1 Corinthians 12, 14 addressed to ministers?

[Jeri Tanner]

In 1 Corinthians 12, 14, and elsewhere in Paul, is he addressing ministers as those who have the gifts of tongues, prophecy, etc? I see that Calvin interprets it so, perhaps also other older theologians? This idea has been encouraging to me and makes sense; mainly, it seems right from the exegetical standpoint. I'm a cessationist, to be clear. I guess I'm thinking, overall, that much in the Gospels and Epistles is addressed to ministers, but so many have confused this and see some instructions meant for them as being for all Christians.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It certainly makes sense that Holy Spirit disperses his gifts in the most fit manner; thus gifts of utterance he gives to those who should utter. But the main rule that governed the situation in worship was not who possessed a particular gift, but what exhibition of gifting is appropriate for worship. It is false for someone to say that simply having a gift is reason to promote the use of it anywhere, anytime, or at "special" times.

The early church was an extraordinary time. The needs of that situation were unique. Act.2:16-17, "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...'" Philip the evangelist had four daughters which prophesied, Act.21:8-9. They needed those gifts for some Spirit-determined purpose, but that purpose was not for use in worship, because he does not contradict himself.

There are places in the Word that have special utility for ministers. But we should have care not to unduly restrict the scope of a passage. The letters to the churches are of general address; but within them there will be addresses that have ministerial application, which it is in the church's whole interest to promote.

I am presently preaching in 2Corinthians. Not too long ago, I completed a series in 1Corinthians. The letters complement one another. The whole church is in view in both letters; but in the first, the "perspective" of the letter is into the congregation from the vantage point of the leadership, whose job it is to address the several problems ongoing there that are enumerated in 1Cor. In the second letter, the perspective is reversed, and we look across the meeting hall unto the pastor's seat/pulpit and study, Paul giving the hearers (under inspiration) an insight into the highs and lows of ministry.

The point of 1 & 2 Corinthians--the two together--is to bring both sides of a church's life (the ministry and the members) into view as one body. It isn't one or the other, one versus the other, but one body with different functional parts. The Pastoral Letters, on the other hand, are primarily directed to the leaders.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Alex the Less]

Jews look for a sign

In my view it (ch.12, 14) is addressed to the church and not ministers exclusively. I am a cessationist also but probably have slightly different reasons for being so than most others.

We know that Paul went to the Corinthian synagogue first and an uproar was caused because of the revolutionary nature of the Gospel. The Jews here, like most others places where God placed them, were a prominent fixture in society. In my thinking the sign gifts operated mostly in the first century for a specific reason.

Paul says that "Jews look for a sign while Greeks seek wisdom." So I believe after a period of Gospel witness these signs passed off the scene. 1Cor. 14.20-25 brings this point out also that tongues (a sign gift whereas prophecy was a sign but not really a "sign gift") was for unbelievers. Paul quotes an O.T. passage to prove his point but then his example that he offers after his quote doesn't seem to make sense or is the exact opposite of what he claimed.

Here is my solution to this conundrum. When Paul quotes the O.T. and uses "this people" he was specifically referring to Jews since the quote in Hebrew uses the specific term to refer to Jews. So God is saying in the O.T. that in the future the Jews would stubbornly refuse to listen even though a miraculous sign gift of tongues is displayed to them. This is who Paul is referring to: a class of unbelievers, the Jews. He then gives a hypothetical of Greek unbelievers who come into a church assembly, hear prophecy and respond.

This is how I see to best explain Paul's argument in this section and why these sign gifts do not operate today legitimately in gentile-dominated churches. Messianic Jews though, and especially in modern Israel it seems, do feature sign gifts in their worship. I am much more sympathetic to seeing valid sign gift usage among these Messianics than the rest of the church.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Thank you Rev. Buchanan, it is helpful. So you don't think that from 1 Cor. 12 and 14 we're meant to take away that Paul is speaking of both laymen and ministers speaking in tongues and prophesying in public worship? I was in the charismatic church when I was younger and this is what was taught and practiced.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

If there were non-elders (or, actors not under the direct and immediate supervision of the elders) giving utterance--whatever the form--in worship, then the situation in Corinth was even more "out of control" than it already seems to have been. Bad enough if there were recognized leaders fighting for the mic, so to speak. Paul paints a word-picture (maybe a bit hyperbolic) of near-bedlam. Now, picture anybody at all chiming in...

Whoa... And you know what? You can see youtube videos of exactly that crazy happening today; so if it hadn't happened yet in Corinth in those days (when the gifts were real, and not pure hysteria), Paul's strident rebuke: 14:23, "Will they not say that you are out of your mind?" or v19, "I'd rather speak five intelligible words!" is given to prevent it. Perhaps you've encountered similar foolishness in your own past.

We could infer that at least one agenda-pushing element in Corinth were the egalitarian-feminist types. Some party appears to have been pushing for the church to allow women possessing gifts of utterance to speak up in worship. As of 11:2, the session had resisted this appeal. Paul puts a final kibosh on that faction at the end of ch.14, v34.

What I mean is this: ideally, either those who ought to speak are ordained to the work; or the ordained are supervising (immediately, closely, directly) someone MALE whom they recognize as having the appropriate gift helpful for the occasion. The services are to be orderly, with limits (e.g. v27) observed for the edification of all.

The 1C situation in those days was "getting to normal," (i.e. the days of ordinary means and gifts), but not there yet; so we need to acknowledge there was some fluidity in 1C church-practice that we won't admit of exact copying in the 21C. Corinth had an outsized endowment of extraordinary gifts, more gifts than leaders apparently. Some with gifts would probably be leaders later on, in other churches as they were planted.

Compare to today when we make room in a service for a man training for ministry or other office, but not yet ordained, to act in that capacity as part of his training. So, supervised exercise (not ONLY ordained exercise) makes sense. But not the kind of ungoverned practice breaking out in Corinth.

Clearer? I hope.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Yes, helpful again, thanks. And yes, I did too often witness such disorderly speaking (maybe not the worst of what one would see on YouTube, but disorderly enough!).

I posted in the exegetical forum because I am trying to see where the context of passages like those two chapters show that ordained ministers, or as you say men closely supervised by them, are to be those exercising the gifts in public worship. I wondered if perhaps 12:28 is pertinent to that? Or is the understanding of these manifestations as being under the supervision of the ministry more a matter of good and necessary inference? (Sorry for my run-on sentences!)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think 12:28 is simply listing a general hierarchy or taxonomy of gifts. I don't want to get too far behind the words themselves in the literary context. While an apostle's words are usually applicable in a more sweeping manner than to the narrowly defined situation into which he spoke or wrote; we have to take care in interpretation not to put a fully-formed, culturally-conditioned idea (more descriptive of our own era) into the mind of Paul as he writes.

I would probably categorize the duty to supervise the expression of gifts as good and necessary consequence reasoning; but it is certainly not protracted or convoluted. Paul writes the church, directing them to get their worship services under control. Supervision is some-party's (a session's, I'd say) duty.

The apostle isn't simply writing into a disorganized, hippie-commune vision of a 1C church, expecting a spontaneous, harmonic convergence of recovery to happen because he dropped a letter dosed with HolyGhost fairydust on them; nor does the 2Corinthians letter indicate such a thing took place; plus the whole epistle corpus of Paul (and Acts) shows us some of the reality on the ground in terms of church founding and organizing.

Run on, Sentence!

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Ha, thanks! I appreciate the help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk