# Hodge's view of spiritual gifts - particularly tongues & prophecy



## Eoghan (Jan 22, 2014)

I don't know if anyone else is familiar with Hodge's 1857 commentary I assume some familiarity amongst some PB'ers. I would be interested in hearing his views articulated. Having reached page 308 I find it difficult to pull together the sense of everything I have read, perhaps because my reading was in chapter size pieces and "diluted" by reading other commentaries.

Hodge does appear to be consistent in maintaining all "tongues" were foreign languages. What I am unsure of is the extent to which he intends these to be an addition to the normal repertoire of languages. Was Paul's training in Hebrew and Greek augmented by the Spirit to include other languages? 

The reason I ask is that if foreign languages were simply added supernaturally to the natural repertoire, in what sense was translation needed? If I were to speak in French I am having to translate into French. The original message is constructed in my native language. Why then do I need to ask somebody else to translate?

Some maintain that the exercise of the gift meant that the speaker did not know what he was saying. This then required another person to translate - this then was equated with prophesy. Why would God use two people to deliver a prophesy when one would suffice?

There also seems to be an awareness of whether someone knew the languages used, hence Paul's instruction to keep silent if there were none present to interpret (i.e. French speakers).

Does Hodge address these issues? On p 296 he states that, "_When used aright, that is, when employed in addressing those to whom the language was intelligible, it was prophecy._" Does he intend an exposition of scripture (OT) or a revelation direct from God?

(page references from the Banner of Truth, Geneva Series)

Apologies if all my postings keep circling round 1 Corinthians 14 but I have been chewing this chapter over for a fortnight now. I get one part sorted only to find it causes an inconsistency in some other part.


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 26, 2014)

[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 14:12-13[/BIBLE]

I am struggling a bit with HODGE when he says that the person who speaks in a foreign language must pray that he can interpret. GILL and HODGE both seem to have the notion that the speaker knew what he was saying but could not interpret! They fall back on the observation that these were two separate gifts. I would however like to quote GILL from his observations on v27. This gives perhaps a different view of "interpret".

[ _*If any man speak in an unknown tongue,....* He begins with the gift of tongues, with speaking in an unknown tongue, as the Hebrew language, because this they were desirous of: and the rule for this he would have observed is, 

*let it be by two, or at most by three, and that by course.* The Arabic version reads it, "let him speak to two, or at most three, and separately"; as if it respected the number of persons he was to speak to at a time, and that in a separate and private manner: but the apostle's sense is, that two such persons as had the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue, or three at most, should be only employed at one opportunity, lest too much time should be taken up this way, and prevent a more useful and edifying exercise; and that these should speak not together, which would be a mere jargon and confusion, and make them took like madmen, and render them entirely useless indeed; but in course, one after another, that so an interpreter might be able to take their sense, and render what they said, and express it in a language the people understood: for it follows, 

*let one interpret* what the two or three had said. This practice seems to be borrowed from the Jews, who had such an officer in the synagogue as a "Methurgeman", or "an interpreter". The rise of which office, and the rules to be observed in the performance of it, are as follow, delivered by Maimonides (s): 

"from the times of Ezra it has been customary that an interpreter should interpret to the people what the reader reads in the law, so that they may understand the nature of things; and the reader reads one verse only, and is silent until the interpreter has interpreted it; then he returns and reads a second verse: a reader may not raise his voice above the interpreter, nor the interpreter raise his voice above the reader. The interpreter may not interpret until the verse is finished out of the mouth of the reader, and the reader may not read a verse until the interpretation is finished out of the mouth of the interpreter; and the interpreter might not lean neither upon a pillar, nor a beam, but must stand in trembling, and in fear; and he may not interpret by writing, but by mouth: and the reader may not help the interpreter; and they may not say the interpretation written in the law; and a little one may interpret by the means of a grown person, but it is no honour to a grown person to interpret by the means of a little one; and two may not interpret as one, but one reads ואחד מתרגם, "and one interprets" (t).'' 

An interpreter might not interpret according to his own sense, nor according to the form of the words, or its literal sense; nor might he add of his own, but was obliged to go according to the Targum of Onkelos (u), which they say was the same that was delivered on Mount Sinai. The place they stood in was just before the reader; for so it is said (w), 

"the interpreters stand before the wise man on the sabbath days, and hear from his mouth, and cause the multitude to hear.'' 

And elsewhere it is said (x), 

"the interpreter stands before the wise man, the preacher, and the wise man (or doctor) whispers to him in the Hebrew language, and he interprets to the multitude in a language they hear,'' 

or understand. And sometimes these sat at his side, and only reported what the doctor whispered privately. So 

"it is said (y), that when the son of R. Judah bar Ilai died, he went into the house of Midrash, or the school, and R. Chaniah ben Akabia went in and sat by his side, and he whispered to him, and he to the interpreter, and the interpreter caused the multitude to hear.'' 

And they never put any man into this office until he was fifty years of age (z). Several of the Jewish Rabbins were interpreters, as R. Chananiah before mentioned, and R. Chutzphit, and others (a). 

(s) Hilchot Tephilla, c. 12 sect. 10. ll. (t) Vid. T. Bab. Roshhashana, fol. 27. 1. & Megilla, fol. 21. 2. (u) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 49. 1. & Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 8. sect. 4. (w) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 50. 2. Gloss. in ib. (x) Gloss. in T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 20. 2. (y) T. Bab. Moed Katon, fol. 21. 1. (z) Juchasin, fol. 44. 2. (a) Ib. fol. 42. 1. & 44. 1, 2. _ ]

Granted that the interpreter was applying what was said (see Nehemiah 8 for what was probably the initiation of this practice) does it change how we read 1 Corinthians 14:13?


----------



## GoodTreeMinistries.com (Jan 26, 2014)

Paul knew the Corinthian version of tongues didn't match the gift as it had been experienced in Acts. And he knew their twisted version of the gift was not genuine. But knowing the rebellious nature of the Corinthian church, Paul decided against prohibiting them outright to speak in tongues. Instead, he employed irony like that of Jesus in Matthew 7:3-5 to present a set of rules that, followed, would smother their tongues-speaking. This was really why 1 Corinthians was written like it was. Their version of tongues was not a true gift but simply gibberish. Gibberish cannot be translated because it is not a true language.

John MacArthur says," The gift of tongues was inferior to other gifts. It was given primarily as a sign (1 Cor. 14:22) and was also easily misused to edify self (1 Cor. 14:4). The church meets for the edification of the body, not self-gratification or personal experience-seeking. Therefore, tongues had limited usefulness in the church, and so it was never intended to be a permanent gift."

Martin Luther writes, “This visible outpouring of the Holy Spirit was
necessary to the establishment of the early church as were also the miracles that accompanied the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once the church had been established and properly advertised by these miracles, the visible appearance of the Holy Ghost ceased.”

John Calvin, “The gift of healing, like the rest of the miracles which the Lord willed to be brought forth for a time, has vanished away in order to make the preaching of the gospel marvelous forever.”

Jonathan Edwards writes, “Of the extraordinary gifts, they were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world, but since the canon of the Scriptures has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, these extra ordinary gifts have ceased.

Charles Haden Spurgeon says, “Those earlier miraculous gifts have departed from us. 

B.B. Warfield writes, “These gifts were distinctly the authentication of the Apostles. They were part of the credentials of the Apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the church. Their function thus confined them to distinctively the apostolic church and they necessarily passed away with it. The miraculous working which is but the sign of God’s revealing power cannot be expected to continue and in point of fact, does not continue after the revelation of which it is the accompaniment had been
completed.”


----------

