Originally posted by Link:
DHK wrote,
***Every statement you have made is an argument that you have made against yourself. Later on you say that "that which is perfect" refers to the Resurrection of the dead.
***
I don't follow you at all here. Maybe you left something out. How am I arguing against myself?
You made this statement after quoting where I said that Paul would experience the coming of the perfect himself. Paul will experience the resurrection of the dead. Do you disagree?
Your point was that Paul would be dead before he would see the completion of the canon of Scripture. That is true. Then you prceeded to try to fit the Resurrection of the dead into that same passage. Ironically Paul is still dead and the resurrection of the dead has not taken place. The same arguments that you have used against me in that respect, I use against you.
You brush aside the points I made without giving an intepretation yourself. I don't even know what objections you have to the points I have made. When Paul compares his state before the perfect comes to childhood, what do you believe his point is? How will the coming of the perfect make him like an adult? Can you explain your interpretation of the passage?
Yes I can. You only assumed my position, then went to great lengths to describe some postition that wasn't mine at all. Why should I defend somebody else's position. So I kept quiet.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Notice the adverbs here: "first," "secondarily," "thirdly," "after that," "then." These denote a definite progression of the most important gift to the least important gift. The apostolic gift was the most important of all the gifts and only held by a few. Tongues was the least important of all the gifts.
In one of your last posts you were concerned about obeying ALL the commands of Christ. What about this one.
1 Corinthians 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts:
--The best gifts (apart from being an apostle) were that of prophesying and teaching. They were the best because they edified the church the most.
--Tongues, the least important of all the gifts, was the gift that the immature believers sought after. The carnal Christians sought after it because it was a showy gift. They had the idea that if they could speak in tongues people would think they were more spiritual, whereas the opposite was true. They were more carnal, and it showed. Thus Paul wrote 1Cor.14 to correct all the abuses of speaking in tongues. That sets the backgroung for the understanding of 1Cor.13:8-13
1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
--When I was a child (i.e., immature in my walk), I
spoke as a child. The key word here is "spoke." He is referring directly to the gift of tongues. That is the context of the entire chapter set in the context of spiritual gifts. When he was more immature he used the gift of tongues more often.
But when I became a man (ie., more mature) I put away childish things (immature gifts--the least important ones). He concentrated more on prophecy. What did he say in 1Cor.14--He would rather speak 5 words with understanding than 10,000 words in tongues. He had put away the childish gift of tongues.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
--We see through a glass darkly because we don't have the entire Word of God to reflect back the image that God reveals to us through His Word. God's Word is often used as a mirror, or glass, as it is in James 1:23-25.
2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The source of the light is Jesus Christ who is revealed to us through His Word. We come face to face with Christ through His Word. His Word reveals to us who we really are.
Paul knew in part. He also knew that there would come a day that the NT canon would be complete. When that day would come he writes that he shall know even as he is known. The Word of God will reveal to him more brightly than ever who he really is--his faults, sins, etc., as it contrasts him to the glory of Christ. The context of the whole passge is revelation--the Word of God.
As for plugging in "rhema" because it is a neuter noun for "that which is perfect".. I assume I'm safe in assuming you don't know Greek. The Greek word for "perfect" is not a blank in a 'mad lib' that you can fill in with something that fits grammatically. The only thing that keeps this from being sophistry, is that you seem to sincerely believe it. Besides, how would a Greek word that refers to the spoken word be a good word to plug in to mean 'scriptures.'
Please don't rant on about your knowledge of Greek as compared to others. That neither adds or detracts from the argument. The entire interpretation hinges more on context than anything. The fact that the pronoun "that" is a neuter pronoun only strengthens the argument. Every pronoun (whether in Greek or English) must have an antecedent. This is simple grammar. The word "that" must refer to something that is in the context of the passage. You want to "plug in" resurrection which is ludicrous to say the least. For resurrection is not even mentioned in these three chapters (12-14). It isn't even in the context. The context is speaking of "revelation," God's Word, in the larger context of the spiritual gifts. A neuter noun meaning Word just happens to fit that context.
Something else about the tongues being a sign verse, and Isaiah 28:
I really don't get how to can say that tongues is a sign of the destruction fo the temlpe. When Judah was carried away into captivity the first time, and the people heard the men of other tongues talking to them in Aramaic or Akkadian ("Babylonian"), Jerusalem had already been sacked! The temple may have been destroyed. The temple had probably been torn down and they were still hearing people telling them to keep walking in some strange tongue as they were marched chained, possibly naked to Babylon.
How can a reference to something that occured AFTER the temple had been destroyed the first time, be a sign that would occur BEFORE the temple the temple was destroyed the second time? How can a reference to what happened AFTER their being kicked out of the land the first time, be a sign of an UPCOMING dispersion. Where do you get the idea of the temple being destroyed from Isaiah 28 anyway?
Not to mention the fact that the point Paul makes based on this verse doesn't say anything about the temple being destroyed. His point is that tongues are a sign to unbelievers, and goes on to write about unbelievers and the unlearned in general- not just Jews- hearing tongues and not believing.
And if you do think that tongues are a sign of the destruction of the temple-which has yet to be supported by scripture-that wouldn't prove tongues have ceased anyway. If _one_ purpose of tongues is no longer needed, that doesn't do away with the other uses of tongues. For example, tongues with interpretations builds up the body of Christ?
And also, why did speaking in tongues not cease when the temple was destroyed or when John died? Why are there references to it, for example, around 200 AD in the time of Ireneaus?
The Babylonians kept jabbering away in Akkadian long after the children of Israel were taken away into captivity. I doubt the Persian conquest did away with their language. Aramaic continues on until this day. So why would speaking in tongues cease at the destruction of the temple?
The meaning of 1Cor.14:21,22 is quite clear:
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.
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.
Paul quotes an OT passage here (Isa. 28:11,12). This passage does not indicate what languages will be spoken. It says "with men of other tongues and other lipw will I speak unto this people (Israel) ...and they will not hear me." The New Testament believers were not confined to the languages that you mentioned. They spoke in tongues, in foreign languages, the gospel message. The Jews heard them and understood that this message was from God. It was a fulfillment of this very prophecy that Paul was quoting. To deny this is to deny the Scripture that Paul is referring to and stating as fulfilled. What other interpretation could you possibly give it. The Gentiles had now received the Messianic message in their own languages. They were not just preaching it in the native tongue of the Galilieans--as noted in Acts 2, but in the mother tongues of all that came to Jerusalem. This was the sign that was given to the Jews. It continued to be the sign to the Jews throughout the first century as the Jews were scattered throughout the Roman empire. Tongues were a sign for the Jews.
Verse 22 begins with the word "wherefore" connecting it to verse 21. Wherefore tongues is a sign to the unbelievers. It is a sign to the unbelieving Jew. That is the context. The two verses go together. There is nothing said about the destruction of Jerusalem specifically. But in Isaiah 28 if you read further, you find that a refusal to "hear" as the Jews did not hear and obey, would result in judgement. Disobedience always results in judgement. God brought judgement upon the Jews. We see that in history, when the Temple was destroyed and the Jews were scattered in 70 A.D. History does indicate that tongues ceased around that time.
DHK
He has brought out some very interesting Biblical points. 
