praying in tongues glossolia

[YouAreAwesome]

Having looked through your above replies, it does appear that I have upset you which is why you have probably replied the way that you have - so I will leave them alone for now.


"Celtic", why not pick Klingon! Don't forget, almost every people and language group that surrounded the Mediterranean and from around the sub-Continent would have regularly passed through the Corinthian Isthmus. But as tongues has nothing to do with foreign human languages your point of course comes to nought, but if the visitors were unfamiliar with at least Greek and Latin then they would have had to try and find a sizable Christian people/language group that spoke their own dialect, this presumes that one was available in at least one of the three seaports of Corinth or maybe within Corinth itself.

It would be interesting to see how a visiting group of Christians, be they sailors, businessman or with visitors to one of the four Pan Hellenic games that were held virtually each year would go with finding a Christian community. Many of those who came from the Latin Western half of the Empire probably travelled direct to Olympia by boat (at a guess) and others would have come by land through the Corinthian Isthmus. Many from the Eastern portion of the Empire would have travelled south through the Isthmus where others would have arrived by boat at either Cenchrea or Isthmia or maybe via Mycenae to the South East.

I suspect that any visiting Christians who were Roman citizens of some status that they would want to visit the city center of Corinth where they would be more inclined to feel at home amongst their Roman peers.

But overall, I would expect that one of the more wealthy patrons of one of the Congregations within the Peloponnese would have welcomed any international visitors even if most of their party could not understand Latin or Greek. As I mentioned before, as outdoor meeting and social events were commonly held outdoors within the Mediterranean then any number of visitors could easily be catered for.

Hey can you explain the tongues of Pentecost to me. I thought they were a change in languages, do you believe that? If not, why not? I respect your opinion. Cheers.

 

[Biblicist]

Hey can you explain the tongues of Pentecost to me. I thought they were a change in languages, do you believe that? If not, why not? I respect your opinion. Cheers.

When it comes to describing the tongues of Acts 2 and 1Cor 12, 13 & 14 it is of course quite common to hear many Pentecostals and charismatics referring to these occurrence of tongues as being two different things and sometimes even three; but in reality they are both one and the same.

With 1Cor 13 & 14 we find Paul reminding the Corinthian congregations (and everyone else by default), that when the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father on our behalf during our congregational meetings, that he will always (without exception) be praying within inarticulate tongues that no man will ever be able to understand (14:2), unless of course the Holy Spirit also provides an articulation through the speaker of what the Spirit was saying to the Father so that the congregation can benefit by knowing what the Spirit was saying (14:5). This also means that the common formula of tongues + interpretation = prophecy is incorrect as Paul has just told us that the Holy Spirit always addresses the Father in tongues and not man, this of course will upset a few traditionalist Pentecostals.

Now, with the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, we of course know that the 120 were speaking in known human languages, which at face value goes against what Paul has told us a few years down the track in First Corinthians. In addition, the 120 also went against the future admonition given by Paul in 1 Cor 14 that only three tongues are to be spoken and each must be articulated before the next begins, which certainly did not occur on the Day of Pentecost where they all began to praise God in tongues at once; but we need to keep in mind that this was the Day of Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was being poured out on the new fledgling church, which was also accompanied by the sound of a rushing wind and with tongues of fire, things that never occurred after the Day of Pentecost.

So even though the Holy Spirit was speaking of the mighty deeds of God (2:11) the crowd was still at loss as to what was going on as the Spirit was not speaking an evangelistic message where he could have spoken about Jesus but he chose to speak words of praise to the Father.

In 1Cor 14:16 Paul tells us that when the Spirit prays that His intercessory prayer in tongues will always be directed to the Father as words of “praise and thanks” about the greatness of God, which is what we also find in Acts 2, where the crowd says "we hear them speaking of the great works of God".

To summarise:

1. The tongues of Acts 2 & 1Cor 13 & 14 are one and the same.
   
2. The Holy Spirit (other than on the Day of Pentecost) will always direct his intercessory prayers to the Father and never to man.
3. The words that the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father are always given as words of praise and thanks.
   
4. He always speaks to the Father within an inarticulate tongue of heaven.
5. He does not speak to man in tongues, as per the formula tongues + interpretation = prophecy.
6. We must only ever allow three tongues per meeting where each is first interpreted (preferrably by the original speaker) before another is given.
7. We must never allow all within a congregation to sing in the Spirit all at once.

I hope this wordy reply helps!

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The Holy Spirit (other than on the Day of Pentecost) will always direct his intercessory prayers to the Father and never to man.

I thought they were directed to God but man understood (each in their own language)?

He does not speak to man in tongues, as per the formula tongues + interpretation = prophecy.

I have never thought this way, that tongues is for prophecy. However, I am quite open-minded in general and could see God using tongues for prophecy just because He's not confined to only do what He's done in the past You know what I mean?

So what happened at Pentecost with the change in languages? Was it a unique miracle with regard to changing languages in your opinion? Was the miracle in the ears, or in the tongue so to speak?

 

[Biblicist]

I thought they were directed to God but man understood (each in their own language)?

Yes, with Acts 2 that's certainly true in that the 120 were "speaking of the great works of God" in human languages that they did not know.

In fact they would have only realised that this was occurring once some of the crowd told the leaders of the group that this was what was happening; undoubtedly they would have been just as surprised to find this out as the large crowd were to hear so many unsophisticated and rustic Galileans speaking in so many foreign languages.

So what happened at Pentecost with the change in languages? Was it a unique miracle with regard to changing languages in your opinion? Was the miracle in the ears, or in the tongue so to speak?

To answer your question, this action was definitely one where the speakers were being empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak, it was not one where the hearers were being enabled to 'interpret' what the Galilean Jews were saying in Aramaic. If the crowd had been the ones who were enabled to hear, then the whole day would have been lost as the Jews could have said, 'Well, okay, as God has obviously blessed us and not you then you have nothing to offer us".

If we were to try and place ourselves within the setting of the Day of Pentecost as casual observers, which does hit an immediate hurdle in that Acts does not really tell us if the 120 were meeting in an Upper Room, which is the traditional view, or maybe within one of the Temple precincts or even in the area that we know today as being the Wailing Wall Plaza; we would then find ourselves being hustled around by a large crowd where all of a sudden individuals would have taken note of this motley group of Galileans where a strange sound was rushing around them and tongues of fire were dropping all over them.

As I could not imagine how an Upper Room scenario could work, I hold to the view that they were assembled together within a public Temple courtyard or maybe under the Wailing Wall. Once this "sound and light show" grabbed our attention, we would then begin to notice that a couple of these Galileans were speaking in our native language but as we would be some distance from them we would be struggling to hear exactly what they were saying.

To further compound the problem, even though the Holy Spirit was enabling them to speak in various languages, the Believers who would now be in rapturous praise to their Father so they would care very little for what anyone else was hearing as they were addressing the Father and not the crowd. We further add more complication by how the Galileans would not have been using the correct syntax and breathing marks as this could only occur if they were in a form of trance which was certainly not the case. So to add to the noisy and dramatic setting, we have many individuals speaking to God in various languages along with their rustic Galilean accents who had absolutely no idea where to apply breathing breaks to make their sentence flow sound pleasing to those who understood the language. It is one thing for the Holy Spirit to empower our vocal chords to speak a language, but it is definitely another thing for Him to forcibly control how an individual controls his speech.

This is why I believe some of the crowd were justified with saying "they were drunk" as they probably incorrectly presumed that the Galileans were speaking rehearsed lines in the various languages of the crowd.

I have never thought this way, that tongues is for prophecy. However, I am quite open-minded in general and could see God using tongues for prophecy just because He's not confined to only do what He's done in the past You know what I mean?

As my original post was a bit verbose (and this ones no better), I may not have made the point clear that tongues cannot be used for prophecy, where it were to supposedly follow the formula tongues + interpretation = prophecy as the Holy Spirit will always speak to man through a prophetic utterance that is given in the language of the people group that he is speaking to.

Contrary to populist opinion, the Holy Spirit will not have someone provide a tongue and then give that person an interpretation in English (etc) as a message to the congregation.

Summary

1. Praise directed to the Father in tongues = An angelic/heavenly inarticulate tongue.
2. Words of admonition and encouragement to the congregation = Given in the language of the respective people group and in our case that would be English.​

 

[swordsman1]

Having looked through your above replies, it does appear that I have upset you which is why you have probably replied the way that you have - so I will leave them alone for now.

I'm not upset at all. In fact I'm rather enjoying it.

"Celtic", why not pick Klingon! Don't forget, almost every people and language group that surrounded the Mediterranean and from around the sub-Continent would have regularly passed through the Corinthian Isthmus. But as tongues has nothing to do with foreign human languages your point of course comes to nought, but if the visitors were unfamiliar with at least Greek and Latin then they would have had to try and find a sizable Christian people/language group that spoke their own dialect, this presumes that one was available in at least one of the three seaports of Corinth or maybe within Corinth itself.

It would be interesting to see how a visiting group of Christians, be they sailors, businessman or with visitors to one of the four Pan Hellenic games that were held virtually each year would go with finding a Christian community. Many of those who came from the Latin Western half of the Empire probably travelled direct to Olympia by boat (at a guess) and others would have come by land through the Corinthian Isthmus. Many from the Eastern portion of the Empire would have travelled south through the Isthmus where others would have arrived by boat at either Cenchrea or Isthmia or maybe via Mycenae to the South East.

I suspect that any visiting Christians who were Roman citizens of some status that they would want to visit the city center of Corinth where they would be more inclined to feel at home amongst their Roman peers.

But overall, I would expect that one of the more wealthy patrons of one of the Congregations within the Peloponnese would have welcomed any international visitors even if most of their party could not understand Latin or Greek. As I mentioned before, as outdoor meeting and social events were commonly held outdoors within the Mediterranean then any number of visitors could easily be catered for.

Your unwarranted assumption has always been that because the tongue was not understood it must be non-human. But there is good reason why a foreign tongue may not be understood - there was no one in the congregation who spoke the language. If the congregations were small and only enough room to accommodate a couple of extra foreign visitors in the house then it is not surprising at all.

 

[swordsman1]

We are talking about 1 Corinthians 14:5 right?

I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy

1. Everyone is speaking in tongues
2. "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy"

He is speaking of a greater good, prophesying in the church. So even if everyone was speaking in tongues, he is making sure he is not stopping this from happening (as confirmed later when he says "don't forbid speaking in tongues"), but pointing to a better way.

I think you must concede on this one. Although, you haven't conceded on a single point... so you probably won't...

That still wouldn't make much sense, whether he gives a better alternative or not. Why say "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" if everyone was already doing so? It would only make sense if only a small group were doing so and his desire is that all of them do so.

It's funny. This verse is usually quoted by charismatics to convince us that everyone should speak in tongues. By your logic we already are!

 

[Biblicist]

Your unwarranted assumption has always been that because the tongue was not understood it must be non-human. But there is good reason why a foreign tongue may not be understood - there was no one in the congregation who spoke the language. If the congregations were small and only enough room to accommodate a couple of extra foreign visitors in the house then it is not surprising at all.

As Erastus was one of the more senior Roman Officials in Corinth, which meant that he carried a lot of power and authority under his Office, what would happen if he were to arrange for the Christians to assemble in the large theatre inside the city centre; or for that matter, how would your scenario work when they decided to meet within a beautiful grove alongside the Xerias River that is just East of the Corinthian city wall?

As for me, I could imagine who knows how many hundreds (or thousands) of Christians from the Corinthian Isthmus meeting this way on the odd occassion, where this would include not only native Latin and Greek speakers but with slaves and visitors who only knew a foreign language.

For that matter, I would imagine that the Christians from each of the three respective seaports of Corinth (Lechaeum, Isthmia & Cenchrea) arranging to meet together in a public field so that they could assemble under a refreshing sea breeze. As these cities would be full of ships from a host of countries then there would have been many Christians amongst their ranks as well - talk about multi-culturalism!

Cenchrea . . . "the most famous town of all the Corinthians . . . a great and mighty haven with the ships of many a sundry nation" (Metamorphoses, 10:35) Quoted by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor St. Paul's Corinth p.21​

 

[YouAreAwesome]

That still wouldn't make much sense, whether he gives a better alternative or not. Why say "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" if everyone was already doing so? It would only make sense if only a small group were doing so and his desire is that all of them do so.

It's funny. This verse is usually quoted by charismatics to convince us that everyone should speak in tongues. By your logic we already are!

No I'm saying there is no definitive number of people speaking in tongues. The phrase works if only one person was speaking in tongues, or if every single one of them was speaking in tongues.

I read it like this:

Look, it's good that you are speaking in tongues, but it's better that you prophesy in a church setting.

OR

Don't get me wrong, I wish you would all speak in tongues, but it's better that you prophesy...

See what I mean? I don't think it matters, so saying either "they were all speaking" or saying "they weren't all speaking" is impossible to gather from the text.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

tongues cannot be used for prophecy

Why are you so strong on this point? Why can't tongues be used for prophecy? Why must the gifts be so distinct?

 

[Biblicist]

Why are you so strong on this point? Why can't tongues be used for prophecy? Why must the gifts be so distinct?

If you will permit me to be a bit flippant -- "It's a Bible thing"!

The question could easily be reworded by asking, 'Why would the Holy Spirit need to speak in tongues to a congregation when he already does so in prophecy?"

When we read through Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak in foreign languages, if he were to choose to speak to man then this would have been a superb opportunity to demonstrate that he does such a thing where he could preach the Gospel to the nearby crowd in tongues, but instead he chooses to speak words of praise to the Father where he left Peter to explain what was happening around them (and with the Gospel) in Aramaic.

As Paul has gone to some length in 1 Cor 14 to describe how both tongues and prophecy operate and function, where he has explained that tongues are always directed to the Father (without exception) and that prophecy is always directed to man through their respective language, then why would we need to mix the two when Paul has gone to so much trouble to explain how the Holy Spirit has chosen to operate.

Most importantly, as even many thoughtful cessationists recognise that tongues are always directed to the Father, or in their line of thinking, that they were when tongues were around in the early church, then why would we want to further confuse them with opposing teaching - it makes no real sense in my view.

Edit: It should be pointed out that whenever someone give a word in a tongue and they follow it with an interpretation that is supposedly being directed to the congregation or an individual, then we can safely recognise that the interpretation was not of the Holy Spirit but was merely the result of the whims of the speaker.​

 

[swordsman1]

As Erastus was one of the more senior Roman Officials in Corinth, which meant that he carried a lot of power and authority under his Office, what would happen if he were to arrange for the Christians to assemble in the large theatre inside the city centre; or for that matter, how would your scenario work when they decided to meet within a beautiful grove alongside the Xerias River that is just East of the Corinthian city wall?

As for me, I could imagine who knows how many hundreds (or thousands) of Christians from the Corinthian Isthmus meeting this way on the odd occassion, where this would include not only native Latin and Greek speakers but with slaves and visitors who only knew a foreign language.

For that matter, I would imagine that the Christians from each of the three respective seaports of Corinth (Lechaeum, Isthmia & Cenchrea) arranging to meet together in a public field so that they could assemble under a refreshing sea breeze. As these cities would be full of ships from a host of countries then there would have been many Christians amongst their ranks as well - talk about multi-culturalism!

Cenchrea . . . "the most famous town of all the Corinthians . . . a great and mighty haven with the ships of many a sundry nation" (Metamorphoses, 10:35) Quoted by Jerome Murphy-O'Connor St. Paul's Corinth p.21​

You are arguing from silence. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the Corinthians met in such places. We know for a fact the Corinthians met in people's houses. There is no mention of them meeting anywhere else, even when they they joined together. Even if they did meet in open fields the person speaking in the unfamiliar tongue would only have been heard by those immediately surrounding him, so your argument still doesn't stack up.

Your suggestion that the total number of Christians in the area ran into the thousands is laughable. The scholars agree there were only 50-100 or so in Corinth, the main town of the area. Cenchrea, Lechaeum and Isthmia were much smaller in size. So the total for the entire area would have been no more than 100-200.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

If you will permit me to be a bit flippant -- "It's a Bible thing"!

The question could easily be reworded by asking, 'Why would the Holy Spirit need to speak in tongues to a congregation when he already does so in prophecy?"

When we read through Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak in foreign languages, if he were to choose to speak to man then this would have been a superb opportunity to demonstrate that he does such a thing where he could preach the Gospel to the nearby crowd in tongues, but instead he chooses to speak words of praise to the Father where he left Peter to explain what was happening around them (and with the Gospel) in Aramaic.

As Paul has gone to some length in 1 Cor 14 to describe how both tongues and prophecy operate and function, where he has explained that tongues are always directed to the Father (without exception) and that prophecy is always directed to man through their respective language, then why would we need to mix the two when Paul has gone to so much trouble to explain how the Holy Spirit has chosen to operate.

Most importantly, as even many thoughtful cessationists recognise that tongues are always directed to the Father, or in their line of thinking, that they were when tongues were around in the early church, then why would we want to further confuse them with opposing teaching - it makes no real sense in my view.

Edit: It should be pointed out that whenever someone give a word in a tongue and they follow it with an interpretation that is supposedly being directed to the congregation or an individual, then we can safely recognise that the interpretation was not of the Holy Spirit but was merely the result of the whims of the speaker.​

I understand. However I am always reticent to say what God can or can't do. There was no biblical foundation for a donkey talking. There was no biblical foundation for the King of Babylon to have Godly dreams. You know what I mean? I always feel uneasy saying what God can't do, or pointing the finger at someone interpreting tongues. But I can see what you are saying, it's not the biblical standard.

 

[Biblicist]

I understand. However I am always reticent to say what God can or can't do. There was no biblical foundation for a donkey talking. There was no biblical foundation for the King of Babylon to have Godly dreams. You know what I mean? I always feel uneasy saying what God can't do, or pointing the finger at someone interpreting tongues. But I can see what you are saying, it's not the biblical standard.

Yes, we would all be wise to be every mindful that it can be a perilious thing to place words into the Fathers mouth or indeed with any of the members of the Godhead; we can also easily fall into the trap as seeing our own thoughts as being those of the Fathers. In Isa 55:8 the Father tells us "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD" which means that it is incumbent upon us to always adjust our thoughts and our understanding in accordance with God's and with his Written Word.

The two reasons that I changed my understanding of how the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father and to man, where the first is through an inarticulate heavenly tongue and where prophecy is always given to man through the vernacular language of those whom he is speaking to; came about once I began to take an indepth look into the role of the Holy Spirit in our prayer language and through prophecy.

For many of us who were raised within classic-Pentecostalism, the formula tongues+interpretation=prophecy essentially comes to us as a part of the package so to speak, being one that has been handed down to us for maybe a century of more. The first problem with this is that there is absolutely no support from within the Scriptures for this formula, where the Holy Spirit first speaks through someone in tongues and then the same person (or another) speaks a specific word to an individual or a congregation in their respective language.

As much as it can be very easy for a Pentecostal or a charismatic to easily deride those who still try and uphold the old cessationist mindset, we can at times be just as guilty as they are with their poor exegesis with how we have developed a concept that is actually spoken against within the Scriptures.

As we not only have absolutely no support for the practice of some (or maybe many) where they first present a word in a tongue and then proceed to interpret this word as being intended for the congregation; Paul has also gone to the effort to explain to us in 1Cor 14:2,3 that whenever the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father through us in words of praise and adoration within the setting of the congregational meeting, that it will not only be within inarticulate sounds but that absolutely no-one will ever be able to understand what the Spirit is saying, unless he provides an interpration through the speaker so that the congregation can can a glimpse of the words of praise and adoration that the Spirit was offering on behalf of those whom is was speaking through.

My second objection, or maybe where it is even my primary concern, is that everytime someone has provided a word in a tongue and where they or another have provided an interpretive word that was being directed to the congregation, is that each and every one of those 'interpretations' came not from the Spirit but from the flesh, where we have for whatever reason made our thoughts to be the thoughts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Yes, we would all be wise to be every mindful that it can be a perilious thing to place words into the Fathers mouth or indeed with any of the members of the Godhead; we can also easily fall into the trap as seeing our own thoughts as being those of the Fathers. In Isa 55:8 the Father tells us "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD" which means that it is incumbent upon us to always adjust our thoughts and our understanding in accordance with God's and with his Written Word.

The two reasons that I changed my understanding of how the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father and to man, where the first is through an inarticulate heavenly tongue and where prophecy is always given to man through the vernacular language of those whom he is speaking to; came about once I began to take an indepth look into the role of the Holy Spirit in our prayer language and through prophecy.

For many of us who were raised within classic-Pentecostalism, the formula tongues+interpretation=prophecy essentially comes to us as a part of the package so to speak, being one that has been handed down to us for maybe a century of more. The first problem with this is that there is absolutely no support from within the Scriptures for this formula, where the Holy Spirit first speaks through someone in tongues and then the same person (or another) speaks a specific word to an individual or a congregation in their respective language.

As much as it can be very easy for a Pentecostal or a charismatic to easily deride those who still try and uphold the old cessationist mindset, we can at times be just as guilty as they are with their poor exegesis with how we have developed a concept that is actually spoken against within the Scriptures.

As we not only have absolutely no support for the practice of some (or maybe many) where they first present a word in a tongue and then proceed to interpret this word as being intended for the congregation; Paul has also gone to the effort to explain to us in 1Cor 14:2,3 that whenever the Holy Spirit speaks to the Father through us in words of praise and adoration within the setting of the congregational meeting, that it will not only be within inarticulate sounds but that absolutely no-one will ever be able to understand what the Spirit is saying, unless he provides an interpration through the speaker so that the congregation can can a glimpse of the words of praise and adoration that the Spirit was offering on behalf of those whom is was speaking through.

My second objection, or maybe where it is even my primary concern, is that everytime someone has provided a word in a tongue and where they or another have provided an interpretive word that was being directed to the congregation, is that each and every one of those 'interpretations' came not from the Spirit but from the flesh, where we have for whatever reason made our thoughts to be the thoughts of the Holy Spirit.

True true. Very good. I wasn't raised Pentecostal, I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, so I was never taught the equation. My understanding came from my own personal bible study and my own desire to speak in tongues. My experience has been exactly that of which you have described so it is encouraging.

 

[Biblicist]

True true. Very good. I wasn't raised Pentecostal, I was raised Seventh-day Adventist, so I was never taught the equation. My understanding came from my own personal bible study and my own desire to speak in tongues. My experience has been exactly that of which you have described so it is encouraging.

Hey, that's great to know!
When I read your "I was never taught the equation", I started to think back and even though I cannot speak for any other Pentecostal on this matter, I'm not all that sure that I was actually taught this but where it was just one of those things that we accepted as being "what-we-do" as Pentecostals?

As I probably own about 16 hardcopies of commentaries on First Corinthians and with a growing number of electronic PDF copies of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14, you begin to notice that they all mention that there is no support for the equation from within the word. As I purchased my first commentary back in 1989 which was by Gordon Fee who was speaking at a conference here in Melbourne at the time; even though I had his book on my shelf for maybe 20 years, it was not until I started to slowly purchase the other commentaries maybe seven or so years back that I realised that the equation was wrong. Now when I read Fee's 27 year old commentary I wonder how I failed to notice what he had to say on this matter where Fee himself is dismissive of how his fellow Pentecostals have adopted the practice - it is something that has continued to haunt me where I wonder how I could have been so dimm as to miss what he said all those years back.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Hey, that's great to know!
When I read your "I was never taught the equation", I started to think back and even though I cannot speak for any other Pentecostal on this matter, I'm not all that sure that I was actually taught this but where it was just one of those things that we accepted as being "what-we-do" as Pentecostals?

As I probably own about 16 hardcopies of commentaries on First Corinthians and with a growing number of electronic PDF copies of 1Cor 12, 13 & 14, you begin to notice that they all mention that there is no support for the equation from within the word. As I purchased my first commentary back in 1989 which was by Gordon Fee who was speaking at a conference here in Melbourne at the time; even though I had his book on my shelf for maybe 20 years, it was not until I started to slowly purchase the other commentaries maybe seven or so years back that I realised that the equation was wrong. Now when I read Fee's 27 year old commentary I wonder how I failed to notice what he had to say on this matter where Fee himself is dismissive of how his fellow Pentecostals have adopted the practice - it is something that has continued to haunt me where I wonder how I could have been so dimm as to miss what he said all those years back.

Hey I didn't realise you were from here as well! We just moved to Lismore from Newcastle. Melbourne is nice, stayed there a few years ago for the Australian Open. Will probably go back at some stage.

 

[Biblicist]

Hey I didn't realise you were from here as well! We just moved to Lismore from Newcastle. Melbourne is nice, stayed there a few years ago for the Australian Open. Will probably go back at some stage.

Aahh...I was wondering when you were going to notice! I must admit that your Japanese flag threw me for the first of your posts. Up until a year or so back our Avatar info used to include our country flag, the name of the country and the city where we lived, if we chose to select these options at least - and I certainly do miss them.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Aahh...I was wondering when you were going to notice! I must admit that your Japanese flag threw me for the first of your posts. Up until a year or so back our Avatar info used to include our country flag, the name of the country and the city where we lived, if we chose to select these options at least - and I certainly do miss them.

Heh, I just like the flag. I guess I could have the southern cross... but I just like the image itself, it makes me think of glory

 

[Biblicist]

You are arguing from silence.

Unfortunately everyone is arguing from silence; or at least the ones who are ignoring the cultural setting of the Archaean Christians and the many other cultures of the Mediterranean region are doing so.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that the Corinthians met in such places.

Why should the various congregations within Archaea (Corinth, Lechaion, Isthmia, Cenchrea etc) be any different to all those other churches who reside in climates that encourage open air meetings; after all, even John the Baptist regularly held large outdoor baptismal meetings and Jesus held open air meetings in Israel on the side of hills where over 5000 congregated and these meetings were at times kilometres away from town or village centres. We should also include the discovered towns/communities of Sicyon, Phlius, Cleonae, Examilia and Cromna which were all within a 10km radius of the centre of Corinth.

As the culture of the various Mediterranean societies was and still is heavily based around open air family and social gatherings, then I cannot imagine why the various Churches within Archaea of Pauls day should be any different. To attempt to say that the Christians of Archaea were different to the rest of their culture along with the numerous other cultures around the Mediterranean is based on desperation and not reason.

For that matter, why should the Christian community who had as one of its member/patrons, Erastus, who was the city treasurer or works manager feel that they could not on the occasion use the theatre which is in the centre of the city or with the Amphitheatre on the Northern part of the city, particularly when Erastus figuratively held the keys to these buildings.

Then we have the question of baptisms, weddings, funerals and other family events that many within the various Achaean/Corinthian communities would desire to attend. Where would these people meet, in a single home or in a venue that was capable of assembling the who knows how many potential Christian friends and family members all at once?

Street evangelism links 1_2_3_4

We know for a fact the Corinthians met in people's houses.

We certainly know that some of the congregations within Achaia meet within houses, but when Paul or anyone refers to someones house, this also includes their open air gardens and fields as well, so a large meeting of several hundred could easily be held in the open within a private residence/property. Even today in many larger and sophisticated regions in the West, there has been a tendency for a number of years for many to hold weddings and other large family social events in the open where they can be away from buildings and enjoy the surrounding vistas; as Greece has been known for this lifestyle choice for centuries then why should the Christians in Achaia be any different. For that matter, unless the weather around the often balmy Mediterranean was wet and cold, why would any group of individuals want to sit inside if they had the option of meeting within a pleasant garden setting?

With the house churches that Paul speaks of, they were the ones who contained his personal friends and associates, where there would have been quite a few congregations/house churches that Paul had never come across. It should be noted that as Paul had many apparent enemies within some of the Archaean congregations, which included the Peloponnese Peninsula, the Corinthian Isthmus and much of what we know as Southern Greece (2Cor 1:1), then he would be unlikely to pass on any possible greetings from those who opposed him.

There is no mention of them meeting anywhere else, even when they they joined together. Even if they did meet in open fields the person speaking in the unfamiliar tongue would only have been heard by those immediately surrounding him, so your argument still doesn't stack up.

Why would Paul want to record where all of the individual congregations met and when – who would bother to do such a thing especially as First and Second Corinthians and his visits covered a six year period from his founding of the Churches in Corinth? As Jesus was able to address crowds of 5,000 in the open then why should it be a problem for a speaker to be heard by a group of a hundred, several hundred or even a thousand or more? Don’t forget, we are not talking about the Upper Northern hemisphere with its ice and cold winds but with the balmy and moderate Mediterranean world.

For that matter, to my knowledge Paul does not speak of any Christians paying rent or that they went to the numerous public plays in the various amphitheatres, so should we presume that they did not pay rent or go to plays? Paul certainly does not make any reference to their private ablutions but archaeology has uncovered many sophisticated public toilet cisterns in numerous Roman cities, does Paul’s understandable silence on these matters mean that Corinthian Christians never used a public bathroom/toilet or that they never even took a bath?

Your suggestion that the total number of Christians in the area ran into the thousands is laughable. The scholars agree there were only 50-100 or so in Corinth, the main town of the area. Cenchrea, Lechaeum and Isthmia were much smaller in size. So the total for the entire area would have been no more than 100-200.

As to “The scholars agree”, about the only person I know of who has dared to make an assessment on the size of the Corinthian church/s has been the recently deceased archaeologist-historian Rev. Prof. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor with his notorious “40-150” persons which many others have seen fit to refer to, as per below:

www.bibleodyssey.org

“It is difficult to know the size of the Corinthian church at the time of this first letter. Scholarly estimates range from 40 to 150 persons. It is often assumed that when “the whole church” came together for worship (1Cor 14:23), it did so in a believer’s home, but Paul’s distinction between church and home in 1Cor 11:22 may suggest otherwise (compare 1Cor 11:34, 1Cor 14:34-35). The meeting place may have been a rented dining hall, a large garden, or some other venue”. link​

The above comment on Paul’s use of church and home is important as it shifts the emphasis away from the mere walls of a given home, where it could also be in a large rented venue and the “large garden” could be in a patrons private garden or field or a public space which Jesus himself utilised at times.

As to the Evangelistic efforts of some of the most powerful ministries of the First century within the Achaean region, it is hard to imagine the signs and wonders ministry of Paul and probably Barnabus, along with the powerful ministries of Apollos and the other renowned individuals of the the day only achieving a result of "40-150" persons; though I could certainly agree with a figure of at least 40-150 congregations within Achaia.