Friends, our passage today is a good place perhaps to explain a little something about the nature and purpose of the gift of tongues. The purpose is given to us by Paul:

In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. (1 Corinthians 14:21, 22 NKJV)

The passage cited by Paul is from Isaiah 28:11-12, where God tells rebellious Judah that because she did not listen to the prophets, who spoke in a language they understood, namely Hebrew, God would bring a nation of a foreign tongue, namely the Babylonians, to judge them. In Isaiah the "tongues" were a sign of judgment upon unbelieving Israel. So Paul argues that in the same way "tongues" was a sign for unbelievers in his day. In what sense? Paul explains that the reaction of people to hearing foreign "tongues" would be to consider the believers crazy (1 Corinthians 14:23). Indeed, we read that on the occasion when tongues were first given, the Jews that did not understand assumed the disciples were drunk (Acts 2:13,15). But those that did understand were both perplexed and amazed (Acts 2:6-12). They had the kind of reaction Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25,

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on  his  face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you. (1 Corinthians 14:24, 25 NKJV)

Consider how similar this description is of what actually took place in Acts:

Now when they heard  this,  they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men  and  brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37 NKJV)

Who were cut to the heart? Clearly those who understood the message. There is a repeated expression, also drawn from Isaiah, "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear." Those who understood were given ears to hear, and so they repented and believed the message.

Let it be understood that grammatically (the Greek behind the translation "tongues"), historically (as evidenced in the practice of tongues throughout the Book of Acts), and contextually (comparing the two books as I've done above, and examining the reference in Isaiah), tongues are clearly not some unverifiable ecstatic or angelic sound but rather the miraculous ability to fluently speak in a foreign language that the speaker has never learned before. If this one point is true, then most, if not all, of what is practiced as today is not the biblical gift of tongues. What is more, the current practice of counterfeit tongues often violate the biblical guidelines for the gift because (1) it is almost always, if not always, practiced without an interpreter, contrary to what Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 and (2) it fails to edify the church (1 Corinthians 12:7), since no one can understand what is said, not even the one speaking.

There are only three direct references to tongues in the Book of Acts and one indirect reference. They all point back to the first instance in Acts 2, so that we can conclude that whatever was the experience of tongues in the later chapters, they mimic the first instance.

It is clear that in Acts 2 tongues was the speaking of unlearned foreign languages by the disciples (Acts 2:6-8). We should, therefore, understand this to be the same experience of tongues by the Samaritans (ch. 8), God-fearing Gentiles (ch. 10), and tbe disciples of John the Baptist in the later chapters (ch. 19). In Acts 2 tongues were a sign for Jews, both for those in Jerusalem, as well as for all the Jews of the Diaspora returning to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. As it was a sign for the Jews in Acts 2 of God doing a new thing among the Jews, it would again be a sign for the Jews in Acts 10:

The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.Then Peter said, "Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." (Acts 10:45-47 NIV)

Again, in this next instance of tongues, Jews were present as well. In fact, the text goes into detail to explain how "tongues" served as a sign to them that God was also working among the Gentiles to bring salvation to them. Also, to show them that He was not working among the Gentiles in a different way than the Jews, we read, "They (Gentiles) have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Notice the particular working of the Holy Spirit is associated with the giving of tongues. Many have mistakenly taken this to mean that every believer should speak in tongues, but a careful study will reveal that the few instances of tongues in Acts were recorded for a very specific reason, namely, as a sign to unbelieving Jews that God was doing a new thing. What is this new thing? Paul elsewhere calls it "a mystery," and it refers to God breaking down the wall of barrier between the Jews and the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11-22).

Now, I skipped the indirect reference to tongues in Acts 8. I did this on purpose, so that you can see that in that specific instance, even though "tongues" is not specifically mentioned, it likely occurred because the same filling of the Holy Spirit is referenced. Recall that Acts 8 records the ministry of Philip to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5). Many people came to faith and were baptized with water at his preaching and his performance of miraculous signs, but we are told that they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostles, Peter and John, came to them (Acts 8:14-17).

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is only given by the apostles? Yes and no. The Bible clearly teaches elsewhere that everyone, who is saved, has the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9; John 3:3,5). In fact the indwelling Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our salvation (Ephesians 1:14). Also, all believers are baptized by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). It is highly unlikely that the apostles got to every believer in the Bible, and they certainly did not reach the believers centuries after their deaths.

Then, why did the apostles Peter and John have to come out to the Samaritans for them to receive the Holy Spirit? It seems at this tiime the Holy Spirit could only be received with power through the agency of the apostles. Philip received this power through the laying on of the apostles' hands. Philip could only exercise the power. He could not confer it to others. Only the apostles could do this.

But why was this Spirit-filling power necessary since it appears that people were saved apart from it? May I suggest that apostles Peter and John were sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14) because in this way what God did among the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost would be connected to the Samaritans through a common experience. We are told that through Peter and John, the Samaritans did indeed receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17). And likely, on this occasion, there was some sign, for Simon, the sorcerer, "saw" something that prompted him to try to buy the power (Acts 8:18). What amazed him was the same thing that amazed the Jews in Jerusalem, namely, the Samaritans spoke in foreign tongues that they had never learned before.

Why was this "sign" necessary? Both Samaritans and Gentiles were considered "unclean" to the Jews; therefore, early in the first century, most Jews, even among the believers, rejected the possibility of God giving salvation to them, and certainly not on the same level with the Jews, who were the "people of God." This tension can be seen throughout the Book of Acts and comes to a climax in Acts 15, where the "Jerusalem Council" makes an authoritative declaration of what God had already determined, namely, that salvation by grace was for all peoples, including Gentiles and Samaritans. In fact, when Peter speaks at the Council, he refers to the very occasion of "tongues" to the Gentiles as evidence that God had accepted them:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. (Acts 15:7, 8 NIV)

This gives us more confirmation that the giving of "tongues" was a sign for the Jews, who in this case is called "the believers belonging to the Party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5). God was breaking down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 10), between Jews and Samaritans (Acts 8), and lastly, between Jews and a kind of outlying group called the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19).

The disciples of John knew only John's water baptism (Acts 19:3-4), just as the Samaritans only knew water baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16). They had not yet received the Holy Spirit. On this occasion, Paul was the apostle that God used to give the Holy Spirit, which was evidenced by the disciples of John speaking in tongues (Acts 19:6), thus, connecting this final group with the original work done at Pentecost. 

The same Holy Spirit that inaugurated the church in Acts 2 among the Jews, also accepted the Samaritans with them in Acts 8, the Gentiles in Acts 10, and finally the fringe group, the disciples of John, in Acts 19. All these once disparate groups God put together into one body through the same filling of the Holy Spirit, which was evidenced through the sign of "tongues."

This is the nature and purpose of tongues, which God accomplished in the first century, after which we are told that tongues would cease by itself (1 Corinthians 13:8, where the middle voice indicates tongues will cease of itself). Whoever would argue for its continuance would have to show how it is still being used as a sign for unbelieving Jews today. They would also need to demonstrate the miraculous nature of the the tongues practicted today, since in the first century it was clearly miraculous because it was an actual real foreign language spoken by those that had never learned it. Also, when it is clear that all the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues, were given for the edification of the body and not self-edification, why God would make an exception for tongues today, which is almost exclusively practiced for self-edification.

Finally, if the gift is for today than why are there no interpreters as well since Paul makes such a point of their importance in practice in 1 Corinthians 14?. Even if it is granted there are a few who claim to be able to interpret tongues, how can anyone verify it since today's tongues represent no known language, and even the speakers themselves are oblivious to what they are saying? Even if someone interprets a tongue spoken in the congregation, an unbeliever that comes into the service would hardly be amazed, as those who heard the disciples speaking in their own language were amazed at Pentecost. Do you see the absurdity of what passes for "the gift of tongues" today? It dishonors the Holy Spirit, who gave truly miraculous gifts to men.

I hope this discussion has been helpful to anyone on the fence regarding what to make of today's practice of tongues. I strongly encourage you not to seek it, because since the Scriptures do not validate it, whatever it is that you may experience, who knows from whence it comes? 

Friends, I have completed three entries into one continuous one for ease of reading. Each reading is separated by a Date marker...

On Monday, December 12, 2011, Yujin wrote...

Friends, I realize that in the past I have not written much about spiritual gifts. I've written in part about them in other places; however, I have not addressed them from their primary text until here.

From around 1901 till today the topic of spiritual gifts has become significant because of a rapidly advancing Chrismatic and now neo-Charismatic movement. Prior to modern times there have only been cursory references to them throughout Christian history.

To some this movement is considered a fresh moving of the Spirit and to others a signficiant threat to biblical truth. It's approach to Scripture with few exceptions is a loose hermeneutic that views the Bible as a metaphor for a person's subjective experience of God, so that instead of seeking to line up experience with objective truth, it seeks the converse, namely, to align biblical truth with personal experience.

This post-modern relativizing of biblical truth poses a danger to the average biblically-illiterate Christian, who seeks simply to please God. Since they have no objective basis for interpreting their experience, they believe any and every experience they have, as long as it is sincerely felt, is pleasing to God. We get a glimpse of the disasterous consequences of this kind of thinking at the end of the Book of Judges (chapters 17-21), where we are told that while the Jews were practicing idolatry, they thought they were pleasing God, and "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

While this wrong hermeneutic is a danger to the average Christian, it as an even greater danger to the future of the Christian faith because it tampers with the very plumbline by which we measure faith and truth. How do we know an inch is an inch or a pound is a pound or an hour is an hour. All of these measurements point to a standard. If the standard is skewed, then the world would be thrown into confusion and chaos. Therefore these standards of measurements are tightly guarded in just a few places around the world.

If the standard for faith and truth is skewed, how can anyone disprove anything. So the Bible teaches, "If salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again" (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50). If our spiritual and moral compass, the Bible, loses its objective basis, there will be confusion and choas in the Christian world. And that is what we are beginning to see today.

This website is in part an attempt to counteract such a slide by encouraging people to get back into the Word for themselves, so that they may not be "children, tossed this way and that with every wind of teaching" (Ephesians 4:14), that they may understand that the words of the Bible have meaning in themselves and not the meanings that people give to them; that biblical truth is never subjective but always objective, even if those who interpret and apply this truth do so subjectively.

I am trusting not in my own ability to convey biblical truth but rather that the Lord would effectively communicate this truth to individuals as they read, study and meditate for themselves, and that the more they do, the more they will appreciate the context of popular stories, of famous verses, and of phrases and images bantied about as slogans and monikers for conferences and revivals. My hope is that people will understand that the Bible is real history with relevance for us and not "my story today," that people will not simply stick their names in verses, where a very different and particular group of people are being addressed. When groups gather for Bible study or discussion, the first question they ask after the reading would not be "What does this mean to me?" but rather "What does this mean?", that behind every subjective and personal application there is a literal and objective truth, that as important as it is to obey the truth, it is at least as important to understand the truth to be obeyed.

With that introduction, I would like to look at 1 Corinthians 12-14.

---------------------

A comment on 1 Corinthians 12-14

Chapter 12 introduces a new topic for Paul. So, he writes, "Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant" (1 Corinthians 12:1). I've noticed that many preachers go past these introductory verses too quickly. They are very important in providing a guideline for understanding what's to follow. Not only does this verse tell us what Paul is going to address, it also gives us a clue as to why he is addressing it here.

The Corinthian believers did not lack any "spiritual gift" (see 1 Corinthians 1:7), but they were "ignorant" (also translated "unaware" or "uninformed") about them. As we shall see, they were ignorant about the nature of the gifts, the purpose of the gifts, as well as the practice of the gifts.

Someone once told me that I cannot comment on the gift of tongues unless I have experienced the gift myself. Paul would likely count this person among the ignorant Corinthian believers. As Paul writes rhetorically, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets?... Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Corinthian 12:29-30). You don't have to have a gift to discern the nature of it from the Scriptures.

Continuing his introduction, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:2-3,

You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Did you notice that Paul singles out the Gentiles here? Why? There were both Jews and Gentiles in the Corinthian church. Why single out Gentiles? Some translations subsitute the word "pagans" for "Gentiles." Clearly Gentile pagans were in view. It was their particular history of idolatry and pagan practices that led to the corruption and abuse of the legitimate spiritual gifts. 

So right from the beginning of this section Paul lays out the source of the ignorance regarding spiritual gifts among Gentiles. It was their background in idolatry. But what do "dumb idols" have to do with gifts from the Holy Spirit? In short, much in every way. There were "counterfeit" parallels to Christian spiritual gifts in the mystery religions of Paul's day that likely influenced the Gentile Christians, who had been converted out of them (You can read an extensive article on the influence of the Mystery Religions of Corinth here: http://dailyqt.org/quiettime_links.asp?msg=updated&BibleReadingID=559). Unfortunately, being still "ignorant" of things truly "Christian," they continued to believe and practice their idolatry as Christians. This was the case for certain "weak" Christians, who still had a problem with "food sacrificed to idols":

But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7).

In the same way, some Gentile believers, who had come out of pagan idolatry, were still being influenced by the idolatrous beliefs and practices of their former lives. As foreign as these matters may be to us, they were a cultural and contemporary reality for many in the Corinthian church.

Why is this signficant? There is a saying, "Those that don't understand history will be doomed to repeat it." I believe that is what is happening today. Neglecting the historical reality of the influence of pagan idolatry on the church in Paul's day, the Charismatic Movement, along with it's neo-Charismatic counterpart, are falling back into the same errors that Paul warned against in the first century. Most of the things that the charismatic and neo-charismatic churches herald as "Holy Spirit" gifts and experiences today find their origin in pagan practices. As an example of this, here is a documentary by Andrew Strom, who himself is a charismatic and yet recognizes the pervasive and destructive influence of eastern mysticism (Hindu Kundalini) on the charismatic movement, lying at the heart of the last two major charismatic revivals in Toronto, Canada and Lakeland, Florida (click here to view). And this was endorsed by big name charismatic leaders like C. Peter Wagner (a self-proclaimed modern-day apostle) and Rick Joyner (a self-proclaimed modern-day prophet). Notice, near the end of the video, Redding California (Bill Johnson) and IHOP (Mike Bickle) are mentioned as the new launch points for this pagan influence into the charismatic movement.

Getting back to our text, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Paul lays out the fundamental rule. No one who has the Spirit will reject Christ. And no one can confess Christ as Lord except by the enablement of the Holy Spirit:

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Some get confused with Paul's language here because they try to read into it something foreign to the context. For example, someone might say, "Any non-believer can say, 'Jesus is Lord.' He does not need the Holy Spirit to say it.'" Another might say, "'Jesus is accursed.' There, I said it. And I'm a Christian with the Holy Spirit." Is it merely speech that Paul has in mind here and in other parallel texts? No. In every case where speech is mentioned, there is a context that defines the speech. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:5-7 we read,

For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift..."

Paul is not talking about just any speech here but that which pertains to "spiritual gifts," and what God was using among them to confirm the apostolic witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ among them. Again, when we read in Romans 10:13, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved," it does not mean that everyone that says the name, "Jesus," will automatically be saved. The context reveals that what Paul has in view is a heart-felt confession of faith in Jesus (Romans 10:9-11).

In the same way, in 1 Corinthians 12:3 Paul is not referring to just any speech. Remember that Paul is making a distinction between the counterfeit idolatrous past of the Gentile believers with the true Holy Spirit worship that befits them as Christians. What Paul is teaching is that their confession of faith in Jesus as their Lord was accomplished by the power of God as opposed to the powerless idols ("dumb idols") of their former life. And it is this same power of God that empowers the spiritual gifts, which he will explain in the verses and chapters that follow.

Now, in keeping with his central goal of showing a contrast between the beliefs and practices of the Gentiles in their former idolatry with their true faith in Christ, Paul makes this central argument: While in their former idolatry the Gentiles served many gods, in the Christian faith there is only one God.  It is this same God that energizes their spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) and incorporates many members into one body(1 Corinthians 12:12-31).

The practical outworking of this point is introduced in the first section (1 Corinthians 12:7) and elaborated in the second (1 Corinthians 12:15-31). Paul says that the spiritual gifts were given by the one God in keeping with His will (1 Corinthians 12:11). And God's will was that these gifts be used not for self-serving purposes but for the edification of all (1 Corinthians 12:7). This was in direct contrast to the practices of their former idolatry, where their "gifts" were primarily for their own personal experience of ecstasy in mystical union with one or other of their gods.

Then in 1 Corinthians 12:12 Paul extends his discussion of many gifts to discuss the many members in the body of Christ. As all the gifts are sourced in one God, even by one Spirit, so also the members are all united in one Christ, and baptized into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). Notice that the baptism of the Spirit is universally true of every believer without any sense that some believers need to experience a future baptism of the Spirit, as if this were some special endowment of power after their salvation.

Paul also carries forward the point that God wills that every gift be used for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7) to show that every member understand that no one is more important than another in the body of Christ, but all are given a gift by God to benefiit all the others in the body (1 Corinthians 12:14-31).

I'd like to comment on the very last verse, which has made what is so far a clear message somewhat confusing. We read in most modern translations something like the following:

But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12:31).

Now, doesn't this sound like a contradiction for Paul? He has just spent the better part of thirty verses arguing that God has sovereignly given gifts for the common good, so that no believer is better than another. Why then would he here conclude his remarks with a command for these Corinthian believers to not only desire but to "earnestly desire" the "better" or "best" gifts?

This is where a bit of knowlege of the original Greek may be helpful. The word translated "earnestly desire" has the same form in the imperative ("command form") as the indicative ("statement form") in the original Greek. Thus, if we were to translate the verse in its perfectly acceptable alternative form, it would read something like this:

But you earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.

What difference does this small change make? Volumes! One reads as a command of the apostle Paul. The other reads as a reflection of the wrongful attitude of the Corinthian believers. The primary motivation for translators selecting one reading over another is 1 Corinthians 14:1, which reads

Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophecy.

They argue that in this verse there is no debate between imperative and indicative tenses. It is clearly a command and not merely a description of what the Corinthians were doing. The problem with this perspective is that it mixes two different contexts. While 12:31 relates in context to chapter 12, 14:1 relates in context to chapter 14. Just because similar words are being used does not mean that the thought is the same. In 12:31 Paul is arguing against the Corinthian's self-importance. In 14:1 Paul is arguing for a new measure of value, which is love for others (chapter 13), and so he will argue for pursuing greater gifts that are greater not by virtue of their appearance for the individual but rather by their impact on the common good.

In other words, the main thing is edification and love. The spiritual gifts are merely one means to that end. While in 12:1 the Corinthians pursue spiritual gifts for spiritual gifts' sake, Paul commands them in 14:1 to pursue love as they desire spiritual gifts because the purpose of spiritual gifts is fulfilled in the pursuit of love. 

Therefore, it is best to keep 12:1 as indicative, whereby Paul is contrasting the Corinthians' wrongful perspective on "better gifts" with the proper perspective in 14:1.

The whole point of chapter 13 is to show that spiritual gifts must be evaluated through the litmus of love for others. Paul argues that without this, spiritual gifts would be harmful (1 Corinthians 13:1), meaningless (1 Corinthians 13:2) or provide no benefit (1 Corinthians 13:3). This is completely consistent with Paul's initial point that God gave the gifts "for the common good" (1 Corinthians 12:7). And when we get into 1 Corinthians 14, this central concept will be repeated again and again in Paul's counsel with respect to the gift of tongues.

---------------

Let's now consider 1 Corinthians 14, one of the most misunderstood chapters in the Bible. According to Wikipedia, "as of 2006, Pentecostals and charismatic Christians numbered at least 500 million," which is a quarter of the nearly 2 billion accounted as "Christians" in the world (Wikipedia includes Roman Catholics in this total, 120 million of these which are Charismatic as well). One thing that is universallly believed and practiced by these Charismatics is the gift of speaking in tongues. Needless to say, this matter of tongues is no insignificant matter today.

At the outset, let me make clear, that while tongues is a significant issue today, it was not so signficant in the New Testament. Only two NT books (Acts and 1 Corinthians) even make mention of it in the Bible. And when it is in focus (1 Corinthians 12-14), it is not to elevate its practice but rather to deprecate it. Furthermore, while there is a smattering of references throughout the history of the church, it was never prominent, and with perhaps the exception of the heretical Marcionites, it was universally understood as the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned foreign language as opposed to ecstatic, "angelic" utterance, which is what is practiced today. I have a helpful article in the Resources Section that collects the rare references by the early church fathers from the 2nd-4th centuries to give their perspective on this matter of tongues.

To put 1 Corinthians 14 in the larger context, remember that Paul is addressing spiritual gifts in the context of the wrongful beliefs and practices that the Gentile believers in Corinth gained from their former idolatrous past (1 Corinthians 12:1-2). Remember also that whatever the Corinthians were doing, they were doing it in "ignorance." Finally, remember that leading up to chapter 14 we had two chapters where Paul corrected the Corinthians' self-importance regarding their gifts. Paul also put the spiritual gifts into their proper context, namely, the serving of the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7) in the spirit of love (1 Corinthians 13).

Now, let's look at 1 Corinthians 14:1. Paul writes,

Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophecy.

This is Paul's central thesis for the chapter going forward. Even though he will speak of tongues throughout the better part of the chapter, his introductory statement does not even include mention of it. In the first verse Paul says three things:

(1) Pursue love

(2) Desire spiritual things (the word "gifts" is not in the original Greek)

(3) Desire especially that you may prophecy.

Paul ties chapter 14 with chapter 13 with the command, "Pursue love," for without love tongues is insignificant, meaningless, and of no benefit. Then Paul encourages them to "desire spiritual gifts" (it is italicized in the NKJV because it does not appear in the original Greek. It is an interpretative addition by the translator). The context suggests that Paul has the spiritual gifts related to speech in mind (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:5 "all kinds of speech"). Furthermore, regarding this desire for spiritual speaking gifts, he qualifies it with the words, "but especially that you may prophesy."

The entire rest of the chapter will be Paul's explanation of why prophesying is better than speaking in tongues. In light of this instruction by Paul, it amazes me how many people today long to speak in tongues. I would think more people would rather crave the gift of prophecy.

Now, the next verse has been a stumbling block to many and has been a primary reason for the "ecstatic utterance" phenomenon of the Charismatic movement today. So, let's look at it carefully.

First, let us understand that in light of verse 1 and verse 3 (elevating prophecy over tongues), which border verse 2, whatever Paul writes about tongues is not meant to be taken positively but negatively. In verse 1 Paul has elevated prophecy as something especially to be desired. In verse 3 Paul has connected prophecy with God's primary purpose for spiritual gifts, namely, serving the "common good." If you read verse 2 in isolation, ignoring this context, then you set yourself up to misinterpret what Paul writes in irony. He writes,

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

So today, the utter gibberish that passes for tongues is defended as people "speaking to God." The loud and emotional babblings of tongues speakers today are supposed to be believers "speaking mysteries in their spirit." But Paul's key point is not in either of these but in his central explanation about the problem with tongues, namely, "no one understands":

For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

The point Paul draws out is that tongues without an interpreter (Please read my comment below on the reason why Paul uses the word "interpret" rather than "translate." It has nothing to do with tongues being an ecstatic utterance.) cannot be understood. Noo one, not even the speaker himself, can understand what he is saying. Without this understanding, how in the world can this spiritual gift be exercised in love? And remember, we determined from chapter 13 that without love, every spiritual gift is insignificant, meaningless and of no benefit. And without this understanding, how can it edify anyone?

You may wonder, "But Paul writes here that the tongues speaker is speaking to God. Why would he say this if he is disparaging the gift?" Paul is using irony here. Anyone who studies Paul knows that he uses this often. He is disparaging illegitimate tongues-speaking in a roundabout way. Today, we have a similar expression. When someone does something that defies reason, we say, "God only knows why he did that!" We are not commending the act, we are actually disparaging it through irony. I believe that is what Paul is doing here. John MacArthur observes that in the Greek, the article is absent from before "God," so that one could legitimately translate this verse as "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to a god." This would certainly draw out Paul's original purpose in countering the influence of "mute idols" on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:1.

The same could be said for the expression "in the spirit he speaks mysteries." Whatever the speaker is saying is certainly a mystery both to his hearers and to himself, for neither understands it. Again, we have a parallel expression today. When someone is talking nonsense, we say something like, "Maybe he is speaking in code?" Again, we are not commending the speech but disparaging it with sarcasm. Paul would use this particuar irony and sarcasm again regarding tongues at the close of his discussion in 1 Corinthians 14:28.

What is more, the Corinthian idolatry from which these believers were converted was grounded in the "mystery religions." Unlike Christianity, where mysteries are revealed in Christ, these mystery religions focused on hidden secrets known only to the initiated. Those that spoke in these ecstatic tongues would then be exhibiting the same things that these mystery religions advocated. Paul's manner of expression not only disparages the practice because no one understands it but also served as a subtle rebuke in reminding them of the very pagan practices from which they were converted. Paul never encourages the speaking of mysteries but rather the revealing of them. 

The science of Literary Criticism for biblical literature unfortunately came late in the 20th century, and so after the Charismatic phenonomenon. When I was reading about this in Bible College, it was still a new thing, being defended by people like Leland Ryken. Today, it is widely recognized as a significant tool in correct biblical interpretation. Literary criticism recognizes that the biblical writers widely used figures of speech, like irony, sacrcasm, etc. Unfortunately, the failure to discern these things has led to all kinds of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible, as here.

If we can understand Paul's regular use of irony and sarcasm (e.g. 1 Corinthians 4:8-13), this present text would not be such a stumbling block for so many people.

In verse 3 Paul contrasts prophecy with tongues:

But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

Notice, the result of prophecy is in keeping with the purpose of spiritual gifts, which is to serve the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7). It is also in keeping with the spirit of love from 1 Corinthians 13. In contrast, tongues without interpretation, whether it is gibberish or a legitimate language, violates God's purpose and violates the spirit of love. 

In verse 4 we again get the irony:

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

Since no one can interpret the tongues spoken today, it is never ever used to edify the church. It is always used as a "private prayer language" for self-edification. And again, the justification for it is this verse. Do you really think that after two chapters, even three, if you include this one, of Paul emphasizing that all gifts are given for the common good and not for personal benefit, that Paul would all of a sudden contradict his thesis by making an exception for tongues? Therefore, the words "edifies himself" is not meant to be an encouragement but a criticism. Using a gift for self-edification is not in keeping with the general purpose for which God gives gifts, and it does not pass the test of loving others. 

It is much more reasonable to recognize the irony in Paul's words. He is not commending self-edifying tongues but disparaging it. He uses this kind of irony more plainly in another place, 1 Corinthians 4:8, where he rebukes the arrogance of the Corinthian divisiveness in following popular personalities:

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have begun to reign—and that without us! How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!

Paul is poking fun at their self-importance. He is sacastically saying, "Oh you rich and powerful Corinthians, you think you know it all and have it all..." But why would he write this way? Because they were really "ignorant" (1 Corinthians 12:1), "worldly -- mere infants (1 Corinthians 3:1), in one sense "completely defeated already (1 Corinthians 6:7). Paul cannot speak plainly to them, because they are hard of hearing. In another letter to them, he surprises himself by the lengths he has to go to try to communicate with them:

Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again (2 Corinthians 11:23).

It is uncharacteristic of Paul to boast about anything except the Lord, yet here he is boasting of being a better apostle than the so-called "super apostles" that were preaching a different Gospel to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:4-5).

Dear friends, let us not take Paul's irony literally and so miss his point entirely. Paul's point was for the Corinthian believers to desire the spiritual gifts which edify the church. Obviously, uninterpreted tongues did not edify the church, but prophecy did (1 Corinthians 14:4).

Let us look now at verse 5:

I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied... (NKJV)

Does Paul really want everyone in the church to speak in tongues? This is the same kind of irony used in 1 Corinthians 4:8, where he writes, "How I wish that you really had begun to reign so that we also might reign with you!"

In other translations of 1 Corinthians 14:5, instead of "but even more that you prophesied...", they read "but rather that you prophesied" (e.g. NIV, NASB, KJV). "Even more" and "rather" are both possible meanings; however, I prefer the latter because it more clearly brings out the irony in Paul's first statement. The idea is that while he is being fecetious in the first part, he is being utterly serious in the second. The second part of verse 5 is the reason why:

... for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Wow! This is the first instance where Paul directly says one gift is greater than another. But in what sense? Not that one gift is somehow more noble in itself than another. The gift itself means nothing, but the impact in edifying the church is everything.

At this point, Paul has made his point. But why does he continue on this topic? Perhaps he does so because he does not want future generations to misinterpret his ironic speech as a tacit approval of what he really disapproves? Let's see if he accomplishes this in the verses that follow.

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011, Yujin wrote...

Friends, I hope this sharing from 1 Corinthians has not been tedious for you but that you see that it is important. While all of you may not agree with me on every point, I pray that you can agree with me on the whole and join me to stem the tide of a movement that threatens to derail biblical Christianity.

Let us return to our exposition of 1 Corinthians 14. Remember that Paul's central point was to contrast true spiritual gifts with the counterfeits that the Corinthian Gentiles knew from their former idolatry. And also remember that Paul's second major theme was that spiritual gifts were given by God for the common good, so that the value of a gift was not in its appearance for the individual but in its benefit to others. Therefore, prophecy was greater than tongues because while the former benefited all, the latter benefited no one. While Paul has already made his case in the first five verses of chapter 14, he will use the rest of the chapter to make his point abundantly clear:

In 1 Corinthians 14:6, Paul makes the argument that every speaking gift is greater than tongues because they can be understood while tongues cannot:

But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

This list pretty much covers all of the speaking gifts given to the Corinthian believers. That means that tongues is the least of them. So, since it is the least of the gifts, why would Paul single this one speaking gift out? And what was so uniquely special about it that people would want to have it over the other speaking gifts?

In the Resources Section of this website, I have a link that provides the history of the Mystery Religions in Corinth at the the time of Paul and how they may have influenced the Gentile believers in Corinth. What we discover was that there was a similar expression of tongues practiced in these Mystery Religions. However, it was not the true gift of tongues (by which we mean believers speaking a real foreign language that they never learned, as in Acts 2, 10, and 19). The Mystery Religions practiced an emotionally-charged "ecstatic utterance" very similar to what passes for tongues today. Since these utterances were not based on any human language, they could neither be understood nor interpreted; however, the often loud and emotional displays gave the appearance of a kind of divine communion or possession (note: this is very similar to the objective of tongues in the modern Hindu experience of Kundalini). The very expression "speaking in tongues" did not originate with the Christian faith but was already present in these Mystery Religions. 

Remember, Paul's central thesis introducing this section on spiritual gifts was to contrast the former experience of the Gentile Corinthian believers in their idolatrous worship with the true experience of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:1-2). It is likely that the wrongful understanding and practice of tongues among the Corinthian Gentiles were carryovers of what they practiced in their former idolatry. And so Paul highlights it here to both contrast it with the true gift by the Holy Spirit and to provide a correct measure of the worth of the gift, namely, whether or not it edifies the church.

And Paul proceeds to do so in verse 7 and following. He uses the analogy of instruments. Instruments are known by distinct and clear notes. Then he concludes:

So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. " (1 Corinthians 14:9).

Did you notice that last concluding remark? "For you will be speakiing into the air." Wait a minute? That sounds downright pejorative. I thought the tongues-speaker was speaking to God? That is quite different than "speaking into the air." What we have here is Paul moving from ironic expressions to more direct speech, so that there is no misunderstanding. If Paul meant to still commend the gift in its private use, he could have expressed himself differently, but his words, "you will be speaking into the air," carries the meaning of having "no listening audience" in a pejorative manner.

Just as Paul goes from irony to direct expression, so he goes from analogy to more direct comparison  (1 Corinthians 14:10-11):

There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.

True tongues represent a language that is understood. That is why he writes, "none of them is without significance (i.e. meaning)." True speaking in tongues is not meaningless sounds. So, whether speaking of true tongues (a meaningful language) or ecstatic untterance (a meaningless sound), where there is no understanding of meaning, Paul writes, "I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me." He then addresses his target group (i.e. the Gentile Corinthians that are ignorant of spiritual gifts) with this exhortation:

Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel (1 Corinthians 14:12).

Paul does two things here. First, he shows the error of what the Corinthians are doing (note the parallel to 12:31 discussed before). Their zeal for spiritual gifts was based on the wrong things. They were seeking them for personal benefit and glory and perhaps, like their pagan past, for that emotional high of feeling possessed by the divine. But Paul says that this is not the right kind of zeal. They should instead be zealous "for the edification of the church" (Note: The words "let it be" is in the italics above because it is not in the original text but merely an interpretative gloss.). Here's a more literal translation:

So also ye, since ye are earnestly desirous of spiritual gifts, for the building up of the assembly seek that ye may abound (Young's Literal Translation).

In other words, he says, "I know you desire spiritual gifts, but you should seek to build up the church." The emphasis is not on seeking gifts but rather on building up the church.

Remember, I gave an extensive argument on 1 Corinthians 12:31, where many translations mistranslate is as "But earnestly desire the best gifts," rendering it as a command to them rather than a description of what they were doing ("But you earnestly desire the best gifts"). 1 Corinthians 14:12 is a close parallel to it. But here there is no debate on the translation. Paul is clearly describing what the Corinthians earnestly but wrongfully desire. And then he commands them to seek the commong good. Thus, this verse validates my argument that 1 Corinthians 12:31 is not a command for the Corinthian believers to seek "the best (or better) gifts" but rather expresses what they were doing in contrast to what they should have been doing, namely, seeking the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7) and pursuing love toward others (1 Corinthians 12:31b; 14:1).

Paul continues his argument against uninterpreted tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:13-15,

Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Most people today that are stuck on "self-edifying" tongues hone in on the phrase "my spirit prays." But what is Paul's emphasis? He is not here giving permission to pray with the spirit but just the opposite. He is saying that the Corinthians should not pray in a way where their understanding is absent. Nowhere does Scripture condone a worship that shuts off the mind. Yet, Paul says here that those that pray in a tongue shut off their minds because they cannot understand what they are praying. Listen to Paul's conclusion: "I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding..." He's not saying that these are two separate things, but rather that they must both exist in prayer and in singing.

What is more, Paul exhorts the tongues-speaker to pray for the gift of interpretation. Why? So others can benefit. And so the speaker himself can benefit. It does not matter whether they are practicing the legitimate gift or some counterfeit gibberish drawn from their former pagan religion. If what is spoken is interpreted, then the content can be evaluated. Otherwise, everyone is left in the dark.

In verse 16-17 Paul returns to his main theme, namely, that uninterpreted tongues cannot edify, because no one can verify what is being said. Even if the intent of thanksgiving is there by the tongues speaker (1 Corinthians 14:17), no one else would be able to verify that this is the case.

Now, we come to 1 Corinthians 14:18, where Paul writes something remarkable:

I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;

Hmmm?! How does he know this? After all, the Corinthians are super zealous in this regard. Does he have all knowledge? Or is he speaking with a bit of sarcasm here?

Remember, in Acts 19 through Paul's message, the disciples of John were baptized by the Spirit and began speaking in tongues. It is not far-fetched to imagine that the one through whom the gift came would also have the gift. In fact, in Acts, the baptism of the Spirit, along with speaking in tongues, required the presence of an apostle (see Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19). Also, as the apostle to the Gentile world, where there were also unbelieving Jews in every place, it would be fitting for Paul to manifest this gift. But more on this point later.

Could Paul's sarcasm here be this? Could he be meaning that he speaks with tongues more than the Corinthians in the sense that he has the true gift while what they practice is counterfeit.

Paul returns to his main point again. Even though he can truly speak in tongues, in the presence of other believers (lit. "in the assembly"), he will not do it.

... yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue (1 Corinthians 14:19).

He uses hyperbole, another figure of speech, to make his point. The word "ten thousand" (myriad in Greek) is not simply a number but represents something like "gazillion" in our lingo. Short of forbidding tongues, since he recognizes that there is a place for the legitimate gift, which he is about to explain, he basically says, "Don't do it at church," which is where these self-absorbed Corinthian believers were doing it. Paul understood that this restriction would likely remove all counterfeit practices of tongues altogether. But I doubt he could have imagined how the modern-day charismatic movement have twisted his meaning to justify their current practice in the church.

When we come to verses 20-25, we come to Paul's explanation of the only legitimate use of tongues. So he begins this section with a gentle rebuke for their immature ignorance and then encourages them to be mature in their understanding:

Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature (1 Corinthians 14:20).

Then he cites an Old Testament passage, namely, Isaiah 28:11,12,

“ With men of other tongues and other lips
      I will speak to this people;
      And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”

When you read Isaiah 28, you will observe that it is in the context of a judgment oracle against Israel. The people of Israel would not listen to the prophecy of Isaiah, complaining that Isaiah was speaking to them like children with repetitive instructions. Because of their unwillingness to listen to the prophet, Isaiah says that God would speak to them by way of a foreign tongue, namely the language of Assyria. Assyria would speak to them with the same kind of foreign and repetitive words, but instead of being for their deliverance it would be for their oppression. There's a possibility that Isaiah could be speaking this oracle against Judah with Babylon as the foreign tongue. Either way, the citation is a judgment oracle against unbelieving Jews.

After the citation, Paul declares the purpose of the gift of tongues:

Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; (1 Corinthians 14:22).

After that entire long discussion Paul makes this dramatic declaration that tongues are not really for believers at all but for unbelievers, even unbelieving Jews! It is a sign of judgment to them. What sign, you say? In Isaiah it was that God would speak to them through a foreign nation because they would not listen to Him through the prophets He sent to speak to them in their own language. In the NT, it seems to serve a similar purpose. Remember that because the Jews rejected the Gospel, Paul said that he would go to the Gentiles. Listen to Paul in Acts 13:46, near the very outset of his ministry:

Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you (Jews) first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles."

In Romans 11 Paul describes how Israel had lost its position of favor to the Gentiles because of Israel's stubborn disobedience; however, as in Isaiah as well, it was not an outright rejection of God's people. The expectation was that Israel would be jealous of what they had lost and come back to God.

Throughout the book of Acts, and in books like Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, the friction between the Jews and Gentiles are evident. Paul argued that in Christ the outcast Gentiles would no longer be outcasts but would be included with Israel in the promises of God. But what sign would indicate this acceptance. In the Book of Acts, it was the sign of tongues.

The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God (Acts 10:45-46).

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us (Acts 15:7-8).

In the Book of Acts, the few direct and indirect instances of tongues point very specifically to God connecting three rejected groups to the Jews in one Church through the common experience of the Holy Spirit, conducted by an apostle with the accompanying sign of tongues. The original instance of tongues in Acts 2 opened door of the Church through the apostles to the scattered Jews who came together for Pentecost in Jerusalem. In Acts 8, the Samaritans, considered half-breeds by Jews, were included in the Church through the same apostolic experience as in Acts 2. In Acts 10, the Gentiles, considered "unclean" by the Jews, were also included in the Church through the same apostolic experience as in Acts 2. Finally, a small transitional group called the "disciples of John the Baptist," having no direct affiliation to Jews or Gentiles, were included in the Church through the same apostolic experience as in Acts 2. In these four instances every group was covered, and the unbelieving Jews, who demand signs, (1 Corinthians 1:22) could plainly see that God was doing a new thing. Their rejection of Jesus brought the Gospel to Gentiles. And while they would experience a hardening, the Gentiles would experience a special period of blessing from the Lord (cf. Romans 11:25).

Paul continues in 1 Corinthians 14:22,

but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Tongues, therefore, were a sign for unbelieving Jews, and a not too flattering sign, since it suggested that God was judging them and giving the Gospel to the Gentiles. If we are correct in our assessment of how tongues was used in the Book of Acts, then it appears that by Acts 19 the function of the sign was complete, such that the remaining expressions of it in the Church are the last vestiges of a sign gift that would on its own run its course. This is the likely meaning of 1 Corinthians 13:8, which is literally translated, "whether there are tongues, they will cease of themselves."

What this suggests is that what is practiced today is not the legitimate gift of the Spirit as presented in the New Testament. In the NT, the gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language that the speaker had never learned. In the NT, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews to reveal God's judgment against them in giving the Gospel to the Gentiles. Therefore, what is practiced today has no relationship to the legitimate gift. But it does have a close resemblance to what Paul warned against, namely, the wrongful practices of the Corinthian Gentiles, who brought in their ecstatic utterances from their idolatrous and pagan past.

Let me summarize the remaining sections. In 1 Corinthians 14:23-25 Paul extends his argument against uninterpreted tongues by saying that it hinders Gospel witness, because if an unbeliever happens upon a congregation where uninterpreted tongues are present, they will consider such a congregation crazy (1 Corinthians 14:23). However, intelligible prophecy would serve to convict and save the unbeliever.

Just as an aside, the "prophesying" mentioned here is not simply preaching, as some have suggested. It is supernatural, such that "the secrets of their hearts are laid bare" (1 Corinthians 14:25). I take this to mean that the prophets would reveal the sins of these inquirers and unbelievers, causing them to fall down and worship God. Now, I believe the gift of prophecy has ceased with the first century church, but that is a topic for another day. Yet here the gift of prophecy is no general exposition of Scripture. It too is a supernatural gift to reveal truth that is unknowable by natural means. 

Finally, in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Paul argues against uninterpreted tongues from the perspective of God's nature as a God of order. He reminds them again of his central point, namely, "Let all things be done for edification" (1 Corinthians 14:26). He limits tongues speakers to two or at most three, taking turns, and always with interpretation. The assumption is that the tongues-speaker knows that there is an interpreter present. This suggests that if the tongues speaker is speaking French, he knows there is someone who speaks French in the assembly that day. This is another argument that the tongues that Paul has in mind is not some ecstatic gibberish but a real foreign language. Also, this suggests that the speaker knows what language he is speaking; otherwise, how could he be sure there is an interpreter. If there is no interpreter (note: simply put, the reason why "interpreter" is used and not "translator" is because oral translation is always spoken of as being "interpreted" whereas written translation is correctly spoken of as being "translated" - for more information on this, please see the comment below this one).

Now, if there is no interpreter, Paul commands that the tongues speaker "keep silent in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:28). Even if tongues were for today, most Charismatic churches violate this basic instruction from Paul. Others that try to practice this still allow it in prayer services and revivals, but in these services people still pray or sing aloud in tongues, thus, violating Paul's even ironic instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:29 to "speak to himself and to God."

Just as a closing comment, let us jump over Paul's comment about women and look at the last few verses of this chapter:

Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:36-40).

Paul takes some pains to defend his authority in this matter. Amazingly he pits his authority against the Gentile believers in Corinth. This should give some sense of just how far the Corinthians' sense of self-importance had advanced.

Notice that Paul almost resignedly says, "But iif anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant." In other translations, this verse reads, "If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." The point seems to be the same. Having received this instruction from Paul, he tells the believers to simply ignore those that ignore his message. This gives some context to the following instruction: "Do not forbid to speak with tongues." Paul has already authoritatively spoken his peace. There is no need to belabor the instruction with in-fighting. And, as Paul also recognized, there may have still been at the time legitimate tongues-speakers, who followed Paul's counsel and direction in only speaking where there were interpreters in place, and for the edification of the church.

If any of you have trouble with what I have shared these last few days, please feel free to let me know. I remind you that our goal is "to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Timothy 2;15). My exposition of this passage is here ended.

Friends, in 1 Corinthians 12-14 much is made of the Bible using the word "interpret" instead of "translate" with respect to the gift of tongues. Many, mainly Charismatics or Pentecostals, argue that the Bible uses the word "interpret" over "translate" because they argue the gift of tongues refers to an ecstatic or angelic utterance, which has no translation into another language, rather than an actual foreign language, which can be translated.

This is why Christians are sometimes called "anti-intellectual." It is because we make all kinds of baseless assumptions and then declare it as Gospel truth. The above distinction between "translate" and "interpret" is only conjecture without any basis in linguistic study.

However, a simple search will reveal that even linguists, whose business is to know the meaning of terms such as "interpret" and "translate," understand the distinction between these terms is not one of content but of mode. Translations are written, while interpretations are spoken (See: Translation vs. Interpretation, Difference Between Translating and Interpreting, Explanation by Planet Translation, from Bright Hub, etc.). The reason why the Bible uses the word "interpret" with respect to "tongues" is because the context suggests what is communicated from one language to another is spoken rather than written.

If you dig a bit further, you will notice other nuances of distinction between "oral" interpretation and "written" translation. The first is "real-time," while the latter is "frozen in time." One Japanese to English translator comments:

So what is the difference between “translation” and “interpretation”? “Translation” refers to the translation from one language to another of something which is frozen in time: a book, a TV show, a letter, a play, a speech someone has already delivered which is recorded and then given to the translator in its entirety. “Interpretation” is a real-time exercise – when you interpret, conversation, speech, etc. is actually taking place, and as it happens you are taking what is said in Language A and communicating it in Language B. It may be that you are interpreting at the same time as others are speaking, or it may be that you wait until the end of a chunk of speech and then interpret it into another language while the speaker pauses to wait for you (Link to full blog)

When Paul writes about interpreting tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, he is referring to "real-time" rendering from one foreign language (unknown) to another (known). You can read more on this nuance here.

Now, I am under no delusion that the Charismatic misinformation about the distinction between interpretation and translation will suddenly stop because of my entry here; however, my hope and prayer will be that the Lord will open blind eyes and guard His Word from further corruption and the wrongful practices that follow.