Anyone care to discuss 1 Corinthians 14?

[carlos123]

Verse 2 Explained Paul's reasoning, in that no man undersatands tongues, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

I went to the movie theater and there was nothing good playing so I decided to come back to the Tim Horton's coffee shop, plug in, and get back on this thread .

AnotherTraveler...I was wondering based on what you said above if you think the tongues Paul spoke to the Corinthians about could not be understood by any man? In other words were tongues simply an unknown language to the person speaking them but a language nevertheless that was present somewhere in the world (and understandable by those speaking it natively) or a language that could not be understood by anyone for it was not a human language?

If you don't mind sharing any further thoughts on this I would appreciate hearing them.

Carlos

[carlos123]

...Each verse must be exegeted in context without bias.

I'll say Amen to that!

[carlos123]

Good topic, you are very brave!

What a shame that these days it takes bravery to discuss what Paul said so plainly? Have we as Christians become so prone to biting and devouring each other to pieces that one must start such a discussion with fear and trembling at what the Christians will dish out?

So far so good on this thread. I hope and pray that we can maintain a respectful and healthy discussion

[carlos123]

...I think people were smarter then, so they understood God's Word better than most people do today.

I do not think that smarts was neccessary to a proper understanding of God's Word Bibs . I believe that it was rather more a matter of heart.

Paul said that not many of the Corinthians were wise by human standards (1 Cor 1:26). Or influential or of noble birth. Most were probably foolish in the eyes of the world but God chose them to hear and believe the gospel despite their apparent lack of smarts .

It seems to me that they were more humble in heart. More childlike in their faith and thus more pleasing to God. I do hope that whatever they had that we can learn to imitate them at it!!

I sure hope I didn't respond seriously to what you meant as a joke with your addition of the whistling thingy .

I also believe that this entire chapter speaks of ORDER.

I agree that order is spoken about in this chapter. But what kind of order was it that Paul spoke of? The only order I see is that prophets were to speak one at a time. Women were not to speak out in church. And tongues speakers were not to speak unless there was an interpreter present.

I do not see an order of the kind that we normally associate with order in a church service as in step 1 - sing a song (5 minutes), step 2 - preach a sermon (45 minutes), step 3 - sing another song (5 minutes), step 4 - get up and go home (5 minutes). To all be done in a span of a one hour service.

Rather I see an order that allowed God to direct a church assembly through the Holy Spirit as He prompted different one's with different gifts to speak out. Paul's order allowed for the operation of different gifts in ways that we, of today, would probably consider out of order .

It's the difference between anyone can say whatever they feel led to say...one at a time (Paul's order) and there is only time enough for one person (the pastor) to say what he feels a need to say and anyone who interrupts him is out of order (the order we practice and wrongly justify by a mistaken notion of what Paul meant by "order").

[Guest man]

1 Corinthians 14

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues is not an earthly language.

The Word states that no one can understand what is being said. Eventhough there are those who are able to interpret tongues, it doesn't make it a language of this world.

[AnotherTraveler]

1 Corinthians 14

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues is not an earthly language.

The Word states that no one can understand what is being said. Eventhough there are those who are able to interpret tongues, it doesn't make it a language of this world.

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1 Cor 13:1 (KJV)

tongues of men and of angels

[godrulz]

1 Corinthians 14

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Tongues is not an earthly language.

The Word states that no one can understand what is being said. Eventhough there are those who are able to interpret tongues, it doesn't make it a language of this world.

Tongues are unlearned and not understood by the speaker. If they are an extant language, someone who knows it would understand it (Acts 2, for e.g.). If they are a dead language, only a historian might recognize it. It could also be a heavenly language that no one on earth understands. Those who interpret tongues still do not understand the tongues like they would their mother tongue. It is a supernatural gift, but this does not mean it could not be a known language.

An English speaking person who babbles in a gift of tongues of an African or Chinese dialect is an e.g. (they did not learn it, understand it, but a native speaker would recognize it). For a Chinese person, English could be their tongues if they never learned it, but it was given by the Spirit! (I doubt English is commonly given as a tongue).

[Guest Biblicist]

I do not think that smarts was neccessary to a proper understanding of God's Word Bibs . I believe that it was rather more a matter of heart.

Paul said that not many of the Corinthians were wise by human standards (1 Cor 1:26). Or influential or of noble birth. Most were probably foolish in the eyes of the world but God chose them to hear and believe the gospel despite their apparent lack of smarts .

It seems to me that they were more humble in heart. More childlike in their faith and thus more pleasing to God. I do hope that whatever they had that we can learn to imitate them at it!!

I sure hope I didn't respond seriously to what you meant as a joke with your addition of the whistling thingy .

Nope, it's kewl. The statement was mostly tongue-in-cheek. I do believe we as a human race are not nearly as "smart" as humans used to be. But I like your answer. I think you are spot on.

I agree that order is spoken about in this chapter. But what kind of order was it that Paul spoke of? The only order I see is that prophets were to speak one at a time. Women were not to speak out in church. And tongues speakers were not to speak unless there was an interpreter present.

I do not see an order of the kind that we normally associate with order in a church service as in step 1 - sing a song (5 minutes), step 2 - preach a sermon (45 minutes), step 3 - sing another song (5 minutes), step 4 - get up and go home (5 minutes). To all be done in a span of a one hour service.

Rather I see an order that allowed God to direct a church assembly through the Holy Spirit as He prompted different one's with different gifts to speak out. Paul's order allowed for the operation of different gifts in ways that we, of today, would probably consider out of order .

It's the difference between anyone can say whatever they feel led to say...one at a time (Paul's order) and there is only time enough for one person (the pastor) to say what he feels a need to say and anyone who interrupts him is out of order (the order we practice and wrongly justify by a mistaken notion of what Paul meant by "order").

That is exactly what it does mean. Not an "order of service" but order within the service. God's order, and direction. Although, I do believe that an order of service helps unity and continuity for the beleivers. Humans tend to like, and need, routine.

[Guest Biblicist]

Good topic, you are very brave!

What a shame that these days it takes bravery to discuss what Paul said so plainly? Have we as Christians become so prone to biting and devouring each other to pieces that one must start such a discussion with fear and trembling at what the Christians will dish out?

So far so good on this thread. I hope and pray that we can maintain a respectful and healthy discussion

I'll say a huge AMEN to that!

[carlos123]

Alrighty then...I have about 65% power left on my computer and about an hours worth of spare charge through my truck battery for my portable internet modem so I have a bit more time to add something to this thread .

First off I would like to take some liberty in violating the very thing I asked that we limit our discussion to. Namely I would like to make a few observations about how we might apply what is written in 1 Cor 14 to today or perhaps ask some questions about modern day application. The reason I wanted to stick only to what Paul meant to say to the Corinthians was because in my experience, talking about modern application of what Paul said tends to lead to arguments. But given the respectful nature of our discussion so far...well...I hope no one minds if I take some liberty to talk about applying what Paul said to today. I hope and pray that we can continue to have a relatively nice discussion. If I was an unbeliever I would keep my fingers crossed but as a believer I guess I will...let's see...hmm...keep my eyes on God to help us I guess .

I am going to skip going verse by verse and instead get right to some things that I would like to get further input on from anyone who cares to give it (be they a theologian or shepherd tending sheep ).

Paul says that those who speak in tongues (whether they are known languages or completely unknown to anyone in the world does not seem to be made absolutely clear in the context to me) should keep silent if there is no interpreter. I think we can agree that those who speak in tongues were being told to keep silent if there was no interpreter. Seems pretty clear to me.

Now regarding women speaking in the assembly Paul says that they should remain silent.

Those who speak in tongues should remain silent if there is no interpreter.

Those who are women should remain silent.

This does not seem like a very difficult concept to understand. Perhaps it is difficult to be willing to apply it. But it seems pretty clear in terms of what Paul said to the Corinthians.

Now I don't think that Paul was saying that a woman should not speak at all in any respect whatsoever as in not saying hi to anyone, or telling her children to behave, or telling her husband that she needed to go use the washroom (whatever they used in those days I have no idea) or any other such thing. That would have made it near impossible to practically have women in the meeting at all short of them using sign language to communicate about such matters which is a bit...well...ridiculous to suppose that Paul meant.

I think in the context...let's see...

Verse 1: for he that speaks in a tongue

Verse 3: he that prophesieth speaks...

Verse 6: speaking a revelation, prophecy, knowledge, or doctrine

Verse 19: Paul would rather speak five words...

Verse 23: all speaking in tongues...

Verse 26: speaking a psalm, doctrine, tongue, revelation, interpretation...

Verse 27: if any speaks in an unknown tongue...

Verse 28: but there is no interpreter let him keep silent...

Verse 29: let the prophets speak two or three at most...

Verse 30: but if something is revealed to someone sitting down let the first hold his peace (or keep silent to let the other share).

Verse 34: let your women keep silent...for it is not permitted for them to speak...for it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly.

Seems very clear to me my brethren....that just as those who speak in tongues are to keep silent in the assembly if there is no interpreter, just as those who are sharing a prophecy are to keep silent if a revelation or otherwise comes to those sitting down, just so the women are to keep from speaking out in the assembly.

I didn't make these words up. God inspired Paul to write them. And they seem pretty clear at least to me. I don't even understand why Paul instructed the Corinthians to allow only two or three tongues speakers to speak (if an interpreter was present), or two or three prophets to speak. Why not 3 or 4 or even 5? Why so few? Why did he likewise say that women were not to speak out in the assembly. Beats me. But as they say in the military...mine is not to question why but to do or die. Seems to me that we need to obey what is written here and apply it. Whatever the consequences. However much it goes against the grain of our culture.

Regarding tongues being an unknown tongue that is not present in the world becuase "no one understands" the one speaking in a tongue....

Just a couple of thoughts...

Verse 2: For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Seems to me that verse 2 could be talking about either a weird angelic language OR a language like English or Spanish not understood either by the one speaking it or those listening. If one is speaking Spanish...obviously what he is saying cannot be understood by those who do not know Spanish. In that sense he is just speaking before God or to God. Just between him and God. And since he himself cannot understand Spanish then that which he is speaking is indeed a mystery. Something that is hidden and not evident.

Verse 10: There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

Paul is still speaking about tongues in context. He is saying that there are many different kind of voices (I will have to look up the Greek word here to see if it is the same as that which is otherwise translated "tongues") and that all have meaning in the world. In other words known voices, or tongues.

I am not saying definitively that tongues are known languages like English or Spanish only. They certainly were in Acts. Just that I can see how they could certainly be known languages in this chapter and not some kind of unintelligible, unknown language, that does not exist among the tongues spoken by mankind.

Just my further thoughts to add to this discussion.

I look forward to hearing your all's thoughts on what I have said. Please do try and continue to keep this discussion civil. I do so much appreciate the posts so far in that they have not veered off into arguments. I hope that we can exhibit maturity and godliness in keeping it that way still.

Carlos