Dave, I simply don’t have time to respond to everything you’ve written. I will try and address a few points briefly.
[list=1][*]Spirit
The one key thing to be aware of when doing this sort of analysis of the meaning of a word is that it is inappropriate to import into each occurance of the word all of the possible meanings of the word. This applies to all words, not just this word, but it means that you cannot simply say ”x means y in that passage, so it must mean y in this passage as well.” The immediate application of this principle to 1Cor 14 is that if πνευμα sometimes encompasses νους, then the contrast expressed in this passage makes it likely that it should not be so understood here.
Some of your analysis is questionable. Take Rom 11:8 which appears to be quoting Isa 29:10. The language here is not describing the human spirit at all, but is more akin to Judg 9:23; 1Sam 16:14, where a spirit is sent into the people.
Finally, your interpretation requires that “mind” (νους) be something external to me such that it bears fruit in the lives of others. Yet “mind” is something internal to me (note that “heart” in the OT is frequently translated “mind” in the LXX). As I understand it, your reading of 1Cor 14:15 requires that “spirit” means “my inner self” while “mind” means something like “external intelligibility.” This is simply not what “mind” means. Or do bilingual people not use their mind when they speak in their native tongue?
[*]1Cor 14:5
My real question here is why, given your understanding, would Paul want everyone to speak in tongues?
[*]Robert Zerhusen’s Articles
These articles are worthy of a lengthy response, but there are a number of serious problems and omissions in them. You quote, for example, this portion:
[quote author="Robert Zerhusen"] If speaking in languages and translation were miraculous (as some say) then the situation described in 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never occur. The language-speaker is instructed to “pray that he might translate” (1 Cor 14:13). If translation is a supernatural ability that the language-speaker or others with this supernatural ability could practice, then the situation of 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never arise! Either the language-speaker would translate, or one of the supernaturally gifted translators could translate. But in fact the situation of 14:28 could arise, according to Paul. How do we explain this?
This argument assumes much about the nature of gifts which is not clear in the passage. It is not apparent that anyone should have a permanent hold on a gift, especially in the light of Paul’s encouragement to seek the greater gifts. It is apparent that the human possessor of a gift has some responsibility for its use, so the prophets too are instructed to exercise orderly control over their speech.
[*]The antiquity of the “charismatic” interpretation
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]To then switch to Eastern mysticism just to maintain a Charismatic understanding of this passage (imposed onto it as late as the start of the 20th Century) is to change our understanding of how Paul writes about edification!
You’ve not heard of the Montanists then, I suppose? Nor noted that the “charismatic” interpretation is supported by Mark 16:17? Neither of these speak to the authenticity of the interpretation, but they do speak to its antiquity, along with many other early references to glossolalia.[/list:o]
And just a quick response to your summary. I do not attempt to present a “Charismatic” reading of the passage, but I assume you’re placing me in that category, so I will respond as if it refers to me.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]1. A Charismatic reading of this passage requires us to change our understanding of the human spirit / soul / heart
No, it does not. It simply requires that we recognise that Paul’s own distinction between spirit and mind is meaningful. I don’t think your understanding of “mind” is correct.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]2. It requires us to change our understanding of how people are edified
No, it simply assumes that edification can occur in ways other than through hearing and understanding words. Reducing edification to this level is akin to asserting that we cannot be encouraged by a hug because it isn’t expressed in words.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]3. It requires us to believe that the Holy Spirit might have trouble delivering both tongues and translation as supernatural gifts at the same time
Yet your alternative makes neither tongues nor interpretation manifestations of the Spirit at all. They are simply naturally learnt abilities. As I’ve noted before, your insistence that some of the “gifts” in 1Cor 12 are “natural” is not unequivocally supported by the text and makes the notion of the Spirit giving gifts to members of the body rather odd.
If tongues is a gift which edifies the individual, if that is part of its purpose, then its appropriate use is not in a public assembly. Yet all the gifts can be abused, or so it would seem, and are subject to the responsible use of those gifted (cf. 1Cor 14:32). The fact that people in Corinth were abusing their gifts does not invalidate the gifts.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]4. It requires us to ignore the reference to Isaiah 28 and other references to many languages in the world, and demands that we redefine “languages”
Nonsense. I have not denied anywhere that the languages were real languages, with grammar and syntax and meaning. What I suggest is that they are not learnt, but are real manifestations of the Spirit, just as prophecy is.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]The “normal languages” view of the passage merely asks that you accept that one phrase be read consistently with the broader church concerns of the passage, and that is that “my mind is unfruitful” means unfruitful in the lives of others.
I disagree. It requires us to read substantial portions as hyperbole, it requires that we believe the gifts given as manifestations of the Spirit have nothing to do with the Spirit coming on us at conversion. It means “mind” cannot be read in its normal sense. It makes Paul’s desire for all to speak in tongues sound rather odd.
Hi Martin,
1.Spirit
I admit some of the spirit quotes were included in a rush. As I said, this topic in itself could require a whole new thread.
However, I deny that I have made the human mind completely externalised in scripture. Indeed, I think I was inventing new words to describe the indivisibility of a human being, and that mind/soul/spirit/heart are all intertwined requiring the Charismatic understanding to somehow explain an unengaged spirit more than I have to explain a mind that is unfruitful!
(Note: for brevity I call the Charismatic of tongues the understanding of tongues that are “ecstatic, unengaged-mind tongues that are unintelligible” — but am not calling you Charismatic. I understand you might hold this position on this passage, but am not lumping you in with everything else they say. If you can think of a better term, I’m happy to use it.)
I have not stated that the mind is always external in focus, rather that in this passage the focus is clarity for others.
2.1 Cor 14:5
Wouldn’t it be great if every Evangelical in Sydney could speak in Chinese and Japanese and Arabic and Samoan?
3.
Robert Zerhusen wrote:
If speaking in languages and translation were miraculous (as some say) then the situation described in 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never occur. The language-speaker is instructed to “pray that he might translate” (1 Cor 14:13). If translation is a supernatural ability that the language-speaker or others with this supernatural ability could practice, then the situation of 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never arise! Either the language-speaker would translate, or one of the supernaturally gifted translators could translate. But in fact the situation of 14:28 could arise, according to Paul. How do we explain this?
_This argument assumes much about the nature of gifts which is not clear in the passage. It is not apparent that anyone should have a permanent hold on a gift, especially in the light of Paul’s encouragement to seek the greater gifts. It is apparent that the human possessor of a gift has some responsibility for its use, so the prophets too are instructed to exercise orderly control over their speech.
I find the Charismatic argument assumes far more than the normal languages argument. This is not an answer to why 14:28 could ever be an issue — if tongues were dished out to the church miraculously as needed and so are the miraculous prophecies that work with them. Why on earth wouldn’t we get both together? The question still remains.
4. Antiquity.
You’re right… I will have to read up on the Montanists, but my comment on Mark 16:17 is that it is perfectly consistent with the miracle that occurred in Acts 2 as explained by Zerhusen. And Calvin interpreted 1 Cor 14 as normal languages.
No, it does not. It simply requires that we recognise that Paul’s own distinction between spirit and mind is meaningful. I don’t think your understanding of “mind” is correct.
That’s not enough. Where is it incorrect? I don’t think your understanding of spirit is correct… it is a “thinking” part of us. There are subtleties about the mind being unfruitful here that are possible according to my understanding, but Charismatic understanding of the spirit here is impossible, given the many other verses that define the spirit as the essential me, and at least on 2 occasions as knowing my thought or thinking.
I have not denied anywhere that the languages were real languages, with grammar and syntax and meaning. What I suggest is that they are not learnt, but are real manifestations of the Spirit, just as prophecy is.
Linguists have studied Charismatic tongues and it is not a language.
If we accept that there is something miraculous and “mysterious” (illogical) happening here to communicate, then test the tongues as I have suggested. Correct use of Charismatic tongues still requires interpretations. We must test the tongues. If it is not interpreting correctly, we should abandon this understanding of tongues. It is not enough to avoid my “test request” by saying that you agree there are many excesses in the Charismatic church. What do you think of the test? Would it work? Why / why not? Aren’t we meant to “test the spirits?” If we are to interpret, surely this is one way to check that we are getting the real deal?
The “normal languages” view of the passage merely asks that you accept that one phrase be read consistently with the broader church concerns of the passage, and that is that “my mind is unfruitful” means unfruitful in the lives of others.
I disagree. It requires us to read substantial portions as hyperbole, it requires that we believe the gifts given as manifestations of the Spirit have nothing to do with the Spirit coming on us at conversion. It means “mind” cannot be read in its normal sense. It makes Paul’s desire for all to speak in tongues sound rather odd.
Ummm, Paul uses hyperbole heaps, so where he uses it, we are required to read it as such, many of the gifts I have presented seem to be normal talents put to God’s work — so why not languages? — us all speaking in tongues would be very useful in a multicultural city, and so we are back to “Mind being unfruitful” as your main argument.
While you are at it, can you please tell me if you agree that the “spirit” thinks or what our spirit even is?
I love it when I catch Enkers in a spelling error.
But I should really say, thanks Martin, there’s a lot of good stuff there to think about.
One thought: Why wouldn’t Paul want all of us to speak many tongues (=natural human languages)? it seems so self-evidently useful for the building up of the church, and that is what he is on about in 1 Cor 14. I would love to be able to speak all languages, and not just for bragging rights. What a great thing to be able to speak to the whole world about Jesus!
Hey Gordon, I thought I had some great points! ;-)
What, is it my writing style, my long diatribes, is it my hair do? Why can’t people take this seriously, Calvin did! ;-)
Dave L., you made good points but if your posts get much longer, you are in danger of falling into the deep, deep hole that is the posting style of Malcolm James Oliver; a lovely man I’m sure but I can’t tell from his posts, as I never read them.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Wouldn’t it be great if every Evangelical in Sydney could speak in Chinese and Japanese and Arabic and Samoan?
and
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]One thought: Why wouldn’t Paul want all of us to speak many tongues (=natural human languages)? it seems so self-evidently useful for the building up of the church, and that is what he is on about in 1 Cor 14. I would love to be able to speak all languages, and not just for bragging rights. What a great thing to be able to speak to the whole world about Jesus!
True, it would be good to be polylingual. But is that what Paul wants here? It seems out of place given that his emphasis is on not speaking in tongues in the congregation. Note he does not contrast speaking in the congregation with evangelistic speaking outside the church, but speaking in the congregation and speaking alone with God. Had he made the former contrast this claim may have stood, but given the latter, it doesn’t seem to fit with the thrust of the argument.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]I find the Charismatic argument assumes far more than the normal languages argument. This is not an answer to why 14:28 could ever be an issue — if tongues were dished out to the church miraculously as needed and so are the miraculous prophecies that work with them. Why on earth wouldn’t we get both together? The question still remains.
As I said before, if tongues primarily function to edify the individual (as Paul says they do), then the speaker ought to exercise constraint in their use in public assemblies, precisely as Paul advises. We have been given gifts, but we are in control, they do not control us. So Paul instructs not to speak in tongues unless there is someone to interpret.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]And Calvin interpreted 1 Cor 14 as normal languages.
Which is immaterial to my argument. OTOH, Calvin and I agree that the language was not learnt by the speaker but the supernatural endowment of the Spirit:
[quote author="John Calvin"]There was a difference between the knowledge of tongues, and the interpretation of them, for those who were endowed with the former were, in many cases, not acquainted with the language of the nation with which they had to deal. The interpreters rendered foreign tongues into the native language. These endowments they did not at that time acquire by labor or study, but were put in possession of them by a wonderful revelation of the Spirit.
Which is pretty much exactly what I’m arguing.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]That’s not enough. Where is it incorrect? I don’t think your understanding of spirit is correct… it is a “thinking” part of us. There are subtleties about the mind being unfruitful here that are possible according to my understanding, but Charismatic understanding of the spirit here is impossible, given the many other verses that define the spirit as the essential me, and at least on 2 occasions as knowing my thought or thinking.
No, not 2, at best 1. 1Cor 2:11 doesn’t mention thoughts at all, it says, “For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God” (NET Bible). Sure, the spirit knows something, but Adam knew Eve, and I’m not sure how much discussion was involved! As I’ve said before, “know” has a very broad semantic range (as does “spirit").
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Ummm, Paul uses hyperbole heaps, so where he uses it, we are required to read it as such, many of the gifts I have presented seem to be normal talents put to God’s work — so why not languages? — us all speaking in tongues would be very useful in a multicultural city, and so we are back to “Mind being unfruitful” as your main argument.
“seem to be” is not a compelling argument. I still find it problematic suggesting that Paul is describing things learnt long before the Spirit came to a person as “gifts of the Spirit” or “manifestations of the Spirit.” I’ve pointed to instances where abilities which might normally be construed as “normal talents” were actually gifts of the Spirit which manifested something in those so gifted abilities over and above any talent they may have previously had to indicate that those things which you describe as “normal talents” can be manifestations of the Spirit just as much as prophecy or miracles. Otherwise, there are people out in the street, who’ve never walked into a church, who nonetheless have gifts of the Spirit.
Furthermore, it is clearly not possible to argue from 1Cor 12 that it is the use to which a talent is put which constitutes the “gift of the Spirit.” Although it is true that Paul speaks of the gifted people as themselves gifts, in 1Cor 12 he clearly describes the abilities (prophecy, tongues, healing, etc.) as gifts given by the Spirit to individuals in the church (not outside the church). Your notion of gift as learnt natural second language is a little like me coming around to your place for your birthday party, choosing a CD from your shelf, wrapping it up and giving it to you as my gift to you.
As regards hyperbole, you are right, where Paul uses it, we need to read accordingly. There is, however, a converse danger of reading hyperbole where there is none.
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]While you are at it, can you please tell me if you agree that the “spirit” thinks or what our spirit even is?
I don’t really have a problem with the notion that our spirit “thinks.” What I do think is necessitated by Paul’s argument in 1Cor 14 is that there is, in that discussion, a distinction to be made by what he means when our spirit does something and our mind does something.
[quote author="enkers"]
[quote author="me"]
One thought: Why wouldn’t Paul want all of us to speak many tongues (=natural human languages)? it seems so self-evidently useful for the building up of the church, and that is what he is on about in 1 Cor 14. I would love to be able to speak all languages, and not just for bragging rights. What a great thing to be able to speak to the whole world about Jesus!
True, it would be good to be polylingual. But is that what Paul wants here? It seems out of place given that his emphasis is on not speaking in tongues in the congregation.
On the “tongues=languages” view, that’d be Paul doing an Occam’s Razor.. “You have a choice”, Paul might have said. “Either everyone in the congregation is compelled to learn all possible languages that might be spoken in a Corinthian context—in which case incomprehension ceases to be a problem—or y’all can just keep your mouths shut, in which case incomprehension ceases to be a problem. Do whichever you think is easier. But yes, it would be great if everyone spoke lots of languages.”
[quote author="Martidu"] Note he does not contrast speaking in the congregation with evangelistic speaking outside the church, but speaking in the congregation and speaking alone with God. Had he made the former contrast this claim may have stood, but given the latter, it doesn’t seem to fit with the thrust of the argument.
I don’t quite see this. Again, if the problem is comprehensibility of a natural language, saving it for yourself when you get home makes good sense. Going out evangelizing in Corinth while speaking your native Swedish is just plain silly.
[quote author="Ekidna"] Your notion of gift as learnt natural second language is a little like me coming around to your place for your birthday party, choosing a CD from your shelf, wrapping it up and giving it to you as my gift to you.
This happened to a fellow I knew, with his entire record collection (LOL). He didn’t notice his friends had borrowed it, either.
I wouldn’t make too much of the supernatural origin of tongues. Whether human languages or not, this doesn’t really affect the argument directly. Anyway, I assume that learning a language is just as much a gift of God as being able to speak it in an instant.
I assume every breath we take is just as much a gift of God as well.
Romans 12
4Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. 6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to hisfaith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.
Gordon teaches — but is that to say he had nothing to do with learning how to teach? Martin, as Gordon learned how to teach, are you saying his teaching and preaching are not spiritual gifts? I think Romans 12 would disagree.
Given our sin, it’s only by God’s grace that any human being is even alive, so just our mere existence is a gift. What is a spiritual gift? Can someone define a “Gift of the spirit”? Does it have to be a miraculously imparted gift, or a human talent that the Holy Spirit can make “clean” for God’s use?
I’m not convinced all manifestations of the spirit have to be miraculous, especially considering Romans 12 where some “manifestations” seem to appear in a list of gifts “according to the grace given us”.
Is that a phrase that is even limited to the church? Can the non-Christian geniuses of the world — who enjoyed the “common graces” of God while alive — and have special talents that many of us consider to be miraculous — is that possibly what could be in mind here? Einstein, etc?
Gordon, one comment though — if a “manifestation” is a separate thing to a “common grace gift” and is always miraculous, it would lend more weight to the possibility of Charismatic tongues being presented here.
(Martin I have not ignored your other points above, I’m just conscious of being long winded. I’ll get to them later.)
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]On the “tongues=languages” view, that’d be Paul doing an Occam’s Razor.. “You have a choice”, Paul might have said. “Either everyone in the congregation is compelled to learn all possible languages that might be spoken in a Corinthian context—in which case incomprehension ceases to be a problem—or y’all can just keep your mouths shut, in which case incomprehension ceases to be a problem. Do whichever you think is easier. But yes, it would be great if everyone spoke lots of languages.”
One problem with this is that Paul endangers the force of his argument by introducing this as an option. Of course, your paraphrase makes your meaning clear, but Paul has left so much of your explanation out of his argument as to make his meaning quite obscure. But if tongues edifies the individual and is appropriate for private use as much as you like, then he needs not expand at all since he’s already stated this…
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]I assume every breath we take is just as much a gift of God as well.
Quite true, but to apply this to the gifts of 1Cor 12-14 is incredibly reductionistic and pretty much makes Paul’s entire line of reasoning trivial. The Spirit gives gifts to the church for its edification, but in reality they’re no different to what is given to every human being.
Paul does not treat administration as a gift any differently than he does miracles. Your view, however, creates quite distinct categories: miraculous gifts, and “normal abilities you had all along, even before the Spirit was given to you.”
[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Gordon teaches — but is that to say he had nothing to do with learning how to teach? Martin, as Gordon learned how to teach, are you saying his teaching and preaching are not spiritual gifts? I think Romans 12 would disagree.
I have not heard Gordon preach or teach, so I can’t really say. Yet I would suggest that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the OT precedents, that a gifted teacher, who may have trained as a teacher and aquired some skill, may still have a spiritual gift given to him in addition to these acquired skills in order to serve the church.
Bezalel, after all, was already skilled before the Spirit was given to him. Solomon was sufficiently wise to ask for more wisdom. A teacher may learn skills but then also receive a gift by the Spirit. Some gifts, of course, could not be learnt at all (such as prophecy or miracles).
See my problem is that I see you as being reductionist. Your view dumps any Christian activity that is improved by normal human effort and study into the “not a gift” dustbin. I don’t get that at all. I find the way you dance around categorizing Gordon’s teaching ministry very interesting.
Paul does not treat administration as a gift any differently than he does miracles. Your view, however, creates quite distinct categories: miraculous gifts, and “normal abilities you had all along, even before the Spirit was given to you.”
Yeah… as far as I can tell, that’s exactly what is going on. Administration, teaching, serving, helping… it’s all there. “Do all work miracles?”
I am not arguing that all gifts are “normal”, but that some are and it is special pleading to argue that all gifts are “not normal”. ;-)
In your view, Gordon’s teaching and my administration have to some how be “miraculously imparted” to be manifestations of the spirit. (On the other hand, that any of our sinful efforts are used by God to advance his kingdom is miraculous, but that is another topic.)
Just look at how intertwined the “normal” and miraculous appear to be here.
1Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. 2You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols. 3Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
4There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.
“We noticed a number of changes that occurred functionally in the brain,” comments Principal Investigator Andrew Newberg, MD, Associate Professor of Radiology, Psychiatry, and Religious Studies, and Director for the Center for Spirituality and the Mind, at Penn. “Our finding of decreased activity in the frontal lobes during the practice of speaking in tongues is fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak. Our brain imaging research shows us that these subjects are not in control of the usual language centers during this activity, which is consistent with their description of a lack of intentional control while speaking in tongues.”
Newberg went on to explain, “These findings could be interpreted as the subject’s sense of self being taken over by something else. We, scientifically, assume it’s being taken over by another part of the brain, but we couldn’t see, in this imaging study, where this took place. We believe this is the first scientific imaging study evaluating changes in cerebral activity—looking at what actually happens to the brain—when someone is speaking in tongues. This study also showed a number of other changes in the brain, including those areas involved in emotions and establishing our sense of self.”
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
