Originally posted by Link:
DHK wrote,
"but rather that you prophecy, not speak in tongues. The verse is a rebuke to tongues, and an encouragement to prophecy"
This is some serious eisegesis. You are reading your own opinions into scripture. The passage you are quoting does not support the ideas you are reading into it.
Let us look up the verse you quote above. I Corinthians 14:5 starts,
“I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied…”
How in the world can you argue that ‘I would that ye all spake with tongues” is rebuking people for speaking in tongues? That makes no sense whatsoever. Paul is clearly saying he wishes they all spoke in tongues, not saying he wished they wouldn’t. He wants them to speak in tongues, and he would even rather they prophesy. So tongues is a good gift, and prophecy is even better.
How? By context. Just about every verse in that chapter is a rebuke to the use of tongues. It is a contrast between tongues and prophecy all the way through. Nowhere in that chapter does he encourage one to speak in tongues. Every verse is pointing to the encouragement of the gift of prophecy, because prophecy has understanding, and tongues does not. Therefore he would rather them not speak in tongues. They were abusing the gift. The first part of the verse was more like a sarcastic remark.
It would be like me saying to my children: "I would that you could all have corvettes (Not!), but rather that you live frugal lives.
No, I don't want my children to have corvettes, ets. It would ruin their lives. (And lets not get on a rabbit trail about how. Just take my word for it; I am their father).
Paul was making a sarcastic statement. If everyone spoke in tongues the result would be disastrous to the church. If this wasn't a sarcastic statement, and it is really what he wanted it would contradict everything that he said previously and would say after. Not everyone has the same gift. Read 1Cor.12:28-31. It would contradict that passage. Paul doesn't contradict himself.
Thus he says "rather that ye prophesy." Why? Prophesying is edifying. It edifies and gives understanding to the whole church. It is the better gift in this sense. Tongues caused chaos; prophecy brought understanding and edification--therefore prophesy.
You seem to think of speaking in tongues as a ‘bad’ gift of the Spirit. According to Jesus, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11.) We should not consider the gifts of God to be immature or bad.
Rather, I seem to think, as the Scipture teaches, that the gift of tongues, is the least of all the gifts (1Cor.12:28). They are listed in order of importance as those adverbs clearly indicate. Tongues is at the bottom of the list.
Mat.7:11 is a verse that Charismatics love to take out of context. Clearly Jesus isn't even referring to the gifts of the Spirit, which were unheard of, nor given until after Pentecost. So, a million dollars is a good thing for me. Will he give it to me if I ask him? That is the teaching of WOF leader Kenneth Copeland. Have faith in your faith.
**Yes, that is what I believe. They were a carnal church. They were seeking after the more "showy" gifts, of which tongues was no doubt the most "showy." If you had the gift of tongues it gave one the appearance that they were spiritual, and others were not. The same is true today.**
The problem with your interpretation is that it is not based on scripture. You are reading your own ideas into scripture. Where does Paul indicate that tongues was more ‘showy’ than prophecy?
He told them outright in 1Cor.3:1-3 that he could not teach them as spiritual people because they were carnal. It was a carnal church seeking after carnal things. Tongues was a carnal gift. They were speaking to be seen of men, just like the Pharisees. They were so carnal they had the audacity to believe that they were the only ones that had the Word of God. All the spiritual gifts were displayed at Corinth. They fell behind in none of them. They were proud about that fact. And that pride manifested itself in the seeking after tongues (the more showy gift), because it tended to make one look more spiritual, just like it does in Charismatic circles today.
1 Corinthians 1:7 So that
ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
--They had all the gifts.
1 Corinthians 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
--The essence of this verse: "Do you think that Word of God came only to you--that you are the only ones that have it???
They were proud. The showy gift of tongues had made them that way.
And your conclusion here makes little sense. You don’t even believe modern gifts of tongues are genuine, but yet you treat them as if they are the same as what the Corinthians had. I think you are reading your disdain for modern Pentecostal practice back into scripture.
In a sense you are right. Tongues ceased by the end of the first century. Case closed. All other arguments are moot. So why debate it at all.
All of these points that I give you are predicated with: "Even if tongues still existed..."
Nowhere does Paul say that the Corinthians were trying to be showy. He does indicate that what they were doing was childish. Maybe they thought that speaking in tongues was spiritual, since it was a spiritual gift. Maybe they did not stop to consider whether blurting something out in tongues without interpretation was edifying to the assembly or not. We know the Corinthians were a carnal church, but the passage does not state or indicate that thy did their speaking in tongues just to get attention. Paul says that the one in tongues builds himself up. He does not say that one who speaks in tongues draws attention to himself.
It is quite apparent that speaking in tongues in Corinth was simply to get attention. That is why there was such a strong rebuke to the women. There were other rebukes as well. There was the restriction put on them not to speak more than two or three, and that in order. And those two or three had to have an interpreter. All of that points to the fact that many were standing up and speaking in tongues for the simple reason of getting attention. It was a showy gift.
And do you seek after the gift of prophecy? Do you encourage its exercise in the church.
That would be unscriptural to encourage someone to do something that is not Biblical. Tongues (as well as prophecy) have ceased. No I would never encourage that.
**You have no Scriptural support for this. When is says women, it means women: "all the women of the world: red and yellow, black and white..."**
I have the Bible. Isn't that enough?
It plainly says for women to keep silent in the church. What part of that statement do you not understand??
You apply a double standard to interpreting scripture. In another thread, I pointed out that Jesus said that whoever spoke a word against the Holy Ghost, it would not be forgiven him in this age, nor in the world to come. You interpreted ‘whoever’ to refer specifically to people who saw Jesus’ miracles before their very eyes, no matter what the passage said.
I interpreted the passage within the confines of its context as it should have been. You have the right to disagree.
But here, you insist that women means woman. You are inconsistent in your interpretation.
I believe the Bible literally. You mean you think that "woman" can mean a "man"??? That men should be...
If you think ‘Forbid not to speak in tongues’ refers only to people in the first century, then why wouldn’t ‘women’ mean ‘women who lived in the first century and heard the letter when it was first read to the church in Corinth.’
It does. The whole tongue issue refers to those in the first century. Tongues ceased by the end of the first century. I explained that above.
Isn’t there a danger to haphazardly redefining and re-interpretting the meaning of words to fit with a pre-conceived ideology?
That is precisely what the Charismatics do.
DHK
