-
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!
What do you think the word "perfect" means in 1Cor. 13:10?
- Thread starter music4Him
- Start date
Archeryaddict
New Member
wow this debate on one word has made 13 pages
I should have popped some pop corn
Link, In terms of helping understand the Greek word Pauo, Les did not say what it meant. He mostly just gave his feeling toward what the passage in general may be saying. The Greek word Pauo is reflexative in this case. Of course I am going by what I read about it, I do not know Greek myself. It is describing a future event, we agree on that. That doesn't change the meaning that Tongues end by themselves, like a candle burning out rather then being blown out. My argument for the verb usage was not challanged by the expert.
The Jews are not being judged in the sense of Isaiah 28, anymore. This was a judgement event not an ongoing judgement. Read Isaiah 28, the whole thing, especially what I posted before and you will see that this not a ordinary judgement of unbelievers. Paul quoted it and said Tongues were the sign that pointed to it. It is in the text, it is not my interpretation.
I'll try to get a few verses together on the other issue later.
Hope you are well!! - Have a great day,
In Christ,
Brian
The Jews are not being judged in the sense of Isaiah 28, anymore. This was a judgement event not an ongoing judgement. Read Isaiah 28, the whole thing, especially what I posted before and you will see that this not a ordinary judgement of unbelievers. Paul quoted it and said Tongues were the sign that pointed to it. It is in the text, it is not my interpretation.
I'll try to get a few verses together on the other issue later.
Hope you are well!! - Have a great day,
In Christ,
Brian
Your logic makes no sense at all. Go back to 1Cor.13:8
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
All of these three: prophecies, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge, are forms of revelation. Study 1Cor.14. Tongues is in contrast to prophecy all the way through. Tongues is always an actual real foreign language--just as they were on the day of Pentecost. "How hear we every man in our own tongue (language)." The purpose of tongues wass exactly the same as prophecy. It was to edify, to exhort, to give a message, to build up, etc. It had the exact same purpose. The difference was that it was in a different language. If the audience was of a different language than the speaker, why would there be a need for an interpreter--all the time--in every church. These were restrictions, not just for the church at Corinth but for all churches, everywhere. If they were just for Corinth then that automaically shuts down the Charismatic movement and you speaking in tongues right away, doesn't it? The restrictions were for all churches of that time.
Paul did go to other places, not just Corinth. You are pretty narrow minded, and contradict the Bible if you don't agree to that. He did say to the Corinthians that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Thus we know he spoke in tongues in other churches. Tongues was a gift of the Spirit for the churches only. All the gifts were for the local churches. None of them were "selfish gifts." They were for the use of the local church. You can study that one out for yourself, using Scripture, not just giving an opinion.
It doesn't matter what the langauge was, be it Spanish or any other language. I simply used Spanish as an example. So you are grasping at straws. Pick and choose any one of the languages represented in Acts chapter two if that makes you more comfortable. Paul spoke in other tongues in other churches. Why and how do we know? Because he infers or says that he did. His mission was to establish churches--to go and preach where no other had gone before. He went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches. Combine that with the statement in 1Cor.14--"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all," and what conclusion do you come up with? The only place he would have been speaking in tongues is in the establishment of other churches as he went from place to place where there were Jews present--for he always went to the Jews first.
What was the interpreter for--It was for the Jew. The message was translated back into the Hebrew. Why? It was required for every Jew to master the Hebrew language in order to read the Torah even if they had a preference for the Septuagint. They had to learn Hebrew. That was a must. Look at the quotes that John give in his gospel. He uses many Hebrew words ("lama lama sabachtami" which in the "Hebrew is interpreted...) John explains Hebrew words. He had to study Hebrew words. He was one of those "unlearned and ignorant" fisherman, that the Pharisees took note of "that they had been with Jesus."
When Paul was arrested by the Captain, he quieted the audience and spoke to them in the Hebrew language. It was the Hebrew language that commanded their respect.
When Christ read the Scriptures in the synagogue it was out of the Hebrew Scriptures that he read.
Why is it that every Jew today must study the Hebrew language?
Why is it today that every person in a Bible College must study the Hebrew language in order to attain M.Div?
It was the sacred language of the Jews in which their sacred Scriptures were written, even if they had another translation.
Thus the interpretation of tongues was back into Hebrew, as it was a sign for the Jews. Paul went all throughout the known world of that time, preaching the gospel to different peoples of different nations and different tongues. He would have used the gift God gave him--that of tongues, and it would have required an interpreter for a sign to the Jews, and that is all it was needed for.
DHK
DHK wrote,
***All of these three: prophecies, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge, are forms of revelation. Study 1Cor.14. Tongues is in contrast to prophecy all the way through. Tongues is always an actual real foreign language--just as they were on the day of Pentecost. "How hear we every man in our own tongue (language)." The purpose of tongues wass exactly the same as prophecy. It was to edify, to exhort, to give a message, to build up, etc. It had the exact same purpose. The difference was that it was in a different language. If the audience was of a different language than the speaker, why would there be a need for an interpreter--all the time--in every church. These were restrictions, not just for the church at Corinth but for all churches, everywhere. If they were just for Corinth then that automaically shuts down the Charismatic movement and you speaking in tongues right away, doesn't it? The restrictions were for all churches of that time. ***
Paul did go to other places, not just Corinth. You are pretty narrow minded, and contradict the Bible if you don't agree to that***
*******
I really do not see how you get from my post that I was saying that the rules Paul laid down only applied to Corinth. I neither said nor implied any such thing. But we must take into account that Paul's immediate context is the church in Corinth.
DHK wrote,
****************
. He did say to the Corinthians that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Thus we know he spoke in tongues in other churches. Tongues was a gift of the Spirit for the churches only. All the gifts were for the local churches. None of them were "selfish gifts." They were for the use of the local church. You can study that one out for yourself, using Scripture, not just giving an opinion.
*****************
Paul says he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians. From verse 29, we know that one could speak in tongues out of church, because the speaker in tongues was told to keep silent in the church, but still told to speak to himself and to God-- ergo, he could speak outside of church. THis interpretation goes right along with the context of Paul's statement in question. Why? Because he said "I speak in tongues more than ye all" BUT IN THE CHURCH, he would rather speak five words with the understanding that he might instruct others than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue. If Paul was comparing his use of tongues in private devotional prayer time to his use of the commonly known languages in the church, this would go right along with the wording of the passage. Could he have speaking in tongues in the church with interpretation in view? I'll admit that this is possible but seems less likely considering the wording of the passage. He could be talking about speaking in other languages in a non-miraculous manner, but that doesn't fit with his usage of the term speaking in tongues elsewhere in the passage.
***It doesn't matter what the langauge was, be it Spanish or any other language. I simply used Spanish as an example. So you are grasping at straws.***
Grasping at straws? No. The reason I put that comment in parenthesis was because it was not of primary importance, and not that relevant to the discussion. Plus, since i know a little bit about the history of certain Indo-European languages I thought I would share it.
***Pick and choose any one of the languages represented in Acts chapter two if that makes you more comfortable. Paul spoke in other tongues in other churches. Why and how do we know? Because he infers or says that he did. His mission was to establish churches--to go and preach where no other had gone before. He went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches.***
If Paul were speaking in tongues miraculously to plant churches, does it make sense that Paul would have spoken only to Hebrews? If, as you contend, all the Jews knew Hebrew, why would he have had to speak in a supernatural language? He could have spoken in Hebrew, a non-miraculous language, to any Jew. He would not have needed a miraculous gift to communicate if his speakers knew Hebrew. I would assume Paul had a great deal of expertise in the Hebrew language being a student of Gamiliel and advanced beyond his fellows in the Judaism of his day.
** Combine that with the statement in 1Cor.14--"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all," and what conclusion do you come up with? The only place he would have been speaking in tongues is in the establishment of other churches as he went from place to place where there were Jews present--for he always went to the Jews first.****
Paul could have spoken in tongues in private prayer. He could be speaking of tongues with intepretation (perhaps a stretch considering the contrast with the verse that follows), or maybe he is talking about natural speaking tongues. It is possible that Paul experienced Acts 2 type events, in that he spoke in tongues in the languages of people who understood, but these type of events do not follow the description of tongues in church Paul describes in the passage, and there is no clue from the passage that Paul used tongues this way. So this last idea is a stretch.
**What was the interpreter for--It was for the Jew. The message was translated back into the Hebrew. Why?***
That doesn't make a lick of sense. If the message had to be translated back into Hebrew, why wasn't the original Pentecost manifestation of speaking in tongues in Hebrew? Hebrew is conscpicuously absent form the list of languages in Acts 2.
** It was required for every Jew to master the Hebrew language in order to read the Torah even if they had a preference for the Septuagint. They had to learn Hebrew. That was a must. Look at the quotes that John give in his gospel. He uses many Hebrew words ("lama lama sabachtami" which in the "Hebrew is interpreted...) John explains Hebrew words. He had to study Hebrew words. He was one of those "unlearned and ignorant" fisherman, that the Pharisees took note of "that they had been with Jesus." ***
I think you messed that quote up. I don't think it is in John either. It is in Mark and Matthew. 'Lama sabachthani' is Aramaic.
Show me some evidence from history that Jews of Jesus day had to know Hebrew. If you are talking about Judaean Jews then I would agree with you. If you are talking about Hellenistic Jews, the Jews in Asia minor and the Greek peninnsula, I have not read anything about them all knowing Hebrew, and I find it quite unlikely. Many of these Jews were a bit like KJV-onlyists in that they believed their Greek translation was inspired, even making arguments off the turns of phrase and other such things like the Judeans did with the Hebrew. At least their belief in their translation was more reasonable than the KJV-onlyists, since they had a story about 70 men translating (the first 5 books of it at least) all the same working independently, through a miracle. And the New Testament does quote form this translation, which is probably a reason many early believers believed their Greek translation was inspired.
Take a look at Edersheim's book. Based on what I have read, it seems unlikely that every Hellenistic Jew would know Hebrew. You may be right that they all knew some Hebrew, but I would need to see some evidence for that before I can accept it as fact.
**When Paul was arrested by the Captain, he quieted the audience and spoke to them in the Hebrew language. It was the Hebrew language that commanded their respect.***
If the audience were Judean, that might get their attention. It might also prove to them that he was not a Gentile who had invaded the temple, or an Egyptian trouble-maker. Also, the Judaeans might have associated it with hearing sermons in the synagogue in Hebrew, and listened for that reason. Some interpreters interpret 'Hebrew' to refer to Hebrew or Aramaic, for what it is worth.
**When Christ read the Scriptures in the synagogue it was out of the Hebrew Scriptures that he read.***
I do not disagree with you. But if Paul were in the Corinthian synagogue, for example, he probably read the Septuigint scriptures. From what I have read, that is what they used in the synagogue. Jewish teachers of the Law decided the Hebrew Torah could only be copied under very strict guidelines, which did not apply to the LXX, and so the Greek version was widely used.
**Why is it that every Jew today must study the Hebrew language?**
Jewish boys are required to learn enough Hebrew to do their bar-mitsfa (sp?). Keep in mind, though, that the Judaism today evolved out of the Judaism of the Pharisees, a kind of lay-movement. Some other aspects of Judaism were wiped out after the temple was destroyed. So the Judaism that came out of the destruction of the temple was influenced by the Judaean Pharisee types, the 'Torah cult' that focused on the study of the Law, without as much influence from the priestly types.
**Why is it today that every person in a Bible College must study the Hebrew language in order to attain M.Div?
It was the sacred language of the Jews in which their sacred Scriptures were written, even if they had another translation.
Thus the interpretation of tongues was back into Hebrew, as it was a sign for the Jews.***
Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not. You say that means Jews. But Paul says that tongues are to be interpreted to EDIFY THE CHURCH. By definition, members of the church are BELIEVERS. Greater is he that prophesies, Paul says, than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets THAT THE CHURCH MAY RECIEVE EDIFYING. So interpretation of tongues edified, not unbelieving Jews, but the church. So why would it be in Hebrew?
Tongues were interpreted so that the church could understand what was said and be edified. That is what Paul teaches. You are reading unfounded conclusions about being a 'sign to the Jews' and ignoring what the passage actually clearly teaches over and over again.
Link
***All of these three: prophecies, tongues, and (revelatory) knowledge, are forms of revelation. Study 1Cor.14. Tongues is in contrast to prophecy all the way through. Tongues is always an actual real foreign language--just as they were on the day of Pentecost. "How hear we every man in our own tongue (language)." The purpose of tongues wass exactly the same as prophecy. It was to edify, to exhort, to give a message, to build up, etc. It had the exact same purpose. The difference was that it was in a different language. If the audience was of a different language than the speaker, why would there be a need for an interpreter--all the time--in every church. These were restrictions, not just for the church at Corinth but for all churches, everywhere. If they were just for Corinth then that automaically shuts down the Charismatic movement and you speaking in tongues right away, doesn't it? The restrictions were for all churches of that time. ***
Paul did go to other places, not just Corinth. You are pretty narrow minded, and contradict the Bible if you don't agree to that***
*******
I really do not see how you get from my post that I was saying that the rules Paul laid down only applied to Corinth. I neither said nor implied any such thing. But we must take into account that Paul's immediate context is the church in Corinth.
DHK wrote,
****************
. He did say to the Corinthians that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Thus we know he spoke in tongues in other churches. Tongues was a gift of the Spirit for the churches only. All the gifts were for the local churches. None of them were "selfish gifts." They were for the use of the local church. You can study that one out for yourself, using Scripture, not just giving an opinion.
*****************
Paul says he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians. From verse 29, we know that one could speak in tongues out of church, because the speaker in tongues was told to keep silent in the church, but still told to speak to himself and to God-- ergo, he could speak outside of church. THis interpretation goes right along with the context of Paul's statement in question. Why? Because he said "I speak in tongues more than ye all" BUT IN THE CHURCH, he would rather speak five words with the understanding that he might instruct others than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue. If Paul was comparing his use of tongues in private devotional prayer time to his use of the commonly known languages in the church, this would go right along with the wording of the passage. Could he have speaking in tongues in the church with interpretation in view? I'll admit that this is possible but seems less likely considering the wording of the passage. He could be talking about speaking in other languages in a non-miraculous manner, but that doesn't fit with his usage of the term speaking in tongues elsewhere in the passage.
***It doesn't matter what the langauge was, be it Spanish or any other language. I simply used Spanish as an example. So you are grasping at straws.***
Grasping at straws? No. The reason I put that comment in parenthesis was because it was not of primary importance, and not that relevant to the discussion. Plus, since i know a little bit about the history of certain Indo-European languages I thought I would share it.
***Pick and choose any one of the languages represented in Acts chapter two if that makes you more comfortable. Paul spoke in other tongues in other churches. Why and how do we know? Because he infers or says that he did. His mission was to establish churches--to go and preach where no other had gone before. He went on three missionary journeys and established about 100 churches.***
If Paul were speaking in tongues miraculously to plant churches, does it make sense that Paul would have spoken only to Hebrews? If, as you contend, all the Jews knew Hebrew, why would he have had to speak in a supernatural language? He could have spoken in Hebrew, a non-miraculous language, to any Jew. He would not have needed a miraculous gift to communicate if his speakers knew Hebrew. I would assume Paul had a great deal of expertise in the Hebrew language being a student of Gamiliel and advanced beyond his fellows in the Judaism of his day.
** Combine that with the statement in 1Cor.14--"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all," and what conclusion do you come up with? The only place he would have been speaking in tongues is in the establishment of other churches as he went from place to place where there were Jews present--for he always went to the Jews first.****
Paul could have spoken in tongues in private prayer. He could be speaking of tongues with intepretation (perhaps a stretch considering the contrast with the verse that follows), or maybe he is talking about natural speaking tongues. It is possible that Paul experienced Acts 2 type events, in that he spoke in tongues in the languages of people who understood, but these type of events do not follow the description of tongues in church Paul describes in the passage, and there is no clue from the passage that Paul used tongues this way. So this last idea is a stretch.
**What was the interpreter for--It was for the Jew. The message was translated back into the Hebrew. Why?***
That doesn't make a lick of sense. If the message had to be translated back into Hebrew, why wasn't the original Pentecost manifestation of speaking in tongues in Hebrew? Hebrew is conscpicuously absent form the list of languages in Acts 2.
** It was required for every Jew to master the Hebrew language in order to read the Torah even if they had a preference for the Septuagint. They had to learn Hebrew. That was a must. Look at the quotes that John give in his gospel. He uses many Hebrew words ("lama lama sabachtami" which in the "Hebrew is interpreted...) John explains Hebrew words. He had to study Hebrew words. He was one of those "unlearned and ignorant" fisherman, that the Pharisees took note of "that they had been with Jesus." ***
I think you messed that quote up. I don't think it is in John either. It is in Mark and Matthew. 'Lama sabachthani' is Aramaic.
Show me some evidence from history that Jews of Jesus day had to know Hebrew. If you are talking about Judaean Jews then I would agree with you. If you are talking about Hellenistic Jews, the Jews in Asia minor and the Greek peninnsula, I have not read anything about them all knowing Hebrew, and I find it quite unlikely. Many of these Jews were a bit like KJV-onlyists in that they believed their Greek translation was inspired, even making arguments off the turns of phrase and other such things like the Judeans did with the Hebrew. At least their belief in their translation was more reasonable than the KJV-onlyists, since they had a story about 70 men translating (the first 5 books of it at least) all the same working independently, through a miracle. And the New Testament does quote form this translation, which is probably a reason many early believers believed their Greek translation was inspired.
Take a look at Edersheim's book. Based on what I have read, it seems unlikely that every Hellenistic Jew would know Hebrew. You may be right that they all knew some Hebrew, but I would need to see some evidence for that before I can accept it as fact.
**When Paul was arrested by the Captain, he quieted the audience and spoke to them in the Hebrew language. It was the Hebrew language that commanded their respect.***
If the audience were Judean, that might get their attention. It might also prove to them that he was not a Gentile who had invaded the temple, or an Egyptian trouble-maker. Also, the Judaeans might have associated it with hearing sermons in the synagogue in Hebrew, and listened for that reason. Some interpreters interpret 'Hebrew' to refer to Hebrew or Aramaic, for what it is worth.
**When Christ read the Scriptures in the synagogue it was out of the Hebrew Scriptures that he read.***
I do not disagree with you. But if Paul were in the Corinthian synagogue, for example, he probably read the Septuigint scriptures. From what I have read, that is what they used in the synagogue. Jewish teachers of the Law decided the Hebrew Torah could only be copied under very strict guidelines, which did not apply to the LXX, and so the Greek version was widely used.
**Why is it that every Jew today must study the Hebrew language?**
Jewish boys are required to learn enough Hebrew to do their bar-mitsfa (sp?). Keep in mind, though, that the Judaism today evolved out of the Judaism of the Pharisees, a kind of lay-movement. Some other aspects of Judaism were wiped out after the temple was destroyed. So the Judaism that came out of the destruction of the temple was influenced by the Judaean Pharisee types, the 'Torah cult' that focused on the study of the Law, without as much influence from the priestly types.
**Why is it today that every person in a Bible College must study the Hebrew language in order to attain M.Div?
It was the sacred language of the Jews in which their sacred Scriptures were written, even if they had another translation.
Thus the interpretation of tongues was back into Hebrew, as it was a sign for the Jews.***
Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not. You say that means Jews. But Paul says that tongues are to be interpreted to EDIFY THE CHURCH. By definition, members of the church are BELIEVERS. Greater is he that prophesies, Paul says, than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets THAT THE CHURCH MAY RECIEVE EDIFYING. So interpretation of tongues edified, not unbelieving Jews, but the church. So why would it be in Hebrew?
Tongues were interpreted so that the church could understand what was said and be edified. That is what Paul teaches. You are reading unfounded conclusions about being a 'sign to the Jews' and ignoring what the passage actually clearly teaches over and over again.
Link
Link, I think that Tongues could have been spoken in one language and interpreted back to whatever language the majority of the assembly spoke. Lets say it is a Greek speaking assembly. A group of people walks in to the assembly who speak Aramaic or some other popular language of that time. Someone is givng a message to the assembly but the "new" people can't understand it. So the new people can hear God's message a person gifted in Tongues would stand up and give the Gospel or revelation in the language of the "new" people. Well, then the rest of the assembly would get nothing out of that message unless an interpreter of tongues interpreted the message back to the orginal language that the group speaks in. The ability to speak in a language you do not know and for someone to interpret that language when they didn't know it is truely miraculous. It is that supernatural event that is the "sign" to the Jews that by their unbelief a judgement is coming. Now, remember Paul said NO INTERPRETER = NO SPEAKING IN TONGUES. That is because the use of these two great gifts go together so all gathered will be edified. "Gifts" must be to the profit of the "body" not the individual. Tongues used in private prayer language would not be a sign for the Jews because they would never see nor hear of it. Plus to hear someone rattle off words you don't understand does not display the power of God just the fact that a person can make strange sounding words. Hope that made sense. The end of your last post touched on what I said.
In Christ,
Brian
Sorry about not posting verses yet. I hope to this weekend.
In Christ,
Brian
Sorry about not posting verses yet. I hope to this weekend.
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
13 pages! I'm sure it has been said, but here goes any ole way:
The Greek is a nueter, hence it must be a thing. I used to believe it was the bible, yet we still need knowledge. So, having said that, I cast my vote on either it being Heaven or the parousia.
The Greek is a nueter, hence it must be a thing. I used to believe it was the bible, yet we still need knowledge. So, having said that, I cast my vote on either it being Heaven or the parousia.
The knowledge spoken of Scott, is not common knowledge (which of course will continue), but special revelatory knowledge (which was for that time period when they didn't have the completed Word of God). All the temporary gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8 deal with the subject of revelation in direct relation with God's Word. In fact "revelation" is the topic being discussed in this passage, and Paul continues one particular aspect of it in chapter 14--the comparison of two modes of God's revelation--tongues and prophecy, and which one edified more. All three (mentioned in 1Cor.13:8) ceased at the end of the first century when their purpose was fulfilled, and the Bible was completed (made perfect). I don't see how one can get away with heaven or any other subject matter when the context all the way through deals with "revelation."
DHK
DHK
Scott_Bushey
<img src=/scott.jpg>
The passage compares seeing dimly to face to face........We see (truth) dimly now, butlater, when we are face to face w/ Christ, we will be known as we are known. The knowledge spoken of is knowledge about God and His ways, not common knowledge.
Since when has scripture dealt with things like common knowledge. This passage is a spiritual passage. It uses spiritual language........I disagree.
We still need knowledge; thats why we have pastors and teachers. later, face to face, the need will vanish.
Since when has scripture dealt with things like common knowledge. This passage is a spiritual passage. It uses spiritual language........I disagree.
We still need knowledge; thats why we have pastors and teachers. later, face to face, the need will vanish.
Briguy,
Les revised his original response and sent this to me.
First, you are right to suspect that Greek tenses (as well as voice and
mood) are often asked to carry too much weight in theological discussions.
Any verb, regardless of its tense, must still be understood in a number of
contexts before one draws conclusions. Furthermore, we all use language
according to our skills, personal quirks and with a particular audience in
mind. Thus, a 'grammatical rule' sometimes is 'broken' for the sake of
emphasis or because we are not trying to use a word with exacting precision.
There is also the issue - particularly in the NT - that the 'koine' Greek of
the Bible is a 'leveled out' version of Greek. That is, it was a common
variety that allowed many people to talk to each other in a language that
was not native to them. It seems to me that many of the attempts to make a
doctrine stand on a fine nuance of a particular word probably is not - at
least most of the time - the best approach to take for establishing
doctrine.
Second, the verb in question is indeed in the middle voice but it is also
future indicative. That is, at the time Paul used the word, what he was
describing was an event that had not happened at the time of writing. It is
also worth noting that some middles are what are called Odeponent¹ - meaning
they are in the middle voice form but have an active voice sense. This is a
position taken in some lexicons and commentators (W.J. Perschbacher, et.
al.) in this particular instance. Bill would probably have a more informed
opinion than I do about whether or not 'deponent' is at issue here.
Third, if the word Otongues¹ is understood as Olanguages¹ which is its
usual sense, then the train of Paul¹s thinking here may lead to a far
different discussion than some theory of cessationism. (Allow me to
interject here that one reason that modern translations tend to retain
'tongues' is due to the adoption of the word to describe current practices
in many of the churches today. It has become a doctrinal word for many
groups and those who sell Bibles are very careful not to alienate a
potential pool of customers. This is not to say anything for or against
current practices - for, in fact, I have been witness to genuine instances
of 'tongues' in both senses. It is just an observation from a translation
point of view. I am fairly certain the KJV translators were using 'tongues'
most of the time as we use our word 'languages.') One should be very careful
here before deciding that Paul is referring to the type of tongues in
chapters 12 and 14 in this Omidrash¹ of 13 or in reading present day
definitions or understandings back into the text.
Fourth, I am relatively certain that no polls from 50 AD are extant that
show the ratio of Jews to Gentiles in Othe assemblies of God which were in
Christ Jesus.¹ I often hear the statement made that the Jews rejected Jesus
when, in fact, it would be more correct to say that many did but more than a
few did not. According to some Catholic church historians, there was a
fairly strong Jewish-Christian presence well into the fifth century. That
some form of judgment was involved in the Pentecost event is evident. But,
as with all of His judgments upon Israel, there is also the presence of His
faithful ones and the promise of blessing. I am certain that Paul the Jew
knew this better than we. It might be that he was pointing us toward the day
when the perfect (or end) will come and the existence of incomplete
knowledge, the need for prophecies, and the frailties of inadequate human
languages will be replaced by Our Lord who will give us one Consummate
Subject to ponder in a united family whose conversations are spoken in a
single language bathed in love.
Les revised his original response and sent this to me.
First, you are right to suspect that Greek tenses (as well as voice and
mood) are often asked to carry too much weight in theological discussions.
Any verb, regardless of its tense, must still be understood in a number of
contexts before one draws conclusions. Furthermore, we all use language
according to our skills, personal quirks and with a particular audience in
mind. Thus, a 'grammatical rule' sometimes is 'broken' for the sake of
emphasis or because we are not trying to use a word with exacting precision.
There is also the issue - particularly in the NT - that the 'koine' Greek of
the Bible is a 'leveled out' version of Greek. That is, it was a common
variety that allowed many people to talk to each other in a language that
was not native to them. It seems to me that many of the attempts to make a
doctrine stand on a fine nuance of a particular word probably is not - at
least most of the time - the best approach to take for establishing
doctrine.
Second, the verb in question is indeed in the middle voice but it is also
future indicative. That is, at the time Paul used the word, what he was
describing was an event that had not happened at the time of writing. It is
also worth noting that some middles are what are called Odeponent¹ - meaning
they are in the middle voice form but have an active voice sense. This is a
position taken in some lexicons and commentators (W.J. Perschbacher, et.
al.) in this particular instance. Bill would probably have a more informed
opinion than I do about whether or not 'deponent' is at issue here.
Third, if the word Otongues¹ is understood as Olanguages¹ which is its
usual sense, then the train of Paul¹s thinking here may lead to a far
different discussion than some theory of cessationism. (Allow me to
interject here that one reason that modern translations tend to retain
'tongues' is due to the adoption of the word to describe current practices
in many of the churches today. It has become a doctrinal word for many
groups and those who sell Bibles are very careful not to alienate a
potential pool of customers. This is not to say anything for or against
current practices - for, in fact, I have been witness to genuine instances
of 'tongues' in both senses. It is just an observation from a translation
point of view. I am fairly certain the KJV translators were using 'tongues'
most of the time as we use our word 'languages.') One should be very careful
here before deciding that Paul is referring to the type of tongues in
chapters 12 and 14 in this Omidrash¹ of 13 or in reading present day
definitions or understandings back into the text.
Fourth, I am relatively certain that no polls from 50 AD are extant that
show the ratio of Jews to Gentiles in Othe assemblies of God which were in
Christ Jesus.¹ I often hear the statement made that the Jews rejected Jesus
when, in fact, it would be more correct to say that many did but more than a
few did not. According to some Catholic church historians, there was a
fairly strong Jewish-Christian presence well into the fifth century. That
some form of judgment was involved in the Pentecost event is evident. But,
as with all of His judgments upon Israel, there is also the presence of His
faithful ones and the promise of blessing. I am certain that Paul the Jew
knew this better than we. It might be that he was pointing us toward the day
when the perfect (or end) will come and the existence of incomplete
knowledge, the need for prophecies, and the frailties of inadequate human
languages will be replaced by Our Lord who will give us one Consummate
Subject to ponder in a united family whose conversations are spoken in a
single language bathed in love.
Link, I still don't think he said anything that directly refutes what I said. You have not respondede, I don't think, to the fact that Tongues(language speaking, as a gift) end at a different time then Knowledge and Prophecy. Two verbs that have very different meanings pointing to seperate ending times. This is a question you need to wrestle with, be it painful or not. Les said that "Pauo" was future indicative, which is what I said. He wrote this in 50AD, the judgement came in 70AD. That made it a coming event. Plus he wrote it about an event that was predicted way back by Isaiah and first manifested in 33AD with the birth of the church at Pentecost.
Link, please respond to the meat in my last post. The part in particular where I said that Tongues could not be a sign if done in private because no one would see them. Signs as a rule are something that are meant to be seen by ohters. You never see a billboard on the highway behind the tree line! Signs are not hid. Looking forward to your response. Sorry about the delay in my response, I was out of town for a few days.
In Christ,
Brian
Link, please respond to the meat in my last post. The part in particular where I said that Tongues could not be a sign if done in private because no one would see them. Signs as a rule are something that are meant to be seen by ohters. You never see a billboard on the highway behind the tree line! Signs are not hid. Looking forward to your response. Sorry about the delay in my response, I was out of town for a few days.
In Christ,
Brian
1 Corinthians 13:1 tells you what the word "perfect" means in that passage:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." It means stop being a fake... a phony Christian.
I would compare 1Corinthians 13:10 and what "Perfect" means with Matthew chapter 5:
Matthew 5:
16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30: And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36: Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Isaiah prophesied that when Jesus came He would MAGNIFY THE LAW... and make it honorable... the Pharisees CLAIMED to keep the law but in reality they had hatred in their hearts for others and for Jesus Himself.
Isa:42:21: The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
The Old Testament was truth but the truth becomes more and more evident as time goes by. Thats why in Acts of the Apostles it says God in times past "winked" at sin... He reveals truth as we can handle it... just like Jesus said He had much to tell His disciples but that they couldnt bear it now.
Thou shalt not kill... Jesus revealed that those who keep the law needed to realize that if they hate their brother they are not keeping the Law... and if they claim they dont commit adultery yet lust after a woman in their heart they have broken the law.
"Perfect" means you must love your enemies, not love to gain merit, not love only in outward appearance... but true charity born from love to God and to our neighbor. If you keep the commandments to "get to heaven" or to get merit, you have missed the whole boat... the Pharisees loved those who loved them... they did good works to "get something". God calls us to a much higher standard. To do good because we genuinely love God and His ways.
Prov:4:18: But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
We see God more and more clearly as He really is... Jesus said "when you see Me you see the Father", He revealed God the Father to us more perfectly, and thus we are responsible for the greater light that we now have.
Claudia Thompson
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." It means stop being a fake... a phony Christian.
I would compare 1Corinthians 13:10 and what "Perfect" means with Matthew chapter 5:
Matthew 5:
16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30: And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
33: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36: Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37: But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Isaiah prophesied that when Jesus came He would MAGNIFY THE LAW... and make it honorable... the Pharisees CLAIMED to keep the law but in reality they had hatred in their hearts for others and for Jesus Himself.
Isa:42:21: The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
The Old Testament was truth but the truth becomes more and more evident as time goes by. Thats why in Acts of the Apostles it says God in times past "winked" at sin... He reveals truth as we can handle it... just like Jesus said He had much to tell His disciples but that they couldnt bear it now.
Thou shalt not kill... Jesus revealed that those who keep the law needed to realize that if they hate their brother they are not keeping the Law... and if they claim they dont commit adultery yet lust after a woman in their heart they have broken the law.
"Perfect" means you must love your enemies, not love to gain merit, not love only in outward appearance... but true charity born from love to God and to our neighbor. If you keep the commandments to "get to heaven" or to get merit, you have missed the whole boat... the Pharisees loved those who loved them... they did good works to "get something". God calls us to a much higher standard. To do good because we genuinely love God and His ways.
Prov:4:18: But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.
We see God more and more clearly as He really is... Jesus said "when you see Me you see the Father", He revealed God the Father to us more perfectly, and thus we are responsible for the greater light that we now have.
Claudia Thompson
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
Briguy wrote,
**You have not respondede, I don't think, to the fact that Tongues(language speaking, as a gift) end at a different time then Knowledge and Prophecy. Two verbs that have very different meanings pointing to seperate ending times.**
The fact that two verb forms are used does not prove that these gifts will end at different times. You are making that assumption. Also, see lesses point that some scholars believe that certain verbs taking the middle voice. Notice Les' comments "Second, the verb in question is indeed in the middle voice but it is also future indicative." If the middle was used for this verb as the form for the indicative, that further weakens your argument.
**This is a question you need to wrestle with, be it painful or not. Les said that "Pauo" was future indicative, which is what I said. He wrote this in 50AD, the judgement came in 70AD. That made it a coming event. Plus he wrote it about an event that was predicted way back by Isaiah and first manifested in 33AD with the birth of the church at Pentecost. **
The other verb in question, according to less, is also a future indicative. But even if it did not have that sense, can you prove that verb in the Greek middle and a verb in the future indivative could not take place at the same time. From what I understand of grammar, middles and mediopassives are something like reflexive forms-- something doing something to itself. If a future indicative and a middle form are used, how does that mean that the events would take place at a different time? What is the basis for your argument? In this case, if this particular middle form can also be used as a future indicative, it may well be arguing for the same time.
**Link, please respond to the meat in my last post. The part in particular where I said that Tongues could not be a sign if done in private because no one would see them. Signs as a rule are something that are meant to be seen by ohters.***
We have discussed related issues quite a lot already. Tongues are not a sign for believers; they are a sign to unbelievers. Tongues can be used in contexts in which they do not serve as a sign. If all believers are present, and one speaks in tongues, and another interprets, tongues is used for edification, but not as a sign. If a believer prays in tongues when no one else is present (I Corinthians 14:28) then he is not using tongues as a sign, but rather as a means of edification of himself. Paul does not oppose edifying oneself with tongues. What he does oppose is activities that edify oneself and not the assembly being done in the assembly. The things we do in the assembly should edify the assembly. Paul never requires that an unbeliever be present when one speak in tongues. The example he gives is IF one unlearned or an unbeliever comes in to the meeting. He doesn't say that they were always present.
**You have not respondede, I don't think, to the fact that Tongues(language speaking, as a gift) end at a different time then Knowledge and Prophecy. Two verbs that have very different meanings pointing to seperate ending times.**
The fact that two verb forms are used does not prove that these gifts will end at different times. You are making that assumption. Also, see lesses point that some scholars believe that certain verbs taking the middle voice. Notice Les' comments "Second, the verb in question is indeed in the middle voice but it is also future indicative." If the middle was used for this verb as the form for the indicative, that further weakens your argument.
**This is a question you need to wrestle with, be it painful or not. Les said that "Pauo" was future indicative, which is what I said. He wrote this in 50AD, the judgement came in 70AD. That made it a coming event. Plus he wrote it about an event that was predicted way back by Isaiah and first manifested in 33AD with the birth of the church at Pentecost. **
The other verb in question, according to less, is also a future indicative. But even if it did not have that sense, can you prove that verb in the Greek middle and a verb in the future indivative could not take place at the same time. From what I understand of grammar, middles and mediopassives are something like reflexive forms-- something doing something to itself. If a future indicative and a middle form are used, how does that mean that the events would take place at a different time? What is the basis for your argument? In this case, if this particular middle form can also be used as a future indicative, it may well be arguing for the same time.
**Link, please respond to the meat in my last post. The part in particular where I said that Tongues could not be a sign if done in private because no one would see them. Signs as a rule are something that are meant to be seen by ohters.***
We have discussed related issues quite a lot already. Tongues are not a sign for believers; they are a sign to unbelievers. Tongues can be used in contexts in which they do not serve as a sign. If all believers are present, and one speaks in tongues, and another interprets, tongues is used for edification, but not as a sign. If a believer prays in tongues when no one else is present (I Corinthians 14:28) then he is not using tongues as a sign, but rather as a means of edification of himself. Paul does not oppose edifying oneself with tongues. What he does oppose is activities that edify oneself and not the assembly being done in the assembly. The things we do in the assembly should edify the assembly. Paul never requires that an unbeliever be present when one speak in tongues. The example he gives is IF one unlearned or an unbeliever comes in to the meeting. He doesn't say that they were always present.
Claudia
I Corinthians 13 mentions something perfect _external_ to Paul coming. One of the other passages you quoted is about believers being perfect. Two kinds of perfection are in view here.
I Corinthians 13 is not saying that if we become morally perfect, we no longer need the gifts. If that were the case, why would Christ, the most morally perfect Man ever, have done such great miracles?
The gifts of the Spirit must be done with love. Without love, the one who uses the gifts is nothing. Compare this to Paul teaching that he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues except he interpret. Because he who prophesies edifies the church. He ministers to other people. This lines up with the implication of I Corinthians 13 that gifts must be done in love to benefit others.
I Corinthians 13 mentions something perfect _external_ to Paul coming. One of the other passages you quoted is about believers being perfect. Two kinds of perfection are in view here.
I Corinthians 13 is not saying that if we become morally perfect, we no longer need the gifts. If that were the case, why would Christ, the most morally perfect Man ever, have done such great miracles?
The gifts of the Spirit must be done with love. Without love, the one who uses the gifts is nothing. Compare this to Paul teaching that he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues except he interpret. Because he who prophesies edifies the church. He ministers to other people. This lines up with the implication of I Corinthians 13 that gifts must be done in love to benefit others.
You are in grave error about this aspect of tongues. Nowhere does the Scripture teach that tongues edifies oneself. It WAS a gift given to the entire church. No gift was given as a selfish gift, as you would have us believe. Tongues was not for the edification of one person to use selfishly in this way. Paul never advocates this, never. It is a gift for the whole church, always the whole church, and never to be used outside of the assembly. The entire context of the gifts of the Spirit are the gifts of the Spirit that are given to the church, not just any individual--but the church--for the use and edification of the church.
DHK
DHK,
I must reject your assertions because the contradict the scriptures below:
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Notice that "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifiether himself...I would that ye all speak with tongues...." It is good to edify onself (i.e. build oneself up.) But it is better to edify the assembly.
Also, see the following verses from the same chapter:
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.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Since he who speaks in tongues speaks to God, it stands to reason that 'let him speak to himself and to God' still refers to speaking in tongues as the context implies. One who speaks in tongues without an interpreter, may do so, but not in the assembly. If he does so, he edifies himself. Edifying oneself is a good thing (obviously) but edifying the assembly is better.
Compare with Jude 20:
20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
I must reject your assertions because the contradict the scriptures below:
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Notice that "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifiether himself...I would that ye all speak with tongues...." It is good to edify onself (i.e. build oneself up.) But it is better to edify the assembly.
Also, see the following verses from the same chapter:
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.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
Since he who speaks in tongues speaks to God, it stands to reason that 'let him speak to himself and to God' still refers to speaking in tongues as the context implies. One who speaks in tongues without an interpreter, may do so, but not in the assembly. If he does so, he edifies himself. Edifying oneself is a good thing (obviously) but edifying the assembly is better.
Compare with Jude 20:
20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Therefore don't do it. It is a rebuke. Keep it in its context. Tongues (like all other gifts) was a gift for the church. It was wrong to "edify yourself" with tongues. Therefore don't do it; prophesy instead--it is the gift that edifies the church. God does not hand out selfish gifts, or gifts for selfish usages.
It is not good to edify oneself with tongues, since that is not its purpose. It is never good to go against the stated purposes of God, no matter how good they may seem to be. "It is better to edify the assembly." That is the teaching. Therefore edify the assembly. The gift was for the church. God is a God of order.
No it doesn't stand to reason at all. You are reading into the Scriptures that which is not there. Speak to yourself and to God. Speaking to God is by definition called prayer. We don't pray in tongues; there is no need to. God understands us just as well in our own language, in fact he understands us much better in our own language because we understand what we are saying. Prayer is communication. It must be two way--speaking and hearing. Not gibberish and hearing. It must be understood and heard.
You don't understand the thrust of that passage. One can never, never, never, speak in tongues without an interpreter. NEVER! That is the teaching. If there be no interpreter let him keep silence! How clear can it be. Tongues are not to be used outside the church, for they are a gift to the church.
This verse has nothing to do with the gift of tongues whatsoever.
DHK
I wrote,
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responded.
Therefore don't do it. It is a rebuke. Keep it in its context. Tongues (like all other gifts) was a gift for the church. It was wrong to "edify yourself" with tongues. Therefore don't do it; prophesy instead--it is the gift that edifies the church. God does not hand out selfish gifts, or gifts for selfish usages.
____________
You are chopping the verses up and interpreting them out of context. Paul's comment on tongues is 'I would that ye all spake with tongues....' Paul wanted the Corinthians to edify themselves through tongues. But he would rather have them prophesy.
The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself. The one who prophesies edifies the church. The one who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets, because prophesying edifies the church and uninterpreted tongues does not. Notice the contrast. Paul would that they all spoke in tongues which would edify themselves, but he would rather have them prophesy and edify the church. He is contrasting these two gifts and showing why prophesy is better. He says that he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues-- and then Paul adds another factor in: interpretation. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Notice the parallelism between verse 4 and verse 5. Notice how the ideas line up in sequential order.
"He that speaketh in tongues edifieth himself" AND "I would that ye all spake with tongues.
Now look at this
"but he that prophesiet edifieth the church: AND "but rather that ye prophesied."
DHK wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not good to edify oneself with tongues, since that is not its purpose.
________________________________________________________________________________
If it is wrong to build oneself up, why would Jude command it?
Jude 20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
The word for 'building up' is okoidome, the same Greek root word for 'edify' in I Corinthians 14.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is never good to go against the stated purposes of God, no matter how good they may seem to be. "It is better to edify the assembly." That is the teaching. Therefore edify the assembly. The gift was for the church. God is a God of order.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I would that ye all spake with tongues' is scriptural teaching. The Bible does say that it is _better_ to edify the assembly. But it also teaches that it is good to edify oneself.
'Edify' means to build up. It does not mean to make oneself look 'cool.'
DHK wrote,
________
No it doesn't stand to reason at all. You are reading into the Scriptures that which is not there. Speak to yourself and to God. Speaking to God is by definition called prayer. We don't pray in tongues; there is no need to.
_________
The Bible is clear that one can pray in tongues. You need to sit down and read I Corinthians 14. Praying in tongues is all throughout the passage.
It is 100% clear from this passage that prayer in tongues is in view:
16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
See these verses also:
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Notice in verse 17 'thou verily givest thanks well.' The man giving thanks well here is praying in tongues! It is okay for him to give thanks in tongues, but it doesn't do a lick of good to anyone else around him in church, so he shouldn't do it in church.
DHK wrote,
____________
You don't understand the thrust of that passage. One can never, never, never, speak in tongues without an interpreter. NEVER! That is the teaching. If there be no interpreter let him keep silence! How clear can it be. Tongues are not to be used outside the church, for they are a gift to the church.
____________
A verse from Isaiah comes to mind, "Ye teach for doctrines the commandments of men...."
The Bible does not teach that you should never speak in tongues without an interpreter. it teaches not to speak in tongues IN CHURCH without an intepreter. If you forbid all tongues without interpretation, you are giving commandments of men without basis from scripture. You need to read 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' You have no right to forbid speaking in tongues that God does not forbid. Only the Lord has the right to forbid speaking in tongues. He gave us very specific instances in which speaking in tongues are forbidden.
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare with Jude 20:
20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK wrote,
This verse has nothing to do with the gift of tongues whatsoever.
__________
First of all, you missed the point. This verse commands readers to edify themselves. That was the point. Secondly, Jude's use of 'praying in the Holy Ghost' is consistent with Paul's use of 'pray with the Spirit' (if one interprets 'Spirit' to be the Holy Spirit, since the Greek was in all capitals.) I can't prove that Jude is talking about tongues here, but it is certainly a possiblity we should consider.
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK responded.
Therefore don't do it. It is a rebuke. Keep it in its context. Tongues (like all other gifts) was a gift for the church. It was wrong to "edify yourself" with tongues. Therefore don't do it; prophesy instead--it is the gift that edifies the church. God does not hand out selfish gifts, or gifts for selfish usages.
____________
You are chopping the verses up and interpreting them out of context. Paul's comment on tongues is 'I would that ye all spake with tongues....' Paul wanted the Corinthians to edify themselves through tongues. But he would rather have them prophesy.
The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself. The one who prophesies edifies the church. The one who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interprets, because prophesying edifies the church and uninterpreted tongues does not. Notice the contrast. Paul would that they all spoke in tongues which would edify themselves, but he would rather have them prophesy and edify the church. He is contrasting these two gifts and showing why prophesy is better. He says that he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues-- and then Paul adds another factor in: interpretation. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets.
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Notice the parallelism between verse 4 and verse 5. Notice how the ideas line up in sequential order.
"He that speaketh in tongues edifieth himself" AND "I would that ye all spake with tongues.
Now look at this
"but he that prophesiet edifieth the church: AND "but rather that ye prophesied."
DHK wrote,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not good to edify oneself with tongues, since that is not its purpose.
________________________________________________________________________________
If it is wrong to build oneself up, why would Jude command it?
Jude 20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
The word for 'building up' is okoidome, the same Greek root word for 'edify' in I Corinthians 14.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is never good to go against the stated purposes of God, no matter how good they may seem to be. "It is better to edify the assembly." That is the teaching. Therefore edify the assembly. The gift was for the church. God is a God of order.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"I would that ye all spake with tongues' is scriptural teaching. The Bible does say that it is _better_ to edify the assembly. But it also teaches that it is good to edify oneself.
'Edify' means to build up. It does not mean to make oneself look 'cool.'
DHK wrote,
________
No it doesn't stand to reason at all. You are reading into the Scriptures that which is not there. Speak to yourself and to God. Speaking to God is by definition called prayer. We don't pray in tongues; there is no need to.
_________
The Bible is clear that one can pray in tongues. You need to sit down and read I Corinthians 14. Praying in tongues is all throughout the passage.
It is 100% clear from this passage that prayer in tongues is in view:
16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17. For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
See these verses also:
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
Notice in verse 17 'thou verily givest thanks well.' The man giving thanks well here is praying in tongues! It is okay for him to give thanks in tongues, but it doesn't do a lick of good to anyone else around him in church, so he shouldn't do it in church.
DHK wrote,
____________
You don't understand the thrust of that passage. One can never, never, never, speak in tongues without an interpreter. NEVER! That is the teaching. If there be no interpreter let him keep silence! How clear can it be. Tongues are not to be used outside the church, for they are a gift to the church.
____________
A verse from Isaiah comes to mind, "Ye teach for doctrines the commandments of men...."
The Bible does not teach that you should never speak in tongues without an interpreter. it teaches not to speak in tongues IN CHURCH without an intepreter. If you forbid all tongues without interpretation, you are giving commandments of men without basis from scripture. You need to read 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' You have no right to forbid speaking in tongues that God does not forbid. Only the Lord has the right to forbid speaking in tongues. He gave us very specific instances in which speaking in tongues are forbidden.
I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare with Jude 20:
20. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK wrote,
This verse has nothing to do with the gift of tongues whatsoever.
__________
First of all, you missed the point. This verse commands readers to edify themselves. That was the point. Secondly, Jude's use of 'praying in the Holy Ghost' is consistent with Paul's use of 'pray with the Spirit' (if one interprets 'Spirit' to be the Holy Spirit, since the Greek was in all capitals.) I can't prove that Jude is talking about tongues here, but it is certainly a possiblity we should consider.
Briguy posted his understanding of 'cease' in regard to tongues earlier. I recieved the following response to that message from a Greek scholar I know. I editted out carrots and put spaces around parenthesis in order to prevent the forum from rejecting it.
*******************
Tongues To Cease?
Link, my brother, in the argument against 'tongues' that you sent me, based on 1st Corinthians 13,08, I looked for a short sentence that might capture the core of its allegations, or come near summarizing it. I picked this:
**It is in the middle voice and literally means "will stop by themselves".**
Perhaps most students who begin to study middle voice have been told that it conceives of the subject as "acting in relation to self somehow." What's in quotes there represents Robertson. He observes that it's misleading to describe them as between active and passive, because its forms are older than the passives. In modern Greek they have nearly all been replaced by passives or the root has assumed active endings, as with givw = gino 'I become'.
The generalization that middles seem to involve the subject somehow in the predicate, either directly or indirectly, that is, either with a reflexive object or with a more oblique reflexivity, should be linked in thought with another truth, namely, that most of them assert an action or a state that has a personal subject. Therefore it comes easy to attribute to such subjects, consisting of animate entities, some kind of automatic or self-starting aspect. Add to this that many verbs, by virtue of their signification, that is, what they predicate, make it easy to infer a kind of self involvement of any personal subject.
The argument to be tested plays upon a way of helping beginners understand how middle forms seem to transform senses, and thus affect signification. Many such verbs could be cited, whose personal subjects in active voice engage in a transitive predication fixed on an external object, but in middle voice will, as seen from an English Gestalt, seem to become intransitive because of the reflexive factor. Here are some examples, all expressed in the 'I', or first person singular, form, with the middle to the right of the arrowhead *:
1. gamew = gameo 'make a bride' = 'be groom' * gameomai ( gamoumai ) = gameomae ( gamumae ) 'make self a bride' = 'be bride'.
2. dav[e]izw = dan[e]izo 'cause to get for use' = 'lend' * dav[e]izomai = dan[e]izomae 'cause myself to get for use' = 'borrow'.
3. didackw = didasco 'teach' * didackomai = didascomae 'learn'.
4. fobew = phobeo 'frighten' * fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) 'fear'.
In 4. one can see the argument in question already breaking down, even in these examples involving personal subjects, for fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) would have the sense of 'I fear', even though the subject of the middle voice should be completely passive in fearing. That is, fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) need not assert that I am frightening myself.
But for an impersonal subject like 'tongues' it will be easier to give evidence that the 'by themselves', as apparently meant, would not be implied by the middle form that denotes 'cease'.
First, let us look at the layout of the most relevant verb forms in the passage in question:
1st Corinthians 13,08:
**Charity ( ( love ) ) never faileth ( ( oudepote nintei = udepote piptei, an active form ) )
but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail
( ( katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae, a passive form ) )
whether there be tongues, they shall cease ( ( naucovtai = pausontae, a middle form ) )
whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away ( ( katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, a passive form ) )
and, of course, 1st Corinthians 13,10:
**, ... but, when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away ( ( katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, a passive form ) )
Thus we find one form that may be listed in a lexicon under nauw = pauo, and three forms that may be listed under katapgew = catargeo. The allegation must be examined in the light of both the improbability that the subject would always be the effective means or agent of the cessation and the lexical probability that katapgew = catargeo much more regularly refers to a final end, or lasting elimination, than nauw = pauo would. But each point can await its turn.
We could add to the three forms of katapgew = catargeo the perfect active Paul used in 1st 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 ( ( kathpghka = catergeca ) ) childish things.**
Thus the KJV has four different translations of the same word in three nearby verses: 'shall fail' 'shall vanish away' 'shall be done away' 'put away'.
Review the verbs that refer to disappearance or termination. The katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae was predicated of prophecies. That does. One katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae was predicated of knowledge. That does. Another katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae was predicated of 'that which is in part'. That does. And the naucovtai = pausontae was predicated of tongues. That does. But is that all?
No. All the forms of both verbs have something in common, based on the larger syntax. All of these function as antitheses to oudenote nintei = udepote piptei 'never faileth'. 'Charity', that is, 'love' stands as the subject of the nintei = udepote piptei 'never faileth'. The adversative contrast of what follows clearly implies that the subjects of all four at least sometimes fail, both the subject of the future middle of nauw = pauo and the subjects of the future passives of katapgew = catargeo. Thus Paul implied an identical unreliability of all four of the subjects of the two slightly differing verbs. They all stand in contrast to the reliability, or continuing validity, of love.
This can be argued cogently from Paul's starting point in 1st Corinthians 13,08. There he gives love the superior position of not falling or failing, before he even mentions the comparatively less continuing faculties to be exercised:
**Charity ( ( love ) ) never faileth ( ( nintei = piptei ) ) , but whether there be prophecies ... **
Therefore however one may define katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae, katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, or naucovtai = pausontae, we must infer that they must all be regarded as included within nintei = piptei 'faileth'. Each is described as doing what love will not do. The knowledge, the prophecies and the partial must be thought of as failing just as much as the tongues would fail.
Perhaps even more effective data can be found to refute the notion that naucovtai = pausontae 'will cease' imparts to 'tongues', as its subject, a built in destructive mechanism, that is, that it somehow makes 'by themselves' an attribute of tongues.
A stilted, mechanical translation of the middle could be used to explain how the transitive 'stop' became intransitive 'stop', that is, how a kind of causation became mere cessation. Moreover, it should expected sometimes that a verb may be of middle form where a subject probably acts upon himself, herself or themselves. But that does not justify an attribution of inherence for all occurrences of such a middle form.
Indeed, where the subject grammatically refers to or logically consists of a process or an abstraction, one would rarely be justified in assuming that such a notion should be imposed. We find the senses and signification of naucetai = pausetae, naucovtai = pausontae, nauetai = pauetae, nauovtai = pauontae, enaucato = apausato, etc. from its import within pertinently lexical and syntactical instances of usage, not from a crass elementary rule of thumb.
In the citations that follow no notion would inhere in the verb that demands some inference like 'it stops itself of its own accord' or 'it leaves off because of its own inherent qualities'. You can judge for yourself what inferred sense the import in each citation justifies. A relatively valid concept of what the middle forms may signify may then be formulated from each of the justified senses. In my opinion, the certainly justified inference would only be that what was going on or what had been existing came to an end.
Luke 08,24:
**And they came to him and awoke him, saying, "Master, master, we perish." Then he arose and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water. And they ceased ( ( enaucavto = epausanto ) ) and there was a calm.**
It's abundantly evident that a middle form of nauw = pauo has as its subject both the wind and the raging,
that both were said to cease or die down, and, above all, that they did not 'stop by themselves'. They had to be rebuked. There was an agent who imposed a new circumstance. Does the relevance and the logic of this citation hold? If not, why not?
It can also be noted that the parallel account in Mark 04,39 has ekonace[v] = ecopase[n], only the wind being its subject, which can only be an intransitive active form, not a middle. Must the conception of it therefore be radically different, because it is not a middle?
As my fuller treatment of it below will show, the student would be better off simply to understand cessation than to try to inject into certain middle forms nuances, the sensing of which had long since failed to register. Here the nuances may seem useful for reinforcing a point someone desires to make, but that should not lead one to set forth grammatical misinformation or disinformation.
Look at the middle voice of the infinitive in Acts 20,01:
**And after the uproar was ceased ( ( naucac0ai tov 0opubov = pausasthae ton thorybon 'the tumult [to have] subsided' ) ) , Paul ... **
So the uproar stopped itself, did it? Simply of its own accord, the tumult had a built in terminating factor, without the influence of any circumstance or act on the part of any agent?
Or see Hebrews 10,02:
**For then would they not have ceased to be offered ( ( enaucavto = epausanto with the participle 'quit being presented [as sacrifices]' ) ) ? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.**
Must we infer from the middle voice here that the sacrificing would simply pass off the scene, with no impulse from any humans or external circumstances?
Numbers 17,25
** ... and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.**
In 'the LXX' the murmuring itself was 'commanded' ( 3rd person imperative ) to cease ( ( naucac0w = pausastho 'let it or may it have an end' ) ) , apart from any agency, even though the Hebrew implied an agent. This tends to preclude the Greek form as demanding an inference of inherent termination.
Job 14,13:
**Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past ( ( nauchtai = pausetae subjunctive middle ) ) , that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!**
The wrath itself forms the subject of the cessation, despite whatever control the Almighty would exercise over it.
Isaiah 10,25:
**For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease ( ( naucetai = pausetae ) ) , and mine anger in their destruction.**
Isaiah 16,10:
**And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field. And in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting. The treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses. I have made their vintage shouting to cease.**
The last in 'the LXX', runs:
** ... they will by no means tread wine in the vats, for [it] ( ( whether the raw material of the clusters or the act of treading ) ) has ceased ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) .**
None of the contemplated subjects would be active in its own cessation. As for the Greek version, the L_rd's agency has not been expressed and would be there only by implication.
Isaiah 24,08:
**The mirth of tabrets ceaseth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) , the noise of them that rejoice endeth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) , the joy of the harp ceaseth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) .**
Moreover compare Isaiah 33,08:
**The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man.**
But here 'the LXX' has nenautai o foboc twv e0vwv = pepautae ho phobos ton ethnon "the fear of ( ( = induced by? ) ) the nations has ended."
Compare the two occurrences in Jeremiah 31,36 ( = 'LXX' 38,37 ) , both future middle like the passage at issue:
**If those ordinances depart from ( ( naucwntai = pausontae ) ) before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease ( ( naucetai = pausetae ) ) from being a nation before me for ever.**
Before I present two more scraps of positive data, let me mention that I have omitted some negative data that would refute the argument. Let one hint suffice. If a middle should be negated, the disputant would presumably insist that it only asserts or declares that something will not stop by itself. Does 'will not cease' in that instance imply that something else, something outside it, may well cause it to cease? That would nullify a good many promises, wouldn't it? The absurdity on the face of it makes further comment unnecessary.
This brings me to a rebuttal based on comparing some uses of nauw = pauo with uses of katapgew = catargeo. A great many instances of nauw = pauo describe stoppage that may be restarted. One of the usual ways to say that somebody quit speaking was to add a nominative participle of expressing oneself with a middle form of nauw = pauo. I could cite you much phraseology like enaucato lalwv = epausato lalon 'he quit talking' or 'he shut up'. It needs to be noted that in many such instances the speaker who quit could start speaking again or did so. Thus the verb nauw = pauo often referred to something resumed later. The verb katapgew = catargeo, however, very regularly referred to something's becoming completely invalid or being totally eliminated. For example, even in 1st Corinthians 13 Paul said he had "put away ( ( kathpghka = catergeca ) ) childish things." Evidently his putting away was not meant to be temporary, but permanent. Therefore the lexical definition of the verb has much greater bearing on the permanence of the change than whether the verb occurs in middle voice.
As was suggested above, verbs like taste, fear, be bride, or borrow would rarely, if ever, have impersonal subjects. Still, there are other Greek middles than nauomai = pauomai 'cease' that have some impersonal subjects, for example, anollumai = apollymae 'perish' * anollumi = apollymi, because things as well as individuals would now and then be destroyed. Therefore the force of the middle forms linked to anollumai = apollymae 'perish' also offer evidence for testing the claim about 'tongues', for the denotation of perishing is not highly remote from ceasing.
See Luke 05,37:
**And no man putteth new wine into old bottles, else the new wine will burst the bottles and be spilled and the bottles shall perish ( ( anolouvtai = apoluntae, middle ) ) .**
Would the destruction eventuate more as an inherent quality of the wineskins or as an effect of the wine's fermenting?
See also Acts 27,34:
**Wherefore I pray you to take some meat, for this is for your health, for there shall not an hair fall ( ( really 'will perish' anoleitai = apoleitae, middle ) ) from the head of any of you.**
Should we attribute the preservation of the hair to its own nature or to other factors?
I lack time to add John 06,12 2nd Peter 03,06 Revelation 18,14 et alia.
Finally, there's a reason to be found in which Hebrew verbs 'the LXX' renders with middle forms of nauw = pauo. They may represent forms of kalah 'come to an end'. The subjects in such sentences show that what comes to an end may not have any seeds of its own destruction inhering in it. Humans may be destroyed who are not committing suicide. Water may disappear from a skin bottle without evaporating. There's more, but that will do.
The handling of the Isaiah quotation will have to wait.
cheers and shalom,
b
alias bearded Bill of Asheville
( HazZaqen almost equivalent to saying 'the senior citizen' )
*******************
Tongues To Cease?
Link, my brother, in the argument against 'tongues' that you sent me, based on 1st Corinthians 13,08, I looked for a short sentence that might capture the core of its allegations, or come near summarizing it. I picked this:
**It is in the middle voice and literally means "will stop by themselves".**
Perhaps most students who begin to study middle voice have been told that it conceives of the subject as "acting in relation to self somehow." What's in quotes there represents Robertson. He observes that it's misleading to describe them as between active and passive, because its forms are older than the passives. In modern Greek they have nearly all been replaced by passives or the root has assumed active endings, as with givw = gino 'I become'.
The generalization that middles seem to involve the subject somehow in the predicate, either directly or indirectly, that is, either with a reflexive object or with a more oblique reflexivity, should be linked in thought with another truth, namely, that most of them assert an action or a state that has a personal subject. Therefore it comes easy to attribute to such subjects, consisting of animate entities, some kind of automatic or self-starting aspect. Add to this that many verbs, by virtue of their signification, that is, what they predicate, make it easy to infer a kind of self involvement of any personal subject.
The argument to be tested plays upon a way of helping beginners understand how middle forms seem to transform senses, and thus affect signification. Many such verbs could be cited, whose personal subjects in active voice engage in a transitive predication fixed on an external object, but in middle voice will, as seen from an English Gestalt, seem to become intransitive because of the reflexive factor. Here are some examples, all expressed in the 'I', or first person singular, form, with the middle to the right of the arrowhead *:
1. gamew = gameo 'make a bride' = 'be groom' * gameomai ( gamoumai ) = gameomae ( gamumae ) 'make self a bride' = 'be bride'.
2. dav[e]izw = dan[e]izo 'cause to get for use' = 'lend' * dav[e]izomai = dan[e]izomae 'cause myself to get for use' = 'borrow'.
3. didackw = didasco 'teach' * didackomai = didascomae 'learn'.
4. fobew = phobeo 'frighten' * fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) 'fear'.
In 4. one can see the argument in question already breaking down, even in these examples involving personal subjects, for fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) would have the sense of 'I fear', even though the subject of the middle voice should be completely passive in fearing. That is, fobeomai ( foboumai ) = phobeomae ( phobumae ) need not assert that I am frightening myself.
But for an impersonal subject like 'tongues' it will be easier to give evidence that the 'by themselves', as apparently meant, would not be implied by the middle form that denotes 'cease'.
First, let us look at the layout of the most relevant verb forms in the passage in question:
1st Corinthians 13,08:
**Charity ( ( love ) ) never faileth ( ( oudepote nintei = udepote piptei, an active form ) )
but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail
( ( katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae, a passive form ) )
whether there be tongues, they shall cease ( ( naucovtai = pausontae, a middle form ) )
whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away ( ( katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, a passive form ) )
and, of course, 1st Corinthians 13,10:
**, ... but, when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away ( ( katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, a passive form ) )
Thus we find one form that may be listed in a lexicon under nauw = pauo, and three forms that may be listed under katapgew = catargeo. The allegation must be examined in the light of both the improbability that the subject would always be the effective means or agent of the cessation and the lexical probability that katapgew = catargeo much more regularly refers to a final end, or lasting elimination, than nauw = pauo would. But each point can await its turn.
We could add to the three forms of katapgew = catargeo the perfect active Paul used in 1st 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 ( ( kathpghka = catergeca ) ) childish things.**
Thus the KJV has four different translations of the same word in three nearby verses: 'shall fail' 'shall vanish away' 'shall be done away' 'put away'.
Review the verbs that refer to disappearance or termination. The katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae was predicated of prophecies. That does. One katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae was predicated of knowledge. That does. Another katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae was predicated of 'that which is in part'. That does. And the naucovtai = pausontae was predicated of tongues. That does. But is that all?
No. All the forms of both verbs have something in common, based on the larger syntax. All of these function as antitheses to oudenote nintei = udepote piptei 'never faileth'. 'Charity', that is, 'love' stands as the subject of the nintei = udepote piptei 'never faileth'. The adversative contrast of what follows clearly implies that the subjects of all four at least sometimes fail, both the subject of the future middle of nauw = pauo and the subjects of the future passives of katapgew = catargeo. Thus Paul implied an identical unreliability of all four of the subjects of the two slightly differing verbs. They all stand in contrast to the reliability, or continuing validity, of love.
This can be argued cogently from Paul's starting point in 1st Corinthians 13,08. There he gives love the superior position of not falling or failing, before he even mentions the comparatively less continuing faculties to be exercised:
**Charity ( ( love ) ) never faileth ( ( nintei = piptei ) ) , but whether there be prophecies ... **
Therefore however one may define katapgh0hcovtai = catargethesontae, katapgh0hcetai = catargethesetae, or naucovtai = pausontae, we must infer that they must all be regarded as included within nintei = piptei 'faileth'. Each is described as doing what love will not do. The knowledge, the prophecies and the partial must be thought of as failing just as much as the tongues would fail.
Perhaps even more effective data can be found to refute the notion that naucovtai = pausontae 'will cease' imparts to 'tongues', as its subject, a built in destructive mechanism, that is, that it somehow makes 'by themselves' an attribute of tongues.
A stilted, mechanical translation of the middle could be used to explain how the transitive 'stop' became intransitive 'stop', that is, how a kind of causation became mere cessation. Moreover, it should expected sometimes that a verb may be of middle form where a subject probably acts upon himself, herself or themselves. But that does not justify an attribution of inherence for all occurrences of such a middle form.
Indeed, where the subject grammatically refers to or logically consists of a process or an abstraction, one would rarely be justified in assuming that such a notion should be imposed. We find the senses and signification of naucetai = pausetae, naucovtai = pausontae, nauetai = pauetae, nauovtai = pauontae, enaucato = apausato, etc. from its import within pertinently lexical and syntactical instances of usage, not from a crass elementary rule of thumb.
In the citations that follow no notion would inhere in the verb that demands some inference like 'it stops itself of its own accord' or 'it leaves off because of its own inherent qualities'. You can judge for yourself what inferred sense the import in each citation justifies. A relatively valid concept of what the middle forms may signify may then be formulated from each of the justified senses. In my opinion, the certainly justified inference would only be that what was going on or what had been existing came to an end.
Luke 08,24:
**And they came to him and awoke him, saying, "Master, master, we perish." Then he arose and rebuked the wind and the raging of the water. And they ceased ( ( enaucavto = epausanto ) ) and there was a calm.**
It's abundantly evident that a middle form of nauw = pauo has as its subject both the wind and the raging,
that both were said to cease or die down, and, above all, that they did not 'stop by themselves'. They had to be rebuked. There was an agent who imposed a new circumstance. Does the relevance and the logic of this citation hold? If not, why not?
It can also be noted that the parallel account in Mark 04,39 has ekonace[v] = ecopase[n], only the wind being its subject, which can only be an intransitive active form, not a middle. Must the conception of it therefore be radically different, because it is not a middle?
As my fuller treatment of it below will show, the student would be better off simply to understand cessation than to try to inject into certain middle forms nuances, the sensing of which had long since failed to register. Here the nuances may seem useful for reinforcing a point someone desires to make, but that should not lead one to set forth grammatical misinformation or disinformation.
Look at the middle voice of the infinitive in Acts 20,01:
**And after the uproar was ceased ( ( naucac0ai tov 0opubov = pausasthae ton thorybon 'the tumult [to have] subsided' ) ) , Paul ... **
So the uproar stopped itself, did it? Simply of its own accord, the tumult had a built in terminating factor, without the influence of any circumstance or act on the part of any agent?
Or see Hebrews 10,02:
**For then would they not have ceased to be offered ( ( enaucavto = epausanto with the participle 'quit being presented [as sacrifices]' ) ) ? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.**
Must we infer from the middle voice here that the sacrificing would simply pass off the scene, with no impulse from any humans or external circumstances?
Numbers 17,25
** ... and thou shalt quite take away their murmurings from me, that they die not.**
In 'the LXX' the murmuring itself was 'commanded' ( 3rd person imperative ) to cease ( ( naucac0w = pausastho 'let it or may it have an end' ) ) , apart from any agency, even though the Hebrew implied an agent. This tends to preclude the Greek form as demanding an inference of inherent termination.
Job 14,13:
**Oh that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past ( ( nauchtai = pausetae subjunctive middle ) ) , that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!**
The wrath itself forms the subject of the cessation, despite whatever control the Almighty would exercise over it.
Isaiah 10,25:
**For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease ( ( naucetai = pausetae ) ) , and mine anger in their destruction.**
Isaiah 16,10:
**And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field. And in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting. The treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses. I have made their vintage shouting to cease.**
The last in 'the LXX', runs:
** ... they will by no means tread wine in the vats, for [it] ( ( whether the raw material of the clusters or the act of treading ) ) has ceased ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) .**
None of the contemplated subjects would be active in its own cessation. As for the Greek version, the L_rd's agency has not been expressed and would be there only by implication.
Isaiah 24,08:
**The mirth of tabrets ceaseth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) , the noise of them that rejoice endeth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) , the joy of the harp ceaseth ( ( nenautai = pepautae ) ) .**
Moreover compare Isaiah 33,08:
**The highways lie waste, the wayfaring man ceaseth he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised the cities, he regardeth no man.**
But here 'the LXX' has nenautai o foboc twv e0vwv = pepautae ho phobos ton ethnon "the fear of ( ( = induced by? ) ) the nations has ended."
Compare the two occurrences in Jeremiah 31,36 ( = 'LXX' 38,37 ) , both future middle like the passage at issue:
**If those ordinances depart from ( ( naucwntai = pausontae ) ) before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease ( ( naucetai = pausetae ) ) from being a nation before me for ever.**
Before I present two more scraps of positive data, let me mention that I have omitted some negative data that would refute the argument. Let one hint suffice. If a middle should be negated, the disputant would presumably insist that it only asserts or declares that something will not stop by itself. Does 'will not cease' in that instance imply that something else, something outside it, may well cause it to cease? That would nullify a good many promises, wouldn't it? The absurdity on the face of it makes further comment unnecessary.
This brings me to a rebuttal based on comparing some uses of nauw = pauo with uses of katapgew = catargeo. A great many instances of nauw = pauo describe stoppage that may be restarted. One of the usual ways to say that somebody quit speaking was to add a nominative participle of expressing oneself with a middle form of nauw = pauo. I could cite you much phraseology like enaucato lalwv = epausato lalon 'he quit talking' or 'he shut up'. It needs to be noted that in many such instances the speaker who quit could start speaking again or did so. Thus the verb nauw = pauo often referred to something resumed later. The verb katapgew = catargeo, however, very regularly referred to something's becoming completely invalid or being totally eliminated. For example, even in 1st Corinthians 13 Paul said he had "put away ( ( kathpghka = catergeca ) ) childish things." Evidently his putting away was not meant to be temporary, but permanent. Therefore the lexical definition of the verb has much greater bearing on the permanence of the change than whether the verb occurs in middle voice.
As was suggested above, verbs like taste, fear, be bride, or borrow would rarely, if ever, have impersonal subjects. Still, there are other Greek middles than nauomai = pauomai 'cease' that have some impersonal subjects, for example, anollumai = apollymae 'perish' * anollumi = apollymi, because things as well as individuals would now and then be destroyed. Therefore the force of the middle forms linked to anollumai = apollymae 'perish' also offer evidence for testing the claim about 'tongues', for the denotation of perishing is not highly remote from ceasing.
See Luke 05,37:
**And no man putteth new wine into old bottles, else the new wine will burst the bottles and be spilled and the bottles shall perish ( ( anolouvtai = apoluntae, middle ) ) .**
Would the destruction eventuate more as an inherent quality of the wineskins or as an effect of the wine's fermenting?
See also Acts 27,34:
**Wherefore I pray you to take some meat, for this is for your health, for there shall not an hair fall ( ( really 'will perish' anoleitai = apoleitae, middle ) ) from the head of any of you.**
Should we attribute the preservation of the hair to its own nature or to other factors?
I lack time to add John 06,12 2nd Peter 03,06 Revelation 18,14 et alia.
Finally, there's a reason to be found in which Hebrew verbs 'the LXX' renders with middle forms of nauw = pauo. They may represent forms of kalah 'come to an end'. The subjects in such sentences show that what comes to an end may not have any seeds of its own destruction inhering in it. Humans may be destroyed who are not committing suicide. Water may disappear from a skin bottle without evaporating. There's more, but that will do.
The handling of the Isaiah quotation will have to wait.
cheers and shalom,
b
alias bearded Bill of Asheville
( HazZaqen almost equivalent to saying 'the senior citizen' )
In all honesty that was way to technical for me. It all looked like a lot of "coulds" or "could nots" to me which means that certainly my interpretation is not only possible but probable in light of the complete bible context regarding tongues and their being a sign of a particular event. It does not take a bunch of OT verses and some hebrew to see how nicely what I have said works in light of what the Bible says. I am sure that a Greek scholar on the side of Tongues being gone could give an equally, actually a better argument for the word usages because he wouldn't give all the probables, etc...
Link, I still do not see where you or anyone has discussed the fact that one way or another P and K do not end at the same time as Tongues?? We still have two different verbs going here no matter what.
In Christ,
Brian
Link, I still do not see where you or anyone has discussed the fact that one way or another P and K do not end at the same time as Tongues?? We still have two different verbs going here no matter what.
In Christ,
Brian