 |
[1] When Paul exhorts believers to desire
spiritual gifts, he is not talking only to the early Church. From his letter to
the Ephesians, we know that he understood that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
were going to be present and available to the Out-Called until Jesus comes
again and makes all things complete. But
he is clear in his admonition that though spiritual gifts are worthy of our passive longings—even yearnings—our active efforts of pursuit, should be
wholly focused on walking and growing in love. If we can accomplish that, there
is no spiritual law we will violate, and we will grow from children to adults
in the Lord Matthew 22:37-40 Luke 10:27-28, 1 Corinthians 13:11 & 13,
Galatians 5:14.
[2] The Greek word, propheteuo, G4395 (verb), is one of several words translated as
prophesy. It means to foretell; break forth under divine impulse; speak forth
under divine inspiration; declare a thing which can only be known by divine
revelation. Many try to say it has a simple meaning of preaching, and indeed,
all preaching should be speaking forth under divine inspiration, but that is
not always the case. In any case, the Bible differentiates between preachers,
teachers, prophets, and their respective gifts. All are ministry gifts of the
Holy Spirit, given to the Church [until Jesus returns and makes all things
complete] but they are not the same gift. In this passage, Paul encourages
believers to desire [but not pursue (pursue only love)] spiritual gifts and
most especially that they might be used in the gift of prophecy.
[3] 1 Corinthians 14:2 is the second clear
witness (in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians) that tongues (glossa) are not always earthly
languages. The apostle wrote that when a person speaks in tongues no one
understands them except God. There are tongues of men, but there are also, as
Paul states in chapter 13, tongues of angels as well.
[4] There is nothing wrong with edifying
(building up) one’s self. Indeed, we cannot build other’s up if we are not
built up ourselves. Paul is not telling Christians to neglect their own spiritual
health. He is simply making the point that when we come to together for
corporate worship, prayer, and exhortation, we must think about the Body of
Christ as a whole, and exercise the spiritual gifts that will benefit others as
well as ourselves.
[5] Paul’s reference to “greatness,” in
connection with the gift of prophecy, may give insight into the statement of
Jesus that his followers would do “greater” things than he did. We know that no
single person can do anything greater
than our Savior did. After all, what is greater than raising people from the
dead, healing incurable diseases, performing miracles, speaking prophetically
into people’s lives, giving one’s own
life for someone else? All of these things have been done by Christians,
through the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But how do we do greater things than that? The answer is, we cannot. But Jesus said
we would. Now, we know the statement of Paul [about the prophet being greater
than the one who speaks with tongues], had nothing to do with quantitative prominence, that of being
highly esteemed by large numbers of people (sinful to desire that), or even by
the public in general. It is rather a qualitative
promise, that the gift of prophecy does greater good over the gift of tongues, because the gift of prophecy
is designed for public ministry, whereas the gift of tongues can be limited to
simply a private and personal
refreshing. There is nothing wrong with that. When such is the case, it is
meant to be exercised between the individual believer and God alone. The
statement of Jesus [about believers doing greater works than he] contains both
a quantitative and a
qualitative promise. Believers can do greater things than Jesus, only because
they exist in greater numbers. Every
member of the Body of Christ, is indwelled by his Holy Spirit. Therefore, large
numbers of believers can benefit great numbers of people—often
simultaneously—by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, followers of Christ
will do greater works than he did, and those who prophesy are greater than
those who speak with tongues.
[6] All tongues are not meant to be
interpreted. At the beginning of 1 Corinthians, chapter 14, Paul stated that
when one spoke in tongues they were speaking to God alone, and no one could
understand them. He wrote to the Romans that when we did not know how to pray
as we ought, the Holy Spirit would pray for us with unintelligible groanings
and utterings, which includes (but not limited to) praying in tongues. Paul
called praying in tongues, praying in the Holy Spirit. Prayer is between the
believer and God—not the between the believer, and God, and the church. But,
the gift of tongues can also be exercised in tandem with the gift of
interpretation. When that happens, The gift becomes a public blessing, with the
two gifts—tongues and interpretation of tongues—being equal to the one gift of
prophecy.
[7] Entire denominations use this passage,
to disparage the gift of tongues, but the apostle was not forbidding, or even
discouraging use of the gift of tongues, he was simply instructing the
Corinthian believers in the proper use of it. He knew his words would be
construed by some to forbid the use of tongues altogether, so in this same
passage, he was careful to add the words, “forbid not to speak with tongues.” To get around this clear
command, some teach that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not for the church,
today. But in the letter to the Ephesians, we read that they are. Also, in the
letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13, we read that the gifts of tongues and
prophecy, specifically, will be with the church till that which is complete
comes—i.e., the coming of Christ himself.
[8] Praying in the Spirit is not the same
as praying with our understanding. Praying in the Spirit is praying in heteroglossos,
strange unknown tongues of a different sort (a language but not any earthly
dialect), “for no mortal understands.”
That is because we are speaking to God and not to mortals.
(1 Corinthians 14:2).” Paul mentioned speaking in the tongues of angels (1
Corinthians 13:1). That is heteroglossos.
One of the benefits of praying in tongues is that our faith
is built up. Jude wrote that we build up “our most holy faith praying in the
Holy Ghost.” That is not silent praying. That is praying in heteroglossos.
Romans 8:26-27 tells us that when the Holy Spirit prays
through us, we are praying the perfect will of God. The passage in Romans refers
to spoken prayer. The text supports an audible, though not linguistically
understood, utterance. The “groanings which cannot be uttered” are
audible but inarticulate speech.
[9] In terms of faith building (Jude 20) and
praying the perfect will of God (Romans 8:26-27), much good comes from praying
in the Holy Ghost (tongues).
[10] Paul clearly did not discourage
speaking in tongues. How could he when he just boasted that he spoke in tongues
more than anyone? Yet some persist in missing the point that this chapter of
Paul’s letter is meant to address motives and method. It is not
meant to disparage the gift. Those who oppose the gift of tongues, tend to do
away with the gifts of the Holy Spirit altogether by teaching they were only
for the early church, but that teaching is not found in this chapter, nor
anywhere else in scripture.
[11] There is
controversy concerning many of Paul's references to "the Law," as to
whether he was referring to the first five books of Moses only or to
extra-scriptural rabbinical writings. In 1 Corinthians 14:21, we see an Old
Covenant prophecy of the New Covenant gift of tongues along with an instance of
Paul referring to the writings of the prophets as The Law.
The context of this verse determines that in his
usage of the Greek word, nomo [in a quote of Isaiah 28:11], he was not
referring to extra-scriptural rabbinical writings.
Even though scripture does [in places]
differentiate between the sacred writings of the Old Covenant, designating some
writings as “The Law and other writings as The Prophets,” the apostle did
sometimes refer to the entirely of the Old Testament as nomo, The Law.
In Corinthians 14:21, he did just that.
[12] Speaking in tongues was prophesied in
the Old Covenant. Isaiah wrote that God would speak in other tongues to his
people. In 1 Corinthians 14:21, Paul defined Isaiah 28:11 as a prophecy of
speaking in tongues.
[13] Paul, here, speaks specifically of the
gift of tongues in connection with the gift of interpretation of tongues. These
two gifts together are equal to the gift of prophecy, and are for the
edification of the Church and also a sign to any unbelievers who may be
present.
[14] 1 Corinthians 14:27 gives protocol for
the gifts of tongues and interpretation in gatherings of the Out-Called. The
Holy Spirit may give more than one person the same message in tongues, but that
doesn’t mean they all must speak it. Once any given message in tongues has been
spoken by three people without being interpreted, it is time to be silent and
wait for the tongues to be interpreted. In gatherings of believers, tongues
should always be spoken along with prayer for interpretation. As long as the
tongues are being interpreted, there are no limits on how many manifestations
of tongues and interpretations can be given in a gathering.
[15] All the gifts of the Holy Spirit are
supernatural, with God initiating the manifestation of his gifts. But it is
entirely up to believers whether or not they allow God to use them in the spiritual
gifts. Regarding the gift of tongues, the speaker must judge whether it is time
to withhold the tongue [glossa] and
allow an interpreter to speak. This, is what is meant by the phrase, “The
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Regarding the audible
gifts of tongues and interpretation, the scriptures instruct believers in the
proper execution of these gifts in public
assemblies. During gatherings of believers, the Holy
Spirit may give more than one believer a prophetic message in tongues. The
person giving the message in tongues, may or may not be given the
interpretation. God may give five or ten believers the same message in tongues, but that does not mean everything single
one must be brought forth. The scriptures are clear, after two or three [of the
same] message spoken consecutively
[in tongues], it must then be interpreted, or the remainder of believers [who
were given that tongue] must remain silent. The same goes for interpretation of
tongues. God may give more than one person the interpretation, but only one is
to give it. This does not mean that the Holy Spirit is restricted to only two
or three separate messages in tongues and interpretations in a single meeting—only
that believers have a limit on how many times they will bring forth a single
message before it is interpreted.
[16] 1 Corinthians 14:31 reveals at least
three things: 1.) Understanding that the gift of tongues in tandem with the
gift of interpretation is equal to the the gift of prophecy, which is inspired,
authoritative teaching or preaching, including forth-telling and foretelling,
then, according to verse :31, every member of the Body of Christ has
liberty to speak publicly to other members of the body of Christ without asking
permission from hierarchical group leadership. 2.) Women are not excluded from
publicly and authoritatively preaching and teaching to other members of the
Ekklesia (Body of Christ) 3.) Women are not excluded from speaking publicly to
men, and men are not forbidden to learn from women. Just this one verse proves
that complementarian male headship is an unscriptural paradigm.
[17] This short phrase is often used to
forbid tongues. However, the Bible commands believers not to forbid the gift of
tongues. When exercised properly, and
interpreted in public assemblies, the gift of tongues does not cause
confusion, but brings great blessing. There are many instances in diplomacy
(and other situations) where interpreters are needed for earthly dialects and
languages. No one accuses the speakers and interpreters on these occasions of
causing confusion. Neither do the gifts of tongues and interpretation cause
confusion. Rather, the apostle affirms in this same chapter, that the gifts of
tongues and interpretation are teaching gifts that give comfort to those
present.
[18] Though this commentary provides
thoughts and views on interpreting verses 34-35 as if they were indeed part of
Paul’s original letter, some believe these two verses to be an interpolation (a
forgery), and for good reason. This is certainly within the realm of
possibility as Paul himself admitted letters “as from him” were being forged
(see 2 Thessalonians 2:2).
It is difficult to make sense of two verses that contradict
the message of the entire body of scriptures and Paul’s own teaching as well
(from just a few verses above). Why would Paul command women to keep silence in
church, when earlier in the same letter he wrote that “every one of you” may
prophesy. In chapter 11, he laid out protocol for both women and men who would
be praying/preaching/prophesying publicly when the Out-Called came together. To
then restrict women to absolute silence in the church, is a 180 degree turn, a
contradiction, and completely out of character for Paul, who, throughout his
ministry, endorsed and honored women as teachers/preachers.
Another, and significan, reason to consider
that verses 34-35 might be forged inserts, is the break in continuity. 1
Corinthians chapter 14 is dealing with the subject of speaking in tongues from
the the first verse to the last. The only exceptions are verses 34-35, without
which, verses 32-37 read seamlessly on the same topic:
“32:
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. 33: For God
is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all gatherings of the
saints.
34: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law. 35: And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands
at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36: What? came the word of God out from
you? or came it unto you only? 37: If any think themselves to be
prophets or spiritual let them acknowledge that the things that I write to you
are the commandments of the Lord.”
The insertion of verses 34-35, brings a jarring break to a
seamless message, with a completely unrelated parenthesis that many, including
this writer believe was never part of the original letter as dictated by Paul.
The brand new Christian faith—at first, called “The
Way”—dramatically elevated the position of women to equal stature with men. As is
true today, so it was then, that there were those who would not accept women as
autonomous equals without prescribed roles. The same person or group of people
who were forging letters from Paul, saying the Resurrection and Rapture [2
Thessalonians 2:2] had already taken place, would have no qualms about
inserting misogynistic messages into his existing letters as well.
[19] It is unlikely that Paul would choose
to deliberately alienate unbelieving wives by being rude to them, bluntly
telling them to shut-up, go home, and let their husbands teach them. This
contradicts the entire tenor of scripture that reveals the apostle’s main goal
in life was winning souls. There is no doubt the souls of
wives were just as important to him as the souls of husbands. The common
translation of this verse is supplementally rude and misogynistic. There is no
viable reason to retain it, just as there is no textual reason not to exercise optional alternatives in the translation that conveys good intentions on the
part of the apostle [towards unsaved wives]. If verses 34-35 are not
interpolations, it would be more likely that Paul would have used the gentler
approach of assuming the sincerity of the women, by telling them that if they
were resolved to learn about the Christian faith, having private discussions
with their husbands at home was a better alternative than publicly disrupting
the preaching or teaching during services.
[20] The Torah says nothing about
women being under obedience. If this verse is not an interpolation, then Paul
must have been referencing unauthoritative Jewish tradition that Jesus publicly
condemned and is known to be misogynistic. One rabbi wrote that he would rather
the Torah be burned than read by a woman. Regardless, it is certain that the
apostle would not single out women for oppression.
The only likely scenario if this verse was indeed included
in Paul’s original letter to the Corinthian church: As is true, today, the same was true
back then, that unsaved wives are more likely to attend church with believing
husbands, than are unsaved husbands with saved wives. The Church at Corinth
likely had quite a few couples attending where only the husband was a believer.
Since Paul had previously instructed both women and men in New Testament public
speaking protocol (Joel prophesied of this and was later confirmed by Peter),
Paul could not have been speaking to women in general—nor, indeed, to all
wives. The context of this passage indicates that the Greek word, gyne G1135, has been mistranslated, in
verse :34. The word should have been translated as wives—not as women. In this verse, the wives commanded to
silence are instructed to ask questions of their husbands at home. Since
all women do not have husbands, only wives can be referred to in this instance.
But not all wives. Joel’s prophecy
about God’s daughters preaching and prophesying is not limited to his unmarried
daughters. This leads to the conclusion, that the wives Paul referred to, were not qualified to speak in church. This
can only mean they were yet saved. For there is no time limit imposed upon new
believers before they are permitted to speak in the assemblies.
Born again Jewish husbands were no doubt bringing
unbelieving wives to the church adjoining the synagogue in Corinth. The unsaved
women, could have been taking advantage of the new-found freedom Christian
women experienced in the assemblies, as opposed to oppressive synagogue rules.
They might have been disrupting the services with questions about the
new faith, but this writer believes that is an unlikely scenario. Women of that
day, were stringently trained to to know their “place” and to follow the lead
of men. So even with newfound freedom, women of the early Church would likely
hesitate to interrupt public meetings. We do not even see that today, in a time
when women are far more likely to assertive.
There is also the
possibility that some of these wives were reluctant attendees at the Christian
church services and resented being there at all. There could have been some
deliberate disruption going on. But again, that is unlikely. In ancient times,
husbands routinely ordered wives about. A first century wife could easily
interpret an invitation from a husband [to attend church with him] as a
command. That being the case, why would she set herself up for possible
backlash at home by embarrassing her husband ina public? Again, this writer
does not see this as being the case. Even the suggestion that this is the case
is misogynistic, unwittingly at times to be sure, but setting forth the idea
that womankind as a whole, is naturally loud and rude, contradicts the
collective evidence of all history.
