Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-26-2009, 07:26 PM

Paul delivered scathing criticism of the beliefs associated with speaking in tongues while in the throes
of the Spirit.

Quote:

1 Cr 14:1 Make love your aim, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.

14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

14:3 On the other hand, he who prophesies speaks to men for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.

14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.

14:6 Now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will any one know what is played?

14:8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?

14:9 So with yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible, how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.

14:10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning;

14:11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

14:12 So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

14:13 Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

14:15 What am I to do? 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.

14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how can any one in the position of an outsider say the "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?

14:17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all;

14:19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; be babes in evil, but in thinking be mature.

14:21 In the law it is written, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord."

14:22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

14:23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,

14:25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

The passage confirms that whatever issues Paul may have had, he remained basically lucid and rational with respect to the reality and effects of the works of the Spirit. It is quite interesting to compare Paul’s sermon with the foundational event of the church, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the gathered brethren at the feast of the Pentecost:

Quote:

Acts 2:1 When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.

2:2 And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them.

2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.

2:6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

2:7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?

2:8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?

2:9 Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,

2:10 Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,

2:11 Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."

2:12 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"

2:13 But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."

2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

2:15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day;

2:16 but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

2:17 'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;

2:18 yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

2:19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;

2:20 the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day.

2:21 And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

The intriguiging thing about the event is the whole congregation falling under the Spirit’s spell and the presence of commenting outsiders exactly as Paul suggested it in 1 Cr 14:23. But surely Paul would have known of the Pentecost event if it had happened, if he spent a fortnight with Peter (Gal 1:18). It was the event that supposedly kick-started the church ! But evidently the Pentecost story only developed in the argument with Paulines about the meaning of, and the actual ability of making oneself understood when speaking in tongues. Acts 2 harmonizes tongue speaking and prophecizing which stand as distinct abilities in Paul.

What do you think ?

Ben C Smith · 05-26-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The passage confirms that whatever issues Paul may have had, he remained basically lucid and rational with respect to the reality and effects of the works of the Spirit.

Paul seems, however, to split the gifts between public and private; he claims to speak in tongues even more the the gifted Corinthians, but implies that this is in private (since he immediately says that in the church he prefers to prophesy).

Quote:

The intriguiging thing about the event is the whole congregation falling under the Spirit’s spell and the presence of commenting outsiders exactly as Paul suggested it in 1 Cr 14:23. But surely Paul would have known of the Pentecost event if it had happened, if he spent a fortnight with Peter (Gal 1:18).

If Pentecost is a later reaction against Paulinism (a notion I am not against on principle), then I think the author is reacting against a form of Paulinism possibly unknown to (or at least unemphasized by) Paul himself. Paul does not seem to think of the gift of tongues as necessarily relaying actual, known human languages (or perhaps he thinks of the gift as mixed, to wit, the tongues of men and of angels; refer to 1 Corinthians 13.1; at any rate, Paul presumes that the others around the tonguespeaker will not understand).

The Acts episode is covering something up, I think, with the foreign languages, something which peeks through with the talk of being drunk with wine; the participants seem to have been in an ecstatic state in a hypothetical original version, but the author of Acts is claiming that they were merely speaking in foreign languages. IOW, both Acts and Paul seem to be against public excesses of ecstatic gibberish.

Quote:

Acts 2 harmonizes tongue speaking and prophecizing which stand as distinct abilities in Paul.

For Paul, I think, a tongue interpreted essentially equals prophecy; at least, he allows both in the church.

Ben.

Solo · 05-27-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The passage confirms that whatever issues Paul may have had, he remained basically lucid and rational with respect to the reality and effects of the works of the Spirit.

Paul seems, however, to split the gifts between public and private; he claims to speak in tongues even more the the gifted Corinthians, but implies that this is in private (since he immediately says that in the church he prefers to prophesy).

Hi Ben,
yes, Paul was glossolalic, no doubt about it, and proud of his tongue-speaking prowess. He could outdo the Corinthians in that department too. He certainly was not ashamed of his displays in states of non compos mentis and in fact advertized them as credentials of his apostolic status - to him they were "gifts" of God, the manifestations of the Spirit and power.

What Paul disdained was the belief of the Corinthian congregations in some magical property of the Spirit that bestowed on the ecstatics the ability to "communicate" meaningfuly with each other or perhaps even to speak foreign languages without having to learn them. (1 Cr 14:10-11). Paul may be setting up the foreign languages as a metaphor. But on the evidence of Acts, such beliefs indeed existed and were central to the self-understanding of some of the early Jesus believers.

To Paul, of course, this was childish nonsense. God in his wisdom set it all up to make his sons look like fools and weak sisters among the powerful and supposedly wise earthlings; they were to be scorned and rejected and persecuted by the powers that be. But they were not foolish and weak in God's eyes; they were true sons and their earthly suffering was actually a way to earn everlasting life (1 Cr 1:18-31).

So, Paul would immediately frown on the idiocies of the Petrine followers, who thought that the possession of the Spirit bought them some magical powers or free tickets, as a preview of the messianic kingdom just around the corner where they were going to live it up, right here on earth and in flesh. To Paul, they were beyond pale to think that.

On the issue of private vs public: yes Paul distinctly prefered an orderly discourse in church to tongue speaking. There was a 'wow' effect in that for converts and Paul seemed quite open about his proselytic strategy. If an outsider sees believers making thoughtful interpretations of their Spirit possessions, he or she would grasp that what happens in their heads during their ecstasies comes from where God takes them, and that they return them to their 'right mind' (eg. 1 Cr 15:34 ἐκνήφω, 2 Cr 5:13 σωφρονέω) is the proof they are God's elect and not ordinary freaks !

One side note on the apparent gloss in 1 Cr 14:34 silencing women in the church. I believe it also relates to ecstatic utterance. Women are statistically much more frequent tongue speakers than males. (I believe the number is 80% of bipolar glossolalists are women, but can't find my notes with the reference. Here is a quick stub , establishing the bipolar and gender predominance connection.)

Quote:

If Pentecost is a later reaction against Paulinism (a notion I am not against on principle), then I think the author is reacting against a form of Paulinism possibly unknown to (or at least unemphasized by) Paul himself. Paul does not seem to think of the gift of tongues as necessarily relaying actual, known human languages (or perhaps he thinks of the gift as mixed, to wit, the tongues of men and of angels; refer to 1 Corinthians 13.1; at any rate, Paul presumes that the others around the tonguespeaker will not understand).

That's precisely the point of contention. Paul denied that what is uttered in ecstasy is meaningful to other people. The Acts assert the Spirit acting as an interpreter among believers - contra Paul.

(I hope you remain cool to aa's thesis of Paul reading and plagiarizing Luke

).

Quote:

The Acts episode is covering something up, I think, with the foreign languages, something which peeks through with the talk of being drunk with wine; the participants seem to have been in an ecstatic state in a hypothetical original version, but the author of Acts is claiming that they were merely speaking in foreign languages.

The drunken appearance at the Pentecost complements the speaking in tongues as a sign of the Spirit. (Both glossolalia and the appearance of intoxication happen also to be signs of manic excitation to medical professionals. ) There are a number of NT passages cross-referencing the work of the Spirit and a state of drunkenness by alcohol or some other mood elevating substance. The mystery of this drunkeness-by-Spirit (or by mania) has been most prominently allegorized by John in Jesus' turning water into wine at the marriage of Cana. But the parallel is also set by Mk 10:39, Lk 1:15, 1 Cr 10:14, 1 Cr 12:13 and Eph 5:18. Gospel of Thomas features it in sayings 13 and 108.

In short, I don't believe that the Acts' Pentecost event is a truncated version of some real earlier event.

Haenchen (The Acts of the Apostles) commented on the improbability of the participation of non-believing observers, and more or less followed Trocme in interpreting Luke's mythical event. The church stands as sort of Tower-of-Babel-reversed, in bringing a universal message to the world, symbolized as a universal language of the Spirit.

Quote:

IOW, both Acts and Paul seem to be against public excesses of ecstatic gibberish.

Not sure where Acts does that, but I find it ironic that Peter's speech "interpreting" the Spirit descent actually follows Paul's catechism.

Quote:

Acts 2 harmonizes tongue speaking and prophecizing which stand as distinct abilities in Paul.

For Paul, I think, a tongue interpreted essentially equals prophecy; at least, he allows both in the church.

Ben.

Well, he does allow both, but with the stipulation that if there is no 'interpreter' present the tongue speakers should be silent in the church (1 Cr 14:28). So as per my remarks above, Paul considered the 'unregulated' tongue speaking unedifying and the sort of Spirit anarchy where everyone speaks in tongue - as was the case at the Pentecost - madness. So, I am inclined to the view, that the Paul's hypothetical scenario (1 Cr 14:23) then was then asserted by the Petrine corybants as the foundation event of the church. Christ made the Spirit fall on the whole congregation at the start - transparently to argue that Jesus was in control and not Paul. The Paulinists fought back and came up with the mocking outsiders and Peter's speech interpreting the event as per Paul, to even up the score.

Regards,
Jiri

Clivedurdle · 05-27-2009, 11:09 AM

Prophecy has a very special meaning in the Pentecostal churches I grew up, where these passages were regularly preached on. Someone would stand up and speak in tongues to the congregation, then someone else would stand up and prophecy - the Holy Spirit translating what had just been said into English.

No laughing please!

Ben C Smith · 05-27-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Paul seems, however, to split the gifts between public and private; he claims to speak in tongues even more the the gifted Corinthians, but implies that this is in private (since he immediately says that in the church he prefers to prophesy).

Hi Ben,
yes, Paul was glossolalic, no doubt about it, and proud of his tongue-speaking prowess. He could outdo the Corinthians in that department too. He certainly was not ashamed of his displays in states of non compos mentis and in fact advertized them as credentials of his apostolic status - to him they were "gifts" of God, the manifestations of the Spirit and power.

What Paul disdained was the belief of the Corinthian congregations in some magical property of the Spirit that bestowed on the ecstatics the ability to "communicate" meaningfuly with each other or perhaps even to speak foreign languages without having to learn them. (1 Cr 14:10-11).

I am okay with this, although I am not really sure that Paul is specifically combatting a doctrine that tongues were real human languages; he may be, but your next sentence tells us why we cannot be sure:

Quote:

Paul may be setting up the foreign languages as a metaphor. But on the evidence of Acts, such beliefs indeed existed and were central to the self-understanding of some of the early Jesus believers.

I am not certain that such beliefs (tongues being real communication in some existing language) really did precede Acts. That may be the case. But it may also be the case, as I am suggesting, that the author of Acts took an existing tradition about chaotic tonguespeaking and turned it into a story about communicating meaningfully in foreign languages; this move does not presuppose that this idea was already current; it may simply have been a solution, as it were, to the problem of chaos (no, those tongues were not ecstatic; they were actually meaningful communication which foreigners all heard and understood; it was not chaos; it was order).

Quote:

So, Paul would immediately frown on the idiocies of the Petrine followers, who thought that the possession of the Spirit bought them some magical powers or free tickets, as a preview of the messianic kingdom just around the corner where they were going to live it up, right here on earth and in flesh.

I think Paul would frown on the idiocies of the Petrine followers in what I take to be the original story (rampant, chaotic tonguespeaking). But, as for the Acts twist (these were real languages), I just doubt he would recognize this solution; but it is a solution to the same problem that Paul faced in Corinth.

Quote:

One side note on the apparent gloss in 1 Cr 14:34 silencing women in the church. I believe it also relates to ecstatic utterance.

I agree with this, but with the proviso that the original passage probably did not originally pertain to ecstasy; it probably pertained to simple church order (refer to its parallel in 1 Timothy 2.11-15, which occurs in a context not dealing with the gifts). In its current position, however, it most certainly does pertain to the gift of tongues (as well as the gift of prophecy). IOW, I think somebody took an independent church order tradition along the lines of 1 Timothy 2.11-15 and inserted it into 1 Corinthians 14 precisely in order to keep your female glossolalists silent in all cases (no exceptions or allowances made for spiritual gifts).

Quote:

That's precisely the point of contention. Paul denied that what is uttered in ecstasy is meaningful to other people. The Acts assert the Spirit acting as an interpreter among believers - contra Paul.

I agree that Paul and Acts disagree on their respective solutions to disorderly tonguespeaking, but what I was pointing out was that they were actually aiming to solve much the same problem. Paul says: Keep the disorderly stuff at home. Acts says: The tonguespeaking in the early church was not actually disorderly; it was supernatural communication with foreigners.

Quote:

In short, I don't believe that the Acts' Pentecost event is a truncated version of some real earlier event.

I am not sure either way on this, and am not claiming that it comes from a real event. All I am claiming is that the episode in Acts betrays signs of having come from an earlier tradition (of ecstatic speaking in the church), one which the author is reinterpreting (as mass communication in other languages).

Quote:

The church stands as sort of Tower-of-Babel-reversed, in bringing a universal message to the world, symbolized as a universal language of the Spirit.

I agree with the connections to the Tower of Babel.

Quote:

So as per my remarks above, Paul considered the 'unregulated' tongue speaking unedifying and the sort of Spirit anarchy where everyone speaks in tongue - as was the case at the Pentecost - madness.

I agree, but continue to point out that the author of Acts has also mitigated the madness.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-27-2009, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Prophecy has a very special meaning in the Pentecostal churches I grew up, where these passages were regularly preached on. Someone would stand up and speak in tongues to the congregation, then someone else would stand up and prophecy - the Holy Spirit translating what had just been said into English.

No laughing please!

That still happens today in various settings. Except that I have usually heard prophecy refer to utterances made in English from the start (usually from the divine point of view), while tongue refers to the gibberish, and interpretation refers to the (prophetic) translation of that gibberish into English.

Ben.

storytime · 05-27-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Prophecy has a very special meaning in the Pentecostal churches I grew up, where these passages were regularly preached on. Someone would stand up and speak in tongues to the congregation, then someone else would stand up and prophecy - the Holy Spirit translating what had just been said into English.

No laughing please!

Not laughing, but really, the pretense of those interpreting God's language is contradicted by all other scripture, proving them "liars", or what is called false teachers. Also, their supposed "gift" impling they are on a higher status among their brethren members of their church. After all, god is supposedly giving them witness to authority via another member interpreting what God had said.

I read Paul's teaching of "tongues" as different languages and of which Paul said he spoke more than them all, and "gifts" as individual offerings in contributions that maintained the administration of the church. Some were "gifted" in teaching, some gifted in financies, some in leadership, and some in different languages[tongues]. These were the gifts of the spirit of God as they were used for the church.

Unknown tongues were simply the languages the Jews could not understand. At Pentecost, all the devout Jews who came from other countries to sit in attendance understood the message in their own language, their own tongue. How many languages would have been used to get the message of Jesus out through those attending Jews and into the world?

Would ignorant and uneducated Gentiles have been in attendance at such a Jewish event? I mean, this was one sect of Jews[Jews for Jesus], trying to convince other tradionalist Jews about Jesus. As the story goes, so goes the most unusual tale.

Solo · 05-28-2009, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Prophecy has a very special meaning in the Pentecostal churches I grew up, where these passages were regularly preached on. Someone would stand up and speak in tongues to the congregation, then someone else would stand up and prophecy - the Holy Spirit translating what had just been said into English.

No laughing please!

The modern Pentecostal churches draw on the tradition but the tongue-speaking in them is by and large mimicking 'the real thing'. The movement actually started at the break of the 20th century.

Jiri

Solo · 05-28-2009, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

So as per my remarks above, Paul considered the 'unregulated' tongue speaking unedifying and the sort of Spirit anarchy where everyone speaks in tongue - as was the case at the Pentecost - madness.

I agree, but continue to point out that the author of Acts has also mitigated the madness.

Ben.

Yes, he did. And it is likely for the same reason why would not find Jesus' family declaring him out of his mind in Luke's gospel.

Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2009, 11:09 AM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Prophecy has a very special meaning in the Pentecostal churches I grew up, where these passages were regularly preached on. Someone would stand up and speak in tongues to the congregation, then someone else would stand up and prophecy - the Holy Spirit translating what had just been said into English. No laughing please!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.