Unfortunately, only a small handful of these have survived into modern times. Turning back to the Babel narrative, and taking into context the concept of “the whole world” as we just discussed earlier; It is quite reasonable to conclude that the common language referred to in the Babel narrative as (quote) “spoken by all mankind” was, in fact, what we know today as Proto-Semitic. What is fascinating is that even back then it was recognized that there must have been at one time some parent language, some “common tongue” for the various languages people encountered in their “world”. The (somewhat) mutual intelligibility between these languages, or at the very least the similarity in cognate vocabulary, surely must have been recognized. As just one example, the word for 'god' is essentially the same word in Hebrew "el" as it is in Arabic "allah" as it is in Assyrian and Babylonian (a/k/a Akkadian) "ilu", Phoenician 'l, and Ugaritic 'il. Surely people even back then would have recognized the similarity and further realized they all must have come from the same source language, some ‘parent tongue’, some “one language spoken by all mankind”. In the case of our example, the Proto Semitic *'il. This concept of recognizing the similarity in current languages (cognate words, core grammatical words - things like pronouns, numbers, etc.) and postulating that they all must have derived from some common parent tongue seems to have been preserved in the oral tradition of these people via the Babel narrative. This is actually something quite remarkable. To these people however, the reasons for the various related languages they encountered would not have been known or understood. They would have no concept of the ‘hows and whys’ of the splintering off of the parent tongue, Proto-Semitic; they just knew there are now several distinct languages and the similarities between them seem to point to one parent language at one time. How did they account for this “confounding” of languages? As with many things not clearly understood by ancient man, the reasons were usually attributed to a deity, some “act of God”, if you will. Such must have been the case here as well. The reasons for the ‘confounding’ of these languages was not understood and thus, attributed to an act of God. To these people, this somewhat strange act of God must have begged the question: “Why would God have done such a thing?” I would argue that the Tower itself is more of a literary device than anything; it is pure allegory/metaphor - perhaps the intentional creation of a “back story”, if you will, to explain the reason for the current situation, and to have a vehicle by which to attribute the event as an “act of God”. It’s likely the tower itself was modeled after the ziggurats common in Babylonia; so not something just out of the blue or seemingly far-fetched. In any event, the tower itself may be considered as just a metaphor for man wanting to connect to/become closer to God. I don’t believe it was ever something literal or concrete - i.e. an actual physical structure, despite what some TV shows might like one to believe. Indeed, it has also been suggested that the tower is a metaphor for the human mind, representing how man can be high minded, egotistical, disobedient and rebellious against God. Here was a story that was easy to understand and relate to: As a result of an adverse action/deed perpetrated by mankind as a united intention to try and become like God, God put an end to it by confounding man’s languages and making communication between people difficult, if not impossible, so that they would not be able to complete their intended task.

Modern christianity is 100% false.. here's why. The law was only given to old Covenant Israel and has not existed for nearly two thousand years. No one alive today was born under the law and no one alive today is under the curse of the law. You were never "kept under the law" It was never your "schoolmaster" You can't go "back to the law". Were you born subject to the Mosaic law? No Did Christ redeem you from the curse of the law that Paul is referring to in Galatians 3? Impossible. No law = no curse = no redemption from the curse of the law.

Modern christianity is 100% false.. here's why. The law was only given to old Covenant Israel and has not existed for nearly two thousand years. No one alive today was born under the law and no one alive today is under the curse of the law. You were never "kept under the law" It was never your "schoolmaster" Were you born subject to the Mosaic law? No Did Christ redeem you from the curse of the law that Paul is referring to in Galatians 3? Impossible.

Starting a sermon with weeping is a beautiful way to begin. God bless you, brother JJ.

𝖕𝖗𝖔𝖒𝖔𝖘𝖒

Excellent exposition of 146 brother! Love the john Owen picture and the MLJ Romans in the background

Hello, you say the following "This verse has been misused by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries in establishing the papacy". I think it is important to note that not only Catholics believe that Jesus is speaking of Peter as the rock here but the consensus among Protestant commentators past and present agree with Catholics on this point and disagree with your conclusion that its just a bad dad joke.

watching , very good.

What if everyone in the church were discipling together and it became a culture that takes over the church? See 5pointscc.org/resources/session-1-the-basics-of-discipling/ from Feb 2018 visiting speaker Deepak Reju

Thank you for recording and posting this.

Nice job brother thanks

Thank you for posting. Were sessions 1 and 2 recorded?

Bro! Not gonna lie.... Your display is so awesome ✪ ω ✪

Another great reminder as to why we need to read our bible. Thanks Bro. Mike

Very well done sermon, Aaron! Deep text which points well to our inabilities to please God, and our great need for a perfect Saviour! So thankful for His sacrifice leading to my perfection 😅

Timely and humbling as usual.

thank you

Thank you for the encouragement from the Word today.

Thanks!

This is such a great hymn...thanks!

Love this song. Thank you guys!

thank you

Thank you JJ, a great sermon we all enjoyed stand pray it will open eyes and hearts to Jesus

Sometimes as a mom I just can't help but worry over the situations my children are in! And then I feel guilty over the worry, so thank you P. Mike for this short explanation. It really helps me to keep everything in perspective.

Great sermon JJ- once again!! Thank you

Fantastic and timely sermon, thank you JJ.

Thanks for posting the sermon. We really appreciate this!!

thank you pastor JJ for your wisdom .

Thanks JJ!!