New Thoughts (09/13/18-09/21/18)
Who Are We Talking About? (09/15/18)
One key to understanding Paul’s point in this passage is to understand who he is addressing. This will help us to come to an understanding of how verses 23-26 are to be harmonized with verse 22. After all, I should think that anybody reading through this would conclude Paul reversed course after verse 22. But, of course, he didn’t. What we have are three groups. The first group, the one to whom the letter is written, may be said to be possessors of the Gospel. They are ‘brethren’ to the Apostle, adopted sons of God. Once again, the mess that was the Corinthian church has not changed this status. Then, actually starting in verse 21, we come to the subject of those who reject the Gospel. These are not ‘believers to be’. They are not numbered among the elect and just unaware of it at this time. They are the ones who have heard the Gospel clearly and often. I’ll come back to that. The third group arrives in verse 23. Notice the description of the visitor Paul posits. He is not necessarily an unbeliever. He might be, but there’s another possibility on offer. He may just be unfamiliar with the languages being deployed.
Recognize that when he is described as ungifted, that is what we are talking about. Certainly, he is not ungifted in the most literal sense – not if he’s a believer. We have the clear teaching that every believer has a gift of the Spirit. It may not be tongues. It may not even be anything we find mentioned in this letter. But, God leaves no child of His ungifted. Arguably, he doesn’t even leave anybody ungifted. It’s just that the gifts are to no avail amongst the reprobate.
This is something we need to be careful about. We come to the text with presuppositions. Words have meaning, but we tend to bring our own along and then assume that the author uses them the way we would. That’s not always going to be the case. Here, unlearned might have been a better translation. The Greek has idiotai. You will no doubt recognize this as the source of our own term idiot, but be careful! There again you may bring in connotations that have no place. Yes, it can take the sense of an ignoramus, as Strong’s defines it. A more charitable translation would be, ‘one without professional knowledge’. Now, considering how few in that ancient land would have been skilled with reading and writing, unfamiliarity with languages not one’s own would hardly be cause for disparagement. Even today, we would not find it so. We are as impressed with those who can speak many different languages as the Corinthians were. But, I rather doubt we would incline to ask them to preach to us in this language we don’t comprehend. And that, dear ones, is exactly the point. It has far less to do with the super-Spiritual, supernatural nature of the thing, and far more to do with simple utility.
When Paul speaks of who the signs are for, he’s talking about target audience, as it were. What is the design of the sign? Is it to acknowledge belief or to demonstrate unbelief? As he turns to effects, however, he has already set aside the unbeliever for all intents and purposes. If an unbeliever enters, the supposition is that his condition is temporary. He is not beyond hope of redemption. He has not rejected. He has just not yet accepted.
Quoting Carries Context (09/15/18)
Here is another key factor for understanding the passage: We are to read Isaiah’s intent into the application, not read our preferred application into Isaiah’s intent. That is to say, Paul sets a good example of rightly dividing the Word, as we are called to do. We don’t simply choose a verse that sounds like it makes the point we want to make, or at least can be made to sound like it does. We consider what the original author was going for when he wrote the words we would quote. We maintain the same general application, however much we may be adjusting it for present conditions.
In this case, we have to take two steps. First, we have to recognize that we are in the midst of Paul’s argument regarding the superiority of gifts like prophecy to those like tongues. And this, we must remember, comes on the heels of setting the whole issue of gifts in its proper, subservient place of answering to the purposes of love. That hasn’t suddenly changed. Paul hasn’t veered off on a tangent. He is making his point. In doing so, he has called upon Scripture to back him up, as ought we all if we are seeking to make a godly application. So, he brings in Isaiah to witness to the validity of his own message.
Well, then, to come to that quote and say, “See? Isaiah prophesied tongues!” is to completely miss – nay, ignore the point. Calvin and Clarke alike stop at this reference and insist that we must understand where Isaiah was going with it before we can hope to properly understand where Paul is taking it. Paul, to be clear, is not wresting these two verses from the larger context of Isaiah 28. He is applying them to the same end to demonstrate his point. So, then, what’s up in that chapter? Israel, as was so often the case, is recalcitrant. They have been taught from the Law from childhood. They have set their seal upon the covenant repeatedly. They have had decades of the prophets coming to them, pointing out their failure to keep covenant, advising the remedy, providing the comforting hope of forgiveness to follow upon repentance. But, nothing has changed.
In the midst of exploring this, the commentators observe that famous passage from the same chapter of Isaiah. “Order on order, order on order, line on line, line on line, a little here, a little there” (Isa 28:10). Do you know how often I have heard that described as a declaration of the proper way of biblical study? But, again context is key. This is not God teaching His people how to learn from His Word. It’s God describing those who have refused to be taught. They are like drunks amusing themselves in mockery. They are like those who ‘reel with strong drink, […] confused by wine, […] They reel while having visions, totter while acting as judges’ (Isa 28:7). These are your leaders, Israel! These are the ones you take to be role models. And it is to them, to be clear, that the message Paul reuses was given: Since this is what you are like, since this is how you respond to sound teaching, enough! I’ll give to you after your own desire: Words incomprehensible, and no further hope of understanding. There’s your gift of tongues! God will speak through these whose words you don’t understand. The sign is for unbelief. It is given as a seal upon your unbelief.
It’s interesting to note that this is also the chapter which brings us the verse so often used to proclaim the Messiah: “I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes will not be disturbed” (Isa 28:16). This, too, was a judgment delivered upon unbelief. It should come as no surprise that it was so often applied to the Pharisees, who stood in the place of those judged by the preceding message.
Now, I observe that most of our authors see the prophecy as applying to the Babylonian captivity. But, the Wycliffe Commentary applies it to the Assyrians. I’m not sure which is correct, nor am I convinced it’s particularly needful to our purposes to find out. The point of the application will be unchanged either way. The point is simply that tongues are indeed a sign given to convict unbelief, not to exalt belief. The gift has its purpose, and it is in fact a good purpose. The gift remains good, and if rightly used, the use of the gift is good. But, recognize the purpose for which it was given: It was given as a mark of Divine displeasure. Notice: It was not given to the Jews – either those who held faith or those who are being judged here. It was simply a way of making clear that the invaders were coming at God’s command, whether they recognized that to be the case or not.
Look, speaking in foreign languages didn’t render the Babylonians, or the Assyrians, godly. It didn’t render them somehow more approved by God. It rendered them Babylonians or Assyrians. It’s just who they were. Go a step further: Their being used of God did not render them more approved by God, either. There’s a warning shot across the bow. God will use whom He will use. The using doesn’t render them holy. The using doesn’t render them favored. Consider that in both the Babylonian and the Assyrian case, judgment came upon the invading nation even more strongly than it did upon Israel. They were used, but the use did not indicate forgiveness. If anything, it actually served to complete the tally of their sins.
So, then, to be in possession of this gift for tongues was not necessarily good news, was it? To be constant witness to the gift was not necessarily good news, either. It certainly wasn’t much use. But, we’ve already covered that ground. Now, it’s a worse point: You don’t even get what you’re doing, do you? Not only are you failing to be of benefit, but you are actually chasing after a sign of judgment upon yourself? Why would you do that?
One last point before we start really chewing on the text. What is the ‘therefore’ there for? It’s a popular point to observe with Paul’s writing, that we must ask this question. In this case, the question is how far back is this pointing? (OK, so in the NASB, it’s rendered as ‘so then’, which rather ruins the old chestnut, but the point remains.) Is Paul only introducing the application of Isaiah’s message, or is he going farther? Barnes suggests we should see it going at least back to the start of the chapter. Calvin, would let it go either way, but observes that the application may shift a bit depending how we take it. I’m just going to leave that hanging out there. For my part, I’m not sure which way to read it, and I’m also not as convinced as Calvin that the meaning is significantly impacted by which way we see it. Perhaps we should try it both ways, and accept that both may have their application.
A Sign to What Purpose? (09/17/18)
As we enter into the task of understanding this passage, and how the seemingly contradictory statements it contains hold together we shall need to take particular care. As I have said, the first thing to recognize is that the message from Isaiah is not applied simply for word choice, but because the context of the passage speaks to the occasion. But, what does it speak? Does it speak of tongues as a curse? That would be most odd, given that tongues are a gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church of Christ. So, then, while the passage addresses a people at least temporarily abandoned by God, that is not necessarily the primary point that Paul is driving home.
Barnes offers a perspective that somewhat softens the blow of that message, suggesting that Paul’s point is simply to demonstrate that when God delivers His message in a foreign language, it is not pointless, but done for a purpose. In that passage, the purpose was clearly one of condemnation upon unbelief. But, more generally, his point is simply that tongues are for a purpose, and ought to be employed for that purpose, not wasted in frivolous display.
This, however, brings us back around to the question of what the therefore is there for, or at least, how far back it is to be applied. If in fact it only points back to the quotation, then what follows is the application of that passage to the present, and if that is the case, then what is being said is far more severe. It would require us to understand tongues as a sign of God abandoning those who will not listen to clear instruction. In point of fact, many of our commentators arrive at this conclusion. Calvin observes as to the Jews whom Isaiah addressed originally that they had become so blind and mad that God was no more understandable to them than a foreigner. This, he observes, is a dreadful curse indeed. On this basis, he further finds the application to be that what the Corinthians were so busy pursuing was something that Scripture declared to be a curse upon unbelief.
Now, if that is the true application, and the Corinthians are the ones upon whom the curse has fallen, we have rather a big problem, don’t we? Even in this passage, Paul addresses them as his brothers. He has repeatedly assured them of this through the course of this letter. As severe as the disciplinary statements must be, and as necessary the course correction, yet they remained brothers in Christ. They were not abandoned by God. If they were, even as the example before us suggests, there would be no letter for them to read. Correction would not have been given, only punishment.
So, then, I don’t think we can accept this perspective. Neither, however, would I go so general as to take Barnes’ view that the point stops with saying there’s a point. There is a point, and tongues do have a purpose. Paul is actually reminding them of that purpose: They are for a sign to unbelievers. Remember that in the scene at Corinth, the Corinthians effectively had the role of the Chaldeans in Isaiah. They were acting as the delivers of the verdict: Beyond redemption. The verdict was being delivered by their choice to speak in foreign languages to those who could not understand the languages spoken.
This, he reminds them, is a penalty delivered, not the Gospel. It is conviction with no hope of reprieve. It is quintessentially not good news. They were playing it like it was some wonderful demonstration of grace, but it was not. It was an imposing of punishment not only upon the adamant unbeliever, but upon the ones for whom Christ died. It was an imposing of punishment upon the very Church of Christ insomuch as they couldn’t understand the instruction thus delivered either. All this for a bit of vainglory.
The therefore, or ‘so then’ must be seen to encompass the whole discussion of the topic thus far. Given all that has been said, including the example drawn from Isaiah, tongues are a sign (of condemnation) to unbelievers. I think the ‘to’ of this translation makes the point harder to see. It is not that the sign is given to unbelievers, at least not in hopes of their repenting. It is more a sign of their unbelief that the message is now delivered in terms beyond hope of comprehension. I will accept that in Isaiah, the sign is in fact delivered to the unbelieving Jews, but its value remains for those who believe. The sign did no good for the unbeliever, although delivered to them. They had already ceased to understand God when He gave instruction. Now, the issue would be made more obvious, more painful.
Thus, I would join Matthew Henry in recognizing that tongues, used as the Corinthians were using them, were employed as evidence of judgment rather than of mercy. I would stress the ‘used as’ part of that statement. It is not that the gift was given to this end. No! As we see in Acts, when tongues first appear on the scene, and in those few occasions where they appear thereafter, the primary purpose was to confirm God’s choice of an unexpected populace. First, it was those simple Galileans who had been following Jesus about, then it was the Gentiles; then, too, it was those whose instruction had been only in part, such that Paul might not reject the ones who had only been familiar with John’s baptism. They were not heretics, Paul, just ill informed. Fill them in.
But, that’s not what was happening in Corinth. They were not utilizing the gift for the purpose of reaching the lost with the Gospel. They were not utilizing the gift for any real purpose at all other than self-promotion. Look at me! I’m speaking in tongues! See my superior spirituality. God must really love me, eh? Well, no. It means nothing of the kind. I actually find it far more perplexing that God permits such abuse of His good gifts. But, I must note that He doesn’t suffer that abuse for long, at least as He measures length. Yet, it seems He must permit us our perverse insistence on doing things our way in order that we might come to the end of our way, and return to the Way.
Signs of Unbelief (09/17/18-09/18/18)
So then tongues are for a sign to unbelievers. The sign, Calvin suggests, is given to the true unbeliever, the one destined to perish. On each of those occasions in Acts where the gift is encountered, we may discover unbelieving Jews are present. Observe: The ones speaking in tongues were not the ones identified as unbelievers. Quite the opposite. Yet, their acceptance by God, marked by the giving of this gift, was in fact a sign upon the unbelief of those looking on. “They are drunk on sweet wine!” That was the degree of understanding demonstrated at Pentecost. Note: Thousands believed. But, there were myriad thousands present, and most did not. They took the scoffer’s route. They didn’t believe Moses. They didn’t believe Jesus. They weren’t going to change now, just because the message came in their own language. Rather, they would laugh it off as drunken excess. Now, a moment’s reflection ought to leave us wondering: When did excess alcohol ever render anybody’s speech more clear, let alone more accomplished?
That was as much a part of the sign as was the evidence of acceptance, which the accepted would recognize. It was twofold: Those speaking are accepted. Those scoffing are not. This departs somewhat from the Isaiah passage. After all, Babylonians speaking Babylonian were not somehow marked as accepted by that rather mundane feature. Neither was there any miracle in them thus speaking. Yet, their presence, and more directly, their dominance, came as an undeniable sign. You’re on your own, boys.
Here was a condemnation delivered upon those in Israel who had rejected the faith of Israel. Here, inadvertently perhaps, was Corinth delivering a similar message, and not necessarily to those who rightfully ought to have received it. “You are beyond hope. You’ll never understand.” Was this their intent? I don’t think they were that intentional. But, it was, as Paul later amplifies, the likely result. You are, whether you mean to or not, leaving your hearers to perish. You are declaring them condemned, just like those who rejected the message at Pentecost.
Now, I must observe an inversion between the events at Pentecost and those Paul is addressing. At Pentecost, it is quite clear that the Apostles were speaking known languages, delivering words understood by some portion of the crowd outside. It is not clear, but entirely likely given the instruction to come, that they took turns speaking, not all jabbering at once. This is demonstrated by the fact that they were understood by their hearers. Folks knew they were hearing their own languages spoken, and were, at least in some instances, sufficiently impressed by the wonder of such a thing happening that they recognized God’s hand in the matter.
In Corinth, we have instead somebody standing there speaking words that nobody recognized, quite possibly including the speaker. If they understood, after all, they could interpret. If they could interpret, there would have been no point so ever in speaking the foreign language first. Notice where Paul takes the example: If you are all speaking in tongues, and some unbeliever, or even a Corinthian believer unfamiliar with the languages you are speaking, what results? Not confirmation of faith, not conviction of God’s presence. Rather, he assumes you are all loopy and walks out just as fast as he can.
But, back on the question of the nature of tongues, the Wycliffe Commentary observes that this gift almost certainly involved known languages. They write, “Ecstatic language admits of too many natural explanations, not the least of which is the known historical fact that non-Christian groups have frequently so spoken.” Even today this has clear application. For the non-Charismatic, coming across the common practice of tongues today, there is no sense of a real language being spoken. Indeed, as I have often observed through the course of studying this book, much of modern practice defies real language. What passes for training consists in advising the student to babble. What possible result can be expected other than that the student learns to babble proficiently? But, it’s not language. It’s nonsense syllables. It’s the sing-song of the ecstatic, conveying no meaning and defying any possibility of real interpretation. Oh, they will say, it’s the heavenly language! No. It’s the senseless noise of an infant.
This does not require us to set aside the reality of the gift. The real gift conveys real meaning to real people. It delivers the Gospel in a fashion comprehensible to the one listening, and with real hope of benefit to them for the hearing. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Ro 10:17). That hasn’t changed. But, what a marvel, to be among a people of strange languages, and hear such a message delivered in your own native tongue! Surely, the presence of the Lord is in this place!
But what of unbelief? Unbelief may hear the same message, in the same comprehensible native tongue, and be wholly unmoved. “Oh, they’re just drunk.” The message was no less understandable to the ones who judged it thus. No, but unbelief reigned in their thinking, and so, tongues came as a sign upon unbelief.
Before I leave this part of the study, I want to consider something Calvin writes regarding unbelief. “Unbelief is like a lethargy that takes away feeling.” That is a rather stunning declaration; stunning in that it brings me up short. Perhaps you have experienced periods, as I have, where the things of faith don’t really stir you as they should, as you believe they should. It may come as a time when we’re just going through the motions. It may be that we’re still very much involved in our various church activities and our spiritual disciplines and yet nothing’s really touching us. Watch out! This is not a good place to be. We may feel confident of our salvation. Indeed, we should! But, if we have retreated into going through the motions, we are at risk, not of losing our salvation, but of discovering we never really had it in the first place.
Now, let it be said that I am fully convinced of my salvation, and I do count these periods of dullness as passing phases. But, that does not leave them things to be taken lightly. They are warning signs, and as such, they ought to be a matter of serious attention. The good news is there are also those periods when it seems every sermon was written specifically for my benefit, as Paul describes later in this very passage. God is good that way. He won’t let us get too far off course before He brings us back around. That is a comfort to me in my own wanderings. I must learn to let it be a comfort to me when those I love wander as well. I must also stand ready to serve as shepherd when my Shepherd sends me to retrieve them.
So, as I was setting my studies aside yesterday, with that statement on unbelief left for this morning, I was put in mind once again of the old Charlie Peacock song, ‘William and Maggie’. That is a song, I have to say, that struck me as the first Christian music that made me have to stop and think, and try and fathom what the writer was actually trying to say. Admittedly, it was music I came across early in my Christian life, and as such, maybe I just hadn’t hit those dry patches yet, so it didn’t quite register. But, it impressed me. It impressed me enough that not so many weeks ago, I felt compelled to search up a copy on YouTube so I could listen to it again.
What brings this up now is the bridge of that song: “What of the interval moment, when you feel nothing and I feel nothing? Maggie, I’m trembling in this interval moment, when you feel nothing and I feel nothing.” Maggie’s wise response comes: “Sometimes William… William sometimes you’ve got to open up the windows and let the wind blow through.” Honestly, that whole song is one I still tear up about, even reading that section this morning, it’s a risk. Some of that is simply the musical vehicle by which the lyrics are delivered. The pain and fear are palpable even if we’re not entirely clear on the point being made. But, think about that moment of trembling: The recognition that “I’m not feeling it anymore.” In any relationship, that’s a dangerous place, isn’t it? We know it almost instinctively, and we are stirred to action. Lord willing, our partner is moved to the same purpose and we can come through to a better place, a place where the windows are open and a fresh breeze blows. But, bring it to this relationship of faith, a relationship akin to marriage but far more serious. What happens when I feel nothing? It’s a dreadful question. Does this mean I was wrong all along? Does this mean I’m rejected, and trapped in my unbelief?
Look, I can’t tell you if that’s where Charlie was going with his song. I know Maggie’s answer speaks quite well to the matter. With window open, she continues. “You’ve got to let it blow through you and me, and everybody in between. It seems we’ve suffered one too many dreams of things that weren’t so bad, it’s just that they were never things that we could trust. We will release them as they turn to dust.” The final question of the song hits: “Are we still pretending they’re enough for us?” My, but I could come to the conclusion that some twenty-odd years later I finally understand it! The rituals, the habits, good as they are, are not enough. They’re necessary as all get out, but they’re not enough. It still needs the wind of the Spirit, stirring our hearts, bringing us back to those feelings we had when we were young. Being mature in thinking does not require us to be dour, lifeless husks. It requires that we are not owned by our emotions, not that we are emotionless. Being emotionless, as even Calvin, whom so many suppose a dour old coot, is a sign of unbelief, not of maturity.
Beneficial Signs (09/18/18)
Well, we’ve been looking at signs of condemnation upon unbelief. The good news is that these signs are not intended for us. Nor, I should point out insistently, are such signs the purpose given to tongues. They are the result of misuse, or at least supply illustration of the results of misuse. But, we have another sign to discuss, the sign of prophecy. We can have a debate as to what prophecy means in the New Testament church, or whether it’s really available to the church in the same form it had when the church was younger. The impact, however, doesn’t hinge on how we answer such questions. Indeed, I would suggest that the significance of the action as a sign doesn’t hinge on how we answer such questions. The fundamental point for us in this passage is that the prophetic message, whatever it is and however it is delivered, is comprehensible. Unlike tongues, we can parse what is being said and take the meaning of it.
This gets to those powerful moments we may experience, even as I was just describing. We’ve been there. The pastor is preaching, and to be sure there are many parishioners hearing the message, but from our perspective, that message was delivered for us, right here, right now, in our immediate situation. Most likely, at least up here in stoic New England, the pastor has no reason to know of your personal situation, and yet, here it is being addressed so directly that it really sets one back. This, as so many of our authors observe, is precisely what Paul is describing in the last two verses.
As we have already established, those he has in view at that point are not the irretrievable reprobates, but such unbelievers as are but awaiting the call, and even believers, who simply don’t know the languages you’ve been using in tongues. But, here is a clear message, finally! Here is something that hits home. It is amazing! It doesn’t require some excited appeal to immediate inspiration on the part of the pastor. It doesn’t require claims, “Thus says the Lord.” It doesn’t require rhetorical tricks or emotional appeals, and it certainly doesn’t require the worship team supplying mood music behind the message. No, it’s the message that matters. It’s the simple truth that has hit home, and the wonder of this directed missile of truth is sufficient in itself to bring the honest listener to the conclusion, “God is in this place.”
Sounds kind of like Paul’s description of the response, doesn’t it? I tell you, so recently as two or three weeks ago I can recall such an impression made by the sermon. Sad to say I can’t recall what exactly was said, but that just speaks to my own faulty flesh. For those of us who have experienced such things often enough, it still comes as great comfort to hear God speaking so directly, even if it isn’t Him speaking audibly. It didn’t really need the super-spiritual to be significant. Again, I could do far better at registering such occasions in a fashion more likely to be remembered, but that would be just as true had the message come in typical Charismatic prophetic form. It’s not the vehicle that matters, nor is it the driver. It’s the engine of the Word rightly taught and rightly applied.
But, for somebody new? Imagine the impact! Why, he’s never even been here before, doesn’t know a soul in the house, and yet, here is the preacher talking directly to his situation. Exposed? You bet he feels it! Convicted? More than likely. Will he benefit from the experience? Only God can say, but he has at least been made aware of his state and God’s holiness, and hopefully has also been delivered the remedy to his spiritual ills. Call home. Father’s waiting.
Whether new or old, though, the impact is one of being convicted and judged by the lesson taught. Expanding back to Paul’s example, imagine that impact multiplied as so many lessons are delivered and they’re all hitting home! Do you think he might feel the judgment of God delivered? That judgment, after all, comes of hearing doctrine, hearing it clearly, and coming to an understanding of what has been heard. Thus do we come to know God. Thus do we come to know ourselves. As Calvin writes, “For it is only the knowledge of God that can bring down the pride of the flesh.” And, oh, how we need that pride brought down! Twenty years on, and still I battle with it. On the one hand, lack of confidence seeks to serve as overdrive. On the other hand, unwarranted confidence leads to dreadful error.
Whatever may be said of those moments of feeling nothing, it is so needful that we keep going, keep our ears filled with the truth of Scripture, our eyes upon Jesus, and our feet on the Way. Matthew Henry writes, “Scripture – truth, plainly and duly taught, has a marvelous aptness to awaken the conscience, and touch the heart.” There is a reason we are called to constancy in coming together with our family of faith. We need the fellowship, for one. We need to be reminded of the truth, for another. We need the discipline, first and foremost, of seeking out the truth, applying the truth, and seeking to exercise ourselves in the truth. None of that will avail apart from the work of the Spirit within us – that wind blowing through. But, apart from our effort, I really don’t think we have reason to expect that He will expend any on our behalf. It takes both: Faith and work. Not that our work brings merit, but it demonstrates faith. It is the fruit of that seed, which cannot but grow where the seed has been planted in fertile ground. And where the Spirit is, the ground is surely fertile.
Biblical Health (09/19/18)
Well, if a deadening of feelings warns of unbelief then clearly feelings are not the issue in and of themselves. That said, we do live in a time when feelings are granted far more weight than is reasonable. Even with events as recent as yesterday’s news we see it. So and so’s claims make us feel like we’ve experienced similar things, ergo the accused must be guilty. It has nothing to do with facts or evidence. Indeed, in this particular instance it seems unlikely that evidence could be found one way or the other. There can only be claim and counter-claim. But, this one’s claim validates my feelings. That one’s make me feel victimized. Never mind that I’m not even involved. It feels, and feelings trump facts in this day and age.
What to do? Well, here’s what we don’t do. We don’t become emotionless. Christianity, to be sure, is not an emotionless religion. It’s not a merely intellectual pursuit. God designed us with feelings and brains alike, and the goal wasn’t for us to choose one or the other and act like the unchosen bit didn’t exist. No, by all means feel. Feel compassion for the lost. Feel love for one another. Feel the awed sense of wonder that is your right response to a God who has so loved you. Feel it deeply! But, don’t shut down. Don’t leave your brain at the door. Feel, but let feeling be subjected to mature thinking.
To allow feelings to reign supreme is to be a child in your thinking. Think about it! Go back to your childhood, or consider your children if that’s easier. What are the decisions of children founded on? It isn’t solid reasoning or careful considerations of cause and effect. It’s almost pure feeling. I want this because it makes me happy. I won’t do that because it makes me sad. That’s the sum-total of reasoning at that point. For many, it still is. If I feel uncomfortable, that’s cause enough to reject your premise. If it validates me, however off course I may be, that’s cause enough to accept and celebrate your premise. But, that’s not the Way.
The Way is costly, and we are told outright to count the cost before venturing out along that Way. Costly? It will cost you everything. It may cause you to lose family and friends. It may result in employment opportunities drying up because your mere presence and consistency are enough to cause conviction to fall upon coworkers who would just as soon not feel that conviction. It may even lead to loss of earthly life. We don’t see that much in the West. It would be nice to say we don’t see it at all, but that’s not true, nor could it be. But it’s rare, at least for now. Look, though, to the East and the picture is quite different. Stop in the Middle East and you will swiftly realize that to be a Christian is to be a target. Things haven’t changed much in two thousand years. Keep going, and recognize that in places such as China and elsewhere in the Far East, while you may not lose your head, you are likely to lose your ability to support life if you are discovered. Think! Are you willing? Is God worth it? Feelings won’t get you through that decision. But, mature thinking will give clear answer. Of course He’s worth it! And, as He has called me His own, I am assuredly willing, come what may. But, let feelings be honest, and we’ll have to admit we’d prefer that the cost be kept down, if at all possible. In this, I don’t see that we’re any worse off than Jesus. He, too, expressed His feelings when the cost become infinitely high. “Father, if there’s another way, let’s take it. But, if not, Thy will be done.” That is the prayer of one with feelings, but with feelings subject to reason.
Yet, we have the commendation of Christ upon childlike faith, yes? Oh, yes we do. But, childlike faith does not require childlike lack of thought. The trust is total, as a child’s trust in its mother or father is total, barring sinful failures in the parent rendering such trust impossible. At least until such time as that trust has been violated, trust is complete. As we set our faith in Christ, the sinless One, in the holy God Himself, there is no danger of a violated trust. There is no danger of abuse. There is only a faith that is revealed to be most utterly reasonable. The more we think upon the God Who reveals Himself in Scripture, and the more clearly we see ourselves, the more thoroughly reasonable our faith is shown to be.
Notice how the Scriptures proclaim the gospel to us. It is not primarily an appeal to feelings. It is a well-reasoned argument. This is particularly evident with Paul, whose presentation of his arguments is so well-fashioned according to the standard way of thinking common to the West. Peter is no worse, though, for having a more Eastern approach to making his case. The case is just as well made. Jesus does not appeal to feelings. The Prophets of old do not appeal to feelings. They present the facts and draw conclusions. They invite us to understand, not to feel validated.
And so we come to the passage before us, and hear Paul say, “Don’t be children in your thinking, be mature!” Childlike innocence remains commendable. As concerns evil, by all means, don’t just be children, be infants completely free of such ideas. OK, now recognize that this is not Paul denying original sin. No, like David before us, we can confirm that we were conceived in sin, and sin accompanied us as we left the womb. But, that doesn’t require us to become mature sinners. Better by far we remain infant sinners as we mature in righteousness. To paraphrase Matthew Henry, childlike innocence is commendable, childlike shallowness is not.
As concerns our spiritual development, and our participation in the life of the church, the call is for mature, appropriate conduct. Let what is said and done, particularly in the name of Christ, suit the situation at hand. That’s the message here. Tongues are not bad. Tongues used wrongly, or for the wrong situation, are badly used. If you are faced with a foreigner who doesn’t speak your language, and you have a gift for presenting the gospel in his, by all means, let it be so! But, isn’t that far more likely to be a one-on-one encounter? To be fair, I have been in situations where just such an event transpired in the midst of the church service. I am trying to recall whether there was interpretation on that occasion, but I honestly can’t. What I can recall is the one who heard in her own language, and was deeply convicted by the fact. That’s tongues rightly used.
A call for all to speak in tongues? That’s tongues downright abused. There is no case for this. It is simply a stirring up of emotions. We’re back to feelings. But, come back to Paul’s point. If nobody knows what is being said, assuming there is any instructional content at all to the noise, it’s wasted. Where this has been the case before, per Isaiah, it’s not a blessing. It’s at best a warning. It’s more likely the arrival of the cursing. You’ve blown it, and all hope of correction is exhausted. There remains only judgment. But, still such events are celebrated as evidence of God’s presence. Well, yes. He is present in judgment every bit as much as in joyful outpouring. That doesn’t mean you do well to be on the receiving end of both.
In a feeling-led world, it shouldn’t be so much of a surprise that we have feeling-led believers. This doctrine sounds cool, I think I’ll adopt it. That one sounds so old-fashioned and stodgy. I’ll pass. So, off we go, bouncing after every new thing that comes along because it’s exciting to be on the cutting edge! Here is an offer of power. What are you offering? If, on the one hand, you have the preacher offering you the reins of heaven, as it were, and on the other, you have a preacher insistently reminding you of your helplessly sinful nature, which is more likely to catch your ear? Well, feelings will surely recommend the former. But, the wise man hears the latter, and turns all the more to the God who saves. What has happened to that feeling-led believer? Has he lost his salvation? Not if he had it in the first place, no. But, I will say this: For all that he thinks himself imbued with power, he has in fact chosen to retard his spiritual growth in favor of playthings.
Biblical health consists in mature thinking and mature feeling. Biblical health looks to Christ glorified, not to self realized. Biblical health seeks to be ever increasing in capacity to edify others, seeks to be more effective in reaching that unbeliever who enters, not by impressive displays but by clearly delivered Biblical truth leading to conviction and repentance. Biblical health realizes that even if we succeed in this course, the results remain utterly dependent upon God. Jesus saves. We just deliver the message.
The Evangelical Church (09/20/18)
“The Christian religion is a sober and reasonable thing in itself, and should not, by the ministers of it, be made to look wild or senseless.” Thus writes Matthew Henry, well before Azusa Street. I think his statement holds, and it holds whether we accept the validity of the gifts for our day or not. It’s not the gifts, in fairness, that leave the church looking wild or senseless. It’s the abuse of them on the one hand, and it’s wholly unrelated senselessness on the other. Whatever else may be said of that church which has committed itself to the simple course of honestly and fully proclaiming the gospel, there will be no charges of madness lodged against them.
This should not be a surprise, for that is the church which is following the command and example of its founders. I come back to Paul’s early reminder of his ministry to Corinth. “For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1Co 2:2). That was Paul’s mission statement, if you like. I’m not here to perform spiritual tricks for you. I’m here to tell you about the only God, and the Life He gives. The rest of this is just candy by comparison. It’s good candy, when eaten rightly, but it’s candy nonetheless.
So, he looks at their behavior, these Corinthians, and shows them the impact that can be expected of such behavior. What happens when you use tongues in an inappropriate fashion. Here, he speaks to the ‘unseasonable abuse of the gift’ that was clearly the fashion in that place. Everybody who could speak a tongue was seeking to do so seemingly at every gathering of the church. It didn’t matter if there was anybody there to understand the message, because for them the message wasn’t the point. The delivery was what mattered. It was becoming the church of Look at Me. Paul is steering them back to the course of the evangelical purpose. What happens, church, when somebody new comes along. They don’t even have to be an unbeliever, they might just be a disciple from another city where these practices haven’t taken hold. He comes to your assembly, hoping for the refreshment that comes of meeting fellow believers in foreign lands. He comes to hear the Word of God. Instead, he is presented with a wall of noise. What, Paul asks, is he supposed to think of you other than that you are all mad. Frankly, as he implies here, that assessment wouldn’t be far off at all. It is madness. You are pursuing and celebrating something that has always been evidence of God’s judgment upon the hearer, not cause for rejoicing.
So, here you are in the house of God, amongst the people of God, and the tongue storm is unleashed. And again I have to reiterate that I have been in the church (not my current one) where this was not merely invited, but instructed from the pulpit. Everybody speak in tongues now! What? Where is the edification in that? Where is the comprehensibility? You might as well have said, Everybody, pronounce God’s condemnation upon one another now! Even setting aside the precedent of Isaiah’s prophecy, just look at what has happened. The JFB observes the effect. The church in such a state is ‘like the company of Babel builders after the confusion of tongues’. Given that the typical perspective amongst Charismatics and Conservatives alike is that tongues came as a reversal of the curse upon those builders, how shameful to make it a rerun of that event. What believer, witnessing such noise and possessed of a clear biblical understanding, would long remain in that place?
To my shame, I must acknowledge that I did remain. At the time, I wrote it off as a bit of emotional excess and let it slide. Other matters finally convinced me that the time had come to depart – not because of the gifts, I should note, but because of other, serious doctrinal differences. It is interesting now, serving as an elder in my current church, to see those who have been in this church for many long years, and yet have held to different views on what we would hold to be secondary, though serious, matters of doctrine, suddenly compelled to depart. I can sympathize. It’s hard to sit under the teaching of somebody with opinions opposite your own, and maybe it’s quite right that they should find a church more in agreement on these issues. But, what they hear from this pulpit allows them room for their convictions, whether they hear it thus or not. The church has been very clear on the fact that on these secondary issues, we are free to disagree. Compare that to the church which decries your views as being doctrines of the devil, and does so repeatedly. Once, you can maybe write off as rhetorical excess. But, sooner or later, in spite of the evidence that the preacher has a very poor understanding of the position he’s decrying, and in spite of the evidence that he actually believes the doctrine as taught (instead of the caricature being condemned as the same thing), it becomes impossible to excuse the assault. It becomes impossible to stay.
So be it. At some point, if your entire experience of the church is to sit in judgment upon its teaching, seeking opportunity to be offended by what is said, then it probably isn’t the place for you to be. How this plays out when it divides a family is an open question. Seems to me, it creates a mess no matter what happens, but that mess is present in the house already, whether it is faced or not.
Let me turn to a somewhat happier thought. What is the purpose of the church? To be sure, it is a place for the disciples to come and be both refreshed and instructed. It is, then, a training camp for the believer. That has been the case since the church was first established. They gathered together to pray. They gathered together to learn of the Apostles’ doctrines. They gathered together to support one another, both spiritually and materially. That’s the story of Acts, isn’t it? It’s the continuing story as the Church spread out into the surrounding nations. But, had it stopped with this, the Church would never have spread out as it did. She has an evangelical purpose as well. The Church is not just here for the established believer. She is here to reach the lost. That may or may not involve targeted outreach programs. That may or may not involve programs of any sort. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus never set up programs. He does call us to go out and make disciples. How? Teach them what He taught, and train them in obedience to the same. Nowhere, it must be noted, does He say, “Go out and see to it that they speak in tongues.” Nowhere does He say, “Go out and be confrontational. Let them know how much I hate them in their current state.” Neither does He say, “Just preach Love, Love, Love.” No. The call is go instruct in Truth. Go and train in obedience.
This commission cannot be fulfilled by rattling on in incomprehensible language, and that problem is not restricted to speaking in tongues. If we want to reach the lost, we have to appeal to them in words they can understand. You might think of this as fitting the message to the culture. That is not a matter of softening or altering the message so as to be acceptable to the culture. It’s a matter of presenting it in unadulterated, in terms understandable and clearly applicable to the culture. Think of Paul’s approach, even with his failed (by our lights) mission to Athens. It’s clear he was quite familiar with Athenian society. The message he delivers there is bedecked in Athenian views. Oh, look, you worship all sorts of gods here. You’ve even taken the precaution of establishing a shrine to an unknown god, lest you missed one. Well, you did. Let me tell you about Him.
Consider his writing to Titus while that one ministered in Crete. He’s quoting Cretan poets to make his point. That’s not the only quotation he pulls from the noted authors of the day. It’s clearly a habit for him. Know the culture. Address the culture. Present the Gospel. Present Christ, and Him crucified. There is the formula for reaching the lost. Maybe they respond positively, maybe they don’t. That’s not your problem. Making the Gospel known is your problem. In that pursuit, preaching over their heads is not going to be much different from preaching in tongues. If you are presenting a college-level message to preteens, you are just a much speaking to the wind as these Corinthians preaching in languages unknown to the audience. You may feel good about your oratory, but if it’s not properly geared to the ones you would reach, it’s vain posturing. It is once more the church of Look at Me.
Distracted by Miracles (09/21/18)
I will end this section of our studies with a warning to us. Don’t be distracted. Don’t become so enamored of the signs that you neglect to see where they are pointing. This is what was happening in Corinth, and it continues to happen in many circles today. Calvin assesses the situation this way. “For in tongues they looked to nothing farther than the miracle.” That’s exactly the problem. They got the miracle, or what passed for a miracle, and they stopped right there. Imagine being given the keys to the car and being so excited by the keys that it never occurs to you to actually go to the car and use them. It’s something like that.
But, it gets worse. It’s something of an adage in the church, but only because it’s so important to remember. We are ever in need of the warning, and Clarke saw the same need in his own day. Take heed, he says. Beware! To dwell on the gift is to forget the Giver. Even if we consider the simpler blessings of day to day life, we know this holds true. We know it in part because God told His people of the danger long, long ago. As He brought His children into the Promised Land, the warning was given. You’re going to be in a fine land, with grapes growing in abundance, living in your houses, enjoying the fat of the land. Everything’s going to be going so well for you, and do you know what will come of it? You’ll forget about Me. You’ll begin to be satisfied in your stuff, in these gifts I have given you, and you’ll stop noticing your need for Me. It’s human nature, sadly. That doesn’t excuse it. It is just a convenient way of noting how inevitable is the outworking of sin in us. Beware! Dwelling on the gifts causes that which was for blessing to become a curse. That’s the point of the Isaiah passage that has been brought in. That’s the point of Paul’s corrective. You are taking a good thing and making its use an evil. Stop it. Gifts are given by the Giver for the good purposes of the Giver. Use them for their intended purpose, and stop playing games.
At bare minimum, coming back to the assessment of that poor individual coming into a church baying in tongues, have some regard for ‘the honor of Christianity’, as Barnes puts it. Let your love for God restrain you needless display, that you may not bring shame upon His name because of your nonsense. Consider. If they conclude that you are all nuts, what will they say of your God? If they conclude that you have fabricated a fantasy land in which you spend your waking moments, then surely they will conclude that the God you profess is just part of the fantasy. If the task of the disciple is to emulate the teacher, then it’s not unreasonable that the outsider, considering your deeds, will suppose them to reflect the one you claim to follow. Well then. If you are willing to claim that you follow Christ, then let your words and deeds reflect Him. You don’t see Him playing sign games, showing off His powers for the sole purpose of advertising His own wonderful self. So, don’t do that. Indeed, reserve any display of those gifts for the occasions where God is directing them to be displayed. Put them to use in His service, or don’t put them to use at all. Don’t let your gift be a distraction to you. Don’t let it become a distraction to others.
If you desire miracles, then bear in mind that miracles are never the end in themselves. They are markers, signs pointing elsewhere. They are designed to draw our attention to what God is doing. They are certainly not about us. But, signs were given to confirm the Apostles, you will say. Yes, they were, and yet, no they weren’t. They were given to confirm not the Apostles, but the message they bore. God was in fact saying, “I am at work in these men. I have appointed them. Listen to them.” But, it wasn’t to aggrandize the Apostles. It was to demonstrate that they were in and of themselves a sign, and as such, these men pointed to the God who sent them.
Would you like to witness a miracle? Let your life be lived such that it, too, is a sign pointing to the God who holds you in His hands. That will likely require nothing of you that appears miraculous, as we measure miracles. There will likely be no sudden flashes of light out of heaven, no audible voices out of nowhere backing your claims, nothing so fancy as all that. But, if Christ is in you, and your life is in fact made new in Him; if the Holy Spirit indwells and His fruit is growing in you, these things cannot pass unnoticed. Those who knew you then will wonder at you now. Those who meet you anew will be touched by an earnestness unseen in the general populace. They will observe that there is something different here, something better. For some, this will be a savor unto life. For others, it will remain the stench of death. But, that speaks to their condition, not your witness, assuming your witness is true to the Master. And, dear ones, if our witness remains true to the Master, that is miracle indeed, and one well worth seeking.
