Addressing Continuationist Arguments from 1 Corinthians 14 - by Eric Davis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------

This is a continuation of the author's previous missive, which we commented upon here.

--------------------
(...)

With that, a few responses to some of the stronger arguments in favor of the continuationist position from 1 Corinthians 14. In each, a continuationist position is given, with a cessationist response.

“The gift of tongues as a prayer language is the act of speaking to God by the Spirit in prayer, just as it says in v. 2.”

“For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries” (1 Cor. 14:2).

Continuationists often hold that, as stated in v. 2, those speaking in tongues are speaking to God, not people. (Well, that is what Paul said, isn't it?)

Tongues cannot be the miraculous ability to speak a previously unlearned foreign language to other people (Is this truly an argument made by continuationists? Frankly, we are unaware of any continuationist making such a statement.)

because Paul describes the gift as the act of speaking to God. Therefore, some sort of prayer language from the believer to God is in view.

Response:

This position clashes with the context of Paul’s correction. The discussion is not about a private prayer language, but intelligibility in the worship service. It would not make sense, for example, to say, “One who prays a private prayer language doesn’t speak to men, but to God, for no one understands him.” Why? Paul is not talking about anything private, but everything corporate; about the public gatherings. ("In the context" the author describes, Paul writes:

1Co. 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

So "in the context" we find Paul explaining that people in the worship service were edifying themselves. 

1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

Again, "in the context" we find Paul advocating for tongues!

In addition, Paul's narratives often inserts ancillary ideas, deviations from the narrative, or brief tangents. 

For example: 

2Co. 11:18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast.

Ep. 5:9 for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth

1Th. 4:9 Now about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

He. 11:32 And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets...

These parenthetical thoughts are frequently injected into the biblical narrative. We should not be surprised, therefore, that Paul steers briefly from the topic to insert an aside.)

Further, the problem happening in the Corinthian congregation was using the spiritual gift of languages/tongues with no translation. The church was spiritually proud. Individuals with the gift would speak languages miraculously, but no one would translate, (The author dishonestly tries again to switch terms, like he did in his previous article. The word is not "translate," it is "interpret.")

which means no one understood. Consequently, the word of God was not taught and no one was edified. It was simply a spiritual fireworks show for the self-exalting benefit of the speaker. (The author is imposing on the narrative. 

1Co. 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit... 

1Co. 14:27-28 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two — or at the most three — should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. 

Notice that speaking in a tongue is speaking to God. We repeat, this tongues is speaking to God. When interpreted, tongues are prophetic, mysteries that are brought forth.

However, there is no requirement that the tongue must be interpreted. If there is no interpreter, the tongues speaker should speak to himself and God. That is, a private prayer uttered to God.)

Also, it is possible that others in the congregation were attempting to mimic the gift out of jealousy. As was popular in Greek culture then, some may have been imitating the Greek pagan practice of non-language, ecstatic utterances. However, it seems most likely that Paul is addressing is the genuine gift of languages being used without interpretation.

So what does it mean that “no one understands” and he “does not speak to men but to God”?

Since no one was interpreting the languages, the only one who could understand the languages was God. Consistent with Acts 2, individuals in Corinth spoke real languages. (The author states his premise as if it were evidence for his case.)

However, only God could understand since no one who spoke the language was present to translate. It was a mystery in that sense. (Which is not what the passage says! The author is attempting to force the passage into his preconception. "Mystery" is mustérion, which is a mystery, secret, of which initiation is necessary; in the NT: the counsels of God, once hidden but now revealed in the Gospel or some fact thereof; the Christian revelation generally; particular truths or details of the Christian revelation.

There is no usage of this word in the NT as described by the author. It is always related to the great purposes of God previously hidden and now being revealed.

And again, "translate" is not the same as "interpret.")

Additionally, if there were a Spirit-endowed private prayer language, we might expect Paul to say something like, “One who prays in a tongue,” in v. 2, using one of the Greek words for prayer, such as proseuchomai or deomai. However, he uses the Greek word laleo, which refers to human speech. Thus, it is not a Spirit-endowed utterance that is in view, but known, human languages. 

But this brings up another issue. 

“Paul does mention praying in a tongue later in v. 14, so, the continuationist position is viable.”

“If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14).(Oh, my. The author makes a categorical statement, then immediately quotes a verse that contradicts his own statement. We no longer have confidence that the author is a competent Bible expositor.) 

Both Guzik and Fee argue that Paul’s point is to simply observe how things are in the act of praying Spirit-endowed utterances to God. And, in doing so, they both assert that it is perfectly fine for one’s mind to be unfruitful.” Guzik writes,

“For some, this bypassing of the understanding is undesirable. They never want to relate to God except by and through their understanding…If someone is perfectly satisfied with their ability to relate to God through their understanding, they really have no need for the gift of tongues. But if the day comes when they desire to relate to God beyond their ability to understand, they should seek God for the gift of tongues.”

Response:

This position seems to violate the plain teaching of the passage. (That is, it seems to violate the preconceptions the author is trying to impose.)

Again, Paul is correcting abuse of the gift of languages.

First, the Greek term translated, “unfruitful,” has the idea of “useless” (Louw-Nida, 65.34). This term is never used in a positive sense within the New Testament. (Indeed. That's Paul's point! Untranslated tongues is useless for the mind, and Paul prefers [not requires, though] things that are useful for the mind.)

In fact, the term “fruitful” refers to genuine attitudes and behavior that evidence the true work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian’s life (cf. Matt. 3:8, 14:23; Gal 5:22-23). And, we could go to Matthew 21:19 to see what our Lord things of unfruitfulness. Peter exhorts us to avoid being “useless” or “unfruitful” (same Greek word) (2 Pet. 1:8). From passages like John 15:2 and Jude 12, we see that the unfruitful person is not a Christian. Every use of the term is speaking of unbelievers, sin, or false teachers. And, we are to love the Lord our God with all our mind, not with an unfruitful, useless mind. (The author embarks on a rant, seemingly forgetting that the verse tells us our spirits can be fruitful:

1Co. 14:14-15 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.

Notice that Paul embraces both. He WILL pray with his spirit, he WILL pray with his mind.

It's beginning to be clear that the author is cherry-picking phrases and verses to suit him. He's hoping that no one will actually read the Scriptural narrative in its entirety.)

Paul teaches here that to pray in a way that is unintelligible is not something he wants them doing. (This is quite false.)

They are to pray in a way that is understandable to them and others. Otherwise, they risk mimicking the drunken Greek oraclers and the pagans who do not know God. (Again, completely false! Throughout the narrative Paul is assenting the the speaking in tongues, whether privately or in the congregational edification. You will never find him forbidding anything! 

1Co. 14:12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

He's trying to persuade the Corinthian church to edify one another using their gifts. It's a better way. But he doesn't forbid edifying one's self!

1Co. 14:26 What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

From scenes in heaven, to the Temple, to the Garden of Gethsemane, to boats, and more, Scripture is full of prayers. Yet, not one of them records an occasion of a non-earthly language. (Argument from Silence. But of course, how does he know there weren't interpreted tongues recorded? Further, why would there be uninterpreted tongues written down? That doesn't even make sense.

Lastly, Isaiah 28:10 is a written down tongue:

Is. 28:10 For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; [Hebrew: sav lasav sav lasav kav lakav kav lakav (possibly meaningless sounds; perhaps a mimicking of the prophet’s words); also in verse 13] a little here, a little there.”)

They are all known human languages. (The reader may wish to read our commentary on tongues.)

Thus, Paul is not describing something he wants them doing, but correcting misuse and misunderstanding of the gift. (All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.)

Paul is saying, in effect, “Christians, though it might make you feel good, I don’t want you to be caught up in mindless activity in prayer. (All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.)

Use simple, plain language, just like every other prayer recorded in God’s word. (All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.)

“The gift of tongues as a private prayer language is greatly used to draw me to God and, thus, edify me, just as it says in v. 4.”

“One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church” (1 Cor. 14:4).

Continuationists teach a variety of positions. Some, like Fee, teach that Paul corrects the use of the Spirit-endowed utterances in corporate worship (657). Gruzik argues that this is not correctional, and there is nothing wrong with the edification of self.

Response:

Keeping with the context, v. 4 is corrective in nature. Edifying self is never to be the focus of spiritual gifts. (again we quote:

1Co. 14:12 So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.

We are not asserting that edifying one's self is a goal, but it's a long way to claim that we should never focus on edifying ourselves. Indeed, what would be the use of studying Scripture, if not to gain knowledge? What would be the purpose of a devotional, since the prayers are spoken in private? 

In fact, the author's statement is nonsensical on its face.

1Ti. 4:8 For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.

He. 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.)

If Paul were teaching that there were such a spiritual gift to be exercised for self-edification, (the author moves the goalposts. First is was "focus" on self-edification, and now it's "exercised" for self-edification.)

that would contradict everything said in the previous two chapters on spiritual gifts. In fact, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 in large part precisely to correct the idea of serving oneself. It’s no coincidence that the content of chapters 12 and 13 precede that of 14.

In chapter 12, Paul taught that the purposes of spiritual gifts are: 1) to shine the light on Christ, and, 2) to build up other people in tangible ways. Or, we could say, spiritual gifts are: 1) Jesus-centered, not me-centered, and, 2) community-benefitting, (sic) not self-serving.

Paul gives additional insight on spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 13 which rule out the idea of a private gift exercised for self-edification. He exhorts the church in a corrective way, explaining that spiritual gifts are to be used in love. Among other things, love “does not seek its own” (v. 5).

Furthermore, the validity of a spiritual gift is based upon falling in the category of building up others; (12:7;14:3-6, 12-13, 19, 26-28). Spiritual gifts are to put Christ in lights and be used for the common good, which is the opposite of serving myself. We are built up when others use their spiritual gifts while we are the recipients. Paul explained this idea with “the body of Christ” metaphor in chapter 12. A body part does not exist for itself (to edify self) but for the benefit of the other parts. A human lung does not exist for the lung, but to provide the body with oxygen. This rules out the possibility of a Holy Spirit-given gift or ability which is a private practice used for self-edification. (The author seems to have difficulty with the idea of primary purposes and secondary purposes. Everything is a binary equation for him. That is, if something is best used as X, then it cannot be used as Y. This is not nuanced thinking.)

Further, Scripture delineates the gifts generally as speaking and serving gifts (1 Pet. 4:10-11). The cessationist position is consistent with 1 Peter 4:10, in that it was a speaking gift, just like exhortation is a speaking gift. The miraculous ability to speak a previously unlearned foreign language to preach Christ was a wonderful speaking gift used to greatly edify others.

Much more could be said of 1 Corinthians 14 in favor of the cessationist position, for example, the absolute necessity that the gift is a known, human language (v. 11) and how the gift is for unbelievers, indicating that God would now include non-Jews in his redemptive plan (v. 22, consistent with Acts 2 as a spoken, human language),

Conclusion

Therefore, from these verses in 1 Corinthians 14, it is clear that, as in Acts 2, the gift of languages was the miraculous ability to speak an unlearned language that is known by others for the purpose of exalting Christ and building up others. It served as a loud statement at the birth and foundational time of the church to declare that God’s plan of redemption is no longer restricted to one nation, but all nations. It served as a statement of judgment by God on Israel for failing their mission to be a light to the nations. This gift ceased with the apostolic era in the first century as the New Testament church foundation was established.