 |  |
once an assembly had been formed, once a church had come together, how would
tongues be used then? That is the issue of I Cor. 14: Paul was concerned about the
abuse of the gift, especially how an unbeliever might view it.
"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with
tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that
ye are mad?" (I Cor. 14: 23).
This verse again illustrates that tongues could not be ecstatic utterances. If a visitor to
Corinth called on the Christian assembly there and saw them gabbling and babbling in
religious ecstasy, he wouldn't be impressed. Such behaviour was not uncommon in the
temples of that time. If, however, he went into an assembly where they all spoke Greek
then another got up and spoke another foreign language and then a third, and a fourth and
a fifth . . . . . He would certainly think them mad, especially if he asked what each person
was saying and no one knew. On the other hand, if a stranger entered the congregation
and heard two or three messages in his own language and then heard an interpretation in
the common to all Greek language, what an impact that would make, especially if he
were a Jew.
Some have argued that I Cor. 14: 1-5 refers to the private use of tongues but it does
not. If the Apostle's point is that it is better to prophesy (i.e. speak forth about God) in
ordinary, everyday speech, then to prophesy in private is nonsense. Thus if we keep
rigidly, strictly and exclusively to Scripture we have to rule out the idea of tongues for
prayer, either in public or in private. In private, tongues have no use whatsoever and
ecstatic utterance and tongues of angels are foreign to the Biblical teaching. Tongues
were the recognized languages of this world and people spoke in them, albeit to God
(I.Cor.xiv.2), but for others to hear. In that way they were a sign (I Cor. 14: 22).
Some have proposed that there are two types of tongues and that the ones used for
praying are different from those used for the other purposes described in I Corinthians.
From what is written above, this view is not tenable. Others have tried to argue that
every believer should speak in tongues but such a view is completely contrary to
Scripture. Certainly, during the Acts period, not everyone had the gift of tongues.
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit . . . . . . . for to one is given by
the Spirit the word of wisdom; . . . . . . . . to another the gifts of healing by the same
Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning
of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues"
(I Cor. 12: 4, 8-10).
In concluding this chapter, Paul writes:
"Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" (12: 29, 30)
Here is a list of rhetorical questions which all demand the answer, No!. No, not all
spoke with tongues. If the teaching is as plain as this, why is it that some insist that all
should speak in tongues? It is, perhaps, the result of compounded errors in their beliefs.
If they fail to appreciate the change in God's administration subsequent to the rejection of