Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | should all we be speaking tongues aloud | 1 Cor 14:23 | Hank | 187237 | ||
Hello, Psalm 25 - It's rare to be writing to a chapter of Scripture; I still feel a bit awkward in doing so, but I'll try to adjust to it -- not an easy task for a septuagenarian. :-) ....... I've never been numbered in that company of believers who are popularly known as the charismatics, and the relatively recent emergence of this phenomenon of "tongue speaking (glossolalia) and the fascination and absorption with it that not infrequently accompanies it poses a puzzle to me. Even if this ecstatic babbling were entirely sanctioned by Scripture, which I do not for a moment believe it to be, the promoters and practitioners of glossolalia attach far more importance to it than any Scripture they can cite that even remotely appears to them to validate it. ....... Once someone asked me whether I had ever spoken in tongues, to which, without hesitation, I answered in the affirmative, saying that I had been using at least one tongue, English, as a means of communication since I was a toddler. Later on in my attempts to soak up a little learning, I studied Latin, French and German so that now, after a fashion, I speak in four different tongues. It's singularly unfortunate that the King James Bible and certain other English translations, before and after it, used "tongues" by and large to express the idea of "languages." I've often wondered whether the course of denominational history would have been altered had tongues never been used as a synonym for languages, because there is a certain mystique attached to the word "tongues," something esoteric and supernatural, that has never been assigned to the word "languages." A careful reading of Paul's first Corinthian letter (especially Chapter 14) indicates that there was, in fact, a practice of "speaking in a tongue" (singular), which was indicative of the false gibberish of the counterfeit pagan ecstatic speech. John MacArthur makes a sharp distinction between the singular and plural usages of "tongue" in Paul's discourse in 1 Corinthians 14, calling it foundational to the proper interpretation of the chapter. It is easy to fall into an eisegetical ditch in attempting to interpret the concepts inherent in this difficult and complex subject of tongues. But one is hard pressed to wrap Scripture around the modern practice of glossolalia. Exegetical, orthodox support simply isn't there. --Hank | ||||||
2 | should all we be speaking tongues aloud | 1 Cor 14:23 | Morant61 | 187240 | ||
Greetings Hank! I have heard John MacArthur's 'singular/plural' argument before, but there is a major problem with it. :-) Here are some comments that I made previously about this issue! *********************************************** It is not often that I disagree with Dr. MacArthur, but I do disagree with his view of 1 Cor. 14:14-17. If the singular "tongue" refers to a conterfeit gift, then why in 1 Cor. 14:27 does Paul give instruction about when and how to speak in a "tongue?" Was Paul saying that it was okay to engage in conterfeit gifts under certain conditions? The most likely explanation seems to be that when Paul is speaking of the gift in general, he uses the plural. However, when he is speaking of a particular utterance or manifestation of the gift, he uses the singular. It would be similar to us saying, "I speak languages" in general, but "I speak French" in particular. I do agree with MacArthur on this point though: The goal of all the gifts is to edify the Church. Uninterpreted tongues does not edify the Chruch; therefore, there are restrictions placed upon it. ********************************************** Simply put, there is not a single Scripture which says that a "tongue" is conterfeit while 'tongues' are genuine. This is simply an opinion presented as a fact. The Scriptural facts are found in what the Bible actually says about a 'tongue'. 1 Cor. 14:2 says that 'he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God...'. 1 Cor. 14:4 says that 'he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...'. The term 'edify' is also in 1 Cor. to refer to something which is beneficial and not harmful. 1 Cor. 14:13 says that 'Thefore, he who speaks in a tongue must pray that he may interpret'. I could go on, but there simply isn't any negative comment about about the use of a tongue other than it's misuse. Further, the context makes it clear that 'tongue' and 'tongues' are interchangable. Consider the following: 1) A 'tongue' and 'prophecy' are contrasted in 1 Cor. 14:4. 2) However, in the rest of the verses following, it is 'tongues' and 'prophecy' which are contrasted. 3) The point make about both a 'tongue' and 'tongues' is that uninterpreted they do not edify the body of Christ, whereas propehcy does. So, prophecy is to be preferred. 4) The command of 1 Cor. 14:13 is based upon this distinction between tongue/tongues and prophesy. 5) In this understanding, v. 27 is not an exception, but simply a continuation of the context. A 'tongue' refers to a speak spoken language, whereas 'tongues' refers to the spiritual gift in general. Is 'tongues' the greatest gift? No! Can it be abused? Yes! Can it be faked? Yes! But, every gift of God can be abused and/or faked! ******************** You are certainly correct my friend that too many put too much emphasis upon one gift. However, I am also hesitant to criticize or ignore one of God's gifts either. :-) Simply put, it is one of many of His gifts and has a part to play in the church, or He would not have given it. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||