Interested too. It might be helpful to compile a list of commentaries and what the theologians say about it. Steve Lortz is doing that kind of thing in the Acts records, which should be interesting. I'll look around and post things up.
Not ignoring this. Actually quite interested in what folks conclude.
One thing I believe with conviction: it is not as it was presented to us.
Me, too!
I AM going to have to compare what Paul has to say in Corinthians with what Luke said in Acts.
The most interesting thing off the top of my head is that Luke never says anything in Acts about Paul OR the Corinthians speaking in tongues, and yet in Paul's letter he indicates that both he and ALL the Corinthians spoke in tongues outside the context of assembly meetings. More was going on than Luke reported in Acts. Much of the meaning of the practice was not explicitly written in the letter, but taken for granted by Paul and the Corinthians as implicitly understood from the instruction Paul gave when he was personally present at Corinth.
By comparing both sources, we can get a binocular perspective on what SIT meant to the writers and readers of the New Testament material. Binocular understanding was not possible with Wierwille's hermeneutic of trying to harmonize EVERYTHING. There was only ONE point of view... HIS.
One thing I AM certain of, the things we were taught about interpretation and prophecy were bogus.
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthians to adopt, one more in line with the spirit of the gospel?
Paul, starts out in his letter, hoping to again share the true heart of the gospel with this church, but, before he can get to that he has to confront all kinds of craziness. 14 chapters worth! This immature church was off the wall. Corinth was a wealthy port city with an influx of foreigners and a very large and multifaceted Pagan population with an influential culture. They were in the church. Before Paul gets to the gospel, he has to tackle the Corinthian's worldliness, sexual immorality, lawsuits, idol worship and Pagan sacrifice, the marked difference between the rich and poor, their disgraceful behavior at the communion table. Also he had to address their absolute love of making a spectacle of themselves in the assembly by trying to outdo each other in a display of the fantastic. .
In chapter 13, Paul gives us that wonderful synopsis of what love is and what love is not. I notice that this comes on the heels of his dealing with the diversity of spiritual gifts and what unity in diversity means. Paul cuts like a knife through self-centeredness and self-seeking, and then he keeps hammering away at this theme. The phrase "One another" is used more frequently here in Corinthians than anywhere else in the NT. There is a reason for that. These believers were fond of exhibition and self aggrandizement. Many were seeking after tongues. Paul explains that not everyone has the same gift.
The ironic thing, is that this church didn't lack in spiritual gifts....it was a highly gifted church.
When Paul begins his synopsis on genuine vs counterfeit love......He starts out speaking about the tongues of men and angels. Where did that come from? No one was speaking angels tongues in Acts? I, and others believe, that the Corinthians, who were a carnal and ego based group were making "one up ya" claims and raising the bar to claim they also spoke the language of angels. Paul is taking those claims and turning them right back on them. If I speak in angels tongues or mans tongues.....it doesn't mean a thing if I don't have love. He does this with prophecy....if I understand ALL mysteries, ALL knowledge, ALL faith, so that I can move mountains....If I donate ALL my goods and give my body to be burned even...I gain nothing without the proper attitude of love.
Paul is not claiming he actually speaks in the tongues of angels anymore than he is claiming he has ALL knowledge, ALL faith, or understands ALL mysteries. Later on he writes that we see through a glass darkly. He is saying that even if they reached the pinnacle of knowledge, wisdom, tongues and so on....it amounts to nothing without love. He tells them that.....love is not boastful....it doesn't seek its own. It doesn't act improperly. He tells them that their prophecies are going to end...their tongues are going to cease, and when that which is perfect comes along......the partial will cease altogether
They had seriously lost their focus.
Paul is reading them the riot act in a loving way, and this is all correction. One would think, that would be enough to get his point across, but he keeps going. He wants them to desire gifts.....but, to what end?
Why would he want them to desire prophecy? Because everyone was claiming their turn at the microphone for exhibition.(I think this is where counterfeit comes in BTW.) Great, everyone has a tongue, but no interpreters. Tongues were only building up the people speaking them but, he addressed what they are without love...nothing!! They were self-gratifying...I mean edifying. It was an ego based edification.
Paul was encouraging them to desire benefit for everyone....he was pleading with them. He tells them, since no one understands what someone is saying when they SIT....they are speaking a mystery. It is all Greek to me. Only God understood them. It is not that they were speaking some deep mysteries to God.....what good with that do the person SIT? He doesn't understand and it isn't doing God any favors....nothing is a mystery to Him. It is not speaking of some spiritual body building. And I believe this for many reasons.....one being that all believers are commanded to be filled with the HS, but not all believers SIT. We are filled and strengthened by God's grace and mercy.
Paul juxtaposes the two attitudes....self...which he has been tackling right along....and love and desire to benefit the body. Others. One another....a body. An attitude that runs in line with the spirit of the gospel......a desire to encourage, edify, or console the church. Later on, he likens SIT without an interpreter for intelligible speech, to speaking into the air. That is a radical departure from speaking deep mysteries to God. Whistling in the wind. . . . . . It comes right back to you.
Scripture does say that that he who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, that is not a lie, but then Paul immediately compares this to the better gift and speaker which builds up the church. Which attitude is he promoting? What is he pleading with them to seek? Self edification by showing off and building their ego or the desire to use a gift to benefit others? I am thinking 14:4 wasn't a command, or a laudable act....but rather a problem. The edification came because they were using their gift, but it meant nothing as they were seeking their own....because that is not love and without love it is empty.....void.
I didn't use "IMO", or "I think" as much as I should have, but please, insert them wherever you like. This is how I read these verses....in light of the correction of gross error and the heart of the gospel Paul is really wanting to share with them. He finally gets there in 15.
Someone will mention prayer in the spirit....and oddly enough....I have a take on that too! If you read this entire post....I salute you.
I just read your entire post, geisha. You can salute me for reading all of it. I salute YOU for editing it at nearly four in the morning!
The "if" in the verse where Paul says "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity..." is ean, not ei. The Greek meaning of ean is "if (and this is not likely the case)", whereas ei means "if (and this is likely the case)"
I would translate I Corinthians 1:13 as "If, and this is not the case, I were to speak in the languages of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become a braying horn or a clashing cymbal, in instrument making senseless noise."
All for now... got things to do today... (date night with LizzyBuzz!)
I just read your entire post, geisha. You can salute me for reading all of it. I salute YOU for editing it at nearly four in the morning!
The "if" in the verse where Paul says "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity..." is ean, not ei. The Greek meaning of ean is "if (and this is not likely the case)", whereas ei means "if (and this is likely the case)"
I would translate I Corinthians 1:13 as "If, and this is not the case, I were to speak in the languages of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become a braying horn or a clashing cymbal, in instrument making senseless noise."
All for now... got things to do today... (date night with LizzyBuzz!)
Love,
Steve
I salute you! I was also watching Glee at 4 AM while playing on the internet. I am recovering from a really bad flu and have been sleeping all day....up half the night. I hate that. Bags under the eyes that is.
Thank-you for that Greek. DA Carson says he cringes when pastors who have preached less than a few years appeal to Greek because of the nuances......being in school and surrounded each day is a perfect time to look at these things....so, I take you very seriously. It is lovely that you are willing to share your experience here.
Our date night is going to include an exciting trip to Wal-Mart. Whoo hoo!
Steve, how sure are you about the 'if' translation? It plays into my belief that tongues of angels was hyperbole and not literal, but I don't want to rush to embrace it.
There was no one big thing, but let me tell you this much.
There's a skeptic named James Randi. You may have heard of him. Something of a magician. Constantly on the hunt for supernatural and other hoaxes to debunk. I always make sure we call him for comment whenever we write our inevitable haunted hotel stories for Halloween.
I guess I should mention that he's local. His foundation HQ was walking distance from my office.
So this guy, The Amazing Randi, has a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who could provide conclusive proof of the supernatural.
So I'm figuring ot would be so easy to go in, speak in tongues and collect, right?
And I froze. I didn't want to be tested, not because God wouldn't allow it, but because I knew I was not being honest. I knew there was nothing coming out of my mouth that was divinely directed.
And I thought back on other people: Karl K, who literally wrote the book on the rise and fall of TWI. Here's a guy who never believed in the resurrection. Spoke in tongues more than ye all.
And that hot Goth chick I dated in college. Found out she was a PFAL grad. This was in the early 90s, when my heart was very much with TWI and its offshoots. I practiced SIT daily. Goth chick said,matter of factly, oh I faked it. My whole family faked it.
These were folks who had nothing at all against Wierwille. In fact, they were sad to learn he had died.
For years, I suppressed this. Randi's wager made it easy for me to finally confront the issue, at least for myself.
Please don't think Randi talked me out of what I did. I want to be clear that the only thing his challenge did was inspire introspection. My recognition that I was faking it was entirely internal and from my heart. I guess the best way to put it is, my realization was neither doctrinal nor practical. It was personal. There is no way for me to approach the doctrinal or practical issues with complete honesty if I am not being completely honest about what I am/was doing.
As such, I am fascinated by what honest people who disagree with me will conclude. I'm also reluctant to weigh in too much because I know anything I say will be immediately suspect. As such, I am approaching this thread and Steve's from the role of a troubleshooter. Or maybe a troublemaker. Bottom line, anything I post should be taken at face value: agree or disagree, but document it. It should strengthen your argument even if I'm wrong. It may or may not change your mind if I'm right.
Steve, how sure are you about the 'if' translation? It plays into my belief that tongues of angels was hyperbole and not literal, but I don't want to rush to embrace it.
I can only say "check it out for yourself" 'cuz I know I DON'T have all the answers, but to the best of my present understanding, I Corinthians 13:1 can be accurately translated as "If, and this is not likely the case, I were to babble with the tongues of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become as a braying trumpet or a clashing cymbal, an instrument producing sensless noise."
One of my profs thinks the qualification implied by the "if" indicates that Paul did NOT speak in tiongues. I think it means Paul did not speak in tongues without the love of God.
The word laleo, which I translated "babble" here is also used of the sound birds and "singing" brooks make.
At this point, I am inclined to agree with you that "tongues of angels" was hyperbole (or if you prefer, huperbole!).
Please don't think Randi talked me out of what I did. I want to be clear that the only thing his challenge did was inspire introspection. My recognition that I was faking it was entirely internal and from my heart. I guess the best way to put it is, my realization was neither doctrinal nor practical. It was personal. There is no way for me to approach the doctrinal or practical issues with complete honesty if I am not being completely honest about what I am/was doing.
As such, I am fascinated by what honest people who disagree with me will conclude. I'm also reluctant to weigh in too much because I know anything I say will be immediately suspect. As such, I am approaching this thread and Steve's from the role of a troubleshooter. Or maybe a troublemaker. Bottom line, anything I post should be taken at face value: agree or disagree, but document it. It should strengthen your argument even if I'm wrong. It may or may not change your mind if I'm right.
I, also, have been fascinated by Randi and his works. I envy that he is local to you. I don't believe the majority of people in the first century regarded the nature/supernature dichotomy the same way we do. "Nature" would be phusis, the closest thing to "supernatural" would be huperphues, which simply means "overgrown" or "larger than it ought to be". The Stoics would have regarded spiritual things to be part of nature, rather than supernatural, or better yet, they regarded nature to be a function of spirit.
...maybe "hyperphooie"!
I think everybody in the twentieth-century who has regarded SIT as "supernatural" has gotten into difficulties.
I can only say "check it out for yourself" 'cuz I know I DON'T have all the answers, but to the best of my present understanding, I Corinthians 13:1 can be accurately translated as "If, and this is not likely the case, I were to babble with the tongues of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become as a braying trumpet or a clashing cymbal, an instrument producing sensless noise."
One of my profs thinks the qualification implied by the "if" indicates that Paul did NOT speak in tiongues. I think it means Paul did not speak in tongues without the love of God.
The word laleo, which I translated "babble" here is also used of the sound birds and "singing" brooks make.
At this point, I am inclined to agree with you that "tongues of angels" was hyperbole (or if you prefer, huperbole!).
Love,
Steve
How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined).
Very confused about where you're headed with this, Steve.
Not to make too much of it.
Are you suggesting that the process of free vocalization, complete with its failure to produce a bona fide human language, IS what they were doing in the first century church? In effect, that God is instructing people to engage in free vocalization as a form of worship which, on a rare occasion, he will interject by inspiring an actual language as the rare exception and not the rule?
If so, I submit as a preliminary response that such an interpretation would have floored Paul.
How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined).
The particular prof I'm talking about is a wonderfully learned man in many respects, and I respect him deeply, but a number of years ago, there was great controversy in this denomination over the significance and applicability of "chariasmatic" practices, which in some respects remains unsettled to this day. He falls on the non-charismatic side of the divide.
I rely on him to give me the professorial perspective of that view, just as I rely on geisha to give me "the view from the pew" so to speak.
I am thankful for each and every one of you! If I eventually turn this thesis into a book, I'm going to have to include you all in the acknowledgments!
How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined).
Very confused about where you're headed with this, Steve.
Not to make too much of it.
Are you suggesting that the process of free vocalization, complete with its failure to produce a bona fide human language, IS what they were doing in the first century church? In effect, that God is instructing people to engage in free vocalization as a form of worship which, on a rare occasion, he will interject by inspiring an actual language as the rare exception and not the rule?
If so, I submit as a preliminary response that such an interpretation would have floored Paul.
Again, preliminary.
I am convinced lot's of things people take for granted today would floor Paul!
Don't be concerned that you can't see where I'm headed, Raf. Neither can I! That means we're probably going to get somewhere that neither one of us can presently imagine!
You know, my dad was a newspaper man. Newspaper writing is a different thing from scholarly writing, so I'm really glad to have you reviewing my writing also!
I'm gonna sign off for the day, and do some things I've got to get done before Hell on Wheels comes on! Thank you all!
I thought this article was helpful in considering the continuity of tongues throughout the accounts in Acts. I know that some argue understanding tongues was a miraculous event only occasionally seen. . . . but, this gives some perspective to the other accounts which is worth considering. This is just a sampling of the article which I linked to.
The argument is made by some charismatics that once one leaves the unusual circumstances of Pentecost, we actually see a different kind of tongues being manifested, i.e., an ecstatic speech of unintelligible sounds which is unrelated to any human language. They refer to this gift of tongues as being a miraculous language which is used in heaven between God and the angels, or as the language of the Spirit which man may attain in prayer as he is seized by the Spirit and caught up into heaven. This, many believe, is the kind of tongues found in the remainder of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
As we begin to examine this view, we will start with an evaluation of the other notable occurrences of tongues in the book of Acts.
1) Acts 10 - the house of Cornelius. The second clear instance of speaking in tongues occurs with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:44-48. As Peter was preaching, the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household. Then, Peter and the Jewish believers "were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" (v. 46).
Is there any evidence that these tongues were of a different kind or nature than what occurred at Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they speaking in a foreign language, or were they speaking in a jibberish? The evidence argues for continuity with Acts 2, not discontinuity:
a) Luke uses the same terminology here that he used in Acts 2. In acts 10:46 it states that they were "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais )which is the same expression used in Acts 2:4, 11. If Cornelius and his family were speaking in a different kind of tongue, say a jibberish, there is no indication from Luke that this was the case. He gives no hints or clues that something is different or unusual compared to what happened at Pentecost.
b) Both Luke and Peter acknowledge a continuity between what happened at Pentecost and what is happening with Cornelius.
(1) Luke says in Acts 10:45 that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also ." Luke says, in effect, that the same gift that came in Acts 2 came in Acts 10, that what happened at Jerusalem during Pentecost also happened at Caesarea in the house of Cornelius. There is no indication that the gift of the Holy Spirit which was being manifested through the speaking in tongues was any different here than in Acts 2.
(2) Peter also agrees. In v. 47 he says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did , can he?" Peter believed that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the very same way that they did at Pentecost. This expression is designed to draw the closest parallel between Peter's experience at Pentecost and what happened to Cornelius.
This continuity of experience between Pentecost and Cornelius is confirmed by Peter a second time when he returned to Jerusalem and explained to the circumcised believers what happened to Cornelius (Acts 11:4-17). In his defense, Peter asserts,
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning . . . If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I stand in God's way?" (vv. 15, 17).
Peter, again, argues that what happened at Pentecost to the circumcised believers also happened to uncircumcised Cornelius in exactly the same way. The Holy Spirit fell upon them both in the same way, "just as He did upon us at the beginning" (v. 15). Peter also states that God gave them the "same gift as He gave to us also" (v. 17). How did Peter know that they received the same gift as he did at Pentecost? Peter must have in view not just the gift of the Holy Spirit but also the Spirit's manifestation of His presence through speaking in tongues, otherwise what tangible evidence was there for Peter's confident assertion that God gave to Cornelius the same gift? Since the Holy Spirit is Himself invisible, the gift of the Holy Spirit can only be known through the way in which He manifests Himself. Since speaking in tongues were being manifested, this must have been the way in which Peter knew that the Gentiles had received the same gift as he had received. Thus, the "same gift" to which Peter refers must include a reference, not only to the Spirit Himself, but also to their speaking in the same kind of tongues which were manifested at Pentecost; namely, foreign languages.
All of this supports the view that the speaking in tongues in Acts 10 correlates exactly with what happened at Pentecost. There is no indication given by Luke or Peter that what was experienced by Cornelius was anything other than what occurred at Pentecost. If the manifestation of tongues at Pentecost consisted in speaking a foreign language, then the same must have occurred with Cornelius for there is no evidence of anything new taking place. Therefore, the description of the experience of Cornelius argues strongly for continuity with the same gift of tongues given at Pentecost.
c) Apparently the language of the tongues being spoken was understood by some of the Jewish believers for they recognized that Cornelius and his family were exalting God (v. 46). This would argue against a jibberish unless of course the gift of interpretation was being utilized, but again, there is no indication that this was the case. Although this is a lesser argument, it may also contribute to the case for continuity between Acts 2 and 10.
James "The Amazing" Randi is a small fellow, surprisingly small, and quite frail looking. But sharp as a tack! His wit is extraordinary. He does these meetings once a month that are not much more than an intimate gathering of fans and a look ahead at local events he's involved with. They're all of an atheist bent, for sure, but for anyone who loves science, they're pretty interesting.
On Wednesday night, he spent a good deal of time going over some old pictures in an album he brought along. He also performed an interesting card trick. I'll make that brief: he got one of his fans to place a deck of cards in two even piles, one by one, alternating at random intervals (two on this side, three on that, one on this side, one on that, two on this, etc.). When it was over, one side contained all the red cards, the other all the black. Tadaaaa!
I have no idea how he did it. Must have been magic.
1 Corinthians 14:2 Â For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 Â But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 Â He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 Â I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I like being edified spiritually, so I'm gonna keep on speaking in tongues!
Dr. was right, what the real problem here is the integrity of God's word. Not weather it's His word, but do we believe it as Gods word? Or is it Luke's word? Paul's word? Moses' word?
Hey! Didn't Dr. say that there was gonna be some slamming on the manifestations?
"Doctor" knew they would criticize the manifestations because he knew he was faking it and teaching us to do likewise. It doesn't take a prophet to make that prediction. I knew my position would be greeted with defensiveness and recitation of PFAL buzzwords and propaganda. That wasn't God giving me a vision of the future. It's common sense.
Continuing to engage in free vocalization as part of your prayer life is between you and God. It's not what's described in Acts and Corinthians. We know this because it is producing something else. Claiming the benefit of SIT while faking it is like paying for a pack of gum with a counterfeit $100 bill and looking forward to chewing it and pocketing the $99 change you'll get back from the cashier.
The integrity of God's word is unaffected by my willingness to lie for it. My belief casts no judgment on the integrity of the Bible or its authorship by Paul, Moses, Luke or God. It is about the integrity of Wierwille's interpretation and instruction, which is fair game. If questioning a teacher's doctrine and methods is not fair game, Wierwille would have had no career. Except maybe as a basketball player.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
Raf
Not ignoring this. Actually quite interested in what folks conclude.
One thing I believe with conviction: it is not as it was presented to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interested too. It might be helpful to compile a list of commentaries and what the theologians say about it. Steve Lortz is doing that kind of thing in the Acts records, which should be interesting. I'll look around and post things up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Me, too!
I AM going to have to compare what Paul has to say in Corinthians with what Luke said in Acts.
The most interesting thing off the top of my head is that Luke never says anything in Acts about Paul OR the Corinthians speaking in tongues, and yet in Paul's letter he indicates that both he and ALL the Corinthians spoke in tongues outside the context of assembly meetings. More was going on than Luke reported in Acts. Much of the meaning of the practice was not explicitly written in the letter, but taken for granted by Paul and the Corinthians as implicitly understood from the instruction Paul gave when he was personally present at Corinth.
By comparing both sources, we can get a binocular perspective on what SIT meant to the writers and readers of the New Testament material. Binocular understanding was not possible with Wierwille's hermeneutic of trying to harmonize EVERYTHING. There was only ONE point of view... HIS.
One thing I AM certain of, the things we were taught about interpretation and prophecy were bogus.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I mistrust what we were taught too.
I suspect that as we drill into the text of I Cor 14 especially that there aren't going to be a wide spectrum of ways we can go there. But sounds fun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthians to adopt, one more in line with the spirit of the gospel?
Paul, starts out in his letter, hoping to again share the true heart of the gospel with this church, but, before he can get to that he has to confront all kinds of craziness. 14 chapters worth! This immature church was off the wall. Corinth was a wealthy port city with an influx of foreigners and a very large and multifaceted Pagan population with an influential culture. They were in the church. Before Paul gets to the gospel, he has to tackle the Corinthian's worldliness, sexual immorality, lawsuits, idol worship and Pagan sacrifice, the marked difference between the rich and poor, their disgraceful behavior at the communion table. Also he had to address their absolute love of making a spectacle of themselves in the assembly by trying to outdo each other in a display of the fantastic. .
In chapter 13, Paul gives us that wonderful synopsis of what love is and what love is not. I notice that this comes on the heels of his dealing with the diversity of spiritual gifts and what unity in diversity means. Paul cuts like a knife through self-centeredness and self-seeking, and then he keeps hammering away at this theme. The phrase "One another" is used more frequently here in Corinthians than anywhere else in the NT. There is a reason for that. These believers were fond of exhibition and self aggrandizement. Many were seeking after tongues. Paul explains that not everyone has the same gift.
The ironic thing, is that this church didn't lack in spiritual gifts....it was a highly gifted church.
When Paul begins his synopsis on genuine vs counterfeit love......He starts out speaking about the tongues of men and angels. Where did that come from? No one was speaking angels tongues in Acts? I, and others believe, that the Corinthians, who were a carnal and ego based group were making "one up ya" claims and raising the bar to claim they also spoke the language of angels. Paul is taking those claims and turning them right back on them. If I speak in angels tongues or mans tongues.....it doesn't mean a thing if I don't have love. He does this with prophecy....if I understand ALL mysteries, ALL knowledge, ALL faith, so that I can move mountains....If I donate ALL my goods and give my body to be burned even...I gain nothing without the proper attitude of love.
Paul is not claiming he actually speaks in the tongues of angels anymore than he is claiming he has ALL knowledge, ALL faith, or understands ALL mysteries. Later on he writes that we see through a glass darkly. He is saying that even if they reached the pinnacle of knowledge, wisdom, tongues and so on....it amounts to nothing without love. He tells them that.....love is not boastful....it doesn't seek its own. It doesn't act improperly. He tells them that their prophecies are going to end...their tongues are going to cease, and when that which is perfect comes along......the partial will cease altogether
They had seriously lost their focus.
Paul is reading them the riot act in a loving way, and this is all correction. One would think, that would be enough to get his point across, but he keeps going. He wants them to desire gifts.....but, to what end?
Why would he want them to desire prophecy? Because everyone was claiming their turn at the microphone for exhibition.(I think this is where counterfeit comes in BTW.) Great, everyone has a tongue, but no interpreters. Tongues were only building up the people speaking them but, he addressed what they are without love...nothing!! They were self-gratifying...I mean edifying. It was an ego based edification.
Paul was encouraging them to desire benefit for everyone....he was pleading with them. He tells them, since no one understands what someone is saying when they SIT....they are speaking a mystery. It is all Greek to me. Only God understood them. It is not that they were speaking some deep mysteries to God.....what good with that do the person SIT? He doesn't understand and it isn't doing God any favors....nothing is a mystery to Him. It is not speaking of some spiritual body building. And I believe this for many reasons.....one being that all believers are commanded to be filled with the HS, but not all believers SIT. We are filled and strengthened by God's grace and mercy.
Paul juxtaposes the two attitudes....self...which he has been tackling right along....and love and desire to benefit the body. Others. One another....a body. An attitude that runs in line with the spirit of the gospel......a desire to encourage, edify, or console the church. Later on, he likens SIT without an interpreter for intelligible speech, to speaking into the air. That is a radical departure from speaking deep mysteries to God. Whistling in the wind. . . . . . It comes right back to you.
Scripture does say that that he who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, that is not a lie, but then Paul immediately compares this to the better gift and speaker which builds up the church. Which attitude is he promoting? What is he pleading with them to seek? Self edification by showing off and building their ego or the desire to use a gift to benefit others? I am thinking 14:4 wasn't a command, or a laudable act....but rather a problem. The edification came because they were using their gift, but it meant nothing as they were seeking their own....because that is not love and without love it is empty.....void.
I didn't use "IMO", or "I think" as much as I should have, but please, insert them wherever you like. This is how I read these verses....in light of the correction of gross error and the heart of the gospel Paul is really wanting to share with them. He finally gets there in 15.
Someone will mention prayer in the spirit....and oddly enough....I have a take on that too! If you read this entire post....I salute you.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just read your entire post, geisha. You can salute me for reading all of it. I salute YOU for editing it at nearly four in the morning!
The "if" in the verse where Paul says "If I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity..." is ean, not ei. The Greek meaning of ean is "if (and this is not likely the case)", whereas ei means "if (and this is likely the case)"
I would translate I Corinthians 1:13 as "If, and this is not the case, I were to speak in the languages of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become a braying horn or a clashing cymbal, in instrument making senseless noise."
All for now... got things to do today... (date night with LizzyBuzz!)
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I salute you! I was also watching Glee at 4 AM while playing on the internet. I am recovering from a really bad flu and have been sleeping all day....up half the night. I hate that. Bags under the eyes that is.
Thank-you for that Greek. DA Carson says he cringes when pastors who have preached less than a few years appeal to Greek because of the nuances......being in school and surrounded each day is a perfect time to look at these things....so, I take you very seriously. It is lovely that you are willing to share your experience here.
Our date night is going to include an exciting trip to Wal-Mart. Whoo hoo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, how sure are you about the 'if' translation? It plays into my belief that tongues of angels was hyperbole and not literal, but I don't want to rush to embrace it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I'd really like to know how you figured this out. Not that it is true, or untrue..
sorry if this was a previous question..
where the hell did you come up with this??
Personally.. one thing I believe with conviction. Nothing is as it was presented to me..
there is a lot of nutttiness along these lines. It is all my own..
a dear, dear friend. A Guru.. asked me.. so.. what if every thing you believed, or possibly could ever believe was just, plain, wrong.
yeah.. she is a friggin fruitcake. good for her..
what about those in this reality.. one nutcase after another..
don't you feel.. what is the word, offended, betrayed?
No I do not. It was one step of deception after another.. I learned what it was I needed to learn, one step, one deception at a time.
This soul is cool..
I'm only sorry all of this drove her, and others nuts..
*mods*. do as you wish here..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There was no one big thing, but let me tell you this much.
There's a skeptic named James Randi. You may have heard of him. Something of a magician. Constantly on the hunt for supernatural and other hoaxes to debunk. I always make sure we call him for comment whenever we write our inevitable haunted hotel stories for Halloween.
I guess I should mention that he's local. His foundation HQ was walking distance from my office.
So this guy, The Amazing Randi, has a standing offer of $1 million to anyone who could provide conclusive proof of the supernatural.
So I'm figuring ot would be so easy to go in, speak in tongues and collect, right?
And I froze. I didn't want to be tested, not because God wouldn't allow it, but because I knew I was not being honest. I knew there was nothing coming out of my mouth that was divinely directed.
And I thought back on other people: Karl K, who literally wrote the book on the rise and fall of TWI. Here's a guy who never believed in the resurrection. Spoke in tongues more than ye all.
And that hot Goth chick I dated in college. Found out she was a PFAL grad. This was in the early 90s, when my heart was very much with TWI and its offshoots. I practiced SIT daily. Goth chick said,matter of factly, oh I faked it. My whole family faked it.
These were folks who had nothing at all against Wierwille. In fact, they were sad to learn he had died.
For years, I suppressed this. Randi's wager made it easy for me to finally confront the issue, at least for myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Please don't think Randi talked me out of what I did. I want to be clear that the only thing his challenge did was inspire introspection. My recognition that I was faking it was entirely internal and from my heart. I guess the best way to put it is, my realization was neither doctrinal nor practical. It was personal. There is no way for me to approach the doctrinal or practical issues with complete honesty if I am not being completely honest about what I am/was doing.
As such, I am fascinated by what honest people who disagree with me will conclude. I'm also reluctant to weigh in too much because I know anything I say will be immediately suspect. As such, I am approaching this thread and Steve's from the role of a troubleshooter. Or maybe a troublemaker. Bottom line, anything I post should be taken at face value: agree or disagree, but document it. It should strengthen your argument even if I'm wrong. It may or may not change your mind if I'm right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I can only say "check it out for yourself" 'cuz I know I DON'T have all the answers, but to the best of my present understanding, I Corinthians 13:1 can be accurately translated as "If, and this is not likely the case, I were to babble with the tongues of men, or even of ANGELS, and I were not to have the love of God, I would become as a braying trumpet or a clashing cymbal, an instrument producing sensless noise."
One of my profs thinks the qualification implied by the "if" indicates that Paul did NOT speak in tiongues. I think it means Paul did not speak in tongues without the love of God.
The word laleo, which I translated "babble" here is also used of the sound birds and "singing" brooks make.
At this point, I am inclined to agree with you that "tongues of angels" was hyperbole (or if you prefer, huperbole!).
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I, also, have been fascinated by Randi and his works. I envy that he is local to you. I don't believe the majority of people in the first century regarded the nature/supernature dichotomy the same way we do. "Nature" would be phusis, the closest thing to "supernatural" would be huperphues, which simply means "overgrown" or "larger than it ought to be". The Stoics would have regarded spiritual things to be part of nature, rather than supernatural, or better yet, they regarded nature to be a function of spirit.
...maybe "hyperphooie"!
I think everybody in the twentieth-century who has regarded SIT as "supernatural" has gotten into difficulties.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How does he explain Paul thanking God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone in the church at Corinth (the more reasonable interpretation of the verse, seeing as I doubt he bragged about SITting more than ALL of them combined).
Very confused about where you're headed with this, Steve.
Not to make too much of it.
Are you suggesting that the process of free vocalization, complete with its failure to produce a bona fide human language, IS what they were doing in the first century church? In effect, that God is instructing people to engage in free vocalization as a form of worship which, on a rare occasion, he will interject by inspiring an actual language as the rare exception and not the rule?
If so, I submit as a preliminary response that such an interpretation would have floored Paul.
Again, preliminary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The particular prof I'm talking about is a wonderfully learned man in many respects, and I respect him deeply, but a number of years ago, there was great controversy in this denomination over the significance and applicability of "chariasmatic" practices, which in some respects remains unsettled to this day. He falls on the non-charismatic side of the divide.
I rely on him to give me the professorial perspective of that view, just as I rely on geisha to give me "the view from the pew" so to speak.
I am thankful for each and every one of you! If I eventually turn this thesis into a book, I'm going to have to include you all in the acknowledgments!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I am convinced lot's of things people take for granted today would floor Paul!
Don't be concerned that you can't see where I'm headed, Raf. Neither can I! That means we're probably going to get somewhere that neither one of us can presently imagine!
You know, my dad was a newspaper man. Newspaper writing is a different thing from scholarly writing, so I'm really glad to have you reviewing my writing also!
I'm gonna sign off for the day, and do some things I've got to get done before Hell on Wheels comes on! Thank you all!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Met Randi tonight. More later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I thought this article was helpful in considering the continuity of tongues throughout the accounts in Acts. I know that some argue understanding tongues was a miraculous event only occasionally seen. . . . but, this gives some perspective to the other accounts which is worth considering. This is just a sampling of the article which I linked to.
http://www.mountainr...toftongues.html
The argument is made by some charismatics that once one leaves the unusual circumstances of Pentecost, we actually see a different kind of tongues being manifested, i.e., an ecstatic speech of unintelligible sounds which is unrelated to any human language. They refer to this gift of tongues as being a miraculous language which is used in heaven between God and the angels, or as the language of the Spirit which man may attain in prayer as he is seized by the Spirit and caught up into heaven. This, many believe, is the kind of tongues found in the remainder of Acts and in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
As we begin to examine this view, we will start with an evaluation of the other notable occurrences of tongues in the book of Acts.
1) Acts 10 - the house of Cornelius. The second clear instance of speaking in tongues occurs with Cornelius and his household in Acts 10:44-48. As Peter was preaching, the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household. Then, Peter and the Jewish believers "were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God" (v. 46).
Is there any evidence that these tongues were of a different kind or nature than what occurred at Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they speaking in a foreign language, or were they speaking in a jibberish? The evidence argues for continuity with Acts 2, not discontinuity:
a) Luke uses the same terminology here that he used in Acts 2. In acts 10:46 it states that they were "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais )which is the same expression used in Acts 2:4, 11. If Cornelius and his family were speaking in a different kind of tongue, say a jibberish, there is no indication from Luke that this was the case. He gives no hints or clues that something is different or unusual compared to what happened at Pentecost.
b) Both Luke and Peter acknowledge a continuity between what happened at Pentecost and what is happening with Cornelius.
(1) Luke says in Acts 10:45 that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also ." Luke says, in effect, that the same gift that came in Acts 2 came in Acts 10, that what happened at Jerusalem during Pentecost also happened at Caesarea in the house of Cornelius. There is no indication that the gift of the Holy Spirit which was being manifested through the speaking in tongues was any different here than in Acts 2.
(2) Peter also agrees. In v. 47 he says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did , can he?" Peter believed that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the very same way that they did at Pentecost. This expression is designed to draw the closest parallel between Peter's experience at Pentecost and what happened to Cornelius.
This continuity of experience between Pentecost and Cornelius is confirmed by Peter a second time when he returned to Jerusalem and explained to the circumcised believers what happened to Cornelius (Acts 11:4-17). In his defense, Peter asserts,
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning . . . If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I stand in God's way?" (vv. 15, 17).
Peter, again, argues that what happened at Pentecost to the circumcised believers also happened to uncircumcised Cornelius in exactly the same way. The Holy Spirit fell upon them both in the same way, "just as He did upon us at the beginning" (v. 15). Peter also states that God gave them the "same gift as He gave to us also" (v. 17). How did Peter know that they received the same gift as he did at Pentecost? Peter must have in view not just the gift of the Holy Spirit but also the Spirit's manifestation of His presence through speaking in tongues, otherwise what tangible evidence was there for Peter's confident assertion that God gave to Cornelius the same gift? Since the Holy Spirit is Himself invisible, the gift of the Holy Spirit can only be known through the way in which He manifests Himself. Since speaking in tongues were being manifested, this must have been the way in which Peter knew that the Gentiles had received the same gift as he had received. Thus, the "same gift" to which Peter refers must include a reference, not only to the Spirit Himself, but also to their speaking in the same kind of tongues which were manifested at Pentecost; namely, foreign languages.
All of this supports the view that the speaking in tongues in Acts 10 correlates exactly with what happened at Pentecost. There is no indication given by Luke or Peter that what was experienced by Cornelius was anything other than what occurred at Pentecost. If the manifestation of tongues at Pentecost consisted in speaking a foreign language, then the same must have occurred with Cornelius for there is no evidence of anything new taking place. Therefore, the description of the experience of Cornelius argues strongly for continuity with the same gift of tongues given at Pentecost.
c) Apparently the language of the tongues being spoken was understood by some of the Jewish believers for they recognized that Cornelius and his family were exalting God (v. 46). This would argue against a jibberish unless of course the gift of interpretation was being utilized, but again, there is no indication that this was the case. Although this is a lesser argument, it may also contribute to the case for continuity between Acts 2 and 10.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll keep this brief, since it's off-topic.
James "The Amazing" Randi is a small fellow, surprisingly small, and quite frail looking. But sharp as a tack! His wit is extraordinary. He does these meetings once a month that are not much more than an intimate gathering of fans and a look ahead at local events he's involved with. They're all of an atheist bent, for sure, but for anyone who loves science, they're pretty interesting.
On Wednesday night, he spent a good deal of time going over some old pictures in an album he brought along. He also performed an interesting card trick. I'll make that brief: he got one of his fans to place a deck of cards in two even piles, one by one, alternating at random intervals (two on this side, three on that, one on this side, one on that, two on this, etc.). When it was over, one side contained all the red cards, the other all the black. Tadaaaa!
I have no idea how he did it. Must have been magic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Geisha, please post that link in the SIT Online Reading Room! It's in doctrinal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Preacher
Do You speak in tongues?
1 Corinthians 14:2 Â For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 Â But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 Â He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 Â I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
I like being edified spiritually, so I'm gonna keep on speaking in tongues!
Dr. was right, what the real problem here is the integrity of God's word. Not weather it's His word, but do we believe it as Gods word? Or is it Luke's word? Paul's word? Moses' word?
Hey! Didn't Dr. say that there was gonna be some slamming on the manifestations?
You are fulfilling what he predicted!
I like geishas post>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Doctor" knew they would criticize the manifestations because he knew he was faking it and teaching us to do likewise. It doesn't take a prophet to make that prediction. I knew my position would be greeted with defensiveness and recitation of PFAL buzzwords and propaganda. That wasn't God giving me a vision of the future. It's common sense.
Continuing to engage in free vocalization as part of your prayer life is between you and God. It's not what's described in Acts and Corinthians. We know this because it is producing something else. Claiming the benefit of SIT while faking it is like paying for a pack of gum with a counterfeit $100 bill and looking forward to chewing it and pocketing the $99 change you'll get back from the cashier.
You go ahead and do that. None of my business.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The integrity of God's word is unaffected by my willingness to lie for it. My belief casts no judgment on the integrity of the Bible or its authorship by Paul, Moses, Luke or God. It is about the integrity of Wierwille's interpretation and instruction, which is fair game. If questioning a teacher's doctrine and methods is not fair game, Wierwille would have had no career. Except maybe as a basketball player.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.