furnishes another reason why I am convinced this move ment is not o f God. Apparently the whole matter posed some real prob lems in Paul’s mind. For, seemingly, it was possible to talk in another language and not know what you were saying. The mind, he said, might be unfruitful or barren. So, (v. 13), “ pray for the power to interpret whatever language you speak.” See First Corinthians 14:14, 15, 19. Lastly, let us look at verse 22: “ Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers; while prophecy is not for unbelievers but believers.” On the day of Pente cost, when the g ift o f tongues was first given to the church, the apostle went out to preach the Gospel to the assembled unbelievers — not believers. The time was ripe! The occasion was appropriate! Strike while the iron is hot! The principal reason why the true gift of tongues was given to the apostles was so that these unbelievers might hear the Gospel in their own tongues and take the message back to their own lands. Apart from that, there was no need, nor reason—for the gift of tongues. Thus tongues — the ability to speak other languages—suggests the urgency of getting the Gospel out to unbelievers. This is what verse 22 means. Prophecy, however, the proclaiming of God’s will for His people, is for the believer, not the unbeliever essen tially. Thus, Paul urged the Corinthians to give more attention to the g ift of prophecy in their church assem blies. For God’s people need to know the will of God far more than to be merely experimenting with half a dozen or more languages—known or unknown. Indeed, in verse 23, Paul suggests an illustration. Let me put it in a modern form. Here is a church gath ering in which each member is trying to say something in some other language. The congregation sounds like an argument at the United Nations with all of the dele gates standing to their feet and saying something in their own tongues. Suddenly, the church door opens and several strangers—unbelievers— come in. They sit for awhile at the back of the room and listen to this cacophony of sounds as one Christian speaks French, another Swedish, another Italian, another Russian, an other Brooklyn-ese. These strangers look at each other for a moment, shrug their shoulders and one whispers to the other: “ That church is a nut house!” This is exactly what St. Paul says in verse 23. But if the strangers come to a church and hear the practical proclamation of the prophetic Word of God, they might not like what they hear, they might not agree with everything that it says, but, the prophetic Word o f God will bring conviction and perhaps saving faith to them. Verse 33 states: “God is not the God of confusion, but of peace.” Paul concludes the chapter with a warn ing in verse 39. Don’t forbid tongues-speaking — no! But by all means give preference to the prophetic Word of God. And, above all, “ let all things be done decently and in order.” Then, then, is my interpretation of First Corinthians 14. I honestly cannot find any resemblance between what we call "tongues speaking” today and what the early church knew as tongues-speaking. The reader may disagree. I suspect some of you will. So be it. This is your prerogative. But I go on record as wanting nothing to do with modern-day glossalalia. I do not believe it is of God. I do not believe it is of the devil, though I fear the devil uses it to draw Christians from more vital matters and get them out on a tangent where they lose much of their effectiveness as witnesses for Christ. Essentially, I believe glossalalia if of the flesh—an emotional, psychological substitute for a vital Christian witness.
Clearly, the apostle tells us that tongues-speaking— whatever the language might be—is selfish. It edifies the speaker and others who happen to understand the particular language. But it sounds mysterious to the uninitiated, as if the speaker were talking to himself or to God—not to his fellow man. And after all, the Christian’s ministry (as First Corinthians 13 so clearly emphasizes) is not to be selfish, but concerned for the welfare of others. The prophet builds up the church! The tongues-speaker builds up no one but himself. Therefore, (v. 5), he who prophesies is greater than the speaker in foreign languages, unless, of course, a trans lator is present so that the church might benefit. Then, Paul offers several illustrations to indicate the futility of talking languages people do not under stand (1 Cor. 14:6-9). The first picture suggests that, if all the strings on a harp—or all the apertures on a flute — are tuned exactly the same, there would be no music—just a monotonous, toneless sound. It is the dis tinction in tone which furnishes the beauty of music and enables the music to be understood and appreciated. Or, secondly, if an army bugler were to blow just one, single, sustained note—no variation—the soldiers would not know if it were reveille, mess call, retreat, or taps. The distinctive tone—the variation o f melody— gives meaning and significance to the instrument’s call. So, says Paul, if a speaker in a church talks some
" . . . no resemblance between 'tongues speak ing '
and wha t the e a rly chu rch knew ." strange, foreign language which is not comprehended by his listeners, they simply will not “ get the message.” It will be like the toneless flute or the unvarying bugle (1 Cor. 14:10-12). In the light of the strong stress on the value of prophecy above tongues-speaking, I cannot understand why there should be such a great urgency for everyone to dabble in tongues-speaking today. Paul does not for bid it—no! But he places glossalalia way down the bot tom of the list of gifts. He indicates the far greater importance of a ministry which builds up the church, rather than building up an individual alone. Our serv ice for Jesus Christ is never to be for our own benefit alone; always for all believers. I am greatly disturbed by the modern tongues move ment. The stress given is that those who speak have “ arrived” and are on a higher plane spiritually. Actu ally, this is Pharisaism—a self-centered pride which runs counter to the whole tenor of First Corinthians 14 with its emphasis on prophecy as superior to tongues. Besides, modern glossalalia has a devastatingly divi sive atmosphere about it. Wherever tongues-speaking goes, it leaves in its path the wreckage of once solidly united churches which have been torn asunder by this philosophy o f “ the haves” and “ the have-nots”—those who have spoken in tongues and those who have not. See for yourself. The evidence is brutally clear, and
THE KING'S BUSINESS
34
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter