two books, there is but one Scriptural gift of tongues, and it is possible to set down certain God- given principles as to the recognition and exercise o f this gift. (1) If the gift is received on the basis o f its being intended for every Christian, it is not the same gift described in the Bible. In this connection a recent writer has said, “ I am convinced that it is not for me only, but for everyone” (Ivan S. Gamble, “And I Was Afraid,” Trinity, Trinitytide, 1961, p. 5). But I Corinthians 12:14, 19 shows from an analogy with the human body that all believers are not to expect the same gift. If the body were com posed of only one member, it would be impossible for it to be a functioning organism. Coupled with this analogy is the statement of 12:30 to demon strate that all do not speak with tongues. Instead of the wording “Do all speak with tongues?” a ren dering which reveals the force of the Greek would be, “ All do not speak with tongues, do they?” The question must be answered negatively due to the grammatical construction that Paul uses. (2) If the gift is understood to be a sign of spirituality, it is not the gift described in the Bible. In addressing his congregation, an Episcopalian re cently said, “ I, your Vicar, have experienced this infilling of the Holy Ghost and have spoken with other tongues” (Gordon S. Scovell, “The Experi ence of Pentecost,” Trinity, Trinitytide, 1961), p. 3). To make being Spirit-filled and speaking with tongues synonymous is, however, to do violence to the Scriptures. There is abundant evidence that this gift, with the others, is sovereignly bestowed by God, and that its reception depends only on the person’s having received Christ as Saviour. The words “ as he will” in I Corinthians 12:11 point to the sole basis on which the Spirit bestows this gift. Likewise in 12:18 it is God’s desire that is the cri terion for who receives the g ift ; and judging by the past tenses of the verbs, this dispersing of gifts is made at the time a person first comes to Christ. (3) If tongues are taken to be a superior gift and one whose emphasis overshadows other gifts, it is not the Biblical concept o f the gift. In I Corin thians 12:28 the spiritual gifts are listed in order of importance, and tongues are at the bottom of the list. On the basis of this listing the apostle ad vises the Corinthians in verse 31 to seek for their church “ the best gifts.” Commenting upon this verse Charles Hodge writes, “Literally, the better gifts, by which is meant, as appears from 14:5, those which were the more useful. The Corinthians had a very different standard of excellence; and coveted most the gifts which were the most attrac tive, although the least useful” (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 264). The whole outlook of the fourteenth chapter is that of the subordination o f the gift of tongues. (4) I f the manifestation o f tongues comes at a
led some to look upon these as utterances unknown to any man. Another reason sometimes deduced for “un known tongues” is found in I Corinthians 14:26. It is inferred from this verse that the interpreters of tongues did not always agree, and from this in ference it is concluded that the tongues were not a foreign language. This explanation reads into the verse something that is not there, however, for Paul is simply making reference to the difficulty encountered in everyone’s speaking at the same time. Same as Acts. On the other side, the evidence in favor of foreign languages in Corinthians is far more convincing. First of all, the identity of the gifts in Acts and Corinthians is proven from the same terms by which they are described. To speak “with other tongues” (Acts 2 :4) and to speak “with tongues” (Acts 10:46; 19:6) are equivalent ex pressions, and the latter of these expressions in Acts is identical with the terminology o f I Corin thians fourteen (cf. I Cor. 14:5). To take the same phrases and apply them to different manifestations without any explanation to support such action, is contrary to sound principles o f interpretation. Secondly, in I Corinthians 14:19 the apostle speaks of “ ten thousand words in a tongue.” There are two interesting facts about this phrase. The word “tongue” is singular here and elsewhere in the chapter, but sometimes it is plural in this same context. This fluctuation between the singular and plural is easily explainable from the standpoint of “ language” and “ languages,” but such a variation defies explanation if unintelligible utterances are advocated. The second interesting fact about the verse is that “words” are the product o f this mani festation. The conclusion must be that the “words” go together to constitute a known language. Thirdly, in I Corinthians 14:11 the writer’s complaint is that the man who speaks in a voice that is meaningless to him, is a foreigner (King James Version, “barbarian” ) to him. If this verse referred to a man’s incoherent, inarticulate sounds, which no living person could understand, it would not make him a foreigner, but a babbler. The con trary would be true if he spoke a foreign language. Fourthly, the Old Testament citation in I Co rinthians 14:21 defines the nature of tongues. In troduced to teach that it was not a mark o f divine favor to have teachers whose language they could not understand, the quotation is taken from Isaiah 28:11-12. In this Old Testament passage the con text clearly indicates a reference to languages spok en by the Assyrians, which were foreign languages insofar as Israel was concerned. This further con firms that the nature of the gift in Corinthians is the same as that in Acts. The Limitations of Tongues If then, the nature of the gift is the same in the
25
MARCH, 1969
Made with FlippingBook Online document