Category Archives: glossolalia

The Tongues Conundrum (Part 3)

Posted on November 17, 2010 by | 16 comments

by Scott

Recently I began a series on the gift of tongues (here is part 1 and part 2). From part 2, one major discussion point arose out of Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:1:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

The discussion surrounded whether or not people can actually speak in the ‘tongues of angels’. I didn’t give much time to discussing this particular aspect of tongues, but maybe I should have seeing some recent discussion here at To Be Continued. In particular, my first article stated these brief words on the subject:

Some will claim that this reference to ‘tongues of angels’ is a hypothetical situation and one should not expect to find themselves speaking in such a manner. But remember the first words of Paul’s statement: ‘If I speak in the tongues of men.’ Now, we know this is an actual certainty – speaking in the tongues of men that we have not learned. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would refer to one situation that is a reality and one situation that is hypothetical. And, noting that tongues are a Spirit-enabled language, it’s possible that one might speak in a heavenly tongue.

Nothing could be ‘proved’ in regards to this, since tongues can regularly come forth in languages one has never learned, and especially since there are thousands of languages and dialects in the world. But I would propose that, since it is possible to speak in tongues (languages) or men, then the same could be true with regards to tongues of angels.

Particularly, my great co-author and colleague, and much better at biblical languages than I, Marv, gave some good constructive criticism on this same article posted at Theologica. And you can see some other challenging comments that follow the article here at To Be Continued.

One of the major arguments that came forth as probable cause for why Paul did not actually mean that humans can speak in the tongues of angels is the use of hyperbole, especially found in the first three verses:

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

I think this was an excellent challenge, one that I must admit I had not really considered. I mean, reading the text now, I see the hyperbole very clear – understand all mysteries and all knowledge (vs2); have all faith (vs2); and give away all I have (vs3). Depending on whether you take Jesus’s own words as hyperbole in places like Matthew 17:20, that will probably determine your view of the phrase, ‘as to remove mountains’.

But, regardless, no one, at least in this present age, can attain to the measure of the word all (Greek pas).

But, the passage does not contain hyperbole at every point, does it? I would suppose these things could actually happen:

  • Speaking in tongues of men – vs1 (This is what I briefly pointed out in the first article.)
  • Have prophetic powers – vs2 (Notice it doesn’t say ‘all prophetic powers’, though I suppose some would argue that was intended.)
  • Deliver up my body to be burned – vs3 (Well, noting Paul’s suffering as stated in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29, I suppose Paul thought this was possible. But your thoughts on this phrase might be determined by whether you think this refers to suffering or offering your body to show one’s spirituality. Either way, to do such an action is possible.)

So, my conclusion is that I don’t believe it entirely impossible that Paul actually meant that human beings could speak in the languages of angels.

I also pointed out that, when we read accounts of angels communicating to human beings in Scripture, the angels actually verbally spoke. Of course, they spoke the language of the hearer. But angels do communicate, at least at times, via spoken medium. It’s possible they do the same amongst themselves or with God.

But, one final pointer I would like to bring up is Gordon Fee’s commentary thoughts on this passage of 1 Corinthians 13:1. Gordon Fee is both a well-known New Testament scholar and from a Pentecostal-Assembly of God background. And, though Fee is of the Pentecostal-Assembly of God circle, he has not been one who so easily accepts every single Pentecostal-charismatic teaching. He is solid and level-headed when approaching Scripture.

So I think his words are at least worth consideration, noting his long-standing studies on Pentecostal-charismatic issues, like that of tongues. This comes from the New International Commentary of the New Testament: The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely – for two reasons: (1) There is some evidence from Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly language (or dialects) and that by means of the “Spirit” one could speak these dialects. Thus in the Testament of Job 48-50 Job’s three daughters are given “charismatic sashes”; when these were put on they allowed Hemera, for example, to speak “ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment.” Such an understanding of heavenly speech may also lie behind the language of 1 Cor. 14:2 (“speak mysteries by the Spirit”). (2) As has been argued elsewhere, one can make a good deal of sense of the Corinthians view of “spirituality” if they believed that they had already entered into some expression of angelic existence. This would explain their rejection of sexual life and sexual roles (cf. 7:1-7; 11:2-16) and would also partly explain their denial of a future bodily existence (15:12, 35). It might also lie behind their special interest in “wisdom” and “knowledge.” For them the evidence of having “arrived” at such a “spiritual” state would be their speaking the tongues of angels. Hence they high value placed on this gift. (p630-631)

These same words can be found in his God’s Empowering Presence, p200-201.

Now, one might notice that some of these thoughts centre on what the Corinthians might have thought. And we know the Corinthians had some off-base theology, hence Paul’s corrective words not just on practical life matters, but doctrinal matters. But Fee also reckons that it was probable that Paul also held that humans could speak in tongues of angels. And, he then proceeds to share two main reasons why speaking in the tongues of angels is probable, with the first probably being more substantial for why Paul might believe this.

So, I thought it was interesting to share some of Fee’s thoughts on this passage.

In all, we cannot make a 100% conclusion either way. Again, I did appreciate some of the comments of Marv, as he pointed out his understanding of why he believes Paul didn’t actually believe this was a possibility. And there were other goods thought shared as well, like from commenter Ted Bigelow.

For these reasons, though such is difficult at times, it might be good that we not be closed off to either views, respecting them both. This could be hyperbolic language right throughout the entire vs1-3, or it could be that some words could become part of real life and some were hyperbole. I lean towards the latter view, but am now much more aware of the former.

16 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 13, 1 Corinthians 14, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, tongues

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Tongues Conundrum (Part 2)

Posted on November 14, 2010 by | 30 comments

by Scott

I recently began a series on the gift of tongues, but started with some thoughts on the larger scope of Spirit-inspired speech. But let’s move on specifically to the gift of tongues.

The first instance that we read about tongues is at the Pentecost event of Acts 2:1-4:

1 When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The word normally translated as ‘tongues’ in our English versions comes from the Greek word glossa or glossia (plural). It could also be translated as ‘languages’, which seems an acceptable translation when considering the biblical teaching on this gift. Though some might argue it sounds like babble (or babel), it actually comes as some sort of intelligible language, even if that language is not personally known to the speaker.

As a kind of side excursus, many theologians see this act of the initial outpouring of the Spirit as a reversal of the curse at the Tower of Babel where there was a confusion of languages (Genesis 11:1-9). Because of Pentecost, tongues now stands as a sign of unity in the body of Christ, God using people to speak in languages they have not learned to be a blessing to the body of Christ.

Of course, one of the main purposes of tongues in Acts 2 was that of an evangelistic drawing of people to Christ. But, a sort of theological deduction from considering tongues across both Acts and 1 Corinthians (and possibly a few other passages) is that such was given as a unifying sign of edification to the body of Christ, thus, reversing the curse of Babel for God’s covenant people. And, I can only suppose that the first Christians that witnessed the amazing and paradigmatic event of Acts 2 would have been blessed and edified by the outcome.

Now, in the account of Acts 2, the people spoke in languages that were recognised by those gathered around (see Acts 2:5-12). This is really the only biblical account in which we see tongues being utilised evangelistically. But that does not mean it was never again utilised in such a way in the New Testament record, especially if an interpretation comes forth, which we will consider later on from looking at 1 Corinthians 14.

We see other specific examples of tongues in Acts, specifically with Cornelius’ household in 10:46 and the Ephesian disciples in 19:6. But neither of these accounts point to an evangelistic use. Rather they were a response to the baptism/initial filling of God’s Spirit.

Still, though tongues might come forth in a language recognised by those present (and I can think of a couple examples off hand from ministry friends in the present day), we must also bear in mind that tongues might not always be spoken in a language that is recognised by those present. I think such is acceptable when we consider words like there from Paul:

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. (1 Corinthians 14:2)

But it is through the interpretation of the tongue that understanding is brought to the body of Christ for edification, or even utilised in drawing people to Christ. And, I suppose the need for the gift of interpretation would only point to the fact that tongues are not always understood by those present.

There is much discussion about another aspect of tongues, as highlighted by these words of Paul:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (1 Corinthians 13:1)

Some will claim that this reference to ‘tongues of angels’ is a hypothetical situation and one should not expect to find themselves speaking in such a manner. But remember the first words of Paul’s statement: ‘If I speak in the tongues of men.’ Now, we know this is an actual certainty – speaking in the tongues of men that we have not learned. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that Paul would refer to one situation that is a reality and one situation that is hypothetical. And, noting that tongues is a Spirit-enabled language, it’s possible that one might speak in a heavenly tongue.

Nothing could be ‘proved’ in regards to this, since tongues can regularly come forth in languages one has never learned, and especially since there are thousands of languages and dialects in the world. But I would propose that, since it is possible to speak in tongues (languages) or men, then the same could be true with regards to tongues of angels.

As an encouraging personal side story on the gift of tongues, I share an account of a specific local church where a friend of mine is an elder-pastor. This happened about a year and a half ago.

My friend specifically works with a church that officially relates to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). But, while they maintain that relationship of accountability, the church does not always practically function in regards to every specific of the SBC. For example, they have a plurality of eldership, which is not the norm for SBC churches.

Also, as you might imagine, historically, the SBC has not been an advocate for the practise of the more ‘charismatic’ giftings of the Spirit, i.e., those in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10. My friend’s church never preached against such, and they actually were quite open in allowing people to openly share what God was stirring in them during their corporate gatherings, even some things that could be classified as prophecies and revelations. But, with tongues, there was not much knowledge or practise of this gift.

So, my friend and the wider eldership of the church decided to take up preaching and teaching through the book of 1 Corinthians. Wow, what a challenge to say the least! And, of course, many months down the road, they took up a close study of 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Not too long after they finished the teaching on those chapters, God brought a surprise into their midst. God was making sure that their spirituality was not just doctrinal teaching, but also a practical reality. In one of the Sunday gatherings of the congregation, a person gave the first ever public message in tongues. In recalling the story to me, my friend shared how he kind of sat back in his chair and went on to let God know that he trusted Him. This was something that had never happened before. But my friend was not going to ‘nip it in the bud’, as they say.

And when the message in tongues was finished, the interpretation came forth by the one who spoke in the tongue.

But here is the beautiful part – After the gathering ended, a young man came forth to speak with my friend who is one of the elder-pastors. This young man did not usually attend their gatherings. Rather, he happened to be there as he was in a close relationship with one of the members of my friend’s church. I guess he was the boyfriend of one of the young adults of the church. He shared with my friend that he was of Jewish background and the tongue that had come forth in the gathering was in Hebrew (obviously more modern Hebrew than ancient-biblical Hebrew). And the young man preceded to share that the interpretation that came forth was correct.

A fantastic story of God’s grace and gifting amongst His people. A testimony to the reality of the gift of tongues being utilised, and utilised properly, in the corporate gathering of God’s people.

Thus, here are some summary points from this first post on tongues:

  • Tongues is most likely a God-statement that He was reversing the curse of Babel for His body.
  • Tongues can be utilised evangelistically (as in Acts 2) or in edifying the body (1 Corinthians 14).
  • Tongues can be spoken in actual human languages or in the languages of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1).

I hope this has begun to give somewhat of a solid introduction into the gift of tongues. Stay tuned for more articles in which I will discuss other important aspects of the gift.

30 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts 2, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, tongues

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Tongues Conundrum (Part 1)

Posted on November 11, 2010 by | 2 comments

by Scott

After three week’s of teaching on the gift of prophecy at Cornerstone, which you can listen to or download the messages on our podcast (part 1, part 2, part 3), I was looking forward to moving into a three-part series on the gift of tongues.

You can listen to the message below from this past Sunday, or you can download from our podcast or iTunes.

One of the more perplexing gifts of the Spirit to discuss has to be the gift of tongues. Of course, there are enough opinions out there about every other spiritual gift found in 1 Corinthians 12 – healings, miracles, prophecy, etc – that we could spend the rest of our lives conversing over the in’s and out’s of just those.

But tongues might just be in a class all by itself, causing confusion, and even much worse, for some non-continuationists. So I thought it would be good to post a series about tongues here (maybe 5 or 6 posts), hoping it brings some clarity about the nature of tongues, at least from my study of Scripture.

Over the series, I want to address some major points in regards to understanding the gift of tongues. But, in this post itself, I will simply give a kind of introduction to the nature of the gifts.

For many Pentecostals and charismatics, the gift of tongues is part and parcel to the practise of their faith. For others, the practise of this gift has been the cause for steering clear of more Pentecostal and charismatic churches. And even in decades past, the use of tongues could have been regarded as demonic a small portion of believers. But thankfully, such a belief has pretty much faded to the background.

But what I began with in my message this past Sunday was a brief overview not only to tongues, but to the reality of Spirit-inspired speech amongst the Spirit-empowered people of God. I had three specific points.

1) A new age by God’s Spirit

I’ve written on this plenty of times, but suffice it to say that, with the Pentecost of Acts 2, we entered the fulness of the new covenant age in which the baptism, filling and empowering of God’s Spirit would now be available to all God’s people – men and women, young and old. EVERYONE!

This allows for the continuation of all that Christ began to do (see Acts 1:1), this being through the Holy Spirit via the Spirit-empowered ekklesia-church.

2) A new gift by God’s Spirit

All manifestations of God’s Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 were all witnessed and evidence before Pentecost – in the Old Testament and in the life of Jesus. But this is the first time we see the manifestation of God’s Spirit through the gift of tongues.

Many theologians believe that this was a direct statement pointing to the reversal of what happened at the Tower of Babel (see Gen 11:1-9). There, God confused the languages of a rebellious humanity. Here, God does a unifying work amongst the body of Christ via this special demonstration of God’s power.

Interestingly enough, tongues actually functions in a prophetic sense. How? As we know, after the outpouring of the Spirit of God, the people spoke in other languages they had not learned. But, when Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2:17-18, the emphasis of those words was that prophecy would be the fruit of the outpouring of God’s Spirit. But here, they are speaking in tongues.

What’s going on?

Well, though the specifically spoke in tongues, this gift functions prophetically when 1) people speak languages they do not know but the listeners do understand what is being spoken or 2) the gift of tongues is followed by the gift of interpretation. And I know examples of both in various situations, as well as an example of both at the same time.

3) A new proclamation by God’s Spirit

For those who have studied the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and his gifts, many will be aware of the Pentecostal argument that tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit. The five usual instances in Acts that are pointed to are found in 2:1-4 (Pentecost), 8:12-19 (the Samaritans), 9:17-18 (Paul), 10:44-48 (Cornelius and household), and 19:1-7 (Ephesian disciples). I won’t go into detailed reasons why Pentecostals usually argue for this, but I, personally, believe this is too strict a statement – that tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit.

But what I would argue is that a Spirit-baptised, filled and empowered people are a people who are to be utilised in Spirit-inspired speech of all forms. Why would I claim such? There are five major accounts of people being filled with the Spirit in Acts that I believe point out that the people of God are regularly used in such Spirit-directed and empowered speech: 2:1-4; 4:27-31; 8:12-17; 10:44-48; 19:1-7 (not to mention 4:8ff).

Now the only example where we don’t see any speech come forth from the mouths of those baptised-filled with the Spirit is that of the Samaritans in 8:12-17. The usual argument by Pentecostals for the gift of tongues being the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is that something must have been happening for Simon the sorcerer to want to buy the ability to impart the Spirit of God through the laying on of hands (see 8:18-19). While I wouldn’t go so far as to say it must have been tongues, I will venture to say that some kind of Spirit-inspired speech probably did come forth from their mouths noting the four other examples I pointed out: 2:1-4; 4:27-31; 10:44-48; 19:1-7.

But what I will note is not all instances records tongues, i.e., 4:27-30 and the ever-debated passage of 8:12-17. But, again, what I do note is that various Spirit-inspired speech does come forth from a Spirit-baptised, filled and empowered people: prophecy, tongues, praise, the word of God.

And so, if anything, the people of God are to be a Spirit-empowered people speaking forth Spirit-inspired speech in all of its various forms. This also includes things like words of knowledge, words of wisdom (look back at 1 Cor 12:8-10), or what Paul notes as revelation (see 1 Cor 14:26).

Thus, while I believe it is a bit too strict to say that the initial evidence of the baptism of the Spirit is tongues and tongues alone, I would argue that the Spirit-empowered people of God are to be a people speaking forth Spirit-inspired speech in all its various kinds.

If you want more details, feel free to listen to the message.

2 Comments

Posted in Acts 2, audio, charismatic, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, sermons, tongues

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Reports of their demise have been greatly exaggerated: a humble response to Dean Gonzales

Posted on September 23, 2010 by | 7 comments

by Marv

What I liked best about The Cessation of Special Revelation: A Humble Argument for the Cessation of NT Prophecy and Tongues,  a blog series posted last year by Dr. Robert R. Gonzales, Jr., Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary is the refreshing way that it takes the “humble” part seriously.  Dean Gonzales comports himself as a gentleman throughout, without the faintest whiff of ad hominem.  He also approaches the subject as a scholar, concentrating his argument on how best to understand the relevant scriptural texts.  In this he takes on Wayne Grudem’s position on prophecy, as laid out in The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today. The fact that he chooses a worthy interlocutor such as Dr. Grudem is commendable.  As a whole Dean Gonzales takes an approach that ought to be widely emulated.

He is also clear.  He lays out his main thesis in a form of a syllogism, and backs it up with scriptural citation and logical discussion.  The syllogism reads as follows:

Major Premise: All pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation has been completed and has, therefore, ceased.
Minor Premise: NT prophecy and tongues are forms of pre-parousia divinely authoritative special revelation.
Conclusion: Therefore, tongues and prophecy have ceased.

Appreciative as I am of his approach, I am not, however, convinced by his argument.  It is a variation of a fairly conventional one, tying the term of charismata to that of the Canon.  In fact I have to object to his references to “scriptural-quality revelation.”  The Bible ascribes, I think, unique attributes to itself.  There is no other revelation, never has been, of equal “quality” to that of Scripture.

This is why the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, to which both Dean Gonzales and Reformed Baptist Seminary ascribe states that:

“The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.”

In multiple places Dean Gonzales makes reference to oral prophecy in the early New Testament church as “canonical.”  If this is so, I cannot see how to avoid the conclusion that not only the Holy Scripture, but also every genuine prophecy ever uttered would constitute the Canon.  The Confession, at least, would seem to limit canonicity to those prophecies that the Holy Spirit saw fit to inscripturate.

Similarly, the Bible warrants application of the term inspiration to the Scriptures, the written product of the Holy Spirit’s work.  Whether we are justified in using “inspired” for other manifestations of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:7) is not readily obvious, to me at least, and his doing so tends to give Dr. Gonzales’ argument a certain circularity, assuming facts not in evidence.

Again, to the Confession, the Bible is the only “infallible” rule.  Contrary to the dean’s assertion or assumption and (perhaps) even Dr. Grudem’s understanding, even Old Testament oral prophecy was not “infallible” in the way that the Scriptures are.

If OT era prophecy were infallible, how could there be false prophecies?  I find it odd that verses such as Deut. 18:22 are often cited to suggest that OT era oral prophecy was inerrant or infallible, when it demonstrates precisely the opposite:

“When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

We are never similarly warned to watch out for “false Scriptures.”  In both the OT and the NT era, “the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32).  The Word of the Lord came to the prophet (Gen. 15:1, 1 Sam. 15:10, 2 Sam. 7:4).  In this last reference, Nathan received the Word of the Lord precisely because Nathan the prophet had spoken presumptuously to David earlier in the day (2 Sam. 7:3).  There is no great intertestamental shift involved that would allow for similarly presumptuous utterances in the NT era, such as the instructions to Paul not to go to Jerusalem, which he sees fit to ignore (Acts 21:4).

The OT prophet was responsible to report the Word of the Lord accurately, though he could fail to do so.  The Scriptures, on the other hand, by being theopneustos are guaranteed—certified to be the Word of the Lord.  They are thus of a quality above and beyond that of oral prophecy, in any era.  This is why Peter specifies “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20, emphasis mine).  The distinction of two levels of prophecy: “Scripture-quality” and otherwise, does not originate with Dr. Grudem, but is apostolic.

Now, one specific line of argument calls for special mention.  In his part seven he makes a point about the word “mystery” (μυστήριον), which at first blush gives an impression of decisiveness and may in fact be persuasive to many people.  Yet I’m afraid it does not hold up to scrutiny.

As he makes the point succinctly, I will simply quote him:

What I really want to call your attention to is the fact that according to 13:2 and 14:2 both prophecy and tongues reveal “mysteries.” The term “mysteries” is not referring to garbled nonsense. That term translates the same Greek word that Paul used in Ephesians 3 to speak of the canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets. And according to these passages in 1 Corinthians, these “mysteries” are “known” through the gift of prophecy (13:2) and they are “spoken” through the gift of tongues (14:2).

This argument fails in at least three ways:

1.  In bringing in Ephesians 3:3-9, Dean Gonzales commits a neat little fallacy known as “illegitimate totality transfer.”  The red flag that should tip us off to this is his phrase “the same Greek word that Paul used…to speak of…”  This is meant to imply that the Eph. 3 passage provides us the definition of the term μυστήριον, that is, that it refers to “canonical-level NT special revelation uttered by apostles and prophets.”  But this semantic information is not carried by the single noun μυστήριον, but by an entire descriptive clause: “which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (v. 4).  This is not even a description of what a “mystery” in general is but specifically what Paul there calls “the mystery of Christ.”

The word “mystery” (μυστήριον) essentially denotes a “secret.”  The term was well known in the Greco-Roman world due to the plethora of “mystery religions” in which as part of the initiation, certain items of secret knowledge were imparted to the novice.  The practice has survived to this day in the arcana of societies such as the Freemasons, who possess a convoluted mythology which members are forbidden to reveal to outsiders.

Dean Gonzales simply overloads the word with extraneous meaning, as if he had reached into Eph. 3 with sticky fingers and pulled away half the context along with the noun.  Looking elsewhere, we come away with a more Ockham-friendly understanding that what μυστήριον conveys is the concept “secret” or something unknown or whose meaning is not easy to discern.

“As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.” (Rev. 1:20)

“But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her.” (Rev. 17:7)

In these two cases the “mystery” is the secret to what the visionary imagery symbolizes.  John saw some strange things, knew they meant something, but did not know what they meant, needed to have someone decipher them.

2.  This is what is happening in 1 Cor. 14:2.  Paul is pointing out that a message given in a tongue sounds strange to the hearers, who know it means something, but do not know what it means, and cannot know unless there is someone who can decipher them.

Paul gives us no excuse for not understanding this, because he restates his point multiple times. Verse 2 alone makes Paul’s meaning clear: the problem with one giving a message in tongues in the church assembly, the problem is “no one understands him.” Then he restates his point: “but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

Dean Gonzales states that by “mystery” Paul is “not referring to garbled nonsense,” but the issue is not nonsense versus meaningfulness, but meaning that is hidden versus meaning that is known. That by “mystery” here Paul means a message with hidden meaning (due to being in a foreign language) is evident from the many ways he says it:

“…speaks not to men but to God” (2)

“no one understands” (2)

“speech that is not intelligible” (9)

“speaking into the air” (9)

“I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” (11)

“when he does not know what you are saying?” (16)

In short, the meaning of the word “mystery” in 1 Cor. 14:2 is made so abundantly clear within the context of the chapter itself, that giving preference to examples in remote context, theologically rich though they be, does not make exegetical sense.

3.  In 1 Cor. 13:2, Paul is talking about prophecy, not tongues, and so the concept of unintelligibility is not the issue.  Indeed, here he is making reference to “secrets” in the sense of deep, hidden, unrevealed knowledge.  This is clear because of his parallel of “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”:

“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge…”

But does this verse justify Dean Gonzales assertion that “Paul portrays NT prophecy as a revelatory gift by which the one who possess the gift comes to understand ‘all mysteries’”?  That Dean Gonzales would make such a claim is rather surprising in view of the fact that he knows perfectly well that in verses 13:1-3 Paul is engaging in hyperbole.  He argues as much within this very discussion: “Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” may simply be a form of hyperbole.”  Indeed, it is clearly hyperbole to suggest that any mortal human being would “understand all mysteries and all knowledge.”  This is a hypothetical gift of prophecy taken to the nth degree, not any reasonable expectation of what a given prophecy from a given church member would entail on a given Sunday.

Dean Gonzales then is very seriously overstating the nature of oral prophecy in the New Testament church.  It may well be opening up secrets of a sort.  Paul says as much in 1 Cor. 14:24-25:

“But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”

But these secrets are not theological or doctrinal truths, hidden in the recesses of God’s eternal plan, things which, once revealed, find their place in God’s Canon, as a “prophecy of Scripture,” alongside the writings of Moses, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, and John.  They are individual details of a particular person’s life, revealed to that person, through the Holy Spirit for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Cor. 14:3) or else to convict regarding “concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8).

This is what Jesus does in John 4:17 when he says to the Samaritan woman:

“You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

To which she replies:

“Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.”

Jesus’ words to her, while perfectly true, and divinely authoritative, were for her specifically, not for the Canon, even though a few of the details occur as recorded speech within a canonical gospel.  Jesus told her more, things which are not reported by John, since the woman says Jesus “told me all that I ever did.”  They are important for her, but not “canonical” for the people of God.

On another occasion when Jesus gave a prophecy, he revealed future secrets of Peter’s life, but when asked about John’s life, Jesus said “what is that to you?”

Yet these are acts by which Jesus, prophesying through the Holy Spirit, spoke faith-enhancing words to individuals, none of which constituted temporary stand-ins for Scripture, the Canon being as yet incomplete.  Even these were not in the same class as Scripture, not “canonical.”

This brings us to the main problem with Dean Gonzales’ conclusion that prophecy ceased as the Canon closed: it contradicts the express teaching of Jesus.  Jesus prophesied, and intending that His church also would prophesy, He sent the Holy Spirit:

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.” (John 14:11-12)

“Whoever believes in” Jesus, is considerably broader than just those living prior to the close of the Canon.  Indeed, it has nothing to do with the Canon.

And Jesus did just as He said, pouring out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, with the promise:

I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. (Acts 2:17-18)

The difference between OT era and NT era is not thus “canonical” versus “non-canonical”: there has always been this distinction.  It is not “infallible” versus “fallable,” since a prophet could always (though should never) speak presumptuously.  The significant difference, post Pentecost, is what we may call the “democratization” of prophecy.  In pouring the Spirit on “all flesh” so that even the most humble believer may prophesy, prophecy is no longer tied to the theocratic functioning of the nation of Israel.  While the prophet still has responsibility to speak the revelation accurately, there is, in the church, no death penalty for failure to do so.  In fact we are explicitly told “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1).  Our instruction is to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thes. 5:21).

“Good,” the apostle calls it, to which we may “hold fast.” This is not something to be rejected, but among the good works which we are told to stir up (Heb. 10:24) not to douse (1 Thes. 5:19).

That is the importance of Cessationist arguments such as Dean Gonzales’, to which, I respond, I hope, with equal respect and gentleness, yet with conviction that it does not teach what the Lord and the apostles in fact taught regarding prophecy and tongues.  To teach that prophecy and tongues have ceased in the Body of Christ, if in fact they have not ceased, is to discourage our brothers and sisters from the good that Our Lord has intended them to do.  Therefore, any argument that they have ceased had better be significantly more decisive than the one we have been examining.

7 Comments

Posted in 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, Acts 2, body of Christ, cessationism, church, continuationism, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, Holy Spirit, Jesus the prophet, John 13-17, Old Testament, Personal, prophecy, prophet, revelation, tongues

New Series on Gifts of the Spirit at Scot McKnight’s Blog

Posted on September 20, 2010 by | Leave a comment

by Scott

Over at Scot McKnight’s blog, Jesus Creed, a new series has just begun by guest blogger, T. He begins his first article with these words:

As many regulars here know, I (“T”) believe God still heals (in every sense), still speaks to us and through us in a variety of ways, and generally does all the amazing things we see Jesus and his followers doing in the New Testament.  In a nutshell, I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are still being given as part of God’s continuing gospel work and mission. There are a lot of ways we could discuss the topic here, but for this series, I’m going to share stories—personal stories—and then discuss them.

He, then, goes on to share how God had given one lady a public tongue and another lady the interpretation of the tongue. The interpretation was, ‘I’m leading you into my freedom, and it’s through honesty.’

This message in tongues and interpretation was followed by one particular man praying for another specific man, the prayer being deeply emotional with lots of tears from the pray-er.

In the end, the message in tongues (with interpretation) and the time of prayer for the one particular man led to the man’s confession later that evening of leading an affair-filled, double life. Through deep repentance and counsel, the man repented before fully after being reminded in counsel that he had to be completely honest with her.

Remember the tongue and interpretation that had come – ‘I’m leading you into my freedom, and it’s through honesty.’ You can see how God weaved that whole account together to free this man through honesty.

A beautiful, edifying and God-glorifying story of the gift of tongues and interpretation.

You can read the full article here.

Leave a comment

Posted in experience, Gifts, Gifts of the Spirit, glossolalia, God speaking, guest post, prayer, tongues