Originally posted by Link:
Briguy,
DHK promoted this theory in an earlier thread, but was not able to offer any proof for it. Paul does use a verse about the sign of the Hebrews not hearing when God spoke to them through men who spoke a foreign tongue, to make the point that tongues are a sign to _unbelievers._ (He does not say Jews per se, and he gives an example that is not about Jews per se.) Paul's point seems to be that when unbelievers or unlearned hear tongues the same sign is fulfilled that 'yet for all that, they will not hear Me.' Prophecy is more inclined to produce faith.
There is none so dead as those
that will not hear!
I have offered you proof of my position previously, but a person can only do so much. One can lead a horse to water, but he cannot make him drink. If I present to you Scriptural truth will you accept it or will you with biased and blinded eyes automatically reject it? I think we both know the answer.
Nevertheless, let us state the question again, and then give a Scriptural answer to it. Does Paul give the reason for gift of tongues as a sign to the unbelieving Jews? If it was a sign to the unbelieving Jews then what relevance does this gift have today since that sign has already been fulfilled in the first century unbelieving Jews?
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.
"In the law it is written" Where is it written? In the law? Where in the law? Specifically in Isaiah 28:11,12.
Isaiah 28:11-12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to
this people. 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.
Who does Isaiah refer to when he speaks to "this people?" It is the nation of Israel that he is referring to. What does he refer to? He refers to the Day of Pentecost primarily, and the few occasions after that in the first century when the unbelieving Jews would hear believing Gentiles speak in tongues. They would hear God's message from Gentiles in languages that they were foreign to them. This would be a sign to them. It would be a sign that they would understand in the first century because it was written and prophesied 700 years before by the prophet Isaiah, just as the virgin birth was. In both cases the believing Jews accepted the prophecies. The unbelieving Jews did not. Paul quoting the prophecy said plainly that it was a sign to the Jews, the unbelieving Jews, and yet for all that they would not hear or believe. And he was right. They did not believe. The consequence was judgement. The judgement came in the first century. God does not break his promises. He does not lie.
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
What the judgement was I will not dogmatically say that it was the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. as Briguy says it is. Perhaps it was the dispersion of the Jews. Perhaps it was the fact that from that time on they were no longer a nation, and did not become one until 1948. Perhaps it was the fact that God took away any Scriptural place for them to worship. Take your choice.
Now examine the Scripture:
In verse 21 Paul speaks of Israel, and tells the Corinthians that even though they hear people speak in tongues as they did on Pentecost they would not believe. That is what happened. Aside from the 3,000 that were saved, there were thousands that were not. They did not believe. They mocked Peter and the disciples. They accused them of being drunk. They were the ones that had crucified the Lord.
In verse 22, Paul says that tongues are specifically for the unbelievers and not the believers. But notice the very first word: "wherefore."
Now: Whenever you see a "wherefore" look before, to see why for, the therefore is there for.
Having done that we see that the "therefore" is a connective that connects the two verses together and the two thoughts together. It is a concluding statement to verse 21. The unbelievers of verse 22 are referring to the Jews of 21. That much is obvious. Paul is referring to the unbeiieving Jews. In every case in the book of Acts where tongues is mentioned: Acts 2, 10, 19, there were Jews that were present. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews. They were there to convince the Jews that the message that the Apostles were preaching was from God. "The Jews required a sign." And that sign was tongues. But they didn't listen, and were judged accordingly. By the end of the first century tongues had ceased. History bears this out. Your references to church fathers are spurious at best. No other epistle mentions tongues. The epistles to the Corinthians were two of the earliest epistles to be written. That is no coincidence.
Have you seen the film or DVD "The Passion of Christ?" Whether you have or not, can you visualize the road to Golgotha where Christ is carrying His cross, and the women are weeping loudly for Him. What does Christ say? Weep not for me? Why?
Luke 23:28 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
--Later he utters a prophecy. But here he addresses the Jews of His generation, the children of His generation. Why, because they would be the ones to hear the sign of tongues and reject it. They would hear the gospel and reject it. They would be the ones to actually see the crucifixion of Christ and reject his forgiveness. All of these things they would reject, including the sign of tongues. Thus Jesus, knowing the judgement that would befall them, tells them to weep for themselves and their children. It was not for the children of future generations that he was addressing these women. It was for them, and their children, for the things that they were, and would witness in the following few years. Judgement was coming soon upon them. They rejected the sign of tongues and were thus judged. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century. Those Jews are no longer with us today. Thus tongues has fulfilled its purpose. The gift has ceased, along with the other spiritual gifts. This is only but one of many reasons why tongues have ceased. Please don't say that I have not offered you any proof.
Nothing in the Isaiah passage or the I Corinthians 14 passage indicate that tongues would cease at 70AD. The only reasoning I can see behind that is in line replacement theology-- the idea that God was done with Israel at 70 AD.
This is almost like a false allegation. I hope it isn't. I do not believe in replacement theology. Romans 11 teaches that God has put aside Israel for a temporary period of time. They are still his people, but He is not dealing with them at this time. I am a dispensationalist. When Christ comes again, then God will start to deal again with the Jewish nation. Up until then He is calling out a nation unto Himself.
1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Since we believe the Bible, we shouldn't believe that theory. Jews are still around and they are still Jews. So there is no reason to think that if there was a sign especially for the Jews that the sign would cease in 70 AD. Paul does not connect tongues to the destruction of Jerusalem or the temple.
Paul intimates judgement by quoting Isaiah, and in the manner he quotes it. "Yet for all that they will not hear." What does that mean? It infers judgement. When a people does not hear God, God judges them. If you read Isaiah 28 you can read more of God's predictive judgement that would come upon the nation of Israel. It was not Paul's intention to quote the entire chapter.
Also, Paul gives another purpose for tongues beside that as a sign-- edification. Without interpretation it edifies the speaker. With interpretation, it edifies the church.
So there was another purpose. That purpose was secondary. It passed away when the Bible was completed, which was about the same time judgement came on the Jews. That only strengthens my position. Briguy and Walguy have already explained to you the Greek how that tongues would pass away on their own accord. Tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, and when that was fulfilled, the purpose of tongues was fulfilled, and the gift ceased.
I have seen a number of people who speak in tongues or claim to who hold to strange, unbliblical doctrinal teachings. But I have seen plenty of unbiblical doctrinal teachings among those who do not speak in tongues. The Corinthians apparently had a fair number of tongues speakers, but that did not guarantee them any kind of doctrinal purity in their congregation. Paul told them how immature they were, still drinking milk when he wrote I Corinthians. They probably had people arguing that it was okay to eat meat in an idol's temple, and there were some who were saying there was no resurrection of the dead. They were tolerat of an incestuous fornicator, and had various other problems. They were apparently even using God-given gifts wrongly. Gifts and doctrinal purity are two different issues. One can have gifts without doctrinal purity. Teaching that there are no gifts is not doctrinal purity, either.
And so your point is?? If the gifts have ceased there is no point in anything that you have said.
1. We all agree that the Corinthian church was a carnal church and misused the gifts.
2. We all agree that a churh can exist without perfect doctrine. If you ever find a perfect church don't join it; it won't be perfect any longer.
3. However, if you find a Charismatic church practicing "speaking in tongues" we automatically know that it is an unscriptural church, for we know that tongues have ceased. From the first century to the beginning of the 19th century no one spoke in tongues except for heretical groups of people. So no one had this gift for 1800 years. In the beginning of the 19th century the modern tongues movement suddenly appeared. What a coincidence. It certainly isn't of God, with that kind of timeline.
Carefully read I Corinthians. You seem to assume that tongues always functioned as it did in Acts 2, where listeners understood their own languages spoken. Paul does not say tongues operated that way. In the Corinthian situation, no one understood the tongue unless someone with the gift of interpretation interpreted it. Unbelievers who come in do not understand the tongue. This is different from what happened in Acts 2.
You are the one that misunderstands the use of tongues. Wherever tongues were spoken someone always understood. In fact if anything it probably operated in this way. God gave the gift of tongues as the Apostles traveled to foreign countries to speak in foreign languages. Tongues was always a foreign language. There was no need for the Corinthians to "show off" an ability to speak in a foreign language, and that is why all throughout the 14th chapter of 1st Corinthians he rebukes them for doing so. The speaker spoke in a foreign tongue or language. It was translated into Hebrew for the purpose of the unbelieving Jews that were present. It was a sign for the unbelieving Jews. Everywhere that Paul went, he went to the Jew first and then to the Greek. He went and preached in the synagogues. It would only be natural for him to speak in tongues to the nation in which the synagogues were located. Then it was translated for the Jews, as a sign to the Jews. Then many of the Jews beleived as is the case in the Book of Acts.
DHK
