1 Cornthians 13:8-12

Just my $.02: The major crux of 1Cor is agape (unconditional love). The overall message is this: that which we do without unconditional love are imperfect. That which we do with unconditional love is perfect. Agape is the kind of love God has for us. It is perfect love. It is in this manner which we are called to love each other.

 

Hey SMM, how are you doing?

The verb used for tongues ceasing is different then the verb used for the other two. Verse 8 literally says: Brotherly love does not fail. The gifts of Prophecies and Knowledge will go away when something forces them to but the gift of Tongues will fade away on its own. Tongues were never intended to last until the perfect comes. If I understand what you are saying about the "perfect" I agree with you. It is either when we die and go be with Jesus or when he returns and sets up His eternal Kingdom. Pefect is not achievable while we have these bodies. To say that the "perfect" is the Bible is a big big stretch. Therefore, the gift of knowledge (understanding scripture in a deeper way) still exists today and the gift of Prophecy (speaking before other believers to build them up) both still remain. I can see no other way to interpret the verses. Tongues reguires other verses to prove when it faded away but that would be off topic so I won't address that question (plus I have a million times).

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Hey SMM, glad you are doing OK. Please explain what you meant by idle. Which word or thought are you saying conveys this. Also, you wrote:

""I am more concerned with our trying to put God in a box and limit what He can and can't do when we *really* need Him to do something...""

I get this a lot from my well meaning pentecostal friends. I guess I just don't see how I am putting God in a box. God has put himself in a box of Truth and Sound Doctrine. We shouldn't try to pull down the sides of the box and ask God to come out just because we would prefer something to be true. The clear things on tongues can't be debated, the more abstract can. Tongues are a sign, tongues can only be spoken by very few in a assembly, Do all speak in tongues? - NO, Speaking tongues without interpretation is just throwing words in the air and is meaningless, Tongyes are a sign to unbelievers so if their is no unbelievers (Jews if we are honest to the text) tongues should not be spoken at all. We can't just ignore the straight out facts about tongues because some folks love the experience and they feel it enhances their Christian walk. I am not sure which side puts God in a box but I don't believe I do.

I hope that did not sound harsh or prideful, it was not intended that way.

Take care and ask for a raise!! I'm sure you deserve it!!

In Christian Love and Concern,
Brian

 

SMM,

Nice post. I think you're right on!! The meaning of the tongues ceasing is (without a doubt) NOT a statement that glossolalia once existed and now does not. Rather it shows how all forms of human worship are incomplete and will only be completed when we are in the presence of God one day. Now we're looking through the glass dimly... The one thing which we have which is pure like God is love - and this will abide forever. Indeed when we get to heaven we won't need most of our current means of worship!!

I have always asserted (and will continue to do so) that there is no BAN on "spiritual gifts". I am also a baptist who does NOT practice glossolalia. I think that Galatians shows us the fruits of the Spirit - the true gifts! Thus if one feels the need to speak in a "tongue" I won't condemn him/her - but I think we should not overemphasize the importance of such things.

Just my 2 cents worth!!

 

Hi Guys, the thing you have to remember is that Tongues were clearly referred to as a "sign". Signs point to things coming and when what they point to comes the fade away, which fits your definitions. Tongues pointed to the judgement destruction of Isreal which is why Paul quoted Isaiah. The judgement and destruction came in 70AD and Tongues quietly faded away after that. This is Biblical and does make sense, especially when all put together. Thanks for reading,

In Christ,
Brian

 

There is no mention of that in Acts 2, or Romans 12, or 1Cor 12 or 1Cor 14 where we see tongues introduced.

Where do you get such an idea?

In Christ,

Bob

 

1 Cor 14:
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.

Isaiah 28:
[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.

Bob this is the scripture of which I am referring to. Paul uses verse 21 and 22 to complete his thought. He shows in this the real reason there is Tongues at all. Tongues are a sign to unbelieving Isreal in particular. Paul qoutes Isaiah to show us the OT prophecy that was being fulifiled. Once the Judgement happened IS. Vs. 17, then the need for the “sign” goes a way. Tongues pointed to the judgement of God and that is all they are and all they are for. In the last 100 years Tongues have become something different but that can’t change what Paul taught through Isaiah’s words. Hope that helps.

Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

 

If it is even "primarily" a sign to unbelievers as Paul says in 1Cor 14 then it has to operate in an Acts 2 model where it COULD function in such a way. The fact that Paul identifies it as such in 1Cor 14 solidifies the point that the Acts 2 and 1Cor 14 gifts are the one and only gift of tongues listed in scripture.

This creates the problem with what is taken for tongues today.

I agree 100% that the Gifts of the Spirit are for the church - and the church is still around - so the gifts still apply.

But the idea that what we see today as tongues - is the same gift mentioned in Acts 2 or 1Cor 14 is very doubtful.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Guys, couple things here. First SMM, Tongues are never supposed to be used for self edification. When Paul said that, One who speaks in a Tongue edifies himself he was saying that that was a wrong use of the gift. He was simply saying that people speak in Tongues to "puff" themselves up. It was a showy gift and many who did not have it pretended they did and some that had it may have been using it without interpretation or even a person of a foreign tongue present. Paul had just said in 1 cor. 12:7 that "gifts" are for the edification of the whole body, he hardly would have changed his teaching in just 2 short chapters later.

Next, in Acts 2 many of the house of Isreal were present and that initial sign of Tongues to them would have bee very powerful. That Tongues at Pentecoat was the same gift as Paul spoke of, Paul just explained its proper use in the NT church, before Tongues faded away. 1 Cor. was written in about 50AD meaning that Tongues would have about 20 more years of use and that is why paul needed to put in practical terms how this special gift was used. It really all pieces together nicely. OK, your turn for a come back! Take care,
In Christ,
Brian

 

Here we have a statement of fact that a person speaking in tongues can be speaking to God not men...

I do not see a hint of condemnation... Only contrasts...</font>[/QUOTE]You are reading the passage with rose-colored and biased glasses. The entire passage is a rebuke against the misuse of tongues, showing how prophecy is a much better gift to have and use than tongues is. The verse is a rebuke. There is no, and I repeat NO gift that is a private gift to be used for only one person's benefit. EVERY gift was for the entire church's benefit. For one person to pray to God was the misuse of the gift. So don't do it. You are misusing the gift. You don't prophesy to yourself; don't interpret to yourself; to give a word of knowledge just to yourself; don't do miracles just for yourself; don't have the gift of helps just for yourself; don't have the gift of administration just for yourself; etc. No gift is just for yourself--a selfish gift. ALL gifts are for the benefit and edification of ALL the church body. And that includes tongues. Thus when Paul says, "He that speaks in an unknown tongue...speaks unto God," it is condemnation. It is a selfish thing to do. Tongues and the interpretation thereof is for the whole church. If you need to speak to God, pray in your own language (DUH!). God can understand you in your own language, and you can too. Prayer is communication. Prayer is talking to God, not babbling to God. God is not pleased with babblers.

And it is a sinful act if he is just edifying himself. The gift if for the whole church.

The statement in itself was condemnatory. You read it with an underlying bias. Tongues don't profit unless they are spoken as a gift to the entire church, and that with an interpreter. It is clearly stated that if you don't have an interpreter to sit down and shut up.

There is a biting piece of sarcasm here that most charismatics miss. "I would that ye all spake in tongues," is about the same as Jesus saying "I would that you all remove mountains." That is not exactly the intended meaning. The Corinthians were abusing the gift. He didn't want any of them using the gift under these circumstances. He clearly says that it is better that you prophesy. To have both statements true is contradictary. There is sarcasm in the first which you don't get because of your bias toward tongues.

1Cor.14:21,22 speaks of a sign to the unbelieving Jews, a fulfillment of prophecy given is Isaiah 28. The prophecy was fulfilled. It doesn't go on and on as a continuing prophecy not yet fulfilled. It was fulfiled in the first century, when the Jews rejected the Messiah. Then judgement fell upon them as Isaiah predicted. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jews that crucified the Messiah in the first century. In Acts 2 Peter was addressing the very Jews that crucified the Messiah. He says he was. That was the first occurance of tongues. Tongues was a sign to these Jews and the others that did not believe the gospel at that time.

False, today is not the first century. You are out of date.

The role is that they have none. They have ceased. Give them up. They are not of God. They are of the flesh.
DHK

 

SMM, I agree with what DHK has said. He is looking at the teaching of tongues as a whole and not pulling out a verse here and there to support his (our) position. The "sign" was over and Tongues quietly faded away after 70AD. What is going on now is generally well intended by very good people. I will not support it though just because the intentions are good.

Thanks DHK for the work you put in on your response.

In Christ,
Brian