when did the gift of tongues end?
- Thread starter DeoOpt
- Start date
- Status
Dearly Bought
Puritan Board Junior
In Perspectives on Pentecost, Richard Gaffin argues from passages such as Isaiah 28:11 that the gift of tongues particularly represents judgment coming upon the nation of Israel. I don't have my copy right with me at the moment, so I'm not exactly sure if he states a date for the cessation of tongues. However, based on this understanding of tongues, it might seem logical to argue that tongues ceased with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That's my inclination, at least.
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
I think far too often in our modern society, we have on the shades of modern practices when such questions like this arise. Coming out from a Pentecostal background, I would like to chime in on this.
At Pentecost, when the Spirit fell, the tongues spoken were clearly earthly languages. They were heard and understood by every individual who heard them. Tim Conway, Pastor of Grace Community Church in San Antonio, Texas, shared in a discussion similar to this about a pastor who was preaching one Sunday, and a woman came in who spoke no English, but some foreign language. Afterward, she said through an interpreter that she heard said pastor speak clearly in her own language. I believe this is tongues as the scriptures declare. Also, when a tongue is spoken, scripture declares that tongues MUST be interpreted.
I said that to say this. I am not a cessationist, but I am not a Charismatic either. I believe God in His sovereignty will use the supernatural to fulfill His will through us, and we will not even know it. I do not believe tongues have ceased, but that instead we are blinded by the Pentecostal movement about the true nature of tongues.
Just my thoughts.
At Pentecost, when the Spirit fell, the tongues spoken were clearly earthly languages. They were heard and understood by every individual who heard them. Tim Conway, Pastor of Grace Community Church in San Antonio, Texas, shared in a discussion similar to this about a pastor who was preaching one Sunday, and a woman came in who spoke no English, but some foreign language. Afterward, she said through an interpreter that she heard said pastor speak clearly in her own language. I believe this is tongues as the scriptures declare. Also, when a tongue is spoken, scripture declares that tongues MUST be interpreted.
I said that to say this. I am not a cessationist, but I am not a Charismatic either. I believe God in His sovereignty will use the supernatural to fulfill His will through us, and we will not even know it. I do not believe tongues have ceased, but that instead we are blinded by the Pentecostal movement about the true nature of tongues.
Just my thoughts.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
I am persuaded that Paul indicated in 1 Cor. 13 that the σημεια (of which tongues was one) would end with the completion of the New Testament canon.
Can you exegetically defend that? Please explain this fuller.
If I remember correctly isn't that the posistion of B.B. Warfield? Warfield probably would be the place to go for the exegesis on that passage.
The Gift of Prophecy in the New ... - Google Books
Here is Wayne Grudem's assessment.
-----Added 11/7/2009 at 12:24:16 EST-----
"But when that which is perfect is come [Christ returns], the imperfect will pass away." seems to be Grudem's take.
Here is Wayne Grudem's assessment.
-----Added 11/7/2009 at 12:24:16 EST-----
"But when that which is perfect is come [Christ returns], the imperfect will pass away." seems to be Grudem's take.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
1 Corinthians 13:8-12
The context of this passage is that concerning the ignorance of the Christians in the church at Corinth regarding the relationship between gifts and graces. Paul reminds them that they can have extraordinary, phenomenal gifts and yet be destitute of love and thus be lost in their sins (vss. 1-3).
“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” ( 1 John 4:8)
Paul states at the end of the chapter in verse 13 that “love is the greatest”. Why is love the greatest? Because love never fails. Love will accompany you all the way into the eternal state. Not so with all the flashy phenomenal gifts that they were desiring.
1 Corinthians 13: 8 Love never fails εκπιπτει. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail καταργηθησονται; whether there are tongues, they will cease παυσονται; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away καταργηθησονται.
Verse eight contains a triad __ prophecy, tongues, and knowledge __ which are contrasted with another triad in verse thirteen __ faith, hope, and love. The second triad consists of things that remain, whereas the first triad consists of things that cease, fail, or vanish away.
With what are faith, hope, and love contrasted? They are contrasted with prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It should be apparent that if we make both of these triads continue throughout this present age until Christ returns then the apostle’s intended contrast is destroyed!
Paul says that love never fails [εκπιπτει ] the word means to fall down from or out of. So the meaning is that Love will never fall from its exalted position.
• But prophecies (the extraordinary gift) shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”.
• Tongues shall παυω “stop, cease, leave off”. Compare the use of the word in Heb. 10:2 and in 1Pet 4:1.
• Knowledge likewise shall be καταργεω “reduced to inactivity”. In this context just what knowledge is Paul talking about? Not spiritual and divine knowledge in general for surely there will be such knowledge hereafter in heaven as well as now on earth, and vastly more … knowledge of God, Christ, and spiritual things shall not vanish away but shall gloriously increase. By the phrase ‘knowledge shall pass away’ is meant a particular miraculous gift (see 1Cor 12:8) that was in operation in the Church of God in those days.
This knowledge was a Revelatory gift, i.e. it involved revealing directly to the possessor of the gift the mind and will of God. This is evidenced by its association with prophecy and tongues.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part.
Paul says that we know, literally “we are presently knowing” εκ μερους “out of that which is partial” or “out of a portion of the whole.” Knowledge and prophecy were then coming forth in the period of Partial Revelation as contrasted with Completed Revelation as is seen in the following verses.
10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.
“But” says Paul by way of contrast “when comes that which is perfect …” . This phrase το τελειον that which is perfect is pivotal to the interpretation of the passage. The two Greek words are Neuter in gender and should be rendered the perfect thing. Whatever Paul had in mind when he wrote το τελειον it was, in its grammatical identity something neuter. If he had in mind Christ he would no doubt have written the masculine ο τελειος He who is perfect . If what he was referring to was Christ’s return he would have written the feminine η τελεια as in the feminine τη παρουσια “the coming of our Lord” (1Thess 5:23). Whatever Paul did have in mind he alludes to it with the neuter το τελειον that perfect thing.
So what is that perfect thing? The meaning of το τελειον is that which is brought to its end; finished; wanting nothing necessary to completeness; perfect.
Again the question comes: what is that perfect, that completed thing that the apostle was pointing to? It must be something apposite and juxtaposed to that which is partial mentioned in the previous verse. It is Revelatory, and since the category of the partial is Revelation then the category of the complete must be Revelation.
That Perfect Thing is the completed, inscripturated Revelation; the finished Word of God in both the Old and New Testaments.
11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Paul here, by way of illustration, administers a rebuke to the Corinthians. They have been behaving childishly in regard to the Extraordinary Gifts in general and Speaking in Tongues in particular. He illustrates this by saying that when he was a child he spoke, understood, and thought as a child, i.e. childlishly!
When however, “he became γεγονα [perfect tense] a man ” ανηρ that is, he completely entered manhood, he remained a man and did not return to childhood. He put away childish things. So too he is telling the Corinthians that the Church would one day reach Revelatory maturity and never return to childhood again.
It is a sign of spiritual childishness to want to go back to the time of the Church’s childishness. The time of the church’s childishness was the time of the extraordinary phenomenal gifts!
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
Paul gives explanation here saying “For” or “Because” “we see now, at this present time, by means of a mirror [εσοπτρον _ a piece of highly polished metal ] dimly { αινιγματι literally, in an enigma, indistinctly}…
Paul’s point is that in their day the Corinthians, along with all other believers, had an uncompleted Bible; a partially polished metal shield in which they could dimly behold themselves. James had already taken up the imagery of a mirror in reference to the Word of God saying in chapter One and verse Twenty-three of his epistle “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror εσοπτρον.
Paul again takes up this same imagery, although he employs a synonym of εσοπτρον in his second epistle to this same Corinthian church saying:
14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ.
15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.
16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror [κατοπτριζω participle from κατοπτρον ] the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
So here in (13:12) Paul is showing them that in this era of partially completed revelation they see things dimly; they know things out of a part of an as yet uncompleted whole. But he points this out in order to bring out the contrast. This partiality and dimness have continued up to their present time, but….
Contrast relative to Time
“but then …” τοτε When? When that perfect thing i.e. the completed Scriptures have come. The Corinthians were seeing in their Hebrew bibles dimly, but then τοτε face to face προσωπον προς προσωπον
Contrast relative to Quality
“face to face” How? Clearly as contrasted with dimly.
This phrase “face to face” has been popularly interpreted to mean the beholding God by the saints in glory. But the phrase as used in Scripture never refers to that glorious event. Rather the biblical usage consistently refers to the clear propositional revelation of the Word of God as contrasted with the less clear revelation of visions and dreams.
Numbers 12:6 Then He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. 7 Not so with My servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. 8 I speak with him face to face, Even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant Moses?"
See also __ Exodus 33:9-11, 18-23; Deuteronomy 5:1-4
Thus Paul tells the Corinthians that then, when that perfect, completed thing has come their knowing shall no longer be dim but shall possess the precision that comes from the clear propositional revelation of God’s Word inscripturated and preserved to the Church to the end of the age.
13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Even though the phenomenal gifts of prophecy (direct revelation from God), tongues (languages known without being learned), and knowledge (intelligence never acquired by study) would not continue to abide in the Church throughout this age, and at the end of the age faith becomes sight (2Cor 5:6-7) and hope becomes fulfillment (Rom 8:22-25), nevertheless Love continues throughout eternity.
What turned me around on to cessationism in 1 Cor. 13 is that in a mirror, we see ourselves dimly. Contrast this to the revelation of the completed Word where we know fully (ourselves).
Nevertheless 1 Cor. 13 is just a small part of cessationism in my opinion.
Back to the OP, I think the miraculous gifts (not just tonges) ceased even during Paul's time.
Phil. 2:25-27 and 2 Tim. 4:20 mentions Epaphroditus and Trophimus being sick in the body yet Paul never exercises his gift of healing. It could be that Paul is not wanting to subvert the gift for his personal reasons, which would in fact be an interesting evidence for the purpose of the miraculous. Healing (along with the others) are to authenticate special revelations.
To claim that tongues are operative today, what are they supposedly for? New revelation?
Nevertheless 1 Cor. 13 is just a small part of cessationism in my opinion.
Back to the OP, I think the miraculous gifts (not just tonges) ceased even during Paul's time.
Phil. 2:25-27 and 2 Tim. 4:20 mentions Epaphroditus and Trophimus being sick in the body yet Paul never exercises his gift of healing. It could be that Paul is not wanting to subvert the gift for his personal reasons, which would in fact be an interesting evidence for the purpose of the miraculous. Healing (along with the others) are to authenticate special revelations.
To claim that tongues are operative today, what are they supposedly for? New revelation?
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
Again, I think we have really had a misunderstanding of the true nature of tongues. Tongues were used as an evangelistic means, not to bring forth new revelation. I do not believe tongues were ever used in such a manner. Tongues were to be a sign to the unbeliever. I always questioned this, but now I believe I have a better understanding of the true nature of the gift of tongues, as well as the interpretation thereof. I believe God can also supernaturally give understanding to someone who hears the foreign language.
I do not in nay way, shape, or manner hold that the modern Pentecostal experience is tongues as pertaining to scripture.
I never said tongues brought forth new revelation. There's a difference between miraculous gifts accompanying revelation and revelatory gifts.
What then, is the nature of the gift of tongues? Xenolalia? If so, for what purpose? To be a sign to the unbeliever? If so, how?
I'm assuming, based on your post that you refute the pentecostal practice of glossolalia?
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
From what I understand, at Pentecost, tongues were given to speak forth the Word of God to people of differing languages. Men of every nation were at Jerusalem, and when the Spirit fell, scripture declares they heard the praises of God in all their languages. This completely contradicts the modern Pentecostal doctrine of babbling and unknown language. So, yes, I completely refute the Pentecostal glossolalia.
Let me state as well, for the record, that as a former Pentecostal preacher, I openly acknowledge the practices of that group are in complete error according to scripture.
Nobody took up the OP's question on Calvin or Luther, so here's what I could find.
Institutes IV.III.8
But in the letter to the Romans (Rom. 12:7-8) and in the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:28), he lists others, as powers, the gift of healing, interpretation, government, and caring for the poor. Two of these I omit as being temporary, for it is not worthwhile to tarry over them. But two of them are permanent: government and caring for the poor.
In discussing the designation of ministers of the Word.
Institutes IV.III.8
But in the letter to the Romans (Rom. 12:7-8) and in the first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:28), he lists others, as powers, the gift of healing, interpretation, government, and caring for the poor. Two of these I omit as being temporary, for it is not worthwhile to tarry over them. But two of them are permanent: government and caring for the poor.
In discussing the designation of ministers of the Word.
The day Benny Hinn was born...
The day Benny Hinn was born...
Too bad Josh already played the Benny card! T'was funny nonetheless
While I do not wish to say that the Spirit cannot do what he wants, and I have never encountered anything I would call legitimate tongues(languages)-speaking, we do not need or want to be searching for tongue-gifts any more than the other extraordinary gifts.
For the most part, and this would apply to basically the whole of the Christian world, I don't believe supernatural language gifts ("a known tongue") lasted beyond the immediate sub-apostolic age. All the sign-gifts were "Signs of the Apostles" (as reads the title of Walt Chantry's book), and were given to authenticate the Word-revelation being delivered (both the living Word and written).
You may recall the story of Simon Magus (see Acts 8:18-19) who wanted to have the power to give gifts of the Spirit. It wasn't enough that he might have or experience a Spirit-gift (see v13). No, but he thought with money he might purchase the gifts of God. Not a thought borne out of a Christian mind at all, or so Peter perceived.
Paul in Rom.1:11 speaks of his desire to impart spiritual gifts to those Christians at Rome, who had begun a church fellowship even without the benefit of any Apostle's presence.
So, we can conclude that--at least in the ways which we could expect the presence of gifts--when the Apostles were all dead, and when those to whom they had imparted certain gifts were also dead (which persons, not bearing apostolic authority, could not lay hands and confer those gifts to others), so ended the age of extraordinary gifts.
Of course, God can do (and may accomplish) extraordinary things in other times, including our own. However, all we can do is say we do not LOOK for such things, and we cannot always explain the unexplainable. Perhaps it was a supernatural event, or perhaps not. We have no REVELATION to tell us.
For the most part, and this would apply to basically the whole of the Christian world, I don't believe supernatural language gifts ("a known tongue") lasted beyond the immediate sub-apostolic age. All the sign-gifts were "Signs of the Apostles" (as reads the title of Walt Chantry's book), and were given to authenticate the Word-revelation being delivered (both the living Word and written).
You may recall the story of Simon Magus (see Acts 8:18-19) who wanted to have the power to give gifts of the Spirit. It wasn't enough that he might have or experience a Spirit-gift (see v13). No, but he thought with money he might purchase the gifts of God. Not a thought borne out of a Christian mind at all, or so Peter perceived.
Paul in Rom.1:11 speaks of his desire to impart spiritual gifts to those Christians at Rome, who had begun a church fellowship even without the benefit of any Apostle's presence.
So, we can conclude that--at least in the ways which we could expect the presence of gifts--when the Apostles were all dead, and when those to whom they had imparted certain gifts were also dead (which persons, not bearing apostolic authority, could not lay hands and confer those gifts to others), so ended the age of extraordinary gifts.
Of course, God can do (and may accomplish) extraordinary things in other times, including our own. However, all we can do is say we do not LOOK for such things, and we cannot always explain the unexplainable. Perhaps it was a supernatural event, or perhaps not. We have no REVELATION to tell us.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Hi William,
I realize many are thinking through these issues and you also are able to look at this from the standpoint of what happened in a pentecostal communion.
You may find helpful the following book by Mr. Packer:
[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Keep-Step-Spirit-J-I-Packer/dp/080075235X"]Amazon.com: Keep in Step With the Spirit (9780800752354): J.I. Packer: Books[/ame]
The basic issue, as I understand it (and I am not formally theologically trained and understand also, everyone here may not quite understand it this way) is this:
The I Corinthians 12 gifts, e.g. speaking in unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues was, in fact, a source of new revelation of God, equal in a sense, to that of Scripture.
That was because Scripture had not been completed, and the foundation of our faith laid by the prophets and apostles, had not been completed.
So, in Corinth, they were receiving revelation in that way.
I now understand that that has ceased, at least ordinarily, because the Word of God has been completely delivered, and the faith "once delivered unto the saints" (see Jude 1:3) has now been established by God's revelation through the prophets and apostles (the Scripture).
That's why the standard charismatic/pentecostal practice for waiting for "a Word from the Lord" during corporate worship is so wrong biblically. The Word, the revelation is already there, in a known language before them.
Now, speaking in known languages (as in Acts), that were not learned by the speaker is another issue. It appears Acts 2 is describing not revelation of God (e.g. Scripture, canon) but an extraordinary miracle. It appears this was primarily and evangelistic tool and also that it was an extraordinary event testifying to the extraordinary event of that day (the coming of the Holy Sprit more explicitly in the lives of believers).
I'm willing to allow that might still occur, because God is not limited by anything, but think it is extraordinary circumstance, not common occurrence. And, certainly not an "ordinary means of grace" for the believer.
The Reformed Confessions recognize God can and does do miracles.
So, when you described the situation where a foreign language speaker heard the good Pastor (who we just had an interesting thread about concerning His views on the fourth commandment) in her native language, I can say... I'm skeptical, want more information, but that it is possible.
I'm skeptical, in part because of assuming the Word of God was already available to the person you describe in her own language , and that is, ordinarily how God reveals Himself to us (though His Word... reformed also believes something similar in the sacraments also, but that would be another topic)
But it is not a source of revelation, equal to Scripture because the latter is now complete for us and generally available in our known language.
William Price
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Scott! Oh, I agree that tongues has become a source of extra biblical revelation in the Pentecostal movement. You hit the nail straight upon the head on that one. However, I do disagree this was the initial reason for the gift of tongues. Nothing spoken in tongues was ever truly extra biblical. What was spoken was the praises of God.
Hold on. Let me find the video of Tim Conway I was listening to. Very fascinating and very enlightening.
===============================================
Here it is. Found it!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMkpn0iZonA"]YouTube- Has the gift of speaking in tongues ceased? - Tim Conway[/ame]
Hold on. Let me find the video of Tim Conway I was listening to. Very fascinating and very enlightening.
===============================================
Here it is. Found it!
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMkpn0iZonA"]YouTube- Has the gift of speaking in tongues ceased? - Tim Conway[/ame]
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
William,
What I am thinking is that in the Corinthian Church, speaking in an unknown tongue and then interpretation of it was for "extra-biblical" revelation, and that they were receiving it as such at that time because the Scripture was not complete.
I'm not saying that it became that among latter day pentecostal/charismatics, but that it was, legitimately that in their time, in light of the incomplete revelation to them upon which to base their faith.
A purpose, at that time was revelation because the foundation "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) and built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20 ) had not been completed. That is, the full canon of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture had not not been completed.
In I Corinthians 13 and 14, Paul commanded several things to the Corinthian Church:
1) unknown tongues and interpretation were not the high priority gift (prophecy, teaching God's Word was) and,
2) they were not to be the focus of Christian faith and practice (the resurrection of Christ was) and
To prioritize it with the Word and to center Christian corporate worship on it was disobedience in Paul's day, and is so today but to rely on it as a source of God's special revelation today, as Scripture, is even greater sin... and causes much disorder in their communions.
What I am thinking is that in the Corinthian Church, speaking in an unknown tongue and then interpretation of it was for "extra-biblical" revelation, and that they were receiving it as such at that time because the Scripture was not complete.
I'm not saying that it became that among latter day pentecostal/charismatics, but that it was, legitimately that in their time, in light of the incomplete revelation to them upon which to base their faith.
A purpose, at that time was revelation because the foundation "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 1:3) and built on the foundation of the prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20 ) had not been completed. That is, the full canon of the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture had not not been completed.
In I Corinthians 13 and 14, Paul commanded several things to the Corinthian Church:
1) unknown tongues and interpretation were not the high priority gift (prophecy, teaching God's Word was) and,
2) they were not to be the focus of Christian faith and practice (the resurrection of Christ was) and
To prioritize it with the Word and to center Christian corporate worship on it was disobedience in Paul's day, and is so today but to rely on it as a source of God's special revelation today, as Scripture, is even greater sin... and causes much disorder in their communions.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
It was largely a pointer to the Jews that they were in trouble and that god was threatening judgment on them by people of foreign tongues. I would have thought it would have ended by AD 70.
See the context of the Isaiah passage Paul cites as evidence that tongues is a sign for unbelievers (presumably mainly Jewish unbelievers)
Notice also that Peter's quoting of Joel on the Day of Pentecost contains a reference to the judgment of AD 70 in it.
The Jews in particular should have known they were in trouble when God started speaking to them in unknown tongues.
See the context of the Isaiah passage Paul cites as evidence that tongues is a sign for unbelievers (presumably mainly Jewish unbelievers)
Notice also that Peter's quoting of Joel on the Day of Pentecost contains a reference to the judgment of AD 70 in it.
The Jews in particular should have known they were in trouble when God started speaking to them in unknown tongues.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
Is this saying, in context, that these twin gifts were an evangelistic tool, e.g. toward those who were not yet believers?
If so, would that mean that believers were not to treat them as authoritative relation as a part of corporate worship or that, in addition to being revelation at that time, it was also an evangelistic tool?
What think ye?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Well Paul is saying - or seems to be saying - that tongues (and its interpretation) is more important for unbelievers to hear.
When we go to the passage in Isaiah, and there are other OT passages that teach this, God says to the Jews, basically, "I've spoken to you as clearly as I could, but now in judgment on you you will hear me speak to you through the Chaldeans who will come and destroy Jerusalem." Having God speak to you in a foreign tongue through foreigners was, or could be, in acertain context a sign of imminent judgment.
I believe it's no accident that the gift of tongues was given at another crisis moment for unbelieving Jews, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem by an international Roman army.
Palmer Robertson is very good on this. See his lecture on tongues at sermonaudio.com.
I'm not saying this was the only purpose of tongues. Positively it also indicated that the New Covenant Israel would consist of all nations with the same spiritual privileges rather than focussing on one people in a special way. But this also warned the Jews of impending judgment if the didn't get right with God.
Tongues was saying that God was going to incorporate all nations into the spiritual Israel. I believe that process is ongoing and will be far more gloriously achieved in history than it has yet been.
The reason that this exegesis focusses on unbelieving Jews rather than unbelieving Gentiles even although Paul does not mention Jews, is because of the text he cites from Isaiah and its context there.
I suppose a case could be made that Paul is talking about both unbelieving Jews and Gentiles (?)
I've often thought that tongues would be a useful evangelistic tool in the first century church, even although Greek was a lingua franca, and even fisherman from Galilee had a strong grasp of it. I don't know? I do know that the modern gift of tongues/languages isn't the real deal.
If our Apostle is speaking particularly about the unbelieving Jews, this gift would be used in their presence. The tongues-speaker would receive from God and deliver a revelation in a tongue unknown to the Jews, and then an interpreter receive from God and deliver, a divinely-inspired interpretation in a tongue the Jewish hearers knew.
Robertson argues strongly from I Corinthians 14 that the tongues-speakers understood what they were saying. Paul links edification to understanding in this passage. If the tongue-speaker himself or herself doesn't understand what he is saying and yet is edified, Paul's argument is undermined. But Paul clearly says that those who speak in an unknown tongue are themselves edified.
If the tongues-speakers themselves understood what was being said, why was interpretation needed by someone else?
(a) Robertson's main point is that speaking in tongues was new revelation, and therefore the translation had to divinely infallible too. Therefore someone with the gift of translation had to give a completely accurate revelatory translation, something the tongues-speaker couldn't (necessarily?) give.
(b) I would add that it would be more convenient in some ways to have someone else translating, especially in a long revelation.
(c) It would add confirmation to the truth of the prophecy to have someone else deliver it in a known tongue.
When we go to the passage in Isaiah, and there are other OT passages that teach this, God says to the Jews, basically, "I've spoken to you as clearly as I could, but now in judgment on you you will hear me speak to you through the Chaldeans who will come and destroy Jerusalem." Having God speak to you in a foreign tongue through foreigners was, or could be, in acertain context a sign of imminent judgment.
I believe it's no accident that the gift of tongues was given at another crisis moment for unbelieving Jews, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem by an international Roman army.
Palmer Robertson is very good on this. See his lecture on tongues at sermonaudio.com.
I'm not saying this was the only purpose of tongues. Positively it also indicated that the New Covenant Israel would consist of all nations with the same spiritual privileges rather than focussing on one people in a special way. But this also warned the Jews of impending judgment if the didn't get right with God.
Tongues was saying that God was going to incorporate all nations into the spiritual Israel. I believe that process is ongoing and will be far more gloriously achieved in history than it has yet been.
The reason that this exegesis focusses on unbelieving Jews rather than unbelieving Gentiles even although Paul does not mention Jews, is because of the text he cites from Isaiah and its context there.
I suppose a case could be made that Paul is talking about both unbelieving Jews and Gentiles (?)
I've often thought that tongues would be a useful evangelistic tool in the first century church, even although Greek was a lingua franca, and even fisherman from Galilee had a strong grasp of it. I don't know? I do know that the modern gift of tongues/languages isn't the real deal.
If our Apostle is speaking particularly about the unbelieving Jews, this gift would be used in their presence. The tongues-speaker would receive from God and deliver a revelation in a tongue unknown to the Jews, and then an interpreter receive from God and deliver, a divinely-inspired interpretation in a tongue the Jewish hearers knew.
Robertson argues strongly from I Corinthians 14 that the tongues-speakers understood what they were saying. Paul links edification to understanding in this passage. If the tongue-speaker himself or herself doesn't understand what he is saying and yet is edified, Paul's argument is undermined. But Paul clearly says that those who speak in an unknown tongue are themselves edified.
If the tongues-speakers themselves understood what was being said, why was interpretation needed by someone else?
(a) Robertson's main point is that speaking in tongues was new revelation, and therefore the translation had to divinely infallible too. Therefore someone with the gift of translation had to give a completely accurate revelatory translation, something the tongues-speaker couldn't (necessarily?) give.
(b) I would add that it would be more convenient in some ways to have someone else translating, especially in a long revelation.
(c) It would add confirmation to the truth of the prophecy to have someone else deliver it in a known tongue.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
