 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Tongues are For a Sign to Them that Believe Not |
Link |
Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14 that tongues are a sign to them that believe not. But he does not say that they are only for them that believe not. We should view this statement as answering the question, 'Who are tongues a sign for?' rather than 'Who are tongues for?' Let us consider the context. I Corinthians 21 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,â€
says the Lord.
22 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. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 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.
(NKJV)
If we study the rest of the book, and even the chapter, we see that tongues are for believers, too, since they are among the gifts given to members of the body of Christ which are said in I Corinthians 12:7 to be 'for the profit of all'. Speaking in tongues edifies the individual, but tongues together with interpretation edify the church (14:4). It makes no sense to say that these gifts are not for the church. That contradicts other passages in this very epistle. The passage about tongues being a sign for unbelievers is in the context of the fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11 quoted in I Corinthians 14:21 "In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord."
When the unbeliever or unlearned comes into an assembly and all speak in tongues, and he says 'ye are mad', he does not hear God in the speaking in tongues, and the prophesy is fulfilled in that way. This is a sign-- a fulfilled prophecy.
But tongues does not edify the rest of the church without interpretation. There are individuals who have this gift and there are assemblies where this gift is exercised.
Here is a quote from a historical commentary on the idea of of tongues as a 'sign' in a negative way in this passage.
"XV. They spoke with strange tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learned it. And the sign is to them that believe not, 1 Corinthians 14:22 and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me Isaiah 28:11 says the Lord" from Gregory the Theologian from Oration 41, XV. See the following for a citation of the translation, etc. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310241.htm |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
10/30/20 9:29 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| It cannot be a sign... |
roughridercog |
Left in the prayer closet
_________________
Doctor of Bovinamodulation |
Acts Mod
Posts: 25306
10/30/20 6:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Gordon Fee has been (and is) incredibly insightful |
Tom Sterbens |
I think I first read Fee's commentary on 1st Corinthians around 1990.
What follows is a lengthy excerpt from the commentary (for 14:22) for anyone who would care to read it. Personally, I think he nails it...
Summary: Tongues are indeed a sign - the question is, "What is the sign?"
(I wish I could have somehow included all the footnotes...)
| Quote: | With the strong inferential conjunction “so then,†Paul deduces two antithetical assertions from the Isaiah passage just quoted. But what he says has become a notorious crux. The problem is twofold: (1) the meaning of “sign,†including whether he intended it to be repeated for the second assertion, and if so, what it also meant there; and (2) how to square what is said here with the illustrations that follow, especially the second assertion with the second illustration. As noted above, the solution to this lies primarily in the recognition that Paul’s point in the paragraph is made in vv. 23–25 and especially in the way v. 23 “fulfills†the Isaiah passage. This means that, contrary to many interpretations, this text (v. 22) needs to be understood in light of what follows, not the other way around
The first assertion flows directly from the quotation itself: “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.†Although it cannot be finally proven, the flow of the argument from v. 20, including the strong “so then†of this sentence, suggests that Paul is setting up this antithesis with the Corinthians’ own point of view in mind. That is, “In contrast to what you think, this word of the Lord from Isaiah indicates that tongues are not meant as a sign for believers. They are not, as you make them, the divine evidence of being pneumatikos, nor of the presence of God in your assembly. To the contrary, in the public gathering uninterpreted tongues function as a sign for unbelievers.†The question is, What kind of sign? In light of v. 21, for which this is the inferential deduction, “sign†in this first sentence can only function in a negative way. That is, it is a “sign†that functions to the disadvantage of unbelievers, not to their advantage.
Most likely Paul is using the word in a way that is quite in keeping with his Judaic background, where “sign†functions as an expression of God’s attitude; something “signifies†to Israel either his disapproval36 or pleasure. In this case, it is his disapproval that is in view; but not in the sense that God intends unbelievers during this time of grace to receive his judgment. To the contrary, tongues function that way as the result of their effect on the unbeliever, as the illustration in v. 23 will clarify. Because tongues are unintelligible, unbelievers receive no revelation from God; they cannot thereby be brought to faith. Thus by their response of seeing the work of the Spirit as madness, they are destined for divine judgment—just as in the OT passage Paul has quoted. This, of course, is not the divine intent for such people; hence Paul’s urgency is that the Corinthians cease thinking like children, stop the public use of tongues, since it serves to drive the unbeliever away rather than to lead him or her to faith.
With a balancing antithetical clause Paul adds that “prophecy, however,†also functions as a sign,38 but “not for unbelievers, but for believers.â€39 With this sentence he once again picks up the contrast between tongues and prophecy that was last expressed in vv. 1–6 (although it is alluded to in v. 19 in anticipation of this argument). This is also the clause in which all the difficulties have arisen, since in the illustration that corresponds to this assertion (vv. 24–25) he does not so much as mention believers but indicates only how prophecy affects unbelievers, and in a way that would make one think that it is really a sign for them, that is, to their advantage.
The solution again lies first of all in the nature of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. Over against their preference for tongues, he asserts that it is prophecy, with its intelligibility and revelatory character, that functions as the sign of God’s approval, of God’s presence, in their midst. The evidence of this is to be found in the very way that it affects unbelievers. By the revelatory word of prophecy they are convicted of their sins, and falling on their faces before God they will exclaim, “God is really among you!†That exclamation as a response to prophecy is a “sign†for believers, the indication of God’s favor resting upon them.
Thus, tongues and prophecy function as “signs†in two different ways, precisely in accord with the effect each will have on unbelievers who happen into the Christian assembly.
Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians (pp. 680–683). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. |
|
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4507
11/5/20 9:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Da Sheik |
I agree Tom, I think Fee nailed it. I have this volume in my library and it is a fine work.
| Quote: | 1Co 14:18Â I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.Â
1Co 14:19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. (NIV) |
In these verses Paul proves that he is neither cessationist, nor charismaniac. For far too long many of us (Pentecostals) have viewed the Corinthians as a model church. They were anything but! Paul's remarks regarding spiritual gifts were more corrective than anything. That's why you have chapter 13 wedged in between two chapters on spiritual gifts.
The Corinthians were proud of their charisma and knowledge (note how many times the words "wisdom" and knowledge" appear in I Cor). Their actions however, proved that they were immature, carnal, and severely lacking in love. That's not to say that one can't be both loving and gifted. I'm just using the particular example of the Corinthians. What a mess they had there in Corinth! You think your congregation is tough to pastor? |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1860
11/5/20 2:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Gordon Fee has been (and is) incredibly insightful |
Link |
| Tom Sterbens wrote: | I think I first read Fee's commentary on 1st Corinthians around 1990.
What follows is a lengthy excerpt from the commentary (for 14:22) for anyone who would care to read it. Personally, I think he nails it...
Summary: Tongues are indeed a sign - the question is, "What is the sign?"
(I wish I could have somehow included all the footnotes...)
| Quote: | With the strong inferential conjunction “so then,†Paul deduces two antithetical assertions from the Isaiah passage just quoted. But what he says has become a notorious crux. The problem is twofold: (1) the meaning of “sign,†including whether he intended it to be repeated for the second assertion, and if so, what it also meant there; and (2) how to square what is said here with the illustrations that follow, especially the second assertion with the second illustration. As noted above, the solution to this lies primarily in the recognition that Paul’s point in the paragraph is made in vv. 23–25 and especially in the way v. 23 “fulfills†the Isaiah passage. This means that, contrary to many interpretations, this text (v. 22) needs to be understood in light of what follows, not the other way around
The first assertion flows directly from the quotation itself: “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.†Although it cannot be finally proven, the flow of the argument from v. 20, including the strong “so then†of this sentence, suggests that Paul is setting up this antithesis with the Corinthians’ own point of view in mind. That is, “In contrast to what you think, this word of the Lord from Isaiah indicates that tongues are not meant as a sign for believers. They are not, as you make them, the divine evidence of being pneumatikos, nor of the presence of God in your assembly. To the contrary, in the public gathering uninterpreted tongues function as a sign for unbelievers.†The question is, What kind of sign? In light of v. 21, for which this is the inferential deduction, “sign†in this first sentence can only function in a negative way. That is, it is a “sign†that functions to the disadvantage of unbelievers, not to their advantage.
Most likely Paul is using the word in a way that is quite in keeping with his Judaic background, where “sign†functions as an expression of God’s attitude; something “signifies†to Israel either his disapproval36 or pleasure. In this case, it is his disapproval that is in view; but not in the sense that God intends unbelievers during this time of grace to receive his judgment. To the contrary, tongues function that way as the result of their effect on the unbeliever, as the illustration in v. 23 will clarify. Because tongues are unintelligible, unbelievers receive no revelation from God; they cannot thereby be brought to faith. Thus by their response of seeing the work of the Spirit as madness, they are destined for divine judgment—just as in the OT passage Paul has quoted. This, of course, is not the divine intent for such people; hence Paul’s urgency is that the Corinthians cease thinking like children, stop the public use of tongues, since it serves to drive the unbeliever away rather than to lead him or her to faith.
With a balancing antithetical clause Paul adds that “prophecy, however,†also functions as a sign,38 but “not for unbelievers, but for believers.â€39 With this sentence he once again picks up the contrast between tongues and prophecy that was last expressed in vv. 1–6 (although it is alluded to in v. 19 in anticipation of this argument). This is also the clause in which all the difficulties have arisen, since in the illustration that corresponds to this assertion (vv. 24–25) he does not so much as mention believers but indicates only how prophecy affects unbelievers, and in a way that would make one think that it is really a sign for them, that is, to their advantage.
The solution again lies first of all in the nature of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. Over against their preference for tongues, he asserts that it is prophecy, with its intelligibility and revelatory character, that functions as the sign of God’s approval, of God’s presence, in their midst. The evidence of this is to be found in the very way that it affects unbelievers. By the revelatory word of prophecy they are convicted of their sins, and falling on their faces before God they will exclaim, “God is really among you!†That exclamation as a response to prophecy is a “sign†for believers, the indication of God’s favor resting upon them.
Thus, tongues and prophecy function as “signs†in two different ways, precisely in accord with the effect each will have on unbelievers who happen into the Christian assembly.
Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians (pp. 680–683). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. |
|
The only thing that stands out as something that I would disagree wiht is the comment about stopping the public use of tongues. The overall emphasis of the passage in that regard is to stop the public __uninterpreted__ use of tongues in the meeting.
I also find his commentary in line with my OP, so it is good to see other sources that agree. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/5/20 11:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
