Recently in a Facebook conversation about the nature of the gift of tongues, one detractor of tongues posted:
Paul seems to use the singular tongue to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan “gibberish” and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of actual foreign languages. Again no mention of prayer or private prayer language. All the gifts are to edify the body, so when Paul states in verse 4 “He who speaks in a tongue (singular) edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.”, he is saying that when someone speaks in gibberish, he only edifies himself which is not the Gift of Tongues (actual language which edifies the body).
If I understand correctly, this is how you would read 1 Corinthians 14 (I'm not quoting everything, but ...). A couple of assumptions first, though - correct me if I'm wrong:
1. You would say that the legitimate gift of tongues are known languages. Would you say that they are known languages which the speaker doesn't know (and thus why a supernatural gift is required)? Or do you believe that it's simply a matter of someone speaking in a language they know and then an interpreter who knows both the language of the speaker and the congregation interpreting in a natural way? For the sake of what I say below, I'm going to assume that you think there is a supernatural gift involved.
2. When I get to the part about verses 14-17, I'm going to assume that praying with the spirit refers to speaking in a tongue and praying with the mind refers to speaking in a language that both the hearer and the congregation understand. I think that's the logical flow of the text, but let me know if you disagree.
"Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy. For one who speaks in (pagan gibberish) speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit ... The one who speaks in (pagan gibberish) builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to (supernaturally) speak in (known languages), but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who (supernaturally) speaks in (known languages), unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
"Now brothers, if I come to you (supernaturally) speaking in (known languages), how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge of prophecy or teaching?
(skipping ahead to verse 13)
"Therefore, one who speaks in (pagan gibberish) should pray that he may interpret. For if I pray (in pagan gibberish), my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray (in pagan gibberish), but I will pray (in the common language we all understand) also. I will sing praise (in pagan gibberish), but I will sing (in the common language we all understand) also. Otherwise, if you give thanks (in pagan gibberish), how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying. For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I (supernaturally) speak in (known languages) more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in (pagan gibberish).
(skipping ahead to verse 22)
"Thus, (supernaturally speaking in known languages is) a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all (supernaturally) speak in (known languages), and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.
"What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a (word of pagan gibberish), or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in (pagan gibberish), let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak (in pagan gibberish) to himself and to God.
(skipping ahead to verse 39)
"So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid (supernaturally) speaking in (known languages). But all things should be done decently and in order."
Is that how you would read chapter 14? I have to admit that I've never heard the position that there is a difference between the singular and plural use of the Greek word for tongue/tongues. If the singular does refer to pagan gibberish, I'm trying to understand, but the chapter becomes confusing to me if I try to read it that way.
Frank knocks it out of the park with this reply, as it shows just how absurd the text becomes if we accept the first poster's proposal that when Paul uses the singular "tongue" he is referring to "pagan gibberish," and the plural "tongues" refers to speaking actual (unlearned) languages.
If the singular is used by Paul to refer to "pagan gibberish" as this individual claims, then wouldn't we expect the singular to be found in verse 22, where Paul writes against the whole assembly speaking in tongues (plural) without an interpreter, because an outsider coming in will think they are out of their minds?
Note: I have asked the original poster to cite a commentary or other work by a credentialed biblical scholar that supports the claimed distinction between the singular and plural tongue/tongues, but have yet to receive such research data.
UPDATE: I did a little more searching on this topic. As best as I can tell, the idea that Paul means different things by the singular "tongue" and plural "tongues" seems to have originated with cessationist pastor and writer John MacArthur.
In an article on tongues as a prayer language at SBC Voices, David Rogers responds thusly:
A careful analysis of each of the uses of the terms “tongues” and “a tongue” in 1 Cor. 14 renders this hypothesis unsustainable, though, as there are occasions in which the term “tongues” is used to refer to something Paul discourages (e.g. 14:6, 23) and the term “a tongue” is used to refer to something Paul allows (e.g. 14:13), and even encourages (e.g. 14:26–27).
Justin Peters, a disciple of MacArthur, has repeated MacArthur's claim about the singular and plural terms. Clayton Jackson Killion responds to Peterson's claims:
Firstly, if Paul were addressing pagan tongue-talking, he would not tell people to continue doing it privately and only refrain during gathered worship. In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul says “If someone speaks in a tongue [note the singular tongue and not the plural tongues], it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God” (NET).
Does Paul’s advice make any sense if a tongue (singular) refers to paganism or mindless babble? “Don’t practice pagan gibberish at church, but keep doing it for God at home.” Ridiculous! If Paul were describing a pagan practice, he would address it directly and command the Corinthians to stop—as indeed he does with idolatry in 1 Cor 10:14. “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry” (KJV).
Trying to differentiate between "legitimate tongues" and "pagan gibberish" based on whether the plural or singular form of the same noun is used seems to me to be grasping at straws at best, and at worst, fabricating what may sound like a highly intellectual, careful grammatical argument for the sake of "putting one over" on the average Christian listener/reader who doesn't have any training in the biblical languages. "Oh, wow, Pastor So-and-So knows Greek and Hebrew, and I don't, so he must know what he's talking about."
No comments:
Post a Comment