Featured The Gift of Tongues

Gaboiled asipine denotsb placibed...wait...what about typing in tongues...does Scripture say anything about that?

I agree. Except I am not so concrete on praying in tongues in private. I have been in situations where my mind did not adequately follow the Spirit in prayer (I could not adequately word my prayer). I did not "pray in tongues," but I came to the point where I understood to an extent the concept. So for me, if I can't look at it and say that it is unbiblical (without interposing my own reasoning) then I tend to leave it alone. That is where I stand with the woman who said that she found herself "speaking in tongues," saying things that did not make sense to the ear but was from the heart.

 

I understand your argument. I currently disagree (not that tongues as a sign for the unbeliever has ceased, but that "that which is perfect" refers to the canon).

 

Tongues, as practiced today by the false teachers the bible so clearly warns us about are a lie straight out of the pit of hell.

Paul made it abundantly clear in 1st Corinthians 13 that "Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away."

Paul makes it abundantly clear that the miraculous sign gifts were temporary.

The giving of the gift of prophecies will end.

The giving of the gift of tongues will end.

The giving of the gift of knowledge will end.

"9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away."

The early church, in Paul's day, only had a partial revelation through tongues, prophecy, and knowledge.

But when the perfect (complete) (revelation) came, the partial (revelation in the form of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge) was done away with.

When the complete revelation, in the form of the Holy Bible, was completed the sign gifts went away.

"11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

Paul says those sign gifts were only for the infancy of the church, but when the church reached maturity, with a finished bible, the toys of childhood were set aside.

"12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known."

Now we can look into the "Perfect Law of Liberty" - the bible - and see ourselves as we really are, our partial understanding, given through tongues, prophecy and knowledge, has been replaced by the mature, complete knowledge we have from the bible, and we can know the thoughts of God, from the bible, just as He has always known ours.

"13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Notice Paul says, at the time of the writing of 1st Corinthians, the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge were no longer being given to new converts, so he says "now abide faith, hope, and love, these three." He did NOT say, "now abide faith, hope, love, tongues, prophecy, and knowledge, these six." To suggest the sign gifts are still active is to call Paul a liar, to call the bible a lie, and to call the Holy Spirit of God, Who inspired the bible, a liar.

To call God a liar is the worst form of blasphemy.

 

Verse 9 reads, "ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν:"

Verse 10 then says, "ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται."

As you can see, Paul says that their understanding is only "in part" or "partial." "μέρους" means "part of an installment" as in "a down payment." The understanding the infant church received from the gifts of tongues, prophecy, and knowledge was just a "down payment" just "a small part" of the much better understanding we would receive later.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Read verse 10. There is no noun to be the subject of the sentence! It simply says, "Yet whenever may be coming the mature." The mature what? "Mature" is an adjective, not a noun, so why does Paul use it as the subject of the sentence? Simple. In Greek, just as in English, we sometimes see an understood subject. In this case it is called "adjectival substitution." We have to look to the context to discover what "thing" Paul is talking about. It CANNOT be Christ (Christos) because the gender is wrong. (Unless you believe Christ was a transvestite!) So we look in the preceding context to find our understood subject. And there it is! Right there in verse 8! "Tongues" "Prophecy" and "Knowledge" are all forms of Divine Revelation. Tongues reveal the wonderful works of God (Acts 2.11). Prophecy reveals the future. And Knowledge reveals the hidden things of God.

So, the subject is "revelation." "When the complete (revelation) (the completed bible) comes, the partial (revelation) (in the form of tongues, prophecy and knowledge) will pass away."

And the word translated "perfect" (meaning complete, mature, nothing lacking necessary to the whole) is "τέλειον" a singular neuter noun. Because it is neuter it can't possibly refer to Christ. The word refers to the completed revelation we have in the bible.

 

Although I also believe that tongues have ended (they no longer serve the purpose they served in the New Testament church) I think that you severely misread Paul. He does not state that sign gifts will no longer be given to new converts (as he exhorts his exercise of tongues and encourages others to seek the gift of prophecy). He speaks of gifts that form the core of our faith...faith, hope, and love...and the greatest of these is love. He is speaking of gifts that are in another realm from those the Christians in Corinth are seeking and promoting. Anyway...to sum it up...while I agree with you in practice I think that you go way to far and exceed the bounds of biblical warrant.

 

The Pentecostals and Charismatics are wrong...this is evident through Scripture. I do think, however, that we tend to overreact in doctrine to combat false doctrine...there is no biblical mandate that I know of that forbids "praying in Spirit" with that prayer being between you and God...although the concept is foreign to me (the exception being the understanding I described).

 

And what can you offer regarding my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 13? Is there a reason you disagree with my exegesis and can you present it exegetically?

 

I don’t have a problem with your exegesis. The sign gifts of tongues, prophesy, and knowledge are temporary and end when that which is perfect has come. I disagree that “that which is perfect” has in the author’s eye the canon of Scripture as it is an unnecessary leap (rather it points towards the temporary nature of these "sign gifts"). They end when that which they point to arrives (perhaps with the canon, perhaps not). There is no need for me to present it any other way…for the most part I agree with your exegesis. Where we disagree is your interpretive conclusion based on that exegesis…that those who disagree with you are guilty of the worst form of blasphemy by calling God a liar. It is here I think that you go too far.

 

Biblicist,

Will you please clarify for me why tongues were a sign that ceased with the destruction of Jerusalem (not saying you're wrong, just seeking clarification as to why).

 

So what else could be the antecedent of "complete?" It is neuter, and the rule of Greek grammar demands agreement in Case Number & Gender (CNG). The word can't possibly refer to Christ for "Christos" is masculine. The only reference in the preceding context is the neuter "revelation" (also understood to be the object of "tongues, prophecy and knowledge").

I don't see what other antecedent you are offering.

 

Well, God's word does call them "lying wonders" in 2 Thessalonians 2:9.

 

I am not offering another antecedent. Quite simply, I do not believe that the author had in mind the canon of Scripture when he pinned the verse (I’m sure we all agree here). Paul was emphasizing love over sign gifts, and perhaps admonishing the Corinthians for their view of these sign gifts. So “that which is perfect” is not referring in the text to anything but what would replace these gifts (what is complete and not lacking…not needing signs). You supply the antecedent to the temporary nature of sign gifts (and perhaps I agree with your conclusion), but it is not unbiblical to the extent of blasphemy to disagree. In fact, I doubt it controversial to claim that the Corinthians never thought that Paul was saying “when the canon of Scripture is complete… or when the Temple is destroyed… then we will not need these gifts.”