DHK wrote,
**Does Exodus teach us that God speaks to us through burning bushes?
Does it teach us that God's authority comes through budding staves?
Does it teach us that we will be fed by manna falling from the sky, that looks like coriander seed?***
The Bible shows us that God can speak through a burning bush or make staves bud. The Bible is clear when manna from heaven ended. The Bible does not teach that the gifts ended.
Gifts of the Spirit are different. The Bible teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are given to each to profit the whole. It also teaches that in the last days, God's Spirit will be poured out on all flesh.
***Neither does he allow the gift of tongues to be used any longer. It has ceased. It has fulfilled its purpose. And when he wrote, "Forbid not to speak in tongues," it was written to first century Christians," just as the instruction to take up no more manna than you needed, was given to the Israelites and not to you.****
The doctrinal statements about the salvation in the book of Romans were written to first century Christians that lived in Rome. Does that mean that they do not apply today? If you interpret doctrinal statements on how God relates to the saints as applicable to saints today when it relates to other topics, why do you insist that doctrinal statements about gifts of the Spirit do not apply to the saints today?
How do you interpret the verses about women keeping silent in the churches? Do those commands ONLY apply to first century Christians, or only the first century Corinthian Christians? Or do you believe they apply today?
*** Those instructions have obviously ceased, just as the instructions and the commands concerning tongues. For tongues have ceased. Once we get that one fact into our minds things become much more clear. ***
You disregard direct commands of scripture based on elaborate theological argument.
***The context is clear. Paul was no fool. He quoted from Isa.28:11,12. The passage is in ICor.14:21,22. There is only one viable interpretation here-a literal one that makes sense. ***
Your interpretation is the one that does not make sense, and it ignores the points Paul is making in the passage. Show me where Paul makes a line of argument that relates the purpose of tongues specifically to Israel before or after the Isaiah quote. He uses the Isaiah quote as a part of his argument that tongues are to be interpreted and that un-interpreted tongues do not build up the assembly.
***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.
There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.***
Paul puts it plainly that tongues are a sign 'to them that believe not.' Read the rest of the passage. He shows that if an unbeliever goes in to a church meeting where all speak with tongues, he will respond with unbelief. The passage 'and yet for all that they will not hear Me' is fulfilled.
Paul is using this as an argument not to speak in tongues without interpretation in the church, and to argue that understandable speech in church is superior to uninterpreted tongues.
**2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn't have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.**
This idea is found nowhere in the scriptures. In fact, this line of argument is completely alien to the scriptures. Nowhere does Paul say that scripture would replace gifts of the Spirit in this passage, and no other author of scripture argues for this idea either.
In fact, the idea of scripture being the 'only rule' of faith an practice, which shows up in so many statements of faith, is not found in scripture. There are some Christians who profess that scripture is the only revelation available to believers. This type of thinking is at odds with what the Bible actually teaches. Jesus did not say that He would leave and leave behind a book which would lead you into all truth. He said that He would send the Spirit. The Spirit leads into all truth. One of the ways the truth has been revealed is through New Testament scripture. But the Bible is clear that there is other revelation from God. Romans 1 shows us that there is revelation of God's nature in creation. God's wrath is revealed from heaven as well. The Lord Jesus is the ultimate revelation from God to man. Read Hebrews 1. In the past, God spoke through the prophets (some of whose writings were written down), but in these last days, he has spoken by His Son. The Bible shows us that there is revelation from the gifts of the Spirit. Paul prayed for the Philipians to have the Spirit of revelation.
The idea that the Bible replaced the gifts is not supported by scripture. It actually contradicts the scripture that teaches. If we want to 'honor' the Bible, the way to do that is not by contradicting it. Sure you can 'honor' the Bible by arguing that it is unique because it is the only revelation from God available to man. But to do so would be to contradict scripture, which teaches the revelation of God's nature through creation, and revelation from the Spirit through gifts of the Spirit.
***3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased. ***
Show me scripture that specifies that tongues ere the mark of an apostle. The twelve apostles spoke in tongues, but it is also likely that the 120 did as well. Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues, and apparently from I Corinthians 12 and 14, many Corinthians spoke in tongues as well. There is nothing in scripture that limits tongues to apostles or that argues is a sign of apostleship. You can argue that signs, wonders, and miracles are, but there is no reason to argue that tongues is. At least 13 of the apostles spoke in tongues, which we know from Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14.
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied:
**I didn't say it was. Read my notes above. **
If tongues are not only for a sign, then arguing that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased is not an argument that tongues have ceased.
Let me illustrate my point with a dialogue between a charismatic father and his cessationist son.
Son, "Paw, I reckon we can throw this hammer away now, seein' as we won't be using it anymore"
Paw, "What do you say that?"
Son, "'Cause we done finished hammerin' all the nails in the subfloorin'. We have no need for this here hammer Paw. If fact, this hammer does not exist anymore. It has ceased."
Paw, "Don't you go throwin' that hammer away son. Just because we have finished the flooring board doesn't mean we don't need it any more. We still have to build the rest of the house."
Tongues are not ONLY for a sign. Even if you argue that they are not needed as a sign anymore, then that is not an argument that tongues have ceased.
*** Yes, as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues for first century Christians before the Bible was completed.***
Then, do you admit that arguing that tongues were for a sign is not an argument that tongues have ceased? If so, why would you say that I Corinthians 14 argues for the cessation of tongues? Why do you refer to your interpretation of this passage as an argument for the cessation of tongues if it does not argue for the cessation of tongues?
DHK wrote,
**"Even if one were to interpret the OT quote about tongues being a sign to the Jews" What are you talking about??? That is pretty much exactly what it says. How can you interpret it any other way! Verse 21 says that it is a sign to the nation of Israel.
Verse 22 says that it is a sign to the unbeliever.
Therefore it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Take things in their context and this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to. **
Go back and read my previous post for another way to interpret this. The interpretation I presented also deals with the fact that Paul uses the verse to argue that if an unbeliever hears all speaking in tongues in church, he still does not believe. The verse from Isaiah serves as a sign, a fulfilled prophecy that shows how unbelievers do not hear when they hear speaking in tongues.
****Peter specifically was addressing in his sermon in Acts 2, those ones that had crucified Christ, that is, the first century Jews. If the first century Jews are all gone and dead, there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Are there first century Jews in your church? I would surely like to meet them, or not! Tongues have ceased. They have no more viable function today. ****
Your argument makes no sense at all. You just quoted a passage from Isaiah, written about 'this people' many centuries before the 1st century AD. If you argue that 'this people' refers to Jews/Israelites in the time of Isaiah, and in the first century, then it stands to reason that 'this people' were the same people group during the time in between. And it stands to reason that the Jews are 'this people.' There are still Jews today! There are still unbelieving Jews today! If tongues are for a sign to Jews, why would tongues have ceased? Jews still exist!
[Just to clarify, I am not arguing that 'this people' in the Isaiah 28 passage is not Israel or the Jews. What I am arguing is that this is not the point Paul is making. Paul makes a point about tongues being for a sign to unbelievers, based on this verse about unbelieving Hebrews who will not hear God, even when He speaks through people of other tongues and other lips. Paul uses this as part of his argument for the fact that tongues do not profit others if they are not interpreted. This is a part of his larger argument about edifying others in church meetings. There is no evidence in the passage that he intended to use the verse to argue eschatology about Israel or to say anything about the cessation of tongues.]
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tongues are for a sign' does not equal 'tongues have ceased'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responded
**What happens if the sign isn't there any more? Then what kind of sign is it? A sign that isn't a sign?
When a bridge is out a sign is put well in front of the bridge warning motorists "Bridge Out". When the bridge is completed the sign is taken down for it is no longer needed. The sign was only temporary.**
Earlier you wrote, of tongues being for a sign:
** "as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues"**
First, it is clear that there are other purposes for tongues in scripture. One is to edify the church, if the tongues are accompanied by interpretation. The church still needs edifying, and so there is a need for tongues.
Second, you're analogy is flawed. There is a big difference between a board with writing on it, and the types of signs we read about in the Bible.
Third, you have not presented any evidence that tongues is no longer needed as a sign. Your theory about the Bible replacing tongues is not taught in scripture and runs contrary to the philosophy scripture teaches about the role of revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit. You have not presented any evidence from scripture that tongues are no longer necessary as a sign, whether to Jews or anyone else. Your arguments alone are not evidence.
** The sign was only needed as long as the bridge was being made, as long as it was not finished. But when that which was completed was come then that which was temporary (the sign) was taken away. Tongues were a temporary sign until the Word of God was complete. The sign is gone. The Word of God is complete. The sign is gone.**
These are arguments, but they are not supported by scripture. Human opinion is no basis for rejecting the direct commands of scripture.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first word of verse 22 is "wherefore." The Greek word is "hoste," meaning "so too," or also, therefore, as well," ***
This supports my interpretation, particularly 'so too.'
And, as an aside, definitions and glosses like this are not 'plug and play.' We can't just pick the one that fits best into our interpretation of the text and assume that our translation and interpretation of the text is correct. Definitions like this show words that touch the thought map of the range of meaning of the Greek word in certain contexts.
*** Either way, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is a sign either to the Jew or to the unbeliever, that is not the way it operates in most churches today, is it? Neither Jews nor unbelievers are present. It is used when the believers are present. That is making a mockery of the Word of God. ***
That is not Paul's point at all. Paul quotes a verse about unbelieving Israel not hearing God when he spoke to them through people speaking in tongues, and shows that unbelievers who hear believers speaking in tongues say, 'ye are mad'. Do you think Paul wants believers in this passage to all speak in tongues to unbelievers can think they are mad? It is clear from the passage that Paul is instructing the Corinthians to use speaking in tongues to edifying believers- by interpreting their tongues. Otherwise, they should refrain from speaking in tongues in church. Paul quotes Isaiah to support this argument.
You seem to be so fixated on this idea that Paul is quoting Isaiah to argue for all these cessationist ideas you have about the Jews, that you are missing the forest for the trees. Paul is arguing for the Corinthians to use gifts to edify the assembly, and particularly to use tongues with interpretation to edify the assembly. That is the reason for the Isaiah quote-to build up the argument in the passage.
How do you interpret the rest of the passage? How do you believe Paul's argument that unbelievers who hear all speak in tongues will say 'ye are mad' ties in with his quote from Isaiah and the point he is making about it? How does the Isaiah prophecy and the argument about an unbeliever saying 'ye are mad' fit into Paul's arguments about tongues, prophecy and mutual edification in the passage?
Clearly, the rest of the passage is not about judgment on Israel, the cessation of tongues, or these other ideas you try to interpret out of the Isaiah 28 quote.
On dual fulfillment, you acknowledge that this is possible, for example with the virgin prophecy. Surely you are aware that the Jews were marched naked and barefoot to their captors homeland, while the soldiers shouted at them. Did the soldiers shout in Hebrew? Wouldn't they have shouted in their own tongues?
I did not say there was not further fulfillment of the prophecy in question. Clearly the point or principle Paul draws out from it is true, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' This seems to describe the reaction some had to tongues in Acts 2, when they scoffed and thought the saints were drunk.
**Ain't that the truth! Enter into a Charismatic church today where "all" speak in tongues (or many) and said unbeliever will indeed think that you are mad.**
I have seen churches that act like that, and I have seen the 'ye are mad' look of surprise on visitors' faces who didn't know what was going on. But not all churches that believe in tongues do this, and some believe that tongues should only be spoken out in the assembly if they are interpreted.
I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul's example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK wrote,
**You have it wrong here. Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew (or again just for the unbeliever if you like). But that doesn't mean they will be saved by it. There is no guarantee of that. In fact Christ said the exact opposite. **
I have it wrong? I said that 'there are those that argue'-meaning people other than myself.
There are examples of people who believed when they saw signs (e.g. Samaritans who saw Philip) and those who did not believe.
**The people of Capernaum, the city in which Jesus did the most miracles was the place in which the least number of people believed on him. "And he could do no more miracles there because of their unbelief."***
I think you are confusing Nazareth and Capernaum. Nazareth was where Jesus' miracles were limited. The people of Nazareth wondered why Jesus did not do miracles there like they heard he did in Capernaum. Capernaum would have a worse judgment that Sodom and Gomorrah, who would have repented if they had seen the signs Christ had done in Capernaum.
***Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew in two ways:
1. For the unbelieving Jew in that this was a message from God given to the Apostles, and that it needs to be obeyed. The Apostles were God's messengers that need to be heeded and their message needed to be obeyed.***
In the specific case in Acts 2, you have a case for this. But the Bible does not teach that tongues is a sign of apostolic authority per se. The debated end of Mark lists tongues among 'these signs shall follow them that believe' and not the apostles per se. There were apparently plenty of Corinthian Christians speaking in tongues. We should not consider their actions to all be authoritative or inspired. In fact, some of them were probably using tongues improperly, without interpretation.
**2. It was also a message to unbelieving Jews in the sense that they may have believed Christ for salvation, but still did not believe that salvation had gone to the Gentiles, such as the Jews that went with Peter to the house of Cornelius. They had to be convinced that salvation was now for the Gentiles as well. Tongues gave them that sign. It was a sign to the Jews.
Is tongues a sign to you that salvation has now gone out to the Gentile nations, or do you already know that? I hope you know the answer to that question, and don't need a supernatural sign to tell you. **
Tongues may have served as a sign of sorts for these Jews in this particular case. But the role for tongues is much broader than what you describe. Paul shows us that in church, tongues accompanied by interpretation edifies the congregation. The Corinthians did not need convincing that Gentiles could be saved, and some of them spoke in tongues.
***Certainly there are unbelieving Gentiles that believe not. And Jesus said that he would give them a sign, but it wasn't tongues. He gave them the sign of Jonas-as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so would Jesus be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.**
Jesus said this to Jews who asked him for a sign as we can see in the book of Matthew. Why would Gentiles demand a sign? Pagans would have been unfamiliar with the passage about 'that Prophet.' This fact also argues against the idea that tongues was a special sign to the Jewish nation that served a temporary purpose. The resurrection is the special sign given to that generation. I have read that the Greek word for 'generation' can also refer to a people-group.
**This is the only sign that would be given to the Gentiles. It is called the gospel. "The Jews require a sign; the Greeks, wisdom." Again the two verses (21 and 22) are connected together by the conjunction "wherefore." Thus the meaning becomes evident: "unbelieving Jews." **
Your argument holds no water, especially since Jesus' words that you quote about the sign of the prophet Jonah was directed at Jews.
**Yes, a sign could be a predictive prophecy. Tongues was a sign. It was the fulfillment of a predictive prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11,12. **
If you accept this, then look at the passage. The passage predicts "and yet for all that, they will not hear me"-which was fulfilled when unbelievers heard tongues and said 'ye are mad.' If this is the point of the passage, then we can dismiss with all the speculation about judgment on Jews, and especially the idea of tongues ceasing which is not even hinted at in the passage.
Link
She proclaimed that HER tongues was heavenly tongues but some women in their church just speak in tongues which isn't as special as hers....
