Why did Paul talk about tongue speaking only in 1 Corinthians?

[Guojing]

This is what Isaiah is talking about, it's fulfilled here.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for confirming, I was wondering why Strong in Him liked that reply you made to my post, when that post was directed to him. =)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for confirming, I was wondering why Strong in Him liked that reply you made to my post, when that post was directed to him. =)

She likely agreed with it, just as I was agreeing with what she was saying in this thread.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Guojing]

She likely agreed with it, just as I was agreeing with what she was saying in this thread.

-CryptoLutheran

Nevermind, guess you didn't read that post of hers that I made that reply to, which was

Isaiah 28, judgement on the leaders of Ephraim and Judah, has nothing to do with the situation in Corinth, disorder and boasting in the church.

 

[Dan Perez]

But if that was the intent, why do you think Paul used Isaiah 28 instead, when he stated that tongues are for a sign to unbelieving Jews?

You do agree that, when Isaiah 28:11-12 were written, the Jews were in exile and under judgement then?

 

[Dan Perez]

Sorry I hit the wrong button and here is what I meant to say !!

The Hebrew word STAMMERING LIPS / LA EG means God was MOCKING Israel .

In Psa 35:16 you see the same Heb word , and means with HYPOCRITICAL MOCKERING , in H2611 and in H3934 .

dan p

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I had a thought while thinking about 1 Corinthians 13:8.
In the area of prophecy, the most powerful prophetic utterances that I have experienced were parts of Sunday sermons, readings of Charles Spurgeon sermons, views of Leonard Ravenhill's teaching. When I was part of a Pentecostal church and heard many "prophecies" where people got up and said "thus says the Lord", none of those had any impact on me at all. The first real prophetic impact was when I heard a sermon by the Rev. George Duncan preaching on Peter's denial of the Lord at a Keswick Convention in the 1960s. The upshot was that it was pastors and preachers giving sermons that had the most prophetic impact on me. This gives credence to New Testament prophecy being unlike Old Testament in that while the OT prophets felt that they were receiving the word direct from the Lord, the NT prophets were just preaching the word. This means that NT saints like John Wesley, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, Charles Spurgeon, and any other preacher who has made anyone sense that the Holy Spirit is speaking directly to me, is a NT prophet in a truer sense that any of the Pentecostal "prophets" who have got up in services and give a "prophecy". Basically, anyone who gives a word of encouragement, comfort, and edification having an impact on listeners, is prophesying. Someone who gets up and says "thus says the Lord" is usually taking the Lord's name in vain, because mainly they merely "feel" that God is speaking without being sure that He is.

After we get to glory and be with the Lord, prophecy will not be needed, because we will be fellowshipping directly with the Lord. We won't need sermons or Bible teaching. They are just for this Church Age. Therefore prophecy and preaching will pass away.

Now, because the Greek word for "tongues" means "language", what if the tongues in 1 Corinthians 13:8 has nothing to do with the gift of tongues at all? What if it means the world languages that people speak, such as English, French, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, etc.? When we get to glory, we won't need all those languages because we will be speaking the same language. The multiplicity of languages came about as a judgment against the pride of man at the Tower of Babel. If this is the case, it puts a spanner in the works of Cessationist theology, because although we have the settled canon of Scripture, we still have preaching that has a prophetic effect on the listeners, and we still the multiplicity of world languages.

So this is how I interpret 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:
"Love never ends. As for sermons and Bible teaching, they will pass away; as for the multiplicity of world languages, they will cease; as for scientific and historical knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For the knowledge in our encylopedia and universities is partial and we preach on Sundays and in conferences is also partial, 10 but when the Church Age ends and perfection comes, the partial will pass away."

I think my interpretation is more logical and accurate than most others, and the Cessationist interpretation proves nothing in the light of it.

In actual fact, the Old Testament prophets were nothing more than the preachers of their day. They received the Word of God and preached it. The false prophets preached stuff that was inconsistent with the Law, giving peace and security when because of idolatry judgment was just around the corner. For the NT preacher, what he shares with the congregation becomes prophetic when the Holy Spirit speaks through his message. The preacher is not "channeling God" by speaking as God. He is merely giving his message as the insight that he has, and because he is filled with the Holy Spirit, the Spirit adds His voice to the message. Often the preacher is unaware of it until he realises that his preaching has had a dynamic impact on his listeners.

There are some preachers that I turn off from after around 15 minutes, and others I could listen to them all day. What is the difference? The 15 minute ones it is just the man giving his opinions, but the all day ones are where the Spirit combines with the man's message to speak to the hearts of the listeners. For me, that is what true prophecy is all about.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the final 4 paragraphs

There is a hermeneutics problem when one takes one single verse out of a chapter and forms a doctrine on it, while ignoring all the other relevant verses in the chapter. In actual fact, in 1 Corinthians 14, there is much more to the gift of tongues than just the one verse about it being a sign to unbelievers.

I think that the opinion that because the Christian church was just through the wall from the Jewish Synagogue and that the Jews heard people speaking in tongues through the wall and that was the sign to them, is just a fanciful opinion. Paul discouraged the speaking of tongues in church, so when the church received Paul's instructions and stopped the wholesale speaking in tongues, then the Jews would hear nothing through the wall. In actual fact, given First Century architecture, the wall would probably be very thick and nothing would have been heard through it.

So the fanciful notion that tongues always has to be a sign to unbelievers is totally inconsistent with how Paul himself used the gift of tongues. He never spoke publicly in tongues. He said that he speaks in tongues more than them all, YET IN THE CHURCH, he would rather speak in understandable language so that the others would be edified. So where would he speak in tongues if not in the church? In his personal prayers and devotions of course! One would have to be a total plonker not to know that! In fact, in verse 2 he clearly states that the person who speaks in tongues speaks to God because NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM. So how could those tongues be a sign to unbelievers when no unbelievers would ever hear it spoken?

It shows that when some try and construct a theology, they leave logicality and common sense behind and make up stuff from their own fanciful opinions.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If your theory is correct, they would most likely be speaking about the "Good News" and not judgment.

Acts 2:11
"we hear in our own tongues the wonderful works of God ".
Blessings.

Acts 2:11 was when those particular tongues WERE a sign to the unbelievers present.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

We need to read the letter and find out what was going on in the church at the time.

There were big problems in Corinth.
Divisions - some believers followed Paul, some Apollos. Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 3.
Promiscuity - the belief that as they were saved, they could do as they liked - 1 Corinthians 5. They were bosting about this, 1 Corinthians 5:1 Corinthians 5:12.
Inequalities, particularly when observing the Lord's Supper - 1 Corinthians 11. Some were arriving early for the meal and eating what they wanted before the others arrived. Others were getting drunk.

It seems that the Corinthians weren't only boasting about their sexual behaviour, but about their spiritual gifts - some thought they were more important because they spoke in tongues. Paul told them that they were the body of Christ; each had their own part to play. He said that of all the gifts, the best way was love, and they should strive for love. He also said that tongues was only useful if someone had a gift of interpretation - otherwise no one would be able to understand. That the gift of prophecy was also important and, if they really wanted to boast, he spoke in tongues more than they did.

It seems none of the other churches had this problem.

Paul wrote his letters to deal with particular issues that existed in the various churches he wrote to. Therefore when he wrote to the Corinthian church, he dealt with their particular issues. But in the other churches, the use of tongues was not an issue that needed correction, so Paul didn't see the need to mention it to them. Because the other churches would have received copies of Paul's letter to the Corinthians, they would have read it, and received the warning not to allow the misuse of tongues to become an issue in their churches.

It is worthy of note that the party spirit and the disrespect of the Lord's Supper were not issues in other churches, because Paul did not mention it to them. But there was an issue concerning the resurrection in the Thessalonian church, so he did mention it to them. That was the one issue that was common among the Corinthians and Thessalonians. Also, none of the other churches had anyone committing incest with his mother-in-law, so it never came up as an issue either.

It is probable that if there were no issues with tongues in the Corinthian church, we would not know that there was a gift of tongues, and our modern churches would not have known how to manifest it; nor would we know too much about the theory of prophecy either, because Paul does not give that teaching in the other churches, except a little bit in Romans.

It is also worthy of note that Paul had no inkling that he was writing Holy Scripture when he wrote his letters. He was merely functioning in his role as Apostle to the Gentiles and giving necessary instructions to the churches he planted, and to Timothy and Titus. His Scriptural basis was the Torah and the Prophets. There is no evidence that he had access to any of the four Gospels during his ministry. He doesn't make any reference to them. Perhaps during his three years in isolation in Arabia, the Lord taught him all he needed to know through direct revelation. Paul did talk about his thorn in the flesh to keep him humble because of all the revelations that he had received from the Lord.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I try not to complicate things. I belive Paul was simply telling the Corinthians ( not Jews by the way) to stop acting immature like children basically, stop calling gibberish tongues authentic maybe? Anyhow, Paul is not very clear so one is driven to speculation unfortunately. I belive we must read His "tongues " lecture in full to come to an accurate conclusion. That being said.......

Here is the entire passage so we can( kind of) read in full context:

1 Corinthians
20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.21 In the law it is written:

“With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”
says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 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? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

At no stage did Paul referred to the Corinthian tongues as "gibberish". 1 Corinthians 14:2 is quite clear about Paul's definition of the tongues occurring in the Corinthian church along with his comment that when they spoke in tongues they were "giving thanks well enough". That doesn't sound as though he is saying that they were speaking immature "gibberish". Therefore it was not about the content of what they were speaking, but a matter of when and where it should be spoken, and in the church, he made it clear that any utterance of tongues should be interpreted by someone who had the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Paul, because of their party spirit, he did say that they were acting as carnal men and women being able only to receive milk instead of strong food, so perhaps their immaturity came out through their misuse of public tongues. I think that if he thought that they were speaking "gibberish" he would not have said, "I would that you all speak in tongues". If it was "gibberish" do you think that Paul would be encouraging all of them to talk "gibberish"? Would he be telling them, "I thank God that I speak the same "gibberish" than you all"?

Somewhere along the line, we have to have a bit of common sense when we comprehend what Paul was saying instead of trying to add 2 plus 2 and making the answer as 5.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes I am.

I think that in his version of the chapter there are no other verses than the one about tongues being a sign to unbelievers. I had this conversations with him a couple of years ago, and he has not been able to get off the pot. It seems that he wants to convince us that the whole purpose of tongues is to act as a sign to unbelievers.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, there are several interpretations. I chose the simplest one. If you care to share yours that would be great. Thanks for engaging.

The simplest interpretation is what Paul literally said. There is no subtext here, no underlying interpretation. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. Exegesis is comprehending what he actually said. Eisegesis is reading stuff into what he said and thinking that he might have meant something behind what he said.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As if "calling gibberish tongues authentic" is even an interpretation.
More like a snide remark. A smear against those who operate in spiritual gifts.

It's called Eisegesis - making the Scripture say what we want it to say, instead of getting what the Scripture actually says. I think that some try to be more spiritual by bringing up "deeper" meanings of Scripture verses and passages, giving the impression that they have knowledge of what the Holy Spirit really means that us of the common herd don't have.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sorry I hit the wrong button and here is what I meant to say !!

The Hebrew word STAMMERING LIPS / LA EG means God was MOCKING Israel .

In Psa 35:16 you see the same Heb word , and means with HYPOCRITICAL MOCKERING , in H2611 and in H3934 .

dan p

No. It speaks of the stammering style of the Assyrian language which was totally different to ancient Hebrew.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

At no stage did Paul referred to the Corinthian tongues as "gibberish". 1 Corinthians 14:2 is quite clear about Paul's definition of the tongues occurring in the Corinthian church along with his comment that when they spoke in tongues they were "giving thanks well enough". That doesn't sound as though he is saying that they were speaking immature "gibberish". Therefore it was not about the content of what they were speaking, but a matter of when and where it should be spoken, and in the church, he made it clear that any utterance of tongues should be interpreted by someone who had the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Paul, because of their party spirit, he did say that they were acting as carnal men and women being able only to receive milk instead of strong food, so perhaps their immaturity came out through their misuse of public tongues. I think that if he thought that they were speaking "gibberish" he would not have said, "I would that you all speak in tongues". If it was "gibberish" do you think that Paul would be encouraging all of them to talk "gibberish"? Would he be telling them, "I thank God that I speak the same "gibberish" than you all"?

Somewhere along the line, we have to have a bit of common sense when we comprehend what Paul was saying instead of trying to add 2 plus 2 and making the answer as 5.

Paul's teaching on tongues is still relevant today. Christians who speak in tongues should do so in a way that is edifying to the church and that glorifies God however, in current times the misuse has reeled it out of control causing division. Charismatics should be careful not to use tongues for self-promotion, display of power or to achieve a state of ecstasy, this is the Pagan way. Blessings.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul's teaching on tongues is still relevant today. Christians who speak in tongues should do so in a way that is edifying to the church and that glorifies God however, in current times the misuse has reeled it out of control causing division. Charismatics should be careful not to use tongues for self-promotion, display of power or to achieve a state of ecstasy, this is the Pagan way. Blessings.

True. Because the principal use of tongues is for private prayer, there is no one to impress but God Himself in that environment. When tongues is spoken publicly, it is because of love to the brethren and for them to be encouraged and edified through the interpretation. Therefore, any public use of tongues should be done in humility and love for others, and strictly according to Paul's teaching.

 

[Guojing]

I think that in his version of the chapter there are no other verses than the one about tongues being a sign to unbelievers. I had this conversations with him a couple of years ago, and he has not been able to get off the pot. It seems that he wants to convince us that the whole purpose of tongues is to act as a sign to unbelievers.

You used to agree with me then, what happened? =)

Have you changed your mind now?

 

[Der Alte]

No. It speaks of the stammering style of the Assyrian language which was totally different to ancient Hebrew.

Source?

 

[Receivedgrace]

True. Because the principal use of tongues is for private prayer, there is no one to impress but God Himself in that environment. When tongues is spoken publicly, it is because of love to the brethren and for them to be encouraged and edified through the interpretation. Therefore, any public use of tongues should be done in humility and love for others, and strictly according to Paul's teaching.

We have no biblical injunction to pray in tongues. You confuse self-aggrandizement with edification. Tongues ceased according to 1 Cor 13:8.

 

[Strong in Him]

We have no biblical injunction to pray in tongues. You confuse self-aggrandizement with edification. Tongues ceased according to 1 Cor 13:8.

No, 1 Corinthians 13:8 says "tongues WILL cease" - doesn't say that they have.
I've heard people speaking in tongues. I've also read accounts of where someone has spoken in tongues during worship, and a newcomer to the church has said "that's my language; God is speaking to me in my language."

If tongues had ceased, that could not happen.