buckster75
Member
Hey Ray, a chuckle of sorts. were you saying " Exactly!!" to the fact that I don't know much?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tongues Cease of Themselves and Greek Middle?
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Ray Berrian
New Member
As to my brother in Christ, the Texan, I was referring to the latter phrase of your sentence.
Oh, and I am still learning.
"Ray"
Oh, and I am still learning.
"Ray"
Hope of Glory
New Member
Except, as has been pointed out, that the letter to the Corinthians was written before they ceased.Originally posted by buckster75:
I don't know much about this but seems to me if tongues had ceased Paul would not have instructed the corinthians on their proper usage.
Show me a single example in the Bible where they are mentioned after 64 AD.
Briguy
I don't believe Dr. Thurman was purposefully confusing. I have read a lot of his messages, and a lot of them are confusing if you don't know Greek,which I don't. A lot of it goes over your head (or over my head at least), which seems to be a running theme.
On the other hand, you can understand what he rights if you really take the time to examine it, think, and maybe look up a few things.
And in his message he specifically addressed a point you made that I emailed to him-- the idea that since the word for 'cease' used in related to tongues is a middle form, that it means that tongues ceased of themselves, without an external force acting upon the thing in question. He showed examples of uses of middles where this was not the case.
I don't believe Dr. Thurman was purposefully confusing. I have read a lot of his messages, and a lot of them are confusing if you don't know Greek,which I don't. A lot of it goes over your head (or over my head at least), which seems to be a running theme.
On the other hand, you can understand what he rights if you really take the time to examine it, think, and maybe look up a few things.
And in his message he specifically addressed a point you made that I emailed to him-- the idea that since the word for 'cease' used in related to tongues is a middle form, that it means that tongues ceased of themselves, without an external force acting upon the thing in question. He showed examples of uses of middles where this was not the case.
Link, certainly Dr. Thurman's post was way over my head. My thought was that he knew he was writing to people who did not know Greek but he did not make any attempt to write "down" to our level. Sometimes an expert will keep things confusing as to make their point sound better. The bottom line is that he proved nothing. He gave an opinion and as part of his opinion he did not rule out what I have said all along and he offered the fact that Paul does not say what stoped tongues as he did about the other two gifts in question. He may have shown other examples where the word was used different but all is it takes is the context of what is happening to define the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. In context my usage makes perfect sense. If Tongues were no longer needed after 70AD, because God's judgement had fallen on Isreal, then they would just fade away. It fits together nicely this way. Saying that they won't end on their own puts you in a spin trying to make Isaiah 28, as Paul quoted, make sense.
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
buckster75
Member
Briguy
Look at the first post of this thread as answering specifically the idea that if 'cease' is middle, that means that tongues ceased of themselves. That is, if tongues ceased, no external force acted upon it to make tongues cease. The post shows examples of verbs used in the middle in which an external force did act upon something to make it cease. Therefore, it disproves your point that if the Greek word translated 'cease' is used in the middle, the passage must be interpreted to say that tongues ceased of themselves.
Btw, I don't think Bill makes his writings difficult just to sound important. This is just the way he writes, and some of the readers on his list can keep up with him. From what I know about him I think it unlikely he does this to be pretentious, and I think it best not to judge people this way. He meets with people and studies the scriptures in Greek and Hebrew. They meet together regularly and some of them are on his list. There is also another Greek scholar on the list. I went to meet with him and in order to test the validity of some claim about Greek, related to something I asked him, he sat me down with a Greek manuscript. I could barely sound out the words, much less understand the sentences. That's just the way the guy is.
Look at the first post of this thread as answering specifically the idea that if 'cease' is middle, that means that tongues ceased of themselves. That is, if tongues ceased, no external force acted upon it to make tongues cease. The post shows examples of verbs used in the middle in which an external force did act upon something to make it cease. Therefore, it disproves your point that if the Greek word translated 'cease' is used in the middle, the passage must be interpreted to say that tongues ceased of themselves.
Btw, I don't think Bill makes his writings difficult just to sound important. This is just the way he writes, and some of the readers on his list can keep up with him. From what I know about him I think it unlikely he does this to be pretentious, and I think it best not to judge people this way. He meets with people and studies the scriptures in Greek and Hebrew. They meet together regularly and some of them are on his list. There is also another Greek scholar on the list. I went to meet with him and in order to test the validity of some claim about Greek, related to something I asked him, he sat me down with a Greek manuscript. I could barely sound out the words, much less understand the sentences. That's just the way the guy is.
Thanks gb, I should have caught that but I didn't. Tongues ending own their own is a fair interpretation of the scripture. Now in light of the rest of the context in 1 Cor. it is much more then a fair interpretation, it is basically the only logical interpretation.
In Christ,
Brian
In Christ,
Brian
Briguy wrote,
Briguy
There is nothing in I Corinthians 13 or other passages of scripture that should lead us to believe that tongues ceased in 70 AD. What connection do you see between 'ceased' being in the middle voice and 70 AD?
And if you would look at the initial post, you will see plenty of evidence that something caused by an outside force can still be in the middle voice in Greek.
I don't see where the passage clearly states what will cause the other two gifts to cease. I don't see how this has much to do with interpretating the passage. It has nothing to do with the 70 AD argument.He gave an opinion and as part of his opinion he did not rule out what I have said all along and he offered the fact that Paul does not say what stoped tongues as he did about the other two gifts in question.
Briguy
Your line of reasoning actually argues AGAINST the idea that something caused tongues to cease. That would include the events of 70 AD. Now you are arguing they ceased because of something in 70 AD.He may have shown other examples where the word was used different but all is it takes is the context of what is happening to define the meaning of the word in 1 Cor. In context my usage makes perfect sense. If Tongues were no longer needed after 70AD, because God's judgement had fallen on Isreal, then they would just fade away.
There is nothing in I Corinthians 13 or other passages of scripture that should lead us to believe that tongues ceased in 70 AD. What connection do you see between 'ceased' being in the middle voice and 70 AD?
I don't follow your line of reasoning. Whether tongues will cease on their own or by an outside force is irrelevant.It fits together nicely this way. Saying that they won't end on their own puts you in a spin trying to make Isaiah 28, as Paul quoted, make sense.
And if you would look at the initial post, you will see plenty of evidence that something caused by an outside force can still be in the middle voice in Greek.
Charles Meadows
New Member
And if you would look at the initial post, you will see plenty of evidence that something caused by an outside force can still be in the middle voice in Greek
This statement certainly is true.
But this all seems to be much ado about nothing in terms of the middle voice. The fact that "pauw" is used here in the middle voice has more to do with the verb itself. There are instances where the present indicative is rendered "pauomai" in a seemingly active sense - instead of the expected "pauw". This is because the ancient Greek mind conceived of the projected action of "ceasing" as involving the emotion or energy of the subject - thus the use of the middle voice here. There is no reason to see this as a passive construction at all since there is no sign of agency (usually signified by hypo + genitive).
The tongues will cease - that's it! There is nothing about the translation which suggests that something will cause them to cease or that they will cause themselves to cease.
This statement certainly is true.
But this all seems to be much ado about nothing in terms of the middle voice. The fact that "pauw" is used here in the middle voice has more to do with the verb itself. There are instances where the present indicative is rendered "pauomai" in a seemingly active sense - instead of the expected "pauw". This is because the ancient Greek mind conceived of the projected action of "ceasing" as involving the emotion or energy of the subject - thus the use of the middle voice here. There is no reason to see this as a passive construction at all since there is no sign of agency (usually signified by hypo + genitive).
The tongues will cease - that's it! There is nothing about the translation which suggests that something will cause them to cease or that they will cause themselves to cease.
Ray Berrian
New Member
God only determines when gifts will cease. He is sovereign over these things. Scripture does not give us indication that 70 A.D. clicked in the mind of God and then he said, "Oh, yes, now is the time to conclude certain gifts because My people rejected Me as Messiah." This is true especially in the light that multi-millions of Gentile were hearing the Gospel to eternal life for the first time. Why would the Lord want to shut down the pipeline, if you will, of His wonderful blessings? Now, with God Gentiles are also important in His redemptive plan for the ages.
standingfirminChrist
New Member
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
When one speaks in an unknown tongue, he speaks to God. Any interpretation of the unknown tongue that sounds like a message that is addressed to man and not to God is falsely interpreted. The unknown tongue is spoken to God and should be interpreted as such.
When you hear a missionary from, let's say Brazil, and he is speaking in the Brazilian language, does he speak his words? or yours?
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
When someone speaks in an unknown tongue, he himself is edified, but the body (the church) does not profit.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
When one speaks in an unknown tongue, that one should pray that God gives him an interpretation
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
If there is no interpretation, we are left in confusion as to what was said.
1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.
Paul was stressing the fact that it is best to speak in a manner whereby all understand and are built up in Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
When the unknown tongue is spoken, it should not just be one person speaking, but at least two and no more than three. Only one should give the interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
When one speaks in an unknown tongue, he speaks to God. Any interpretation of the unknown tongue that sounds like a message that is addressed to man and not to God is falsely interpreted. The unknown tongue is spoken to God and should be interpreted as such.
When you hear a missionary from, let's say Brazil, and he is speaking in the Brazilian language, does he speak his words? or yours?
1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
When someone speaks in an unknown tongue, he himself is edified, but the body (the church) does not profit.
1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.
When one speaks in an unknown tongue, that one should pray that God gives him an interpretation
1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
If there is no interpretation, we are left in confusion as to what was said.
1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.
Paul was stressing the fact that it is best to speak in a manner whereby all understand and are built up in Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, [let it be] by two, or at the most [by] three, and [that] by course; and let one interpret.
When the unknown tongue is spoken, it should not just be one person speaking, but at least two and no more than three. Only one should give the interpretation.
1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
Ironically, Ray, this is ezactly what God does.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
God only determines when gifts will cease. He is sovereign over these things. Scripture does not give us indication that 70 A.D. clicked in the mind of God and then he said, "Oh, yes, now is the time to conclude certain gifts because My people rejected Me as Messiah."
The Northern tribes of Israel rejected Jehovah, and in 722 B.C. Jehovah sent them into captivity by the hand of the Syrian nation.
The Southern nation of Judah rejected Jehovah, and Jehovah sent them into captivity by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in 586 B.C.
God is sovereign indeed. He has a beginning and a time for everything. Though love may continue, all else will fail, including this earth and universe. God keeps dates contrary to your suggestions. The Exodus out of Egypt took place in 1446 B.C.
You need a BIK button (Boy I'm Konfused).This is true especially in the light that multi-millions of Gentile were hearing the Gospel to eternal life for the first time. Why would the Lord want to shut down the pipeline, if you will, of His wonderful blessings? Now, with God Gentiles are also important in His redemptive plan for the ages.
After Israel rejected Jehovah in 722 and in 586 B.C. respectively, then Christ came.
They then, as one unified nation, rejected Christ as their nation. They also rejected the Kingodm that was offered to them at that time. What does the Bible say about that?
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
His own (nation or people) received him not. They rejected Him.
After that they rejected the message of the Apostles. But before they did, they were given one more chance. That chance was accompanied by a sign, a sign prophesied in Isa.28:11,12; a sign if they rejected would result in judgement. They had rejected God for too long. The Apostles message (on the Day of Pentecost, as well as on a few subsequent occasions) was accompanied by this sign--the sign of tongues. It was a sign specifically for the Jews.
1 Corinthians 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.
They rejected the sign, and consequently judgement came soon after as we can see in secular history--the judgment inflicted on them by the Roman general Titus when he destroyed their city and their Temple. From that time onward they no longer were a nation, and didn't become a nation until 1800 years later in 1948. Indeed we are now in the last times.
Has God shut down the pipelines of his wonderful blessings, as you suggest? Of course not. Tongues was the least of all the gifts, and gave little blessing to the church. It resulted mostly in confusion and chaos. That is not blessing. It was a gift that was carnally sought after. What does Paul say about a "pipeline of blessing?"
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
There is nothing in that verse that refers to tongues or any of the spiritual gifts.
The song, "Count your blessings, name them one by one," does not refer to tongues. God has given us many blessings. They are not in the form of tongues or other spiritual gifts--the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
You need to rethink what blessings are.
DHK
Link said:
"""Your line of reasoning actually argues AGAINST the idea that something caused tongues to cease. That would include the events of 70 AD. Now you are arguing they ceased because of something in 70 AD."""
Link, I can totally see why you would say this. You are wrong of course (ha ha) but I see your point. Here is the concept. When Isreal was scattered tongues did not instantly shut off. Those who had the gift kept it until they died but the gift was not given out anymore. Thus, the gift faded out (pauo-ceased) as the gifted people died. Tongues ended on their own in that sense. The judgement of God fell but that event did not instantly remove the gift from the face of the earth.
Remember the nature of a Spiritual Gift. They are/were given from God to be used at the will of the person with the gift. God fully gave the gifts, He did not hold back the power to use the Gifts. The power and the Gift were not seperate. Therefore, the gifted healer could heal whomever he wanted to. The gifted tongues speaker could speak any language he wanted to at any time. And the gifted interpreter could interpret any language at any time. God did not need to provide the power for each use of every gift. The power to use the gift came with the gift. That is a strange concept for some to hear but once understood it makes understanding the gifts much easier.
In Christ,
Brian
"""Your line of reasoning actually argues AGAINST the idea that something caused tongues to cease. That would include the events of 70 AD. Now you are arguing they ceased because of something in 70 AD."""
Link, I can totally see why you would say this. You are wrong of course (ha ha) but I see your point. Here is the concept. When Isreal was scattered tongues did not instantly shut off. Those who had the gift kept it until they died but the gift was not given out anymore. Thus, the gift faded out (pauo-ceased) as the gifted people died. Tongues ended on their own in that sense. The judgement of God fell but that event did not instantly remove the gift from the face of the earth.
Remember the nature of a Spiritual Gift. They are/were given from God to be used at the will of the person with the gift. God fully gave the gifts, He did not hold back the power to use the Gifts. The power and the Gift were not seperate. Therefore, the gifted healer could heal whomever he wanted to. The gifted tongues speaker could speak any language he wanted to at any time. And the gifted interpreter could interpret any language at any time. God did not need to provide the power for each use of every gift. The power to use the gift came with the gift. That is a strange concept for some to hear but once understood it makes understanding the gifts much easier.
In Christ,
Brian
Ray Berrian
New Member
DHK,
.It was refreshing to hear again the history of the Jewish people. Thanks for taking time to put your post together for all of us. I too, agree they were people who rejected Christ [Acts 7:51].
You did not acknowledge that Jesus died for Gentiles as well as Hebrew people. You still reject or ignore that God through Paul said that 'tongues' was a sign not merely to the Jews but to all lost Gentiles and Jews. Try to receive this; it won't bite you.
God's pipeline of blessings come to us everyday. This is my euphemism indicating how the Lord bless us in varied ways.
God tells us in I Corinthians 14:39 to '...covet to preach in the language of the people, and forbid not to speak with tongues.' What the Lord has said to not stop in the church, some of your people tell the Lord to forbid the use of His gifts of the Spirit.
Since when does the song that I have sung many times in a congregation as a youth, "Count Your Blessings" stand on the same level as Divinely given Scripture? Should the Lord have included 'tongues' and the 'interpretation of tongues' just for you as two of His blessings for the church?
Since you are in charge of what are blessings, perhaps you should list all the things that are not blessings, lest we might be thanking the Lord God for some of those things that are forbidden as blessings.
Remember God was not denying the gifts noted in I Cor. 12 & 14, he was simply correcting the abuses that had occurred in the Corinthian Church
There were other secondary purposes to the gift of tongues in the first century when the canon of Scripture was not yet complete, and while the Apostles were still alive. But the primary purpose of this gift was a sign to the Jews. This is very apparent from Acts 2 and Peter's sermon. He was addressing the very Jews that had crucified Jesus. He pointed to the ones speaking in tongues and told them that "they were not drunk with wine as they supposed...but this is that which was fulfilled by the prophet Joel..." The speaking in foreign languages was a sign to them. From Isa.28:11,12, they knew that it was. They were not ignorant of their own Scriptures.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
You did not acknowledge that Jesus died for Gentiles as well as Hebrew people. You still reject or ignore that God through Paul said that 'tongues' was a sign not merely to the Jews but to all lost Gentiles and Jews. Try to receive this; it won't bite you.
Yes, I agree. And he blesses us every day in a multititude of ways without any of the spiritual gifts being present today.God's pipeline of blessings come to us everyday. This is my euphemism indicating how the Lord bless us in varied ways.
Obviously this verse must be taken in its context of first century Christians. He was addressing first century Christians, in particular the Corinthian Church. He never addressed any other church in this manner. Tongues have ceased. You don't forbid someone to speak in something they don't have. For example: "Ray I don't forbid you to walk on water!" Without or withot my permission or the Lord's, it's not going to happen. Neither is the gift of tongues.God tells us in I Corinthians 14:39 to '...covet to preach in the language of the people, and forbid not to speak with tongues.' What the Lord has said to not stop in the church, some of your people tell the Lord to forbid the use of His gifts of the Spirit.
Your divinely given Scripture is taken out of context.Since when does the song that I have sung many times in a congregation as a youth, "Count Your Blessings" stand on the same level as Divinely given Scripture?
Should the Lord have included walking on water just for you as one of his blessings for the church?Should the Lord have included 'tongues' and the 'interpretation of tongues' just for you as two of His blessings for the church?
Since you believe the gifts are for today, why not demonstrate the gift of miracles for us and perform a few. Raise the dead! Walk on water! Heal all the sick in the hospital! Demonstrate that your experiences are genuinely from God the Holy Spirit, or admit that the same are fraudlulent.Since you are in charge of what are blessings, perhaps you should list all the things that are not blessings, lest we might be thanking the Lord God for some of those things that are forbidden as blessings.
. [/QUOTE]Remember God was not denying the gifts noted in I Cor. 12 & 14, he was simply correcting the abuses that had occurred in the Corinthian Church
There are more than just two chapters in the Bible.
DHK
[ January 27, 2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
Ray Berrian
New Member
DHK,
You said, 'There are more than just two chapters in the Bible.'
You said, 'There are more than just two chapters in the Bible.'
.I know these chapters are like a pebble in your shoe, but go ahead and believe them anyway. It is a matter of readng, believing and trusting that His Word is still true. You will feel better toward the Lord, in my opinion, if you acknowledge all of the words which He has spoken to His church.
Using the excuse of 'tongues' being all national languages does not dovetail with all of His Word.
It does not dovetail with your Bible. It must be different than the rest of ours. The gift of tongues is not mentioned in any of the other epistles, because almost all of them were written after 1Cor. That in itself shows that tongues was dying out at that present time.Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
DHK,
You said, 'There are more than just two chapters in the Bible.'
I know these chapters are like a pebble in your shoe, but go ahead and believe them anyway. It is a matter of readng, believing and trusting that His Word is still true. You will feel better toward the Lord, in my opinion, if you acknowledge all of the words which He has spoken to His church.
Using the excuse of 'tongues' being all national languages does not dovetail with all of His Word.
You (like all the rest) have failed to deal with 1Cor.14:21.
1 Corinthians 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.
Tongues is a sign to the Jew. Now explain this verse Ray. What does it mean? It means what it says, doesn't it? It was a sign to the Jews, as also was evidenced by Acts 2 (Oh pardon me, Acts 2 is not in your Bible; only 1Cor.12 & 14).
DHK