New Thoughts (08/08/18-08/16/18)
Pursuit (08/09/18)
Chapter 14 picks up with the closing thought of Chapter 12. It’s not as though Chapter 13 interrupted the thought. Rather, it has been a lengthy build up to this very point: Pursue love, yet desire gifts. This sets two words before us: diokete and zeloute. The latter of these terms is the echo of Chapter 12. Gifts are to be desired. Love is to be pursued. But, what is the distinction? Well, for one thing, gifts are not to be pursued. Such pursuit leads to envy, jealousy, and error. Let’s try to get some definition to this, shall we?
Pursuit, diokete, is fervent, even singular in its focus. Dodderidge, we are told, describes it as pursuing with an eagerness akin to that of a hunter pursuing game. For those who don’t hunt, perhaps you’ve seen one who does, or at least observed it in the animal kingdom: Your cat, perhaps. One on the hunt, and with the prey in sight, will not be distracted. Nothing will dissuade it from its pursuit while the hunt is on. Nothing will turn its attention from the object of the hunt. There is the attitude we are encouraged to have towards love. It is in sight! Indeed, it is something that you have already been given – you don’t need to desire it. It is already yours. It remains to become what you are. Pursue that. Pursue it as your singular concern from which nothing – not opposition, not the mundanity of life, not the excitements of the supernatural – will distract your attention. Seek it whatever the cost!
Now, you may well ask, if it is already mine, why am I called to pursue it in such singular fashion? Your own experience gives you the answer, does it not? This love, while it is already ours, remains something hard, one might go so far as to say impossible, for us to lay hold of, let alone retain. Recall the description of that love: It bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things. However necessary it is to set bounds on the ‘all things’ part (and it clearly is necessary), there remains this: This love never fails (1Co 13:7-8). Never! Now, then: Have you attained to such love, even for the briefest of moments? Let us say that perhaps you have. Have you remained in that moment? Are you even now in that never failing state of bearing all things? Again, it may be that you are. Yet, I am quite confident in asserting that there have been and will be moments when that which should have been born, believed, hoped, and endured was not.
Listen: Before you get puffed up with your own wondrous accomplishments in the department of love and write me off as some weak brother who has not yet grown in Christ, recognize this. The love we are discussing is the very essence of God. Like His knowledge, it remains far and away above us. His ways are not our ways. Would that they were, and I dare say that is His goal for us, that our ways will indeed become more and more shaped to His ways. But, we are not there yet, nor shall we be this side of heaven. It’s not an excuse, dear one. It’s an acknowledgement. So long as earthly life remains, we shall need our Lord to continue His work in us, to keep chipping away the flakes of unlove that mar our image. We must continue to focus all our attention and effort on attaining to this love because it is the singular, necessary ingredient for our acceptability in heaven. This is, if I may say so without treading on Scripture, more critical to our eternal standing than faith. Faith, it is true, is absolutely necessary if we are to please God. But, love is more necessary still, if we are to be bothered trying. And hope, the third grace, has no reason to exist apart from love. Why would one hope for what one does not desire?
No, this love is not the easy feelings of human love. It’s not even the devotion of familial love. It’s something far greater, far more expansive, far more sacrificial and holy. Pursue it. Don’t take your eyes off that goal. This is, as we have just been told, the gift par excellence. It is a gift, in that it is only ours because God has given of His essence into us. Yet, it is more than a gift. It is a grace, and it is our eternal holy DNA. There, and there only, is something worthy of pursuit.
Now, recognize this about your pursuit: It is done in full expectation and intent of acquiring that which you pursue. Expect it. It is, after all, already yours. It is God in you, do you see? If the fruit of the Spirit must express where He is in residence, surely this most essential of things must as well. It is the most natural thing in Christian faith that this love should be found expressing itself through you. Admittedly, in the flesh it is most unnatural. We are, I think, a rather unloving creature in our fallen condition. And when we do love, it is rarely in such fashion as God intends. It devolves to self-seeking in short order, even when we seek to love others. But, take courage! If this love we are to pursue though we already possess it requires effort to cultivate, yet our pursuit is with full knowledge that we shall indeed obtain it. Our pursuit is encouraged because the very pursuit of this love is for our good. Indeed, if we will retain this love as our singular focus we shall find ourselves guarded against no end of sin and error.
Perhaps you recall the children’s song: “Be careful, little eyes, what you see.” How better to see to the care of our eyes and what they see than to focus them fully upon the love of God?
Desire vs. Envy (08/10/18)
Now, let us consider desire, zeloute. You can recognize the English zealous having its roots here, and also that movement in Israel known as the zealots – Jesus’ disciple Simon having been of their number. It’s still an earnest desire, as the NASB translates it, and in this usage, it remains a healthy desire. But, it’s got to know its limits. We’ve got to know its limits. It’s not hard in this instance, because Paul has laid them out. I’ll let Matthew Henry put it in plain terms for us. “Gifts are fit objects of our desire and pursuit, in subordination to grace and charity.”
Desire for gifts, you see, is not a problem in itself. Indeed, it can be commendable. Lust for gifts, on the other hand, gets to be a problem. Focusing on gifts is most definitely a problem. Remember pursuit? We can’t pursue love while focused on gifts. It doesn’t work. Gifts are subservient to love, and to the other graces. Our desire for them must remain a secondary matter to us. How, then, do we pursue our desire? I like the JFB’s guidance on this. Pursue it with prayer, and also with submission to the Spirit’s will.
Do you see? This will guard you from striving after gifts, which is not the call. This steers you clear of those who think to train you into having a gift. This keeps you well away from demanding that God must give you this gift or that – or that He must surely give to those to whom you wish to give the gift. All of that gets done, and those doing it suppose themselves holy and spiritual for doing so. Yet, all those things fail to heed the instructions given. All those things demonstrate a want of love, and where love is wanting, the gifts will be abused. Turned round, where the gifts are abused, be quite sure love is wanting.
How shall we know? Well, for one, when the gifts are not properly held to be subservient to love, you will find envy and strife arising because of their pursuit. This can happen in many ways. It may happen because one with a particular gift feels they MUST exercise it no matter what anybody else thinks. This doesn’t edify. It causes strife. It may happen because one sees another’s gift as more spiritual spectacular and feels rejected for not having been given the same. This keeps them from being edified because envy has risen up. It comes, certainly, when the use of gifts becomes a sort of spiritual merit badge. This may manage to edify some, but love is not in it. Ego is.
This may be the single worst issue that the Charismatic movement has to deal with. It has managed, willfully or blindly, to elevate gifts to the pinnacle of pursuit, and love has been dislodged. Where Jesus says, “By your love they will know you are Mine,” they have determined, “By your tongues we will know you are His.” The Truth may yet be received from the pulpit in such an environment, for God’s Truth is more powerful than man’s sin. But, by and large, one finds that the message will be less well received if delivered in simple fashion than if it is delivered with claims of prophetic (or apostolic, now – as if) inspiration. It’s like the wife who can’t hear wisdom from her husband until the same wisdom has been delivered by her girlfriends. Then, suddenly, it’s true and wise. Until then, it’s just evidence that you don’t understand her.
This is a balance we need to discover, whether inclined to gifts or not. They are gifts and they are to be desired. They are not to be pursued. That singular focus of life is to be set upon the love that identifies us as truly belonging to Christ, truly indwelt by God. Neither, though, are they to be despised. They are certainly nothing that can be demanded. Does one demand a gift? Not if they are more than, say, four years old, no. We understand that the power to decide what and whether to give lies with the giver, not the receiver. If our children come demanding gifts from us, we rightly recognize this as highly presumptuous of them, and seek to train them to understand this in their own right. It’s unhealthy, childish thinking, and needs to be set aside. It’s no different when we are the child demanding gifts from God. It is presumptuous. It is unhealthy, childish thinking, such as Paul taught us to set aside as mature believers (1Co 13:11 – When I was a child, I thought and acted like one. When I became a man, I did away with such things.)
Hear the instruction, and hear it well: Don’t pursue, desire. Let your pursuit remain the pursuit of love; that most necessary ingredient of your sanctification. If the Spirit chooses to endow you with gifts, praise God. If He does not, or at least not the gifts you had in mind, praise God. Use what you have been given to the purpose for which it was given. Seek to edify your brothers, for that is what love does.
In What Spirit? (08/10/18)
This chapter consists of a lengthy comparison of two particular gifts: Prophecy, which Paul esteems as the chiefest available gift, and tongues, which the Corinthians prized most highly. Needless to say, Paul has the correct assessment, being God’s spokesman on the matter. But, as God’s spokesman, he doesn’t just tell the Corinthians they’ve got it wrong. He seeks to edify. Why? Because he loves.
Now, the Corinthians have a certain advantage in all this. Quite simply, they know exactly what Paul is talking about when he discusses speaking in a tongue (and note it is singular here, for whatever significance that might hold). However strongly you may hold to your current opinion as to what he is talking about, recognize that it is in fact just that: Your opinion. It may or may not be accurate. The question we must answer is not what we think the gift is, but what Paul and the Corinthians knew it to be. Unfortunately, that is going to require a bit of speculation, because Scripture quite simply does not spell out exactly what is meant. That being the case, it is not terribly surprising to find our commentaries all over the map on the subject. As concerns what we have before us in this chapter specifically, it will require a bit of inference from context to arrive at any reasonable answer. Again: Presuppositions must be set aside, until and unless confirmed by a reasonable reading of the text for original intent.
To that end, there are a couple of questions we’re going to need to address. First, what is meant by speaking ‘in spirit’? Well, the NASB, amongst many others, inserts a ‘his’ here, because ‘spirit’ is given in the Dative Case. Recognize that ‘in’ is also the result of the Dative Case, and not some separate term being translated. So, to say ‘in spirit’ is quite certain, the ‘his’ part is still a bit of an inference. Gender doesn’t seem to help in this case. It’s Neuter, but then the last Dative was Feminine and quite clearly connected to a Masculine Subject. Here’s a challenge: The appropriate pronoun has to be inferred from context as well. Is it ‘to’? That’s a possibility. It would leave us with something like, “he speaks mysteries to spirit.” There’s no ho here, so I’m less inclined to read a reference to the Holy Spirit here. So, maybe ‘in’ is correct, and the sense is that Paul is indicating a time or place, but that makes almost no sense at all. So, then, is it instrumental? Is it ‘by’? That would seem to incline us back toward recognizing the Holy Spirit as our reference: “He speaks mysteries by the Spirit.”
Sometimes syntax is simply no help, at least not unless one is a proper grammarian. It seems we come down to two schools of thought on this. There are those, including Barnes, who accept that the reference as being to the Holy Spirit. There are others, Clarke and the JFB among them, who find something else in this; that Paul is establishing a contrast here between the ‘understands’ of the first clause, and the ‘spirit’ of this clause. That is to say, understanding involves the mind, whereas this application of ‘spirit’ does not. That may be further to say that even the speaker does not understand because he speaks without understanding, ‘in spirit’.
Well, here’s a place where the wider context can help us, I think. Look at the focus of Paul’s argument here. Gifts are to be evaluated based on their capacity to edify. Primarily, his focus is on edifying others, edification as service, because this is the primacy of love: it flows outward rather than remaining self-involved. Well, if we take this idea that ‘in spirit’ is set opposite understanding, then we arrive at a gift which doesn’t even edify its possessor. That, as I suspect we shall explore more at a later point, is to suppose the Spirit gives us a gift that is entirely pointless, and does not actually help in any way. If I don’t understand the message, and neither does anybody else, what’s the point in delivering the message? Is God just playing games? I don’t think so. This is a God of Purpose, and the Church is entered into His Purpose. If He gives gifts, they are in pursuit of that Purpose.
That leaves us, I think, with the necessity of reading ‘in the Spirit’, or ‘by the Spirit’. In this case, I would suggest that either approach works, as the phrases become nearly synonymous. Well, then, let us take by the Spirit because it leaves us with a recognition of Who is in charge. If one speaks by the Spirit, as Barnes points out, it should be clear that the words spoken are not empty noises. Given some of the modern practices claimed as expressing this gift, let me turn that around, because the obverse certainly holds as well. If the words spoken are empty noises, it should be clear that the Spirit is not speaking. I’ll have to apply a bit of self-correction in this, I think. If the words are just an attempt to veil one’s anger and frustration in incomprehensible utterances, the same must be said: The Spirit is not speaking, although your or my spirit may very well be, and it would be better for it to not merely remain silent, but to be transformed by what the Spirit would speak.
If the purpose of the gifts is to edify, then that which is spoken by way of the gifts must impart Truth to the hearer. Think about it. This is arguably the prime directive of the Holy Spirit in His earthly mission. Yes, He applies that salvation purchased by Christ to the believer. But, hear Christ’s description of why He is sent our way. He is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17), sent to teach us all things, and to remind us of what Jesus said (Jn 14:26). Gifts are not His primary role, either. Reminding us of Truth is. Keeping our eyes on Christ, the embodiment of God’s Truth, is. If He gives gifts, it is because those gifts will edify us and enable us to edify others. Or, at minimum, those gifts will allow us to serve those who do so edify in order that they may more readily be about the task.
He comes, then, to remind us of Jesus, not to promote Himself, worthy though He is of our worship. He comes to bring us back, time and time again, to what Jesus said, what He did. And then, because we are somewhat slow of wit, He brings understanding as to why He said and did what He did, and what that means for us. This is what Love does. Then, because God so loves us, He empowers us to be useful in the same work He does – not in the same way, but in the same work. Gifts are given so that we can use them, and the right use of them is for the spreading of the Gospel in love.
What Are Mysteries? (08/11/18)
Another challenge for us when it comes to the matter of speaking in a tongue is the reference to speaking mysteries. This is a term so laden with connotations as to be almost impenetrable in its own right. We find Paul using the term as an oblique reference to the mystery religions that would have been familiar to the Greeks. In such cases, the idea is of revealed truths knowable only to the initiated, and discerned quite apart from reason. On other occasions, the reference of the mystery is quite clearly the plan of salvation which God has been unveiling through the ages, culminating in the death and resurrection of Christ. Then, too, Paul applies it specifically to the expansion of that plan to include the Gentiles on occasion. Finally, we may have the least esoteric of meanings: Something kept hidden by silence, or by inscrutable words.
Which of these are we to observe at present? Well, it’s not entirely clear, but I think we can rule out matters of God’s plan of salvation, or of its expansion to the Gentiles. Those are sufficiently contained topics of which we should find other hints in the surrounding text were they the intended meaning. That leaves us with revealed knowledge or gibberish. I’m going to say that since we have already concluded that the Spirit is involved, gibberish is out of the question, as well. It may come across as such, but as to content, no. Consider the added commentary of verse 4: The one speaking does edify himself, if nobody else. Gibberish can’t edify. So, the Spirit of Truth being the one who empowers the speaking, we must accept that it is Truth which is spoken. I am ready to join Barnes with the definition of mysteries as ‘sublime and elevated truth’. I can almost follow him with the added description of these truths not being previously known potentially being of utmost import to the hearer. Almost.
Here’s the problem for me: If this were indeed a matter newly made known, and of utmost importance to the hearer, would not the Holy Spirit, being all-wise, choose to deliver the message in comprehensible form? Why, pray tell, would He deliver the message in such a way that nobody understands it? Now, again, I grant that Paul implies that the speaker, at least, understands it in that he edifies himself. But, if that is the case, why the call for an interpreter. In fact, if he got the message, why didn’t he deliver it in the local language instead? Saying it’s because he’s not a prophet doesn’t answer.
I would have to maintain that if in fact this one speaks a tongue by the Spirit to his own edification, that edification does not include actually understanding the message, only that one has been thus used of the Spirit. I am also going to suggest, but postpone the discussion, that if the result is as Paul describes, the gift that is at play is very likely a counterfeit.
Staying somewhat on point, however, I find need to drive carefully on this topic. There is the sense of mystery as revealed Truth, which is to say something known only by revelation. If we attempt to combine this meaning with the idea that what is spoken in a tongue is necessarily a counsel of God once hidden but now revealed, then I think we either arrive at the conclusion of the Cessationists – that this gift must have concluded with the Apostles, or at the gift-abusing sense that what one speaks in a tongue is in fact revelation, and on par with Scripture. The problem I have with the Cessationist viewpoint is that we have the Apostle here accepting a legitimate use of this gift by a non-apostle, and even encouraging pursuit of same. The problem with the other viewpoint is clear to those with eyes to see: It is the highway to heresy.
So then, while the term mystery can take either of those meanings, I think we must needs be careful to suppose that it takes them together. Does the tongue-talker speak revealed truth? I see no reason to suppose otherwise, if it is the true gift, and powered by the Spirit of Truth. Is it therefore new data, never before made known? I see no reason to suppose it is or can be. If in fact God has made complete His revelation of all which He intends to reveal, and has in fact set this revelation forth in the form of the Scriptures written by the Prophets of Old and the Apostles of New, then to expect additional news or alteration is again to step onto the highway to heresy. If He has not, then we have a different problem: The Scriptures are no longer authoritative, and we are left with no means of establishing Truth. We can go join the rest of post-modern society in pursuing whatever fancy catches our attention today.
Where do we land? The gift of tongues, being designed for the purpose of declaring revealed truth to those who need to know it, is a gift of articulate, comprehensible language. It may not be a language the speaker has knowledge of, but it is intended for hearers who do. To speak in tongues without an interpreter is therefore deemed an abuse of the gift. I should think we would have to add that speaking in tongues for private consumption is no better. Who is benefited? You don’t know the message, and nobody else is hearing.
What is Prophecy? (08/11/18-08/12/18)
Prophecy is almost as challenging for us to define as is the gift of tongues, and for many of the same reasons. On the one hand, we have an over-cautious rejection. On the other hand, we have an over-excited acceptance. Neither appears to be a healthy response to something given by the Spirit for the Church’s benefit. And again, we have all sorts of connotations that attach, whether from Scriptural reference or from elsewhere.
The most common perspective of what prophecy involves, I think, is that it has to do with foretelling events. It’s sort of the God-approved version of fortune-telling. Thus, we find Joseph prophesying, as it were, about what lay ahead for Egypt as he interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams. Thus, we read Daniel’s images of the historical future. Thus, even into the New Testament, we find the prophet coming to inform the individual of what lay ahead. I know I turn to him often in this regard, but Agabus remains the chief example. He foretells events in Paul’s immediate future as Paul makes his way to Jerusalem. He foretells the famine which would impact the whole of the empire. Both of these, one should observe, were confirmed by events well before Luke lay down the record of his messages, but his messages had been delivered well before the events.
So, yes, this is a common conception of what prophecy is about. But, it is certainly not the sole task of the prophet in Scripture. If we look back to the Old Testament model, it’s clear that the prosecutorial role so favored by Reformed preaching is in fact part of the duty. The coming of the prophet was not really a thing to be celebrated, for the most part. Because, if he was coming, it was most likely because you needed correcting. His message may contain hope, but it most certainly also contained conviction. Here’s the covenant. Here’s you. Do you see the problem yet? Let me make it clear, and then we can discuss how to correct matters. There’s the chief prophetic role, as we see it so often in the Old Testament writings. It may or may not come with spectacular actions. It may come with dreams and visions, or with miraculous displays of God’s power. It may come with absolutely none of those things. Amos, for example, has nothing more stunning to offer than that he was a simple farmer until God insisted he speak. That’s the sum-total of ‘the supernatural’ in his case. Yet, he is assuredly a prophet.
What of the New Testament? Again, we have Agabus as an example of the foretelling role, but what Paul has in view here is clearly something different. Foretelling an event may in fact aid the Church, and can be useful. But, look at the description: He speaks for edification, exhortation, and consolation. Teach, correct, console. Sounds rather a lot like that prosecutorial role of old, if you ask me. But, then, how does one distinguish prophet from teacher, or prophet from preacher? Or does one? Are they in fact the same thing by different names? I cannot accept that, given that Paul sets them beside one another in what are very brief lists of gifts and offices.
One suggestion, coming from Barnes here, but reflecting a pretty common viewpoint, is that the prophet spoke from ‘the light of a sudden revelation at the moment’, whereas the teacher was more likely to speak from prepared notes, from a curriculum as it were. Now, it is often stated, particularly around non-charismatic churches, that the preacher is successor to the prophetic office. Of course, in saying this, they will find it necessary to add the qualifying clause, ‘but without the inspiration’. For one, you’ll never catch a Reformed speaker suggesting revelation for anyone apart from the Apostles, as concerns the New Testament era. I dare say, they have trouble even with Paul, however, for he feels no such compunction. For some, even the idea of inspiration, being freighted with so much theological meaning, is impermissible. Thus, the JFB insisting that pastors may be the successors, but they don’t get to have the inspiration part.
I think this winds up getting us stuck in corners that we don’t need to be in, personally. I see Paul use revelation in places where inspiration is clearly the more theologically correct term, at least so far as more current theological definitions apply. And, as often as not, it’s more to do with illumination, which none will find fault with. That the Holy Spirit today illumines the text, brings understanding – revealed knowledge – to those whom He tutors is not the least bit controversial for Christians. In all fairness, if this is not the case, we are left without any Christians to worry about. But, inspiration? That implies, for many, the imparting of new data. Well, on what basis and in what scope? Is it not entirely possible that something long known to others remains unknown to a local church? Was not the Reformation itself something of an act of inspiration? Suddenly, as it were, the light of the Spirit shown upon the texts that these men had known for years, and the true and proper meaning became clear to them. Now, that suddenly may have been the culmination of many preceding years of study, but apart from the inspiration of the Spirit, I am willing to suggest those years of study would have left them no nearer the Truth.
What is wrong with an inspired speaker in this sense? Does the ‘light of a sudden revelation at the moment’ invalidate the message? Why? If what is revealed accords with what has been revealed; if what is revealed is a restoration, a reforming to what used to be known but got lost under the dust of ages; if what is revealed is a sudden supply of the means to explain in terms accessible to one’s hearers, where is the issue? There is none. If this is our definition of the prophet, I find no cause to take issue with his office.
If, however, by revelation we are in fact indicating something never before made known to man, then yes, we do have a problem. It’s the same problem we have with the matter of tongues. If God has in fact revealed what He intends to reveal, then we are in the wrong to go chasing after further news. If the Scriptures are authoritative, then what the prophet speaks cannot take on equal authority, cannot be revelatory in the same sense. But, again: If this is the case, Paul has made a huge error in urging the church to desire prophecy. That necessarily means the Holy Spirit made a mistake in causing this letter to be in the Bible. That is rather a huge problem, don’t you think?
So, then, whatever it is that the prophet does, it does not rise to the level of the Apostolic word. It is not on par with Scripture. It cannot be. It is, however, from the Holy Spirit, and is therefore Truth. It is for edification, so it is useful, comprehensible Truth. It serves to build the Church which Christ is building, which is surely to be desired. It serves to exhort and console, which the JFB suggests are just two descriptions of its edifying role, but I’m not ready to accept that idea. They are given as ands, not as by way ofs. Yet, exhortation does, as those authors suggest, urge us out of our sluggishness, which is often needful. Consolation does address the sadness which can weigh us down at times. That’s not to say we’re supposed to wander the world in a blissed out state of happy, happy, joy, joy. The Church is not called to become a gaggle of teenagers on a romp. It is called to be a place of maturing faith, of growing into full adulthood in Christ. If He is our model, then this idea of constantly laughing, singing, and generally having a grand old time is going to be mighty hard to discern.
So, what have we got? Prophecy, at least in the context of this chapter, does not appear to be concerned with foretelling events. That does not preclude such things, but they are not what is being discussed here. That much I think we can agree. Prophecy is not declaring new truths, that is to say, things never before made known to the Church. It is inspired, yes. It may very well be revelatory to the speaker and hearer alike, in that they were previously unaware, or had perhaps forgotten the truth being spoken. But, it is not something new as in added to the Scriptures, or in any way on par with the Scriptures. It was not the case when Paul wrote this. It is assuredly not the case now. To discover something afresh and make it known is one thing. To discover something new and make claim to adding to God’s revealed truth thereby is quite another. To be sure, the prophet who claims to be declaring some truth that overturns that which is written in Scripture is declaring no truth at all, but a lie from the father of lies.
Now, let us recognize what Paul says of this gift. If it is this gift which he particularly urges us to desire, then we ought to recognize that in this gift we have not the greatest gift, but the greatest gift that we can expect. Apostleship is greater, but apostleship is not an option for us. We cannot desire that with expectation of receiving it. We can lust after it, and idolize it, but we cannot expect to obtain it. Prophecy, on the other hand, remains within reach, according Paul. Why desire it, though? Desire it so that God can use you. Desire it so that you can be a voice of edification, exhortation, and consolation to the church. Don’t desire it so that you can show everybody how spiritual you are, and how strongly you practice the Presence so you get the presents.
Recognize that Scripture, through the writing of Paul by the Holy Spirit who disperses the gifts, sets this matter of prophecy second only to the Apostolic gift. No wonder! The one lays the foundation, the other builds the edifice straight and true upon that foundation. One establishes doctrine – not as fabricating it, but as relaying that doctrine which God Himself has set forth. The other reinforces that doctrine by teaching, by example, by way of correction where necessary, and by application for the comfort of the oppressed. It is indeed a high calling to be entrusted with such a gift.
Gift Abuse (08/12/18-08/13/18)
It is the saddest thing to me that these things which God has designed and distributed for the benefit of His people have become such a source of contention amongst them. It shouldn’t surprise me, but it does. The Law, after all, was for our benefit, and it, too became a source of contention and sin to us. It is not, as Paul tells us, because the Law was bad or because the Law was insufficient. No! it was in order that the sinfulness of sin might be made known (Ro 7:13). Sin was effecting his death through that which is good, Paul says. I fear the same holds true for many as concerns the gifts today. It’s nothing new, clearly. Corinth was there centuries ahead of us. But, how slow we are to learn!
We have need of recognizing that Paul in no way rejects the gifts in what he writes. He does not reject, he corrects. How could it be otherwise? Even if it were not the case that he exercised these gifts ‘more than you all’ (1Co 14:18), it should rightly be the case. The gifts he has in view are not counterfeit distractions of the enemy. They are gifts given by God, who gives good and perfect gifts to His children. They are given for the purpose of building up the church which God loves. That sinful man has abused them didn’t change this.
We have in our day a strong contingent in the church who, I would maintain, conflate the fraud with the valid, and find themselves despising what God has given. I run that risk myself, I think, if I overreact to my own past practice. It is exceedingly helpful to find Calvin, of all people, offering a bit of perspective. To despise the gifts, he observes, must be to despise God who gives them. Is that really a place we wish to be? I certainly don’t. He goes on to say something which could as readily come from my own writing. I don’t say that as bragging. I say that, actually, as somewhat surprised and yes, not a little pleased. “Man’s abuse of them ought not to give occasion for their being thrown away as useless or injurious.”
This addresses a pretty common argument given by those who may not be entirely cessationist in their viewpoint, but are exceedingly cautious at best. It’s something that I know also infuses my own writing quite a bit. Look at how these things have been abused! Look at how readily the counterfeit has been granted space to flourish. Look at how these things lead to strife and contention. I face it daily in my own household, as we become more and more spiritually estranged. But even this does not give cause to reject the good gift God has given, nor to throw away what He has put in place for our benefit.
Were we to dispense with every aspect of religious practice that has been subject to man’s abuse, we should have no practice remaining. We would wind up worse off than the Israelites as assessed by the author of Judges. We wouldn’t even be so well off as to be every one doing what seemed right in his own eyes. We would be no different, at that juncture, than the post-millenial world around us, without the slightest regard or consideration of what seemed right.
No, the response that is called for is the response Paul demonstrates. Don’t reject, correct. Pray, and pray without ceasing, that the ones in need of correction – ourselves surely included – are granted the gift of being correctable. I don’t ask for the gift of being teachable, because that, too, lies open to significant abuse, and primarily by those who do not have our best interests at heart. But, to be correctable; to hear, finally, what Scripture is really saying, and allow its truth to refashion our thinking? Yes, that is eminently to be desired.
So, then, let us consider this gift of tongues, since that is where Paul’s energies of correction are focused at present. And let us begin by recognizing why the gift was given. Like all of these spiritual gifts, it was given to edify; and primarily to edify others. Gifts are given to serve, and service is to be given in support of and subjection to the Church. So, then, we must ask: How would the gift of tongues be useful for the purpose of edification? According to Paul here, its edifying value stopped at the speaker. First, we must recall to mind the companion gift of translation, and recognize that what Paul says presupposes the absence of that companion. So, then, as he will expound further as the chapter progresses, where there is one who can interpret and make the message accessible to the rest, tongues has a place in the communal service of the Church.
But, perhaps we ought to ask a companion question: Why Corinth? Why is this the only place where we find this gift so prominently on display? Is it because Corinth alone was given the gift? Clearly not. There are other individuals, at the very least, who are noted as having the gift, Paul among them. But, here, it was being given in abundance, it would seem. Why? I would suggest, at the reminder of one or the other of the commentaries, that it has much to do with the nature of the city. Corinth was a major port, actually a pair of them. International trade was its lifeblood. Men and women from every tribe and tongue were to be found here. What an opportunity for the Gospel! But, what a challenge! For even with Koine Greek as the more or less common language of the realm, problems would persist. Not everybody in port was of the realm, for one thing. Nor, for those who were, was knowledge of the language equal. Some would have but the merest functionality in it. Certainly, their grasp of the language of commerce was not going to suffice to pursue the depths of philosophy and religion. A gift of tongues – the capacity to converse with them in their native language – would be of incredible benefit to the one seeking to preach the gospel to such a crowd.
It’s not hard to take another step here, and see that this is why we find Paul saying he spoke in tongues more than you all. He had greater need to do so in his line of work. He was constantly being sent along by the church and by the Spirit to peoples of other nations. Do you suppose that the churches in Asia Minor, those in Macedonia, and those in Achaia all spoke the same? Their languages may have had some commonality, but even where the language is common, you know as well as I that the local dialects quickly diverge. How marvelous, then, to be able to address each new community in their own language, not leaning on the imposed language of the realm, nor struggling to make ancient Hebrew or even present-day Aramaic comprehensible to them.
So, then, as concerns the abuse that Paul is addressing, we can rightly constrain his words to that situation where use of another language was needless because everybody within hearing already spoke the same language. No interpreter is present, and none has cause to be needed. If there were foreigners present, then certainly the equation might change a bit. But even there, I think we would find Paul advising that without an interpreter present to make the message clear to all, use of the gift remains questionable.
I’ll just say that this is the most clearly legitimate use of gifts that I have witnessed, and it’s a rare occasion. But, yes, I have known it to happen that one stands up and speaks a message in a foreign language unknown to themselves, and there was somebody in the room, maybe way in the back, for whom that language was native. They heard the message as if personally delivered to themselves, and perhaps that was the very thing the Spirit intended on that occasion. How powerful the truth so personally delivered! But, it’s rare. And even in such a setting as that, the power for that individual would not, I think, have been diminished had another translated so that the rest of the congregation would benefit.
Given the absence of an interpreter, to speak in tongues in the course of the gathered worship of the Church is rather like entering into a lengthy conversation on your cell phone in the midst of that gathered worship. As I said in my previous trip through this passage, it’s not edifying for anybody, and in fact, it’s downright rude. With this, we can arrive at what ought to be recognized as a general application quite in keeping with Paul’s point. Your choices of word and action will serve one of two ends. Either they will enhance the worship of God or they will serve as a distraction. How excited you get in your flesh does not provide an accurate assessment. That you are going to worship Him your way no matter what man may say about it does not render it holy, and in fact quite likely evidences that you are a distraction and you know it. You certainly cannot come up with a defense of such actions that will align with that love we just looked at as defining the disciple. Love isn’t in it.
But, let me bring Mr. Barnes in on this topic, as it seems to me he writes from a point of dispassion, given that questions about the gifts were not likely disturbing the church where he served in the timeframe that he wrote. As regards the one speaking in a tongue, he writes, “His own holy affections might be excited by the truths which he would deliver, and the consciousness of possessing miraculous powers might excite his gratitude.” There remains, however, the serious danger of the man being injured by his gift ‘when exercised in this ostentatious manner’. That is, I think, a most gracious assessment. There is acceptance on Barnes’ part that what is spoken, though not understood by the hearers, is in fact truths being delivered. I will have to condition that, I suppose, by saying so far as the true gift is being addressed, I will concur. But, there is much that is not the true gift.
The warning remains valid, in fact grows more valid. The danger in abusing the gift is not merely that one has disrupted the worship of God. The danger is not merely one of making oneself the center of attention. There is risk of serious injury, and this is particularly so, I would observe, where the gift of tongues is most abused. The abuses I have in mind go beyond what Paul is directly addressing here, so forgive me. His concern is with a true gift used at the wrong time. But a great deal of what passes itself off as tongues in our own day is not the true gift. How can I be so sure? Well, for one there’s the means used to arrive at the gift. If the start of the process is to babble one syllable over and over until one loses control of one’s tongue, the likelihood that you have arrived at anything that constitutes a language is vanishingly small. The likelihood that you are merely issuing random noises, not unlike any other pagan ecstatic, is much greater. The likelihood that you are opening yourself up to become a mouthpiece for who knows what spirit is also significant. Claims of spiritual self-check do nothing to ameliorate the danger, for the same spirit that informs the misguided tongue-talker can quite readily convince said tongue-talker that everything’s legit.
These same cautions apply in the realm of prophecy. It is all well and good to claim to speak under inspiration or revelation. To become so cavalier, however, about claims that God told you this and that and the other is exceedingly dangerous. Recall the Old Testament rules of prophetic engagement. You can’t write off your mistakes as errors made while training. Sorry, that doesn’t work. Either God spoke or He didn’t. Either the words you claim to speak on His behalf are from Him and everything’s cool or they are not and you are setting yourself under the penalty of death. God is not amused by blithe claims to being His spokesman. If the spirit that you claim inspires your words has made so much as one error, here’s a rather obvious conclusion to reach: It wasn’t the Holy Spirit. His record remains and ever shall remain perfect.
But, let us consider another sort of abuse these gifts suffer. These gifts, where they are real, emanate from the Holy Spirit. They are given by Him. They are given because He finds good purpose in their being present and available to the Church. As we have already said, to despise them is to despise God who gives them, which is an odd position for the Church to be in. By all means, these claims to the gifts are to be tested and assayed. They are not, however, to be rejected outright. I might suggest that where they are found false, the repercussions ought to be severe for the abuser. They ought to be a matter of church discipline. This is for the abuser’s own good, as well as the health of the Church more generally.
If yours is a church that accepts the reality of spiritual gifts akin to those found mentioned here in this book, fine. But, be careful. If the focus remains on the effects, we miss the point and worse. As I say, the gifts emanate from the Holy Spirit and are in and of themselves good and perfect gifts. Our abuse of them hasn’t altered that fact. It has merely revealed once more the sinfulness of sin in us. But, understand that these gifts, coming as they do from God Himself, not only bear His power. They also exhibit His character. One of the greatest errors of the present-day Charismatic movement, I think, is that they have lost sight of this. They have focused solely on the effects, and have thereby not only opened themselves to all manner of error, but quite happily fallen prey to error.
It is self-evidently the case where we find the exercise of purported gifts in support of superseding the authority of Scripture. If the so-called gift is calling you to abandon the Church, decry it as outmoded in favor of some ‘new move of God’ that has abandoned all Scriptural mooring in favor of a new order, I’ve got news for you. This is no gift from the Spirit. It is the infiltration of heresy. Time was that heresy had to tread carefully, present small errors that might go undetected. Sadly, that time has passed, and heresy can pretty much proclaim itself boldly right at the door. There’s nobody checking. As long as it’s exciting and new and ever so supernatural, there’s an audience read and waiting and hungry for more. This is the rather unsurprising result of a body of belief that has set aside doctrine as too divisive to be pursued and chosen instead to pursue a religion of devotion to supernatural display and “letting the spirit move.” Having rather thoroughly dumbed down their disciples as they have done for themselves, the wolves are now able to enjoy the results without any great fear of detection.
But understand, my Conservative friend, it is not the gift that has varied; certainly not the true gift from the true Spirit. There is, as I have said many times, a great deal that is clearly counterfeit, and the proportion grows with each passing year. But, the counterfeit does not invalidate the real, any more than the false preaching of the liberal pulpit invalidates the clear exposition of Scripture in your own church. The true gift hasn’t changed. The true sinfulness of man, sadly, hasn’t either. As sinful man made sinful use of a good law down through the ages, so he lays hold of a good gift and turns it to sinful use. Why does God allow this? I suppose we must draw the same conclusion as concerns gifts as we are given in regard to law: So that the true sinfulness of sin might be seen. But, dear one, be very careful of outright rejection. If the gifts are unchanging, being of the character of an unchanging God, then they continue to be good and useful. If they are from the Spirit, then they are given for the service of God in Christ, for the edification of the Church and the extension of the Gospel. If they are, then, given in this day, on what basis would we reject them? Because they are potentially divisive? Will you stop preaching the Scriptures, or the many passages about which opinions divide because they are divisive? I know you would not. Why, then, would this be any different?
Observe what Paul does and do likewise. He does not reject the gifts. In point of fact, he encourages them. But, he also corrects the recipient. He sets the gifts in their proper place in our considerations: Subservient to love and subservient to the Church. He strives to give us a proper, God-directed value system. That which best serves the growth of my brother is the best gift for me to seek. That which builds up only me is not entirely valueless, but is best reserved for those times when I am by myself.
Gifts in Order (08/13/18-08/14/18)
What follows is a point that seems to really rankle the typical adherent of gifts: Scripture remains the inerrant, infallible guide of faith. Sola Scriptura remains the rule, and it is first and foremost a boundary upon the setting forth of doctrine. To quote the Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, it sets forth, “Scripture alone as the primary and absolute norm of doctrine.” God did not go through the efforts of having so many man across so many thousands of years record the unfolding of His redemptive work to no purpose. He didn’t cause these things to be written just so He could read through His memoirs. They are written for our benefit, who live at the end of the ages (1Co 10:11). Notice where that message is delivered. Right here in Corinth. These things are written as an example by which to assess our own progress and condition. They are the rule. Whatever may be coming about in terms of these gifts, if it does not accord with the rule we must recognize it as counterfeit. Every doctrine, whether arrived at by the hard work of reason or by the spectacle of the pneumatika faces the same test. Does it correctly reflect what Scripture has already revealed? If so, it is to be accepted. If not, it is to be rejected, and if the one who proffers that counterfeit will not repent, “Don’t receive him into your house. Don’t even greet him” (2Jn 10).
For the moment, in considering the verses before us, let us accept the position that what Paul is addressing as to speaking in a tongue is speaking in an earthly language, just not one naturally known to the speaker. What we see then is a gift given for edification, which fits the Spirit pattern, but one which is intended for particular use, and that is primarily in reaching those who actually do speak the language. But, we also see the companion gift of interpretation, and where that is the case, there can be an application of tongues in the course of gathered worship. It is not unreasonable at all to perceive the gift of tongues as very much like that of prophecy in such an instance. After all, (and again assuming the validity of the specific instance of the gift,) both in tongues and in the local language, it is the same truth being spoken under the influence of the same Spirit. The language in which the message is delivered does not alter its content, nor does it alter its source. One Spirit distributes all these gifts according to His will (1Co 12:11), and His will is to see them used for the common good of the Church (1Co 12:7).
If, then, the Spirit has given both, and given both for the common good – the edification – of the Church, then let them be used to that end. If He gives them, it is because they are, to borrow Barnes’ thought, as necessary as they are inspired. I will, however, move his point into the present tense because the instruction is given not as to something done and over with, but as to something still very much at work and of use. The gift is not to be rejected, whether we are discussing tongues, prophecy or some other of the gifts. No, it is not to be rejected. But, it is to be rightly used, or else not used at all. It’s not, I should note, a matter of practice until you get it right. There simply is no biblical backing for that idea. It’s a weak excuse offered by those who are more focused on the power display than on the purpose, who are happier being guided by whatever the spirit (whatever spirit) leads them to do than to being guided by what the Scriptures reveal as the Way.
But, however it is you get the words you would speak to God’s people, recognize the truth of Mr. Henry’s observation – for it applies as well to the speaker by inspiration as to the speaker by long preparation. Either way, he is most fit to do good for others by his words who has first edified himself by them. This echoes something a dear brother of mine in years past taught me. You cannot teach the lesson with any real power unless you have truly learned the lesson yourself. I think even as a student in a mundane grade-school or college classroom this quickly becomes evident, or at least the impact of it does. The teacher who is just filling in, as it were, trying to deal with the lesson plan and deliver whatever it is the textbook says to deliver without having any real mastery of the subject matter may manage to maintain classroom discipline, and may, if the textbook is sufficiently well done, be able to relay the instructions successfully. But, he won’t have taught. On the other hand, the teacher who has truly learned his material, experienced it and put it into meaningful practice and application, has a much greater wherewithal to explain not only the mechanics of his lesson, but the value.
I turn back to my old illustration of Ohm’s Law. Budding freshman student me had learned the law. I could recite it readily in any of its three possible arrangements, solve it for whichever value, and even look at the test questions and ascertain where this was the right equation to provide the answer. But, enter into a real-life situation, where the equation is not expressed before me in written detail, and the application of this law eluded me. The implications failed to register until somebody who had actually learned the lesson pointed them out. Don’t you see? You want to measure V, but V is too large a value for your instrument. However, you can, if you set R in place, measure A with ease, and then derive V with sufficient accuracy. Ah! That’s the point.
It’s the same here. It’s one thing to be able to speak the Truth, and even to observe some specific application of the Truth. It’s quite another to have so imbibed the Truth and set it ever before your eyes that when the new situation comes, the right application of Truth to the situation comes naturally. I wouldn’t quite set it on the level of that sort of muscle memory that permits the sportsman or the musician to respond without apparent conscious thought. That’s almost the idea, but not quite. Rather, I think we want to be at the place where conscious thought is so fully informed by the God revealed in Scripture that the godly response is what comes natural.
This does not, I must insist, require some mystical approach, or ages spent in monkish isolation. Nowhere are we called to a monkish life, nor granted permission to pursue it. Rather, we are quite clearly instructed that we have been left in the world because we are on a mission to that world, even as our Lord before us.
But, here, the question is not whether a gift is good or bad. No. The gift is of the Spirit. That question is already answered. The question is not even, at least not directly, whether our use of the gift is good or bad. That’s being addressed, but not in the ‘bad dog’ sort of way. Rather, as Paul introduced the previous chapter, he is showing them a more excellent way. That more excellent way is outwardly focused, concerned not with demonstrating one’s personal progress and power, but rather with helping others to grow in godliness. Yes, there’s a danger in that, if the gift is counterfeit or simply being abused. There is the danger that we become like the Pharisees, producing converts who are ‘twice as much a son of hell as yourselves’ (Mt 23:15). May it never be! And yet, it often is.
I am, however, attempting to consider the gifts in order, rather than the more common case of gifts out of order. I am attempting to do so because that’s where Paul’s focus is. How do we use these aright? The clear message of the overall argument Paul makes is well captured by Matthew Henry. “That is the best and most eligible gift which best answers the purposes of charity and does most good; not that which can edify ourselves only, but that which will edify the church.” This is the message of these immediate verses, and is as well the guiding principle of the whole section, beginning back at the top of Chapter 12 and continuing to the end of Chapter 14. Here, particularly, as Barnes writes, “the object of this chapter is to show them that the ability to speak in plain, clear, instructive manner, so as to edify the church and convince sinners, was a more valuable endowment than the power of working miracles, or the power of speaking foreign languages.”
That runs counter to our natural assessment of things. When stuff gets supernatural, it gets our attention – whether it is simply to write off the event as some sort of nonsense done by charlatans and simpletons, or whether it is to acknowledge the working of the Spirit through these things. But does our attention go where it ought? Not often. More typically, our attention gets excited. Our response is one of emotional reaction. The amen will be shouted out with little concern for what was actually said, or whether it was in fact an accurate reflection of God’s message.
Paul is trying to fit us with some corrective lenses, and we would be well served by putting them on in order that we might see things aright. Those lenses will cause us to consider what is of greatest use to the church at large. Those lenses will help us to see as we are intended to see, which is to take into consideration how our gift, whatever it may be, is to be used in service to the body. They will grant that we can recognize that the gifts we have are not rewards, or badges of honor for us to display and preen about. They are tools given for service, that we may be useful. Every gift of the Spirit is a gift given for service. Every gift of the Spirit is given in order that we may love as we are intended to love, that we may better pursue that love, and demonstrate that love by equipping our fellow believers to pursue it as well. Whether it is a teaching gift, or one of simple assistance, or administrative organizing talents, it makes no difference in this regard. It’s not given to aggrandize, or advertise you. It’s given to help the church, the local body first, but then, too, the greater body of the greater Church, to grow into the fullness of the image of Christ. It’s given that we may all walk in a manner worthy of the calling by which we have been called (Eph 4:1-13). The gift that is deployed to this end is rightly used. The gift that is used for personal benefit alone is not. It really is that simple.
What Manner of Language? (08/15/18)
I’ve already hit most of what I wanted to say on this topic, but a bit of review might not hurt, I suppose. When we consider tongues, there are varieties of opinion as to what they are, even amongst their proponents. Is it human language, heavenly language, no language? Well, at minimum, I think it must be recognized that they are a gift of comprehensible language, given with the intent that somebody will in fact comprehend. There is a sense amongst modern day Pentecostals and Charismatics that tongues is a means for us to talk to God unimpeded. Typically, the impediment is supposed to be demonic interference. There are innumerable issues with that viewpoint, in all fairness. First off, the idea that demonic interference could somehow prevent your words from reaching God suggests a rather inadequate view of God and an overvaluing of Satan. Second, even if this was some private comm channel in the heavenly language, Satan is himself a fallen angel, by most accounts, and would understand the language anyway, so it’s not like you’d be slipping one by him. But, there’s another problem: Scripture nowhere suggests this use of tongues. Rather, it is demonstrably a means for God to communicate with man. To use it as suggested above is like speaking into the speaker and listening to the microphone when you use the phone.
As a means of God communicating to man, in its right application, this is no mean gift! Again: Corinth was a port town a place teeming with foreigners. Being able to speak to them of God and by God in their own language is powerful, and the Gospel is well served such a gift in such a setting. I don’t say this is the only application, for we have too many other occasions where tongues came into play, and a linguistic barrier was clearly not the issue. But, even there, the gift was purposeful, and outwardly directed.
It comes down to this: Tongues, like prophecy, are given in order to relay intelligible content. Even where Paul speaks of mysteries being relayed, it’s not because what was said was beyond comprehension. If one speaks the ‘mysteries of Christianity’ but nobody including the speaker has any idea what was just said, then nobody is edified. The act is to no profit. As Matthew Henry writes, “What cannot be understood can never edify.” It is not, then, the gift which edifies in and of itself, as some take it to be. It is the content that the gift conveys to the understanding, and if nothing is conveyed, no value is received. I have to ask, as Clarke does: Does it really seem likely that the Spirit would inspire somebody with such a burst of knowledge and then require them to deliver it in a language nobody understands? Even if there were personal profit to the speaker from such an action, it is only because he understands the message, and that didn’t come by speaking aloud, particularly in a language he does not himself know. The mystery aspect of this is not because the message is obscured by the choice of language, as if God were trying to both reveal and hide at the same time. The mystery consists in that the meaning has been shrouded in times past and is now being revealed to whomever it is being revealed. If the answer to the last is ‘nobody’, then I must contend that what has just transpired was not in fact a display of this gift. It’s just a spiritual selfie.
Calvin actually takes a view similar to this in regard to the gift, suggesting that what is spoken is something obscure and involved which nobody understands. But then the question returns. Why have it spoken if this is the case? Granted there were prophets who did not likely grasp the full import of their prophecies at the time they spoke. But they at least had the message and could contemplate upon it, pray about it, and seek God’s wisdom to know its meaning. How shall this be done when even the words are gone? Chrysostom accepted them as revelations being made. How precisely he intended that term I cannot say. But, there is an added point: Since nobody understands, the revealed matter remains unknown and to no profit. Some gift, eh?
As to the modern conceit that somehow you convey the gift of tongues to another by getting them to spew nonsense syllables until they manage a pseudo-ecstatic state of some sort, and babble incoherently at length, this is truly an abomination. Where is the biblical backing for any such thing? Where is there evidence of any training given whatsoever? The whole point of those earliest examples of tongues was that they came of a sudden, as proof of the Spirit. In the upper room, there was nobody who could have imparted the gift, for it had never been given. In the subsequent events of Acts, the most involvement a believer ever has in the imparting of the gift is to lay hands on the recipient. I would note, it was not in order that they might have an ecstatic experience, but in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit – whatever we take that to mean. Beyond that, the human involvement consisted in being witness to the fact and recognizing God’s acceptance of this new group.
None of that, I observe, has any obvious application here in 1 Corinthians. The Corinthians, Jew and Gentile alike, had already been added to that expansion. The gift was not given to show some new group accepted. It was not given, so far as we have any evidence, by some sort of training. It was not, so far as we have any evidence, given as nonsensical babbling. If it were nonsense syllables, there would be no call for a gift of translation, for there would be nothing to translate. Again: A message is being delivered – from God to man – with the intent of being comprehended. The gifts used in any other fashion are at best an abuse of the gift, at worst something far more terrible for the practitioner.
I’ll leave off with a comment made by the editor of Calvin’s Commentary on this book. This one writes, “Too readily have men taken this to indicate a tongue unknown to all mankind on the basis of a poorly inferred word. To readily have they moved from this to the impiety of supposing the words divine.” Now, the poorly inferred word he mentions refers to the insertion of ‘unknown’ in verses 2 & 4, as the KJV and a few others provide the translation. The word is not there to be translated. It is an insertion. Calvin actually follows suit so far as inserting an explanatory adjective, but chooses ‘another’, which at least does a bit more to infer human language. But, it remains an inference.
I am far more concerned with the second aspect of that footnote, the impiety of presumption. Understand that if the gift is real then whatever language has been given, the words are in fact divine, just as the words we read in Scripture are divine. They are divinely inspired, divinely superintended, and divinely preserved. It is a gift of the Spirit, and the words are His. But, that’s not the sense this footnote has in view, and too often, it’s not the sense the practitioner has in view. Rather, they take it to be a message on par with Scripture, on equal footing with the words of the Prophets and the Apostles. As such, it is an incontrovertible word. Oh, how popular that word has become with the proponents of mysticism! I had a vision, ergo it is incontrovertible. I had a dream. This is its meaning, and you cannot possibly say otherwise. I had this message in a tongue – don’t understand a word of it, but I got this impression of vague meaning. It’s incontrovertible.
Dear ones, these things are nothing of the kind. They are unconfirmable, perhaps, but that’s the best one can say. Are they from God? Let us test and discern. How shall we do that? They come from the Spirit, shall we ask Him? I mean, sayeth the speaker, I check with the Spirit all the time, and He tells me that what He tells me is true. Umm. I asked a liar if he lied and he said no. How is this any different, dear one? That is not proof. It’s not even admissible evidence. No, the test is found in the text. Does the thing ostensible revealed accord with the confirmed and completed revelation of Scripture? If it is a reiteration or an illumination of what that text has always said, fine. Accept it. If it is anything else, then to claim divinity is in it is to defame the divine. It is blind and blinded acceptance of the tares of the enemy, and they are poisoning your soul, not sanctifying it.
Jesus Loves the Church (08/16/18)
I hear it suggested that one major reason for avoiding the matter of the charismata in the church is their divisiveness. That is to say, folks come to have strong opinions one way or the other, and those strong opinions lead to strife rather than promoting and upholding the unity of the body. Granted that this is the case, there are so many other secondary doctrines that tend to the same end. Not least among them would be the questions that come up around what we call Calvinism or Arminianism. If people care about the doctrines at all, they likely have pretty strong views, whichever way their views tend. Do we therefore refuse to discuss the matter? Do we avoid preaching on those passages which most directly address the points of difference? For all that, do we stop preaching from this text because we don’t wish to talk about the gifts?
In some corners, I suppose that may actually happen. You either stick with those portions of the Bible that support your denominational distinctions or avoid the ones that don’t. Or, if your denomination straddles the subject, maybe there are cases where the fellowship of the saints takes precedence over the truth of the gospel; where the thought is that unity must be preserved however strongly we disagree. I’m sure you can think of examples of this sort of behavior in the family setting. But, in the church setting, while we are family, I do not think this is the right approach, nor even a viable approach. It’s a false unity which is maintained solely by silence.
But, here we are concerned with the gifts, and their proper place in the church. The first thing I must observe is that they have a proper place in the church. Jesus, who loves the Church, sends the Holy Spirit to serve the Church. The Holy Spirit, seeing the needs of the Church, gives these gifts to the Church for her benefit and growth. This is all in perfect accord with the will and purpose of the Father to see the Kingdom established in the Church and spread through her obedience. All this to say the gifts are given to the Church for the Church. As we have already observed, the gifts cannot be rejected without simultaneously rejecting the Giver, which would be a terrible thing indeed.
But, there is also the issue that a gift which has become self-centered – that is to say the recipient has taken to using the gift in a self-centered fashion – has failed of its purpose. No. I have put it that way elsewhere, but I think that needs amending. The gift that has thus been used has been abused by the user. It is not the gift that has failed, however, it is the possessor of the gift. It is sin once again seeking to use the good things of God to prompt His downfall by prompting the downfall of His children and His Church. This, I must stress, is not a problem restricted to those more spectacular gifts like tongues, prophecy, or even miracles (and yes, one can make as much a muddle of miracles as tongues – think Moses at Mirabah).
We are creatures of extremes by our natures, and it is this which tends to create the problem. It is true, as I said, in most any doctrinal debate. We become so whole hog enthusiastic for our particular stance on these secondary issues that we can no longer brook disagreement. We find it difficult to accept that one who disagrees with us is serious about their faith, or at least that they are not serious about their studying of Scripture. Come to matter of gifts, and you will assuredly find those whose enthusiasms drive them to insist that they simply must exercise their gift in church no matter how disruptive the display, and no matter how negatively their behavior impacts their fellow believers. You all also find those whose caution leads them to insist that nothing so much as resembling the gifts must be permitted. One thinks of MacArthur’s current stance on things, accounting all who exercise the gifts as using strange fire. Even were I to grant him that this was so in many cases, yet his point would not hold. It has become too extreme, and winds up, in my opinion, denying the teaching of Scripture, which is not at all where he would wish to find himself.
But, look at what is happening. The gifts have not become evil – as if that were possible. The recipient has not become unholy by their error – which I would again maintain is not possible, given that it is God alone who saved them. Either they were already unholy, and the gift they display is a full-on counterfeit, or they are redeemed and remain redeemed in spite of their error. God does not fail of His purposes. But, in the meantime, there do remain those powers which have a certain dominance over the present age. We do not fight each other dear ones, although it so often seems we do. We fight powers and principalities, world forces of darkness, spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph 6:12). We fight an enemy who, I have no doubt, is highly amused that he has been able to get his enemies to fight themselves. So much easier if he can just stand back and let them destroy themselves. It is time we ceased giving aid and comfort to the enemy by our tearing at one another.
That is not a call to abandon our commitment to truth. It is a call back from the extremes that push us away from one another. It is a call to remember that whatever our differences – and they are doubtless many – our most fundamental call is to love one another as Jesus loves the Church. Recall that this is the example set before the husband as the model for how he should love his wife (Eph 5:25). Can it be supposed that Jesus changed His mind? No. God does not change. The Church is His beloved bride, and He will not give up on her, will not abandon her, will not divorce her so long as hope remains. And you may recall from the last chapter that hope is eternal, just as love is.
Paul is not rejecting what God has given. He is correcting the users of what God has given. He is correcting our perspective, as it seems he must ever do, so that we can get over ourselves and love what Christ loves as Christ loves. Simple alteration: Stop being about yourself, and start being about what benefits all. If you are feeling your wounded pride because somebody called for a cease and desist, perhaps it’s because your pride needs wounding, and your behavior needs correcting. After all, I can count on the fact that there were plenty of folks in Corinth listening to Paul’s correction by way of this extended cease and desist order whose pride was taking a well-earned beating. Pride, after all, is not the goal any more than self-serving power is. Love is the goal. Mutual edification and growth is the goal of love. To quote Calvin (who, so far as I know, had no immediate gift-related controversies to address), “Away then, with that misdirected ambition, which gives occasion for the advantage of the people generally being hindered!”
That is the enemy ploy in taking advantage of the gift-possessing believer (which, I should note, is all of us). If he can misdirect our ambitions, he need not get near the gift itself, nor to somehow intercept and redirect God’s power – as if that were within the realm of the possible. All he has to do is nudge our pride a bit, and our pride loves that nudging well enough to accept it as good and proper that it should be so. Then, off we go, doing what ought to be done for the common benefit of all in such a way as will be either for our own benefit alone, or of no benefit whatsoever.
For my Reformed brethren, and particularly the cautious and conservative among us, there is a correction to bear in mind as well. I am thankful that it is Mr. Barnes, himself a Presbyterian minister of careful and considered perspective, who looks at these compared gifts of prophecy and tongues and recognizes that both gifts represented a speaking under the Spirit’s influence, and while they may or may not have spoken the same truths, they assuredly both spoke truth. He further observes that both gifts may ‘occupy an equally important and necessary place in the church’. Honestly, if they weren’t necessary, they would not be given. I suppose we can say that in certain local congregations, they may not be necessary. I suspect it is more the case that they are simply not welcome, but I may be over-reacting.
Be that as it may, when the gift is not used to impart meaningful, understandable words to the congregation, or at the very least so as to address a foreign nonbeliever, it is not used aright. The gift is given to edify the Church – either through the growth of those already of the body or through the addition of new members to the body. Any other use is at the very least suspect, and in the gathered worship of the Church, is quite clearly out of order. This, again, applies whether we are considering the particularly supernatural gifts considered here or those others Paul has mentioned which we would account rather mundane and natural talents. It applies to the preacher, the teacher, the musician, the usher. It applies to all who account themselves of the body, for we have been told with clarity that every believer has a gift. Whatever your church’s stance on the charismatic gifts, this holds. It may very well be that God has chosen such that in this body, those gifts are not active, at least in a generally visible way, and in that church over there, they are. If He so chooses, who are we to complain? If He has chosen to plant us in a church that tends toward an opposite extreme from our own, again: Who are we to complain?
To be sure, there is something to be said for being comfortable in the congregation with which you fellowship. But, I’m not sure there’s as much to be said for it as we tend to say. Being comfortable is not, after all, the point. Growing is. Serving is. If you indeed account yourself Spirit-led, then it follows that your being here, in this body, amongst this people at this time is a matter of His leading, His appointing even. He has planted you here. He has His reasons for doing so, and they are assuredly good. They are assuredly for your good, as well as for the good of this body. So, my question – unchanged since my last trip through these verses – is, if He has planted you here, what are you doing to beautify His garden?
As my wife and I wander our yard – which has truly become a lovely little slice of Eden in our eyes this year – we are perhaps a little unusual in our view of the weeds that crop up here and there. For one thing, weeds are a huge effort to remove, and for many, that removal means the applying of harsh chemicals to kill, kill, kill. We are disinclined to pursue such a course, and neither are either of us anxious to spend every day uprooting whatever wasn’t our original intent. But, do you know something? Even those weeds, in many cases, contribute their beauty to the garden. Most weeds are, after all, wildflowers, and they have taken root in part because they are better suited to the soil than those fragile beauties we seek to grow. They have something to contribute. We just (in the broader sense of ‘we’) don’t like them. Well, as I often remind my beloved, it’s only a weed if you don’t want it there. Welcome it, and it’s just a bonus flower. If it contributes its beauty, it’s welcome to stay.
It seems to me that’s a pretty beneficial attitude to have with Christ’s Church, as well. Oh, yes, there is need to uproot false doctrines and false practices. But, remember the carefulness our Lord advises in that pursuit. Don’t destroy the wheat in your haste to rip out the tares (Mt 13:29). Better it gets sorted at the harvest, when the growing season is done, and the fruits make clear which is true and which is not. Beloved, Jesus loves the Church. He has not abandoned her. He has not given you cause to be angry with her or to withdraw from her. If that is what you feel, know that it is not Jesus who is advising you. If that is what the spirit you hear from is telling you, know that it is not the Holy Spirit talking. Jesus sets us in the Church He loves that we, too, may love His Church. It isn’t always easy. It isn’t even often easy. Love never is – not when it’s real.
