tongues

Walguy and DHK,

I think the problem with the whole I Cor 13 cessationist argument is that, whilst the passage states that tongues and prophecy will cease, it doesn't specify when (to try to exegesise the meaning of 'perfection' in the passage is vainly speculative). So, in the absence of proof that they ceased at some random point in the first century ( and I think if God was that bothered about it then He would have been a bit more specific), it is reasonable to conclude that they are for today. My contention however is in how they are exercised, and in this I hope to answer Mike McK's question: I believe that 'tongues' are, as in Acts 2, recognised human languages unknown to the speaker, in other words a temporary supernatural ability to speak a foreign tongue.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 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. 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.

1. In 1 Cor.13:8-13, we can ascertain that tongues ceased at the end of first century when they were no longer needed for "that which was perfect" (the Word of God) had come.

2. Biblical tongues have ceased in the manner in which they were both used and spoken. I have never witnessed Biblical tongues being used. In other words: in a church setting, real genuine foreign languages spoken (unknown to the speaker but known to someone in the congregation), no women involved, always an interpreter, and there must be some unsaved Jewish people present to witness the event. Now when all those conditions are met, then I might consider it Biblical.

3. Consider the verse I first posted above (1Cor.14:21,22)
Verse 21 is a quote from Isaiah 28:11,12. "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people," Isaiah says. This people refers to the nation of Israel. It is an Old Testament quotation, a prophecy saying that the tongues would be a sign for the Jewish nation.

Then in verse 22 Paul immediately goes on to say: "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe but them that believe not.
In other words he makes it plain the gift of tongues was a special gift for the first century unbelieving Jew, to show them that this gospel message was authentic. Isaiah had prophesied about it, and still they would not believe. They not only crucified the Messiah, they rejected the gospel message and thus brought a terrible judgement upon themselves with the destruction of their Temple in 70 A.D. Now there remains no more reason for tongues to exist.

The gibberish of today is not tongues. It is a modern day phenomena that started at the beginning of the twentieth century. Before that it was unknown except among the occasional heretical group; just as some Hindus and Voo-doo worshippers also speak in tongues in the same way as the modern day tongues speakers do (ecstatically).
DHK

 

RE: Buddhist Tongues

Only an original of value is worth counterfeiting.

Just watch TV and see all the 'claimers'...

 

1. And you know this how? The passage you cite akes no mention of "tongues ending at the end of the first century".

2. I have witnessed Biblical tongues. It was at a Pentecostal church in Portsmouth. A guy went up the front and spoke in what turned out to be modern (not NT) Greek for about 2 minutes. There was then an interpretation in English given by someone else concerning the reality of God and the need for repentance and that "God is calling you now". Then this Greek guy - nominal Orthodox - went up the front and testified that (a) the original message was in Greek (b) the interpretation was an accurate translation of it and as a consequence (c) he was convicted of his sin and gave his life to the LORD.

Quite clearly, of course, this was all the work of Satan...

3. Why then were tongues spoken at a Gentile church (Corinth)?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt, DHK and Walguy layed out a lot of information and "proof" and yet you respond with a how do you know that question. They know it for the reasons stated. Start with this and it may help. Tongues are called a sign. That, no one can argue. They are called a sign to unbelievers in relation to the quote from Isaiah which speaks of a coming judgement and destruction for the nation of Isreal. Isreal had crucified the Redeemer and many of the nation did not repent and place there faith in Christ. God therefore was judging them like he had in earlier times. The tongues of foreigners is the gift of tongues, that is 100% clear from the text. The "sign" pointed to the destruction or judgement. When that judgement came the "sign" was no longer needed. The example I have heard that really makes that clear is that of a road sign telling the milage to a city you are traveling to. The signs say 100 miles then 40, then 10 and when you arrive the "signs" stop. Signs which point to a coming event always stop when the event is here. Hope that helps. Based solely on that one argument we can see that Biblical tongues have stopped. This doesn't address the verb tenses that Walguy and the other post have brought up. Tongues end at a different time then other gifts. The phase out on their own. Like Walguy said where are early church-like healers? There are none and there is no modern tongues. Neither is needed and tongues was a "sign" anyway. Hope that helps. This is hard truth for some but the depth of what is in the Bible on the subject really can't be refuted, it is quite clear.

In Christ,
Brian

 

I apologize in advance for the length of the following post. But to be fair, I felt the complete entry needed to be included.

Courtesy of e-Sword

Barnes Commentary:

Clarke Commentary

Gill Commentary

Matthew Henry's Commentary

Wesley's Commentary

Now please disprove the commentators using only scripture.

In the absence of a clearly delineated and *specific* statement it must be supposed that a continuance *might* at least be possible.

 

I'm afraid this is at best an argument from silence and at worst shocking eisegesis - I Cor 13 does not say "tongues will cease when the NT (or even the Scriptures) is complete", so why on earth do you keep on insisting on inserting this idea that isn't there ? If you are contending that teleios has a variety of meanings, well yes it does: inter alia , "complete, perfect, finished,goal, end-product, fulfilment" etc, but nowhere does it in this passage link with the Word of God. The 'that' is unclear - it could equally be referring to the eschaton .

As for your second point, are you seriously suggesting that the Devil has taken to converting souls to Jesus Christ??

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The Perfect Word of God *is* Jesus...

No written record can replace Him for *we* are to be His image in this earth, His Ambassadors as we put on the Mind of Christ.

If that which is perfect is the written Word of God why is the church living in such an imperfect image of Christ?

If Jesus is the Perfect Word He is not here because He has gone to the father to Prepare a place for us.

While He is gone He has left us a Comforter, the Holy Spirit.

I will not repost all the preponderance of Commentators who disagree with the written word being that which is perfect.

If it were perfect it would no longer be subject to debate or translation. It would only need to be in one *correct* language and translation.

As it is fine points are still debated among bona fide Christians to this day meaning it is not perfect in any of it's current translations or languages.

Not only that but *every* translation is incomplete (and thus not perfect in the completeness equals perfection line of thought) because each and every translation leaves out text that others insist is canonical.

Sorry, but, I can't buy your argument.

And, I restate that if anyone attribute ceases all of them must cease. This includes divine healing which is also a 'Gift of the Holy Spirit'.

For you can not cease one Manifestation of the Holy Spirits Presence without ceasing all of them they are a package distributed several as He wishes.

Yes, there are abuses. But, should we throw out any other doctrine because it is abused? And, there are many doctrines that are abused.

And, only The Genuine of Value is worth Counterfeiting.

 

...tongues is not of God, yes it is of the devil.

So you feel that a person wanting to serve God, goes in prayer and the devil is allowed to enter, even though they are talking to God?

How did you get yourself into such a state of belief? All I can say is, "may God help you!"

MEE

 

Well, DHK is in good company...

The Jehovah Witnesses teach that speaking in tongues is demonic, too.

I am sorry.

But, I find it the depth of insult to tell me that *I* who love Jesus and who boldly proclaim that there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved, am demon possessed.

That *I* am of the devil...

Fortunately, God's Word says whosoever will may come.

For by Grace are you saved, through faith, not of works lest any man should boast.

That if you will confess Jesus as (undisputed ruling authority) Lord, and believe in your heart the God raised Jesus (physically) from the dead you ***SHALL*** be saved.

No maybe, but beyond *any* shadow of a doubt.

Fortunately it is Jesus who will accept or not accept me. Sorry, but, if you decide to remain a Christian... You're stuck with me. Even if I am a tongue-talker.

Yes, I am a bit peeved that a person whom I have extended the right hand of fellowship as by Brother in Christ would consider *me* of the devil and an unwitting dupe of satan.

I'd think it were odd. But, you're not the first. And, you'll never be the last.

Aren't *you* glad I didn't accuse *you* of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? You know that sin that will *never* be forgiven...

I know this is a Baptist Forum and most Baptist are cessesionists by nature. I expect that.

But, please remember that some you accuse may actually be your brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

 

SpiritualMadMan: "It could be an interesting discussion.
On the other hand it could turn into a free-for-all."

I've only read the first two posts.
I'd hope for a disucssion, but the flame-out is more likely

SpiritualMadMan: "I personally am a 'tongue-talking' member of
an Assemblies of God Church. Big Deal!"

I went there a few times in three different geographic locations.
They all seemed to be for Jesus. I also have a dear Brother
in Christ who was a deacon in my Baptist church but now goes to
an AOG Church. He likes to raise both hands when praising Jesus
(Baptists raise only one hand at a time praising Jesus,
if any).

Here is my observation:
There is part of the brain that kicks out syllables,
let me call it the generator.
There is part of the brain that filters the stream
of syllables to make meaningful words. The Censor sends it's
output to the part of the brain that control the
signals for the word forming parts of the body.

Mel Tillis, for example, has a problem with the filter
called stuttering, the repetition of usaully the first syllable.
When he sings memorized words however, there is no stuttering
for the filter is bypassed: straight from the memory
area of the brain right into the control area of the brain.

Is it more holy to bypass the filter part of the brain?
Is it more holy to have the generator fire off syllables
and the mouth to say them? One good thing this does, the
filter is more subject to the effects of depression than
is the generator. So if you go to thinking in tongues, then
you are less likely to be depressed. This being the case,
I can see a reason to speak privately in tongues, but should we
use the church service to teach people how to do this
anti-depression technique?


(I like this Baptist Graemlin,
it just raises one hand at a time
while praising Jesus)

 

Mike, I am glad that you asked these questions and for the most part this is a civil discussion. I find discussions of tongues most interesting.

Tongues were never discussed in the Baptist Church where I grew up and then when I learned about tongues, I thought that everyone had to speak in tongues to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This bothered me a lot because I knew I was saved. I knew the Holy Spirit. Then one day as I was reading the Bible, I understood that speaking in tongues is one gift of the Holy Spirit and that SOME are given this gift.

Thank you SpiritualMadMan for your input.

 

The first thing that must be understood about tongues is that it was a foreign language that the apostles spoke through the power of the Holy Spirit without having been taught the language(Acts 2:1-11;1 Cor. 11:21). This 'gibber-gabber' utterance that is babeled today is not what was spoken by the apostles nor the Corinthian church! Also tongues, which was considered a 'lesser gift'(1 Cor. 12:28-31;14:5), was to be spoken in a congregation by only 2 or the most 3(1 Cor.14:27), by only one at a time(1 Cor.14:27,40), there must be an interpreter present(1 Cor. 14:27-28), and women were not to speak in tongues in the assembly(1 Cor. 14:34). Tongues was consider an immature, incomplete, refection of what was to come(1 Cor. 13:8-13), and when the mature(complete,perfect) thing came, the immature(incomplete,imperfect) was to cease. So what was this perfect thing that was coming? I believe it was Bride of Christ, the N.T. Kingdom, which was the Church that was to replace the old system which was fading away as spoken by the Hebrew writer. And what gifts are we to have in the church today? Well it must be Faith, Hope and Love, with Love being the greatest(1 Cor. 13:13)!

 

Just a couple of clarifications. First, I do NOT consider most tongues speakers to be of Satan, just misguided/deceived. Studies have shown that most people who begin speaking in tongues use the same kind of speech patterns as those who they 'learned' it from, whether from direct teaching or just observation. Satan may be involved in the misleading, but the actual mechanics of most tongues speaking are purely of human origin.
Altho we agree on most things about tongues, DHK and I have an ongoing disagreement about I Cor 13 8-10. In verse 8 we have the differing verbs and voices indicating a different manner of ending of tongues versus knowledge and prophecy. Then in verses 9-10 Paul refers only to knowledge and prophecy ending when the 'perfect' comes, and does not mention tongues. This clearly indicates an earlier ending for tongues.
He is right that the 'perfect' does not refer to Jesus Himself, hence the neuter. What it does refer to is the end of the current fallen creation and the beginning of the 'New Heaven and New earth' described in Revelation. That is when the Spiritual Gifts will no longer be needed, for all believers will have been glorified.
One need only look over this board - indeed this very thread - to see that the completion of the written Word of God has not brought with it the perfect understanding implied by Paul in his mirror dimly vs face to face illustration in I Cor 13. We are all still looking at God's truth in that dim mirror, even WITH the Spiritual gifts. We still have the same truth that the early Church had before the Bible was completed, we just have it in book form rather than through oral revelations and letters. Our understanding is still just as limited with the complete Bible as it was for those in the early Church. The 'perfect' that will allow all of us to truly and fully understand God's truth is still in the future. To argue otherwise goes directly against all the observable evidence.
Sorry for again not strictly adhering to the rules of the thread.

 

First of all there are a number of scholars who would disagree with MacArthur on this. MacArthur is from the old school and there has been a lot of new work done due to new manuscripts and documents available today. There are many pastors and preachers that believe tongues has ceased but I have yet to meet any Greek scholar that would make that claim on scripture alone.

Dan Wallace a Greek professor at Dallas Theological seminary on page 422 and 324 writes in his book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.


b. A Debatable and Exegetically Significant Text
I Cor 13:8,

If there are prophecies, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease [on their own]; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

If the voice of the verb here is significant, then Paul is saying either that tongues will cut themselves off (direct middle) or, more likely, cease of their own accord, i.e., "die out' without an intervening agent (indirect middle). It may be significant that with reference to prophecy and knowledge, Paul used a different verb (kataergew) and put it in the pas- sive voice. In vv 9-10, the argument continues: 'for we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial shall be done away [katarghthhsontai]." Here again, Paul uses the same passive verb he had used with prophecy and knowledge and he speaks of -the verbal counterpart to the nominal "prophecy" and "knowledge." Yet he does not speak about tongues being done away 'when the perfect comes.' The implication may be that tongues were to have 'died out" of their own before the perfect comes. The middle voice in this text, then, must be wrestled with if one is to come to any conclusions about when tongues would cease.

The dominant opinion among NT scholars today, however, is that pausovtai is not an indirect middle. The argument is that pauw in the future is deponent, and that the change in verbs is merely stylistic. If so, then this text makes no comment about tongues ceasing on their own, apart from the intervention of "the perfect." There are three arguments against the deponent view, however. First, if pausontai is deponent, then the second principal part (future form) should not occur in the active voice in Hellenistic Greek. But it does, and it does so frequently." Hence, the verb cannot be considered deponent. Second, sometimes Luke 8:24 is brought into the discussion: Jesus rebuked the wind and sea and they ceased (epausanto, aorist middle) from their turbulence 42 The argument is that inanimate objects cannot cease of their own accord; therefore, the middle of pauw is equivalent to a passive. But this is a misunderstanding of the literary features of the passage: If the wind and sea cannot cease voluntarily, why does Jesus rebuke them? And why do the disciples speak of the wind and sea as having obeyed Jesus? The elements are personified in Luke 8 and their ceasing from turbu- lence is therefore presented as volitional obedience to Jesus. If anything, Luke 8:24 supports the indirect middle view. Third, the idea of a deponent verb is that it is middle in form, but active in meaning. But pausontai is surrounded by passives in 1 Cor 13:8, not actives.43 The real force of pauw in the middle is intransitive, while in the active it is tran- sitive. In the active it has the force of stopping some other object; in the middle, it ceases from its own activity.

In sum, the deponent view is based on some faulty assumptions as to the labeling of pausontai as deponent, the parallel in Luke 8:24, and even the meaning of deponency. Paul seems to be making a point that is more than stylistic in his shift in verbs. But this is not to say that the middle voice in I Cor 13:8 proves that tongues already ceased! This verse does not specifically address when tongues would cease, although it is giving a terminus ad quem: when the perfect comes.44


Footnotes
41 A search of the TLG database revealed hundreds of such instances, normally bearing the meaning 'stop something." Further, the future middle of nal&o was consistently used in the same period with the meaning of "stop" or 'cease.' (Thanks are due to Ronnie Black for his research on this topic done for the course Advanced Greek Grammar at Dallas Seminary, Spring 1992.)

It is somewhat surprising that the “deponent view" is so often assumed without a prior investigation into extra-NT Greek. Since the second principal part occurs in the active voice in Hellenistic Greek, to maintain that pausontai is deponent is to imply that the language of the NT is a unique dialect. The very scholars who call it deponent, however, are equally adamant that NT Greek was a part of the Hellenistic language.

42 Again, the TLG database revealed that the third principal part, like the second principal part, was an active form in Koine Greek.

43Although it is true that the future middle is occasionally used in a passive sense (Smyth, Greek Grammar, 390 [§17151; Winer-Moulton, 319), it is apparently so with certain verbs because of a set idiom. Such is not the case with pauw

44 As we discussed in the chapter on adjectives, there is no good reason for taking to teleion as the close of the canon. Unfortunately, the view presented above about pausontai is typically associated with the canon-view of the “perfect." Perhaps this is why it has gotten little respect.

 

The way I look at it, at least one of us is confused. You start off by seeming to disagree with me and MacArthur, but the text you quote actually ends up basically agreeing with this point of view. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with that post, but thanks for the support, witting or no.
The case for the ceasing of tongues in the first century does not by any means rest on I Cor 13 alone, or on Scripture alone. For one thing, there's the matter of the absence of the gift of healing, which I have previously brought up and which has gone unanswered, as it always does in these discussions. Also the fact that the Spiritual gifts were given to edify others, and the modern use of 'tongues' as a private prayer language for self-edification directly violates this. There is the historical absence of tongues for some 1800 years. Regardless of when the ceasing point of tongues is that Paul references in I Cor 13, there is nothing to indicate that they would cease and then many centuries later start back up again. Paul said tongues would cease. Period. And altho my interpretation of the passage separates tongues from knowledge and prophecy, the pro-tongues position unites them. Surely no one on the tongues side would argue that knowledge or prophecy would end and then restart at a future time. So why would different rules apply to tongues if they are all the same?
Both the Biblical and logical arguments concerning tongues all fall on the 'tongues ceased when those in the early Church who had it died' side.

 

Hi Carol and others

I agree with Walguy here. That last post does nothing but make me turn my head sideways in confusion. It has alot of ifs and maybes. The fact is that the Biblical proof for tongues ceasing is supported by the different texts and not proved only by the verb used in 1 Cor. 13. Add the 1 Cor. verse to the "sign" issue. Add in the "gifts edify the body of believers ONLY" part. Then add the verses that say speaking in tongues without interpretation makes a person a noisy gong or cymbal, part. I could go on and on. The point is that DHK and Walguy and I are looking at the scripture as a whole and finding this truth. It all works together very nicely. Yes, DHK and I differ on the rest of the gifts and the meaning of "perfect". In a way we are not that far off. I believe that the service gifts are all in effect and God gives them to believers in each asembly to complete the assembly. DHK believes that God empowers people to serve him and gives them desires to serve in different ways, which in turn complete the "body". It is not so different if you really think about it. Because DHK believes that the "perfect" is the complete Bible, he must believe that ALL gifts are gone. Because I and Walguy believe that the "perfect" is the coming eternal state, we MUST believe that the non-sign gifts still exist because scripture says that. Take that for what it is worth I am just trying to be honest. Now for the tongue speakers here, Carol included. Please at least be honest and say that you speak in tongues based on what you think and feel is right and not what you clearly see in scripture. I know you see scriptual support but I am saying as a whole based on some of the deeper truths showed here. For example, who of the tongue speakers that read this researched tongues before they spoke in them? Keep searching and questioning and don't doubt the Word of God, and pay close attention to gifted people like Walguy.

In Christian love and concern,
Brian

 

Who is Walguy, Who is MacArther, Who is Apollos, .....

I still have seen no *absolute* Scriptural Proof that the Nine Manifestations of the Spirits Presence *has to* or *had to* stop.

Except maybe because man grieved the Holy Spirit of God.

But, during that 1800 years a lot of *other* Biblical truths lay rather dormant, too.

Had it not been for that heretic Luther we might never have had a reformation at all!

So, because the doctrine of the just shall live by faith languished for centuries, shall we say it ceased to be a valid teaching or doctrine?

But, that is the very same argument some have put forth in arguing that man's wisdom and efforts are adequate to meet the challenges of today.

Wisdom and Knowledge are gifts of the Holy Spirit... If you will, proofs of His Presence.


But they are only 2-ninths of the package.

What of healing? Verifiable by incontrovertible evidence, healings. Try telling someone who has been given up for dead, was anointed with oil, prayed for by elders in the church and today has no evidence that cancer was ever in their bodies, that healing isn't for today.

Part of the package.

I understand that this is a 'Baptist' Forum and there are people here who are absolutely convinced that God is tied up in a little box and can't do anything unless He gets permission from the office of Theological Concurrence.

But, I've been on both sides. My temperament makes me naturally non-demonstrative and a critical thinking skeptic.

What I've seen with my own eyes has been awesome. And, had any of it happened without lifting Jesus Higher... I would have denounced it openly.

Had there been 'sales' I would have responded like Peter when simon the Sorcerer offered money for the authority to bequeath the Holy Spirit on people.

So, I wonder how your interpretation would go if you didn't start out so adamantly opposed and biased against the things of God's Spirit being active 'Until He Comes'?