Here we go again, how can you even consider quoting a Pentecostal scholar such as Gordon Fee and yet you do not have the wherewithal to realise that what you are saying sounds odd, which sould be enough for any prudent person to undertake further investigation; it seems that your need to uphold your worldview has you making numerous mistakes, and oddly enough you keep making the same mistakes over and over.
As you seem to overly rely on Google Books you should probably avoid doing this as you are only quoting portions of what you think that individual scholars believe, which I trust that others would have also noticed if they made the effort to read through, what are often little more, than misquotes on your part.
As for this
repeated false claim that Fee believes that tongues are given in a human language is nothing but absurd to say the least, let me help you on this point. As for your other quotes, as they are out of context then it is hard to know what they have said but with some of them (as with Kistemaker) you failed to notice that he did not agree with you.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.596-599
(12:7)
Different kinds of tongues. This is obviously the “controversial gift,” both then and now. If our interpretation of chap. 14 is correct, then the Corinthians’ singular preference for this manifestation is what lies behind this entire argument. Thus, after listing several equally visible and extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit, Paul includes their favorite as well, along with its companion, “interpretation.” As with prophecy, enough is said in chaps. 13-14 to give us a fairly good idea as to how Paul understood it. The following seem certain: (a) It is Spirit-inspired utterance; that is made explicit both in vv. 7 and 11 and in 14:2. (b) The regulations for its use in 14:27-28 make it clear that the speaker is not in “ecstasy” or “out of control.” Quite the opposite; the speakers must speak in turn, and they must remain silent if there is no one to interpret, (c) It is speech essentially unintelligible both to the speaker (14:14) and to other hearers (14:16). (d) It is speech directed basically toward God (14:2, 14-15, 28); one may assume, therefore, that what is “interpreted” is not speech directed toward others, but the “mysteries” spoken to God.
What is less certain is whether Paul also understood the phenomenon to be an actual language. In favor of such a view are (a) the term itself, (b) the need for “interpretation,” and (c) the evidence from
Acts 2:5-11. In the final analysis, however, this question seems irrelevant. Paul’s whole argument is predicated on its unintelligibility to both speaker and hearer; he certainly does not envisage someone’s being present who would be able to understand it because it was also an earthly language. Moreover, his use of earthly languages as an
analogy in 14:10-12 implies that it is not a known earthly language, since a thing is not usually identical with that to which it is analogous. Most likely, therefore, the key to Paul’s—and their—understanding lies in the term “the language of angels” in 13:1 (q.v.). On its usefulness or lack thereof to the community and the individual, see on 14:1-5 and 13-19.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee (1987) pp.652-61
4. The Need for Intelligibility in the Assembly (14:1-25)
With this section (vv. 1-25) and the next (vv. 26-40) Paul proceeds at last to offer specific correctives to the Corinthians’ apparently unbridled use of tongues in the assembly. He began his argument with them by setting forth the broader theological framework in which these specifics are to be understood. In chap. 12 he argued for diversity, tongues being only one among many manifestations of the Spirit, who gives gifts to each as he wills for “the common good” (vv. 7-11). In chap. 13, reflecting on the theme of
“the common good,” he insisted that none of them, himself included, counts for anything, no matter how “spiritual” they are, if they do not likewise manifest love.
Now he puts these together by insisting that in the gathered assembly the single goal of their spiritual zeal should be love (v. 1), which, as in 8:1, is expressed in the language of “building up” the church (vv. 3-5, 12, 17, 26). This latter theme is developed in two ways: by insisting on
intelligibility in the gathered assembly and by giving guidelines for
order.
God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul, Gordon Fee (1994) p.164
[12:7] Third, probably to give a proper balance to “each one,” he concludes with the reason for this great diversity: “for the common good.” By so doing he anticipates the concern of chs. 13 and 14, that in community the Spirit manifests himself for the building up of the entire community, not primarily for the benefit of the individual believer.291
Footnote: [291]
That is not to say that the building up of the individual believer is no concern of Paul’s. To the contrary (see on 14:4). But the concern throughout this entire argument is with the effect of gifts in building up the community.
Paul, the Spirit and the People of God, Gordon D. Fee (1996) pp. 71
Second, the Spirit is also responsible for maintain a necessary and healthy
diversity in the church. This is the basic concern of the arguments in
1 Corinthians 12. The Corinthians’ extraordinary and imbalanced emphasis on tongues as the evidence of a fully developed spirituality requires
theological correction (chs. 12 and 13) before the specific abuse is corrected (ch. 14). Thus every paragraph in chapter 12 except for vv. 21-26 has this theme – the need for diversity in order for the community to be built up. The triune God himself illustrates – and serves as the basis for – this diversity-in-unity (vv. 4-6); and the Spirit in particular is responsible for its being shown forth among them, especially in the many manifestations of his presence “given to each one for the common good” (vv. 7-11). A body cannot be only one part (v. 14); that would be a monstrosity (vv. 15-20). The Spirit who is responsible for their being one body is also the basis for the many parts necessary for the body to function at all.
Significantly, the body imagery in Ephesians, with its concern for unity, focuses primarily on relationships within the church. In
1 Corinthians 12, however, the focus is mainly on the church as a
community gathered for worship, which is true also of the temple imagery in 2:16-17. This difference in focus is due to the respective errors that were taking place within the gathered community . . . . . . .
1 Corinthians Simon J. Kistemaker
a. “If I speak in the tongues of men, even those of angels.” With this conditional statement, Paul indicates that he himself does not engage in tongue-speaking in public worship (14:19). He appears to be saying, “Suppose that I as the Lord’s apostle have the highest possible gift of tongues, those that men use, and those even that angels use—how you Corinthians would admire, even envy me and desire to have an equal gift!”2
The word tongues can be understood to mean known languages; but in context it appears to mean tongue-speech, which some Corinthians regarded as heavenly speech. We do not know what supernatural language angels speak (compare II Cor. 12:4; Rev. 14:1—3) or whether angels are able to understand human speech.3 Conversely, angels communicate with people in human terms that are frequently recorded in both the Old and New Testaments.
In previous posts I have pointed out how important it is to not only find out what a given commentator has to say on an issue within a merely a select chapter and verse, but that we must attempt to gain an overall understanding of his views which means that their views must be checked across 1Cor 12, 13 & 14. Now I guess that your reliance on Google Books can be a bit problematic as it does not always cover each chapter, which means that you probably failed to notice (in red pp.452-53) where Kistemaker made a very important distinction between
known languages and
tongue-speech.
As I have a copy of Kistemaker’s
1 Corinthians (1993) I am well aware of his position, which is why I shall point you back to 1Cor 12:10 (p.426) where he qualifies his understanding of tongues –
enjoy:
1 Corinthians, Kistemaker (1993)
[p.426] The word
tongue can mean either a known language (
Acts 2:6, 8, 11) or tongue-speech (1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 28): in the present epistle, the word can signify either – the meaning depends on the context. In the commercial city of Corinth, where international visitors and temporary residents were numerous and where various languages were spoken, translators were in great demand. On the other hand, the Corinthian congregation also experienced the phenomenon of tongue-speaking. Tongue-speech alludes to an act of worship directed to God; but when other believers were present in Corinth, the message had to be interpreted for the benefit of the audience. To promote reverence in the worship service, Paul demanded that tongue-speech be edifying, intelligible, orderly, and controlled.
Notice that Paul writes the expression
kinds of tongues. This point to both varieties of known languages (14:9-10) and tongue-speech. He attributes all these tongues and their interpretation to the work of the Holy Spirit (vv. 7, 11). Thus he indicates that the Spirit gives the interpreter of tongue-speech ability to understand and convey the meaning of the spoken message.
So that we can further clarify Kistemaker’s position regarding tongues we need to also go to 1Cor 14:2 (pp.477-78) –
enjoy:
2. For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men [and women] but to God. For no one understands him, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries. 3. But he who prophesies speaks to men [and women] for their edification, encouragement, and consultation.
a. “For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men [and women] but to God,” Of the two gifts, prophecy and tongues, Paul takes the latter first and points out that speaking in a tongue is a private worship directed to God (see v. 4). Speaking to God in a tongue is comparable to personal prayer: The one who prays speaks to himself and to God (v. 28) and does so within the context of love. Accordingly, speaking in a tongue without interpretation does not communicate anything meaningful, because the people are unable to understand the words that are spoken. Granted that God knows every spoken word, his people are unable to understand these words and thus are not edified.
b. “For no one understands him, but in the Spirit he speaks mysteries.” Speaking and hearing are the two sides of the proverbial coin. When language is not understood, people cannot communicate. And a failure to communicate results in alienation for the people involved. According to the account in
acts 2:4-11, everyone present in the temple courts was able to understand the messages proclaimed in many known languages by those filled with the Holy Spirit. But in the current text, Paul refrains from writing about interpreters. Instead he notes that the message spoken in a tongue without interpretation is directed not to people but to God.
The Greek word
pneuma can be translated either “spirit” or “Spirit,” and translators are divided on this point. The term refers to either the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. In the setting of this chapter, Paul mentions the human spirit twice more: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays” (v. 14) and “The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets” (v. 32). This provides support for the interpretation that Paul has in mind the spirit within man.
However, the word
spirit, both with and without the capital letter, must be studied in relation to the term
mysteries. That term is the content of this last clause in verse 2. We find a parallel in 13:2, where Paul also speaks about mysteries that are closely linked to prophecy. Through the Holy Spirit, God originates both in prophecies and in tongues mysteries that are incomprehensible (compare 2:6-16;
1 Peter 1:10-12). Nonetheless, the Holy Spirit reveals these mysteries and employs his people to express them. The Holy Spirit, then, is the agent who works with a person and relates mysteries. . . . . .
c. But he who prophesies . . . . . .
Again, so that we can further clarify Kistemaker’s position regarding tongues we need to also go to pp.480-81) –
enjoy:
4. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself. He who prophesies edifies the church.
a. “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. First, Paul teaches 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 all his readers to speak in tongues (v. 5). He also notes that private prayer to God, even when spoken in a tongue, is a matter between the believer and God (II Cor. 12:2-4; see also v. 2 and the commentary on it). Hence, no one is free to invade another’s religious privacy; 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.
In this chapter Paul emphasizes the concept
edification, as the repeated use of the verb
edify and the noun
edification attest. Elsewhere Paul tells the recipients of his letter: “seek to excel in the [work of] edifying the church” (v. 12b).
b. “He who prophesies edifies the church.” Paul once more stresses the fact that with respect to either tongues or prophecy, the latter is greatly preferred. The fundamental principle of loving one’s neighbour as oneself, clarified in Paul’s discourse on love (13), comes to expression in the voice of prophecy. The setting for prophecy is a public worship service where the members have come together for praise, prayer, and instruction. The setting can also be a small gathering of two or three in the mane of the Lord (see Matt. 18:20). Prophecy must always be spoken against the backdrop of love for one’s neighbour.
Paul notes that the person who prophesies edifies the church. In this text, he means not the universal church but the local congregation. When someone speaks to God in a tongue, the worshipper follows a vertical path; but when this person prophesies to the members of the church, he or she reaches out to fellow believers on a horizontal level.
5. Now I wish . . . . . . (pp.481-82)
6. But now, brothers, suppose I come to you speaking in tongues . . . . . . . (pp.483-84)
7. In the same way, lifeless things, whether flute or harp . . . . . . . (p.485)
8. For if the trumpet produces an indistinct sound . . . . . . (p.485)
9. So also you, unless you utter a distinct message . . . . . . . (p.485) Kistemaker finishes ch.14 on p.519