First Corinthians 14: On prophecy and tongues
I asked earlier what Paul meant by "the greater gifts." He gives us his answer in 1 Cor. 14:1-5. The greater gifts are those that directly edify the church. So, prophecy is of more value than tongues because anyone who hears prophecy can hear the direct word of God spoken. Now, does this diminish tongues? No, and I do not believe that tongues has been erased as a gift for today's church. I do confess I have never spoken in tongues, although I have prayed for the gift when I was a teenager. However, there is a place in today's church for every spiritual gift. Paul's point is that communication of the good news of Jesus Christ is the purpose of the gifts, and the greater gifts are those that communicate the Gospel most clearly (12).
Paul's solution for the understanding of tongues is the interpreter--a direct biblical command that I personally have never seen practiced, even though I have attended many Christian services where tongues have played a roll in worship. I find it interesting that some of the most conservative biblical interpreters our there in the charismatic movements do not seem to take this admonishment by Paul very seriously.
Paul's solution for the understanding of tongues is the interpreter--a direct biblical command that I personally have never seen practiced, even though I have attended many Christian services where tongues have played a roll in worship. I find it interesting that some of the most conservative biblical interpreters our there in the charismatic movements do not seem to take this admonishment by Paul very seriously.
Labels: First Corinthians, prophecy, tongues, worship
posted by Randy Rogers at
10:42 AM
17 Comments:
Randy,
It might be that Paul's statements are time sensitive in that they are made before the Kingdom Establishes and thus much work is needed to ready mankind.
RFR
So, are you saying that tongues are still active because the Kingdom is not fully established? If so, when is the Kingdom established? And what was Acts 2 all about?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Randy
I am saying perhaps...tongues will be ALL that is spoken when the Kingdom is Established.
RFR
So, you are saying that when we get ot heaven, then we all speak in tongues, i.e. God's language?
I can agree with that.
Also, do you imply that prophecy prepares all be;ievers to speak in tongues one day?
maaybeee...but more probably the Holy Spirit will do the real work!
Pastor,
It seems the idea that speaking in tongues is miraculous was an established pagan idea:
"I may say too that he often gave ORACLES to barbarians, when anyone put A QUESTION IN HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE, in Syrian or in Celtic; since he readily found strangers in the city who belonged to the same nation as his questioners. That is why the time between the presentation of the scrolls and the delivery of the oracle was long, so that in the interval the questions might be unsealed at leisure without risk and men might be found who would be able to translate them fully. Of this sort was the response given to the Scythian :
"Morphen eubargoulis eis skian chnechikrage leipsei phaos"
[page 243] [Chapter 53] "Let me also tell you a few of the responses that were given to me. When I asked whether Alexander was bald, and sealed the question carefully and conspicuously, a "nocturnal" oracle was appended :
'' Sabardalachou malachaattealos en." [Unintelligible, according to the Loeb editor]"
Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet, Chapter 52- 3 (2d Century AD), -- which you can find in: Harmon, A. M. Lucian Volume IV (Loeb #162) (1953 / 1999), pg. 241- 3
And the Pythia and the Sybils spoke unintelligibly, and needed translators.
What are the implications of this for Christian theology?
The facts are clear. It can't be that with tongues in Paul we are dealing with a religious practice that was new and unique to Christianity. It must be that our Christian founders were repeating? / copying? / reproducing ? / mimetting? an established ancient pagan religious form.
Could it be that ancient cultures around the Mediterranean shared standard ideas about Gods and their powers and place in the universe—and that Christianity simply adopted those ideas, and applied them to Jesus?
TIA
Busco
I agree that there was a culture of charismatic religious practice in all ancient languages, whether shaman-like, or basic divination. The ancient practice of religious ecstacy was expected when the gods would contact the people through the chosen methods of communication.
It was also a role that women often played, and then men would control the outcome through interpretation. This is not to say that there was no spiritual event taking place, but how to measure it is really beyond me.
I also agree that tongues were not unique to Christianity. However, according to Paul, they are legitimate as an expression of contacting God. Thus, Paul sees the phenomenon of tongues, whether Christian or pagan, as a legitimate spiritual endeavor.
Also, I am not willing to say that Christianity simply adopted/baptized the pagan practice of tongues. The Acts 2 testimony indicates the speaking in tongues was initiated by the Holy Spirit in fulfillment of the Old Testament. If anything, the Holy Spirit applied tongues to his church. Why? As a sign of the new kingdom and the legitimacy of the good news preached by the Apostles.
If anything, the Corinthians had turned away from tongues as a sign of the Gospel and had reverted back to their former understanding of tongues as religious expression of self-righteousness (and that is where all religious practice becomes vain). Their religious expression, then, became a part of their Christian status. Tongues became less about the Gospel and more about their own personal spirituality. If they did anything wrong with tongues, I would have to say it had to do with their own self-righteous practice of an otherwise legitimate spiritual expression.
You seem to agree pagans and Christians had this similar religious idea (tongues), but you don't believe Christianity copied/adopted/borrowed the pagan idea, since Paul gives a different and supernatural origin for Christian tongues, and you're inclined to believe Paul, on account of him being inspired by God and all.
I wonder if you have worked out your ideas are about the relationship between their tongues and ours.
I'm sure you'll agree Glycon's/ Alexander's xenoglossic oracles were phony superstition. Some pagan tongues were superstition and no more. Were the Pythias' oracles really given to her, as Strabo tells us, by the pneuma of Apollo? Or was that idea just pagan superstition?
Did all those other ancient religions borrow and share this idea back and forth over the centuries, and we came along and, what, came up with the practice on our own? Or Paul got from the Holy Spirit a real version of the phony practice everyone else had had all along and Paul knew about already?
It seems to me the idea that Christianity did borrow/adopt/adapt the pagan idea is entirely reasonable, in the positivist, natural cause and effect sense of reasonable. It's how we explain the diffusion of the idea around the Mediterranean, among the pagans, in earlier centuries. On the other hand your "Paul pins our tongues on our holy spirit" analysis relies on a supernatural explanation beyond the reach of (positivist) reasoned analysis. Which is fine, except this isn't a case of faith being evidence of things unseen, it's a case of faith being evidence that things seen are not real. "Who you gonna' believe, faith or your lyin' eyes."
Whatever the final merits of your explanation, you are left with an equivalent of "The Earth is flat, the Bible says so." This seems to me a recipe for a decline of our religion.
Or am I missing something?
TIA
Busco
Busco,
Well spoken. I appreciate your thoughts and analysis--very engaging. I apologize for the length of the comment, but I wanted to address certain issues as they came to me. Thanks for your patience.
You say, “Whatever the final merits of your explanation, you are left with an equivalent of "The Earth is flat, the Bible says so." If you assume that my answer is invalid, regardless of the logic, because I have a high view of scripture, then you have proven your point without my answer. There is nothing I can say in response that will trump your presupposition. Having acknowledged the deficit at which I start, I will continue with some thoughts concerning your comments.
First of all, you say, “You seem to agree pagans and Christians had this similar religious idea (tongues), but you don't believe Christianity copied/adopted/borrowed the pagan idea, since Paul gives a different and supernatural origin for Christian tongues, and you're inclined to believe Paul, on account of him being inspired by God and all."
My response: I am not saying that Paul, and especially the Corinthians, were not influenced by Greco-Roman culture concerning tongues. I think that there was definite influence, and the Corinthians actually had trouble in their worship because they identified too much with pagan practice. However, just because there is a world-wide cultural phenomenon does not mean that there is not a unique aspect to the Christian version. How do I prove this? Be patient. I’ll get there.
Of course, I have a great respect for the Bible, and I will defer to its comments in an argument every time. This is one of my presuppositions, and I think the Scripture is reasonable for the defense of the faith and Christian practices.
(continued in next post)
Busco--continued,
So, you ask me if tongues are pagan or Christian. I say, “Yes” based on the reality that all religious cultures, including Christianity, practice some form of it.
Are they real or superstition? I say, “Yes” based on my own Christian experience and also on Scripture. Acts 2:3-4 clearly states that tongues are from God, and the Spirit initiated them based on the Old Testament (Acts 2:17). Yet, Paul also states that false spirits work to deceive God’s people (1 Tim 4:1-2), and that there is an active spiritual counterfeit of God’s good grace in the world. Still, Paul argues that worshiping any other gods than the One God is vanity (Acts 14:11, 19:26). Yet, he acknowledge in 1 Cor. 8:5 that there are many gods and lords, but only One Living God. So, in some ways, Paul argues for superstition. Yet, not even Paul is foolishness enough to ignore his experience and say that there are no evil spirits at all. I think a rational approach is to say that some or most cases are superstition; but one cannot rule all religious practices as spiritually void of power or impact from the spirit world, whether for god or evil. The possibility exists. Your presuppositions will indicate whether it is probable or not. My presuppositions, based on the value of Scripture, require me to accept the possibility as probable—even if I do not have the complete wisdom to discern every circumstance. In my own experience, from trips to four different continents, I have seen spiritual things that I cannot explain, but pushed spiritual realities beyond mere superstition.
(continued in next post)
Busco--third installment
You say, “It seems to me the idea that Christianity did borrow/adopt/adapt the pagan idea is entirely reasonable, in the positivist, natural cause and effect sense of reasonable.” Yes it is reasonable, but you must deal with the biblical witness that tongues were a valid expression of God’s relationship with his people. In fact, he initiated it. I don’t deny the cultural similarities. However, there is something unique happening (the Bible’s point), and we all need to check it out. Just because something seems reasonable does not mean that all case studies must fit that mold. Again, your presupposition that the positivist explanation holds the best answers regardless of Scriptural testimony rings hollow with me. But, of course, I would say that since I am a preacher. I have to assume in some cases that my own experience and reason, while important gifts from God, do not hold the final understanding for all matters. This is why Scripture is so important for me.
You say, “Whatever the final merits of your explanation, you are left with an equivalent of "The Earth is flat, the Bible says so." This seems to me a recipe for a decline of our religion.”
Yes, the Bible indicates the world is flat—a clear cultural perspective that we have since observed from a different perspective. Does it change the truth that God created? No. I am not sure that an evolutionist would observe the order of the Genesis account and find much different that their own evolutionary theory. But I wouldn’t expect a Jewish writer (Moses or otherwise) to see things any differently. Yet, the truth of the story still stands. Your presuppositions concerning the believability of the creation account will ultimately determine where you wind up in accepting its truth.
(one more time)
Busco--on my logic for accepting tongues as a valid expression oF Christian religion; and what might be missing
So, why do I believe that tongues are a valid expression of Christian faith, and not just a superstitious religious expression for simplistic people of faith?
1. The Bible says so. :) I accept Acts 2 as real—and that God sent tongues as a sign of God’s new work among his people, in fulfillment of the Old Testament.
2. I accept that some charismatic expressions (like tongues) are valid expression of real religious experience. How can I rule out all of them as psychologically induced behavior? Can anyone rule them all out?
3. I accept that some pagan spirits (demons) are real and counterfeit divine (The One True God) activity.
4. I accept that there is fundamental difference between pagan and Christian tongues in the 1st Century AD. This does not deny a connection in cultural practice, but it assumes that God Almighty did something unique for the affirmation of the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the fundamental reason why tongues are valid. The Corinthians forgot this, and were reprimanded for their misuse of the gift.
I hope this response sounds like I’ve put some work into the issue of tongues in the New Testament.
If you are missing anything, and I say this humbly because I am missing a great many things, it is that tongues played a vital role in the spread of Christianity according to the book Acts. They should not be dismissed simply because of a similarity with other cultures. The question for me is not one of validity (for I accept the validity), but one of uniqueness. If Christ is not risen from the dead, then I am like any other religion, and there is no uniqueness for me. However, he is alive! And thus Christianity (and even tongues) stands alone in a sea of world religions.
I just gotta say that I find it humoruous that a Baptist pastor who has never spoken in tongues is laying out such a detailed analysis of the validity of tongues for Christian religious expression. That makes me laugh.
When I say that I would not expect Moses or other Jewish writers to see things differently, I mean that they wrote what they knew and understood, and I would not expect them to write the Scripture any other way that the way it comes to us.
Randy,
I was very enthralled with your analysis of tongues as a Christian expression, and note the attention you paid to detail in explaining origins and applications of tongues as a cultural phenomena. Over the weekend I was at a Houston area High School graduation and attended a Lutheran, very relaxed I was the only suit in at least 250 malesno hymns, just praise and wordhip, through contemporary arrangement. The pastor there, after encouraging us to contemplate sharing a heineken with someone unlike ourselves, spoke on, of all things, 1 Cor 13; so the subject of tongues came up briefly. By his words he seemed to indicate a much broader acceptance of the gift within that denom and indicated a difference of gifting within the gift itself. Even Paul begins:
1Cr 13:1 ¶ Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
I personally have not encountered what I noticed anyone speaking with the tongue of angels so that I knew it, but an Hispanic naturalized citizen preacher who had become well known locally and also worked in my garden for a time, explained that after coming to the USA from Mexico and not knowing any English, but following God's leadership into the ministry, he became fluent in English within 6 months. He thanked God for the power and gift, but left it to me to decide on my own whether he spoke tongues as a result of a gifting by the Holy Spirit.
All this to note the Baptist perspective seems to focus largely on the angelic side and as a result often rejects tonguing as a suspect pagan distraction.
It would seem to me that if God doesn't speak the KJ English surely he won't confuse me by speaking Wooky, but rather a tongue whereby no confusion is encountered by the listener who believes.
On the other hand, if I am speaking to Cherokee in Cherokee do they need an interpreter, or am I that interpreter?...yet, if I am speaking with and listening to God in His language who can interpret other than God? So where should I use the angelic tongue?
so to the BFM 1963 and 2000 as to how it, the shoe may fit:
Shame on those who would limit us from encountering God in the way He saw fit to manifest himself to the individual, and shame on those who would require a particular gifting in order that we be assured of our salvation[excepting the Item(upper case used purposefully) necessary to meet together in unity]. Assurance is an aspect of faith and even that is a gift of varying degrees among the Church.
RFR
Robefre writes: yet, if I am speaking with and listening to God in His language who can interpret other than God? So where should I use the angelic tongue?
Great question. For me, the Bible indicates that it is intensely personal, so a private worship experience seems appropriate. Also, the Bible indicates it is a sign for the Gospel, so a public forum of worship or preaching is appropriate. Finally, Paul does not indicate that tongues is controlled by the recipient (as oppossed to prophecy--1 Cor 14:32). So, if the Spirit sends the gift, it probably comes bubbling forth in affirmation of his work, whether private or public.
All that to say, it doesn't matter where we think the gift of tongues should appear. When the Spirit sends it, it will appear--and it will affirm the Gospel.
DISCLAIMER: ALWAYS HAVE AN INTERPRETER OF TONGUES NEARBY WHEN TONGUES ARE USED IN A PUBLIC SETTING. NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR UNTRANSLATED TONGUES IN PUBLIC.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home