Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10776 | ||
If you understand the meaning of the word hermeneutic, I think, however that you seem to fail to apply it in the interpretation of a passage. When Paul made an allusion to the praying the tongue of angels, he didn't mean that it was a "reality" in the eyes of God, as a THING TO PRACTICE. It is there that hermeneutics comes to our rescue. First, we must keep in mind the real purpose of Paul in that chapter and not forget the real problem the Corinthians had with the gifts of the Spirit, more than likely the one of tongues. Follow the reasoning of Paul (not mine) here. He began the chapter in the words he finished the last (LOVE). But he says immediately, that prophecy was "preferable" to the tongues, not according to him or to God, but because of the corinthian trouble. Right? Why can we say that? Because they missed the point of the gifts in general and he wanted to reestablish the foundational goal that the gifts of the Spirit were for the edification of the saints, right again? Now, follow the rest. He said this: "For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Now, of what mysteries was he talking about? It is in the sense that it is incomprehensible to the common man or the common language of the church. But now, the trap that so many fall in is this. They think that in saying that, Paul was promoting a spiritual exercice called "praying in tongue" and that, just because they see the expression "speaketh not unto men, but unto God". But, why did he say that? What did he mean by that form of argumentation. My friend, hermeneutics help us to know that in the times of Paul, the rethorical form of language for purpose of argumentation was very much used and above all, by the rabbinical way of teaching (do not forget that Paul had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel). So it was normal for him to borrow the same way of language when he tried to make a point very clear. But, once again, what did he mean by "speaketh not unto men, but unto God"? Here is the answer. The Corinthians have the tendency to forget the goal of spiritual gifts and Paul is saying that if there is no edification at all, you don't have any right to pretend that you do the best thing according to God. But the main point is the following. Verse 2 is another way of saying this: "Dear Corinthians, when you speak in tongue the way you seem to do, you are in reality not speaking to men that would have the right to be edified, but it is AS THOUGH YOU WOULD SPEAK TO GOD, BECAUSE IN THE WAY YOU SPEAK, THERE WOULD BE ONLY HIM THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, SINCE NOBODY IN THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU SAY BY YOUR WORDS". Do you get the point he tried to make? He wanted to show that a mysterious language is good when it is accessible to others by the way of interpretation, and nothing else. But, for them it was totally the contrary; nobody was able to understand because there were not always good interpreters in their midst. So the second verse is a way of saying: "Hey Corinthians, for the sake of God and for the sake of your brothers in Christ, be not foolish in saying things that only God could understand. Remember that God would like you to practice in such a way that everybody would be able to get the mysterious message. Mysterious until it is interpreted correctly. That is the key of the passage and the help hermeneutics can give. | ||||||
2 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10826 | ||
Richlou Let us use standard hermenuetics here and see what we come up. The Corinthians had overestimated the importance the gift of tongues in public worship. They were speaking in tongues without interpretation and Paul was bringing correction. An outline of the this chapter would be: 1 Prophecy edifies the church more than interpreted tongues. vv.1-4 2. Prophecy and tongues with interpretation are equally important to the church. v5 3. Speaking in tongues in public worship services without interpretation is of no benefit to others vv.6-12 4. Those who speak or pray in tongues in church should seek to edify the church by praying for the gift of interpretation. V 13 5. In Paul’s personal life speaking in tongues to God is an important means of worship and spiritual growth. vv. 14-19 6. Prophecy is more useful than uninterpreted tongues because prophecy brings conviction of sin and the knowledge of God’s presence. vv.20-25 7. Speaking in tongues and prophesying must be regulated so that order in maintained in the church. vv.26-40 Outline from Full Life Study Bible Publisher Zondervan Pg 1774. Verse 2 which we seem to have the most trouble with could be taken two ways. 1 Some believe that this verse indicates that the principal use of tongues, whether in the church or in private, is to speak primarily to God and not to humans. I disagree. 2 On the other hand Paul’s statement may mean that only God understands a tongue unless it is interpreted (v. 5). The implication would be that tongues, spoken about here is a prayer language. Verse 15 is a cap stone in this discussion. Paul is referring to his own experience, to his own private use of tongues directed to God. Paul used tongues not only for praying , but also for singing, praising, and giving thanks to God. Verse 18 Again the reason for this passage is correction Paul is saying he would rather speak five intelligible words than ten thousand no one knows what he is saying. But notice he did thank God for the ability to speak in tongues or those unintelligible words. Dr. John MacArthur explanation of this passage tips on the use of singular tongues and plural tongues. He bases his argument that when Paul used singular he was talking about gibberish and when Paul used the plural form he was talking about languages of man. I respectfully disagree with Dr MacArthur. I believe when Paul used the singular form he was in fact talking the language of Angels, of which there is only one, as the text states and when he used the plural he was talking of the tongues of men of which there are many. Whether Dr MacArthur be right and I be wrong or vice versa there is no way to get to the meaning of the text you came up with. |
||||||
3 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10834 | ||
My friend, there is a huge difference between applying the rules of hermeneutics and the outline of a letter. Sorry! | ||||||
4 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10858 | ||
I used that outline in an attempt to simplify that which to me you made complicated. Also since I suspected you were using outside sources I thought you would like to see I also was not standing alone in my thoughts on this subject. Your explanation might fly if Paul had only written chapter 14, but Paul also had written chapter 12 and 13. You hypothesis that Paul was using rhetorical questions and making allusions would stand were it not for verse 1 chapter 13, verse 10 chapter 12 and verse 15 chapter 14. You constructed your point on the theory that Paul was teaching that speaking in an unknown language was wrong. Ignoring the fact that Paul was teaching, that speaking in tongue of men was for public usage and speaking in tongues of angels in for private. You ignored Paul’s repeated reference of the two uses of tongues and the two forms of tongues therefore your construction starts to crumble. You tried to centralize your argument by saying Paul was using a rabbinical form of teaching and your right about his training, but most scholars agree Paul’s method of delivery was without that annoying, ‘saying much but never getting to the point’ method of teaching the Pharisees so loved. Paul spoke very bluntly here when he was bringing correction he did not want to be misunderstood. He was a master in making point and then using complementary terms to prove that point. He established truth and built upon it. Sure Paul used rhetorical questions, and asked questions that made the false appear ridiculous. However we never see Paul state a truth and then tear it down rhetorically or otherwise in an attempt to reinforce the original truth. And that is basically what your saying he was doing by your interpretation of this passage. That convinces me you do not have the correct understanding of it. I may not be hundred percent correct myself (that is why I still study this passage), but I see my position as far more defendable than the one you presented. I’m sorry if that offends you I meant no offense. |
||||||
5 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10926 | ||
Ok, my friend, let us study more on our own side. In Heaven we will try to find Paul...LOL | ||||||
6 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | EdB | 10965 | ||
Bravo! You are truly a scholar and a gentleman. It was a pleasure to discuss this with you and I hope soon to explore another equally interesting issue with you. Thanks for your kindness, your genuine interest, and thanks most of all for your patience in teaching me your point of view. I know I grew from this and I hope you benefited also. I look forward to your offer to look up Paul and get it from him first hand. Be blessed and be a blessing Listening for the trumpet! Ed |
||||||