Re: MacArthur and Tongues

Perry L. Stepp (plstepp@flash.net)
Fri, 7 Nov 1997 13:30:23 -0600

For what it's worth:

Eric, you were right the first time. MacArthur is a good preacher, very
good at application, one of the leading churchmen of our time. But when it
comes to Greek issues, he's only as good as the sources he uses. And on
this point, his sources ain't that good. Great preachers are often
not-so-great exegetes (see C. H. Spurgeon, Swindoll, Billy Graham, etc., as
well as MacArthur.)

A professor of mine once told me about an experience he'd had in seminary,
at New Orleans Baptist. He'd been in a New Testament Ph.D. seminar, and
one of his friends, seeking to argue a certain point regarding the Greek
text, had appealed to a book Billy Graham wrote. His professor replied:
"You need to know that when you're talking about the gospel, or preaching,
or evangelism, Billy Graham is an authority. When you're talking about
Greek, well, *you* know more about reading the Greek New Testament than
Billy Graham does."

Perry L. Stepp

(Permission granted to quote any or all and to name the writer.)

****************************************************************
Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TX
Ph.D. candidate in New Testament, Baylor University
Keeper of the Top-10 List, alt.fan.letterman
#1 Dallas Cowboy Homer
Check out the Hardline page
at http://hardliners.com

I saw a werewolf drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's
And his hair was perfect.

Ahoooooooooooo!
****************************************************************

----------
> From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@gte.net>
> To: Biblical Greek <b-greek@virginia.edu>
> Subject: MacArthur and Tongues
> Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 6:33 PM
>
> The last time I suggested that John MacArthur was something less than a
> skilled Greek exegete, I received a pointed public response from one
> listmember rebuking me for daring to criticize such an esteemed
> teacher/preacher/author. Being more foolish than wise, perhaps, I do
> feel compelled to raise this question on the B-Greek list, however:
>
> In the new MacArthur Study Bible, Mr. MacArthur states in his notes to I
> Corinthians 14 that the key to interpreting this passage is in the Greek
> but it is one that is oft-neglected by translators/commentators, to wit:
> that when Paul uses the singular "tongue" - i.e., "speaking in a tongue"
> (with the exception of 14:27-28) - he means pagan gibberish (because
> gibberish is all one thing, i.e., there is/are no such thing(s) as
> "gibberishes"), but when Paul uses the plural "tongues" - i.e.,
> "speaking with tongues" - he means true Holy-Spirit-inspired speech in
> real languages (note the plural "languages"), a gift which, according to
> MacArthur's cessationist viewpoint, died out after the apostles. IS
> MACARTHUR's DISTINCTION (i.e., singular "tongue" versus plural
> "tongues") legitimate from a lexical or contextual basis? (It doesn't
> appear to be so to me, and I've never read or heard this argument
> before.) Is there any way to read this passage to suggest that Paul is
> switching back and forth (as MacArthur suggests) between pagan gibberish
> and "true tongues" while using the same term GLWSSA for both?