“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16: 11)
The Basket Case Chronicles #171
“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” (1 Cor. 14:26–28).
When the body gathers together, those with different gifts bring different things. One man has a psalm to sing, another man has a teaching, yet another has an utterance in a tongue, and a fourth and fifth man have a revelation and an interpretation. The principle is not that everyone gets to present what they have brought. Rather, the principle is that the body as a whole must be edified and built up. If the man who brings a tongue has an unknown tongue (that is, unknown to the congregation), then Paul sets down an explicit and defined rule. No more than two or three may present, they must go in order, one at a time, and everything that is spoken in an unknown tongue must be translated. If no interpreter is available, then the person with an unknown tongue must keep all the good stuff to himself, praying silently to God.
If this is the rule for genuine languages, miraculously acquired, how much more does it need to be the rule for jumbled up syllables? Those utterances which have a meaning must have that meaning rendered to the congregation. Those utterances which have no meaning at all cannot be so rendered, and so are prohibited.
“not that everyone gets to present”
Hol’ up, thar — but should it be now almost nobody gets to present?
Ain’t it a bit unsettling seeing church assemblies so scripted & controlled by elders who take decency & order to whole new level?!
OK on the language rule, and on the babbling rule, but I’m with Eric on who can edify the body. Yeah, there should be overseers who oversee; I’m fully persuaded of that. But that they should be monopolizers who monopolize, I am not persuaded. “I would that ye ALL spake with tongues” (I Cor 14:5–that’s not Doug, that’s Paul giving out Jehovah’s word; cf “I thank God I speak with tongues more than ye all”–does Doug thank God he speaks with tongues less?) “but rather that ye prophesied”…”If therefore the whole church [not just a small group] be come together… Read more »
Andrew — I for one am really looking forward to reading that now.
But as open as I’d like to have it, that would necessitate a really gifted, hands-on pastor to keep a holy lid on things.
Often established church leader folk just aren’t equipped, I think.
Plus they’re salary and vows require party line procedure.
Guys, Paul was writing during a time when tongues were still in use. Imagine getting home, getting out of the car and then asking your friend why they aren’t using the brakes anymore. (Hint: It’s because you’re not driving anymore.) While the car is still in use you need to use brakes, but not after the journey is over.
There’s plenty of evidence in Scripture that after the canon is closed tongues will be no more. Just read MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos and Chantry’s Signs of the Apostles for starters.
Scripture is not superseded by commentaries my friend. Where is anyone gathering that only select individuals should speak? The point it seems: speaking should be powered by the Spirit as evidenced in purposeful pointedness.
Nick: It would take awhile to explain. I’m not superseding commentaries with Scripture. I’m just saying there are good explanations there.
A really really really short synopsis: tongues is a kind of prophecy (see Acts 2. Peter quotes Joel 2 and says the the tongues speaking is a fulfillment of that verse). Ephesians 5 says that the *foundation* of the church is the apostles and prophets. By definition, a foundation can only be laid once. So, apostles and prophets are no more. Thus tongues have ceased because it is a form of prophecy.