Leadership: Tongues and Prophecy 8

Previous posts in this series:

• Corinth: AD50
• The Synagogue
• First Tier Apostles
• Paul, the Apostle
• Developing House Church Leadership
• Elders and Overseers
• Chaotic Worship

2. Paul has nothing but positive things to say about prophecy at Corinth. When he sets downs rules to bring order to the congregation, his controls on prophecy are that prophets speak one at a time, with there being only two or at the most three (1 Cor. 14:29-32). Further, he makes it clear that prophesies are to be evaluated by other prophets.

On the other hand, he is much more regulative when it comes to tongues. The whole thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 seems to elevate prophecy over tongues (14:1-2). Prophecy is presumably one of the greater gifts (12:31), second on his list in 1 Corinthians 12:28 (tongues is eighth).

The tone of 1 Corinthians 14 is generally dissuasive from the use of tongues in worship. It is true that he twice adds the exception, "unless someone interprets" (14:5 and 13). However, notice that these are quite the minority of the chapter. The rest of 1 Corinthians 14:1-25 argues repeatedly against the use of tongues in worship. Even when he says he speaks in more languages/tongues than all of them (14:18), this is the lead up to a "but" [2]

In the end he says not to forbid speaking in tongues in the worship service as long as there is an interpretation (14:39-40). If there is an interpretation, like prophecy, they should speak one at a time, two or at the most three (14:27-28). Of course these instructions were written to the Corinthian congregation with a view to their specific issues.

Today, there are churches where everyone there seems spiritually uplifted even when there is no interpretation. And there are churches today where the church would split if tongues were spoken. The recontextualization of Scripture calls for spiritual discernment in different times and places. Paul's bottom line is that everything be done decently and in order (14:40).

3. The main point is that the early church--at least some of Paul's churches--were rather charismatic. Prophecy was far more an element of the early church than many of us realize today. When Ephesians 2:20 says that the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, it is not likely thinking about the Old Testament prophets but the New Testament ones.

In every age, there is a tension between the church as structured and the church as prophetic. In the first century, the apostles provided the ultimate structure, followed by elders as they became established. Apostles had a clear lineage in the sense that the Twelve could trace their leadership identity to Jesus. Even those apostles who were not from the Twelve could trace their apostleship to a resurrection appearance from Christ. [3] They were the closest thing to an establishment at that time.

By contrast, prophets could come from anywhere. The Spirit could speak through either gender. The Spirit was the great equalizer, regardless of nation or tongue or social background.

Accordingly, false prophets soon became a concern. The latest books of the New Testament deal extensively with false prophets and false teachers (e.g., 2 Peter 2 and Jude). It is no surprise that books like 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are concerned about church structure and the qualifications for a church leader.

Nevertheless, there is nothing in the New Testament that suggests the prophetic role came to an end at some point. 1 Corinthians 13:8 is not saying that prophecy as a function will cease one day but that any individual prophecy has a date stamp on it. 1 John 4:1 exhorts John's community to test the spirits, and it warns that false prophets will abound. But the ongoing validity of prophecy is assumed within the church.

That is not necessarily to say that we should have a "prophecy time" in our worship services. The form leadership and the use of spiritual gifts take will inevitably change from context to context. What persists are the functions of leadership and the gifts, not necessarily the form in which they are expressed or exercised.

[2] This verse reminds me of the girl that told a guy, "I like you, but I don't want to go out with you," and the guy only heard, "I like you."

[3] Although in the case of Paul, many no doubt disputed that he was truly an apostle.

Tongues 1--the Spirit Comes

... continued from Wednesday.
_________________
"When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place" (Acts 2:1). There were about 120 in an upstairs room (1:15), quite possibly the room where they ate the Last Supper (Luke 22:12). [1] The number included the original eleven disciples, others who had followed Jesus from the beginning (like Matthias and Joseph), and women who had followed Jesus (cf. Luke 23:55-56). It also included Jesus' mother, Mary, and Jesus' brothers like James and Jude. They have been praying and waiting on the Holy Spirit to come, as Jesus promised.

They hear a violent wind. The word for spirit in both Greek and Hebrew is related to the word for wind. The Spirit is, in a sense, the breath of God, breathing on his people, giving them life as in Genesis 2:7. The tongues of fire are like traditions about what happened when God gave the Law on Mt. Sinai, except now God is enacting the new covenant, in which he writes his laws on the hearts of his people through the Holy Spirit. [2]

They begin to speak in other languages or "tongues" as they are often called. They apparently come out of the upper room to the outside and are telling of the wonders of God in all sorts of different languages. It is the Feast of Pentecost.  Jews are in Jerusalem from all over the known world.  Fifteen different areas are mentioned. Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia hear, people from the far east of that time. Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia are places in modern day Turkey. Egypt and Libya are in Africa, Crete and Rome from the broader Mediterranean. Arabs lived in Palestine and Judea was of course where Jerusalem itself was.

These are Jews and converts to Judaism. We remember that there were more Jews scattered outside of Jerusalem at the time than lived in the home country. The Egyptian city of Alexandria alone probably had more Jews in it than in all of Jerusalem. These individuals hear the witness of the 120 in their own languages.

Probably the most natural way to take the tongues of Acts 2 is that these individuals are given the ability to speak in these other languages. The only hint of something different would be the fact that some think that they are drunk. The situation in Acts 2 points to something a little different from 1 Corinthians 14:23, when outsiders do not understand what is being said. The tongues-speakers in 1 Corinthians 14:13 also do not seem to know what they are saying, while those in Acts 2 presumably do.  The experience in Acts 2 is a tool for witness and mission. In 1 Corinthians 14 it is a very personal experience that Paul criticizes for not being edifying to the congregation as a whole.

Tongues come in two other places in Acts.  In Acts 10:46, Gentiles speak in tongues when the Spirit first comes on them.  This is the first time in Acts that the Spirit comes on the Gentiles, proving that they can be in the people of God without having to convert to Judaism and get circumcised. Speaking in tongues shows that their experience of the Spirit is every bit as authentic as the Spirit-filling experience the Jews experienced on the Day of Pentecost.

But tongues are not mentioned every time someone is filled with the Spirit. For example, tongues are not mentioned in another filling the followers of Jesus experience in Acts 4:31. Tongues are not mentioned at Samaria when the Spirit comes (8:17) or when Paul receives the Spirit in 9:17-18. The only other place tongues are mentioned is in Acts 19:6 at Ephesus.

The situation here is that some individuals have only been baptized in the way of John the Baptist. They have not been baptized in the manner of Jesus, which involves receiving the Holy Spirit. So Paul baptizes them and the Holy Spirit comes on them.  They speak in tongues just as the disciples had on the Day of Pentecost.

Tongues in these instances seem to be particularly significant as a sign of the new age of the Spirit. In each instance, some important boundary is crossed or is remembered being crossed. There are some groups that insist that anyone who is truly a Christian will speak in tongues. Such groups often put Acts 2 at the center of their understanding of Christian life today. There are at least two key features of their understanding.

The first is that receiving or being filled with the Holy Spirit is part of a person's conversion experience. We will look at this issue in a moment. Are the Spirit-fillings of Acts an initial experience that believers have when they first come to believe on Jesus as their Lord? Or is receiving the Holy Spirit a second or later experience a person has some time after he or she has believed? For that matter, do all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at all or is it a special experience just for some?

The second assumption is that all those who receive the Holy Spirit in Acts spoke in tongues, even though Acts does not always mention them. Certain Pentecostal groups distinguish between tongues in Acts as the key evidence that a person has received the Holy Spirit and tongues as a special gift from God that only some Christians receive. Such groups would say that 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gift of tongues, while Acts 2 tells us about tongues as evidence that a person has in fact truly become a Christian.

There are good reasons to believe that not all Christians will speak in tongues when they first believe...

[1] Was it the home of John Mark in Acts 12:12?

[2] Cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-12; Rom. 2:15.

Unpardonable Sin 4

... continued from yesterday
_______________
A couple features of this issue have caused great discussion over the years.  One is the question of the unpardonable sin.  When Jesus' opponents suggest he performed miracles by the power of Satan, Jesus warns them starkly.  Attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan is serious business, a sin that will not be forgiven.

Many a sensitive soul has struggled with this concept in self-doubt. Have I committed this sin?  I heard of a man once who participated more faithfully in a church than anyone else and yet was convinced there was no hope for him. In his mind he had committed the sin from which no one can return.

In that light, a bottom line is in order.  If it is the Holy Spirit that draws us to God in the first place, then anyone who truly is seeking God cannot have committed such a sin. In other words, anyone who has committed this sin will not want to come back to God. If you are truly seeking God, you are good to go.

Of course what does it mean to seek God truly?  Many a child is sorry she got caught rather than truly remorseful for doing something bad. Perhaps it is not exactly what Hebrews 12:17 means, but the wording is interesting when it says that Esau, "found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears" (NASB). A truly repentant heart is something deeper that realizing you're in trouble.

But the person who thinks God is always hiding around the corner, waiting to give you a "sinning ticket," has a false picture of God.  God is standing out in the open, looking for any chance to reconcile and welcome you.  The other picture is unhealthy and often leads us to pass on legalistic judgment to others as well.

The take-away from the unpardonable sin is for us to be careful not to miss the working of the Spirit in others.  For example, for years many people in my church wondered if those who spoke in tongues were demon-possessed. I hope that for most it was a sincere question rather than an accusation. Why even take a chance on such a thing?  If speaking in tongues can be from the Holy Spirit, then attributing it to Satan is very similar to the unpardonable sin of Mark 3:28-29. [1]

In general, we should be very careful about judging others (Matt. 7:1) or assuming that God can't work in others in ways he doesn't work with us. It's not just that it is the wrong attitude on our part. It's that we ourselves may miss out on a blessing by way of others.

Another issue raised by Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 is the authority to forgive sins...

[1] There is of course a third option, that some speaking of tongues can be a psychological phenomenon that some human brains are wired for. In fact, the gift of tongues could be the Holy Spirit blessing individuals with this sort of wiring. This would explain why we sometimes find tongues-speaking in other religions.

After John the Baptist...

Continued from here.
__________
We know what happened to John.  Herod Antipas arrested and then beheaded him.  Rulers don't take nicely to those who announce that another king is coming who is going to replace their kingdom with a better one. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are sometimes called the Synoptic gospels, Jesus does not start proclaiming the kingdom until John is arrested.

But the impact of John the Baptist seems to have continued for decades after he died. For example, there were some people who were still following his teaching at Ephesus in Acts 18-19.  The first is Apollos in Acts 18:24-28.  He is instructed in the "Way of the Lord" and proclaimed the coming of Jesus, but was only aware of the baptism of John. Apparently, John the Baptist must have proclaimed "the way of the Lord."  It is interesting that both Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 use the word "way."  These are the passages the gospels remember in relation to John's prophetic ministry.  So it is not a stretch to say that John must have proclaimed quite literally "the Way of the Lord" as one of his key messages.

Followers of the Way were thus individuals who believed John's message--whether they believed in Jesus or not.  Apollos could be a follower of the Way and know very little about Jesus.  What he knew was John the baptizer's prediction that the "anointed one," the messiah, was coming.  The Gospels also remember this message as part of what John proclaimed: "The one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to stoop down and untie the thong of his sandals" (Mark 1:7, NRSV).

Acts 19:1-7 reinforces this interpretation.  Paul finds certain "disciples" at Ephesus.  These individuals only know the baptism of John.  They do not seem to know much of anything about Jesus.  When Acts calls them "disciples," it must not mean followers of Jesus but followers of the Way, followers of the movement started by John the Baptist.

For Acts, receiving the Spirit is the big distinction between the two movements.  The Jesus movement was part of the Baptist movement.  Both were followers of the Way.  But the Jesus movement believed Jesus was the messiah John predicted, and it involved the Holy Spirit.  Jesus' followers received the Holy Spirit.  At some point, John's baptism became distinguished from baptism "in the name of Jesus," so much so that Paul has the followers of the Baptist get re-baptized so they will receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 19.

The Gospel of John indirectly supports interpretation.  One of the intriguing features of the Gospel of John is the extent to which it downplays John the Baptist in relation to Jesus.  John never actually mentions John baptizing Jesus.  John's presentation implies that the Baptist's mission is basically over once Jesus arrives (e.g., 1:36-37; 3:30).  Only John's gospel tells of Jesus' followers baptizing at the same time as the Baptist.  Finally, in contrast to Matthew 11:14, the Gospel of John denies that John the Baptist is Elijah (1:21).

Why would the Gospel of John downplay John the Baptist so much more than the other gospels?  A possible answer is that, as we see in Acts 18-19, there were followers of John the Baptist at Ephesus who not only did not follow Jesus. There may have been followers of the Way there who opposed the Jesus movement, who opposed the idea that Jesus was the messiah.  John and Acts are thus written in such a way as to make it clear that Jesus is the one John predicted. [1]

So not only did John proclaim the coming judgment of God and the potential restoration of political Israel.  He was one of those Jews who also predicted the coming of a king to rule Israel in this coming kingdom, the messiah. [2] In preparation, he called Israel to repent and to wash themselves in the Jordan, symbolizing the washing and forgiveness of their sins.

What a massive movement he must have started!  We do not know much about it apart from those of his followers who went on to believe Jesus was the messiah John was predicting.  But at the time his movement must have paralleled that of Jesus and may have been even bigger.  Some in this movement of the Way may have known very little about Jesus at all.  It must not have been clear at the time that John endorsed Jesus as the one he predicted.

In fact, we can read passages like Matthew 11:2-6 as the Baptist himself having some uncertainty.  John is in prison but sends some of his followers to ask Jesus if he is the one.  The things he is doing make him a prime candidate.  But John must not have been entirely certain. [3] Perhaps John was expecting Jesus to be more "political" and "military" than he was.

What is clear is that all four gospels see Jesus' ministry in continuity with that of the Baptist.  In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is baptized by John, which indicates that Jesus at least mostly endorsed John's message.  As many Jesus scholars have argued, this fact has enormous implications for how we understand Jesus' own mission and message. [4]  We must understand Jesus' words not as wise sayings a philosopher might say but as words said against this historical background.

[1] The incident in Acts 19 is thus not about entire sanctification (as many holiness revivalists preached in the late 1800s/early 1900s).  Still less is it about the necessity of tongues as evidence of truly being converted (certain Pentecostal groups).  Acts 19, including its added evidence of tongues, was originally a polemic against followers of John the Baptist who did not believe Jesus was the messiah.

[2] Again, if we have to pick a Jewish group his message best fits, it would be the Essenes.

[3] This scene has of course given rise to much speculation as to John's motives, especially if you bring Luke 1 and John 1 into the conversation.

[4] One of the first to point out this fact was A. E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History E. P. Sanders' Jesus and Judaism then built on this approach.

Tongues: Conclusion

6. Conclusion
I would summarize our discussion on tongues in four points:

1. The New Testament can speak of both the tongues of "humans and angels." In other words, the NT affirms the existence of tongues that do not involve the mind and that are not human languages. At least in Acts 2, the tongues in question seem to be what we call xenoglossia, speaking in foreign languages that have not been learned (they are a witness to unbelievers). 1 Corinthians 14 seems to be regular glossolalia (they turn off unbelievers).

2. The New Testament does not teach that you must speak in tongues to be a Christian. Paul flatly says, "Do all speak in tongues? (No)." He makes no distinction between tongues as evidence of the Spirit and tongues as a spiritual gift. The word for speak is the same in both Acts 2 and this comment in 1 Corinthians 12.

3. Some Christians have the gift of tongues, understood as non-human languages that do not involve the mind. Paul says not to forbid this gift. He means in Corinthian worship. I believe it is appropriate for some groups to apply it today as don't forbid exercise of this gift in private. Paul himself may very well have had this gift.

4. Paul does not wish tongues to be a hindrance in worship. At Corinth he reined in the use of tongues in worship. He forbid it unless there was an interpretation and even then only two or three one at a time. With the variety of Christian denominations today, I see this principle playing out in more than one way. There are communities of faith where uninterpreted tongues does not seem to be a hindrance to edification in any way. There are others where any exercise of tongues in worship would create massive disruption and possible schism. Let each group do whatever they do to the glory of God.

Tongues 5

5. 1 Corinthians 14
I would summarize Paul's point in this chapter as follows:

Your worship is a horrible mess. Everyone is just thinking of him or herself. Do things that build up each other, like prophecy. Tongues more often than not build up individuals but don't build up the body of Christ. What is worse, unbelievers can easily mistake them for some pagan religious experience. Don't forbid tongues, as long as someone has an interpretation. You yourself should pray to be able to interpret your tongues. Even then, only have two or at the most three speak in worship, one at a time, and again, only with interpretation.

Tongues at Corinth were a problem. I suppose that tongues in an Assemblies of God church are usually not a problem. In fact, I acknowledged to a student once that it might be possible for everyone in a Pentecostal church to be edified by watching everyone else speak in tongues--even if there wasn't any interpretation. And I doubt many unbelievers these days in America will mistake tongues for some mystery religion experience. After all, what is that? I do think most non-tongues speakers feel really wierd on their first exposure to tongues--even many people the first time they experience tongues.

But in the end, there are so many more churches and church groups today than Paul could have imagined. And the existence of many of them is primarily due to the exercise of tongues. Chances are, if you're going to an Assemblies of God church, you probably find tongues edifying even if they're not interpreted.

By the same token, tongues would be incredibly divisive in your typical Wesleyan Church. I have no problem with our current stance that, for those worshipping in our fellowship, tongues is a gift best exercised in private for one's personal edification. If we have few who speak in tongues, we would have almost no one with the gift of interpretation. And I guarantee you that even if tongues were interpreted, the vast majority of our congregations would feel like "foreigners" to those speaking or interpreting (cf. 1 Cor. 14:11).

Tongues would create schism in most of our communities. I have no hesitation about what I think Paul would say in such a context, mirroring things he said about the Lord's Supper, meat offered to idols, and indeed, about the use of tongues at Corinth: "Do you not have homes to pray in tongues in? I will not speak in tongues in church if it causes my brother or sister to stumble or the church to divide."

We can be thankful that the body of Christ has come to have whole denominations whose special emphasis is speaking in tongues and who freely allow for it in worship. And that allows for whole denominations who don't forbid a person from speaking in tongues, but only use intelligible languages in worship.

And after giving you my conclusion, let me give my understanding of the train of thought in 1 Corinthians 14.

1-5: It's better to prophecy than to speak in tongues, because prophecy builds up the church. Tongues tends more to build up the individual.

And here let me point out the obvious: Paul's point in 14:5 is not "I wish you all spoke in tongues." His point is "BUT I would rather have you prophecy." Remember, this is in the form of a break up line: "I really like you Ken, but I don't want to go out any more." The goal of the sentence is the part after the "but," not the part before. Notice that the possibility of interpreting tongues is not brought up in this paragraph.

6-25: Prophecy is better than tongues in worship, because it builds up the church. Paul uses examples of "confused sounds" to argue against the use of tongues in worship. And here I note that it is not until verse 13 that he first brings up the possibility of interpretation. And even then, he argues that the speaker him or herself pray to be able to interpret it. And of course if a person knew such an interpretation, there would be no need to speak in tongues in the first place. You would presumably just tell the church the prophecy straight out. In effect, even though Paul has brought up the possibility of interpretation, he has brought it up in a way that leads to the disuse of tongues in worship.

In 14:18-19 we have another break up line: "I thank God that I speak in more tongues than all of you, but in church I would prefer to speak five words with my mind than ten thousand words in a tongue." The first clause is again a concession on the way to the real point of the sentence--worship should be intelligible.

I think that it is more likely than not that Paul is claiming to have the same gift as some Corinthians are exercising. While it is possible that he means human languages, the contrast he sets up--"with my mind"--pushes us rather to see his tongues as something he does without his mind. In Romans 8:26, Paul mentions unspeakable groans of the Spirit in prayer, and some scholars think this might be Paul speaking of his use of tongues in private prayer. Can "unspeakable" mean "speaking," as in tongues?

On the other hand, 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 seems Paul's attempt to defend himself against those who would claim to have more spectacular religious experiences than him. On balance the evidence seems to favor Paul speaking in tongues. But it is not an absolute certainty since Paul generally tries to agree with the Corinthian positions as much as possible before steering them in a more profitable direction.

For the worship context, however, look at Paul's contrast: even 5 intelligible words are better than 10,000 words in a tongue. Paul does not mention the possibility of interpretation in this verse, reflecting his emphasis in the chapter away from the use of tongues in worship.

20-25 speak of the negative effect that tongues will likely have on unbelievers, urging the congregation to lean more toward prophecy. Again, Paul does not mention the possibility of interpretation in these verses, reflecting his emphasis in the chapter away from the use of tongues in worship.

In addition to unbelievers, he also mentions the potentially negative effect tongues might have on those who do not understand (idiotes). In this sense, the Wesleyan Church is largely made up of idiotes :-), those who do not understand. Paul likely wishes to prevent exactly what would happen in most Wesleyan churches if someone started praying in tongues in a worship service--the rest of the church would be idiotes to the tongue.

26-40 The remainder of the chapter lays down the rules by which tongues can be practiced in worship at Corinth. Two or at the most three people may speak in tongues during a service. They must go one at a time and only if there is an interpretation.

So Paul says not to forbid speaking in tongues at Corinth. But his trajectory is clear enough. In part because he knows what's going on at Corinth, he severely limits the use of tongues in public worship. He affirms that it is personally edifying and may even himself have the gift. But worship is about communication, and he recognizes the roundabout way in which tongues can communicate--and that only if someone has an interpretation. Prophecy thus serves the purpose of worship much more straightforwardly.

Tongues 4

4. The Situation at Corinth
Ah, the Corinthian church. I love this church and am thankful for their problems. Just think of what it would be like if we did not have 1 Corinthians... in other words, if they had not had so many problems! There is SOOO much we would not know about the early church if it weren't for them!

The fundamental problem they had was division (1 Cor. 1:10). In particular, two power blocks seemed to be locking horns. The "Paul group" was a group, presumably of church leaders and original church members, who remained loyal to Paul's authority. A second group, the "Apollos group," was likely prosperous and of some status. I suppose that some of them became Christians under the educated, eloquent, and probably upper class Apollos.

If I have it right, this Apollos group had enough clout to take others to court, to afford meat and serve it to others, and had enough wine to get drunk. I think this is largely the same group, a group that considered themselves "wise" (see 1 Cor. 6:5) and to have knowledge (8:1). Paul mocks them when he tells them how envious of them he is, since they are already reigning in the kingdom of God and all (4:8). The edges of the groups involved on any issue may have been blurry, but I see most of the problems in the church centering on two core groups in conflict.

It is difficult to know for certain how the "spiritual gift" conflict does or doesn't connect to these two basic groups. But my hunch is that those claiming to have spiritual gifts are probably primarily from the Apollos group. Why? Because this language of spirituality in 12-14 is similar to things Paul says in 2:14-15. In that context Paul strangely speaks of the "psychikos" (soulish) person versus the "pneumatikos" (spiritual) person. The wording is so unusual for Paul (and, indeed, for most ancient writings) that many think Paul is using the language of his Corinthian detractors themselves at this point.

If so, the Apollos group is likely the group claiming to be spiritual. Paul himself does not encourage eating meat offered to idols, but we can see some PhD like Apollos telling them that "we Jews know that there's no one home at the temple of Apollo. Eat the meat because you know this and, thus, your conscience is strong." Whether they or Apollos came up with this argument, it is far more likely the Apollos group claiming to have knowledge and be wise in these kinds of ways. Perhaps 1 Corinthians 2 reflects them distinguishing themeselves from others in the church, whom they are deeming "soul-ish," psychikos.

But Paul then moves to his categories in chapter 3. "I wish I could call you spiritual, but you are really fleshly." They think they are spiritual. Paul says they are carnal, fleshly, babes in Christ.

So when 1 Corinthians 12 begins, "Now concerning spiritual things..." (pneumatika: the word gifts isn't actually there in this verse), it surely relates to those claiming to be spiritual. And if we use 1 Corinthians 12 to help us understand further what some of the issues of spirituality were--you guessed it--some at Corinth were claiming to be more spiritually significant than others in the church because of their spiritual gifts.

We can basically summarize Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 12 as "People are equally valuable no matter what spiritual gift they have." Some are eyes, some are ears, some are feet... But all valuable, and we should not look down on someone else because they are a hand.

Similarly, it is no coincidence that the "love chapter" is sandwiched in the middle of this discussion of spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14. Love is clearly the antidote to the Corinthian divisions and, more specifically, to their spiritual gift issues.

But what might be the focal point of the issue here? What spiritual gift does Paul focus on in 1 Corinthians 12-14? What is he leading the Corinthians away from, other than the way some are dishonoring those without their gift? What gift does Paul have in mind when he ends chapter 12 with "be zealous for the greater gifts" (now shifting from the value of persons to those gifts that are most beneficial to the body)?

We know the answer when Paul picks up his train of thought in chapter 14: "... be zealous for the spiritual things, but more (mallon) that you prophesy, for the one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to humans, but to God..."

After beginning with the general issue of spiritual gifts, Paul now gets down to business. Apparently the way tongues were being practiced at Corinth was the focal point of the issue over spiritual gifts and apparently tongues were the lesser gifts (in benefit) that he alluded to in 12:31. And it is no coincidence that after beginning with "God appointed first apostles..." (12:28), tongues and then their interpretation are last on the list (12:30).

In short, while Paul clearly believes that individuals who speak in tongues are equal in value to any Christian with any other gift, the overall trajectory of his rhetoric in the overall context of 1 Corinthians 14 is to move the Corinthians away from the way they are using tongues in their community. Further, he is likely moving a certain segment of the church from thinking they are more important than the others in the congregation because they speak in tongues. Paul is "reining in" the way tongues are used at Corinth.

We will consider the specifics of Paul's instructions in the next entry.

Tongues 3

3. Mark 16:17 (Textus Receptus)
"And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons, they will speak in new tongues..."

For some conservative Pentecostals, this verse also plays a prominent role. I say conservative because the only translations of the New Testament that consider it to have been in the original text of Mark are the King James Version and the New King James Version. Other versions only print the text because of its historical importance, but this is in deference to tradition. Their translators did not consider them original.

After I have said this, however, I have no problems with the message of this text. I believe that Mark 16:9-20 is a pastiche of post-resurrection events that some author took probably from the endings of the other gospels and Acts. When 16:18 mentions taking up snakes, for example, I picture Paul on the island of Malta in Acts 27. The mention of Mary Magdalene in 16:9 reminds me of John. The two mentioned in 16:12 are the men on the road to Emmaus in Luke. 16:15 is drawn from the Great Commission in Matthew 28.

Finally, 16:17 surely alludes to the Day of Pentecost. The word "new" tongues ("new" isn't even in all the manuscripts that have this ending) seems simply a reference to the fact that the languages on the Day of Pentecost were new to the apostles. I suppose it is possible that it is a reference to the tongues of 1 Corinthinans 14.

So even if the passage was original, it would not contribute anything new to our discussion of tongues. For example, the verse doesn't say that every Christian will do all these things.

I might just rehearse the reasons why there is such uniform agreement that Mark 16:9-20 was not a part of the original Mark:

External Evidence
There are two types of evidence that are discussed when one is trying to decide what the original reading of a text was. This is a science that can be used on any text in which we only have copies of copies that differ from one another and we are trying to decide between the various readings to figure out what the first copy said.

With regard to what we might call "the longer ending" of Mark, the external evidence is not good. I call it the longer ending because there is also a shorter one and a longer, longer one. The presence of the shorter one shows that someone else added another ending because 16:8 didn't seem like a good way to end the gospel... and thus even those manuscripts with the shorter ending are evidence that there was no ending after 16:8 in the manuscripts before them.

Jerome (400) says that he does not know many Greek manuscripts with the longer ending. Eusebius (300's) divided up the gospels into sections but made no room for verses at this point. The longer ending is not in any of the major ancient manuscripts and translations, including the two most famous, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. However, it was used by Tatian in the late 100's in his spliced together "four gospels" and Irenaeus knows of it as well (Justin Martyr has a sentence with some of the same words, but it's not a conclusive allusion).

A late Armenian manuscript says, "of Ariston" right before the longer ending. Ariston lived in the early 100's, but most textual scholars don't believe some copier in the 800's (I think) could know who came up with the ending when no other manuscripts say this. But Ariston did live at the right time for the creation of this ending.

To sum up the external evidence, we have evidence that the reading existed by the mid to late 100's, but it did not appear in most ancient Greek manuscripts, particularly those considered most weighty.

Internal Evidence
The internal evidence is, however, determinative. Verse 9 basically starts all over again with the post-resurrection. It's like 1-8 never happened. Verse 8 ends with the women telling no one. Then all of a sudden we're talking about "Now having risen on the first day" again. The women were the subject in verse 8. Then Jesus is suddenly the subject in verse 9. This fact alone militates against the verses being original.

There are at least nine words or phrases in these few short verses (including connecting phrases) that appear no where else in Mark, and the style is different. These verses are more of a summary than the narrative we have been reading up to this point. I've already mentioned that the content of this ending is a pastiche of references from other gospels. If these verses were original, they would be the most "harmonistic" track of gospel anywhere in the four gospels. That's one of the reasons why many don't notice how odd they are--because we're used to reading the gospels as a single witness to Jesus rather than four distinct witness.

In short, there are a few ultra-conservative people with PhD's who think these verses are original. But their very position on this issue demonstrates to me that they have come to the evidence with their conclusion already in hand. I consider no one a reliable textual scholar who thinks these verses were original.

As a side note, I have finally admitted to myself that Mark probably did have some other ending that is lost. It would be unprecedented for a book to end with the word "for" (which is how it ends in the Greek... I won't go into it). And the other places in Mark where the word "fear" is used in this way, someone is usually afraid of something. Witherington thinks the ending of Matthew is the best place for us to go to figure out what the original ending might have looked like. That's a fair enough suggestion, if Matthew used Mark, but given the beginning of Mark, I doubt Mark had as much at the end as Matthew does.

Tongues 2

2. Tongues in Acts
Most Pentecostals understandably make their home in Acts 2 (thus, Pentecost-als ;-). Acts 2 provides for many a direct association between being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Thus for the original Pentecostals (who had their roots in the holiness movement), speaking in tongues was a second or even third "work of grace" for a Christian after conversion. For those like the United Pentecostal Church, who see the Spirit-fillings of Acts as an essential part of conversion, it is a short step to say that you can't even be a Christian if you do not speak in tongues.

There are a number of problems here.

For one thing, the book of Acts does not say anywhere that tongues are always involved when the Holy Spirit fills a person. There are of course three incidents in Acts where tongues are mentioned when the Holy Spirit comes (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). But there are other places where the Spirit comes and tongues are not mentioned (Acts 4:31; 8:17-19; 9:17-19; and the rest of Acts).

A person who argues you have to speak in tongues to have the Spirit is arguing from the silence of the text. I think Acts does indicate that tongues of its sort are an indication that you have the Spirit (e.g., 10:46). But Acts never says the opposite is true: that you will speak in tongues if you have the Holy Spirit. It never says this.

I might also add that 1 Corinthians 12:30 gives me the final answer on the issue of whether all Christians will speak in tongues: "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" In Greek this is a question introduced by me, thus a question expecting a no answer: "Do all speak in tongues? No" is a legitimate translation. And for those UPCers out there, Paul doesn't say, "Do all have the gift of tongues?" He simply says that all do not speak (laleo) in tongues, the same word that Acts 2:4 uses when it says the apostles spoke (laleo) in different tongues.

As a matter of argument, tongues are rarely mentioned in the New Testament as a whole. They feature prominently in 1 Corinthians where Paul is addressing a problem in the Corinthian church. But he doesn't even mention them in his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6-8 (see their absence also in Ephesians 4:7-13). Indeed, they are last on his list even in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In short, a Pentecostal would not have written the New Testament this way--it would not look this way if their emphases were that of the NT authors.

So what of those Pentecostals who would distinguish between tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit and tongues as a gift, as in 1 Corinthians 12-14? First, this is not a distinction we find the Bible ever making. That's a tell tale sign of a Christian tradition taking over, when the heart of a doctrine is nowhere stated. It's an ingenious way of splicing Acts to 1 Corinthians--just not one the Bible ever says. And I've already mentioned that 1 Corinthians 12:30 argues against this line of interpretation.

Again, if tongues were the evidence of the Holy Spirit, then we would expect it to go hand in hand with any discussion of the Holy Spirit. We would expect John to say the Holy Spirit leads into all truth (John 16:13), convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8), and you will know it because you will speak in tongues. We would expect Romans to say that the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit as we speak in tongues and tells us we are a child of God (Romans 8:16). We would expect Paul to say that the Holy Spirit is a downpayment that guarantees our inheritance (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:14), God's seal of ownership on us (2 Cor. 1:22), made clear as we speak in tongues. And it would sure be great if Hebrews 6:4 would be a little clearer in telling us that the heavenly gift it has in mind is speaking in tongues--it does relate it to partaking of the Holy Spirit, after all.

A Pentecostal would have told us these things in these passages. The New Testament authors did not. The most logical reason they don't is because they do not think of tongues every time they think of the Holy Spirit.

A second thing to think about is the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are human languages, at least that is the most natural way to take it. I think Charles Carter used to suggest that they were speaking the same thing as 1 Corinthians 14, but that the people were given the gift of interpretation to where they heard it in their own languages. Ingenious! But of course Acts says nothing like this. It is another reading into the text to iron out an issue in our theology.

"They began to speak in different languages [tongues] as the Spirit was giving to them to speak out" (Acts 2:4) ... "... each one was hearing them speak in his own dialect (2:6) ... we hear them speaking in our languages [tongues] the great things of God (2:11)."

It seems to me that the most natural way to take this is that they spoke in different languages and the people heard them in those different languages.

I suspect strongly that the tongues of those who claim that their tongues are the evidence of the Holy Spirit would not pass a foreign language test. Yet this seems to be the tongues of Acts 2.

And while Acts 10 and 19 do not tell us if the tongues are foreign languages or not, the book of Acts itself gives us no basis to consider it anything different from the tongues of Acts 2. That is, Acts never informs us of the 1 Corinthians 14 type of tongues. In the story world of Acts, they do not clearly exist. The burden of proof is thus on anyone who would argue that the tongues in Acts 10 and 19 are angelic languages or prayer languages or ecstatic languages or anything other than the different human languages of Acts 2.

So why does Luke mention tongues these three times?

It is interesting to me that the interpretation Peter gives of the tongues in Acts 2 is a Scripture from Joel that sees prophecy as a primary feature of the coming of the Spirit. This fits with the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are used for missionary purposes--not for personal edification as the "evidence" of the Spirit turns out to be in the UPC. One of Luke's special emphasis is that the gospel is for the whole world and to the ends of the earth. How appropriate that the prophetic message be given to people from all over the world through the ability to speak in their languages!

I believe Luke mentions the tongues in Acts 10 to make it clear that the experience of the Gentiles wasn't different in any way from the experience of Jews on the Day of Pentecost. This was a very important point so that Jewish Christians could not claim any superiority over Gentile Christians. Again, tongues in Acts 10 serve an important corporate purpose.

Similarly, I believe that Acts 19 mentions tongues to make it doubly clear that being baptized by John the Baptist was not the same thing as being baptized by the Spirit. The tongues emphasize this point. Again, tongues serve to make a theological point here.

A final note. The text of Acts 2, presenting us with events on the Day of Pentecost, has proved to be extremely important as a sacrament of revelation both to Wesleyan and Pentecostal communities of faith. Indeed, this text is more important to us than to most other Christian communities. A good deal of our past identity is tied up with a particular reading of this text. Without closing the doors to these sacramental means of theological grace, we might also keep in mind an original meaning concern in the process.

While we have four gospels, we have only one Acts. Those gospels are often quite unique from each other and can differ both in arrangement and emphasis. Indeed, in some instances we might be quite misled if we had only one of them.

For example, we would not know that Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth to Bethlehem if we didn't have Luke. We would think they had always lived in Bethlehem and only moved to Nazareth after Jesus was born (from Matthew). Similarly, we would not know that Jesus spoke in parables or cast out demons if all we had was John.

Here's the warning: if we had second volumes to Matthew, Mark, or John, they would likely differ as much from Acts as Luke differs from Matthew, Mark, and John. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how they would differ.

So we probably should not take Acts to be a straightforward videotape of events in the life of the early church. This fact argues against basing the core of one's theology on a specific way of reading between the lines of the specifics of Acts. And that is exactly what Pentecostals tend to do.

Tongues 1

I don't know how much I will blog on tongues, but this entry hath come forth.

What are tongues?
The Greek word glossa means "tongue" (as in the organ in your mouth) but also by extension, "language" (the thing your tongue speaks). Paul mentions the "tongues of humans and angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1, and the fact that the Testament of Job tells of Job's daughters speaking in angelic tongues leads us to take "angels" seriously in this verse (although some argue it is a later Christian addition to the text). In other words, when certain non-Christian Jews spoke in "tongues," they apparently believed they were speaking in angelic languages.

Were they? Were the Corinthians possibly speaking in angelic languages? I personally doubt it, but must remain open to the possibility. Paul speaks of the "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2) and likely alludes to the dead "under the earth" (Phil. 2:10), but I see such language as God incarnating truth in their ancient worldview. Of course don't take me to believe the sun goes around the earth just because I might occasionally say something about the "sun setting." So we have at least three possibilities: 1) sometimes people do speak in angelic languages, 2) Paul never really understood the phrase "angelic languages" literally in the first place, and 3) while he may have thought of them literally, this is an instance of God revealing something through their ancient worldview.

We actually get mixed signals on whether tongues are human languages (xenoglossia) or not in the biblical texts. In Acts 2, the most obvious interpretation is that the disciples are speaking in human languages. Jews hear the gospel proclaimed in their own tongues from all around the Mediterranean Sea. On the other hand, Paul speaks of the tongues at Corinth more in terms of "the tongues of angels." They do not pray with their minds (14:10, 19). The words are unintelligible (cf. 14:7-11). And Paul's presumption is that unbelievers will not understand them (14:21-23).

So the Bible implies that tongues might be human languages or they might be something else that Paul alludes to in one way or another as "tongues of angels."

I might point out that in something like its 1 Corinthians 14 variety, tongues seems to be a pan-religious phenomenon. I have already mentioned non-Christian Jews above who apparently spoke in tongues. I do not feel it necessary to say that such individuals were demon possessed or that Satan was in these instances counterfeiting the genuine article. The most logical explanation to me is that certain brains are just wired to have these kinds of experiences. And in the case of Christians, God sanctifies the experience as a means of grace. This is just my personal hunch as to what is going on in the vast majority of cases where tongues is spoken today. I am open to other possibilities.

So the Bible refers to two different kinds of activity as speaking in tongues. First, in Acts 2 individuals speak in tongues in a way that serves as a witness to unbelievers. Second, in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul speaks of tongues that shouldn't be done around unbelievers (glossolalia). But the biblical text refers to both as tongues. You cannot tell by the word "tongues" itself which the Bible refers to apart from context.

What Bugs Me About the United Pentecostal Church

Every year it seems I end up talking to some student about a faith crisis they're in because someone from the UPC is evangelizing them. I wrote a little on this last year (it's on my archive site www.kenschenck.com). I may actually write up a formal response sometime--this isn't it.

Today I just want to make it clear what bugs me about the UPC.

First, I like the people I know in it. I think they're good people. They're vibrant. Indeed, the main attraction of the church that there's something going on there. And then there's the certainty both of what they believe and about what is true in general. In an uncertain world of grey, that's a plus.

Second, the fact that they speak in tongues doesn't bug me. Tongues is a pan-religious phenomenon that has been around forever. We have literature that indicates some ancient Jews spoke in tongues. There are Muslims who speakin tongues. And of course many Christians speak in tongues. I would never accuse someone of being demon possessed for speaking in tongues.

Acts clearly sanctions tongues, particularly understood as speaking in other languages that one hasn't studied. Bill Faupel, who used to be a librarian at Asbury, did his doctoral dissertation on how the individuals in Topeka in 1901 who mark the beginnings of the modern charismatic movement 1) were holiness folk seeking the Pentecostal blessing understood as a second work of entire sanctification and 2) thought that they were speaking in human languages. Evidently many of them actually went to foreign countries thinking that they would be able to spread the gospel to them because of their experience of tongues. Of course they failed miserably.

Paul addresses tongues as a problem in the Corinthian church (they don't even make his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 where tongues is not at issue, an indication that tongues was not high on Paul's list of priorities). He says not to forbid speaking in tongues--note the trajectory he is moving in: away from tongues but don't forbid, not toward tongues but don't promote. In the flow of that argument 14:1 is a continuation of 12:31, which indicates that prophecy is a "greater gift" while tongues is one he is not saying to eagerly desire.

I'm getting off topic. My goal was not to "put the gift of tongues in its place," although this is my attempt at an objective assessment of tongues. Tongues simply is not a major emphasis of the New Testament and the New Testament would not look the way it does if a Pentecostal had written its books. It's easy to get lost in an exegetical forest of interpreting individual verses. Indeed, the exegetical ethos of our circles fosters a spirit of "reading into the text."

I'll be the first to admit up front that my holiness background did exactly the same thing. But there is no single place in the entire Bible where the "second work of grace, entire sanctification doctrine" is laid down the way I heard it preached growing up. If a holiness preacher of my background had written the New Testament, it would not look the way it does. I step back and conclude that there is some myopia at work here.

But the speaking in tongues does not bother me. I truly believe that those who speak in tongues are experiencing God and how can that be anything other than a blessing, to have such a clear moment of divine engagement. Those with the gift are truly blessed in this regard. No better and definitely not more spiritual, but blessed. I can live easily with this feature of the UPC.

Third, I can live with their heretical views of the Trinity. I'm a proto-Pentecostal as we've said, so I'm more interested in the heart than the head. If God always corrected everyone's head then all Christians would believe the same thing. They don't.

Of course this group thinks all Christians think the same way. But in effect this leads them to believe that the only true Christians were the original church and members of their church since the early 1900's. I'm sure just on the percentage of human beings whose head is hard wired for tongues that a certain percentage of all humans speak in tongues at any one point in history. So we know there have been Christians in all times who have spoken in tongues (and Buddhists and members of mystery cults in ancient Greece).

BUT, we don't know of any Christians who were modalists who spoke in tongues, let alone who were baptized in the name of Jesus only, until the early 1900's.

Similarly, as a New Testament scholar I can say they're going the wrong direction with regard to the New Testament. The debate in the NT is whether the early Christians even believed Jesus to be divine in the same way as God the Father. The debate is not whether Jesus and God the Father are different individuals. It is not until the late 200's that modalism emerges as one potential solution to how Jesus and God the Father can both be God.

This puts them in the strange position of being the only Christians in the history of Christianity who are going to heaven.

But I can live with their head being a little off.

Fourth, it doesn't bother me that they think I'm not a Christian. I understand how religious ideas work. I know it's not personal. I'm sure that some of them think they're "holier than thou" but I bet the best of them aren't. There's nothing wrong with believing you're right. The logical consequences are that I'm wrong and not on my way to heaven.

But I can live with that, because I know I am. The Spirit bears witness with my Spirit that I am a child of God. And of course, as usual, there is no mention of tongues in 1 John (or John, or Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or 2 Corinthians, or ....), so I will only conclude that this verse involves tongues if I bring that idea to the text with me. The Bible doesn't say it.

So I can live with them saying I'm on my way to hell.

Fifth, what really bugs me is the faith crisis they throw others into who aren't as sure as I am. And that's why I feel the need to put the group into proper perspective at some point. What do you call a group that stands outside the historic faith of the church as a twentieth century off shoot of a historical movement particular to its time that doesn't know how to read Scripture in context and thinks only its members are Christians. You call it a cult.

United Pentecostal Church 1

There is a vibrant UPC community in and around Indiana Wesleyan, and every year it seems like various questions arise by students about it, so I thought I would blog a somewhat more formal response on my part that I can use for any future engagement.

Identifying the Church's Distinctives
First of all, the church's website identifies itself in the following way:

"The doctrinal views of the UPCI reflect most of the beliefs of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement, with the exception of the "second work of grace," the historic doctrine of the Trinity, and the traditional Trinitarian formula in water baptism. It embraces the Pentecostal view that speaking in tongues is the initial sign of receiving the Holy Spirit."

This is a very good summary of its distinctives and before we go into much detail on it, it will be helpful to "parse" these statements:

1. It's beliefs reflect most of the beliefs of the Holiness-Pentecostal movement.
The founders of the UPC were initially part of the assemblies of God movement that became somewhat organized in 1914. But in 1916 when the Assemblies of God Church formalized its doctrinal beliefs, the founders of the UPC went their own way primarily over the doctrine of the Trinity.

2. ...with the exeption of the "second work of grace"


3. ... the historic doctrine of the Trinity, and the traditional Trinitarian formula in water baptism
The UPC in this regard stands outside the historic faith of the church and implies as much when it speaks of the "historic" doctrine of the Trinity.

We should emphasize the uniqueness of their position on this matter. You can point to speaking in tongues throughout the history of the church here and there. The vast majority of those who have called themselves Christians throughout the ages have not spoken in tongues. For this reason, the UPC must by virtue of their doctrine say that the overwhelming majority of those who have called themselves Christians have not really been Christians.

But their claims are far more radical than this. It is not just non-tongues speakers who are not Christians--it is those who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity. There were of course modalists in the early church, particularly in the late 200's. A modalist is someone who believes that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all different phases of one person, that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct or different persons but the same person at different points of time. But we have no evidence that a single one of these spoke in tongues. I imagine a few did, just going on the percentages of people in the world (Christian and non-Christian) who experience tongues at any one point in history. But even if a few modalists did speak in tongues, they still baptized in the name of the Trinity--they believed the Trinitarian formula meant something else, but still used it.

The importance of this combination--both tongues and modalist baptizing in the name of Jesus only--effectively implies that the only people who will be in heaven are members of the UPC in the twentieth and now twenty-first century. This arbitrary conglomeration going to heaven is so restrictive that we must classify the UPC as a cult.

The UPC is of course pre-modern in its use of Scripture and so doesn't notice how bizarre a claim this is from a historical perspective--that the only people we know are going to heaven for sure are those who since the early 1900's have both spoken in tongues and been baptized in the name of Jesus only.