Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 5

“But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (1 Corinthians 12:7)

Given the context of the above verse, no doubt Paul was saying the manifestation of the Spirit in the lives of believers is spiritual gifts. Looking at a following verse, v. 12, simply reinforces that point. “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.” Obviously, every believer is endowed with at least one spiritual gift, a charisma.

What about the word translated “the common good”? At first glance, one might think Paul used the same word Luke did in Acts 2:44 and 4:32: koinos. The word means common, as in they “had all things in common.” (Acts 2:32). Paul did not use that word. His term was sumpherō, meaning to bring together, to be profitable. So, then, we can conclude the following. Spiritual gifts, the manifestation of the Spirit, are given by the Spirit to whom he chooses. All the asking in the world will not result in one’s receiving any spiritual gift if the Holy Spirit chooses not to endow that believer with the requested gift. His choice is for the benefit of the Body, not the individual to whom a gift is given.

Quite frankly, I think many things go into the Spirit’s decision about what gift is to be given to which believer. For instance, one’s personality might not be what is required of one who is to be a prophet (a forth-teller, a proclaimer of God’s will, must be confidently bold). Now, one might argue if the Spirit chose to give some believer the gift of prophecy, he could instantly change his personality to suit the gift. Does that ordinarily happen? Most often, no. The Spirit takes us where we are and leads us to become who he wants us to be.

Paul told the Romans, just before outlining in Chapter 12 his list of spiritual endowments, “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” If one is to proclaim to the church God’s will, he must first be transformed through the process of mind renewal. He must learn to think of himself, his world and the Lord in a new way. “Go on being transformed,” Paul said. We must be involved willingly and consciously in what the Spirit is doing in our lives.

One of the issues in the Corinthian church was the abuse of gifts. Apparently, a number of individuals were using their gifts as a means to gain status, significance and power. Paul was not very tolerant of the abuses. Why? The Apostle said what he said because the fundamental purpose of gifts, the common good, the benefit of others, the bringing together of the Body, was being perverted. Gifts are not meant to enhance a believer’s life; gifts are meant to enhance the life of the Body of Christ.

Part of the problem with the modern conception of “tongues,” or languages, as Paul called them, is the personal nature of the experience. Paul showed clearly the inadequacy of speaking in a language if no one understood what was being said. The “common good” was not being served; only the individual benefitted. On that count, Paul stated, one’s spirit prayed, (he did not say the spirit of the person understood), but the mind was unfruitful, or did not benefit. No one was profited, according to Paul; neither the individual nor the church.

If we apply the “common good” standard to any gift, we will find the expression of a spiritual gift takes on an entirely different context than in worship or in personal prayer time. For the Corinthians, as with many today, the main focus of gifts is the public worship event. Some gifts are appropriate for worship and other gatherings of the Body of Christ. Others have no place in worship at all. For instance, for the gift of languages to be useful, the gift should be employed in ministry and mission activities with those who speak another language.

We want to believe the gift of languages will be received just as the disciples received it on the Day of Pentecost. Most of the time, with the gift of languages, one will be enabled to learn a language he thought he would never be able to speak. The endowment of a believer with a spiritual gift is not always a miraculous event. Some only learn over time what gift they have and how to use it.

Those who choose to have a private prayer language obviously are served by the experience. We, though, are not to understand a private prayer language as the gift of languages. Neither should we understand ecstatic “tongues” as the gift of languages. Spiritual gifts are resources for ministry. Without them, we would be ill-equipped to do what we are called to do as believers: the work of ministry, the building up of the Body of Christ.

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 4

I just read an article entitled, “A Biblical Basis for Speaking in Tongues in Private.” Basically, in the article, the author was attempting to show the position of the International Mission Board (SBC) regarding private prayer languages to be in error. Further, to prove his point, he attempted to prove the biblical legitimacy of private prayer languages.

He had one presupposition upon which he based his argument: tongues, as in unintelligible speech, is the correct way to translate and understand the Greek word glossā in all instances of its appearance in the NT when referring to speech. As argued in the second post in this series, Luke understood glossā as language only. Therein lies the difficulty with interpretations of the author of the above article.

The author made three points to buttress his argument for the legitimacy of speaking in tongues in private. The first was his interpretation of Mark 16:17. Two observations must be made. First, if the author accepts verse 17, does he also accept 16 and 18. In v. 16, the text says, “he who has believed and been baptized shall be saved.” Is baptism a prerequisite for, or a result of salvation? The text says baptism is a prerequisite. How about verse 18? Does the writer adhere to the implications of the picking up of serpents and drinking poison?

Second, most Bible translations with any kind of notes provide the following information: Mark 16:9-20 is not considered to be an authentic part of the original document. On the website www.biblicalarcheology.org, Dr. James Tabor was quoted. He wrote, “The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: ‘Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.’” Most likely, this passage does not give us the words of Jesus. Thus, he did not endorse “speaking in tongues.” Eusebius lived from AD 260/265 to 339/340; Jerome from 347 to 420.

The author’s second argument was based on Acts 2:1-13. In that story, Luke said, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.” (1:4) In verse 8, we find, “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?” What the author of the above article failed to point out was Luke’s use of different terms in those two verses. In v. 4, he used glossā; in v. 8, he used the word dialektos. These words are synonyms. The term dialektos cannot mean tongue; only dialect or language. Thus, we are required to translate glossā as language. In neither Luke nor Acts does Luke ever use glossā, when referring to speech, as tongue, or unintelligible speech.

The writer further stated, “I can assure you that their speaking in tongues was not limited to that occasion only.” Upon what biblical authority or text does the author base that conclusion? Indeed, no scriptural evidence can be found for such an assertion. As well, the “wonderful works of God,” addressed in the preceding post, refers to the proclamation of what God had done in Christ.

Lastly, the writer said Paul affirmed the use of tongues as an act of private devotion. Again, this subject was addressed in the third post in this series, but let’s look at it again. First Corinthians 14:14 is a conditional sentence in which Paul set up a hypothetical situation. The point of that verse and what follows is to show the inadequacy of “praying in a tongue.” Clearly, Paul was referring to the unintelligible speaking of the Corinthians. We must recognize how Paul dealt with that phenomenon: he called it language. Further, he said if he did pray in that manner, his mind would be unfruitful. Instead, he said, he would pray with his spirit and his mind, thus, being able to understand what he was saying. Additionally, he said he would rather speak 5 intelligible words than 10,000 unintelligible ones.

As stated in the last post, those who use a private prayer language must derive some benefit from it. We also must realize that practice is not endorsed, encouraged or commanded in Scripture. A private prayer language is without a clear biblical warrant.

Let me say again what I said earlier: I might be wrong. The question for me, though, is why do we believers not all desire to pray in such a manner? If a private prayer language is a biblical work of the Holy Spirit, why has he not convicted us all of the legitimate necessity of such a practice?

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 3

Paul said to the Corinthians, AFor if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ What was Paul saying? Was he suggesting we all should aspire to having a prayer language? Let me clear at the outset. Those who use a prayer language surely must derive a benefit form the practice. But, let=s also be clear on another point, Paul was not endorsing, suggesting, or commanding the use of a prayer language.

To get the sense of what Paul was saying requires an understanding of conditional sentences in the Greek language. A conditional sentence is an Aif, . . . then@ formulation. The Greek language has four conditional sentences. Each is used in specific circumstances. In 1 Cor. 14:14, Paul used a third class conditional sentence, generally used for hypothetical situations. He was not saying, necessarily, he prayed in a Atongue,@ he simply proposed that hypothetical circumstance to prove a point. The point was, praying in a Atongue@ means his spirit would have been praying, but his mind would have been unfruitful; he would not have understood what he was praying.

He went on to say the following: AI will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.@ Paul=s praying in the spirit was the same as his praying with his mind. He said he would pray with both and sing with both, meaning, what he prayed and what he sang he would have understood. Again, Paul was arguing against the practice of ecstatic speech. He did not say to not pray in that manner, but he surely did not say he prayed in Atongues.@ What about the comment AI thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all@?

No doubt, Paul spoke several languages. At the very least, he spoke and wrote in Greek (his native language, probably, since he was born and reared in Tarsus); he spoke in Hebrew, and, we can assume, he spoke in Aramaic (close to Hebrew). Since he was so well traveled, we might, with some justification, assume he spoke to some extent in the regional dialects and languages of the places he visited. From my point of view, I must take that position as opposed to believing Paul was declaring he spoke in “tongues,” ecstatic speech, in the manner of the Corinthians. Why would he have argued so forcefully and convincingly against a practice in which himself engaged? Paul did not contradict himself.

In the second article I mentioned, the author argued for the position all the tongues references in Acts were proof of tongues as a prayer language. Let=s look at those accounts. First, in Acts 2 (see preceding article), the disciples were given the ability to speak in languages by the Spirit (as he gave them utterance, or, the ability to speak). What about the content of what they said, Aspeaking of the mighty deeds of God@? In Acts, what were the Amighty deeds of God@? We should look no further than the sermon of Peter. In speaking of Jesus, he said he was Aa man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.@ Further, he declared, Abut God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.@ What other Amighty deeds@ of God would the speakers have declared?

What do we do with the case of Cornelius and his household?  AFor they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God.@ (10:46) What were the tongues? Given the makeup of a Roman household, we know Cornelius=s biological family was included, as soldiers who lived in his house, as well as his slaves. Many of those were from the far-flung reaches of the Roman Empire. Surely, in the excitement of the moment, each spoke in his native language. Luke understood the word glÇssa only as language, (see preceding article), not as ecstatic speech. The same is true of the disciples of John the Baptist Paul met in Ephesus. When the Spirit came upon them, they, too, spoke in their native language.

The gift of languages is legitimate and still practiced to this day by those so endowed by the Holy Spirit. We simply need to get away from using the word Atongues@ as a translation of glÇssa. We are not served well in our understanding of the gift by that word. Remember, when Paul referred to the gift, he used the plural; when what one person did was in question, he used the singular. So, if one has the gift of languages, when he speaks, he speaks in a language, not languages. Are all who “speak in tongues” using the same “tongue,” or does each speak in his own “tongue.” Let’s be clear about our terms.

Is the idea of a prayer language legitimate? For those who practice it, yes. Is the concept truly biblical? I do not think so. But, I might be wrong. Consider the following. My wife Pat and I have 8 grandchildren. They range in age from 10 years old to 2 months. In addition to the 2 month old, we have another who is 9 months old. Neither she nor the 2 months old can talk. I love neither of them any less than the other 6, but we cannot engage in legitimate conversation as we do with the other six. For me, one of the more frustrating things about being a grandparent is understanding a grandchild when they are just beginning to learn to speak coherently. Their parents know their baby words; most of the time, I don=t. I want to know what they are saying, so we can have a fruitful conversation. Surely, God wants the same in his relationship with his children.

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 2

Let=s now look at Atongues.@ A good starting point would be a quick look at the doctrine of subsequence (or, the baptism in the Holy Spirit). That school of theological thought says all believers should, at least once, speak in tongues. If subsequence is a legitimate, biblical position, we all (1) should seek the baptism, and once it is received, (2) should speak in tongues. No other view can be held if the doctrine is biblical. Should we all speak in tongues? Further, if, as one writer proposed (articles referenced in previous post), tongues is in essence a prayer language, can and should we not all aspire to glossolalia? What do we do about the Agift of tongues@?

Our problems arise with the King James Version of the Bible. The translators of the KJV did the church a great disservice when they used the word tongues, and added the word Adivers@ (1 Cor. 12:10) and unknown (14:2, et al.). Those two words (divers and unknown) were not in the original text; they were supplied by the KJV translators for theological reasons. Those who translated the KJV worked from the presupposition the Atongues@ in Corinth were something other than a human language.

Let me insert an observation, at this point, on the inspiration of Scripture. Most of us Southern Baptists believe the words of Paul: all Scripture is inspired by God. Now, given that truth, we can extrapolate the following. If the Spirit inspired one writer to use a particular word, in this case glÇssa, then, when he inspired another writer to use the same word in another context, the meaning of the word must be understood to be the same in both settings.

For instance, Luke used glÇssa in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; and 19:6. We can know exactly what Luke meant in his use of that word because of his use of a synonym. In 2:6 and 8, Luke used the term dialektos, dialkect or language. He wrote, Aeach one of them was hearing them speak in his own language (dialektos) . . . how is it that we each hear them in our own language (dialektos) to which we were born?@ One other example underscores Luke=s understanding of his terms. In 20:40, as Paul began his defense to the Jews in the Temple, Luke stated, Ahe spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect (dialektos).@ One would be hard-pressed to defend translating glÇssa in Acts with any term other than language.

So, then, what about 1 Corinthians. Paul said, ASo also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages (phon‘, sound, language) in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language (phon‘), I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.@ (14:9-11) A more literal translation of verse nine is instructive. AIf, with a language, you do not give an easily understandable word, how will they know/understand what you are saying? You will be speaking into the air.@

Obviously, what the Corinthians were doing was engaging in some kind of ecstatic speech. What Paul wanted them to know was, (1) only clearly understandable speech has purpose, and (2) the gift of Atongues@ was, in fact, the gift of a human language, not the gift of ecstatic gibberish. How can we say that? In their seeking for spiritual things, the Corinthians were to Aseek to abound for the edification of the church.@ (14:18) Further, if one wished to speak in a Atongue,@ he must refrain from doing so unless one was present who could Ainterpret@ what he was saying. The demand was for one who could translate, not give the gist of what the tongue speaker was saying. Indeed, Paul declared the one who spoke in a tongue should pray for the ability to interpret his own speaking. Far from endorsing ecstatic speaking in Corinth, Paul argued strongly for an understanding of the gift of language, not tongues. Paul put the whole argument in terms of language (phon‘ and glÇssa). Those two words are synonyms; nowhere does phon‘ mean Atongues;@ its meaning is either sound or language.@

To better understand Paul=s comments in 1 Corinthians 14, look at the text in the following manner. Let=s say the first century Roman world had English as its lingua franca. Further, let=s say we all spoke Greek as our everyday language. So, when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he would have never used the word Atongues@ for what the Corinthians were doing; he would have used the word language. He would have used only language in his letter (unless, of course, he was referring to the human organ). In the same way, when we would translate his English into our Greek, we would use the word glÇssa for his word language.

On the other hand, some might argue, as the above referenced author did, Atongues@ is a Aprayer language.@ So is the gift of Atongues@ intended as a prayer language?

Gifts of the Spirit, Pt. 1

Two articles addressing different aspects of the Atongues@ debate recently arrived in my email inbox. The authors= views provoked several responses regarding the nature and function of the gift of Atongues.@ In the first article I read, the writer was responding to the cessationist-continuationist argument (Did some of the Amiraculous@ gifts cease after the apostolic era, or have they continued into the present day? By the way, are not all spiritual gifts miraculous to some extent?) That author, in his article, supported the concept of continuation of all gifts. He did focus more on the so-called gift of tongues than any of the other dramatic gifts.

Now, the thrust of the writer=s position, from my perspective, is valid: all the gifts continue to this day. On the other hand, as will be shown later, my view of one of the gifts is not the same as the writer of the article on cessationism vs. continuationism. Nonetheless, arguing some or all of the gifts have ceased strikes at the heart of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The author rightly stated, Anot a single clear verse of Scripture . . . teaches that the workings of the Spirit would alter or cease.@ Yet, in a kind of conflicted way, he said Awe should see today exactly what was seen in NT days.@

If the work of the Holy Spirit has neither been altered nor changed, then we must be seeing and experiencing today what believers in the NT era saw and experienced. The above referenced author seems to take a view others often express: we believers can hinder the work of God. He stated, AThe question is whether the changes from that era to this are what God wants or are evidence that we have in some way quenched the Spirit.@ I have two responses to that statement and the belief we can hinder God=s work. Is God sovereign? If so, he gets what he wants in spite of what we do or do not do. Further, based on Paul=s statements to the Philippians (1:6 and 2:13), God is the one who started a good work in us, he is working in us still, and will complete his work. The concept of quenching the Spirit requires more space than we can give in this article, so we’ll not go there.

Second, is God the author of change, or is he the victim of change? The Lord said through Isaiah, ARemember this, and be assured; recall it to mind, you transgressors. Remember the former things long past, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, >My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure=@ Unless the Lord has changed his mind and methods, He still is in control of all things and will accomplish his purpose. Even Israel in her rebellion could not hinder God.

So, the Holy Spirit, being the third person of the Trinity, is bringing to completion in the lives of all true believers the good work God has started. Jesus said, AMy Father is working until now, and I Myself am working.@ The author of article on cessationism quoted Paul, who said to the Corinthians, ABut to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. . . . But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.@ (12:7, 11) The Holy Spirit gives gifts (how he workds) to whom he chooses, as well as giving the gift he decides each believer should have. The Spirit has been working in the church and in the lives of individual believers since Pentecost. He still gives gifts Afor the common good.@

The gift(s) with which the Spirit endows a particular believer are for the Body, not the individual. Let me restate that comment: no gift is intended for the personal benefit of the individual believer. Each and every gift is for the common good of the whole Body of Christ. We find our place of ministry by virtue of the gift(s) we have received. As individuals, we are not told to seek any particular gift. But, you might ask, what about 1 Cor. 12:31 and 14:1? Let=s look at those verses. In v. 31, the verb translated Aearnestly desire@ is a second person plural. In the Southern idiom, we would say, AY=all seek the greater gifts.@ How about 14:1? AY=all pursue love, and y=all seek the spiritual things.@ (Paul did not use the word charisma in 14:1, but pneumatika. Based on his use elsewhere of that word, we must understand the term to mean spiritual things, not spiritual gifts.)

The Body, wherever manifested, should, as a corporate entity, seek to have the greater spiritual gifts revealed through it. In 14:1, Paul appears to have suggested prophecy (forth-telling, not foretelling) was one of, if not the most important gift (see 12:28-29). Why should we seek to have the greater gifts manifested in our local bodies of believers? The greater gifts (see also Romans 12:4-8, and Ephesians 4:11-13) lend themselves to the building up of the Body of Christ more than the less significant gifts (cf. 1 Cor. 12:22-25). Further, the function of gifts is the building up of the Body of Christ, the equipping of the Body (and its individual members) for ministry. Gifts are not meant to enhance the individual.

The Spirit has been doing just that, equipping the saints for the work of ministry, through engifted members of the church since Pentecost, and continues doing so to this day.