I believe in tongues – but not to the extent that others might, say in the Pentecostal/Charismatic circles, but this article is interesting in the fact that it shows (1) Mormonism experimented with tongues, (2) tongues was prevalent in the early 19th century, and did not begin in 1916 and many believe, and (3) the practice of ‘teaching’ tongues has not changed.
Feb 09 2009
το τελειον: The Perfect?
Last week, I posted an article on Speaking in Tongues, due in part to others posting on it as well. Since then, we have a pretty good conversation concerning the subject, with a good friend of the blog (and sometimes copy editor !) Wb Moore posting an article on his site. Further, the Stoned-Campbell Disciple, has posted one the subject of 1st Corinthians 13.10, the key verse in the Cessionist argument.
So, I thought that I may add some other thoughts, solely on this verse.
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect (το τελειον) has come, then that which is in part will be done away. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10 NKJV)
Borrowing from the Stoned-Campbell, we find four views on just what ‘the perfect’ is in relation to this verse:
1) Probably the most familiar view among Churches of Christ is that “the perfect,” as the King James Version reads, refers to the completed canon of New Testament scripture. This particular interpretation seems to have arisen historically as a reaction to Pentecostalism. B. B. Warfield is said to have taken this position but I have been unable to document this. But I have checked into the history of the interpretation of this verse and it is true that this view does not seem to exist prior to the 19th century. Usually James 1.25 and Romans 12.2 are appealed to in support of this interpretation. But as the lamented J. W. Roberts wrote these verses are not discussing the canon (see J. W. Roberts, “That Which is Perfect” Firm Foundation [July 25, 1972], 468). This particular interpretation has been shown to be both exegetically and historically wrong by such conservative scholars as Richard Oster, Carl Holladay, J.W. Roberts, Gordon Fee and Donald Carson. In fact I have not found any standard commentary which has adopted this interpretation. The context of the verse and history of interpretation pretty much eliminate this as the proper understanding of the text.
2) The second interpretation that is usually given of “to teleion” is that the phrase refers to “agape” (love). This particular view has more going for it that the one just reviewed. Indeed, this is the view that I once held myself and still find it to be very persuasive. More specifically this view holds that “to teleion” does not refer so much to “perfection” but to the “totality” or “maturity” of the Corinthian Christians in terms of agape love. Carroll Osburn has probably presented the best case that can be made for this interpretation . . . and as I stated before it is a strong case (cf. 1978 Abilene Christian College Lectures, pp. 138-171; Jim McGuiggan presents a summary of Osburn in his commentary on 1 Corinthians). Osburn has done an amazing amount of research into how the Church Fathers interpreted this text. In fact some of his research has moved me to embrace a position different from him.
3) The third interpretation is a nuanced view of #2, in that the church no longer needs gifts. The weakness of this position is that it is not built upon 1 Corinthians but upon Ephesians 4.7-16. This interpretation breaks, what I believe to be an iron clad rule of exegesis, a passage must first be understood in its own context and then seen in light of others. John McRay has written the presentation of this view: “To Teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10” in Restoration Quarterly (1971): 168-183.
4) The fourth position is the position that I have come to believe as the best interpretation of the verse. This interpretation understands “to teleion” to refer to the Eschaton or the return of the resurrected Lord at the End of Time.
I follow the 4th position.
We must cross reference this verse to 2nd Corinthians 2.6 which reads,
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. (1 Corinthians 2:6 NKJV)
And of course,
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; (Ephesians 4:11-13 NKJV)
The answer, for me, is simple. The ‘perfect’ in 1st Corinthians is the ‘perfect’ of Ephesians: An Eschatological Church, complete with the Knowledge of God, with perfect Doctrine, and at home with God – settled and full. We must see that the gifts of the Church, just as the leadership of the Church, will last until the Consummation of all things.
Now, we can debate just what is speaking in tongues and the spirituality of it.
Feb 05 2009
Speaking in Tongues: Who is right?
Dr. Jim West has irritated a bunch of pentecostals. The good doctor commented on an article in which the ‘revival’ of speaking in tongues about the Anglicans.
And, by the way, the ‘Gift of Tongues’ is one of those temporary, ‘bridge’ gifts granted by the Spirit until the establishment of the Church as institution and the ascension of the New Testament documents to the status of ’scripture’. Once those two events took place, such ’sign gifts’ (like tongues and healings and the like) became unnecessary. Once one has Scripture, one no longer needs ’signs’
Nick Norelli responds in his usually eloquent manner with a post entitled Verbal Diarrhea:
Jim’s post was fine for the most part but apparently he had a bout of verbal diarrhea and just couldn’t stop himself from typing that last paragraph, a paragraph that one might expect from the likes of a dilettante like Jessica Simpson but certainly not one who possesses the ability to actually engage in exegesis. I thought perhaps I’d see this posted in the ‘humor’ or ’sarcasm’ category but sadly it’s only marked ‘biblical studies’ and ’theology.’ I welcome any defense of this indefensible position that Jim might care to offer.
It is evident that Dr. West is a cessionist – I believe he is a Baptist -while Nick is somewhere between Catholic and Charismatic Pentecostal (according to Nick) and Book Iconist, I think.
I of course, have my own opinions.
For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages[3], as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear[4] many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts[5], and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.
Further, it seems that Justin identified at least the remains of the prophetical gift, which we can stretch to mean speaking in tongues,
The prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time. And hence you should understand that the gifts formerly among your nation (Israel) have been transferred to us. (1.240)
Further, Tertullian defended tongues during his Montantist days. We know from history that speaking in tongues did not suddenly cease at the close of the canon, there is plenty in the works of the Apologists to show that ’signs’ did not cease. (There is an equal amount, however, to suggest that too many people understood these ’signs’ to indicate that any person who performed them was a member of the Church.)
Did they cease after the Apostolic Era?
And do the Pentecostals have the right idea?
No, I do not think they ceased, and nor do I think that many Pentecostal/Charismatics have the right idea. Most charismatics that I have met would deem it a good service if everyone spoke in tongues for the 2 hours of Sunday morning service. Personally, I have not read one instance in the bible where teaching, doctrine, and brotherly love was every sacrificed for ecstatic worshiping.
That is my .347 cents
Jan 13 2009
Irenaeus on the Spiritual Need of Speaking in Tongues
The below comes from Irenaeus’ work, Against Heresies, 5.6.1. The Doctrine of Cessationism generally states that certain gifts enjoyed by the Church during the Apostolic days ceased shortly after their deaths. Irenaeus, a pupil of Polycarp, was born between 115 and 125, dying about 202. This book is placed around the year 180 and was written to defeat the first great doctrinal threat to the Church, Gnosticism. It is highly doubtful that Irenaeus wrote this in defense of glossolalia, but it serves that peculiar purpose well in that the ancient Apologist establishes that the Spiritual man is the perfect man, and in order to be perfected, one must ‘partake of the Spirit’. Irenaeus says, ‘The man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit’.
We must be reminded that in Acts, as the Spirit fell upon the Jews, the Gentiles, and the disciples of John the Baptist, it was accompanied with speaking in tongues, or prophesying.
1. Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modeled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God[1]. Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not the man[2]; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly nature which was molded after the image of God. For this reason does the apostle declare, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,” terming those persons “perfect” who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages[3], as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear[4] many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts[5], and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual. For if anyone take away the substance of flesh, that is, of the handiwork [of God], and understand that which is purely spiritual, such then would not be a spiritual man but would be the spirit of a man, or the Spirit of God. But when the spirit here blended with the soul is united to [God’s] handiwork, the man is rendered spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he who was made in the image and likeness of God[6]. But if the Spirit be wanting to the soul, he who is such is indeed of an animal nature, and being left carnal, shall be an imperfect being, possessing indeed the image [of God] in his formation (in plasmate), but not receiving the similitude through the Spirit; and thus is this being imperfect. Thus also, if any one take away the image and set aside the handiwork, he cannot then understand this as being a man, but as either some part of a man, as I have already said, or as something else than a man. For that flesh which has been molded is not a perfect man in itself, but the body of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the soul itself, considered apart by itself, the man; but it is the soul of a man, and part of a man. Neither is the spirit a man, for it is called the spirit, and not a man[7]; but the commingling and union of all these constitutes the perfect man. And for this cause does the apostle, explaining himself, make it clear that the saved man is a complete man as well as a spiritual man[8]; saying thus in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, “Now the God of peace sanctify you perfect (perfectos); and may your spirit, and soul, and body be preserved whole without complaint to the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Now what was his object in praying that these three — that is, soul, body, and spirit — might be preserved to the coming of the Lord, unless he was aware of the [future] reintegration and union of the three, and [that they should be heirs of] one and the same salvation? For this cause also he declares that those are “the perfect” who present unto the Lord the three [component parts] without offence. Those, then, are the perfect who have had the Spirit of God remaining in them, and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless, holding fast the faith of God, that is, that faith which is [directed] towards God, and maintaining righteous dealings with respect to their neighbours.
We can see here in the words of Irenaeus that although he might place emphasis on speaking in tongues, he does not make it central to the Christian life or worship. It is something placed on the individual, and commended, but not established as a must at every gathering of the Church – as some today would make it.
I look forward to any discussion that might arise out of this posting.
[1] Note the application of the Son and Spirit as hands of God; See, The Two Hands of God.
[2] The soul and the spirit of man – his psyche and his life force – are not distinct or separate entities within the man. The same is with the Logos and the Sophia of God.
[3] Irenaeus begins a moment of what is commonly known as ‘speaking in tongues.’
[4] Old Latin has ‘have heard’, but this is not a result of cessationism.
[5] These had to be different than the Montanists of Tertullian’s liking, but still within the frame of the Apostles. Irenaeus died sometime around 202, which removes the idea of cessationism of certain gifts at the death of the Apostles
[6] Irenaeus seems to take the general ‘Oneness’ position that speaking in tongues is a sign of spiritual maturity, of spiritual perfection, in that it is by speaking in tongues that a man has been recreated in the image of God. He goes to say that if the man lacks the Spirit (of God) than the body is still in the image, and the man is of an animal nature. The man, albeit a Christian, is still imperfect without the Spirit, and the man with is Spiritual is the man who partake of the Spirit as manifested by speaking in tongues.
[7] Perhaps Irenaeus would agree with, ‘Neither is the Logos itself, apart by itself, considered God; but it is the Logos of man, and a part of man. Neither is the Pneuma itself, considered apart by itself, God; but it is the Pneuma of God and a part of God.’ So then, we still maintain an economic form of God.
[8] Would then Irenaeus agree with the general statement that speaking in tongues is the sign of salvation?
Nov 24 2008
Sid Roth – Mind Control
Sid Roth is a ‘Messianic Jew’ with his own television program. We have previously examined some of his statements and statement concerning him to reveal that his doctrine is false. In this video, Sid begins to speak about ’speaking in tongues’. I will not discuss the idea of cessationism, either the merits (none) or refutation thereof (many), but I will discuss Sid’s take on the tongue talking.
Whatever we do, or claim to do, must be done in the light and shadow of the holy Scriptures. If we claim to speak in tongues, it must be measured, and not exceed, the Apostles.
Nor will I mention that the pray that Sid gives power to (starting about 3.24) is not found in the Bible, nor in the Apostolic or Church Fathers, nor in the Reformers. I will not mention that along with Sid, the people who stress this easy beliefism usually do out of some net gain for themselves.
No where in the Bible do you just get to say a prayer (here) and of course, for Sid, you don’t even really have to believe completely. I wonder what parts you can leave out? Anyway, the topic of this post is not Sid’s Messianic Judaism, his take on the supernatural, or his easy beliefism that does not require a belief. Instead, it is ‘mind by pass’ style of tongue talking.
It starts at the 6.45 mark when he wants you to say another prayer for this Yeshua of his to fill you with something. He wants you to ask for a language to speak to God. He says that we have to make up a language -- but it will not be made up. He says that we need a mind pass, to speak this language as humanly possible. Again, he wants you to use what ever comes out of the mouth -- this mind pass. He wants you to speak so fast that it is gibberish. And of course he gives you examples. He then gives a few examples -- soft examples -- to back up the need for speaking in tongues. I cannot find the scripture that says ‘if we speak in tongues we praise God well’. His third example is
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 NKJV)
He, of course, added a wee bit of leaven -- in that he says these mysteries cut the devil off. Although Paul did not condemn speaking on tongues, he did condemnt the focus on, which Sid seems to promote (1st Corinthians 14.19).
The whole issue is not the application of tongues, but where they come from. According to Sid, there are a made up language that we have to speak fast, bypassing the mind (is that possible?) in order to get out. Instead of Sid, the Bible actually says something different -- that tongues comes from the Spirit of God. Now, whether you believe that they are foriegn languages or that they are the tongues of angels, or both, one has to admit that it not due to a trick of the mind.
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4 NKJV)
Vincent says,
Utterance (ἀποφθέγγεσθαι) Used only by Luke and in the Acts. Lit., to utter. A peculiar word, and purposely chosen to denote the clear, loud utterance under the miraculous impulse. It is used by later Greek writers of the utterances of oracles or seers. So in the Septuagint, of prophesying. See 1st Chronicles 25:1; Deuteronomy 32:2; Zechariah 10:2; Ezekiel 13:19.
It is not by our power that we do or would do -- nor the Apostles -- such things.
And again,
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Romans 8:26-27 NRVS)
Sid, again, proves himself a tad bit false.
