1 Corinthians 12-14 - Tongues and Interpretation

[PaulMc]

Can you explain to me where the idea that, tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy comes from?

I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?

I think 1 Cor 14:4-5 would be used to justify this, where it seems that prophecy is counted as more profitable than tongues unless there is an interpreter.
'Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.'

Also, in Acts 2:16-18, Peter shows that the disciples' speaking in tongues at Pentecost after the pouring out of the Holy Spirit is the fulfilment of Joel's prophecy - 'this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel... I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.'
Although in this case there wasn't need for interpretation of the tongues, as the people gathered could understand the languages spoken (v.11). However, it seems to still fit in with 1 Cor 14 and Joel's prophecy, that tongues, when understood = prophecy.

 

[Peairtach]

Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Can you explain to me where the idea that, tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy comes from?

I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?

The word "mystery" or "musterion" (Greek) in the New Testament refers to something previously unknown but now revealed by God's Spirit.

You could do worse than listen to O. Palmer Robertson's "Tongues for Today?" and "Prophecy for Today?" which I believe may still be at monergism.com.

See also what Paul says above. Tongues were clearly foreign languages in Acts 2, and were linked to Joel's prophecy about the prophetic gift.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

@Peairtach and the others too.
What the Word say of that gift is clear : 1 Co 14, 13 "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." That imply that the people who have this gift are not sure to understand what they are saying. All the Christians, fully and faithfully in Christ, that i know and that have that gift (and i know many) say the same : speaking in tongues is one thing, to be able to interpret is an other thing. But like Paul said, the people that have that gift have to pray to be able to interpret their gift continually because in some church that i have visited, the Christians that have that gift (real Christians not mystics with false doctrines like in some churches in which the people are falling on the ground or i don't know what else) usually speaks in tongues but forgot to pray to be able to interpret... Because with that gift, they builds up themselves so well (1 Co 14, 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself) and are bringing into adoration so well that they usually forgot to pray to be able to interpret their gift in order to edify the whole church.

Fortunately, i know some protestant churches that practice that gift without "falling" into the problems that may result of his "utilization". The most simple is that the person that have that gift speak quietly for herself like Paul said and if she receive interpretation, as she may speak for the entire church.

But, most of all, pursue love because science, speaking in tongues, prophecy and all that are temporals things that are destinate to disappear one day ; but not love !

Timobe,

You're presuming that what you are experiencing at Pentecostal churches is genuine "tongues". The historic Reformed position is that tongues came to an end. One reason why we would reject modern tongues as counterfeit and self-delusion is that throughout I Corinthians 14, the Apostle links understanding with edification. If someone cannot understand they will not be edified. We're not saying these people are unconverted because they "speak in tongues" but that they have got erroneous teaching on this particular subject and have been deluded, and deluded themselves, into thinking they have the real deal.

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

Why was the gift of interpretation/translation then needed? Because in order to transmit the prophecy in a foreign tongue accurately in the native language of the hearers and in order for it to be confirmed accurately, it was not enough that the tongue-speaker had an understanding of what he was saying. He needed another revelation from God in the native language.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?

Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?

There is a distinction in English. I ran into this all the time in clinic. I would tell a patient, "I'm sorry I can't help you." My "translator" would say, "There is nothing wrong with you," which would send me into a controlled burn. (My understanding is much better than my speaking.) That's an interpretation, not a translation. It can be more subtle. My son might tell someone who comes to see me on Saturday, "Mary isn't here today." That is an interpretation of my statement, made on Thursday, that I'm going to Addis. Usually we stay for 3 days, so it's a reasonable interpretation, but then I might have returned on Friday. Likewise, I'm wondering in the Greek if there is a distinction. If so, it could explain someone giving an extensive message in tongues, but the interpretation's being short. The message might have been a long song and dance about all the sins someone did, but the interpretation could be a simple, "Repent."

Something I don't understand. If the speaker necessarily understood everything he/she was saying, and if interpretation is the same as translation, why would anyone have to pray for interpretation? Any speaker could just repeat in the local trade language what he just said in an unknown language. This whole Corinthians passage becomes a muddle to me if the speaker in the unknown tongue knew exactly what he was saying, i.e. he could precisely translate. There is also (what seems to be) the contrast between praying in the spirit and praying with understanding. This makes a lot more sense if the speaker/pray-er can't translate his utterance.

Leslie,

see the post above for an explanation as to why an accurate revelation from God was necessary to translate a tongue-prophecy accurately so that it would be just the words that the Holy Spirit wanted and nothing else, rather than just a general and fallible "interpretation". The Holy Spirit wanted something more than an interpretation or loose translation of His words, but prophetic accuracy. Hence the need for a special revelatory gift of translation of tongues.

Re the tongue-speaker's "spirit praying", you seem to have assumed that "spirit" refers to an irrational or emotional facility cut off from the intellect or mind. My reference to the use of the word "spirit" in the Gospels a few posts back, shows that this is not the case.

Paul is saying that the tongue-speaker prayed genuinely in the spirit, with understanding, but that the understanding of his mind did not bear fruit in the hearers, because there can be no edification without understanding, and they didn't understand.

The whole passage on tongues in I Corinthians is a great testimony to the supernatural in the first century church.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tirian]

On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.

As Jimmy says - what of all these other tongues (more than any of you)?

 

[timmopussycat]

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.

 

[Peairtach]

On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.

As Jimmy says - what of all these other tongues (more than any of you)?

I don't think the Apostle was rabbiting-on unintelligibly when he used this gift otherwise he would have been contradicting himself. He'd either get someone to translate or have the gift of translation himself, and use it, or he would be speaking in tongues to those foreigners who knew what he was saying. This is a sign of the reversal of Babel not of Babel in the Church. All he is saying here is that this gift that the Corinthians think is so important and which they abuse, he is given and uses more than them, and in the proper manner, in the godly order.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Peairtach]

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.

I think Robertson would say that the above interpretation makes the Apostle to contradict himself, since the Apostle's whole argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that edification presumes understanding. If we do not understand what the trumpet means it is of no edification to us in the battle. He says that e.g. the person saying grace - "giving thanks" - in a tongue is edified, while the person listening is not. Why is the person listening not edified? Because he does not understand. So the person giving thanks must understand what he is saying, if the Apostle's argument is to hold water. Otherwise the Apostle is saying you cannot be edified without understanding, but sometimes you can be.

How is the tongues speaker edified without understanding what he is saying, or the person listening to the tongues speaker, or the person reading the Bible in Greek, or the person attending a service in Latin?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[timmopussycat]

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

The apostle Paul explicitly contradicts your contention that tongues speakers understood what they were saying when he writes "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Cor. 14:14). Robertson's argument is pure speculation, because in context the unfruitful mind is the unused mind. Paul will pray and sing with the mind in v.15.

I think Robertson would say that the above interpretation makes the Apostle to contradict himself, since the Apostle's whole argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that edification presumes understanding. If we do not understand what the trumpet means it is of no edification to us in the battle. He says that e.g. the person saying grace - "giving thanks" - in tongue is edified. So the person giving thanks must understand what he is saying, if the Apostle's argument is to hold water.

How is the tongues speaker edified without understanding what he is saying, or the person listening to the tongues speaker, or the person reading the Bible in Greek, or the person attending a service in Latin?

Robertson's argument presumes that understanding is the only route to Christian edification, something I believe to be incorrect. Although God's primary means of spiritually strengthening his people is through the teaching and the understanding of His word, this is not the only way he builds us up. Sometimes God gives Christians experiences of himself which are not knowledge based although Scripture does teach us how we are understand them - and that we are not to go overboard in seeking them! - and how we are to live when God does not give them. A human analogy might be the encouragement and strengthening one feels when experiencing a spouse's love for oneself in the impact of a glance and a smile without a word being said. "Tasting" the goodness and greatness of God, strengthens our hearts even more, as any who have encountered the sense of his presence in prayer will know. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that something similar may have been going on in the experience of a Corinthian tongues speaker.

 

[PaulMc]

The Apostle indicates that the tongue-speaker himself is edified while the ones hearing the tongue are not. Therefore, the tongue-speakers understood what they were saying.

It's not just Robertson that takes this view. Hodge, Gill, Barnes and the Matthew Henry commentary all agree that the tongues speaker understood what they were saying, and that 'his understanding being unfruitful' refers to the people listening.
Calvin seems to have a different view in some ways: 'I answer, that Paul here, for the sake of illustration, makes a supposition, that had no reality, in this way: “If the gift of tongues be disjoined from the understanding, so that he who speaks is a barbarian to himself, as well as to others, what good would he do by babbling in this manner?” '

 

[timmopussycat]

The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?

 

[Scott1]

If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
but that is precisely why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....

 

[Peairtach]

The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?

Could that not have possibly led to loose translations, interpretations and a garbled or at least a fallible prophetic message?

 

[timmopussycat]

If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
but that is precisely why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....

I fully agree that today's church is not to seek special revelation (I think 1 Cor 12:31 was intended by Paul to specifically correct the Corinthian abuse of the lower gifts, not as a general principle for all churches at all times to practice: this latter view essentially denies the sovereignty of the Spirit in the distribution of the gifts). But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.

 

[timmopussycat]

The fundamental problem with any view that asserts that Biblical tongues speakers somehow knew the meaning of what they were saying is that it makes the Apostle Paul overlook the obvious solution to the problem of correctly managing tongues in the Corinthian assembly. If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, likely their native language, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

The argument that because the tongues speaker received words from God, a more accurate translation than the tongues speaker could provide was required presumes either that the tongues speaker did not receive exact knowledge of what he or she was speaking, which has adverse implications for God's ability to communicate effectively with his people, or the tongues speaker was unable to express what he or she had received accurately in what was likely their native language. If a tongues speaker received an accurate understanding of the tongue in their native language, why would not the mere giving forth of that understanding in the very words in which it was received not be a valid God-given prophecy?

Could that not have possibly led to loose translations, interpretations and a garbled or at least fallible prophetic message?

At worst such a message could have been no more imperfect than an adequate translation of Scriptures (NEV, NASB KJV) is today.

Most of our translators today have an advanced second language knowledge of Greek, but a native speaker's knowledge of English. The Corinthian tongues speaker was different. He or she was likely a native speaker of, and everyday thinker in, koine Greek and they would have supernaturally received their understanding of their tongue's message in that same language. Thus that understanding is, in itself and by definition, a word from God. Why should God give an inadequate understanding of the message to the tongues speaker only to give an adequate understanding to an interpreter?

Also, if an interpreter translated the message any differently than the tongues speaker received his or her native language understanding of their tongued message, wouldn't the tongues speaker have had to challenge the accuracy of such inexact interpretations? And how would the assembly know whether the interpreter was exact and the tongues speaker's understanding was fallible, or perhaps vice versa, in any given case? Paul does not tell us any guidelines for the assembly to follow.

 

[Scott1]

If tongues speakers knew what they were saying, the tongues speaker could have simply been advised to present the meaning of the message he or she had received in the common language of the assembly, rather than forbidding the giving of the tongued message until an interpreter was present.

Not to derail the conversation here, Tim,
but that is precisely why we are not NOW to seek special revelation outside of Scripture (e.g. by speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now that Scripture IS completed until the end of the age....

I fully agree that today's church is not to seek special revelation
Glad to hear you say this, but then look what you assert next....


(I think 1 Cor 12:31 was intended by Paul to specifically correct the Corinthian abuse of the lower gifts, not as a general principle for all churches at all times to practice: this latter view essentially denies the sovereignty of the Spirit in the distribution of the gifts).

Yes, the I Cor. 12 gifts were being "abused" (misused) at that time. Sin abounded then, deliberate, in ignorance, etc. as it does today, and will until our Lord returns. But the underlying special revelation coming that way was fulfilled when Scripture was completed. We are not now to seek special revelation (e.g. by unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues) now. We are not to seek this revelation outside of Scripture (today).

We know this by a biblical theology where Scripture interprets Scripture and tells us, that the Word is given to fulfill the special revelation role that tongues/interpretation was one part of in I Cor. 12 and 14. It was given in anticipation of the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Given, as it is, as the supreme rule of faith and practice for the Christian, and the church until the end of this world. (Our Lord returns).

So things have changed.

Because God gave His Word until His return. Period.

There is no competition.

Now, I would allow that there might be miraculous, extraordinary occurrences today of a I Cor. 12 type gift but not to be sought for special revelation, not in private, nor public worship(as pentecostal/charismatic practice does). Perhaps as a faith building, or special purpose type miracle, someone miraculously given a language they never learned to communicate with someone who spoke that language, etc.

But that's a far cry from what you assert.

It's not a matter of "balance" using I Cor 12 tongues and interpretation without misuse today. It's a matter of being fundamentally wrong in seeking special revelation outside of Scripture now that the Holy Scriptures have been given.

It's one reason there is such disorder in pentecostal/charismatic communions.

While miracles are always, by their nature, hard to judge, its not so much a matter of judging whether an "incident" is a counterfeit as knowing that God is not ordinarily providing special revelation outside of Scripture. Moreover, it is SIN to seek such.

Yes, seeking such extra biblical revelation devalues the place God has given His Word, and man in his darkened, rebellious understanding is constantly seeking special revelation outside of God's Word, which is a first order offense against a Holy God.

It's why the Word (not tongues/interpretation) is what the reformers call an ordinary means of grace, the way a sovereign God has ordained to provide for the strengthening of the faith of His people.

But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.

.

 

[timmopussycat]

Now, I would allow that there might be miraculous, extraordinary occurrences today of a I Cor. 12 type gift but not to be sought for special revelation, not in private, nor public worship(as pentecostal/charismatic practice does). Perhaps as a faith building, or special purpose type miracle, someone miraculously given a language they never learned to communicate with someone who spoke that language, etc.

But that's a far cry from what you assert.

On the contrary, that is exactly what I am trying to assert. And notice how you misunderstand me by continually misunderstanding my thoughts about how we are to address CLAIMED incidents of prophecy and tongues today. When I wrote:

But that's not really the problem most of us face. Instead, our problem is how do we judge claimed incidents of accurately interpreted tongues speaking or prophecies. Do we reject them all as spiritually counterfeit (cessationists), do we accept them uncritically (charismaniacs/some charismatics) or do we adjudge them on a case by case basis according to the Scriptural guidelines for doing so? (occasionalists and some charismatics). Some here argue the former, I suggest the latter.

you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.

t's not a matter of "balance" using I Cor 12 tongues and interpretation without misuse today. It's a matter of being fundamentally wrong in seeking special revelation outside of Scripture now that the Holy Scriptures have been given.

It's one reason there is such disorder in pentecostal/charismatic communions.

Of course. And since many cessationist arguments can be rejected by charismaniacs as unBiblical traditionalism, the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.

 

[MW]

The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.

Commentators deal with 12-14 as an unit. They also generally concur that 12:1-3 is introductory of the tongue-speaking issue that shall be dealt with in particular in chapter 14. To quote Gordon Fee,

The problem is almost certainly an abuse of the gift of tongues. This is made clear first of all by the structure of the argument itself, which is basically in three parts, following the A-B-A pattern noted in previous sections (and roughly corresponding to our current chapter divisions). This section begins with a more general word (chap. 12), which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) and a very specific response to the matter in hand (chap. 14)... Since this is unquestionably the focus of chap. 14, it is reasonable to assume that the argument in chaps. 12 and 13 leads to these correctives...

On 12:2, Fee comments,

In keeping with his Jewish heritage, Paul scorns the idols as mute because they cannot hear and answer prayer; nor can they speak—in contrast to the Spirit of God who can. But he has also argued earlier that the mute idols represent demons (10:20-21) — who can and do speak through their devotees. Most likely, therefore, he is reminding them of what they well know, that in some of the cults "inspired utterances" were part of the worship, despite the "mute idols." If so, then his concern is to establish early on, as v. 3 seems to corroborate, that it is not "inspired speech" as such that is evidence of the Spirit. They had already known that phenomenon as pagans. Rather, what counts is the intelligible and Christian content of such utterances.

The early fathers understood it in this light also. The ancient Christian commentary provides the following two examples:

Chrysostom: "What Paul means is that if anyone in a pagan temple was at any time possessed by an unclean spirit and began to divine, he was led away by that spirit like a man in chains and had no idea what he was saying. For it is peculiar to the soothsayer to be beside himself, to be under compulsion, to be pushed, to be dragged, to be greeted as a madman. But the prophet is not like this, because he has a sober mind and composed temper and knows exactly what he is saying."

Severian of Gabala: "Paul shows that there is a very big difference between Christian prophecy and pagan soothsaying. Pagans do not address the unclean spirit but are possessed by it and say things which they do not understand. The soothsayer's soul is darkened, and he does not know what he is saying, whereas the prophet's soul is enlightened and reveals what the prophet has learned and understood."

 

[Scott1]

you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.

I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.

Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."

It's being wrong about the purpose of I Cor. 12 tongues/interpretation being fulfilled when God completed His Word. God has specially superintended His Word, and will until the end of the age. The Holy Spirit speaking in it. Give careful attention to it.

(Not maintain continuationism of some sort as competition with it....)

the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.

No,
it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).

It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.

It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.

 

[timmopussycat]

The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.

Commentators deal with 12-14 as an unit. They also generally concur that 12:1-3 is introductory of the tongue-speaking issue that shall be dealt with in particular in chapter 14. To quote Gordon Fee,

The problem is almost certainly an abuse of the gift of tongues. This is made clear first of all by the structure of the argument itself, which is basically in three parts, following the A-B-A pattern noted in previous sections (and roughly corresponding to our current chapter divisions). This section begins with a more general word (chap. 12), which is followed by a theological interlude (chap. 13) and a very specific response to the matter in hand (chap. 14)... Since this is unquestionably the focus of chap. 14, it is reasonable to assume that the argument in chaps. 12 and 13 leads to these correctives...

Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues. Rather I challenge your claim on a narrower issue, to wit that:

1 Cor. 14:2 . . . What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

While Fee recognizes that, for Paul, "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is the intelligible and Christian content of such utterances" (Fee, 1 Corinthians, 578) that distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point and will later reject the idea that the tongues speaker utters mysteries with his spirit. For, as he writes on 14:2, Paul "does not disparage the gift itself; rather he seeks to put it in its rightful place." Paul recognizes that the tongues speaker as has a valid gift of "communing with God by the Spirit". The word mysteries "more likely . . . carries here the sense of that which lies outside the understanding, both for the speaker and the hearer. . . Although one may wonder how 'mysteries' that are not understood even by the speaker can edify, the answer lies in vv. 14, 15. Contrary to the opinion of many, spiritual edification can take place in ways other than through the cerebral cortex of the brain. Paul believed in an immediate communing with God by means of the S/spirit [Fee's expression for the Holy Spirit and our spirits working in concert] that sometimes bypassed the mind and in vv. 14, 15 he argues that he will have both [sorts of edification]. But in church he will have what can also communicate to other believers through their minds." (Fee, 1 Corinthians loc. cit. italics his).

 

[MW]

Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues.

You had said, "spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking."

It is very difficult to communicate with a person who feels free to change his mind from one post to the next.

 

[MW]

While Fee recognizes that, for Paul "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is the intellegable and Christian content of such utterances" that is distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point.

I didn't quote Fee as sharing in my conclusion, but as supporting the premise which leads to my conclusion, namely, the requirement of "intelligent" content. As the "mysteries" spoken in tongues are unintelligible without an interpretation, it follows that they do not meet the criteria set down in 12:2-3.

 

[timmopussycat]

Nothing I said challenges the certainty that the broad theme of chapters 12 to 14 is an abuse of the gift of tongues.

You had said, "spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking."

It is very difficult to communicate with a person who feels free to change his mind from one post to the next.

I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme. For I wrote:

Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters. In Ch 12:2 it is used in the sense of mute or dumb to describe idols: in ch. 14 Paul uses it of human languages to tell us that none of them are without meaning (aphonon). Since the word is demonstrably used to describe two different things, neither of which specifically is the phenomenon of the biblical tongues (whatever they may have been), a better explanation for the claim that 1 Cor 12:2, 3 rules out speaking "mysteries in the spirit" is needed, especially since BAGD comment on 14:2's use of "mysteries" is "the one who speaks in tongues utters secret truths which he alone shares with God."

and

The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them.

I'll try again. You claim that

1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

You support this by claiming that

A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.

What is at issue is whether, after being positively predicated of idols, the mere second appearance of the word translated "dumb" when negatively predicated of human languages at 14:10 is enough in itself to prove that Paul is engaging in argumentum ad hominem that entirely rejects the idea of "in his spirit he speaks mysteries" that he appears to approve at 14.2. I say you will need a stronger argument than the one you have provided to justify that conclusion since, in both cases, the words in question were not written in direct reference to the main theme of the passage.

To put the matter in logical form: the two occurrences of the word dumb are as follows
All A (idols) is B (silent)
All C (human languages) is D (meaningful)

And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is:

No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
which is not a logically sound syllogism.

I hope this makes my concern clear.

 

[timmopussycat]

While Fee recognizes that, for Paul "it is not inspired speech as such that is evidence of the Spirit . . . rather what counts is the intellegable and Christian content of such utterances" that is distinguishes such utterance from pagan counterfeits, he does not share your conclusion that Paul is arguing ad hominem at this point.

I didn't quote Fee as sharing in my conclusion, but as supporting the premise which leads to my conclusion, namely, the requirement of "intelligent" content. As the "mysteries" spoken in tongues are unintelligible without an interpretation, it follows that they do not meet the criteria set down in 12:2-3.

As previously noted, others would not accept that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises given.

 

[timmopussycat]

you misunderstood me as advocating seeking the gifts.

I really do believe you are understanding more the inconsistency in the way you argue these points.

Advocating that special revelation comes extrabiblically through tongues/interpretation is what is meant by the (made-up) term "continuationism" which you advocate repeatedly. It's not a technical distinction of seeking vs. believing that the extrabiblical revelation "continues...."

I didn't make up the term continuationism, I learned it on this board where it was used to refer to broadly Reformed believers who were either experiencing present day parallels to or advocating the present day reality of all the spiritual gifts. (Outside the broader reformed tradition, such people would be called charismatics and that's the background I come from.)

When assessing any theological viewpoint, the first step is to see it accurately. In order to assess continuationism one must see it as it is. If we don't do so, when we try to help such people, we immediately discredit ourselves in their eyes since we appear not to know what we are talking about. One of the key differences between continuationists / the sort of charismatics I came from and the people I call charismaniacs is that the latter reject any biblical controls on what they think of as spiritual gifts. Another is that most continuationists deny that any "prophecy" that could occur today would have canonic status. Those two differences have to be faced squarely in dealing with people within continuationist circles. Outside their groups we may think say, the latter claim impossible, but they (and I mentioned Grudem as an example and I could have also mentioned Fee), have no trouble recognizing that canonic revelation will have ceased while remaining open to "prophetic" words that exhort individuals or groups in tactical ways and require testing by the biblical criteria for such claims. Nor do they see,

continuationism of some sort as competition with . . .

Scripture, but as a form of spiritual guidance under it.

Do not confuse an accurate representation of a cessationist position with advocacy for it.

the best way to minimize that disorder quickly is to challenge those communions to follow the Apostle Paul's rules for exercising those gifts they claim to have.

No, it's not a matter of exhorting modern day people to 'prove' that the unknown tongue (which they WERE seeking in public worship) is genuine by demanding an interpretation (also being sought in corporate worship).It's a matter of correct biblical teaching, scripture interpreting Scripture, that the purpose of this is fulfilled now that the Word is completed, which was always God's plan. The Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture, complete, and sufficient for you.

It's error to be seeking it in public worship as speaking in an unknown tongue and it's an error to be seeking it as interpretation of an unknown tongue, just like it would be to try and conjure up a pre-incarnate appearance of our Lord.

Scott, the problem the Reformed face, like it or not, is that the evidence shows that the usual cessationist arguments to support your claim are not convincing in the majority of cases. In many countries of the world the Pentecostal/Charismatic varieties of Christianity are doubling evangelical growth, and more than doubling Reformed growth. On the basis of sheer compassion for our neighbours we need to make sure we have the most biblical arguments possible to help them avoid the spiritual tragedies that all too many of them will face in such settings.

And those of us who want to be confessional face an additional challenge. If we argue that no spiritual gifts occur today while others argue that they do, the WCF mandates that since "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture" therefore we must prove our contention that all the gifts have expired by either statements "expressly set down in Scripture, or [by conclusions that] by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture." I think the utter failure of reformed teaching to prevail against charismatic errors argues strongly that our arguments need renewed testing by this standard and replacement where found faulty.

Meanwhile, whether or not that challenge is taken up or not, I can guarantee that anyone introducing a charismatic/continuationist to the biblical guidelines for tongues and prophecy will be providing information that could if applied, keep that person from being a direct victim of the kind of spiritual tragedy that too often happens.

 

[MW]

I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme.

I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage. As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."

 

[MW]

And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is:

No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
which is not a logically sound syllogism.

I hope this makes my concern clear.

It makes clear that you like to beat down straw men of your own constructing. At no point have I said that no tongue speaking was approved by Paul. My focus has been on unintelligible communication from the beginning. Tongue-speaking which cannot be understood is the point at issue.

 

[timmopussycat]

I am not changing my mind. It appears from your comment, however, that you need to learn to distinguish between the subjects of a word in the paragraphs where the words occur and the major theme of a multi-paragraph passage, even when both subjects were (twice!!) specifically identified as NOT being that major theme.

I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage.

You are assuming a conclusion that does not necessarily follow. Two paragraphs may be related as subunits of a larger passage - even with a common theme without presupposing that their mere presence in such a passage will force two recurrences of a word to a) take the same meaning in both occurrences in the larger passage despite being separated by several changes of subtopic or b) cumulatively prohibit something that neither refers directly to. If such a relationship carrying prohibitive force exists it is a different kind of relationship, one that remains to be proven.

I am, of course, fully aware that standard hermeneutics sometimes recognizes that multiple-meaning words sometimes keep the same meaning in successive appearances: in my book on Bahnsen, I argue at some length with reference to the two appearances of parelthe in Matt. 5:18 that both words have the same meaning "disappear." But in that case the two instances of the parallel word occurred in the same immediate context. But I know of no hermeneutics textbook that asserts that multi-meaning words must always be presumed to maintain a common meaning in successive appearances when a) the two recurrences are so far apart and b) are referring to different subjects. Can you adduce one? And if you could, it would be clear that the author of that text has failed to reckon with Berkhof's blunt statement that "It is precarious to assume that a word always has the same meaning in the word of God." For, he continues, "there are a few exceptions to the rule. In a few passages a word is repeated with a change of meaning. But these cases are of such a kind that . . . the context makes it sufficiently clear that the word does not have the same sense in both cases" something which I have already pointed out is true of the two cases in question. Not to mention cases such as the provably different meanings Paul intended the word "head" to be understood in at 1 Cor 11:3 and 5 which completely disprove the contention that the mere recurrence of the word means that the repeated word must always carry the same meaning.

When you rely solely on the repetition to prove Paul intended to "shun" (your word) tongues speaking, where a man "in his spirit he speaks mysteries," when Paul claimed to engage in the practice himself, you are making an exegetical overreach.

As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."

With reference to which specific verse does Morris make that comment?

The quote as given apparently misunderstands the differences between the two occurrences of the word. The first time we see it, it may mean either dumb or unitelligible but at its second occurrence the word clearly has a different sense that of not "without meaning" which is clearly different from unintelligible or dumb.

And what is at issue whether Paul is not whether Paul is prohibiting the use of tongues in the church because they don't communicate meaning to others which is the only way others can be edified, but whether Paul was intending to prohibit personal and private use of the gift for self edification, about which Morris's cited comment says nothing.

 

[timmopussycat]

And the conclusion you apparently want to draw from these premises is:

No E (tongues speaking) is F (approved by Paul)
which is not a logically sound syllogism.

I hope this makes my concern clear.

It makes clear that you like to beat down straw men of your own constructing. At no point have I said that no tongue speaking was approved by Paul. My focus has been on unintelligible communication from the beginning.

An innocent misunderstanding is not always a straw man construction. Please review the discussion from the start. We have been reviewing how you justified your your view that "1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" and whether that justification is or is not methodologically valid.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I drew item F from your post:

1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

The problem is with your last sentence. If "The idea of speaking 'mysteries in the spirit' (which Paul claims is true of tongues speakers in 14:2 and which he will claim of himself as he practices tongues vv. 14,15) has "already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2,3," it makes you appear have to Paul repudiating all uses of tongues not just uninterpreted tongues. So what did you intend to that last sentence to mean if not what it appeared to mean?

And finally, even if the F in my conclusion is not what I thought it was, the logical form of your expressed justification for your position remains remains problematic for now the syllogism appears to be:

All A (idols) is B (silent)
All C (human languages) is D (meaningful)

leading to the conclusion

No E (tongues speaking) is F (is permitted in assembly if uninterpreted*) *presumably your intent as derived from your first paragraph above.

The above is not a logically valid syllogism since a) there is no middle term b) no term, instead of the required two terms occurs twice, and c) the predicate of the conclusion occurs in neither of the premises.

 

[Eoghan]

I think you need to learn how word-associations work in standard hermeneutics. Your original objection involved a denial that there is a connection between the two passages with reference to tongue-speaking. My response and quotation from Fee cancelled out your denial. Once the connection between the two passages is accepted the negative connotations of the word in the first passage carry through into the second passage. As Leon Morris comments, "Paul is making a play on words. His point is that there is no real difference between being unintelligible and being dumb. The whole point of language is to communicate meaning."

I am intrigued by the word dumb - this to me suggests someone incapable of speech and is not mute. Mute to me means incapable of any sound. Does this subtle distinction occur in the greek though?