1 Cor 13

[BibleOnly]

There's been a lot of talk about tongues on a few threads in recent times. I've been told that apparently Paul assumed that his readers would realise that every second sentence in 1 Cor 14 is him saying something that is not true, something apparently lost on every group of translators, but not lost to the SDA. As always, when you twist the Bible to suit your need, there's rough edges left that make no sense. 1 Cor 13 has some of these.

This is, of course, the love chapter, between two chapters about tongues, written to remind those who abused spiritual gifts for personal glory that God's love is eternal and more important than any gift. At the end, Paul writes:

1Cr 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

1Cr 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

1Cr 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What does this mean ? It means that love is eternal, but tongues, prophecy and knowledge will pass away. When will this happen ? When Jesus return and we see 'face to face'. 1 Cor 13.11 is not saying 'tongues is childish' ( in fact, he's referring to tongues, prophecy AND knowledge ). It means that because the promise of God is not yet fulfilled in us, in the sense that we will be changed when He returns, we are like children now. When we are adults, we put off childish things. But, no-one tells off a child for being childish. So too, these things are a necessary part of this age, but will be outgrown when Jesus returns.

The question is, 1 Cor 14 tells the church how tongues, interpretation and prophecy should occur in a Christian meeting. 1 Cor 13 says tongues will exist until Jesus returns. How does the SDA obey these scriptures ? However tongues is defined in your mind, how does it exist in the church today ? Paul did not say tongues would cease when most people spoke English. He said they will cease when Jesus returns.

[Gail]

Tongues are used when they are needed, just as the other gifts are, or that is how I see it. You won't find one church full of only prophets, neither of helpers or teachers. There are a variety so that there can be a body.

:)

[BibleOnly]

Well, I was going to touch on that next. Paul says in 1 Cor 14, you can all prophecy. Every Christian has faith ( which is listed in 1 Cor 12 ) and can pray to be healed. James says we can all ask God for wisdom. I've never met any Christian who claims not to have access to any of the 1 Cor 12 gifts, apart from the 3 he's dealing with, tongues, interpretation and prophecy. The only way that Paul is saying that not all Christians have these, is if he's saying we don't all have the other six, either. But, Paul sets when it is 'needed', he says 2-3 should speak in tongues, although he does limit this, he sees no issue with finding someone willing to speak in tongues but tells them they need to seek to interpret. The question is, if Paul expected this to be something the church would always do, tongues as a sign to unbelievers, and the others for the instruction of believers, given that 1 Cor 13 sets the tone of when this should end, if an alternative view of what tongues means is to be put forward, for that view to be correct, then that gift must be evident in God's church today, in the way that Paul writes for it to be.

[BibleOnly]

*bump* Does it not disturb anyone here that the SDA is not obeying this part of the Bible ?

[Gail]

I'm not seeing it like you are...

As a matter of fact, what I'm getting is that first of all it's better to prophecy, but if you are going to speak in an unknown tongue (which I understand to be language) you'd be better not to say anything unless you have an interpreter. That is probably because the Holy Spirit's gifts are given for the edifying (improving, benefit) of the church, for serving others.

[BibleOnly]

"As a matter of fact, what I'm getting is that first of all it's better to prophecy"

Within the church, absolutely. So, if God gives us all different gifts, and some are better than others, isn't God playing favourites ? But, Paul says that we can all prophecy, in any case.

" but if you are going to speak in an unknown tongue (which I understand to be language)"

1 Cor 14:2 says it's a language only God understands. Other verses through the chapter back this up

"you'd be better not to say anything unless you have an interpreter."

Paul says that he who speaks in tongues should pray to interpret. This indicates that interpretation is not through knowing the language, which also makes sense, as it's a gift in 1 Cor 12. The issue was simply that they had all spoken in tongues ( which is why he says 'forbid not tongues', they did not need to seek it, but he says 'desire prophecy'. All Christians can prophecy, Paul says that, but, not everyone has done that before. Every Christian has spoken in tongues by definition, and they were not moving past that to use the other 'voice' gifts.

"That is probably because the Holy Spirit's gifts are given for the edifying (improving, benefit) of the church, for serving others."

Absolutely, that's the core point of the three chapters. Paul did not mean to explain that tongues are understood only by God, they knew that. He was writing to make exactly this point, that the gifts should be used in the service of the church.

[Bert]

I believe that the meaning of 'tongues' in 1 Cor. 13:8 refers to 'languages' based on the Greek word "glossa"-1100 in Strong's Concordance. It says the word implicates a language, specifically one naturally unacquired. In other words, the language you learn as a child naturally from your parents. You have to remember that at the building of the tower of Babel, God confounded the languages so that they could no longer communicate to continue the building of the tower. It is this language barrier that will no longer exist in the heavenly realm, and will be done away with. I do not believe that it is referring to what some refer to as 'speaking in tongues'...a language that no one understands.

[BibleOnly]

Hi Bert. I understand what you're saying, but 1 Cor 14:2 says that when someone speaks in tongues, they speak not to men, but to God. Romans says the Spirit gives us the words, which we can't utter ourselves, because we don't know what to pray for. 1 Cor 14 says that tongues is prayer in the Spirit, which God requires of us and which builds us in the faith and keeps us in God's love.

Zep 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

I believe you're right, God confounded the languages and created confusion. He brings unity by giving us all a pure language, which is pure precisely because God gives the words, and our own mind cannot corrupt it.

Nevertheless, if tongues are natural languages, my question remains; Paul says that this won't end until Jesus returns, and that it should operate with interpretation also inspired by God, in the church. If your reading is correct, then why does this not happen in the SDA with the form of tongues you believe in ?

It's not surprising that Paul would use the Greek word for languages. I doubt any language had a term for something that God suddenly did, and had not been seen before. Even our terminology is based on existing words in an unusual formation, 'speaking in tongues'.

[joeb]

I agree with Gail and Bert. SDA's most definitely believe in the gift of tongues. We just don't accept the current common practice of "speaking in tongues" as the Biblical gift.

[Gail]

Quote:

Nevertheless, if tongues are natural languages, my question remains; Paul says that this won't end until Jesus returns, and that it should operate with interpretation also inspired by God, in the church. If your reading is correct, then why does this not happen in the SDA with the form of tongues you believe in ?

Yes, it does, as I mentioned somewhere already. I remember asking an evangelist if he had ever seen it in his line of work and he replied in the affirmative.

There are two ways it happens- one is that the speaker speaks with the real language, as occurred at Pentecost where the visitors heard the Gospel in their own language from those unlearned Galileans.

The other is where the hearers understand what is being said.

I also personally believe that those with extraordinary ability to pick up languages are gifted this way. But that's just me.

[BibleOnly]

But Gail, the second gift is an invention, it's nowhere in the Bible. Either way, the question is, Paul said this should happen in the church, everywhere. He never said tongues were a sign to people who spoke other languages, but to unbelievers. So, is the SDA operating tongues/interpretation/prophecy in it's meetings in accordance with 1 Cor 12-14, or is it just telling stories about something that happened once in Timbuktu ?

Yes, some people are good at languages. This is NOT speaking in tongues. First, it's learned and not a gift, and second, it's a human language, not the tongues Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 14:2.

[John317]

I understand what you're saying, but 1 Cor 14:2 says that when someone speaks in tongues, they speak not to men, but to God.

The text doesn't say "tongues" but "a tongue." Glossee is singuler. Glossais (vv. 5,6) is plural.

Have you looked at the Greek of that text?

The original language says, "alla theo." The noun is dative singular masculine, WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.

Compare this to Acts 17: 23 (NIV)--

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.'"

"To an unknown god" is the same grammatical construction as "to a god" in 1 Cor. 14: 2, and the same rules of translation apply.

That verse is therefore more accurately translated "a god."

".... they speak not to men, but to a god."

To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article.

[BibleOnly]

"The text doesn't say "tongues" but "a tongue." Glossee is singuler. Glossais (vv. 5,6) is plural. "

Well, if one person speaks in tongues, they speak in a tongue. So what ?

"To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article."

Interesting word game. If this is true, then what god do they speak to, and, where does Paul make this clear ? He never differentiates between the tongues they use in Corinth, and the tongues he speaks in. I am all for studying the Greek, but the Greek can never prove something that the original author plainly never stated, in context.

The fact remains that people speaking in tongues do not speak to men, for no man understands. So, you're back where you started, really.

[John317]

"The text doesn't say "tongues" but "a tongue." Glossee is singuler. Glossais (vv. 5,6) is plural. "

Well, if one person speaks in tongues, they speak in a tongue. So what ?

The singular indicates that it has reference to the gibberish that was found among the pagan mystical religions of that period. There aren't various kinds of gibberish, but there are different kinds of languages. Paul's word for the true languages, then, is in the plural.

[John317]

To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article.

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

Interesting word game.

No word game. Words in the Scriptures are important. Jesus Christ said that we are to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

When (in John 8: 58) Jesus said, "I AM," was He playing a word game? Not at all. He was claiming to be Yahweh who had appeared to Moses at the burning bush, in Exodus 3: 14.

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

If this is true, then what god do they speak to...?

To a false god/gods.

[BibleOnly]

SO, once again, your claim is that God hid the Gospel in this age from all but Greek scholars, excepting the Greek scholars who did the translating and didn't attempt to make this clear ? Why does he never tell them they were not 'speaking in tongues' as in a gift from God ? Why did he say 'forbid not tongues' instead of 'stop speaking in pagan tongues and speak in God's tongues' ?

1Cr 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

1Cr 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

These are also in the singular, I believe. So, why would God give an interpretation of a pagan tongue ? Surely a pagan tongue means nothing, to anyone ? So how can God understand it ? How can it be interpreted ?

You're walking down a path that only leads to trying to make the Bible argue with itself.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

"To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article."

Interesting word game. If this is true, then what god do they speak to...?

To a false god/gods.

1Cr 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

So the word 'God' here, should be 'gods' ? The translators could not get it right, but you can ?

And you think false gods can give real, meaningful languages to people ? These were not meaningless utterances, but, they were real languages, just like God gives ? Then these 'false gods' are real, because they can do real things.

[John317]

The fact remains that people speaking in tongues do not speak to men, for no man understands. So, you're back where you started, really.

Not "tongues" (as in various languages) but "a tongue," singular, which is a counterfeit. It is true that no man understands the counterfeit, because it is gibberish.

[BibleOnly]

But Paul uses the same term for the tongue he speaks in, and never anywhere indicates he is ever talking about two different types of tongues, real and fake. He never tells them to stop using fake tongues, he says to not forbid tongues in the church. Everything you say is predicated on you knowing Greek better than the translators, God not delivering a clear message to the modern church, and Paul contradicting himself and being very unclear.

[Lysimachus]

I'm not sure why you want to argue about this still.

[Lysimachus]

There's been a lot of talk about tongues on a few threads in recent times. I've been told that apparently Paul assumed that his readers would realise that every second sentence in 1 Cor 14 is him saying something that is not true, something apparently lost on every group of translators, but not lost to the SDA. As always, when you twist the Bible to suit your need, there's rough edges left that make no sense. 1 Cor 13 has some of these.

This is, of course, the love chapter, between two chapters about tongues, written to remind those who abused spiritual gifts for personal glory that God's love is eternal and more important than any gift. At the end, Paul writes:

1Cr 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

1Cr 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

1Cr 13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1Cr 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

What does this mean ? It means that love is eternal, but tongues, prophecy and knowledge will pass away. When will this happen ? When Jesus return and we see 'face to face'. 1 Cor 13.11 is not saying 'tongues is childish' ( in fact, he's referring to tongues, prophecy AND knowledge ). It means that because the promise of God is not yet fulfilled in us, in the sense that we will be changed when He returns, we are like children now. When we are adults, we put off childish things. But, no-one tells off a child for being childish. So too, these things are a necessary part of this age, but will be outgrown when Jesus returns.

The question is, 1 Cor 14 tells the church how tongues, interpretation and prophecy should occur in a Christian meeting. 1 Cor 13 says tongues will exist until Jesus returns. How does the SDA obey these scriptures ? However tongues is defined in your mind, how does it exist in the church today ? Paul did not say tongues would cease when most people spoke English. He said they will cease when Jesus returns.

As long as there is confusion in communication among nations, the gift of tongues will be necessary. Not until the Second Coming will it not be necessary, as everyone will speak a heavenly language.

And it won't sound like bird-chirpin gibberish either. It will sound beautiful. When you hear people speaking in tongues, it is such an ugly language, and it edifies no one.

You write a lot BibleOnly, but you say hardly anything. You just ramble on.

The SDA Church has never denied the true gift of tongues, nor the fact that it will be a gift even up to the end of time. That is your imagination.

[Lysimachus]

"The text doesn't say "tongues" but "a tongue." Glossee is singuler. Glossais (vv. 5,6) is plural. "

Well, if one person speaks in tongues, they speak in a tongue. So what ?

"To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article."

Interesting word game. If this is true, then what god do they speak to, and, where does Paul make this clear ? He never differentiates between the tongues they use in Corinth, and the tongues he speaks in. I am all for studying the Greek, but the Greek can never prove something that the original author plainly never stated, in context.

The fact remains that people speaking in tongues do not speak to men, for no man understands. So, you're back where you started, really.

No word games here. You re the one here playing word games, dancing between the raindrops and twisting the scriptures to suit your preconceived ideas.

Many times Paul does not differentiate between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law either. In Ephesians 2:15 Paul says the law is abolished. In Romans 13:8-10 and Ephesians 6:1-3, Paul stresses the present stance of the law as being in force.

Context demands which law Paul is talking about, just like context demands which tongues Paul is speaking about.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

I understand what you're saying, but 1 Cor 14:2 says that when someone speaks in tongues, they speak not to men, but to God.

The text doesn't say "tongues" but "a tongue." Glossee is singuler. Glossais (vv. 5,6) is plural.

Have you looked at the Greek of that text?

The original language says, "alla theo." The noun is dative singular masculine, WITHOUT THE DEFINITE ARTICLE.

Compare this to Acts 17: 23 (NIV)--

"For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription, 'To an unknown god.'"

"To an unknown god" is the same grammatical construction as "to a god" in 1 Cor. 14: 2, and the same rules of translation apply.

That verse is therefore more accurately translated "a god."

".... they speak not to men, but to a god."

To be a particular god/God, i.e., the true God, it would need to have the definite article.

Sound scholarship John.

[joeb]

No word games here. You re the one here playing word games, dancing between the raindrops and twisting the scriptures to suit your preconceived ideas.

Many times Paul does not differentiate between the Ceremonial Law and the Moral Law either. In Ephesians 2:15 Paul says the law is abolished. In Romans 13:8-10 and Ephesians 6:1-3, Paul stresses the present stance of the law as being in force.

Context demands which law Paul is talking about, just like context demands which tongues Paul is speaking about.

Great post, Lysimachus.

[Lysimachus]

But Paul uses the same term for the tongue he speaks in, and never anywhere indicates he is ever talking about two different types of tongues, real and fake. He never tells them to stop using fake tongues, he says to not forbid tongues in the church. Everything you say is predicated on you knowing Greek better than the translators, God not delivering a clear message to the modern church, and Paul contradicting himself and being very unclear.

The translators were not perfect in everything. This is why we have scholars who know Greek inside and out writing books on such things.

You would do yourself well if you would make up your mind to read more works by scholars and quit thinking you can find out all the intricate meanings of these Greek words yourself.

Here is an excellent book I recommend:

Speaking in Tongues

http://www.atsjats.org/transaction_detail.php?id=15

by Gerhard F. Hasel

"(From the back cover) Speaking in Tongues is an up-to date discussion of contemporary "speaking in tongues" as practiced by millions of Christians. This book reveals that speaking in tongues is also carried on in non- Christian (pagan) religions. The issues raised by this common practice are immense for the Christian believer. Five of the seven chapters are devoted to a penetrating study of the New Testament evidence for speaking in tongues.

The fact is, 1 Corinthians 12-14 is not that clear concerning tongues. In those areas where it is not that clear, the Greek is required.

If it is very clear in the language you know, then there is no so much need to go to the Greek and the scholars. But this is an exception where the Greek is needed, because everyone agrees that understanding 1 Corinthians 12-14 concerning the gift of tongues can be very confusing.