Below is Galyn Wiemers’ comments
on John MacArthur’s teaching on tongues and First
Corinthians 14. John MacArthur
is a trained, skill and accurate Bible teacher.
In this instance Galyn disagrees with MacArthur
and those that hold to a similar position.
MacArthur’s notes are used as an example since
he does an outstanding job of explaining these verses from his position. Galyn will express his views in this color in
Arial text. MacArthur’s
notes will be in black
Times New Roman text. Note: Not
every disagreement is noted nor does Galyn disagree with everything MacArthur writes here.
Speaking in Tongues
The Truth about Tongues--Part 2
by
John MacArthur
All Rights Reserved
(A copy of this message on cassette tape may be obtained by calling
1-800-55-GRACE)
1 Corinthians 14:6-19 Tape GC 1872
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
Introduction
A. A
Charismatic Confrontation: The Motive
Let me begin by
saying that I do not approach this text with an ulterior motive. My only motive
is to understand what Paul is saying. I am not attempting to direct these
messages on 1 Corinthians 14 to speak against the current Charismatic movement.
I'm simply trying to teach what the text is saying, and then to make
application. Now I know that it's hard for some people to accept the fact that
I'm not personally attacking individuals who believe as the Charismatics
believe. However, I am only endeavoring to give a clear understanding of the
things that are in the Word of God regarding the phenomena of speaking in
tongues and how it applies to us today.
With that in
mind, let's look at 1 Corinthians 14.
B. The Corinthians'
Carnality: Its Manifestation
First
Corinthians 14 brings us to the issue of tongues in the Corinthian
church--another manifestation of their carnality.
1. THE GIFT OF
TONGUES CLARIFIED
The true, biblical presentation of the gift of
languages (or tongues) can be seen in Acts 2:6 when the disciples spoke in
tongues and the people heard them speaking it spoken in their own languages. First
mistake is to assume tongues is a “gift of languages” or
“foreign languages” since in Acts 2 those who heard “them (plural)” speaking in
their language heard all of those speaking in tongues in their own
language. Acts does not say the
believers from the upper room came out speaking a variety of human languages
that they did not know. It says they
spoke in “other” (heteros – another not of the same nature or class) languages
as the Spirit enabled them. The miracle
was in the fact that each member of the crowd heard it in their own personal
dialect. They did not hear one or two
speaking their homeland dialect, they heard “them all” speaking their own
dialect. The result was the crowd said, “What
does this mean?” (2:12)
·
2:6
“each one heard them speaking in his own language”;
·
2:8,
“Then how is it that each of us hears them (“ekastos”)
in his own native language”;
·
2:11,
“we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues.”
The true gift of tongues is the miraculous ability to
speak a foreign language (Not true. They did not speak foreign languages in Acts
2. Nowhere in the Bible are tongues a
human, foreign language. It was “heard”
as a known language.) which is unknown to the speaker, in order that he might communicate the
truth of God (They declared the wonders of God but did not teach the truth of
God nor did they preach the gospel. This
did not happen until they stopped speaking in tongues and Peter “raised his
voice” not the gift of tongues and addressed the crowd and shared the gospel
with them.) in the language of
someone present. (This never happened in scripture or in ancient
church history. No one every preached
the gospel in tongues to a group or to an individual in tongues.) It also acted
as a sign that God was present (A sign to Jews but not to unbelievers. Unbelievers would think “you are out of your
mind” 1 Cor. 14:23), by virtue of its miraculous element, and it
authenticated the message that was being proclaimed (When did this happen?
Tongues never validated anything or any message. In Acts 2 it was a sign and a sign is to
cause people to ask “What is the meaning of this?” A sign in the Bible causes people to look
beyond the miracle for the truth. The Jews
in Acts 2 looked beyond the miracle of tongues and asked “What does this mean”
but a typical unbeliever, according to Paul in 1
Now, there is
no reason to think that the clear definition and purpose for the gift of
languages ever changed. (I agree, but MacArthur says it was
always a foreign, human language but exegetically I see it as not a foreign,
human language.) The Greek terms that are
used in 1 Corinthians 14 are the very same words that
are used in Acts 2. There is no new definition given. In other words, the gift
of tongues in Acts 2 is the same gift that is mentioned by Paul in 1
Corinthians 14. (I say “amen” and I agree.)
It was still a Holy Spirit-given, miraculous ability to speak a foreign
language (No.) that was unknown to the speaker, in order to
authenticate (No.) the message to someone who does know that
language. (This
never happened in all of recorded scripture and ancient church history. This is simply what MacArthur
wants it to mean. Acts 2 is not an
example of this.)
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
2. THE GIFT OF
TONGUES CORRUPTED
The confusion about tongues comes because the
Corinthians had corrupted this very simple and clear gift by misusing it and by
mixing it with the heathen concept of speaking in ecstatic gibberish (How does he know this? Where does it say it wasn’t ecstatic in Acts
2?) common to their culture. It was relatively easy for Satan to counterfeit the
true gift of tongues (If this is true then the tongues of 1
Alexander Hay
sums it up with the following statement: "These believers, in their
heathen days, had believed that when they spoke in a tongue not understood by
men, not even by the worshiper, they were speaking secrets or mysteries with
their god. They believed it was their spirit speaking. The benefit was received
by the worshiper alone; no one else understood. (Here 1 Cor.
14 is not exegeted but eisogeted) The worshiper profited through the ecstasy of feeling
aroused (What?
How does he know this? He is making it
up. There is no text.) and the sense that he was
really participating with the spirits in the inner circle. He had no thought
for the building up of the other worshipers. Paul contrasts this selfish
objective with the Christian objective. The purpose of the manifestations of
God's Spirit is that the whole congregation be edified" (True!) ("Counterfeit
Speaking in Tongues," What Is Wrong in the Church?, Vol. 2, [
Are there two
kinds of tongues?
Charismatics and
Pentecostals realize that there is a difference between the tongues of Acts 2
and what is going on in 1 Corinthians 14, and they explain the difference by
saying that there are two kinds of tongues. They say that the tongues of Acts 2
are real languages (Wrong!) and the tongues of
1 Corinthians 14 refer to an ecstatic, private, devotional speech which one
speaks in an unknown tongue to God personally and privately for self-
edification. They recognize a difference and resolve the difference by saying
there are two gifts of tongues.
I also recognize
a difference, but I resolve it by seeing the true use of it in Acts 2 and the
false use of it in 1 Corinthians 14. First Corinthians 14 doesn't talk about
another gift; it talks about a perversion of the intended gift and its mixture
with the heathen counterfeit. The Bible doesn't teach that there are two kinds
of tongues speaking--one a language and one an ecstasy. In fact, the same term
describes the gift in Acts 2 and in 1 Corinthians 14. So if
God wanted to make a distinction, He would have used another term--but He
didn't. It is the very same word. (Exactly! Good.) It is the normal Greek word for language. (Language doesn’t mean “human” language especially
since Paul introduced the Jewish concept of the “language of angels” in 1
To say that
what the Corinthians had was the true gift of tongues, being truly exercised,
is to counter-argue against the most basic truth of spirituality. The
Corinthian church could never have been manifesting a true gift in the
spiritual state that they were in. They were worldly, divisive, opinionated,
cliquish, carnal, fleshly, envious, strife-ridden, argumentative, puffed up,
self- glorying, smug, immoral, compromising with sin, defrauding each other,
fornicating, depriving in marriage, offending weaker Christians, lusting after
evil things, idolatrous, fellowshiping with demons,
insubordinate, gluttonous, drunken, selfish toward the poor, and desecrating
the Lord's Table. How could they be expressing a true gift of the Holy Spirit?
Well, the answer is obvious. It would defy every single principle of
spirituality if that were true. A believer either walks in the flesh or he
walks in the Spirit. There is no argument about what the Corinthians
were doing. They were walking in the flesh. And when you are walking in the
flesh you are not manifesting a true gift in the true power of the Holy Spirit.
It can't happen. (Not every believer was
like this in
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
3. THE GIFT OF
TONGUES CORRECTED
As you come to
1 Corinthians 14, you must not conclude that the Corinthians
were exercising the true gift of tongues, or you will violate every basic truth
about spirituality and how the gifts operate. (This is very important for MacArthur’s argument, but it is wrong. There were Holy
Spirit gifts in the church and there were some faithful, mature believers
there. See note above.) The only possible thing that could have been
happening here was a misuse of the true gift. Why? Because
everything else was wrong in their lives. Paul wrote the first thirteen
chapters of 1 Corinthians to correct the errors in their assembly, and he wrote
chapter 14 because their selfish, pagan use of ecstatic speech was being
justified as the gift of languages given by the Holy Spirit. Apparently, even
those who had the true gift had perverted it, and were using it to speak in
their own private way, as well as in the assembly when unbelievers weren't even
present. (What? Paul did not want unbelievers present, 1 Cor. 14:22, because they will not understand and conclude
the church is crazy. Result, the
unbeliever will not stick around to hear the gospel or the truth of God
proclaimed.) They used the gift of tongues as a way to lift
themselves up to a level of spiritual superiority. The Corinthian church had
let every system in the world engulf them. Why would it be any different with
the world's approach to religion?
Review
I. THE
POSITION OF THE GIFT OF TONGUES: SECONDARY (vv. 1-19)
A. Prophecy
Edifies The Entire Congregation (vv. 1-5)
1. THE PURSUIT
OF PROPHECY (v. 1)
"Follow
after love, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."
Why are we to
desire prophecy? Because prophesying edifies the whole
congregation. In seeking the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit in
your assembly, you're to seek that which will edify the whole congregation--the
best gift. Now, I want to point out something that I didn't mention in our last
lesson. Here in verse 1, Paul is not speaking about an individual Christian
seeking an individual gift. He is talking about the assembly. He is saying,
"When the assembly meets together, you should seek the manifestation of
the gift of prophesying from whoever has that gift." This view is apparent
from the context of the chapter. From chapters 11-14, Paul deals with the
meeting together of the assembly of the Corinthian church. None of it has
reference to a private time or a personal relationship with God. It all speaks
to how they were to behave in the assembly. For example, chapter 11 talks about
how women were to behave in the assembly. Chapter 11 also talks about how they
were to take care of the Lord's Table and the love feast when they met
together. Chapter 12 talks about how they were to minister their gifts in the
assembly. Chapter 13 talks about how they were to manifest love to one another
when they met together. And chapter 14 talks about how they were to use the
gift of languages when they met together. The whole context of chapters 11-14
is how to behave in the assembly of the church. So, when Charismatic and
Pentecostal people take chapter 14 and make the gift of tongues relate to a
private devotional language, they are taking that totally out of the context in
which it exists in the book. What Paul is saying is this: "When you come
together, instead of wanting the ecstatic manifestations that you are involved
in, seek that you may see someone prophesy, so that God may speak to you out of
His Word."
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
2. THE
PERVERSION OF TONGUES (v. 2)
"For he that speaketh in an unknown
tongue [ecstatic speech] speaketh not unto men, but unto God [lit. `a god']; for no man understandeth
him; however, in the spirit he speaketh
mysteries."
In the last
lesson, I mentioned an
interesting possibility that
occurs here in chapter 14. I'm not going to be dogmatic on this, but the more I study it the more I like it. The possibility is this: Whenever the singular term "tongue"
appears, Paul may well
be referring to the ecstatic gift. And when the plural term "tongues"
appears, he's referring to the true gift. (Please notice the underlined words in
bold. MacArthur
is not convinced of this point but in a few paragraphs uses it as a basis to
advance his argument. Here MacArthur is simply suggesting the idea, but later he
builds doctrine on it. Not a good idea
and if a charismatic, word of faith preacher does it I consider it deceitful
teaching. MacArthur
is not a deceitful teacher. He is well
trained and a clear thinker. But, not here.) Now,
the reason I say that is because only real languages can be plural--gibberish
cannot. There aren't many different kinds of gibberish,
there is only one kind--gibberish! You can't say, "What kind of gibberish
do you speak?" There aren't any kinds! This may well be why the King James
translators put the word unknown in whenever the word tongue is
used in the singular.
Perhaps they
recognized this nuance in Paul's writing.
So, perhaps
what Paul is saying here in verse 2 is, "He that speaks in this ecstatic
gibberish, speaks not unto men, but unto a god. For nobody understands him,
including the true God. That's not His kind of talk. However, in his spirit he
is speaking mysteries." (Remember, the term mystery was a big word
in all the pagan mystery religions.) (Hold
on. The word “mystery” is a big word for
Paul which he uses several places in the New Testament but also in the next
chapter, 15:51, when Paul uses it again in a positive, Christian sense, “Listen,
I tell you a mystery: We will not all
sleep, but we will all be changed . . .”) In other words, "When you speak in your ecstasies, you are not
speaking to anybody." Right there is the first perversion of the gift of
tongues, because all gifts were intended to build up somebody other than yourself. If they're not used to speak to men, they are
perverted.
3. THE PRODUCTS
OF PROPHECY (v. 3)
"But he
that prophesieth speaketh
unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort."
Here, Paul
contrasts their pagan, ecstatic speech with prophesying--which truly speaks the
truth of God to the hearts of people. That's a tremendous contrast, isn't it?
Then Paul continues on and hits the issue of their selfishness in verse 4.
4. THE
PROSTITUTION OF TONGUES (v. 4)
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue [i.e., gibberish] (See. Above he considers it a possibility, now he
is putting it in his translation which is not a translation but an
interpretation) edifieth
himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth
the church."
I pointed out
to you in the last lesson, that the self- edification mentioned in this verse
is not a good thing. In 1 Corinthians 8:10, we looked at an illustration of a
bad kind of edification--building somebody up to a position where he will fall.
We also saw that in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 Paul says, "All things are
lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me,
but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own [edification] , but every man another's [edification]."
So, since self- edification and the wrong kind of edification are already in
Paul's vocabulary as negatives, I think it's easy to see it here. What he is
saying is somewhat caustic and sarcastic-- pointing out their
self-centeredness. He's saying, "He that speaks this gibberish is only
building himself up, but the one who prophesies truly builds up the church. So
in the assembly, there's no place for this kind of ecstatic speech."
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
b. The
Use of Language (vv. 9-11)
1) It Must
Be Easy to Understand (v. 9)
"So
likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how
shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the
air."
Paul's point is
that there is absolutely no signification for gibberish...ever. Why? Because nobody is ever able to understand it. The only significant time for the use of the true gift in the
apostolic era (What is his text verse? Give an example of
this! It is not in scripture but in
modern theology.) was when somebody
was present who understood the language. If it occurred in the assembly of
believers, it would be translated in order that the believers might also be
edified by it. But if it wasn't understandable, they were just blowing into the
air.
Paul is really
drawing some sarcastic pictures for the Corinthians, isn't he? Musical
instruments that are so out of tune they can't be recognized, and an army
bugler so incompetent that the army has no idea what's going on. Then he says,
"That's about what's going on in the Corinthian assembly--pure confusion
and chaos." Paul is trying to get these believers to recognize and realize
that the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit is to proclaim the gospel to the
unsaved and to teach the truth to God's people--and in some cases, to
authenticate those who would do both of those things. And that can only be done
through intelligible words. So with irony, and some sarcasm, and much patience,
and great illustration, Paul is trying to break through the barrier of
ignorance, emotion, and superstition that exists in the Corinthian church.
2) It Must
Have Meaning (vv. 10-11)
"There
are, it may be, so many kinds of voices [lit.
`sounds'] in the world, and none of them is without
signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be
unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me."
Paul says,
"If you don't talk in something I can understand, we're two barbarians
trying to talk to one another." Do you know what a barbarian is? To the
Corinthians, a barbarian was a foreigner who didn't speak Greek. So he's simply
saying, "If you talk in that kind of stuff, we're just going to be
incommunicado. We would be like two barbarians--neither of whom have a common
language."
The word "barbarian"
(Gk. barbaros) is onomatopoetic. It is a word
that sounds like what it refers to, like buzz, zip, and hiss.
An onomatopoetic word simply repeats a sound. Well, the word barbaros comes from the repetition of the sounds
"bar, bar, bar." In other words, Paul is saying, "If you speak
in unintelligible languages, I won't know the meaning of what you're saying. It
will be nothing more than saying, `Bar, bar, bar, bar' to me."
The whole
point, then, is the uselessness of their unintelligible language of pagan
gibberish. It had absolutely no signification whatsoever. And, according to
verse 10, it was contrary to all the laws of sound and meaning. Everything has
meaning, except for what they were doing. All languages communicate, except for
their kind. And remember, they could have been indicted for the misuse of the
true gift by speaking a language as if it were some great spiritual
accomplishment and doing it when there was nobody around who would even
understand it.
So, no
spiritual ministry can ever be accomplished with that kind of confusion.
Unbelievers coming into their assembly would look around and say, "These
people are mad!" (14:23). In other words, they would see that the frenzy
of the Corinthians wasn't any different than the frenzy of the worshipers of
Diana. They would see that the Corinthians were going
through the same kind of ecstasy that the pagans were engaging in.
Consequently, they would see no difference between the Christian church and the
3. INSISTING ON
THE PRIORITY (v. 12)
"Even
so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel
to the edifying of the church."
Paul says,
"Since you're so zealous of spiritual gifts, and you so want the
manifestation of the Spirit, seek that which will be the true manifestation to
truly edify the church. Incidentally, this is how Paul ended the first part of
this chapter in verse 5 when he said to seek "that the church may
receive edifying." In fact, this is the way he ends each of the
various sections of this chapter because he's dealing with their selfishness.
When the Corinthians came together, all of them were seeking this ecstatic,
sensual experience. And we still have that today. Charismatics
and Pentecostals are all seeking a personal, ecstatic experience of speaking in
tongues. But that is the antithesis of all spiritual gifts--gifts that are
designed to edify the body.
So, the
position of tongues is secondary because, first of all, prophecy will edify the
church. A second reason why tongues are secondary is that tongues are
unintelligible and consequently have a very limited use. Incidentally, that
limited use was limited to the Apostolic Age. A third reason why tongues are
secondary is...
C. The
Effect Of Tongues Is Emotional Rather Than Mental (vv. 13-19)
1. THE
REJECTION OF PRAYING IN TONGUES (vv. 13-14)
a. Praying
for an Interpretation (v. 13)
"Wherefore,
let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue [i.e., `gibberish'] pray that he may
interpret."
This is a very
difficult verse to interpret. What does Paul mean when he says, "Let him that
speaks in gibberish pray that he may interpret"? Well, let's look at it.
1) The
Meaning
As we know from
our study already, the Corinthians were speaking in a
private kind of ecstatic communication with a pagan god and thinking that they
were praying to the true God. But praying in gibberish was never the intention
of the gift of tongues--it was the perversion. What Paul is saying is this:
"Look, the one praying in gibberish ought to pray with the purpose of
interpreting what he's praying." In other words, I think Paul is being a
little sarcastic and saying, "Hey, you that are so busy praying in your
gibberish, why don't you pray for something that will
have some meaning to somebody?"
In case you
think that's forcing the issue, read carefully through 1 Corinthians. You'll
find that such sarcasm and irony is introduced on many, many occasions. In
other words, "Let the one who is so anxious to pray in his private little
language, pray instead for the gift that's intelligible. Let him ask God for
something that the rest of the body can be benefited by, because what he's
doing is so very selfish."
2) The
Misunderstanding
Somebody is
probably saying, "You really pushed that interpretation into that
verse." Well, there's only one other way to interpret it. The other
alternative is this: "Wherefore, let him that speaks in an unknown tongue,
pray that he may receive the gift of interpretation." Now if we interpret
it that way, the verse is saying that we can seek certain gifts, right? It's
saying that if we want the gift of interpretation, or any other gift, all we
have to do is pray for it. Well, is that true? No! First Corinthians 12:11 says
that the Holy Spirit gives the gifts to whomever He wills. And in 1
Corinthians 12:30 it says, "...Do all speak with tongues? Do all
interpret?" What is the answer implied by the Greek construction? No!
God never said that we can pray for any gift we want or that we can seek for
any gift we want. Therefore, this verse can't be saying that we ought to seek
the gift of interpretation.
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
Another reason
why verse 13 can't be interpreted as advocating the seeking of the gift of
interpretation is seen in verse 28. Paul says, "...if there be no
interpreter, let him keep silence in the church...." In other words,
if somebody was going to use the true gift that an unsaved person in their
midst would understand, he shouldn't use it unless he knows that there is an
interpreter present who will interpret it for the church. Consequently, I also
believe that they knew who among them had the gift of interpretation. The true
gift was so limited, then, that they couldn't even exercise it in the assembly
if the person with the gift of interpretation wasn't there.
There is no
way, then, that verse 13 can be exhorting an individual to seek the gift of interpretation.
So, the only other alternative is that Paul is being sarcastic and saying,
"While you're jabbering, why don't you pray something intelligent, like
asking God for something that will benefit everyone else."
b. Praying
Mindlessly (v. 14)
"For if
I pray in an unknown tongue [ i.e.,
`gibberish'], my spirit [Gk. pneuma=
`breath, wind'] prayeth, but my understanding is
unfruitful."
(Watch MacArthur take “spirit” or “pneuma”
and change it to mean “exhaling air from the lungs”. This is pretty far out of context and the
stretch in the Greek language requires an Olympic quality linguistic gymnastic
routine. It is very hard to accept but
for MacArthur’s argument to continue it is a
linguistic stunt he must perform. Notice
his conclusion of this section. When
Paul says, “If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays”, MacArthur
says Paul means, “If I pray with mindless emotion.”)
In other words,
Paul is saying, "If I pray in gibberish, do you know what I'm doing? I'm
just blowing air into the air. That's all." You see, the word pneuma can be translated "spirit," "breath," or "wind." Some would even say it
refers to the inner feelings. Charismatics, however,
make the word pneuma, here, refer to the Holy
Spirit. It doesn't say the Holy Spirit, though. It says, "my spirit." And even though it could be argued that
the Holy Spirit is our spirit, it's compared, in this verse, with our
understanding. So if the human understanding is on one end of the comparative,
the human breath or spirit must be on the other end. They must be balanced.
So Paul says,
"If I'm praying in gibberish, my wind may be praying, but my mind is
unfruitful." In other words, there is nothing beneficial occurring. There
is no fruit bearing. The gibberish of ecstatic tongues praying, then, is
mindless. "If I pray in an unknown tongue," says Paul, "I'm just
blowing air into the air like the heathen. I won't understand what I'm saying,
and neither will you." So, the counterfeit gift just set up an emotional
experience. It had no mental benefit at all!
Beloved, you
know as well as I do that there is never a time in the Word of God when God
wants us to be mindless. God never sets a premium on your brain being turned
off...never. There is never a time when God wants us to function on pure
emotion without understanding. What was going on in
2. THE
REQUIREMENT OF ONE'S UNDERSTANDING (v. 15)
a. Praying
with Understanding (v. 15a)
"What
is it, then? [i.e., `What is my conclusion?'] I will pray with the spirit [or
`breath, wind, or inner being'], and I will pray with the understanding
also..."
Paul says,
"When I talk to God, it's going to come from inside of me. I'm going to
use my breath (or my wind), but I'm also going to use my brain."
b. Singing
with Understanding (v. 15b)
"...I
will sing with the spirit [or
`breath, wind, inner being'], and I will sing with the understanding
also."
Apparently, the
Corinthians used to sing in ecstatic languages as well as pray in them. Modern Charismatics sing in tongues, too. But Paul says, "I
don't do that. What purpose does that serve, except to show off to everybody
that I have a private prayer language that hooks me up to God in a special way?
Well, I'm not going to do that. I'll pray with my breath and my mind, and I'll
sing with my breath and my mind--not mindlessly."
When we pray in
English, God understands. And when we sing in English, God understands. That's
far superior than talking to God in some kind of gibberish--no matter what
anybody tells you. God doesn't need that.
Should musical
instruments be allowed in the church?
The word "sing"
in 1 Corinthians 14:15 originally meant "to play the harp." Through
the years it came to mean "to sing to the accompaniment of the harp."
Now there are some people who say that the church shouldn't have musical
instruments, but that can't be supported biblically. In the New Testament and
in the Septuagint, the word sing was understood to mean "to sing to
the accompaniment of a harp." So, we can, and do, use musical instruments
in the church.
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
3. THE
RESTRICTION OF TONGUES (vv. 16-17)
a. The
Inability to Say Amen (v. 16)
"Else,
when thou shalt bless with the spirit [without your mind], how shall he that occupieth the place of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving
of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?"
Notice the
phrase "the place of the unlearned." In the Greek the word is idiotes. Here, the word means "ignorant,"
and simply refers to somebody ignorant of the language being spoken. In other
words, if you speak in tongues, the person who occupies the place of ignorance
about the meaning of what you said, can't even say, "Amen," at the
giving of your thanks. Why? Because he doesn't understand
what you're saying.
Now, amen
is simply a Hebrew adjective that means "True, say it, brother!" or
"So let it be," or "I'm with you."
And in the Jewish synagogue, saying amen was so important that you could hardly
get your lesson done because of all the amening. Let
me give you some quotes from the rabbis:
"He who
says amen is greater than he who blesses." Here's another one:
"Whoever says amen, to him the gates of
This was also
common in the early church--though much more genuine. So Paul says, "Look,
if all you have is blind, emotional ecstasy going on, nobody can even agree
because nobody knows what's happening." Do you get the point? When we come
together, our spiritual gifts are for everybody's benefit. And whatever you do
that leaves somebody else out is wrong.
b. The
Inability to Edify Others (v. 17)
"For
thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not
edified."
You might be
doing a great job. And if you happen to have the true gift, in your own heart
you might be thinking, "Boy, am I thankful to
God." Unfortunately, nobody else is edified, which makes the use of your
gift wrong because you've missed the point of the assembly. You've missed the
point of coming together.
Now somebody
might say, "That's just why we teach that speaking in tongues is to be
done in private." But that still misses the point of the gift, because it
was never a gift to be used in private. The gift of tongues was always to be
used in the presence of somebody who spoke the language. What good would it do
to speak in tongues in private? Well, here in verse 17, Paul says that even if
speaking in tongues is done in public, it doesn't do
any good unless somebody there understands what you're saying.
4. THE REAFFIRMATION
OF TONGUES (v. 18)
"I
thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye
all"
Here, Paul does
the same thing that he did earlier in the chapter. Basically, he says,"I've been kind of hard on this subject of
tongues, and I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I do believe it's a true
gift, and I thank my God I speak with languages more than all of you." In
a sense he's saying, "If you're wondering why I'm a little on the outside
and don't quite understand all of this ecstatic phenomena, I just want you to
know that I've probably spoken in tongues more than any of you."
Paul had the
true gift of tongues. Since he was an Apostle, he had the gifts of an Apostle
(2 Cor. 12:12). He exercised those gifts, no doubt,
as he traveled around. You say, "Well, how did he use this gift?"
Well, first of all, I'm sure he didn't use it as a private prayer language.
Second, I'm sure he didn't use it in Christian meetings to show he was
spiritual. And third, I'm sure he didn't use it for his own benefit.
(IN THE NEXT
PARAGRAPH MacArthur turns to complete fiction
to describe Paul’s ministry and his use of tongues in a way that MacArthur considers acceptable. Realize that non of
the paragraph below is in scripture. And
notice the last line of the paragraph, MacArthur
admits the same thing when he says Paul “doesn’t give an illustration of when
he used it.” This is because it never
happened like this. If this next
paragraph is true then: 1) What is the gift of
interpretation used for if those who heard tongues understood it? 2) Why
was the early church busy translating the scriptures into foreign languages? 3) Why are there no examples of someone
getting saved after hearing an apostle or anyone speak in tongues? 4) The
only places Paul preached were
Now, let me tell
you how he did use the gift of tongues. He used it when he traveled to a place
where there were people who spoke a foreign language that he didn't know. In
that kind of situation, he was given the ability by God to speak that language,
so that they might know God was present and a miracle had happened. (Why would someone speaking your language appear to be a miracle? This happens to me all day long. People I don’t know walk up to me and speak
English. I never think, “Wow! That is a
miracle! This person in my country
speaks English!”) Then he would speak
the truths of God and they would be given the opportunity to be converted. Paul
was a missionary to the Gentiles, so he might (“Might”?) have had many instances in his missionary travels when
he could have used this gift. It's interesting to me, though, that he ranked
the gift of tongues so very low. In fact, in all of his writings, he never
refers to using this gift (that is because he did
not use it this way, no one did.) ...except
here in 1 Corinthians 14:18. And even here, he doesn't give an illustration of
when he used it.
5. THE RANKING
OF TONGUES (v. 19)
"Yet in
the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my
voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown
tongue."
Paul says,
"The true gift of tongues is fine for evangelizing pagans in a language
they understand, and for showing them that God is present and that God is
speaking. But in the church, I'd rather speak five words that I understand, so
that I might teach others, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."
Now I want you
to see something interesting. Five words to ten thousand words is not the
ratio. The Greek word translated "ten thousand" is murioi. And the reason that this word is used
here is that it was the largest number in Greek mathematics for which there was
a word. For example, in Revelation 5:11, it talks about the angels and says, "...and
the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands." Well, in the Greek, it just keeps repeating the word murioi because it was the word that represented
their biggest number. In the English, verse 19 would be more accurately
translated, "I would rather say five words with my understanding than
quintillion words in gibberish." In other words, there isn't even a
comparison. Why? "Because nobody is going to learn and I want to use my
voice to teach others also."
Conclusion
A. The
Charismatic Repetition of the Problems
Does this
passage tell us how to govern tongues in the church? No, because the gift of
tongues has ceased. You say, "Well, what does this passage teach us?"
First of all, it shows us that the modern Charismatic movement is simply
repeating the same old Corinthian problem all over again. Now, I say that with love
and great concern--but I believe that it's true. They use tongues in their
assemblies today, they speak in gibberish, they do it for private
self-edification, they seek the emotional experience rather than the
intellectual understanding, they sing in tongues, they are absorbed in their
own experiences, they glory in the unintelligible as if it were some secret
communion with God, they do it among believers, and their missionaries do not
have the true gift to reach people with different languages. So what I see in the
modern Charismatic movement is a mirror of the Corinthian problem.
(Galyn Wiemers’
Comments in Dark Red, Arial
John MacArthur’s
comments in Black Times New Roman)
Return
to Generation Word home page at
www.generationword.com