1 Cor 14: 2 (spirit or Spirit)

[Biblicist]

Over in the theology forums I posted some material to two questions regarding the meaning of S/spirit and with the meaning of the Greek word "glossa" in 1Co 14:2, which I thought some on this forum might appreciate.

1 Cor 14: 2 (spirit or Spirit)

NIV (2011) 1 Cor 14:2

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.​

This is something that the various translations have struggled over but for those of us who view the makup of man as being either dichotomous or functionally dichotomous, where we do not see man as having a human spirit, where he is composed of a body and a soul then this makes sense.

Things can very easily become a bit more complicated for those who hold to the trichotomist understanding where they view man as being composed of body, soul and a human spirit so they can very easily find themselves paddling up the creek without a paddle (or maybe that could be paddling up the creek with someone else’s paddle and they want it back).

Due to the input from various Pentecostal and charismatic scholars (along with those who are deemed to be scholastically “open-but-cautious”), various translation committees have recognised this anomaly where they have made the change from spirit to Spirit to better reflect Paul’s meaning.

The following versions reflect the change from 'spirit' to 'Spirit':

• NIV (2011), the original 1984 edition had ‘spirit’
• Complete Jewish Bible
• English Standard Version
• New Living Translation
• New Revised Standard Version
• RSV 1952
• Holman Christian Standard Bible
• New Jerusalem Bible
• The Bible in Basic English
• Common English Bible
• The Douay-Rheims American Edition (1899)
• Etheridge Translation of the NT Peshitta (1849)
• The NET Bible

Glossa

In Acts 2:8 "dialektos" refers to language where Paul in 1Cor 14:2 employs "glossa" which refers to the physical organ of the tongue. The only way that we can know how any word is being used (in any setting) is by its context and this certainly applies to glossa. Even though glossa refers to the physical organ it can also be used to describe the tongue being used to convey an articulate (typically English) or inarticulate (heavenly) sound.

In the NASB/NIV the Greek word glossa GK1185/SC1100 is used 50 times.

Definitions for the following list:

1. Physical Organ = tongue
2. Physical organ with no connection with speech = physical tongue used to convey speech
3. Articulate language = English, Spanish etc, the native language of the speaker
4. Speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech) = tongues of Angels/heavenly language/groanings
​

NASB

• Mk. 7:33 physical organ
• Mk. 7:35 physical organ
• Mk. 16:17 physical organ
• Lk. 1:64 physical organ
• Lk. 16:24 physical organ with no connection with speech
• Acts 2:3 tongues of fire
• Acts 2:4 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• Acts 2:11 articulate language
• Acts 2:26 articulate language
• Acts 10:46 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• Acts 19:6 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• Rom. 3:13 physical organ
• Rom. 14:11 articulate language
• 1 Co. 12:10 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 12:28 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 12:30 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 13:1 language (both articulate and inarticulate)
• 1 Co. 13:8 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:2 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:4 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:5 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:5 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:6 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
• 1 Co. 14:13 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:14 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:18 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:19 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:21 physical organ as it relates to speech (a foreign tongue)
• 1 Co. 14:22 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:23 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:26 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:27 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• 1 Co. 14:39 speaking in tongues (inarticulate speech)
• Phil. 2:11 articulate language
• Jas. 1:26 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Jas. 3:5 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Jas. 3:6 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Jas. 3:8 physical organ as it relates to speech
• 1 Pet. 3:10 physical organ as it relates to speech
• 1 Jn. 3:18 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 5:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 7:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 10:11 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 11:9 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 13:7 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 14:6 physical organ as it relates to speech
• Rev. 16:10 physical organ
• Rev. 17:15 physical organ as it relates to speech

Friberg Lexicon:

5515 γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue; (1) literally, the organ of speech and taste tongue (MK 7.33); figuratively, as a means of verbal communication tongue, language (AC 2.11); (2) by metonymy tribe, people, or nation that speaks a common language (RV 5.9); (3) as a religious technical term for glossalalia tongues(-speaking), understood variously to be unintelligible ecstatic utterance (1C 14.2), heavenly language (1C 13.1), or foreign languages not learned through natural means by the speaker (AC 2.4); (4) as the shape of fire forked flames (AC 2.3)

Louw-Nida Lexicon:

8.21 γλῶσσα, ης f - 'tongue.' ἡ γλῶσσα μικρὸν μέλος ἐστίν 'the tongue is a small member of the body' Jas 3.5. Though in Jas 3.5 the tongue is referred to as a part of the body, it is used essentially as a symbol for speech, and since in some languages the tongue is not regarded as an organ of speech, but simply as a part of the mouth, it may be necessary to change the expression to read 'the mouth is a small member of the body' or 'speaking is only a small part of one's life.' It is obviously not the tongue as an organ which corrupts the whole person, but the capacity for speech which has such a corrupting effect.

Gingrich Lexicon:

1361 γλῶσσα
γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue—1. lit as an organ of speech Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 16:24; 1 Cor 14:9; Js 1:26; Rv 16:10.—2. language Ac 2:11; Phil 2:11 ; Rv 5:9. The expressions γλῶσσαι, γένη γλωσσῶν, ἐν γ. λαλεῖν etc. refer to the ecstatic speech of those overcome by strong emotion in a cultic context. The latter expression is usually rendered speak in tongues. Ac 19:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 13:1, 8; 14 passim, [glosso-, as prefix in numerous words] [pg 40]
​

 

[Alithis]

without going into it with any depth ... iv always flt it refers to the Holy Spirit ..or else he would have said "by "a" spirit .. but he says "the " spirit ..

 

[Biblicist]

without going into it with any depth ... iv always flt it refers to the Holy Spirit ..or else he would have said "by "a" spirit .. but he says "the " spirit ..

For those who reside within a cessationist setting then they will naturally want to dismiss much of the ministry of the Holy Spirit as they can from not only the contemporary church but from within the Scriptures themselves.

The NIV (1984) used 'spirit' as if Paul was supposedly talking about a human spirit but thankfully the translators of the revised NIV recognised the error so they changed it to Spirit. You would be surprised with the many Pentecostals and charismatics who have uncritically accepted the original NIV translation of this particular passage where I grant that many have probably brought this idea over from their earlier cessationist backgrounds.

For those who hold to the trichotomous position regarding the nature of man, where they feel that man is comprised of a body, soul and human spirit then this mistake can also be easily understood. As I am a dichotomist or more properly a functional-dichotomist then I do not see that man has a human-spirit; but the Born Again believer certainly has the Spirit which makes his human makeup complete.

 

[Alithis]

For those who reside within a cessationist setting then they will naturally want to dismiss much of the ministry of the Holy Spirit as they can from not only the contemporary church but from within the Scriptures themselves.

The NIV (1984) used 'spirit' as if Paul was supposedly talking about a human spirit but thankfully the translators of the revised NIV recognised the error so they changed it to Spirit. You would be surprised with the many Pentecostals and charismatics who have uncritically accepted the original NIV translation of this particular passage where I grant that many have probably brought this idea over from their earlier cessationist backgrounds.

For those who hold to the trichotomous position regarding the nature of man, where they feel that man is comprised of a body, soul and human spirit then this mistake can also be easily understood. As I am a dichotomist or more properly a functional-dichotomist then I do not see that man has a human-spirit; but the Born Again believer certainly has the Spirit which makes his human makeup complete.

ok this interests me from a conversational aspect but branches off topic ...
some stance i hold i have not always stepped aside to critique ..have not felt the need to i guess .but i cant realy see how either stand of body spirit vs body soul spirit ,really makes any difference .if the writer said "speaks mysteries by "a " spirit then i would assume he speaks of human... but as he says "the' spirit whether it is S or s become irrelevant to me personally. because ALL believers(plural) who speak in tongues cannot not do so from the singular spirit if it is their own spirit (it would have to be "they speak from their spirits -plural)...so it has to refer to the Holy Spirit(singular) by whom the believers(plural) speak .

 

[Biblicist]

ok this interests me from a conversational aspect but branches off topic ...
some stance i hold i have not always stepped aside to critique ..have not felt the need to i guess .but i cant realy see how either stand of body spirit vs body soul spirit ,really makes any difference .if the writer said "speaks mysteries by "a " spirit then i would assume he speaks of human... but as he says "the' spirit whether it is S or s become irrelevant to me personally. because ALL believers(plural) who speak in tongues cannot not do so from the singular spirit if it is their own spirit (it would have to be "they speak from their spirits -plural)...so it has to refer to the Holy Spirit(singular) by whom the believers(plural) speak .

If someone holds to the dichotomist position where man is only comprised of a body and soul then they ‘should’ resist any temptation to see Paul as meaning ‘spirit’ and not ‘Spirit’ in 14:2. Of course this demands that we fickle human beings are always consistent with our views but of course this is not always the case.

Your right in that we can only speak in tongues through the agency of the Holy Spirit. If you check the populist writings with many word-of-faith people in particular, you can easily come across articles where some apparently believe that God in some ways provides our supposed ‘human spirit’ with the power to do this type of thing.

 

[Alithis]

that would be to attribute god like qualities onto ourselves ..but it is in him we live and move and have our being .. not in ourselves .so id assume "they" would be wrong

 

[Biblicist]

that would be to attribute god like qualities onto ourselves ..but it is in him we live and move and have our being .. not in ourselves .so id assume "they" would be wrong

Precisely!

 

[Alithis]

Precisely!

to be precise ...

hey ,so im a Tintin fan .........

 

[Thekla]

As the passage does not provide an article for "pneumati" (which is typical though not exclusively the case when writing of the Holy Spirit), it is an open matter.

Spirit is also used for breath: in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul writes "my spirit/pneuma mou" (the Holy Spirit is owned by no one), and in Acts 9:1, Paul is described as "breathing intimidation and threats", clearly not a function of the Holy Spirit.

As my Church is not cessationist, the translation as potentially being breath/pneuma is not due to a cessationist position.

The question returns to whether the language here is meant as a supra-natural or natural language, and the manner in which this is practiced.

If indeed there is no exterior benefit to the use of this language, it would seem to me that, again, this is not necessarily a mark of the presence of the Holy Spirit. For even if one remains silent and/or unnoticed, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit indeed benefit all those with them; this presence is palpable in some, and certainly a blessing. Even Christ states that the Holy Spirit will 'outflow' as living waters (John 7:38).

 

[ByTheSpirit]

outside of any direct correlation to how glossa or pnuema in 1 Cor 14:2 is used, the overall context is referring to the Holy Spirit. It would be a travesty of sound biblical exegesis to say that 1 Cor 14:2 is not referring to the Holy Spirit as that entire portion of the letter is in reference to the supernatural gifts and ministry of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Biblicist]

As the passage does not provide an article for "pneumati" (which is typical though not exclusively the case when writing of the Holy Spirit), it is an open matter.

Spirit is also used for breath: in 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul writes "my spirit/pneuma mou" (the Holy Spirit is owned by no one), and in Acts 9:1, Paul is described as "breathing intimidation and threats", clearly not a function of the Holy Spirit.

As my Church is not cessationist, the translation as potentially being breath/pneuma is not due to a cessationist position.

The question returns to whether the language here is meant as a supra-natural or natural language, and the manner in which this is practiced.

If indeed there is no exterior benefit to the use of this language, it would seem to me that, again, this is not necessarily a mark of the presence of the Holy Spirit. For even if one remains silent and/or unnoticed, those who are filled with the Holy Spirit indeed benefit all those with them; this presence is palpable in some, and certainly a blessing. Even Christ states that the Holy Spirit will 'outflow' as living waters (John 7:38).

As for the Greek grammar behind 1Cor 14:2, I would say that if this passage was handed to a novice then they could rightfully admit to not knowing what Paul is talking about.

As the more seasoned Believer knows that tongues is the sole domain of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:4,17; 1Co 12:10; 14:16, then it is easy for us to understand that in 1Co 14;2 that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit; this is also the position of the NIV 2011 translation committee along with the other 12 versions that I referred to.

If indeed there is no exterior benefit to the use of this language, it would seem to me that, again, this is not necessarily a mark of the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here, but I would have thought that everyone recognised that within at least the early Church that they fully understood that speaking in tongues was the ultimate demonstration with someone having received the Holy Spirit; you only need to look at Acts 2 with Peters message in with Acts 10 & 11 where Peter stood before the Jerusalem Council where they all agreed that due to the Gentiles speaking in tongues that this was the definite sign with them having received the Spirit.

 

[Alithis]

As for the Greek grammar behind 1Cor 14:2, I would say that if this passage was handed to a novice then they could rightfully admit to not knowing what Paul is talking about.

As the more seasoned Believer knows that tongues is the sole domain of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:4,17; 1Co 12:10; 14:16, then it is easy for us to understand that in 1Co 14;2 that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit; this is also the position of the NIV 2011 translation committee along with the other 12 versions that I referred to.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here, but I would have thought that everyone recognised that within at least the early Church that they fully understood that speaking in tongues was the ultimate demonstration with someone having received the Holy Spirit; you only need to look at Acts 2 with Peters message in with Acts 10 & 11 where Peter stood before the Jerusalem Council where they all agreed that due to the Gentiles speaking in tongues that this was the definite sign with them having received the Spirit.

add a little note - there is NEVER no exterior benefit.one might not presently observe it ,but as sure as Jesus is lord there is both internal and external benefit .

 

[Frogster]

This verse also comes in s, and S in different translations.

NKJ Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Some seem to read, as though our spirit is now alive as per the NASB, some read as THE Spirit is life, which I think fits better in the context.

NASB
If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.


The ESV goes more in the line of thinking as the NKJV.

Rom 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.


Here is a link with alot of translations of the verse..

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.

 

[Thekla]

As for the Greek grammar behind 1Cor 14:2, I would say that if this passage was handed to a novice then they could rightfully admit to not knowing what Paul is talking about.

As the more seasoned Believer knows that tongues is the sole domain of the Holy Spirit as per Acts 2:4,17; 1Co 12:10; 14:16, then it is easy for us to understand that in 1Co 14;2 that Paul is referring to the Holy Spirit; this is also the position of the NIV 2011 translation committee along with the other 12 versions that I referred to.

What you call tongues is languages in modern English, so this can also lead to confusion ; as for the NIV translation committee, there is not a little disagreement with some of their other positions. But always with translation there is difficulty; they of course had to make choices else the translation would not have been completed !

That there are what we would call miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit is not what I am disagreeing with; what I do note is that Paul also writes that " for if I should pray in a language my spirit prays" (1 Cor. 14:14). This leaves the previous passage without ineluctable support for Spirit (and, as the Psalmist teaches, all life includes the breath which is itself a gift from God for when He withdraws it, then the living thing becomes dust).

Clearly there are several manifestations of the speaking and hearing of languages that are not explained by human agency, and this cannot be disputed.

But also (in Revelation), it is not that every ethnoi and glossa shall worship God that is itself the wonder, but what is the source (the parousia) that results in this.

Paul indeed writes of a sign, and this sign is found in Isaiah - that people of strange languages shall worship God (and with stammering lips, which is interestingly akin to what barbarian actually means in the Greek).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here, but I would have thought that everyone recognised that within at least the early Church that they fully understood that speaking in tongues was the ultimate demonstration with someone having received the Holy Spirit; you only need to look at Acts 2 with Peters message in with Acts 10 & 11 where Peter stood before the Jerusalem Council where they all agreed that due to the Gentiles speaking in tongues that this was the definite sign with them having received the Spirit.

In every instance ? Not even the Holy Scriptures demonstrate this theory.

 

[Frogster]

I have heard that the Isaiah passage about tongues, was a judgment verse.

 

[Thekla]

I have heard that the Isaiah passage about tongues, was a judgment verse.

It seems so, in a way ... and the foreign tongue reference occurs not a little bit in the OT to identify the gentiles (of various nations).

 

[Biblicist]

What you call tongues is languages in modern English, so this can also lead to confusion ; as for the NIV translation committee, there is not a little disagreement with some of their other positions. But always with translation there is difficulty; they of course had to make choices else the translation would not have been completed !

That there are what we would call miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit is not what I am disagreeing with; what I do note is that Paul also writes that " for if I should pray in a language my spirit prays" (1 Cor. 14:14). This leaves the previous passage without ineluctable support for Spirit (and, as the Psalmist teaches, all life includes the breath which is itself a gift from God for when He withdraws it, then the living thing becomes dust).

Now here’s where I will break from the norm by saying that your remark thoroughly annoys me as you have already been given the data on the other forum on this matter (refer to post #1). You should by now be aware that Paul used the Greek word ‘glossa’ which refers to the physical organ not to language. If nothing else, to maintain even the barest level of dialogue on this topic you need to acknowledge the data and not simply ignore it.

What you are certainly permitted to do is to acknowledge the evidence and then weigh it up where you can then offer an opinion as to its importance, but to simply ignore critical evidence which is widely discussed in mainstream theology is simply folly at its worst.

As you have chosen to ignore the relevant data where you have imposed your own views then your following remarks regarding Spirit/spirit are moot.

Paul indeed writes of a sign, and this sign is found in Isaiah - that people of strange languages shall worship God (and with stammering lips, which is interestingly akin to what barbarian actually means in the Greek).

Paul’s reference to Isa 28 is masterful in that he uses it to explain to the Corinthians (and us) that when the Eschatological people of the Spirit collectively speak in tongues during the congregational meeting, that it will only serve to isolate both the unregenerate and even those Christians (cessationists) who have little if any understanding of Spiritual matters. He wants to remind them that even though they are the Eschatological people of God who worship him in Spirit and in Truth, that such things can seem strange to those who do not understand Spiritual matters so in an attitude of love they are to refrain from corporately praying in the Spirit in their meetings.

Biblicist 2: Maybe I'm misunderstanding your position here, but I would have thought that everyone recognised that within at least the early Church that they fully understood that speaking in tongues was the ultimate demonstration with someone having received the Holy Spirit; you only need to look at Acts 2 with Peters message in with Acts 10 & 11 where Peter stood before the Jerusalem Council where they all agreed that due to the Gentiles speaking in tongues that this was the definite sign with them having received the Spirit.

Your reply: In every instance ? Not even the Holy Scriptures demonstrate this theory.

I don’t know what sources you refer to but even our contemporary cessationist leaning scholars will recognise that this is the case though they will certainly deny that tongues is relevant for today's church – it seems that your reply smacks of desperation.

 

[Biblicist]

I have heard that the Isaiah passage about tongues, was a judgment verse.

Yes, Paul cautions the Corinthians in 14:21-23 that they must avoid corporately praying in the Spirit during their meetings as praying in the Spirit will only serve to be a negative sign to both the unregenerate and cessationist who is in the meeting. The 'negative' sign value arises as they will more often than not say (v.23) "that you are mad" and walk out of the meeting where they will be hardened to the Gospel; this is what happened when Israel was invaded due to their stubbornness.

So tongues certainly has a 'sign' value to both the unregenerate and cessationist but it will generally only be in the negative.

 

[Frogster]

It seems so, in a way ... and the foreign tongue reference occurs not a little bit in the OT to identify the gentiles (of various nations).

True..

 

[Frogster]

Yes, Paul cautions the Corinthians in 14:21-23 that they must avoid corporately praying in the Spirit during their meetings as praying in the Spirit will only serve to be a negative sign to both the unregenerate and cessationist who is in the meeting. The 'negative' sign value arises as they will more often than not say (v.23) "that you are mad" and walk out of the meeting where they will be hardened to the Gospel; this is what happened when Israel was invaded due to their stubbornness.

So tongues certainly has a 'sign' value to both the unregenerate and cessationist but it will generally only be in the negative.

It seems to be more because they did not interp..the "mad" issue, where propehcy can be understood spoken in their common language, and if they interpreted tongues, that would be a form of prophecy, also understood, and then outsiders would not think them 'mad".

13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.