I said three "utterances" in tongues to cover both possibilities. (I figured that if Paul meant three speakers, then that would involve three utterances anyway - so saying three "utterances" rather than three speakers covers both possibilities without taking a side between the translation options. It wasn't necessary to my purpose in this Post to take a side on that.)
As for reconciling Paul's instructions with the Book of Acts, I don't think the Holy Spirit would inspire something to happen early in the Church, only to inspire instructions to be written against that very thing later in the history of the Church. So since the Holy Spirit inspired more than three people to speak with tongues on one occasion, it follows that He wouldn't be against it on another occasion if the circumstances were the same.
I therefore conclude that Paul's advice to the Corinthians to limit utterances in tongues to two or three, must have been with different circumstances in mind than the circumstances in the upper room (and the circumstances at Cornelius' house, and at Ephesus).
I don't see why God would approve of an unlimited number of utterances in tongues during an evangelistic event, only to restrict it to two or three during a Church event. Is God less interested in speaking to His people supernaturally than He is to unbelieving people? Is it any harder to listen to more than three speakers in church than it is out on the streets?
If God approves of everyone prophesying one by one, so long as the prophecies are intermitted by one judging in every three, as you have suggested, why would He then disapprove of more than one cycle of three utterances in tongues followed by interpretation, seeing tongues with interpretation is equal to prophecy in its ability to edify a congregation?
Paul didn't seem to decry "if all speak with tongues" any more than he decried that "ye may all prophecy one by one" - his only concern seemed to be that it be interpreted or judged.
So if Paul allowed any number of prophecies, then it's conceivable he also allowed any number of utterances in tongues - so long as it was interpreted.
But no matter whether Paul allowed more than three with one interpreting, or limited it to three, we still have some reconciling to do with the Book of Acts - because in the Book of Acts it doesn't state that the three-to-one ratio of speakers to interpreter/judge took place.
Perhaps it's helpful to see that at Corinth, speakers were standing up, holding the floor, addressing the congregation, and expecting the congregation's undivided attention - while in the instances in the Book of Acts, no-one was addressing the congregation per se, no-one was holding the floor as such, no-one was being obtrusive, no-one was drawing the congregation's undivided attention to himself, rather everyone was being filled with the Spirit and speaking with tongues.
If an unbeliever is going to think a group of tongues-speakers are mad just because of the fact of speaking with unknown tongues, then he's going to think they're mad no matter whether fewer than three or the whole group are speaking with unknown tongues. So limiting the number of speakers to three can't avoid an unbeliever thinking they're mad, if it was the fact of speaking in an unknown tongue alone that was the issue.
Perhaps the issue was simply that the Corinthians were taking turns at addressing the congregation in unknown tongues, one by one, week after week, without any thought to whether anyone got anything out of it. Anyone with common sense would question the sense in that!
But on other circumstances when no-one was actually addressing the congregation, but instead everyone was being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues, in those instances there was never any concern that unbelievers might think they were mad - rather, that very phenomenon itself was a sign to everyone who witnessed it.
In Jerusalem that phenomenon resulted in 3000 getting saved. In Cornelius' household it resulted in Peter understanding that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. At Ephesus it confirmed the Gospel as the completion of John the Baptist's message. Never in those circumstances was anyone concerned that there had been more than three utterances in tongues - there was no mention of the three-to-one ratio involving an interpreter/judge - because no-one was holding the floor as such.
Paul's advice to the Corinthians was really quite practical: there was no point them addressing a congregation if the congregation didn't understand. But as for praying in tongues - and as for circumstances where everyone is speaking with tongues together without anyone actually addressing the congregation - then it was likely fine - if the Book of Acts is any example to us at all.
So if the leader of a prayer meeting says, "Lets's all spend a moment praying in tongues to God", unbelievers wouldn't necessarily think that action lacked common sense, provided their issue wasn't with the phenomenon of tongues itself irrespective of how many were speaking it.
Or if the Holy Spirit falls on a meeting and everyone begins speaking with tongues, unbelievers' first thought wouldn't be that these people lacked common courtesy.
But if everyone is lecturing to an audience in unknown tongues without anyone understanding, then unbelievers would straightaway think that action lacked common sense and courtesy.
Comparing the incidences in Acts with the circumstances at Corinth is a bit like comparing the protocol among spectators in a basketball arena with the protocol of lecturers in a lecture hall.
In a basket ball stadium it doesn't matter that the spectators are all carrying on conversations in different languages all at the same time. But in a lecture hall it would lack common sense and courtesy if lecturers take the podium and continuously spoke in unknown languages without ever using a translator.
Does that explanation work?
As for reconciling Paul's instructions with the Book of Acts, I don't think the Holy Spirit would inspire something to happen early in the Church, only to inspire instructions to be written against that very thing later in the history of the Church. So since the Holy Spirit inspired more than three people to speak with tongues on one occasion, it follows that He wouldn't be against it on another occasion if the circumstances were the same.
I therefore conclude that Paul's advice to the Corinthians to limit utterances in tongues to two or three, must have been with different circumstances in mind than the circumstances in the upper room (and the circumstances at Cornelius' house, and at Ephesus).
I don't see why God would approve of an unlimited number of utterances in tongues during an evangelistic event, only to restrict it to two or three during a Church event. Is God less interested in speaking to His people supernaturally than He is to unbelieving people? Is it any harder to listen to more than three speakers in church than it is out on the streets?
If God approves of everyone prophesying one by one, so long as the prophecies are intermitted by one judging in every three, as you have suggested, why would He then disapprove of more than one cycle of three utterances in tongues followed by interpretation, seeing tongues with interpretation is equal to prophecy in its ability to edify a congregation?
Paul didn't seem to decry "if all speak with tongues" any more than he decried that "ye may all prophecy one by one" - his only concern seemed to be that it be interpreted or judged.
So if Paul allowed any number of prophecies, then it's conceivable he also allowed any number of utterances in tongues - so long as it was interpreted.
But no matter whether Paul allowed more than three with one interpreting, or limited it to three, we still have some reconciling to do with the Book of Acts - because in the Book of Acts it doesn't state that the three-to-one ratio of speakers to interpreter/judge took place.
Perhaps it's helpful to see that at Corinth, speakers were standing up, holding the floor, addressing the congregation, and expecting the congregation's undivided attention - while in the instances in the Book of Acts, no-one was addressing the congregation per se, no-one was holding the floor as such, no-one was being obtrusive, no-one was drawing the congregation's undivided attention to himself, rather everyone was being filled with the Spirit and speaking with tongues.
If an unbeliever is going to think a group of tongues-speakers are mad just because of the fact of speaking with unknown tongues, then he's going to think they're mad no matter whether fewer than three or the whole group are speaking with unknown tongues. So limiting the number of speakers to three can't avoid an unbeliever thinking they're mad, if it was the fact of speaking in an unknown tongue alone that was the issue.
Perhaps the issue was simply that the Corinthians were taking turns at addressing the congregation in unknown tongues, one by one, week after week, without any thought to whether anyone got anything out of it. Anyone with common sense would question the sense in that!
But on other circumstances when no-one was actually addressing the congregation, but instead everyone was being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues, in those instances there was never any concern that unbelievers might think they were mad - rather, that very phenomenon itself was a sign to everyone who witnessed it.
In Jerusalem that phenomenon resulted in 3000 getting saved. In Cornelius' household it resulted in Peter understanding that God had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. At Ephesus it confirmed the Gospel as the completion of John the Baptist's message. Never in those circumstances was anyone concerned that there had been more than three utterances in tongues - there was no mention of the three-to-one ratio involving an interpreter/judge - because no-one was holding the floor as such.
Paul's advice to the Corinthians was really quite practical: there was no point them addressing a congregation if the congregation didn't understand. But as for praying in tongues - and as for circumstances where everyone is speaking with tongues together without anyone actually addressing the congregation - then it was likely fine - if the Book of Acts is any example to us at all.
So if the leader of a prayer meeting says, "Lets's all spend a moment praying in tongues to God", unbelievers wouldn't necessarily think that action lacked common sense, provided their issue wasn't with the phenomenon of tongues itself irrespective of how many were speaking it.
Or if the Holy Spirit falls on a meeting and everyone begins speaking with tongues, unbelievers' first thought wouldn't be that these people lacked common courtesy.
But if everyone is lecturing to an audience in unknown tongues without anyone understanding, then unbelievers would straightaway think that action lacked common sense and courtesy.
Comparing the incidences in Acts with the circumstances at Corinth is a bit like comparing the protocol among spectators in a basketball arena with the protocol of lecturers in a lecture hall.
In a basket ball stadium it doesn't matter that the spectators are all carrying on conversations in different languages all at the same time. But in a lecture hall it would lack common sense and courtesy if lecturers take the podium and continuously spoke in unknown languages without ever using a translator.
Does that explanation work?
No comments:
Post a Comment