Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 14:6 ¶ But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 14:6 ¶ Now, believers, if I come to you speaking in unknown tongues, how will I benefit you unless I also speak to you [clearly] either by revelation [revealing God's mystery], or by knowledge [teaching about God], or by prophecy [foretelling the future, speaking a new message from God to the people], or by instruction [teaching precepts that develop spiritual maturity]? |
Subject: Acts 2:2 |
Bible Note: Hi Doc, Unfortunately, I do not have the time to give a complete analysis of Dr. Robert Zerhusen's article, however, I will say this, and you can let me know if you agree or not. He makes the presumption that the gift of interpretation is not a spiritual gift, but acts according to the abilities and intellect of the interpreter. From that, he "demonstrates" that the gift if tongues is not a spiritual gift because if people were actually speaking supernaturally to God, then their speech would not be able to be "naturally" interpreted. So he has knocked down a straw man, but how does that help us to learn what Paul meant? He makes the argument that it can't be from God because not everyone gets it. What?? He equates "the language of angels" to "glossolalic-language", and then goes on to say that Paul didn't even really mean ACTUALLY speaking in the tongues of angels. He quotes someone names Meyer who says Paul wrote in "an imaginary case to heighten the contrast". I wonder what else is imaginary?? Dr Zerhusen wrote "Careful examination of the text of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals that Paul never explicitly states whether or not the language-speaker knew or understood the language that he was using." Well, I suppose he's technically correct, but Paul did say, (1 Co 14:14) "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." Is there a question what Paul had in mind? His spirit prays, but his mind does not benefit from what his spirit prays. Why? Because his mind does not know what his spirit prays. Why? Because his mind does not know the language of his spirit's prayer. As I understand his article, (and I will confess, it is quite lengthy, and I have not read all of it), he is "debunking" the entire supernatural aspect of this portion of Scripture, concerning tongues, and prophecies, and the interpretation of tongues. But it leaves me wondering - how did he miss that big first clue to what he was about to read: "Now concerning pneumatikon, I would not have you ignorant." Dr. Zerhusen has written quite a few words to show us how these things aren't "pneumatikon" after all. Doc, you can disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, and even better if you can give a textual demonstration of where I am in error, but it does nothing to advance our understanding or fellowship to denigrate my doctrinal understanding of Scripture as "my particular tradition." If you were to examine a Greek Lexicon, it will demonstrate over and over how the context of a word will affect its usage and meaning. Take for instance moraino - its used of the savor of salt, and the folly of the world. Well, time's up. Love in Christ, Mark yeah - it was definately adding a variable! :-) |