I want to spin you a yarn about an old codger who lives out the back-o-Bourke. He’s a mate o mine, but sometimes we get in a tangle over something, and it’s on for young and old.
I was yakkin to this cobber on the dog-n-bone the other day and we got into a bit of a blue. He called me a rat-bag and I told him to shut his cake hole. He’s all froth and no beer sometimes. We argued the toss for ages, but after all the argee-bargee, he turned arse about face and we were good as rain again. We have a blue from time to time, but then we kiss and make up, and Bob’s your uncle. My old mate is about as sharp as a billiard ball, but I like him. He’d give you the shirt off his back if you were in a fix. His blood’s worth bottlin'.
So how many of you understood what I was saying? What about the rest of you? Fifty percent? Twenty percent? Nothing? I have to apologise to Ukrainian and Russian speakers, because it is difficult to translate, unfortunately. So to most of you it was a very strange tongue, yes?
Here's the translation for anyone wondering. Spin you a yarn - tell you a story; codger - fellow; out the back-o-Bourke - out west or a long way away; mate-o-mine - he is my friend; a tangle - argument; on for young and old - anyone can join in the argument; yakkin - talking; cobber - friend; dog-n-bone - phone; a blue - a fight; rat-bag - silly, crazy; cake hole - mouth; all froth and no beer - his thinking has no substance; argued the toss - argued the rules of engagement or argument; argee-bargee - back and forth; arse about face - changed direction 180 degrees; good as rain - all was good; kiss and make up - become friends again; Bob's your uncle - all is good again; sharp as a billiard ball - not sharp at all; give you the shirt off his back - go out of the way to help you; fix - troubled situation; blood is worth bottling - a really good and genuine friend.
That was raw Aussie slang. An Englishman may understand some of it, but Americans would struggle more. I don’t think this was the problem with the strange tongues in Corinth when Paul wrote to them about speaking in tongues, but we will try to get to the bottom of it.
Some Teach Contrary to Scripture concerning the Gift of Tongues
Perhaps the first thing you have to understand about the letter to the Corinthians is that Paul is relying on a letter sent from Corinth by somebody. There are a series of statements made by someone from the Corinth congregation in a letter to Paul, and he responds to these statements one after the other. He does not have first-hand experience about the circumstances in Corinth, so he seems to be surmising certain things about it.
1 Corinthians 1:11 (NRSV) — 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.
1 Corinthians 5:1 (NRSV) — 1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife.
1 Corinthians 7:1 (NRSV) — 1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.”
1 Corinthians 8:1 (NRSV) — 1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
Now in the original there are no quotation marks, or any form of punctuation whatsoever actually, so we must add all of this in, and this sometimes complicates the meaning. Some are very clear, while others we conjecture. So, the quotation above, “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” We are certain he is quoting the letter because he goes on to give counsel that is opposed to this statement.
I think the same is happening for speaking in tongues.
Then Paul comes to the matter of spiritual gifts raised in this letter from Corinth. He has mentioned it twice earlier in his letter, and it forms a large section from chapter 12-14, so it is a major part of his letter.
1 Corinthians 12:1 (NRSV) — 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.
The Tone of Paul’s Council on Spiritual Gifts
If you read through 1 Corinthians 12-14 you will notice a few very telling clues to Paul’s understanding of the circumstances in Corinth and of the gifts of the Spirit. There is obviously a particular problem with how they were applying the gift of tongues in Corinth. If you notice the tone of Paul’s letter, you will see that Paul is not being complimentary about this gift of tongues that has been reported to him from Corinth. In two separate places in chapter 12 Paul lists a few spiritual gifts, but each time places tongues last (Vs. 10, 30). Then, at the beginning of chapter 13 he seems to be attacking the way they were applying the use of tongues in Corinth. He says.
1 Corinthians 13:1–2 (NRSV) — 1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
It seems that almost certainly love was lacking in what they were doing in Corinth, and perhaps more was wrong. Then he says,
1 Corinthians 13:8 (NRSV) — 8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.
He is saying that these gifts will finish at some stage, although he does not specify when exactly. Then in chapter 14 the same tone continues. That is, Paul seems to be adamantly against what is happening in Corinth, regarding tongues especially. He does not condemn it outright, perhaps because he is not there and does not know exactly what is going on. But look at,
1 Corinthians 14:2–6 (NRSV) — 2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, those who prophesy speak to other people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. 5 Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. 6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I speak to you in some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
Paul is emphasising that understanding the message is essential to building the members up in some tangible way. If it was not understandable or didn't build members up - Paul was saying, leave it out. He continues,
1 Corinthians 14:9–12 (NRSV) — 9 So with yourselves; if in a tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is being said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different kinds of sounds in the world, and nothing is without sound. 11 If then I do not know the meaning of a sound, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for spiritual gifts, strive to excel in them for building up the church.
Almost certainly some Charismatic Christians do not pick up the tone of Paul’s letter. It is like anyone, including Adventists, who hold some points very strongly, we will gloss straight over some of the most important elements of a text or passage. He berates them about 'speaking into the air.' It's a bit like spitting into the wind, it will come back to hit you in the face, it's counter-productive. Feel this tone from verse 16,
1 Corinthians 14:16–20 (NRSV) — 16 Otherwise, if you say a blessing with the spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say the “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since the outsider does not know what you are saying? 17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other person is not built up. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. 20 Brothers and sisters, do not be children in your thinking; rather, be infants in evil, but in thinking be adults.
Paul says, 'stop being children, grow up!'
And what he means when he says that he speaks in tongues is anybodies guess. he could mean he speaks in many foreign languages, or he could mean he speaks in an unknown language like them. But the acrimonious context leans more towards him claiming he speaks in different languages.
Paul says clearly that not everyone would have the gift of tongues, and yet in some church circles speaking in tongues is consistently seen as evidence that someone has been baptised by the Holy Spirit. When Paul begins to enumerate the gifts, he starts by saying, “to one is given...” (v.8) in order to indicate that not everyone would have that respective gift. Nor would everyone in the church necessarily have a spiritual gift at all. Paul went on to make this clear in the closing verses of chapter 12 where he asked some rhetorical questions. “Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” (1 Cor. 12:30) The obvious answer to these questions is in the negative. Not every Christian during New Testament times had a gift, let alone the gift of tongues.
People make 3 mistakes concerning speaking in tongues:
1) They ignore the law of “first occurrence.” This simply means that once something is initially established to be a certain thing or way, there is no reason to believe it changes and becomes something different elsewhere unless the context reveals it to be different.
Some Christians fail to accept that New Testament tongues speaking was an understandable language. Acts 2 describes what happened on the day of Pentecost. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).
There is nothing in Acts 2 that would indicate they spoke an unintelligible language or gibberish. The word translated ‘tongues’ in this passage is ‘glossa’ in Greek, the tongue; by implication a language. The word ‘utterance’ means to enunciate plainly, that is, declare, speak forth. The most important thing is that the continuing context reveals that understandable languages were being spoken.
Acts 2:6–11 (NRSV) — 6 And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. 7 Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.”
The word ‘language’ in verse 6 and the word ‘tongue’ in verse 8 is the Greek word dialektos which is a dialect; a language. We can see from the Greek as well as the context that these were known, human, languages. They weren’t shouting “bomshakalaka”, or “shoulda-bought-a-honda”, they were preaching the gospel.
2) The word ‘unknown’ is not present in the original Greek text in 1 Corinthians 14.
It forces an interpretation on the text that is inconsistent with Acts two and the entire New Testament. The word “tongue” in 1 Corinthians 14 is the same Greek word (glossa) as in Acts 2:4.
Most Christians today, due to better education, have accepted the fact that “tongues” in Acts chapter two means a known or understandable language. However, every other place in the New Testament where tongues is mentioned some still hold to the idea that it is an incomprehensible language, something mysterious.
How Charismatics arrive at this conclusion is based on a misreading of 1 Corinthians 14. The King James version inserts a word that is not in the Greek original. When the KJ does this they usually put it in italics to indicate it is added.
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. (King James Version)
But in most modern translations unknown is not inserted. It is inserted here because to simply use the word ‘language’ does not make complete sense. So some insert the word ‘another’ to suggest it is another known language. The KJ inserts unknown. The Good News Translation puts it like this, suggesting that they were using a strange gibberish.
"Those who speak in strange tongues do not speak to others but to God, because no one understands them. They are speaking secret truths by the power of the Spirit." (Good News Bible)
Some understand it to be simply another known and intelligible language, but one which others do not recognise, and so they do not understand it. While others think Paul has in mind a strange gibberish, perhaps like Charismatics use today.
What I think is that what has been reported to Paul is indeed an unintelligible gibberish, but Paul is not buying into it. In the same way that he earlier quotes what the Corinthians wrote to him, or cites what was reported to him by “Cloe’s people” (1:11), he may be here citing what was happening, but disagreeing with it. As we said before, Paul is not there in Corinth and so is not certain exactly what is being spoken, but he is criticising them because of the disorder, with many speaking at once, and because it is not edifying anyone else if no one understands the message in this language.
3) People fail to understand the context and tone of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Paul is not praising the Corinthians for their use of tongues; he is correcting their use of tongues. He is basically saying, “You’ve got it all wrong. Tongues are not for personal use or personal satisfaction.” When no one was present to interpret for others to understand, they were to remain silent (1 Cor. 14:27-28).
Whether it is a known language but unknown by the hearers, or whether it is a strange gibberish, one thing is clear, Paul is criticising these people because they are disorderly and unedifying in their use of whatever tongue they were using. This is evident right through these three chapters. He is not commending them for their behaviour, but condemning them.
It must be remembered that the miraculous gift of speaking in tongues was that a man could speak in a language he had never studied or learned. Nonetheless, it was still an intelligible language because those in the audience who spoke that language could readily understand what he said.
What is amazing is the fact that Pentecostal and Charismatic missionaries, without exception, all either attend language school or work through an interpreter when going to a foreign country while all the time claiming to have the New Testament gift of tongues!
Conclusion
If Paul is saying that tongues are not for self-edification, then what was the purpose of the great show at Pentecost? Look at the opportunity it gave Peter.
Acts 2:22–24 (NRSV) — 22 “You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
41 So those who welcomed his message were baptized, and that day about three thousand persons were added.
It was to preach the good news that their Messiah had come and that he died for their sins and rose again from the dead – that is what tongues are for, and that is what all those who were gifted with tongues on this day were doing – preaching the great news that Jesus had died and rose again according to the scriptures. The strategic reason on this particular day was that thousands upon thousands of Jews and proselytes were gathered in Jerusalem for the feast of Harvest (Exodus 23:16) or called the day of first fruits in Numbers 28:26, coming 50 days after Passover.
For Christians, coming 50 days after Jesus death where he fulfilled Passover, these 3,000 converts were the first fruits of the Christian harvest. (1)
This was the greatest evangelistic campaign in the early church.
And with many more thousands going back to their home towns all over the Roman empire, the evangelistic campaign was extended automatically to the whole Roman empire, and with those travelling from Rome, right to the epicentre of the empire.
This was the exclusive focus of Peter, Paul, and all the disciples. And this is why Paul is castigating the Corinthians about jabbering on in gibberish instead of preaching a clear gospel message.
There was no “bombshakalaka” or “should-a-bought-a-Mitsubishi” at Pentecost. They were preaching Jesus death and resurrection. And that is what we must do, my friends, preach the good news of Jesus death and resurrection to all.
(1) The other reason for tongues at Pentecost was as a sign to Jews everywhere that the promised blessing of the Spirit on Israel, signifying that the kingdom of God had arrived in the person of Jesus. Peter explains that Joel had prophesied that the Spirit would be poured out on Israel in the last days (Acts 2:16-20), and that Jesus was Israel’s promised Messiah (2:22-24, 30-31, esp. 36), sent for the salvation of Israel and all the Gentiles who would come into Israel. This giving of the Holy Spirit was confirmation of all this.
Image: 412teens,org
Comments