Lesson 11: The Church’s Questions—Gifts
(continued)
In chapters 12-13, Paul has
presented three issues that are fundamental to the proper exercise of spiritual
gifts:
•
There is only one Spirit at work, dispensing various
gifts.
•
There is only one body in which he is working,
composed of diverse parts.
•
There is only one way to exercise these gifts, and
that way is in force until Jesus returns.
The Corinthians, though, are not basing what they do together
(worship) on these fundamentals. Therefore, having laid the ground rules, Paul
gets specific. Some in Corinth are abusing the gift of tongues. Throughout
chapter 14, Paul attempts to show the value (or lack thereof) of tongues for
worship by contrasting it with the gift of prophecy. He makes his judgment
using only one criterion: whether or not the gift edifies others.
1 Cor 14:1
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift
of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to
God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But
everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement
and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies
edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I
would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who
speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
4. There are important differences between tongues and
prophecy.
a. Tongues only edify self, whereas prophecy
edifies others (14:1-
5).163
Query: Why does Paul single out the gift of prophecy to
compare with tongues, rather than using the gift of teaching or helps? Given
that tongues is last on his enumerated list in 12:28, any other gift would have
sufficed as being superior. Why does he not go all the way to the top and use
apostleship?
Paul is looking for a
comparable gift, one that has a similar status in Corinth that tongues has.
•
Apostleship has to do with church planting and may no
longer have been present in the church.
•
Miracles ands healing do not have the emphasis on
speaking that tongues have.
•
Teaching and administration do not exhibit the working
of God’s Spirit as obviously as being able to speak in an unlearned language
does.
Paul’s reason for choosing prophecy may have been to use a
gift comparable to tongues, one that was present in the church, that had a
similar mode of expression (speech), and that demonstrated clearly a supernatural
ability. His intention, therefore, is not to elevate prophecy but to make a
fitting comparison, one his audience will immediately recognize (i.e., apples
to apples, not apples to oranges).
1 Cor 14:6 Now,
brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you,
unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of
instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as
the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there
is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear
call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak
intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?
You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of
languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do
not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the
speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager
to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
b.
Tongues are unintelligible (having many possible
interpretations), whereas prophecy is intelligible (having
only one interpretation; 14:6-12).
1 Cor 14:13 For
this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret
what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is
unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also
pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my
mind. 16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds
himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your
thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 You may be giving
thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
c. Tongues bypass the mind (of the speaker and
others), whereas interpretation engages the mind (of the speaker and others;
14:13-17).
Does this strike you as strange? In
12:7, Paul said that each gift of the Spirit “is given for the common good,”
yet in 14:4, Paul says, “[h]e who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” not
others. (Edifying oneself is not bad; it is simply not the purpose of corporate
worship, and worship is his particular concern here.) Notice also that in this
chapter (14) tongues is the only gift which, when used in worship, requires the
exercise of another gift as well (interpretation). Just to be certain they do
not miss his point, Paul closes each paragraph by referring to the same
critique: Tongues (alone) in worship does not meet the purpose of spiritual
gifts. It does not promote the common good; it does not edify others.
Query: This discussion of these two gifts raises further
questions.
•
In view of this single purpose (edification), how are
we to understand the claim by some Christians that the gift of tongues is a
special, personal prayer language (“if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays” v.
14) or one that angels use?
•
Such an assertion (by advocates of glossolalia) is
false, because the Holy Spirit gives gifts for communal good not for personal
good.
•
If neither corporate nor private worship is the proper
setting for using tongues, what other—what proper—setting is there?
•
It is not inside the church but outside,164
as the first use of tongues indicates.
Acts 2:1 When the day
of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place…. 4 All of them were
filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit
enabled them. 5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every
nation under heaven. 6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in
bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7
Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking
Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native
language? …11b we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own
tongues!" 12 Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does
this mean?"
•
According to this passage in Acts 2 (which is the
clearest example in the NT), what is the gift of tongues?
•
It is a real but unlearned human language.
•
How does this use in Acts 2 accord with the purpose of
spiritual gifts in general (i.e., for the common good)?
•
It edifies the body by bringing people to God.165
Acts 2:41 Those who
accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to
their number that day.
1 Cor 14:18 I
thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. 19 But in the church I
would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand
words in a tongue. 20 Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil
be infants, but in your thinking be adults. 21 In the Law it is written:
"Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will
speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the
Lord.
22 Tongues,
then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is
for believers, not for unbelievers. 23 So if the whole church comes together
and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some
unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if
an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is
prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged
by all, 25 and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down
and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"
d. Tongues are for unbelievers, whereas
prophecy is for believers
(14:18-25).166
Excursus: Let us broaden the discussion a bit to include the
present. When we discuss tongues, there are four questions we should try to
answer.
•
What is the duration
of tongues?
•
They ceased in the past—or—
•
They continue in the present.
Paul states that all
spiritual gifts will continue until perfection (13:10), and we noted that the
best candidate for perfection is the New Creation, when all believers will have
become perfect (resurrection). Therefore, the Holy Spirit will continue to
dispense all gifts, including tongues, until that time.
•
What is the content
of tongues?
•
They are real human language—or— •
They are heavenly angelic speech—or—
•
They are gibberish.
To an outsider, at
least, the tongues used in the Corinthian church would sound like nonsense.
According to Acts 2, though, tongues are real human languages.
•
What is the place
of tongues?
•
They are for worship—or—
•
They are for evangelism.
Are they for use in
the service (corporate worship), or is the proper setting somewhere else? Paul
states in v. 22 that tongues are “a sign…for unbelievers” but says in v. 23
that an unbeliever, present when “the whole church comes together and everyone
speaks in tongues,” will conclude “that you are out of your mind.” In other
words, their primary role is outside he church (evangelism) not inside the
church (worship), which is how God uses them at Pentecost.167 • What is the source of tongues?
•
They are from the Spirit—or— •
They are from Satan—or—
•
They are from Self.
I stated last time
that speaking in tongues was not limited to the Christian community. Some of
the pagan cults of that day also engaged in the practice. In the church, of
course, tongues should originate only from the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, that
the second source is still possible, even today (MacArthur 1992:239-240). The
most common source of tongues, however, and perhaps the source most evident at
Corinth, is self.
I believe that much of what we see in the Charismatic
community today derives from self, and it can come about in two ways. The first
way a person can generate tongues is through psychological dissociation
(Johnson 1992:598). “The tonguesspeaker goes into motor automatism….clinically
described as radical inward detachment from one’s conscious surroundings
[which] results in dissociation of nearly all voluntary muscles from conscious
control” (MacArthur 1992:242). The second way a person can generate tongues is
as a learned skill. Through proper instruction and practice, the speaker develops
a proficiency in producing glossolalia.168 The ability to speak in
tongues may also derive from a combination of psychological and pedagogical
factors. The following account illustrates both types (Conway 1979:46-47,
48-49).
Marjoe
Gortner was the first Evangelical preacher to blow the whistle on his
profession. In his documentary film Marjoe, made in the late sixties, he
revealed age-old tricks of the trade and exposed some of the entertainment
aspects of the popular movement that have made it big business.
If he lives
forever, Hugh Marjoe Ross Gortner will most likely always be “The World’s
Youngest Ordained Minister.” Born January 14, 1944, Marjoe was almost strangled
during delivery by his own umbilical cord. The obstetrician told his mother
that it was a miracle the child survived, and thus “Marjoe”—for Mary and
Joseph—the Miracle Child took his place at the end of a long line of
Evangelical ministers.
From the
beginning, his preaching skills were meticulously cultivated. Before he learned
to say “Mamma” or “Poppa,” he was taught to sing “Hallelujah!” When he was nine
months old his mother taught him the right way to shout “Glory!” into a
microphone. At three, he could preach the gospel from memory, and he received
drama coaching and instruction in every performing art from saxophone playing
to baton twirling. On Halloween, 1948, at the age of four, Marjoe was
officially ordained and thrust into a wildly successful career as the Shirley
Temple of America’s Bible Belt, the sprawling nongeographic community of strict
adherents to the Christian scriptures. In the following decade he preached to
packed tents and houses coast to coast, as enthusiastic audiences flocked to
see the Miracle Child who allegedly received sermons from the Lord in his sleep.
Owing to his mother’s careful training, harsh discipline, and indomitable
ambition, Marjoe’s sermons were flawlessly memorized, right down to each
perfectly timed pause and gesture. Frequent Hallelujahs and Amens punctuated
his performances, which were cleverly promoted with titles such as “From
Wheelchair to Pulpit” and “Heading for the Last Roundup,” which Marjoe preached
wearing a cowboy suit.
Marjoe’s
captivating sermons rarely failed to fill the church collection plate to the
brim, and his renowned faith healings were miraculous even to him. In his
teens, however, Marjoe grew disenchanted with the continued deception of his
divine powers. He left the Evangelical movement in search of more legitimate
means of employment. He spent some time in a rock band, trying to move with the
changing times; then he returned to the Evangelical circuit to make his
revealing motion picture. Marjoe is one of those frank films that delves deeply
into sensitive areas of American morality that slip over the line into
profiteering….
“After you’ve
been saved,” Marjoe continued, “the next step is what they call ‘the infilling
of the Holy Spirit. ‘They say to the new convert, ‘Well, now you’re saved, but
you’ve got to get the Holy Ghost.’ So you come back to get the tongues
experience. Some people will get it the same night; others will go for weeks or
years before they can speak in tongues. You hear it, you hear everyone at night
talking in it in the church, and they’re all saying, ‘We love you and we hope
you’re going to get it by tonight.’ Then one night you go down there and they
all try to get you to get it, and you go into very much of a trance—not quite a
frenzy, but it is an incredible experience [= psychological dissociation].
“During that
moment the person forgets all about his problems. He is surrounded by people
whom he trusts and they’re all saying, ‘We love you. It’s okay. You’re accepted
in Christ. We’re with you, let it go, relax.’ And sooner or later, he starts to
speak it out and go dut-dut-dut. Then everyone goes, ‘That’s it! You’ve got
it!’ and the button is pushed and he will in fact start to speak in tongues and
just take off: dehandayelomosatayleesaso…and on and on.”
Marjoe
paused. Flo was dumbfounded by his demonstration, although he hadn’t gone into
the jerking, trancelike ecstasy that is commonly associated with the tongues
moment. I’d seen the classic version in his movie, yet even in this restrained
demonstration, Marjoe appeared to be triggering some internal releasing or
babbling mechanism. I asked him how he brought it about.
“You’ll never
get it with that attitude,” he joked. Then he went on to explain the true
nature of the experience. His perspective showed it to be a process that
requires a great deal of effort to master [= learned skill].
“Tongues is
something you learn,” he emphasized. “It is a releasing that you teach
yourself. You are told by your peers, the church, and the Bible—if you accept
it literally—that the Holy Ghost spake in another tongue; and you become
convinced that it is the ultimate expression of the spirit flowing through you.
The first time maybe you’ll just go dut-dut-dut-dut, and that’s about all that
will get out. Then you’ll hear other people and the next night you may go
dut-dut-dut-UM-dut-DEET-dut-dut, and it gets a little better. The next thing
you know, it’s elahandosatelayeekcondelemosandreyaseya …and it’s a new language
you’ve got down.”
Except that,
according to Marjoe, it’s not a real language at all. Contrary to most
religious understanding, speaking in tongues is by no means passive spiritual
possession. It must be actively acquired and practiced. Although the “gift” of
tongues is a product of human and not supernatural origin, Marjoe displayed
tremendous respect for the experience as an expression of spirituality and
fellowship.
“I really
don’t put it down,” he said. “I never have. It’s just that I analyze it and
look at it from a very rational point of view. I don’t see it as coming from
God and say that at a certain point the Holy Spirit zaps you with a super
whammy on the head and you’ve ‘gone for tongues’ and there it is. Tongues is a
process that people build up to. Then, as you start to do something, just as
when you practice the scales on the piano, you get better at it.”
Although Marjoe is referring only to the third source of
tongues, self, his experience indicates how common this source may be.
It would be unusual for the Holy Spirit to give so
many in the same congregation the same gift, especially among those who already
spoke the same language. Hence, it is possible that much (perhaps all) of the
glossolalia at Corinth was of the third variety. Some Christians there, having
heard the genuine article, may have attempted to imitate it and triggered their
own babble mechanism. Others followed, and soon tongues were a prominent
feature in worship (although not the true, biblical gift). Paul, hearing about
the movement but unable to verify its source (or suspecting its source but
recognizing the limit of his influence), determines that the best response is
to restrict the practice (“at the most three”) and to impose the
self-correcting requirement of interpretation, thereby eliminating spurious
utterances.169 All tongues do not originate from the Holy Spirit
and, as at Corinth, much of what passes for the gift of tongues in the
Charismatic movement today may also derive from this third source—self.
Some of the tongues at Corinth may
have been manifestations of the Holy Spirit, but believers were not using them
properly. As you might imagine, this improper use played havoc with their
worship, so Paul issues a set of guidelines to bring some order to the service.
1 Cor 14:26 What
then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a
word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these
must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27 If anyone speaks in a
tongue, two— or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must
interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the
church and speak to himself and God.
29 Two or
three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is
said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first
speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may
be instructed and encouraged. 32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the
control of prophets. 33a For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
e. Tongues are limited, whereas
prophecy is unlimited (14:26-
33a).
Comment: About “…others should weigh carefully what is said”
(14:29) How one makes this evaluation is
not clear. In Rom 12:6 Paul says that prophecy is to be “in agreement with the
faith” (NIV note), which may simply mean that it is to accord with sound
doctrine. “At best one can argue that prophecies [were] not [to] have
independent authority in the church, but [were] always [to] be the province of
the corporate body, who in the Spirit were to determine the sense or perhaps viability
of what had been said” (Fee 1987:694).
Comment: About “For God is not a God of disorder but of
peace” (14:33a)
Paul is saying that,
to some extent, the character of our God is reflected in the character of our
worship (Fee 1987:697, Manuel 2011). In this respect, the Corinthians were
misrepresenting God, because anyone coming into their service might assume that
God approved this chaotic expression of devotion and must, therefore, be
somewhat disorderly Himself. Paul affirms that God is orderly,170
and that our worship of Him must be orderly as well.171
Summary: If the proper setting for the gift of tongues is
outside worship, then how are we to understand Paul’s instruction, which seems
to sanction their use in worship? …Paul is not presenting the ideal formula: 2
tongues + 3 prophecies = worship. This is rather a concession—he permits
tongues but prefers prophecy.
Nevertheless, there is just so much he can legislate in a letter. To ban
tongues altogether might be too radical a change for the Corinthians; and among
those who put a high value on tongues, a ban could even provoke a rejection of
Paul’s instruction in other, more important areas. Hence, he chooses the wiser
course and restricts the practice rather than prohibiting it outright. (This
approach also eliminates the need for him to distinguish Spirit-inspired
tongues from the selfinspired variety.) He is, after all, planning to visit
Corinth in the near future (4:19) and will then be in a better position to
affect needed change.
We must be careful not
to assume that speaking in tongues was a common practice in the church. There
is no mention of it in the gospels, and this is the only NT letter to address
the practice.172 Moreover, the early Church Fathers make only
occasional reference to it (Johnson 1992:598; contra MacArthur 1992:233).173
Paul wants them to restore order in
their worship—and you can imagine how several people babbling unintelligibly
might rather give the impression of chaos. Speaking of church order, there is a
related matter that has come to his attention. Some of the ladies in the
congregation are getting a little rowdy (chatty). So, from glossolalia and
worship, Paul turns to gender and worship.
1 Cor 14:33b As
in all the congregations of the saints, 34 women should remain silent in the
churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law
says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own
husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
5. There must be decorum in worship (14:33b-35).174
a. The women
are separate.
1) The early
church was patterned after the synagogue.
2) As men and
women were separate in many synagogues,175 so
they
may have been in the church (Zeitlin 1947:306-307).
b. The women
are silent.
1) The meaning
of siga¿w in general
is broad: “remain silent”
(NIV).
2) The meaning
of siga¿w in context
(v. 34) is narrow: “stop speaking.”
a) The second
verb (e˙pitre÷pw) informs the
first by
indicating the proper decorum (i.e., that there is an
appropriate time to speak out).
“The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law
also say.” (AMP) “Women should be silent
during the church meetings. It is not proper
for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.” (NLT)
b) Paul has
already indicated that women pray and prophesy
(11:5).
c) Therefore,
he cannot mean here that they should “remain silent” but that they should “stop
speaking” among themselves and disrupting the service while others have the
floor (cf. v. 31).176
“Wives must not
disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions
that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God’s Book of
the law guides our manners and customs here.” (The Message)
i.
As in most churches (and synagogues), men probably
dominated the service in Corinth, which may have made it
difficult for women to participate.
ii.
Feeling isolated, they would naturally interact with
each other, which just added to the confusion already present in the church
(e.g., from the abuse of tongues).
d) Therefore,
the sense of this verse and of the apostle’s
admonition is that women must stop disrupting the
service when it is not appropriate to
speak.
Paul closes this chapter by
appealing to his authority in these matters, by reiterating the relative value
of tongues and prophecy, and by admonishing them to retain order in their
worship.
1 Cor 14:36 Did
the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge
that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38 If he ignores this, he
himself will be ignored.
39 Therefore, my
brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But
everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
g. Conclusion
(14:36-40)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Relevant and civil comments are welcome. Whether there will be any response depends on whether Dr. Manuel notices them and has the time and inclination to respond or, if not, whether I feel competent to do so.
Jim Skaggs