Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We only know part of God's will for each of our lives, in the Bible. It is not complete. Our commissions are to revealed by God to each as he or she seeks God's presence.
There is no cessation of commissions and no cessation of finding them. Not until Jesus returns. For those who do not find their commission there is shame when they see Him face to face. For some this is when we die.
1Co 13:8 The love doth never fail; and whether there be prophecies, they shall become useless; whether tongues, they shall cease; whether knowledge, it shall become useless;
1Co 13:9 for in part we know, and in part we prophecy;
1Co 13:10 and when that which is perfect may come, then that which is in part shall become useless.
1Co 13:11 When I was a babe, as a babe I was speaking, as a babe I was thinking, as a babe I was reasoning, and when I have become a man, I have made useless the things of the babe;
1Co 13:12 for we see now through a mirror obscurely, and then face to face; now I know in part, and then I shall fully know, as also I was known;
From YLT.
If Paul only knew in part and wrote the canon, that means that by the canon we can only go so far as to know in part. The canon is not complete. Paul was face to face with Christ after leaving his body and this life, present with the Lord. Then he knew in full and others only when He returns in glory, because they will not die but see Him "face to face".
Paul said "for we see." Paul was their leader but all of them could not see but dimly. Paul was one of them, only human.
1Co 13:1 If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;
1Co 13:2 and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing;
1Co 13:3 and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.
From YLT.
Paul speaks of human and angelic languages, and of good deeds and torture that could really happen in Roman days. He was speaking about realities not fanciful fiction or figures of speech.
As for the input of those scholars who for some strange reason are still within the hardcore-cessationist camp, as their deliberations on this humanist-rationalist worldview are now very old and tired, then I hardly expect to encounter anything of value from them in regard to Pneumatology and with 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 in particular.
It is not just those 2 scholars who recognize that Peter is referring to spiritual gifts in 1 Peter 4:10 (those were just the first two I came across). Looking further afield I see that practically all commentaries regard them as spiritual gifts, even those by continuists such as Wayne Grudem. I couldn't find one commentary that said the gifts of 1 Peter were different from the gifts of 1 Corinthians.
1 Peter by Wayne A. Grudem
Within the fellowship of the church, earnest love for one another will find expression in the use of spiritual gifts, not for self-advancement or to draw attention to ourselves, but for the benefit of others. The expression a gift is indefinite and implies at least one gift but does not mean that each person is entitled to only one gift (cf. I Corinthians 12:31; 14:1, 13, 39). A spiritual gift (charisma, the same word used in I Corinthians 12-14 for spiritual gifts) is any talent or ability which is empowered by the Holy Spirit and able to be used in the ministry of the church. There are five different lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament (Romans 12:6-8; I Corinthians 12:7-11; 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11; I Peter 4:10). Since the lists are all different (no one gift is on every list, and no list includes all the gifts), and since I Corinthians 7:7 indicates two gifts not on any list (marriage and celibacy, which Paul calls charismata), it is legitimate to conclude that they are not exhaustive. Since there are different types within any one gift (people with the gift of evangelism may differ in the kinds of evangelism they do best. Varied (poikilos) means many faceted, having many different aspects or differing kinds. As God's grace is richly varied, so are the gifts flowing from His grace. Good stewards of God's gift will not hide it, but employ it for the benefit of others (cf. the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27). God's rule for our gifts if that we use them. Whoever speaks includes not just teaching or preaching, but many kinds of gifts involving speech-activity: evangelism, teaching, prophesying, and perhaps singing or sharing words of praise and testimony in the assembled congregation. In all these cases the Christian must do them as one who utters oracles of God, oracles (logia) means "sayings," but especially sayings spoken from God to man (used in Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2).
James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, Revelation By Robert Mulholland, Grant Osborne
The other aspect of the horizontal dimension is that of spiritual gifts and ministry (4:10-11). The theology of spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 and Romans 12:3-8 lies behind Peter's short summary here and is critical to understanding it. God has made many spiritual gifts available to his people; the gifts are controlled by the Spirit, and he distributes them as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), not as we want. We should be thrilled with what God gives us and use our gifts with joy rather than complaining that we want a different spiritual gift or demanding more of whatever gift he has given us (e.g., to be smarter or a better speaker or an even better musician). Talents become spiritual gifts when dedicated to and used for God and his church. The purpose of gifts is never to exalt the person but rather to serve the community. So every Christian (there are no Christians without a gift from God, though many neither realize it nor use it) is given exactly the gifts God wants, and each is meant to use them for the benefit of the church and the glory of God. This leads to the interdependence of all the believers. We need each other, to be the dispensers and also the recipients of the gifts God has given to the church through his people. The church is a family with each member supporting the others by using their gifts-not for status but for the enrichment of the others. Gifts do not confer status; they confer responsibility. Just as it says in James 3:1, many should not "become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly." The teaching office is very important to God; so it has more responsibility and will be judged more strictly. Such gifts contain both privilege and responsibility.
The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT) by Peter H. Davids
But it is clear that Peter is speaking about spiritual endowments, not natural abilities. Also, like Paul, he believes that such gifting is not for display or self-glorification or even personal development, but for service (1 Cor. 12:5), or, as Paul would say, for building up the body of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:3-5; Eph. 4:12). Christians, then, cannot control how God has gifted them (although according to Paul one can pray for gifts, 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 13), but can and do control if and how the gift is used. Spiritual gifts are not autonomous entities outside a person's control, but abilities that the Spirit gives and that a person must grow in and use, putting them into service.' Thus the Christian is a "steward" of a gift. The steward was the person in a household (often a slave) who was responsible for managing the householder's business and property, including providing what was needed for the family members, slaves, and hired laborers.' Jesus used the image in Luke 12:42 and 16:1-8, and Paul took the term as a description of proper service in the church (1 Cor. 4:1-2; Gal. 4:2; cf. Tit. 1:7).
First and Second Peter by Duane F. Watson, Terrance D. Callan
As excellent stewards of God's diversified grace (4:10b), Christians are called to serve the community with the spiritual gifts from God. An excellent steward (oikonomos) is a careful manager of a household and its resources—here the household of God (2:5; 4:17). These gifts are a manifestation of the diversified grace of God (Rom. 12:6; Heb. 2:4) through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7); a grace coming in many forms, including being chosen by God (1:2) and receiving salvation (1:10, 13), eternal life (3:7), eternal glory (5:10), and more (5:5, 12).
First and Second Peter, and Jude by Fred B. Craddock
Finally, living by the will of God means using the gifts God has granted in service to the common good (vv. 10-11). The word for "gift," charisma, does not refer to physical attractiveness or magnetic personality ("I know he will be elected; he has charisma") but to some spiritual gift God has provided each member of the fellowship. Since each one has a gift (v. 10), then everyone is a charismatic; that is, each one has been equipped to serve. Paul spoke of many gifts (1 Corinthians 12; Rom. 12:3-8), but here only two are mentioned: speaking the word of God and serving. The word "serving" is a general one, perhaps used deliberately to say that the form of service is determined by the needs of the other.
The discussion of gifts here sounds very much like Rom. 12:3-8. Two emphases are quite clear: First, gifts are not for flaunting or appearing superior but for service. Speaking the word seems superior to waiting tables but, in fact, it is not. For a charisma to be used to distance one from another contradicts the meaning of charisma: a gift from God. Second, the household or family of God and not the individual is the primary category for thinking about gifts. We have already observed more than once that
1 Peter (NIV Application Commentary) by Scot McKnight
Exercise Your Gifts (4:10-11a). That the End is near prompts Peter to exhort believers to love one another beyond the idea of hospitality; they are to use their gifts "to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace' in its various forms' (4:10). Loving one another enables one to put up with others (4:8), instigates hospitality (4:9), and means using one's gifts to help other people (4:10-11). Spiritual gifts is a special topic in Paul's letters (cf. Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:8—10, 28—30; Eph. 4:11), and some maintain that Peter is echoing Paul's ideas here. Whatever the origin of Peter's ideas-and a Pauline or an early Christian tradition is likely-the purpose of Peter's use of the theme of spiritual gifts is to illustrate the importance of loving one another in the Christian community. Thus, as in 1 Corinthians 12-14, love is the context for the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church.
Whatever Christians are gifted to do, those gifts are to be exercised in such a way that they reflect their divine origin and purposes: "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.” That is, if someone is called on to speak in the presence of believers or if God's Spirit prompts a person to Speak to the Congregation, that perSon Ought to take the opportunity so seriously that the words spoken be considered with reverence."
1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John Davids, Moo, Yarbrough
Gift he or she has received ... God's grace in its various forms (4:10). The early church believed the coming of the Spirit was the mark of the new age. One way one recognized the presence of the Spirit was by his or her gifts. All descriptions of Spiritual gifts are ad hoc lists, examples given to fit the purpose of the author. So while Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 lists teaching, prophecy, and tongues as verbal gifts and only mentions administration, miracles, and healing as serving gifts, in Romans 12 encouraging appears as a verbal gift, and serving, contributing, and showing mercy appear in the serving category. Peter never tells us in this letter which gifts he might stress, for he gives only two categories, the one who "speaks” and the one who "serves.” In this he divides gifts as Luke says that Peter did in Acts 6:2, where "word of God" is contrasted with "waiting on tables.”
First & Second Peter- Everyman's Bible Commentary by Louis A. Barbieri
First Peter 4:10 admonishes all believers to exercise their spiritual gifts. We ought to minister because we all have received "a special gift.” The idea found in Peter's words, "employ your gift in serving one another," is rendering all kinds of service to others. The Greek verb was used in Acts 6 for the serving of tables. The exercise of spiritual gifts is part of the Christian's stewardship, because God has equipped each one to perform certain tasks. Since each member of the Christian community has been divinely empowered for service, we all have a corresponding responsibility to use our gifts properly. If we fail to do our part, the body of Christ suffers and someone else must pick up our slack. These gifts for service demonstrate “the manifold grace of God" (v. 10) in the lives of believers. The Greek word for "manifold,” which also occurs in 1 Peter 1:6 and in James 1:2 translated "various" in both references, means "many colored." Each gift demonstrates a facet of God's grace as the possessor uses it to minister to others.
What are these gifts? While Peter does not list specific gifts, Paul enumerates them in three separate passages (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:27-31; Eph. 4:7-16). It is not possible to discuss each of the gifts in detail in this book, but the reader is urged to consult these passages.
1 & 2 Peter, 1 2 & 3 John and Jude by David Walls, Max E. Anders
4:10-11. One final priority remains for believers who live in the light of Christ's second coming and who wish to demonstrate agape love toward one another. This priority can best be summarized as intense serving. Every believer is to heed this injunction. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others.
Every believer in every church has received a spiritual gift from God for use in the life of the church. Within the body of Christ, love for each other finds expression in the use of spiritual gifts, not for self-advancement or as an attention-getter, but for the benefit of others. Every Christian, then, is capable of ministering to others within the body of Christ.
"Gift" (charisma) literally means "a gift of grace." When Christians receive God's grace in this way, we have the responsibility to share this gift with other Christians. Through such sharing we are faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. What has been given to the individual as a gift of grace has also been given for the benefit of the body as a whole. Believers are agents of God in passing on the benefits of his grace in our life. God
does not grant us gifts of grace for our personal use; he gives them for the benefit of the body of Christ.
1 Peter by Greg Forbes
Although not developed along Pauline lines, the assumption with exaotog is that every Christian has received a gift (Rom 12:4-8, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4:10-13)....
Spiritual Gifts (4:10-11) 1. Are given to each Christian as a gift of grace (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-11; Rom 12:4-8) 2. Various types of gifts (none of the listings in the various texts are exhaustive) 3. The exercise of the gifts is to: (a) build up the church (v. 10a; 1 Cor 12:7; 14:12) (b) honor God (v. 11 c; 1 Cor 14:25)
I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary by Lewis R. Donelson
Although the origin of these gifts is not made explicit, the language and syntax of this verse squares nicely with the theology of Paul. In Rom 12:6 Paul speaks of a "proportion to faith" and of a singular grace (charis) that results in different (diaphora) and plural gifts (charismata). This sequence coheres with 1 Peter's imagery of a varied (poikile) and singular grace (charis). This grace results in a gift (charisma) to each person in the household. It is not clear whether persons receive more than one gift. The exhortation in this verse, which assumes this theological sequence, calls on each person to serve (diakoneo) that gift “to one another' and to do so as excellent stewards (kaloi Oikonomoi) of God's grace.
Exposition of First Peter by John Brown
The passage before us receives illustration from some other passages in the apostolic epistles, which, though not in every respect parallel, obviously relate to the same subject. The first of these passages is to be found in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans 12:3-8. Having, indeed, gifts differing according to the grace given unto us;" as in the passage before us, “ having gifts according to the manifold grace of God;" and the gifts spoken of in this passage seem to be precisely the same as those specified in our text, “whether prophecy or ministry." The gift of prophecy seems to be the same thing as the gift enabling a man to “speak as the oracles of God," the gift which fitted for teaching. The gift of “ministry," mentioned in both cases, is the gift, the qualification, or class of qualifications, which fit for administration; the first gift being to be exercised in “teaching and exhortation;" the second, in “giving, in ruling or presiding, and in showing mercy."
The second passage I refer to as fitted to throw light on our text, is in the First Epistle of the same apostle to the Corinthians 12:1-11. The same general division of gifts fitting for teaching, and gifts fitting for administration, may be noticed here. To the first class belong “ the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, prophecy, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;" to the second, the gifts of “healing and the discerning of spirits;" while the gifts of working miracles, and faith, which seems to mean supernatural confidence and boldness, were gifts which might be usefully employed both in teaching and in administration. That the design of those various gifts was the mutual edification of Christians and the general advantage of the Church, is distinctly stated in what follows: <1 Cor 12:12-27>
The third passage peculiarly fitted to illustrate the text, is in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The apostle having exhorted the believers to endeavour to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"-that is, just to “ have fervent charity" among themselves, so that “the multitude of sins" might be covered, -goes on to state the manner in which they, being one body, were connected by having severally diverse gifts fitted and intended for the advantage of the body. (Eph 4:3-16).
1-2 Peter by R. C. Sproul
As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (v. 10). Notice that Peter doesn't say if each one has received a gift, but as each one has received. Peter is saying exactly what the Apostle Paul taught the Corinthians, that every believer is gifted by God. Every believer is a charismatic in the sense that the Spirit has endowed him or her with some gift to be used for the edification of the church. Some have the gift of preaching. Some have the gift of teaching. Some have the gift of evangelism. Some have the gift of healthcare. Some have the gift of administration. Some have the gift of giving. The list that Paul gave to the Corinthians was not exhaustive, but representative. One problem I have with the neo-Pentecostal theology of our day is that it posits that there are two types of Christians: those who have gifts and those who do not. That flies in the face of the teaching of the New Testament, which says that every believer is endowed by the Holy Spirit for ministry.
1 Peter By Joel B. Green
vv10-11a recalls the motif of "spiritual gifts" (eg Rom 12:6-8; 1 Corinthains 12), and may borrow from the Jesus tradition represented in Luke 12:42
As I do not have any KJV commentaries on First Corinthians and I cannot locate my old Vine’s NT Concordance which I packed away quite a few years back, I will have to rely on my Young’s Concordance (which I only just found by chance) which has in relation to 1Cor 12:7 “To bear together, advantage”. Going by the successors to the KJV (1611), it seems that they have seen withal as following the Oxford definition which is “In addition; as a further factor or consideration”.
Then allow me to help you with some commentaries on the KJV text, "to profit withal":
First epistle of Paul to the Corinthains by Albert Barnes
To profit withal. Unto profit; i.e. for utility, or use, or to be an advantage to the church; for the common good of all. This does not mean that each one must cultivate and improve his graces and gifts, however true that may be, but that they are to be used for the common good of the church; they are bestowed for utility, or profit they are conferred in such measures and in such a manner as are best adapted to be useful, and to do good. They are bestowed not on all equally, but in such a manner as shall best subserve the interests of piety and the church, and as shall tend harmoniously to carry on the great interests of religion, and further the welfare of the whole Christian body.
The First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians By M. F. Sadler
"To profit withal" ie for the edification and strengthening of the whole Church, not for each man's particular glory or advantage."
A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians by John Locke
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man, to profit withal.
And though there be various influxes, whereby Christians are enabled to do extraordinary things, yet it is the same God, that works all these extraoridinary gifts in every one that has them. But the way, or gift, wherein everyone, who has the Spirit, is to show it, is given him, not for his private advantage, or honour, but for the good and advantage of the church.
An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Charles Hodge
To profit withal (pos rò otupuçþépov), i. e. for edification. This is the common object of all these gifts. They are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipients; but for the good of the church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man. When, therefore, the gifts of God, natural or supernatural, are perverted as means of self-exaltation or aggrandizement, it is a sin against their giver, as well as against those for whose benefit they were intended.
1 Corinthians by J. Vernon McGee
"The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” What is the purpose of the gift? It is to build up the church, the body of believers. It is not to be exercised selfishly, but is to give spiritual help to Other believers.
First, Second Corinthians by Robert E. Picirilli
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal....The "profit" mentioned in v. 7 (same word as in 6:12; 7:35; 10:23) is the profit of the entire church: "the common advantage" (Orr-Walther 280). The discussion that follows will make that clear. Especially important is the reference in both vv. 7 and 11 to "every man." In both verses the word (Greek hekastos) means each one. Every believer is endowed by the Spirit for some service to the Lord in the building of His body, the church.
A Paraphrase of Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians by I. G. Tolley
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. The means, however, of openly displaying the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit thus granted to different individuals, is given to each not for his own, but for the general benefit. This is evident from the nature of these means, which indicates them as intended for general use.
First Epistle to the Corinthians by John Bird Sumner, Lord Biship of Chester.
given to every man to profit withal: “ divided to every man severally," in order that he might exercise them for the common rood in the sphere of dutv assigned him.
Will's Commentary on the New Testament by Harold E. Will
The same God bestows, works and directs the exercise of all of these gifts in every person having them. But to each such demonstration of the Spirit is given to profit withal (подg tö ovu pégov)“with a view of being beneficial to all." Never were such gifts distributed to men for private advantage or honor, but for edification and strengthening the whole Church.
Expository Lectures on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians by Frederick William Robertson
The gifts of the Church of Corinth were bestowed according to God's pleasure: they were “divided to every man severally as He willed.” They were profitable to others: “ The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.”
Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians by H.A. Ironside
Paul continued, "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” In other words, a spiritual gift is not given for show; it is not given so that a man may attract attention to himself; it is given for the edification of others. If God gives me any little gift at all, He gives it not that I may gather people about myself, but that it may be used for the blessing of others, for the salvation of sinners, and for the edification of saints.
My BibleWorks program has provided a Strong’s lexical analysis of how the AV has employed the Greek word symphero: 4851 συμφέρω sumphero {soom-fer'-o} Meaning: 1) to bear or bring together 2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others 2b) to collect or contribute in order to help 2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient Origin: from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT - 9:69,1252; v Usage: AV - be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17
As you have repeatedly advocated the BDAG lexicon over Strongs, you might be interested to see what BDAG has as the meaning of sumphero:
συμφέρω
② to be advantageous, help, confer a benefit, be profitable/useful (Hdt. et al.; Jos., Ant 1, 162)
ⓑ ptc. συμφέρων profitable, etc.
γ. subst. τὸ συμφέρον profit, advantage (Soph. et al.; ins; 2 Macc 11:15; 4 Macc 5:11; Philo; TestSol 7:2 D; Jos., Ant. 12, 54; 13, 152, τὸ αὐτοῦ ς. 14, 174. A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers., e.g. IPriene 119, 23 al.) τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον 1 Cor 10:33 v.l. τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον the common good (cp. τὸ δημοσίᾳ συμφέρον POxy 1409, 11; Ocellus [II B.C.] 48 τὸ ς. τῷ κοινῷ) B 4:10. πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.; 12:7 (Aeneas Tact. 469; schol. on Pind., I. 1, 15b; cp. Jos., Ant. 15, 22). Also ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον Hb 12:10 (cp. Appian, Liby. 89 §420 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι κοινῷ, Syr. 41 §217; Jos., Bell. 1, 558 and Vi. 48 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 162–72. M-M. TW.
So not only do all the major bible translations agree that 1 Cor 12:7 should be translated "for the common good", as do your favorite theologians Fee & Thiselton (and virtually every other commentator), but also your favorite lexicon the BDAG.
I am afraid the nails are in the coffin of that particular idea of yours. With both Paul and Peter stating that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, there can be no doubt the private practice of tongues would be a misuse of the gift.
As you are maybe trying too hard to score a valid point, as a result, you have failed to notice that Grudem agreed with what I said, “This view teaches that "spirit” is not a separate part of man, but simply another term for "soul” and that both terms are used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man”.
No, Grudem agrees with me. Read back on what you wrote:
You said: "For the dichotomost, as there is no such thing as an independent 'human spirit' then your point is of course moot."
I replied: "Since when does the dichotomist view not believe that man has a spirit? The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous).
You replied: "I would have thought that everyone understood that the dichotomist rejects that man has a distinct spirit where he is comprised of a Body and Soul."
Seeing as neither Paul, nor anyone else in scripture, states that tongues is the Holy Spirit praying to the Father, your question is moot. Paul says it is "my spirit" that prays.
If we were to obtain the services of say 100 completely unchurched individuals where we ask them to read 1 Cor 14, I would not expect a single person to say that they believe the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father in a human language.
Since when has the correct method of bible interpretation been to ask 100 unchurched individuals what the meaning is of a passage is? Let alone an unclear verse such as 1 Cor 14:2. The correct method of interpretation is to analyse the passage using the proper techniques of hermeneutics, such as looking at the context and allowing other clearer passages to shed light on it.
It is not just those 2 scholars who recognize that Peter is referring to spiritual gifts in 1 Peter 4:10 (those were just the first two I came across). Looking further afield I see that practically all commentaries regard them as spiritual gifts, even those by continuists such as Wayne Grudem. I couldn't find one commentary that said the gifts of 1 Peter were different from the gifts of 1 Corinthians.
1 Peter by Wayne A. Grudem
Within the fellowship of the church, earnest love for one another will find expression in the use of spiritual gifts, not for self-advancement or to draw attention to ourselves, but for the benefit of others. The expression a gift is indefinite and implies at least one gift but does not mean that each person is entitled to only one gift (cf. I Corinthians 12:31; 14:1, 13, 39). A spiritual gift (charisma, the same word used in I Corinthians 12-14 for spiritual gifts) is any talent or ability which is empowered by the Holy Spirit and able to be used in the ministry of the church. There are five different lists of spiritual gifts in the New Testament (Romans 12:6-8; I Corinthians 12:7-11; 12:28-30; Ephesians 4:11; I Peter 4:10). Since the lists are all different (no one gift is on every list, and no list includes all the gifts), and since I Corinthians 7:7 indicates two gifts not on any list (marriage and celibacy, which Paul calls charismata), it is legitimate to conclude that they are not exhaustive. Since there are different types within any one gift (people with the gift of evangelism may differ in the kinds of evangelism they do best. Varied (poikilos) means many faceted, having many different aspects or differing kinds. As God's grace is richly varied, so are the gifts flowing from His grace. Good stewards of God's gift will not hide it, but employ it for the benefit of others (cf. the parable of the talents, Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-27). God's rule for our gifts if that we use them. Whoever speaks includes not just teaching or preaching, but many kinds of gifts involving speech-activity: evangelism, teaching, prophesying, and perhaps singing or sharing words of praise and testimony in the assembled congregation. In all these cases the Christian must do them as one who utters oracles of God, oracles (logia) means "sayings," but especially sayings spoken from God to man (used in Acts 7:38; Romans 3:2).
James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, Revelation By Robert Mulholland, Grant Osborne
The other aspect of the horizontal dimension is that of spiritual gifts and ministry (4:10-11). The theology of spiritual gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12:12-26 and Romans 12:3-8 lies behind Peter's short summary here and is critical to understanding it. God has made many spiritual gifts available to his people; the gifts are controlled by the Spirit, and he distributes them as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), not as we want. We should be thrilled with what God gives us and use our gifts with joy rather than complaining that we want a different spiritual gift or demanding more of whatever gift he has given us (e.g., to be smarter or a better speaker or an even better musician). Talents become spiritual gifts when dedicated to and used for God and his church. The purpose of gifts is never to exalt the person but rather to serve the community. So every Christian (there are no Christians without a gift from God, though many neither realize it nor use it) is given exactly the gifts God wants, and each is meant to use them for the benefit of the church and the glory of God. This leads to the interdependence of all the believers. We need each other, to be the dispensers and also the recipients of the gifts God has given to the church through his people. The church is a family with each member supporting the others by using their gifts-not for status but for the enrichment of the others. Gifts do not confer status; they confer responsibility. Just as it says in James 3:1, many should not "become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly." The teaching office is very important to God; so it has more responsibility and will be judged more strictly. Such gifts contain both privilege and responsibility.
The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT) by Peter H. Davids
But it is clear that Peter is speaking about spiritual endowments, not natural abilities. Also, like Paul, he believes that such gifting is not for display or self-glorification or even personal development, but for service (1 Cor. 12:5), or, as Paul would say, for building up the body of Christ (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:3-5; Eph. 4:12). Christians, then, cannot control how God has gifted them (although according to Paul one can pray for gifts, 1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1, 13), but can and do control if and how the gift is used. Spiritual gifts are not autonomous entities outside a person's control, but abilities that the Spirit gives and that a person must grow in and use, putting them into service.' Thus the Christian is a "steward" of a gift. The steward was the person in a household (often a slave) who was responsible for managing the householder's business and property, including providing what was needed for the family members, slaves, and hired laborers.' Jesus used the image in Luke 12:42 and 16:1-8, and Paul took the term as a description of proper service in the church (1 Cor. 4:1-2; Gal. 4:2; cf. Tit. 1:7).
First and Second Peter by Duane F. Watson, Terrance D. Callan
As excellent stewards of God's diversified grace (4:10b), Christians are called to serve the community with the spiritual gifts from God. An excellent steward (oikonomos) is a careful manager of a household and its resources—here the household of God (2:5; 4:17). These gifts are a manifestation of the diversified grace of God (Rom. 12:6; Heb. 2:4) through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7); a grace coming in many forms, including being chosen by God (1:2) and receiving salvation (1:10, 13), eternal life (3:7), eternal glory (5:10), and more (5:5, 12).
First and Second Peter, and Jude by Fred B. Craddock
Finally, living by the will of God means using the gifts God has granted in service to the common good (vv. 10-11). The word for "gift," charisma, does not refer to physical attractiveness or magnetic personality ("I know he will be elected; he has charisma") but to some spiritual gift God has provided each member of the fellowship. Since each one has a gift (v. 10), then everyone is a charismatic; that is, each one has been equipped to serve. Paul spoke of many gifts (1 Corinthians 12; Rom. 12:3-8), but here only two are mentioned: speaking the word of God and serving. The word "serving" is a general one, perhaps used deliberately to say that the form of service is determined by the needs of the other.
The discussion of gifts here sounds very much like Rom. 12:3-8. Two emphases are quite clear: First, gifts are not for flaunting or appearing superior but for service. Speaking the word seems superior to waiting tables but, in fact, it is not. For a charisma to be used to distance one from another contradicts the meaning of charisma: a gift from God. Second, the household or family of God and not the individual is the primary category for thinking about gifts. We have already observed more than once that
1 Peter (NIV Application Commentary) by Scot McKnight
Exercise Your Gifts (4:10-11a). That the End is near prompts Peter to exhort believers to love one another beyond the idea of hospitality; they are to use their gifts "to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace' in its various forms' (4:10). Loving one another enables one to put up with others (4:8), instigates hospitality (4:9), and means using one's gifts to help other people (4:10-11). Spiritual gifts is a special topic in Paul's letters (cf. Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:8—10, 28—30; Eph. 4:11), and some maintain that Peter is echoing Paul's ideas here. Whatever the origin of Peter's ideas-and a Pauline or an early Christian tradition is likely-the purpose of Peter's use of the theme of spiritual gifts is to illustrate the importance of loving one another in the Christian community. Thus, as in 1 Corinthians 12-14, love is the context for the exercise of spiritual gifts in the church.
Whatever Christians are gifted to do, those gifts are to be exercised in such a way that they reflect their divine origin and purposes: "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.” That is, if someone is called on to speak in the presence of believers or if God's Spirit prompts a person to Speak to the Congregation, that perSon Ought to take the opportunity so seriously that the words spoken be considered with reverence."
1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John Davids, Moo, Yarbrough
Gift he or she has received ... God's grace in its various forms (4:10). The early church believed the coming of the Spirit was the mark of the new age. One way one recognized the presence of the Spirit was by his or her gifts. All descriptions of Spiritual gifts are ad hoc lists, examples given to fit the purpose of the author. So while Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 lists teaching, prophecy, and tongues as verbal gifts and only mentions administration, miracles, and healing as serving gifts, in Romans 12 encouraging appears as a verbal gift, and serving, contributing, and showing mercy appear in the serving category. Peter never tells us in this letter which gifts he might stress, for he gives only two categories, the one who "speaks” and the one who "serves.” In this he divides gifts as Luke says that Peter did in Acts 6:2, where "word of God" is contrasted with "waiting on tables.”
First & Second Peter- Everyman's Bible Commentary by Louis A. Barbieri
First Peter 4:10 admonishes all believers to exercise their spiritual gifts. We ought to minister because we all have received "a special gift.” The idea found in Peter's words, "employ your gift in serving one another," is rendering all kinds of service to others. The Greek verb was used in Acts 6 for the serving of tables. The exercise of spiritual gifts is part of the Christian's stewardship, because God has equipped each one to perform certain tasks. Since each member of the Christian community has been divinely empowered for service, we all have a corresponding responsibility to use our gifts properly. If we fail to do our part, the body of Christ suffers and someone else must pick up our slack. These gifts for service demonstrate “the manifold grace of God" (v. 10) in the lives of believers. The Greek word for "manifold,” which also occurs in 1 Peter 1:6 and in James 1:2 translated "various" in both references, means "many colored." Each gift demonstrates a facet of God's grace as the possessor uses it to minister to others.
What are these gifts? While Peter does not list specific gifts, Paul enumerates them in three separate passages (Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:27-31; Eph. 4:7-16). It is not possible to discuss each of the gifts in detail in this book, but the reader is urged to consult these passages.
1 & 2 Peter, 1 2 & 3 John and Jude by David Walls, Max E. Anders
4:10-11. One final priority remains for believers who live in the light of Christ's second coming and who wish to demonstrate agape love toward one another. This priority can best be summarized as intense serving. Every believer is to heed this injunction. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others.
Every believer in every church has received a spiritual gift from God for use in the life of the church. Within the body of Christ, love for each other finds expression in the use of spiritual gifts, not for self-advancement or as an attention-getter, but for the benefit of others. Every Christian, then, is capable of ministering to others within the body of Christ.
"Gift" (charisma) literally means "a gift of grace." When Christians receive God's grace in this way, we have the responsibility to share this gift with other Christians. Through such sharing we are faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. What has been given to the individual as a gift of grace has also been given for the benefit of the body as a whole. Believers are agents of God in passing on the benefits of his grace in our life. God
does not grant us gifts of grace for our personal use; he gives them for the benefit of the body of Christ.
1 Peter by Greg Forbes
Although not developed along Pauline lines, the assumption with exaotog is that every Christian has received a gift (Rom 12:4-8, 1 Cor 12, Eph 4:10-13)....
Spiritual Gifts (4:10-11) 1. Are given to each Christian as a gift of grace (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-11; Rom 12:4-8) 2. Various types of gifts (none of the listings in the various texts are exhaustive) 3. The exercise of the gifts is to: (a) build up the church (v. 10a; 1 Cor 12:7; 14:12) (b) honor God (v. 11 c; 1 Cor 14:25)
I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary by Lewis R. Donelson
Although the origin of these gifts is not made explicit, the language and syntax of this verse squares nicely with the theology of Paul. In Rom 12:6 Paul speaks of a "proportion to faith" and of a singular grace (charis) that results in different (diaphora) and plural gifts (charismata). This sequence coheres with 1 Peter's imagery of a varied (poikile) and singular grace (charis). This grace results in a gift (charisma) to each person in the household. It is not clear whether persons receive more than one gift. The exhortation in this verse, which assumes this theological sequence, calls on each person to serve (diakoneo) that gift “to one another' and to do so as excellent stewards (kaloi Oikonomoi) of God's grace.
Exposition of First Peter by John Brown
The passage before us receives illustration from some other passages in the apostolic epistles, which, though not in every respect parallel, obviously relate to the same subject. The first of these passages is to be found in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans 12:3-8. Having, indeed, gifts differing according to the grace given unto us;" as in the passage before us, “ having gifts according to the manifold grace of God;" and the gifts spoken of in this passage seem to be precisely the same as those specified in our text, “whether prophecy or ministry." The gift of prophecy seems to be the same thing as the gift enabling a man to “speak as the oracles of God," the gift which fitted for teaching. The gift of “ministry," mentioned in both cases, is the gift, the qualification, or class of qualifications, which fit for administration; the first gift being to be exercised in “teaching and exhortation;" the second, in “giving, in ruling or presiding, and in showing mercy."
The second passage I refer to as fitted to throw light on our text, is in the First Epistle of the same apostle to the Corinthians 12:1-11. The same general division of gifts fitting for teaching, and gifts fitting for administration, may be noticed here. To the first class belong “ the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, prophecy, divers kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues;" to the second, the gifts of “healing and the discerning of spirits;" while the gifts of working miracles, and faith, which seems to mean supernatural confidence and boldness, were gifts which might be usefully employed both in teaching and in administration. That the design of those various gifts was the mutual edification of Christians and the general advantage of the Church, is distinctly stated in what follows: <1 Cor 12:12-27>
The third passage peculiarly fitted to illustrate the text, is in the Epistle to the Ephesians. The apostle having exhorted the believers to endeavour to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,"-that is, just to “ have fervent charity" among themselves, so that “the multitude of sins" might be covered, -goes on to state the manner in which they, being one body, were connected by having severally diverse gifts fitted and intended for the advantage of the body. (Eph 4:3-16).
1-2 Peter by R. C. Sproul
As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God (v. 10). Notice that Peter doesn't say if each one has received a gift, but as each one has received. Peter is saying exactly what the Apostle Paul taught the Corinthians, that every believer is gifted by God. Every believer is a charismatic in the sense that the Spirit has endowed him or her with some gift to be used for the edification of the church. Some have the gift of preaching. Some have the gift of teaching. Some have the gift of evangelism. Some have the gift of healthcare. Some have the gift of administration. Some have the gift of giving. The list that Paul gave to the Corinthians was not exhaustive, but representative. One problem I have with the neo-Pentecostal theology of our day is that it posits that there are two types of Christians: those who have gifts and those who do not. That flies in the face of the teaching of the New Testament, which says that every believer is endowed by the Holy Spirit for ministry.
1 Peter By Joel B. Green
vv10-11a recalls the motif of "spiritual gifts" (eg Rom 12:6-8; 1 Corinthains 12), and may borrow from the Jesus tradition represented in Luke 12:42
One of the great frustrations that I encounter when reading the various commentaries on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, particularly in relation to the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and with the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) has been with how the vast majority of even very competent scholars have been unable to clearly define what most people refer to as being ‘spiritual gifts’.
The vast majority of skilled commentators will at least recognise that Paul does not actually use the problematic term spiritual gift which is at least helpful and they will (or should) explain that Paul uses two Greek words for our English spiritual gifts which are pneumatikon and charisma; as Paul does not use the language that we use, then this should be enough to allow most people to think further on this question. I know that having read through numerous commentary on the makeup of the so called “spiritual gifts” that I can be left unsure as to what many commentators actually mean, which probably reflects their own uncertainty.
1 Peter by Wayne A. Grudem
Within the fellowship of the church, . . . . .
Without reading Grudem’s entire commentary on 1 Peter, he does at least appear to open his commentary on 4:10 with reference to the “fellowship of the church” which moves any discussion on the grace he refers to as being outside of our personal times of praise and worship; so our ability to be edified by both praying to the Father either in supplication or in praise does not come into the equation.
As for Peter’s use of charisma in 4:10, even though many have included this passage as one of the supposed “lists of spiritual gifts’, this is something that has always had me at a bit of a loss as even a novice should realise that the charisma that Peter refers to could just as easily (and more probably) be referring to the grace (charisma) that we receive at our conversion where all things become new.
The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT) by Peter H. Davids
But it is clear that Peter is speaking about spiritual endowments, not natural abilities. Also, like Paul, he believes that such gifting is not for display or self-glorification or even personal development, . . .
Then why do these same people demand that those who desire to hold the roles of either a teacher or a ‘pastor’ that they spend not only years in personal development at a Bible college but that they are expected to spend a lot of sweat and anguish through study so that they can grow.
I could comment on the other commentators that you provided but as most appear to be cessationists then they are essentially outsiders to the things of the Spirit, at least this appears to be the case with what I have read.
Then allow me to help you with some commentaries on the KJV text, "to profit withal":
First epistle of Paul to the Corinthains by Albert Barnes
To profit withal. Unto profit; i.e. for utility, or use, or to be an advantage to the church; for the common good of all. This does not mean that each one must cultivate and improve his graces and gifts, however true that may be, but that they are to be used for the common good of the church; they are bestowed for utility, or profit they are conferred in such measures and in such a manner as are best adapted to be useful, and to do good. They are bestowed not on all equally, but in such a manner as shall best subserve the interests of piety and the church, and as shall tend harmoniously to carry on the great interests of religion, and further the welfare of the whole Christian body.
The First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians By M. F. Sadler
"To profit withal" ie for the edification and strengthening of the whole Church, not for each man's particular glory or advantage."
A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians by John Locke
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man, to profit withal.
And though there be various influxes, whereby Christians are enabled to do extraordinary things, yet it is the same God, that works all these extraoridinary gifts in every one that has them. But the way, or gift, wherein everyone, who has the Spirit, is to show it, is given him, not for his private advantage, or honour, but for the good and advantage of the church.
An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians by Charles Hodge
To profit withal (pos rò otupuçþépov), i. e. for edification. This is the common object of all these gifts. They are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit, much less for the gratification of their recipients; but for the good of the church. Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man. When, therefore, the gifts of God, natural or supernatural, are perverted as means of self-exaltation or aggrandizement, it is a sin against their giver, as well as against those for whose benefit they were intended.
1 Corinthians by J. Vernon McGee
"The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” What is the purpose of the gift? It is to build up the church, the body of believers. It is not to be exercised selfishly, but is to give spiritual help to Other believers.
First, Second Corinthians by Robert E. Picirilli
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal....The "profit" mentioned in v. 7 (same word as in 6:12; 7:35; 10:23) is the profit of the entire church: "the common advantage" (Orr-Walther 280). The discussion that follows will make that clear. Especially important is the reference in both vv. 7 and 11 to "every man." In both verses the word (Greek hekastos) means each one. Every believer is endowed by the Spirit for some service to the Lord in the building of His body, the church.
A Paraphrase of Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians by I. G. Tolley
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. The means, however, of openly displaying the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit thus granted to different individuals, is given to each not for his own, but for the general benefit. This is evident from the nature of these means, which indicates them as intended for general use.
First Epistle to the Corinthians by John Bird Sumner, Lord Biship of Chester.
given to every man to profit withal: “ divided to every man severally," in order that he might exercise them for the common rood in the sphere of dutv assigned him.
Will's Commentary on the New Testament by Harold E. Will
The same God bestows, works and directs the exercise of all of these gifts in every person having them. But to each such demonstration of the Spirit is given to profit withal (подg tö ovu pégov)“with a view of being beneficial to all." Never were such gifts distributed to men for private advantage or honor, but for edification and strengthening the whole Church.
Expository Lectures on St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians by Frederick William Robertson
The gifts of the Church of Corinth were bestowed according to God's pleasure: they were “divided to every man severally as He willed.” They were profitable to others: “ The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.”
Addresses on the First Epistle to the Corinthians by H.A. Ironside
Paul continued, "The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” In other words, a spiritual gift is not given for show; it is not given so that a man may attract attention to himself; it is given for the edification of others. If God gives me any little gift at all, He gives it not that I may gather people about myself, but that it may be used for the blessing of others, for the salvation of sinners, and for the edification of saints.
I should first point out that Vines (KJV) Dictionary of 1940 states regarding symphero. Most importantly, Vines has placed the word our in brackets to indicate that it is only a gloss and not a definition and that the primary meaning of symphero is to be an advantage, profitable and expedient without there being any reference to the individual or a group:
Vines Dictionary (1940) p.890
Expedient sumphero (4851). signifies (a). transitively. lit., 'to bring togethersun, “with,” phero. "to bring"). Acts 19:19: (b) intransitively. "to be an advantage, profitable, expedient” (not merely “convenient”); it is used mostly impersonally, “it is (it was) expedient” :so in Matt. 19:10.RV (negatively), KJV, “it is (not) good”; John 11:50; 16:7; 18:14; 1 Cor.6:12; 10:23; 2 Cor. 8:10; 12:1; "it is profitable,” Matt. 5:29-30; 18:6.RV;·was profitable,” Acts 20:20; “to profit withal,” 1Cor. 12:7; in Heb. 12:10, used in the neuter of the present participle with the article as a noun, “for (our) profit.” Cf. the adjective sumphoros or (sympheron), “profitable,” used with the article as a noun, 1Co r.7:35; 10:33.
Even though I cannot speak for anyone else, I know that I am appreciative of the work that others put in when they provides quotes by published sources. On the flip side (of course there had to be), of the 11 sources you provided, as much as they all provided personal commentary on 1Cor 12:7, at first glance it seemed that the only person who provided any helpful lexical commentary was with Charles Hodge, but as the Greek text in brackets bore no reference to the passage I then discovered that you had inserted it into his quote; even though it was in brackets it would have helped to have made this clear by placing “Insert” inside the brackets so that we knew that the error was not made by Hodge.
As for Hodge’s commentary, I don’t know why you decided to quote him as he acknowledges that the gifts are “not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit . . . of the recipients;” which means that Hodge understands that the gifts (or at least with some of them) are given to the individual believer for their own benefit and enrichment. He certainly points out that they should also be employed for the betterment of those who are in the congregational meeting, that is, when the Manifestations of the Spirit are being used within the meeting and not during times of personal prayer and ministry to others.
I had no idea that the cessationist Charles Hodge was so enlightened!
It should be pointed out that it appears that there are very few (if any) published commentators who are confident enough on the subject of Paul’s use of pneumatikon and charisma to provide an unambiguous and definitive definition of how they define what we popularly refer to as “spiritual gifts”; which in itself is a problematic term as neither Paul nor any other NT writer has employed this particular term. So when we come across any commentary on 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 in particular, then we need to very carefully read what a commentator has to say, where we may need to go outside of the commentary that we are reading to check what they have to say on the matter elsewhere.
First, Second Corinthians by Robert E. Picirilli
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal....The "profit" mentioned in v. 7 (same word as in 6:12; 7:35; 10:23) is the profit of the entire church: . . . . . .
With your reference to Picirilli, his commentary on 1 Cor 12:7 appears to be slanted toward his need to understand the verse in a particular way (see below), but when we turn to page 195 we discover that his cessationist focus where the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are supposedly only for the benefit of the congregation all of a sudden turns on its head when he says “speaking in tongues has no public value”. If as Picirilli believes that tongues have no public value then how can tongues ever be used to edify the congregation particularly as he rightfully recognises that the Holy Spirit always speaks to the Father devotionally, so the notion of the “common good” falls flat. Even if we insert the ability to interpret what is being said to the Father by the speaker or another person, it is impossible for the one whom the Spirit is praying to the Father through not to be edified, which is what Paul pointed out in 1 Cor 14:4.
First, Second Corinthians, Robert E. Picirilli (1987) p.195
2 For he that speeketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
As the comparison starts, Paul first introduces the gift of tongues and reminds his readers of its nature. As observed in the comments on 12:10, it seems clear to me that this was a supernatural and sudden ability to speak in a human, foreign language not already known or understood by the speaker. Some interpreters think a purely ecstatic, “heavenly" language is meant, but the record in Acts 2 seems too clear for that. The KJV translators supplied “unknown,“ of course; but even in that they may simply have meant unknown to the speaker. In the final analysis, it does not make a great deal of difference whether the language of "glossolalia” was a foreign or a heavenly tongue. Its clearly supernatural nature, and the “problem’' for modem times, will be the same either way.
Two positive things are said about this gift: (1) the person is speaking to God; (2) in the spirit he speaks mysteries. “Mysteries," as elsewhere in Paul (cf. 4:1; 13:2), means secrets that only God can reveal, things not naturally understood by man but requiring divine revelation. Paul's point is that the tongues-speaker is saying things that only God understands. Is this meant to be complimentary? If so, the best that can be said is that glossolalia speaks something devotional to God.
The difficulty with admitting even that much is that both of these “positive” statements come in clauses that first express negative things. Each positive occurs as a kind of exception to a criticism. (1) The person is not speaking to men; and (2) no one understands (literally, hears; Greek akouo) him. The implication, already, is that speaking in tongues has no public value; that point will become clearer as we go along.
If I were to spend time with the other commentators that you quoted I suspect that I would eventually find commentary similar to that of Picirilli.
As you have repeatedly advocated the BDAG lexicon over Strongs, you might be interested to see what BDAG has as the meaning of sumphero:
συμφέρω
② to be advantageous, help, confer a benefit, be profitable/useful (Hdt. et al.; Jos., Ant 1, 162)
ⓑ ptc. συμφέρων profitable, etc.
γ. subst. τὸ συμφέρον profit, advantage (Soph. et al.; ins; 2 Macc 11:15; 4 Macc 5:11; Philo; TestSol 7:2 D; Jos., Ant. 12, 54; 13, 152, τὸ αὐτοῦ ς. 14, 174. A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers., e.g. IPriene 119, 23 al.) τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον 1 Cor 10:33 v.l. τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον the common good (cp. τὸ δημοσίᾳ συμφέρον POxy 1409, 11; Ocellus [II B.C.] 48 τὸ ς. τῷ κοινῷ) B 4:10. πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.; 12:7 (Aeneas Tact. 469; schol. on Pind., I. 1, 15b; cp. Jos., Ant. 15, 22). Also ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον Hb 12:10 (cp. Appian, Liby. 89 §420 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι κοινῷ, Syr. 41 §217; Jos., Bell. 1, 558 and Vi. 48 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 162–72. M-M. TW.
So not only do all the major bible translations agree that 1 Cor 12:7 should be translated "for the common good", as do your favorite theologians Fee & Thiselton (and virtually every other commentator), but also your favorite lexicon the BDAG.
I am afraid the nails are in the coffin of that particular idea of yours. With both Paul and Peter stating that spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others, there can be no doubt the private practice of tongues would be a misuse of the gift.
How can you makes such an outlandish and silly claim when you have already been informed that the popular versions such as the KJV, ASV, NKJV, NLT, Holman, Douay-Rheims, ERV, Lexham, JB Phillips and the Amplified have rejected the notion that symphero is supposed to be read as the “common good”?
With the BGAD reference not only have you failed to fully quote this commentary but you also failed to maintain its use of Roman and italic font type which makes a huge difference to the definition of a given word – very naughty indeed!
If you were to have understood the BGAD reference to 1Cor 12:7 you would have noticed that it says “πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.;12:7” which means that the BGAD’s use of italics in regard to for. . .advantageis a gloss and not a definition but most importantly it does not say that Paul is using symphero to suggest any notion of the common good. Your fervent desire to uphold your particular worldview (for whatever reason) regularly seems to blind you to the obvious.
1. to bring together into a heap, bring together τὶ someth. (cp. X., An. 6, 4, 9; Jos., Bell. 5, 262, Ant. 16, 45) Ac 19:19.
2. to be advantageous, help, confer a benefit, be profitable/useful (Hdt. et al.; Jos., Ant 1, 162)
a. impers. συμφέρει τι someth. is good (for someone or someth.), someth. is useful or helpful 1 Cor 6:12;10:23. οὐ συμφέρει μοι 2 Cor 12:1 v.l. (s. Windisch on this pass., which is prob. corrupt). συμφέρει τί τινι (Soph. et al.; Pr 19:10; Sir 30:19; 37:28 οὐ πάντα πᾶσιν συμφέρει) 2 Cor 8:10; IRo 5:3. συμφέρει τινί foll. by inf. (Epict. 2, 22, 20; Esth 3:8) GPt 11:48; ISm 7:1. συμφ. τινί foll. by ἵνα (B-D-F §393, 1; Rob. 992; POxy 1220, 19) Mt 5:29f (foll. by καὶ μή to denote, by way of contrast, what is not advantageous; here and elsewh. it is well translated it is better … than); Mt 18:6;J 11:50 (foll. by καὶ μή); 16:7. οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι it is better not to marry Mt 19:10 (Polyaenus 3, 9, 2 διώκειν οὐ συμφέρει). W. acc. and inf. (s. EpArist 25) συμφέρει ἕνα ἄνθρωπον ἀποθανεῖν J 18:14.
b. ptc. συμφέρων profitable, etc.
α. τὰ συμφέροντα what advances your best interests or what is good for you Ac 20:20 (Pla., Rep. 1, 341e; Philo; Jos., Bell. 2, 502, Vi. 370; 3 Macc 6:24).
β. σοὶ συμφέρον ἐστί w. inf. foll. Hs 7:5. οὐ συμφέρον (sc. ἐστίν) there is nothing to be gained by it 2 Cor 12:1 (cp. Thu. 3, 44, 2).
γ. subst. τὸ συμφέρον profit, advantage (Soph. et al.; ins; 2 Macc 11:15; 4 Macc 5:11; Philo; TestSol 7:2 D; Jos., Ant. 12, 54; 13, 152, τὸ αὐτοῦ σ. 14, 174. A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers., e.g. IPriene 119, 23 al.) τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ συμφέρον 1 Cor 10:33 v.l. τὸ κοινῇ συμφέρον the common good (cp. τὸ δημοσίᾳ συμφέρον POxy 1409, 11; Ocellus [II BC] 48 τὸ σ. τῷ κοινῷ) B 4:10. πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.;12:7 (Aeneas Tact. 469; schol. on Pind., I. 1, 15b; cp. Jos., Ant. 15, 22). Also ἐπὶ τὸ συμφέρον Hb 12:10 (cp. Appian, Liby. 89 §420 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι κοινῷ, Syr. 41 §217; Jos., Bell. 1, 558 and Vi. 48 ἐπὶ συμφέροντι).—Schmidt, Syn. IV 162-72. M-M. TW.
Then we have how you have confused (unintentionally or not) what both Fee, Thiselton and the other commentators have to say. As I said previously, we need to read their full commentary on a given issue where Fee (page 957) speaks about 1Cor 14:4, he says;
(3) Such speech by the Spirit is further described in v. 4 as edifying to the speaker. This has sometimes been called “self-edification” and therefore viewed as pejorative. But Paul intended no such thing. The edifying of oneself is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise”.
Then we have your misrepresentation of Thiselton, First Corinthians (2000) pp.1094-1096
4 Since edification or building up (οίκοδομέω) remains a central issue, Paul applies the term alike to the individualism of the use of tongues and the community effects of prophecy as a fundamental contrast. We have placed the first use of builds up (v. 4) in quotation marks first to indicate that Paul lakes it up as a catchword for the dialogue, and second because whether this first use is positive (i.e., edifies the self) or negative (i.e., ministers to self-esteem or self-affirmation) remains acutely controversial. Against a pejorative view Fee insists that “Paul intended no such thing. The edifying is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise.” Fee’s view is anticipated by Chrysostom. Myer, and others. . . . . . (pg.1094) Yet the more positive aspect of tongues used in private devotion should not be overlooked. Frank D. Macchia writes from a Pentecostal perspective when he asks: “Could it be that prayer as a rational, articulated response to God does not exhaust the human response . .. ? Poetry, song, dance and silence have always been offered as examples of in-depth responses to God.... Glossolalia is certainly one such response to God.*'90 However. Macchia recognizes that a christologically oriented experience of “the mystery and freedom of our own beings coram Deo" differs in kind from “an empty and self-centered emotional euphoria.' If the latter was sought at Corinth. Vielhauer's interpretation is valid. Yet glossolalia, presumably as Paul practiced it in private, “is to be understood Christologically. Hence, the cross becomes the path to glory: glossolalia as groaning for the bound creation becomes the path to glossolalia as praise.' We shall argue that it is this experience which genuinely constitutes the charisma of tongues; while the further step of articulating the content of such a mysterious experience in communicative speech constitutes a further, distinct gift which may or may not be added to, for use in edifying others in public.
Undoubtedly it would help to add in another commentator who is a cessationist by the name of Simon J. Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians (1993) pp.480-481 who essentially scoffs at those of his persuasion who vainly attempt to deny that tongues cannot be used for self-edification:
“He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” Paul already indicated that the person who speaks in a tongue addresses not the people but God (v.2). Now he states that the tongue-speaker edifies himself . . . . . . How does a person who speaks in a tongue edify himself? Some scholars interpret the verb to edify negatively, because they think that a person ought to use his gifts for the benefit of the church. They suppose that Paul resorts to sarcasm in the first part of this verse and marshal at least two arguments to prove their case. Firs, Paul teacher that the gifts which the Spirit gives are for the common good of the church (12:7); next, in his letter of love he intimates that gifts should never serve self-centered ambition.
However, Paul seems to speak positively here, for he encourages al his readers to speak in tongues (v. 5). He also notes that private prayer to God, even when spoken in a tongues, is a matter between the believer and God (ll Cor. 12:2-4; see also v. 2 and the commentary on it). Hence, no one is free to invade another’s religious privace; prayer, whether spoken or unspoken, is a two-way street. God receives praise and thanks from the speaker and at the same time grants him or her comfort and encouragement. . . . . .”
When you come across commentators who attempt to say that tongues cannot be used for self-edification, this is merely the result of a mindset that either does not understand the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit or where they are simply being malicious through spite.
No, Grudem agrees with me. Read back on what you wrote:
You said: "For the dichotomost, as there is no such thing as an independent 'human spirit' then your point is of course moot."
I replied: "Since when does the dichotomist view not believe that man has a spirit? The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous).
You replied: "I would have thought that everyone understood that the dichotomist rejects that man has a distinct spirit where he is comprised of a Body and Soul."
I can only presume that this topic is a fairly new one for you where you are maybe unfamiliar with its terminology? What you seem to be misunderstanding is that a dichotomist (as against a trichotomist) does not accept that there are two distinct entities of a human soul and human spirit. It could be that you are being confused with how some dichotomists will refer to man as being composed of a body and spirit instead of the more precise language of a body and a soul, where a classic-dichotomist will see the Biblical language that refers to the soul and spirit as being synonymous with one another.
For those such as me, where some of us refer to ourselves as being functional-dichotomists, we also recognise that the Scriptures speak of man as functioning as a body and a soul, where we see the Biblical references to the spirit of man as referring to his emotions, temperament, outlook, disposition etc. Many people who hold to a similar view to this may also inadvertently and unhelpfully refer to themselves as being dichotomists.
Seeing as neither Paul, nor anyone else in scripture, states that tongues is the Holy Spirit praying to the Father, your question is moot. Paul says it is "my spirit" that prays.
As much as Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology 1994) stated that it is our supposed human spirit that prays to the Father in tongues and not the Holy Spirit, where I would trust that by now he would have corrected his misunderstanding, we can safely say that the vast majority of Continuist and even cessationists commentators would realise that it is the Holy Spirit who prays through us, as the following passage makes abundantly clear:
(1Co 12:3-4 Holman) Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.
(5) (6)
7 A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
8 to one is given a message of wisdom through the Spirit, to another, a message of knowledge by the same Spirit,
9 to another, faith by the same Spirit, to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 to another, the performing of miracles, to another, prophecy, to another, distinguishing between spirits, to another, different kinds of languages, to another, interpretation of languages.
11 But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each one as He wills.
Since when has the correct method of bible interpretation been to ask 100 unchurched individuals what the meaning is of a passage is? Let alone an unclear verse such as 1 Cor 14:2. The correct method of interpretation is to analyse the passage using the proper techniques of hermeneutics, such as looking at the context and allowing other clearer passages to shed light on it.
Oddly enough, many Pentecostals and charismatics have asked much the same thing as to why I bother referring to quasi-cessationist commentators when they accurately exegete the Word of God. My reply goes along the line of even though the cessationist mindset is built on humanistic rationalism, most poor beleaguered cessationists are still capable of reading the plain sense of Scripture, just as they can read complicated manuals and newspapers. As for 1 Cor 14:1-4, the only way that this simple passage can be misunderstood is when cessationists attempt to redefine it in accordance with their agenda/worldview; in my opinion, no reasonable person would ever believe that tongues are to be spoken in a human language.
As I have said on numerous occasions, you need to forgo any efforts to find the cessationist worldview from within the Scriptures and instead follow the lead of other contemporary hardcore-cessationists who have realised that this is a fruitless task, where they have moved away from the Scriptures to a purely philosophical approach with their attempts to impose their worldview onto others.
One of the great frustrations that I encounter when reading the various commentaries on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, particularly in relation to the 9 Manifestations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and with the 8 Congregational Offices (1Cor 12:28) has been with how the vast majority of even very competent scholars have been unable to clearly define what most people refer to as being ‘spiritual gifts’.
The vast majority of skilled commentators will at least recognise that Paul does not actually use the problematic term spiritual gift which is at least helpful and they will (or should) explain that Paul uses two Greek words for our English spiritual gifts which are pneumatikon and charisma; as Paul does not use the language that we use, then this should be enough to allow most people to think further on this question. I know that having read through numerous commentary on the makeup of the so called “spiritual gifts” that I can be left unsure as to what many commentators actually mean, which probably reflects their own uncertainty.
The strawman argument you are making on symantics is immaterial. The fact is the vast majority of scholars recognise that the gifts of 1 Peter are the same as those of 1 Corinthians. I have provided you with 16 commentaries that agree with me. Perhaps now you could supply a list of commentaries on 1 Peter 4:10 that hold to your view that Peter is not referring to Paul's spiritual gifts but rather the grace we receive at conversion, because I couldn't find one that holds to this rather strange view.
Without reading Grudem’s entire commentary on 1 Peter, he does at least appear to open his commentary on 4:10 with reference to the “fellowship of the church” which moves any discussion on the grace he refers to as being outside of our personal times of praise and worship; so our ability to be edified by both praying to the Father either in supplication or in praise does not come into the equation.
The fact of the matter is that even an outspoken continuist such as Wayne Grudem readily admits that Peter is referring to the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians.
Peter makes no distinction as to whether the gifts he refers to are only those exercised within the church. It is a blanket statement that all gifts are to be used to serve others, both inside and outside of church meetings.
this is something that has always had me at a bit of a loss as even a novice should realise that the charisma that Peter refers to could just as easily (and more probably) be referring to the grace (charisma) that we receive at our conversion where all things become new.
I could comment on the other commentators that you provided but as most appear to be cessationists then they are essentially outsiders to the things of the Spirit, at least this appears to be the case with what I have read.
Out of the 21 authors of the commentaries I quoted I know only of 2 who are cessationist, and neither of them have written extensively on the subject. The other 19 have no cessationist leanings at all that I am aware of. Their interpretation is not a cessationist interpretation of 1 Peter 4:10 but the widely accepted exegesis by the vast consensus of independence scholars who have no axe to grind in the cessationist vs continuist debate. The fact that the text clearly disproves the idea that spiritual gifts can be used to private edification is your problem, not theirs.
I should first point out that Vines (KJV) Dictionary of 1940 states regarding symphero. Most importantly, Vines has placed the word our in brackets to indicate that it is only a gloss and not a definition and that the primary meaning of symphero is to be an advantage, profitable and expedient without there being any reference to the individual or a group:
Vines Dictionary (1940) p.890
Expedient sumphero (4851). signifies (a). transitively. lit., 'to bring togethersun, “with,” phero. "to bring"). Acts 19:19: (b) intransitively. "to be an advantage, profitable, expedient” (not merely “convenient”); it is used mostly impersonally, “it is (it was) expedient” :so in Matt. 19:10.RV (negatively), KJV, “it is (not) good”; John 11:50; 16:7; 18:14; 1 Cor.6:12; 10:23; 2 Cor. 8:10; 12:1; "it is profitable,” Matt. 5:29-30; 18:6.RV;·was profitable,” Acts 20:20; “to profit withal,” 1Cor. 12:7; in Heb. 12:10, used in the neuter of the present participle with the article as a noun, “for (our) profit.” Cf. the adjective sumphoros or (sympheron), “profitable,” used with the article as a noun, 1Co r.7:35; 10:33.
The reason Vine added 'ours' in brackets is to offer clarification as to whose profit the gifts are given. They are for the profit of everyone, not the individual. As Vine points out, the word "is used mostly impersonally". In relation to 1 Cor 12:7 he simply restates the KVJ translation "to profit withal", which as has been pointed out to you means "with all" in Middle English grammar.
Even though I cannot speak for anyone else, I know that I am appreciative of the work that others put in when they provides quotes by published sources. On the flip side (of course there had to be), of the 11 sources you provided, as much as they all provided personal commentary on 1Cor 12:7, at first glance it seemed that the only person who provided any helpful lexical commentary was with Charles Hodge, but as the Greek text in brackets bore no reference to the passage I then discovered that you had inserted it into his quote; even though it was in brackets it would have helped to have made this clear by placing “Insert” inside the brackets so that we knew that the error was not made by Hodge.
I never inserted those words in brackets. They appear in Hodges original text (as you can see here: An exposition of the First epistle to the Corinthians). Although I must admit the Greek letters came out differently after I copied them, but that is hardly anything disingenuous on my part.
As for Hodge’s commentary, I don’t know why you decided to quote him as he acknowledges that the gifts are “not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit . . . of the recipients;” which means that Hodge understands that the gifts (or at least with some of them) are given to the individual believer for their own benefit and enrichment. He certainly points out that they should also be employed for the betterment of those who are in the congregational meeting, that is, when the Manifestations of the Spirit are being used within the meeting and not during times of personal prayer and ministry to others.
I see you are attempting to put word's into Hodge's mouth (something you do on a regular basis, not just with the writers of scripture but even with commentators who disagree with your position). Nowhere does Hodge imply that he "understands that the gifts are given to the individual believer for their own benefit and enrichment". Quite the opposite, he says the gifts "are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit of the recipient, but for the good of the church". Just to make his view crystal clear he then states "Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man.", alluding to 1 Cor 12:14-26 where Paul goes to great lengths to point out that, just as bodily parts function not for themselves but for the benefit of the whole body, so spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of the church.
Of course it was only Hodge's view you were able to distort, I notice you left the others KJV commentators alone as they were unequivocal in their interpretation of 1 Cor 12:7 being for the common good.
With your reference to Picirilli, his commentary on 1 Cor 12:7 appears to be slanted toward his need to understand the verse in a particular way (see below), but when we turn to page 195 we discover that his cessationist focus where the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are supposedly only for the benefit of the congregation all of a sudden turns on its head when he says “speaking in tongues has no public value”. If as Picirilli believes that tongues have no public value then how can tongues ever be used to edify the congregation particularly as he rightfully recognises that the Holy Spirit always speaks to the Father devotionally, so the notion of the “common good” falls flat. Even if we insert the ability to interpret what is being said to the Father by the speaker or another person, it is impossible for the one whom the Spirit is praying to the Father through not to be edified, which is what Paul pointed out in 1 Cor 14:4.
I see you are also twisting Picirilli's words by taking them out of context. The tongues he is referring to on page 195 of his commentary are the problem tongues of Chapter 14. Those tongues do indeed have no public value since they are unrecognized and untranslated.
How can you makes such an outlandish and silly claim when you have already been informed that the popular versions such as the KJV, ASV, NKJV, NLT, Holman, Douay-Rheims, ERV, Lexham, JB Phillips and the Amplified have rejected the notion that symphero is supposed to be read as the “common good”?
It has already been explained to you what the KJV's Middle English "withal" means.
Ditto the ASV which copies the archaic KJV terminology.
The NKJV translators have rightfully added "for all" to make it crystal clear they understand the meaning of symphero here to be the profit of others. They agree with me.
The NLT has rendered it "help each other". They agree with me.
The ERV has rendered it "to help others". They agree with me.
The Lexham has rendered it "beneficial to all". They agree with me.
Amplified has rendered it "for the common good". They agree with me.
JB Philips cannot technically be regarded as a translation at all. It is a paraphrase that bears little resemblance to the original text, as we can tell by the rather odd rendering "he may make the most of it."
So that leaves you with just the unpopular Holman version and the archaic 1582 Douay–Rheims version. Wow.
Now lets look at how some rather more respected translations have rendered it:
NIV Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
NASB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
ESV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
RSV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
ASV But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
AMP But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit [the spiritual illumination and the enabling of the Holy Spirit] for the common good.
BSB Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
BLB Now to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the common profiting.
BRG But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
CSB A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person for the common good:
CEB A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person for the common good.
CJB Moreover, to each person is given the particular manifestation of the Spirit that will be for the common good.
CEV The Spirit has given each of us a special way of serving others.
DLNT And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for our benefit.
ERV Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person. The Spirit gives this to each one to help others.
ESVUK To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
EXB ·Something from the Spirit can be seen in [L The manifestation/disclosure of the Spirit is given to] each person, for the common good.
GNV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man, to profit withal.
GW The evidence of the Spirit’s presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
GNT The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all.
ICB Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person, to help everyone.
ISV To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good.
KJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
AKJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
LEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is beneficial to all.
TLB The Holy Spirit displays God’s power through each of us as a means of helping the entire church.
MEV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the common good.
MOUNCE But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the good of all.
NOG The evidence of the Spirit’s presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
NAS But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
NCV Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person, for the common good.
NHEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
NET To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
NIRV The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all.
NIVUK Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
NKJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
NLV The Holy Spirit works in each person in one way or another for the good of all.
NLT A spiritual gift is given to each of us so we can help each other.
NRSV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
NTE The point of the spirit being revealed in each one is so that all may benefit.
RSVCE To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
TLV But to each person is given the manifestation of the Ruach for the benefit of all.
VOICE That gift is given for the good of the whole community.
WEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
WE And the Holy Spirit gives each one a gift so that all people may be helped.
WEY But to each of us a manifestation of the Spirit has been granted for the common good.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Greek scholars of the vast majority of modern translations (including all the major ones) have got it wrong and that a handful of obscure and/or archaic translations have got it right? It seems to me that you are the one being "outlandish and silly", not me.
With the BGAD reference not only have you failed to fully quote this commentary but you also failed to maintain its use of Roman and italic font type which makes a huge difference to the definition of a given word – very naughty indeed!
I am not sure why the italics failed to copy and paste correctly. Probably because I copied it temporarily to Wordpad first. Next time I will try to remember to paste the original direct into CF as I see that does preserve the italics. The section I quoted of course was the just meaning that applies to 1 Cor 12:7 rather than wasting bandwidth by quoting all the other meanings of the word such as 'bringing together in a heap'.
If you were to have understood the BGAD reference to 1Cor 12:7 you would have noticed that it says “πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον (τινός) for (someone’s) advantage 1 Cor 7:35 v.l.;12:7” which means that the BGAD’s use of italics in regard to for. . .advantageis a gloss and not a definition but most importantly it does not say that Paul is using symphero to suggest any notion of the common good. Your fervent desire to uphold your particular worldview (for whatever reason) regularly seems to blind you to the obvious.
Yes, and to make it clear whose advantage it is, BDAG has rightfully added "someone's" to make it clear the meaning of the word is not the individuals advantage but someone else's.
When combined with the Greek word πρὸς (pros) it confers a direction towards someone else (BDAG:"③...marker of movement or orientation toward someone/someth."). If the phrase was just "τὸ σύμφερον" then it could be translated 'for advantage'. But the addition of πρὸς renders the meaning 'for the common advantage', as the Friberg Lexicon makes clear:
Friberg Lexicon:
25380 συμφέρω 1aor. συνήνεγκα; (1) transitively bring together, gather, collect (AC 19.19); (2) intransitively; (a) be of use, be profitable or advantageous (1C 6.12); (b) impersonally, with the dative followed by a ἵνα clause or an infinitive it is better, advantageous (MT 5.29; 19.10); neuter participle as a substantive τὸ σύμφερον profit, advantage (HE 12.10); πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον for the common good (1C 12.7)
Eh? Did you miss where it says "A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers." at the top of the section?
Then we have how you have confused (unintentionally or not) what both Fee, Thiselton and the other commentators have to say. As I said previously, we need to read their full commentary on a given issue where Fee (page 957) speaks about 1Cor 14:4, he says;
(3) Such speech by the Spirit is further described in v. 4 as edifying to the speaker. This has sometimes been called “self-edification” and therefore viewed as pejorative. But Paul intended no such thing. The edifying of oneself is not self-centeredness, but the personal edifying of the believer that comes through private prayer and praise”.
Then we have your misrepresentation of Thiselton, First Corinthians (2000) pp.1094-1096
The reason I quoted Fee was not because I agree with what he says elsewhere in his commentary but to make the point that even he, as a Pentecostal, has no problem with 1 Cor 12:7 being "for the common good", as I previously quoted. The fact he subsequently contradicts himself and makes the unwarranted assertion that tongues may be legitimately used for self edification only goes to show how confused he is.
Likewise with Thiselton, he too acknowledges that 1 Cor 12:7 means for the common good.
I can only presume that this topic is a fairly new one for you where you are maybe unfamiliar with its terminology? What you seem to be misunderstanding is that a dichotomist (as against a trichotomist) does not accept that there are two distinct entities of a human soul and human spirit.
It might help if you actually read my posts. I said "The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous)." - exactly as Grudem defines it.
For those such as me, where some of us refer to ourselves as being functional-dichotomists, we also recognise that the Scriptures speak of man as functioning as a body and a soul, where we see the Biblical references to the spirit of man as referring to his emotions, temperament, outlook, disposition etc. Many people who hold to a similar view to this may also inadvertently and unhelpfully refer to themselves as being dichotomists.
Then you are not a dichotomist as you claimed, but a trichotomist (of sorts). You believe the body, soul and spirit are three seperate things. I searched for 'functional dichotomist' hoping to get some insight into your beliefs but found nothing at all relating to theology (but plenty on cell biochemistry!), so it seems this is yet another doctrine that is unique to yourself.
we can safely say that the vast majority of Continuist and even cessationists commentators would realise that it is the Holy Spirit who prays through us, as the following passage makes abundantly clear:
(1Co 12:3-4 Holman) Therefore I am informing you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4 Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.
(5) (6)
7 A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person to produce what is beneficial:
8 to one is given a message of wisdom through the Spirit, to another, a message of knowledge by the same Spirit,
9 to another, faith by the same Spirit, to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
10 to another, the performing of miracles, to another, prophecy, to another, distinguishing between spirits, to another, different kinds of languages, to another, interpretation of languages.
11 But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each one as He wills.
The passage says nothing of the sort. Although the obscure Holman translation can at times be bizarre, even its rendering of this passage nowhere says that tongues is the Holy Spirit praying to the Father.
Oddly enough, many Pentecostals and charismatics have asked much the same thing as to why I bother referring to quasi-cessationist commentators when they accurately exegete the Word of God. My reply goes along the line of even though the cessationist mindset is built on humanistic rationalism, most poor beleaguered cessationists are still capable of reading the plain sense of Scripture, just as they can read complicated manuals and newspapers. As for 1 Cor 14:1-4, the only way that this simple passage can be misunderstood is when cessationists attempt to redefine it in accordance with their agenda/worldview; in my opinion, no reasonable person would ever believe that tongues are to be spoken in a human language.
As I have said on numerous occasions, you need to forgo any efforts to find the cessationist worldview from within the Scriptures and instead follow the lead of other contemporary hardcore-cessationists who have realised that this is a fruitless task, where they have moved away from the Scriptures to a purely philosophical approach with their attempts to impose their worldview onto others.
Yet again, instead of answering the question you launch into another anti-cessationist tirade which expresses nothing more your biased opinion against cessationists rather than any substantive argument. When people resort to making ad hominem attacks against people rather than attacking their arguments it is a sure sign they have lost the debate.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
The strawman argument you are making on symantics is immaterial. The fact is the vast majority of scholars recognise that the gifts of 1 Peter are the same as those of 1 Corinthians. I have provided you with 16 commentaries that agree with me. Perhaps now you could supply a list of commentaries on 1 Peter 4:10 that hold to your view that Peter is not referring to Paul's spiritual gifts but rather the grace we receive at conversion, because I couldn't find one that holds to this rather strange view.
The fact of the matter is that even an outspoken continuist such as Wayne Grudem readily admits that Peter is referring to the spiritual gifts of 1 Corinthians.
Peter makes no distinction as to whether the gifts he refers to are only those exercised within the church. It is a blanket statement that all gifts are to be used to serve others, both inside and outside of church meetings.
It may be a loss to you but it isn't to everyone else, not least the vast majority of scholars who reject your rather peculiar idea.
Out of the 21 authors of the commentaries I quoted I know only of 2 who are cessationist, and neither of them have written extensively on the subject. The other 19 have no cessationist leanings at all that I am aware of. Their interpretation is not a cessationist interpretation of 1 Peter 4:10 but the widely accepted exegesis by the vast consensus of independence scholars who have no axe to grind in the cessationist vs continuist debate. The fact that the text clearly disproves the idea that spiritual gifts can be used to private edification is your problem, not theirs.
The reason Vine added 'ours' in brackets is to offer clarification as to whose profit the gifts are given. They are for the profit of everyone, not the individual. As Vine points out, the word "is used mostly impersonally". In relation to 1 Cor 12:7 he simply restates the KVJ translation "to profit withal", which as has been pointed out to you means "with all" in Middle English grammar.
I never inserted those words in brackets. They appear in Hodges original text (as you can see here: An exposition of the First epistle to the Corinthians). Although I must admit the Greek letters came out differently after I copied them, but that is hardly anything disingenuous on my part.
I see you are attempting to put word's into Hodge's mouth (something you do on a regular basis, not just with the writers of scripture but even with commentators who disagree with your position). Nowhere does Hodge imply that he "understands that the gifts are given to the individual believer for their own benefit and enrichment". Quite the opposite, he says the gifts "are not designed exclusively or mainly for the benefit of the recipient, but for the good of the church". Just to make his view crystal clear he then states "Just as the power of vision is not for the benefit of the eye, but for the man.", alluding to 1 Cor 12:14-26 where Paul goes to great lengths to point out that, just as bodily parts function not for themselves but for the benefit of the whole body, so spiritual gifts are given for the benefit of the church.
Of course it was only Hodge's view you were able to distort, I notice you left the others KJV commentators alone as they were unequivocal in their interpretation of 1 Cor 12:7 being for the common good.
I see you are also twisting Picirilli's words by taking them out of context. The tongues he is referring to on page 195 of his commentary are the problem tongues of Chapter 14. Those tongues do indeed have no public value since they are unrecognized and untranslated.
It has already been explained to you what the KJV's Middle English "withal" means.
Ditto the ASV which copies the archaic KJV terminology.
The NKJV translators have rightfully added "for all" to make it crystal clear they understand the meaning of symphero here to be the profit of others. They agree with me.
The NLT has rendered it "help each other". They agree with me.
The ERV has rendered it "to help others". They agree with me.
The Lexham has rendered it "beneficial to all". They agree with me.
Amplified has rendered it "for the common good". They agree with me.
JB Philips cannot technically be regarded as a translation at all. It is a paraphrase that bears little resemblance to the original text, as we can tell by the rather odd rendering "he may make the most of it."
So that leaves you with just the unpopular Holman version and the archaic 1582 Douay–Rheims version. Wow.
Now lets look at how some rather more respected translations have rendered it:
NIV Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
NASB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
ESV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
RSV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
ASV But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal.
AMP But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit [the spiritual illumination and the enabling of the Holy Spirit] for the common good.
BSB Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
BLB Now to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the common profiting.
BRG But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
CSB A manifestation of the Spirit is given to each person for the common good:
CEB A demonstration of the Spirit is given to each person for the common good.
CJB Moreover, to each person is given the particular manifestation of the Spirit that will be for the common good.
CEV The Spirit has given each of us a special way of serving others.
DLNT And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for our benefit.
ERV Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person. The Spirit gives this to each one to help others.
ESVUK To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
EXB ·Something from the Spirit can be seen in [L The manifestation/disclosure of the Spirit is given to] each person, for the common good.
GNV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man, to profit withal.
GW The evidence of the Spirit’s presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
GNT The Spirit's presence is shown in some way in each person for the good of all.
ICB Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person, to help everyone.
ISV To each person has been given the ability to manifest the Spirit for the common good.
KJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
AKJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
LEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for what is beneficial to all.
TLB The Holy Spirit displays God’s power through each of us as a means of helping the entire church.
MEV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyone for the common good.
MOUNCE But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the good of all.
NOG The evidence of the Spirit’s presence is given to each person for the common good of everyone.
NAS But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
NCV Something from the Spirit can be seen in each person, for the common good.
NHEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
NET To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.
NIRV The Holy Spirit is given to each of us in a special way. That is for the good of all.
NIVUK Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
NKJV But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
NLV The Holy Spirit works in each person in one way or another for the good of all.
NLT A spiritual gift is given to each of us so we can help each other.
NRSV To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
NTE The point of the spirit being revealed in each one is so that all may benefit.
RSVCE To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
TLV But to each person is given the manifestation of the Ruach for the benefit of all.
VOICE That gift is given for the good of the whole community.
WEB But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the profit of all.
WE And the Holy Spirit gives each one a gift so that all people may be helped.
WEY But to each of us a manifestation of the Spirit has been granted for the common good.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Greek scholars of the vast majority of modern translations (including all the major ones) have got it wrong and that a handful of obscure and/or archaic translations have got it right? It seems to me that you are the one being "outlandish and silly", not me.
I am not sure why the italics failed to copy and paste correctly. Probably because I copied it temporarily to Wordpad first. Next time I will try to remember to paste the original direct into CF as I see that does preserve the italics. The section I quoted of course was the just meaning that applies to 1 Cor 12:7 rather than wasting bandwidth by quoting all the other meanings of the word such as 'bringing together in a heap'.
Yes, and to make it clear whose advantage it is, BDAG has rightfully added "someone's" to make it clear the meaning of the word is not the individuals advantage but someone else's.
When combined with the Greek word πρὸς (pros) it confers a direction towards someone else (BDAG:"③...marker of movement or orientation toward someone/someth."). If the phrase was just "τὸ σύμφερον" then it could be translated 'for advantage'. But the addition of πρὸς renders the meaning 'for the common advantage', as the Friberg Lexicon makes clear:
Friberg Lexicon:
25380 συμφέρω 1aor. συνήνεγκα; (1) transitively bring together, gather, collect (AC 19.19); (2) intransitively; (a) be of use, be profitable or advantageous (1C 6.12); (b) impersonally, with the dative followed by a ἵνα clause or an infinitive it is better, advantageous (MT 5.29; 19.10); neuter participle as a substantive τὸ σύμφερον profit, advantage (HE 12.10); πρὸς τὸ σύμφερον for the common good (1C 12.7)
Eh? Did you miss where it says "A common term, both sg. and pl. in ins in ref. to contributions to the public good by civic-minded pers." at the top of the section?
The reason I quoted Fee was not because I agree with what he says elsewhere in his commentary but to make the point that even he, as a Pentecostal, has no problem with 1 Cor 12:7 being "for the common good", as I previously quoted. The fact he subsequently contradicts himself and makes the unwarranted assertion that tongues may be legitimately used for self edification only goes to show how confused he is.
Likewise with Thiselton, he too acknowledges that 1 Cor 12:7 means for the common good.
It might help if you actually read my posts. I said "The dichotomist believes man has a body and soul/spirit (the 2 immaterial aspects being synonymous)." - exactly as Grudem defines it.
Then you are not a dichotomist as you claimed, but a trichotomist (of sorts). You believe the body, soul and spirit are three seperate things. I searched for 'functional dichotomist' hoping to get some insight into your beliefs but found nothing at all relating to theology (but plenty on cell biochemistry!), so it seems this is yet another doctrine that is unique to yourself.
The passage says nothing of the sort. Although the obscure Holman translation can at times be bizarre, even its rendering of this passage nowhere says that tongues is the Holy Spirit praying to the Father.
Yet again, instead of answering the question you launch into another anti-cessationist tirade which expresses nothing more your biased opinion against cessationists rather than any substantive argument. When people resort to making ad hominem attacks against people rather than attacking their arguments it is a sure sign they have lost the debate.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Why do you need to go outside the Bible to commentaries to find out what are spiritual gifts?
Gifts from the Father God:
For I say, through the grace given to me, to everyone who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of faith. 4 For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, 5 so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness. (Romans 12)
Gifts from the Holy Spirit:
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12)
Gifts from Jesus:
11 And He Himself gave some to beapostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4)
As much as I need to get back to a reply to Swordsman1, with your question, the problem with relying on our English texts with regard to the so called "spiritual gifts" is that Paul nor any other Biblical writer has ever employed this particular term, which is purely a translators gloss that has been handed down over the years.
As this term has never been used by them then we are compelled to return to the commentaries to understand how our various English translations have either successfully or unsuccessfully employed the Greek words pneumatikon and charisma which Paul uses throughout First Corinthians; we then need to figure out from within the commentaries how Paul used the Greek word domata in Eph 4:7-13.
As much as I need to get back to a reply to Swordsman1, with your question, the problem with relying on our English texts with regard to the so called "spiritual gifts" is that Paul nor any other Biblical writer has ever employed this particular term, which is purely a translators gloss that has been handed down over the years.
As this term has never been used by them then we are compelled to return to the commentaries to understand how our various English translations have either successfully or unsuccessfully employed the Greek words pneumatikon and charisma which Paul uses throughout First Corinthians; we then need to figure out from within the commentaries how Paul used the Greek word domata in Eph 4:7-13.
Even though the old KJV tends to get a lot of justified flack for its archaic language and often poor word choice, it can also encounter a bit of unwarranted criticism such as with 1Cor 12:27 where some attempt to incorrectly say that the KJV has employed something along the line of "the common good", which is in fact a misnomer as the KJV does not suggest such a thing.
As you will be able to see from the following chart that I have produced, the first translation to suggest something such as with the "common good" was with Tyndale in 1534 but the first English Bible which preceded his by 150 years (1382) did not attempt to add in a gloss to "what is profitable". The first contemporary Bible (to my knowledge) that has gone down the pathway of adding in a doctrinal position on top of the Greek text was probably with the New Life Version in 1969, though the first edition of the RSV in 1946 probably did a similar thing. This is why I have placed an "Interim release" stamp on the following image as I need to site an original facsimile of both Tyndales Bible and the original RSV to work out if Tyndale included 'the congregation' in italics as a gloss and if the RSV had the "common good".
As for how the KJV has employed symphero or more properly with the archaic non-Biblical word 'withal', it follows the standard use where it is more of a linguistic tool where it attempts to make a particular word or sentence appear to flow better to our ear. It has nothing to do with our English "all".
So when people attempt to say that the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) were only given for the "common good", you can now easily correct this attempt at misdirection by pointing out that this is simply a bias toward a cessationist worldview.
Meaning: 1) to bear or bring together 2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others 2b) to collect or contribute in order to help 2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient Origin: from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT - 9:69,1252; v Usage: AV - be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17
King James use of Symphero:
1. (Mark 10:39 KJV) And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
2. (Luke 6:38 KJV) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
3. (Acts 25:27 KJV) For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
4. (1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
5. (Colossians 4:3 KJV) Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
6. (1 Timothy 5:13 KJV) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
7. (Philemon 1:22 KJV) But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
The following chart which starts from 382AD shows how 61 versions of the Bible have translated the Greek word symphero into English. A red tick indicates that a given version has employed a literal translation of symphero and a black mark indicates that the translators of a given version has employed a dose of doctrinal manipulation so to speak. I have indicated with a red "?" that I am uncertain if a particular version have chosen to be literal as with "profitable" or that they have chosen to employ a bit of doctrinal bias.
Even though the old KJV tends to get a lot of justified flack for its archaic language and often poor word choice, it can also encounter a bit of unwarranted criticism such as with 1Cor 12:27 where some attempt to incorrectly say that the KJV has employed something along the line of "the common good", which is in fact a misnomer as the KJV does not suggest such a thing.
As you will be able to see from the following chart that I have produced, the first translation to suggest something such as with the "common good" was with Tyndale in 1534 but the first English Bible which preceded his by 150 years (1382) did not attempt to add in a gloss to "what is profitable". The first contemporary Bible (to my knowledge) that has gone down the pathway of adding in a doctrinal position on top of the Greek text was probably with the New Life Version in 1969, though the first edition of the RSV in 1946 probably did a similar thing. This is why I have placed an "Interim release" stamp on the following image as I need to site an original facsimile of both Tyndales Bible and the original RSV to work out if Tyndale included 'the congregation' in italics as a gloss and if the RSV had the "common good".
As for how the KJV has employed symphero or more properly with the archaic non-Biblical word 'withal', it follows the standard use where it is more of a linguistic tool where it attempts to make a particular word or sentence appear to flow better to our ear. It has nothing to do with our English "all".
So when people attempt to say that the Manifestations of the Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) were only given for the "common good", you can now easily correct this attempt at misdirection by pointing out that this is simply a bias toward a cessationist worldview.
Meaning: 1) to bear or bring together 2) to bear together or at the same time 2a) to carry with others 2b) to collect or contribute in order to help 2c) to help, be profitable, be expedient Origin: from 4862 and 5342 (including its alternate); TDNT - 9:69,1252; v Usage: AV - be expedient 7, profit 4, be profitable 3, bring together 1, be better 1, be good 1; 17
King James use of Symphero:
1. (Mark 10:39 KJV) And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
2. (Luke 6:38 KJV) Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
3. (Acts 25:27 KJV) For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.
4. (1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV) But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
5. (Colossians 4:3 KJV) Withal praying also for us, that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds:
6. (1 Timothy 5:13 KJV) And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
7. (Philemon 1:22 KJV) But withal prepare me also a lodging: for I trust that through your prayers I shall be given unto you.
The following chart which starts from 382AD shows how 61 versions of the Bible have translated the Greek word symphero into English. A red tick indicates that a given version has employed a literal translation of symphero and a black mark indicates that the translators of a given version has employed a dose of doctrinal manipulation so to speak. I have indicated with a red "?" that I am uncertain if a particular version have chosen to be literal as with "profitable" or that they have chosen to employ a bit of doctrinal bias.
If you have a copy of Tyndale's 1382 edition of 1Cor 12:7, or should I say with the complete page if it has any footnotes to verse 7 then this would be most appreciated. What I am particularly interested in is with any italics, brackets and any associated footnotes.
One of the problems with compiling a list such as this, just as I did with the Greek words dialektos and with our English word miracle is that the various editions can alter and even the footnotes which make the translators reasoning behind choosing a particular word may come and go.
When time permits (hopefully over the next few weeks), I will be calling into the libraries of at least three Christian Bible Colleges so that I can gain a facsimile of chapters 12, 13 & 14 with the eventual goal of obtaining the commentary of all their books on First Corinthians as it relates to these chapters.
If you have a copy of Tyndale's 1382 edition of 1Cor 12:7, or should I say with the complete page if it has any footnotes to verse 7 then this would be most appreciated. What I am particularly interested in is with any italics, brackets and any associated footnotes.
One of the problems with compiling a list such as this, just as I did with the Greek words dialektos and with our English word miracle is that the various editions can alter and even the footnotes which make the translators reasoning behind choosing a particular word may come and go.
When time permits (hopefully over the next few weeks), I will be calling into the libraries of at least three Christian Bible Colleges so that I can gain a facsimile of chapters 12, 13 & 14 with the eventual goal of obtaining the commentary of all their books on First Corinthians as it relates to these chapters.
If you have a copy of Tyndale's 1382 edition of 1Cor 12:7, or should I say with the complete page if it has any footnotes to verse 7 then this would be most appreciated. What I am particularly interested in is with any italics, brackets and any associated footnotes.
One of the problems with compiling a list such as this, just as I did with the Greek words dialektos and with our English word miracle is that the various editions can alter and even the footnotes which make the translators reasoning behind choosing a particular word may come and go.
When time permits (hopefully over the next few weeks), I will be calling into the libraries of at least three Christian Bible Colleges so that I can gain a facsimile of chapters 12, 13 & 14 with the eventual goal of obtaining the commentary of all their books on First Corinthians as it relates to these chapters.
I have Tyndale's 1526 edition, but I just ordered The Evolution of the English Bible: An Historical Sketch of the Successive Versions from 1382 to 1885.
One of the, shall I say, gimmicks that hardcore-cessationists often like to try and pull is with how they will attempt to establish the false premise that the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are only intended to edify others and not with the individual Believer, where the person who can speak in tongues is to only speak to the congregation. This slight of hand is an attempt to say that we cannot pray in the Spirit (tongues) to the Father, where tongues cannot be used during times of personal praise and prayer to the Father.
So whenever a hardcore-cessationist attempts to play this particular card, the chart that I have produced can be used to easily demonstrate that the use of the "common good", for of the Greek word sympheron, which means 'for profit or for benefit' is nothing else but a false-flag.
As for Barclay's translation, thanks for pointing out my omission and Barclay has now been included.
Barclay has certainly followed a literal line with "and always towards some beneficial end" but his commentary can be a bit misleading, where he says, "But every one of them is a gift of the same Spirit and designed, not for the glory of the individual member of the Church, but for the good of the whole"; my query would be with how he has used the positive "and always towards some beneficial end" with the negative with 'not for the glory of the individual . . . but for the whole'.
We can all agree that is reasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is not intended for our personal glory, but his "some beneficial end" has at least removed any suggestion (within this passage) that our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) in only ever intended and limited to the congregational setting.
One of the, shall I say, gimmicks that hardcore-cessationists often like to try and pull is with how they will attempt to establish the false premise that the Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (aka, spiritual gifts) are only intended to edify others and not with the individual Believer, where the person who can speak in tongues is to only speak to the congregation. This slight of hand is an attempt to say that we cannot pray in the Spirit (tongues) to the Father, where tongues cannot be used during times of personal praise and prayer to the Father.
So whenever a hardcore-cessationist attempts to play this particular card, the chart that I have produced can be used to easily demonstrate that the use of the "common good", for of the Greek word sympheron, which means 'for profit or for benefit' is nothing else but a false-flag.
As for Barclay's translation, thanks for pointing out my omission and Barclay has now been included.
Barclay has certainly followed a literal line with "and always towards some beneficial end" but his commentary can be a bit misleading, where he says, "But every one of them is a gift of the same Spirit and designed, not for the glory of the individual member of the Church, but for the good of the whole"; my query would be with how he has used the positive "and always towards some beneficial end" with the negative with 'not for the glory of the individual . . . but for the whole'.
We can all agree that is reasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is not intended for our personal glory, but his "some beneficial end" has at least removed any suggestion (within this passage) that our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) in only ever intended and limited to the congregational setting.
The cessationist and most Pentecostals even, do not realize the difference between the sign of tongues (personal prayer language) of Mark 16:17 that ALL who BELIEVE receive, and the gift of diverse kinds of tongues that MUST be accompanied by the gift of interpretation of tongues for the profit of all of 1 Corinthians 12 that only a few receive for each congregation. Thus you trying to prove a different interpretation for "the common good" is a mute point. The "sign" doesn't need interpretation because it is to God alone. But the gift of diverse kinds of tongues are messages FROM God which verse 6 of 1 Cor. 14 says are by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching known by the interpretation of tongues. These must be interpreted. And only two or three may speak, but only if there is someone with the gift of interpretation present. You see, these are like offices. 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. Everyone in the congregation will know who these people are that have these gifts. But prayer edifies ourselves, and is part of the armor of God given to all His children who BELIEVE. This is why 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? Why? Because NO interpretation is required. Thus is confusing and out of order. This is also why it is a sign to the unbeliever. That is not a positive sign, but a negative sign - it confirms the unbeliever in their unbelief, just as those who murdered Jesus were confirmed in their unbelief. Read Luke 2:34-35 and compare with 2 Corinthians 14:22-25. The sign of Jesus and the sign of tongues is the same type of sign - "a sign which will be spoken against." And as verse 23 says it is not only the unsaved, but the uninformed Christian - the cessationist. This is also why verse 21 was presented first. The mocker is judged.
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
The cessationist and most Pentecostals even, do not realize the difference between the sign of tongues (personal prayer language) of Mark 16:17 that ALL who BELIEVE receive, and the gift of diverse kinds of tongues that MUST be accompanied by the gift of interpretation of tongues for the profit of all of 1 Corinthians 12 that only a few receive for each congregation. Thus you trying to prove a different interpretation for "the common good" is a mute point. The "sign" doesn't need interpretation because it is to God alone. But the gift of diverse kinds of tongues are messages FROM God which verse 6 of 1 Cor. 14 says are by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching known by the interpretation of tongues. These must be interpreted. And only two or three may speak, but only if there is someone with the gift of interpretation present. You see, these are like offices. 1 Corinthians 12:29-30. Everyone in the congregation will know who these people are that have these gifts. But prayer edifies ourselves, and is part of the armor of God given to all His children who BELIEVE. This is why 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? Why? Because NO interpretation is required. Thus is confusing and out of order. This is also why it is a sign to the unbeliever. That is not a positive sign, but a negative sign - it confirms the unbeliever in their unbelief, just as those who murdered Jesus were confirmed in their unbelief. Read Luke 2:34-35 and compare with 2 Corinthians 14:22-25. The sign of Jesus and the sign of tongues is the same type of sign - "a sign which will be spoken against." And as verse 23 says it is not only the unsaved, but the uninformed Christian - the cessationist. This is also why verse 21 was presented first. The mocker is judged.
11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; 18 praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints— 19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.
For many years as a Pentecostal I used to believe that tongues (along with Interpretation) could be used by the Holy Spirit to speak to either an individual or a congregation; but with some further investigation into the Scriptures, I came to the uncomfortable realisation that this is not the case. This means that I view the Scriptures as speaking of only one kind of tongues, where the Holy Spirit will always speak to the Father (and never to an individual) in either praise (Acts 2) or prayer.
As many cessationists are aware that there is only one form of tongues, this means that the hardcore-cessationist schema does have a serious impact on the passage of 1Cor 12:7 and with how the Believer is able to allow the Holy Spirit to intercede on his part before the Father.
As for tongues being one of the 9 Manifestation of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11), tongues themselves may be used both within and outside of the Church meeting; but when tongues is combined with interpretation within the congregational meeting then the individual who has the Holy Spirit operating through them in these two ways can allow this person to be acknowledged by the congregation as holding the Office/function of tongues (1Cor 12:28).
As for the sign of tongues in Mark 16, I am not prepared to stake too much on this very brief passage as we do not seem to know for sure what Jesus meant. Is he speaking of how tongues will be understood by the unsaved in greenfield areas such as with Acts 2, or with how tongues will follow the ‘church’ where ideally the new Believer will understand that they can pray in the Spirit (tongues)?
For many years as a Pentecostal I used to believe that tongues (along with Interpretation) could be used by the Holy Spirit to speak to either an individual or a congregation; but with some further investigation into the Scriptures, I came to the uncomfortable realisation that this is not the case. This means that I view the Scriptures as speaking of only one kind of tongues, where the Holy Spirit will always speak to the Father (and never to an individual) in either praise (Acts 2) or prayer.
As many cessationists are aware that there is only one form of tongues, this means that the hardcore-cessationist schema does have a serious impact on the passage of 1Cor 12:7 and with how the Believer is able to allow the Holy Spirit to intercede on his part before the Father.
As for tongues being one of the 9 Manifestation of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11), tongues themselves may be used both within and outside of the Church meeting; but when tongues is combined with interpretation within the congregational meeting then the individual who has the Holy Spirit operating through them in these two ways can allow this person to be acknowledged by the congregation as holding the Office/function of tongues (1Cor 12:28).
As for the sign of tongues in Mark 16, I am not prepared to stake too much on this very brief passage as we do not seem to know for sure what Jesus meant. Is he speaking of how tongues will be understood by the unsaved in greenfield areas such as with Acts 2, or with how tongues will follow the ‘church’ where ideally the new Believer will understand that they can pray in the Spirit (tongues)?
Tongues was NOT understood naturally in Acts 2. That is in complete contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:2. No man understands tongues. 1 Corinthians was written 20 years before Acts. Those of that day reading Acts knew the gifts and knew that the devout Jews received supernatural interpretation, as that gift can be used for interpreting either the sign or the gift of tongues. Each man HEARD THEM speaking in their own language. The mockers didn't receive the interpretation - their hearts were either hard, or Gentiles and the gospel was not going to them yet.
Did you ever get my private message to you some time ago?
Tongues was NOT understood naturally in Acts 2. That is in complete contradiction to 1 Corinthians 14:2. No man understands tongues. 1 Corinthians was written 20 years before Acts. Those of that day reading Acts knew the gifts and knew that the devout Jews received supernatural interpretation, as that gift can be used for interpreting either the sign or the gift of tongues. Each man HEARD THEM speaking in their own language. The mockers didn't receive the interpretation - their hearts were either hard, or Gentiles and the gospel was not going to them yet.
Here's where I follow the majority (both Pentecostal & Evangelical) position regarding Acts 2:4, where it was the 120 who were enabled by the Spirit to speak words of praise and adoration to the Father in the languages of the unregenerate Jews who were nearby.
As much as you are right in that at first glance Acts 2 can be deemed to be in opposition to 1Cor 14, we need to remember that the Day of Pentecost was a unique and certainly a remarkable event, where the Father had announced to the world, and particularly to the Jews that the Holy Spirit has now been given to his Children. For that matter, we have another 'issue' with the Day of Pentecost in that the 120 were all speaking words of praise (tongues) to the Father all at once, which is of course a practice which was later forbidden in 1Cor 14.
Leaving the wording of Acts 2:4 aside, I could not imagine why the Holy Spirit would empower the unregenerate to understand what the Holy Spirit was saying to the Father when the event of the Day of Pentecost was about the Holy Spirit being given to the fledgling Church.
Did you ever get my private message to you some time ago?