What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?

Link, below is the verse proof you asked for. In 1 Cor. 13 the Greek word for cease is "Pauo". It is in the middle voice and literally means "will stop by themselves". Prophecy and knowledge have a different verb and it means that something will happen to make them end. The Holy Spirit wanted us to know that tongues will fade away on their own. In 1 Cor. 14: 20-22 Paul tells the readers (struggling Corinthians) to be men in their understanding. That is because they were all messed up on what tongues were and everyone was trying to speak in tongues. Paul continues by quoting Isaiah and then with "wherefore" he connects verses 21 and 22 to one thought. That thought being that Tongues are a sign of Judgement to Isreal. Isreal has to be the "them that believe not" because in 50ad when this was written the Gospel was mostly being rejected by a big portion of the nation of Isreal, which was why Paul's mission field was the Gentiles. Plus 21 and 22 are one thought so there is nother way to read it. Paul quotes Isaiaih 28 which directly says "with men of other TONGUES". Now look at the quote below from Isaiah 28 it uses the word Judgement a couple times and is all about the destruction of Jerrusalem. Not the death of the people so much but the loss of a covenant and a fall of what they had known. In 70AD Jerusalem was overtaken and the people of Isreal scattered and therefore the judgement of destruction was fulfilled. The need for the "sign" of tongues, which Paul said, not me, would then be eliminated. You never need a sign that points to something after the fact. That would be like putting a "danger ahead" road sign after the danger. After 70AD tongues was no longer given as a gift and so it just quietly faded away as Paul said that it would.

Well, that was short and sweet but I hope it satisfied what you wanted.

Isaiah 28:
[5] In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,
[6] And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.
[7] But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.
[8] For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.
[9] Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
[10] For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
[11] For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
[12] To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
[13] But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
[14] Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
[15] Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
[16] Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
[17] Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
[18] And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
[19] From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.


1 Cor. 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.

1 Cor. 14:
20] Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
[21] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In Christ,
Brian

DHK wrote,
>>I have given you plenty of Biblical examples of the type of miracles that are not, and never will be repeated again. You repeatedly ignore them. You ignore the Scriptures. I ask you for evidence. You have none. I am not going to dig up more and more examples in th Bible anymore because you just ignore them.
Again the onus is on you. <<

This is sophistry. You say you have me plenty of examples of 'the type of miracles that are not...." What is your basis for saying that these miracles 'are not'? That is the question. The answer is-- because you don't believe in them. You don't have any scriputer to who that the gift of working of miracles would cease. If you really believed the Bible on this issue, you would believe it when it says that the gift of the working of miracles is a gift given to members of the body of Christ. You cannot show any scripture that the gift of working of miracles has ceased. Repeatedly when I asked you for this, you ask for experiential proof of working of miracles. Your basis for doctrine here is clearly your own experience of not having seen miracles, plus that philosphy Thomas had right after the resurrection that if you have not seen, you will not believe, a philosphy clearly shown to be wrong in that very passage of scripture.

But as it stands now, if someone says they saw a manifestation of the gift of the working of miracles, you will reject it. Why? Because you claim that gift has ceased. Why do you believe that gift has ceased? Because you say that the gift does not occur any more. But if someone tells you they have seen evidence of the gift, you reject it. Why? Because you claim that gift has ceased. See the circular reasoning here? The confusing thing is that somehow you convince yourself that you get all your understanding of dcotrine from scripture, when it is obvious that you are basing this doctrine on scripture.

I have heard reports of resurrections from the dead in recent times. I could point you in the right direction to do some research if you really wanted to look for two or three realiable witnesses, but would you come off of an onrampt of the highway of circular-reasoning long enough to consider such a thing? If you were to admit that you were wrong about this subject, even when shown wrong, many people might consider that to be a 'miracle.'

Link, I did give the Biblical proof on the ending of Tongues and you did not respond. Could it be that I have you "Tongue-Tied" (he he)

In Christ,
Brian

Link,
The onus is on you. I have given you solid proof (which you have rejected) through the course of this thread that the gifts have ceased. If they are still valid today then demonstrate it. All you do is sit back in your theoligical arm chair and say that you don't have to. Any claim you make has to be backed up with evidence. Yours isn't. You have no evidence. Nothing whatsoever to post on this board. So, until you do, I have nothing further to say on the matter except to suggest for you to read the Scriptures already presented to you in the last 11 pages.

A team of investigators from CBC followed around certain "faith healers," primarily Benny Hinn, and did a feature documentary on him. They followed up on the supposed claims he made of people that were "healed." In the hundreds of individuals that were "healed" they went back, having received the names and addresses of those that were "healed," and not one of them were healed of their said "disease," if they had one in the first place. Some freely admitted that they never had anything wrong if the first place. It was all "a part of the show," necessary to convince you the viewer, of the validity of his healing power. The whole show is a sham. Benny Hinn is a fraud, whom I don't consider is even saved. His doctrine is totally unorthodox and contrary to what the Bible teaches. Many of the so-called healers going around today don't believe in the true gospel of the Bible. They believe in a false gospel, a gospel of prosperity, a faith in faith gospel, etc. CBC wanted evidence. They gathered the evidence they wanted: Benny Hinn is a fraud. He cannot perform healings or miracles as he claims. Now it is your turn. Provide the evidence of such people that can do miracles.
DHK

To DHK and Briguy,

I've posted a few times, but it didn't go through.

DHK,
You have not shown any proof FROM scripture, that the gift of working of miracles has ceased. I have read your posts in this thread, and I don't recall your posting on verse to this effect.

you are in a theological armchair, too. The difference between us is that I believe the Bible. The Bible says that the Spirit gives the gift of working of miracles to certain saints, and I believe it. But you do not. You have to SEE the miracle to believe it happens.

Do I see hospitals cleared out? No. What I see in the Bible (heb. 2) is that a lot of the signs and wonders were done where the Gospel was first being preached on missions fields. If I hear someone report that they saw a resurrection from the dead when the Gospel was being preached to an unreached tribe, I would accept that this report could be true. It could be false, but I wouldn't reject it out of hand, because it is IN LINE WITH THE SCRIPTURES. (I think my wife has a testimony about this from a missionary to Irian Jaya, btw.) If you heard the same report, what would your response be? My guess is that you would reject the testimony out of hand. Why? Because you don't just believe the Bible. The Bible isn't enough for you. You have to SEE the miracle with. The 'proof' you offer is that you haven't seen a hospital cleared out, or that you haven't seen this or that, or that you don't believe in Benny Hinn.

I am no Benny Hinn fan either. Do you think all people who believe in spiritual gifts are? If Benny Hinn never did a miracle, does that miracles don't take place? Btw, I knew one guy who was healed at a Benny Hinn crusade, while his friends were praying with him. I interviewed another woman who was healed before it started and was able to breathe without the oxygen tank after. I believe God can answer people's prayers in a Benny Hinn crusade, but I don't agree with a lot of things Hinn has said, and I don't encourage people to go to his crusades. His salvation is up to God to judge.


Briguy wrote,

**Link, below is the verse proof you asked for. In 1 Cor. 13 the Greek word for cease is "Pauo". It is in the middle voice and literally means "will stop by themselves". Prophecy and knowledge have a different verb and it means that something will happen to make them end. The Holy Spirit wanted us to know that tongues will fade away on their own.***

This actually disproves what you were arguing "about tongues fading away after God's judgement of Isreal in 70 AD." If this verse says that whether they be tongues they will cease themselves out, or something along those lines, and, if as you imply, nothing will make tongues stop, then your argument that the end of tongues were caused by events in 70AD cannot be true. The destruction of Jerusalem, or the coming of a new age would cause tongues to cease. But you are arguing that tongues "will stop by themselves."

I don't know Greek. But from what I have read and what I have studied of another language with a middle/mediopassive, I find it unlikely that one can squeeze all that out of the use of the mediopassive. If someone who does know Greek goes out on a thin limb making fine arguments based on verb tense, the danger is that people who do not know Greek will accept his argument as a real fact. I have sent an email to a Greek and Latin scholar who also knows Hebrew. He worked at a Harvard sponsored center for Greek studies and was later the head of the UNCA Classics department when he retired. I sent him your quote. Hopefully he will send a reply if he isn't swamped with Bible questions. Btw, what is your source for this?


**In 1 Cor. 14: 20-22 Paul tells the readers (struggling Corinthians) to be men in their understanding. That is because they were all messed up on what tongues were and everyone was trying to speak in tongues. Paul continues by quoting Isaiah and then with "wherefore" he connects verses 21 and 22 to one thought. That thought being that Tongues are a sign of Judgement to Isreal. Isreal has to be the "them that believe not" because in 50ad when this was written the Gospel was mostly being rejected by a big portion of the nation of Isreal, which was why Paul's mission field was the Gentiles.**


Your interpretation of I Corinthians 14 is problematic. As you point out, Paul's mission field was the Gentiles. He did start off in the synagogue in any city he went to that had one, preaching 'to the Jew first', but often the Gentile God fearers in these churches and other Gentiles would be the ones who were most enthusiastic about his message. Probably many of his churches were predominantly Gentile. Paul had already come into the synagogue in Corinth and the Jews eventually caused an uproar over his message. How many unbelieving Jews would be going right into church meetings in Corinth? Paul said that tongues was a sign to them that believe not. He did not get from this verse from Isaiah, in his interpretation of it, that tongues was a sign for the Jews in particular, but rather a sign to them that believe not. That is the principle he gets fromt he verse. The example he then gives is that of an unbeliever or someone unlearned-- notice he does not specify a Jew per se-- coming in and saying 'ye are mad' if he hears all speak in tongues.

**Plus 21 and 22 are one thought so there is nother way to read it. Paul quotes Isaiaih 28 which directly says "with men of other TONGUES". Now look at the quote below from Isaiah 28 it uses the word Judgement a couple times and is all about the destruction of Jerrusalem. Not the death of the people so much but the loss of a covenant and a fall of what they had known. In 70AD Jerusalem was overtaken and the people of Isreal scattered and therefore the judgement of destruction was fulfilled. The need for the "sign" of tongues, which Paul said, not me, would then be eliminated.***

No matter how you interpret Isaiah 28, there is nothing in the passage or in the I Corinthians 14 passage that argues after the judgment of Jerusalem took place, that tongues would cease. Furthermore, this passage shows us that tongues also serves the purpose of edifying the congregation when accompanied by interpretation.

I Corinthians 12 makes it clear that the gift of tongues and interpretation are given 'to profit withal'. These gifts are given to build up the body of Christ, as we can see in I Corinthians 12. So if you could put together a persuasive argument that tongues was a sign--not just to them that believe not-- or even Jews that believe not-- but a sign specifically of 70AD, then you still have no scriptural authority for saying tongues ceased. Why? Because the Bible clearly teaches that tongues has another purpose besides that of being a sign. It serves to edify the church when accompanied by the gift of interpretation.

And again if you intepret 70AD as the fulfillment of 70AD, then you have something-- the fulfillment of prophecy-- causing tongues to cease, which goes against your argument that tongues would 'stop by themselves' as opposed to knowledge and prophecy which you understand to be stopped by some outside force.

** You never need a sign that points to something after the fact.***

The rainbow is a sign that points to a covenant in the past. Besides, Paul said that tongues are a sign to them that believe not. Even after 70AD, the majority of Israel 'believe not.' There is nothing in the passages you quote that argue that tongues would cease to be a sign to the Jews, even if I accepted your assertion that 'them that believe not' refers specifically to the Jews. I do not accept that assertion because of the argument Paul makes in I Corinthians 14.


** That would be like putting a "danger ahead" road sign after the danger.**

The passage says a sign to THEM that believe not. It does NOT say a sign of the judgment coming on Israel or Jerusalem. If 'them' is the Jews/Israelites, 'them' is still around.


After 70AD tongues was no longer given as a gift and so it just quietly faded away as Paul said that it would.

So if either one of us gave you the proper interpretation of 1Cor.13:8-13 and of 1Cor.14:21,22 you would reject it anyway. You want Scripture. But you want Scripture so that you can reject it, and justify your own fleshly experiences instead of facing the cold hard facts of the Word of God. Again I ask you where is the evidence? You have none. Until you can provide evidence there is no one that has a reason to believe you.
DHK

I. Cor. 13;10--PERFECT= complete(the whole armour), full-grown, lacking nothing.

This cannot be the second coming of The Lord--the context and grammar will not allow such an interpretation.

Completion of the Scripture would make one complete, full-grown, throughly furnished for all good works.

Selah,

Bro. James

DHK,
Since you can't reply with scripture, you resort to rhetoric. The fact is that you can't show one scripture that claims that the gift of working of miracles has ceased. You can't do it because there is none. If you don't want to believe in the gift of working in miracles, that is up to you. But don't claim the Bible teaches that the gift ceased when it makes no such claim. And don't claim you get all your doctrinal beliefs from scripture and not experience when you ask for experiential-based proof before you believe in a doctrine taught in the Bible.

Bro James,

There is nothing about the Greek grammar that argues against the perfect being either the second coming of Christ or the state of believers/creation/all things at the resurrection of the dead. From the context, it is obvious that it does not refer to the completion of scriputre because the completion of scripture did not make Paul's life before the completion of scripture to be as childhood to his state afterward. You cannot rightly claim that you are as a spiriutal adult compared to Paul when he wrote the letter, who would have to be a small child by that interpretation. Plenty of people are still immature after the canon was put together, and Paul had already fallen asleep in Christ.

He will be able to experience the 'adulthood' of the perfect at his resurrection, as we all will. We will be like Christ, for we will see Him as He is.

Originally posted by Bro. James:
I. Cor. 13;10--PERFECT= complete(the whole armour), full-grown, lacking nothing.

This cannot be the second coming of The Lord--the context and grammar will not allow such an interpretation.

Completion of the Scripture would make one complete, full-grown, throughly furnished for all good works.

Selah,

Bro. James

Click to expand...

What about the fulfillment of all prophecy?

Btw, please forgive my multiple posts. My post did not show up after I posted it, refreshed several times, etc. I had a similar problem earlier where my posts apparently didn't go through at all, so I reposted.

No problem ~Link~ Maybe the moderator can come in here and fix it?

Thanks in advance to the moderator who will.

Originally posted by Link:
DHK,
Since you can't reply with scripture, you resort to rhetoric. The fact is that you can't show one scripture that claims that the gift of working of miracles has ceased. You can't do it because there is none. If you don't want to believe in the gift of working in miracles, that is up to you. But don't claim the Bible teaches that the gift ceased when it makes no such claim. And don't claim you get all your doctrinal beliefs from scripture and not experience when you ask for experiential-based proof before you believe in a doctrine taught in the Bible.

Click to expand...

I have cleaned up your multiple posts the best I could Link. (Now don't go turn the tables on me and accuse me of deleting peoples' posts ).

Here is the problem. I do believe the Bible, and my answers and faith is founded on the Bible. I can and have pointed to you many miracles in the Bible:
the axe-head did float
the sun stood still
Peter walked on water
Jesus calmed the seas
Jesus raised the dead to life again
All that came to Him (and the Apostles) were healed.
A lame man (Acts 3) who had been lame from birth, all his life, was healed.
The blind were made to see again. (not just the dim)

I have the evidence of miracles that were done by individuals in the Bible, and that were done by the same individuals over and over again. One would say they had the power to do miracles, or that God had given them the gift of miracles. With Jesus, of course, it was no small thing--He was God come in the flesh, and his miracles demonstrated his deity. However, the miracles of the Apostles demonstrated the power of the Holy Spirit in the first century authenticating to the unbelieving Jew the gospel message. "The Jews require a sign." The Jews did not accept any of the sign gifts and accepted the judgement of God instead. The gifts ceased at the end of the first century, the end of that generation that Peter preached to in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost.

Your faith is not based on the Word of God, as you claim it to be. It is based on emotion, experience, but most of all a blind illogical faith. Faith is not blind. My faith is based on the Word of God, but not blindly so. I believe it because the resurrection has demonstrated it to be true, because of the fulfillment of prophecies that give evidence to its veracity, and because I know that it has the power to change lives like mine.

The Muslim has blind faith that the entire Bible has been corrupted and changed, and that the only true Word of God that remains is found in the Koran. Though scholars like Gleason Archer, in his "Survey of the New Testament" has provided about two pages in an appendix full of of historical and Biblical errors, they still believe the Koran is without error. They have blind faith. They blindly believe whatever their Maulvis tell them without studying it out for themselves. Yours is a blind faith. You blindly believe what you want to believe without evidence, no matter what proof any person will give you--Biblical or otherwise. That is a dangerous ground to stand upon.

It is like making up a religion saying that there is a god that lives on the planet Pluto. And he loves you, but only if you eat green cheese like he does. He also gives extra brownie points if you will wear a red hat, because he really loves people who wear red hats. Therefore to gain favor in the sight of this god, you must eat plenty of green cheese and wear red hats. Then you will have a good chance of going to heaven. Present that "religion" or faith to others and see how far you get. If you believe it, you believe it based on what? Blind faith and nothing else. There is no evidence for it. It is just blind faith. That is your foundation.

I have presented you Scripture for those that had the gift of miracles and the recorded witness of those miracles in the Bible. You have claimed that such miracles exist but presented no evidence. You cannot substantiate the miracles just as you cannot substantiate the god on Pluto eating green cheese and wearing a red hat. It is all by blind faith.
They occurred in the Bible therefore they occur today. That is not a valid statement. Do "burning bushes" such as Moses saw occur today? No. Neither do the type of miracles that I listed above. The gift of miracles has ceased. You have no evidence that it continues. If you had, you would have put an end to this discussion a long time ago.
DHK

I'd like to know what happened to my response to Craigofthesea. Anyone care to enlighten me?

There could be a glitch. We had a similar problem a few months back where posts would not 'appear' and if people attempted to resubmit, we'd have dozens of the same posts.

Link, just briefly. I gave you scripture and you found ways to make the scripture say things it doesn't say while ignoring what it does say. Forgive me if that sounded harsh, it was not intended as such.

Paul used 2 different verbs for Tongues ending and for Prophecy and Knowledge ending. That is a fact you have to deal with. Paul says that P and K will end when that which is "Perfect" comes. That is direct cause and effect. Especially when I see the Bible saying that the "perfect" is a change in the eternal state of a person and the seeing of Jesus face to face (either we die and go to Heaven or Jesus comes to set up His Kingdom, whatever comes first for a person) Anyway, you suggest that in 70AD when Jerusalem fell that that would make Tongues end and blow my theory. It would not make Tongues end flat out. The gift would not be given out anymore because the "sign" would have passed. Those who had the gift would still have it until they died. The gift of tongues would fade away as the ones with the gift died. That is why Paul used Pauo and not the other verb.

Link, the "them which believe not" are the subject of the previous verse, which is the Jews as quoted clearly in Isaiah 28. Paul was not talking about Gentiles who did not believe because there is no prophecy about gentiles getting a sign and not changing. Yes, there will always be those who don't believe among us but Paul is giving a specific example about the Jews here. You can't just go and aply this verse to any old unbeleiver only those who are reflected in Isaiah 28. The two verses are connected with "wherefore" or "therefore" in other translations.

Hope you can at least see the argument clearly, even if you reject it.

In Love and Truth,
Brian

If you want a good scholarly book to read from the non-cessationist viewpoint, read:
Quenching the Spirit, by William DeArteaga

Excerpts from Chapter 7 –
Cessationism and the Destruction of Christianity in Europe


The English philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) soon exposed the weakness of cessationism by bringing it to its logical conclusion:
Since no miracles are observable in the present, none ever took place in the past.

Hume well understood the importance of analogies in human thought. In his writings he used the logic of analogy in equating the Gospel miracles with the folktales of old, such as those recounted by ancient Greek historian Herodotus. He had mixed outlandish tales of monsters, omens and the like with valid historical events.

Quote by Hume:
“It is strange, a judicious reader is apt to say, upon the perusal of these wonderful historians, that such prodigious events never happen in our days. But it is nothing strange, I hope, that men should lie in all ages.”

It was wonderful that Christians made the point that experience does not determine all truth. But note that Hume’s Protestant critics granted him the central assumption that no miracles could be observed in the present. Cessationist theology guaranteed that no observations of miracles would even be attempted by the pious Christian.

DHK,

The issue here is whether or not you believe simple Bible doctrine.

1. I Corinthians 12 teaches the gift of working of miracles is one of the gifts the Spirit gives to saints in the church.
2. No verse of scripture teaches that the Spirit stopped giving this gift to the church.

So if you believe the gift of working of miracles is not given to the church, you believe something scripture does not teach. If you require that someone show you proof that a miracle occurs to believe that the gift still operates, you are basing your doctrine on experience, and not scripture alone. You have not seen a miracle, and therefore you do not believe they are occurring.


Briguy wrote,
**Link, just briefly. I gave you scripture and you found ways to make the scripture say things it doesn't say while ignoring what it does say. Forgive me if that sounded harsh, it was not intended as such.**


And I see you doing the same thing. As I have said before, I can accept the possibility that this might have some application to Israel, but that is not the point Paul makes. Paul uses this verse to make a point about ‘them that believe not’ and not Jews per se. And here you have not answered the major points of my post again. Here are a couple again, for the I don’t know how many-th time:

1. Jews are still around. There is no reason to think God stopped dealing with the Jews in 70AD. Why would tongues have ceased if Jews are still around, assuming one accepted your interpretation of the passage that tongues were a sign for Jews.
2. Besides serving as a sign, I Corinthians 12 and I Corinthians 14 are clear that tongues ALSO serves as a gift to edify the whole body when accompanied by the gift of interpretation. I Corinthians 14 is clear that tongues is among the gifts given to edify the body, and not just serve as a sign to unbelievers. If the function of tongues in regard to unbelievers were to have ceased, that would not mean it’s function toward unbelievers ceased. You have no basis for arguing that tongues has ceased from this passage.


Paul quotes a verse out of the Old Testament and makes a point. We have to see what the point is that Paul makes to understand why he quoted the scripture.

The example of unbelievers or unlearned hearing all speaking in tongues and saying ‘ye are mad’ lines right up with Paul’s use of the Isaiah passage where he quotes ‘and yet for all that, ye will not here me.’ Paul makes his own point here. He did not say anything about 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.

Also consider the broader application of the Isaiah prophecy. Now, when Jews here the Gospel, it is often in a foreign language. People witness to Jews in English and other languages. Gentiles who never knew Hebrew will speak to Jews in a foreign language. Speaking in a language miraculously to Jews is a part of the larger picture.

Btw, I got a response from a Greek scholar on your argument about the use of the middle voice in I Corinthians 13. I am waiting on permission before I post it on the board.

Link,
You are not listening to Scripture, not providing Scripture, neither providing evidence for the stand that you take.

Be that as it may, try to follow the Scriptures here on the issue of tongues at least.
Paul said: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all," because he was exasperated at the abuse of tongues in the Corinthian Church. God had given him the gift of tongues which he used profitably on his missionary journeys where he went to many different nations. Paul didn't stay in one place. He traveled, and traveled much.
Consider:

1 Corinthians 14:27-28 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why was Paul (and the Holy Spirit writing through him) so adamant that one must have an interpreter? Think this through carefully. Some would say that if God gave me the gift of tongues today, and that I went to Spain as a missionary, that I would be able to miraculously speak Spanish without ever having studying the language. If that be the case why would I need an interpreter? If that were the case in Paul's day, why would he or any of the others need an interpreter? Why was an interpreter so important.

Remember that there is no case in the Bible where tongues is "gibberish." It is always a real known language--naturally unknown to the speaker but known to the people being spoken to. So why the need of an interpreter? Who would an interpreter interpret for, if I would go to Spain and miraculously speak Spanish. BTW, it is believed that Paul did go to Spain inbetween his two imprisonments so this scenario is not that far-fetched. I myself visited Spain when I was young, but was not given "the gift of tongues."
Why the need on interpretation??

The Jews had been dispersed all over the known world at that time. You see a partial list of some of those nations on the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2. As Paul's habit was he went to the Jew first every where he went. He went to the synagogue first. That is where he started from. The Jews always knew the language of the land (plus a few others). The interpretation was from the mother tongue (i.e. Spanish) back into Hebrew--for the sake of the Jews. Tongues was a sign to the Jews even as 1Cor.14:21,22 teaches. The interpretation was always back into the Hebrew language for the sake of the Jew that they might know that this message was from God. It authenticated the apostolic message during the apostolic age, that age or generation when that generation of Jews had crucified Christ. After that age died off, so did tongues. It was a sign for that age, and that age only. After the first century there is no indication that it existed. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew. Once the Jews did not believe (in each place Paul went) he went to the Gentiles.
DHK

[ March 01, 2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

Link, I will be glad to answer.

your question 1. Yes, Jews are still around and will be forever as clearly stated in many other scriptures. Tongues were a sign to one particular JUDGEMENT of Isreal and not the total destruction/death of every Jew. Their unbelief brought a JUDGEMENT and Jerusalem fell and they lost their country/land until just some 55ish years ago. The Jews had been judged by God in the OT as well. This was a judgement in a series of judgements. Paul quoted Isaiah and so we and the Corinthians would know why there was such a gift as Tongues. I think you are trying to dig too deep here, just believe what it directly says.

Q. 2. Tongues were a "gift" in control of the believer who received the gift. Gifts by Pauls words in 1 Cor. 12:7 must be used to edify the entire body in some way and not the individual. Paul saw the real gift of Tongues being abused and because it was a gift that made those who had it stand out, he saw many pretending to have the gift when they didn't. He rebukes both types of people in 1 Cor. 14 and gives the proper way to use the gift in the gathered assembly. He is not happy with the Corinthians when he is writing this first letter to them. (Which he says in the 2nd letter. I'll quote the verse later.) He also then tells them that what they are seeing as the gift of "Tongues" is happening because it is a sign of a pending judgement against Isreal and that is why he quotes Isaiah, so they and us would understand what he was talking about. He was trying to get the Corinthians to understand what was ahppening and why. It still makes perfect sense that when the thing the sign pointed to came the sign would end. One proof of that is that Paul never speaks about this gift in any of his later letters, even when he speaks again of Spiritual gifts.

Now, please address the fact that a "curve ahead" road sign is not needed after the curve. They are only placed before the curve. Are you saying that Isaiah 28 was not fulfilled in 70ad? I'll let you ponder that for a while.

Thanks for the nice discussion. This is fun and educational when done in charity. God's blessings to you,

In Christ,
Brian

DHK,
If Paul used tongues for evangelism, the Bible does not say anything about it. The function of tongues Paul wrote about in I Corinthians 14, was such that if one spoke in tongues, no one understood him. Paul clearly says this in the chapter. So your scenario of Paul speaking in Spanish for the Spanish there, and interpreting in Hebrew does not line up with the passage.

Plus, from what I have read of the ancient world, it seems unlikely that all the Jews in Spain would have been that comfortable with the Hebrew language. There were plenty of Jews throughout the empire who were Hellenistic who relied on the Greek Septuigint version, arguing doctrine out of it and not reading the Hebrew Torah. That is what I gather from Edersheim who wrote The Life and Times of Jesus Christ. That is an old work and there may be some more recent scholarship that I am unaware of. At the verse least, nothing in the passage argues in favor of the idea that the interpretations were in Hebrew. In fact, that interpretation does not make sense. How could interpretation into Hebrew edify a PRIMARILY GREEK SPEAKING congregation like the one in Corinth? That just doesn't make sense.

(Btw, the modern Spanish language evolved out of Latin, so the language did not exist at that time. Paul would have met people who spoke Latin or some other 'barbarian' language if he had gone to Spain.)


Briguy,
I don't see a lick of evidence in I Corinthians 14 that Paul has fake tongues in view. I have asked you to provide the verses you think argue in favor of this idea. I can't find the idea int he passage at all, and it contradicts the passage as far as I can see. So I can't even see how you get this idea. Can you share with me your basis for this conclusion?

What I see is that Paul is telling the Corinthians to use the genuine gift of tongues in an appropriate manner so that the church might be edified.

The following is a quote from a Greek scholar in reponse to the ideas raised in Briguy' post about tonges and the Greek middle voice in I Corinthians 13.

By Les Schofield
____

First, you are right to suspect that Greek tenses are often asked to carry
too much weight in theological discussions. Any verb, regardless of its
tense, must still be understood in a number of contexts before one draws
conclusions.


Second, the verb in question is indeed in the middle voice but it is also
future indicative. That is, at the time Paul used the word, what he was
describing was an event that had not happened at the time of writing. It is
also worth noting that some middles are what are called Œdeponent¹ - meaning
they are in the middle voice form but have an active voice sense. This is a
position taken in some lexicons and commentators (W.J. Perschbacher, et.
al.)


Third, if the word Œtongues¹ is understood as Œlanguages¹ ­ which is its
usual sense, then the train of Paul¹s thinking here may lead to a far
different discussion than some theory of cessationism. One should be very
careful here before deciding that Paul is referring to the type of tongues
in chapters 12 and 14 in this Œmidrash¹ of 13.


Fourth, I am relatively certain that no polls from 50 AD are extant that
show the ratio of Jews to Gentiles in Œthe assemblies of God which were in
Christ Jesus.¹ That some form of judgment was involved in the Pentecost
event is evident. But, as with all of His judgments upon Israel, there is
also the presence of His faithful ones and the promise of blessing. I am
certain that Paul the Jew knew this better than we. It might be that he was
pointing us toward the day in when the perfect (or end) will come and the
existence of incomplete knowledge, the need for prophecies, and the
frailties of inadequate human languages will be replaced by Our Lord who
will give us one Consummate Subject to ponder.
_____