On 1 Corinthians 14:2

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Sun Sep 22 16:39:35 EDT 2002


On Sunday, September 22, 2002, at 11:15 AM, Mark Wilson wrote:

>>> hO GAR LALWN GLWSSHi OUK ANQRWPOIS LALEI ALLA QEWi,
>>> OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI, PNEUMATI DE LALEI MUSTHRIA
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand OUDEIS GAR AKOUEI.
>>>
>>> So far, I have something like, "The one speaking with
>>> a (particular) tongue or language does not speak to
>>> men but to (some, a) god."
>
> Rather than restate what has already been said, I might point out that 
> your understanding of "a god" has much to commend it, but only if you
> begin with the presuppositions that many of these Corinthians were
> out of line in this practice.
>
> Under this view, the practice we see today for example, known as
> speaking in tongues, which I find to be some silly manufacturering
> of the biblical tongues (speaking a known Gentile dialect) we
> see on Acts. Everyone heard and understood what was being said when
> the legitimate gift was being used; no interpreters were needed on
> the day of Pentecost.

Though I am not Charismatic or Pentecostal, and do not hold to the 
conclusions offered by those who are, I find your above comments 
entirely inappropriate in this forum. This can only serve to inflame 
Charismatics on the list.  As far as presuppositions are concerned, I 
fear that you maybe reading your anti-charismatic sentiments back into 
this text.

> Some solve this contradiction by suggesting that the tongues in
> 1 Corinthians is different than that of Acts, an argument I find
> totallly devoid of merit. And yet, I've not completely figured
> out what this phenomena that Paul is trying to stop in Corinthians
> was all about either. He was fine with a particular tongues speaking,
> but very opposed to another kind of tongues speaking. This latter
> kind he speaks very harshly against in this chapter.
>
> I think what you do have is this silly non-sense of gibberish
> being humanly manufactured to compete with the legitimate gift
> of speaking a known Gentile dialect (comproble today of being
> able to speak French, German, Chinese, etc without learning it)
> in 1 Corinthians. I think this only explains the stinging rebuke
> that Paul levels against these imposters.

I would suggest that the context indicates Paul was not opposing 
"false" tongues speaking over against "true" tongues speaking, but the 
self-centered use of tongues speaking to exalt and edify oneself rather 
than the church. This is why Paul encourages prophecy over against 
tongues speaking.

> So, yes, some of these Corinthians, because they are not speaking in 
> the
> divinely inspired gift of tongues, they are talking into air. They
> have joined the ranks of those within the mystery religions of
> Corinthian and are speaking in some crazy gibberish that Paul seeks
> to rebuke them for. He is very careful not to rebuke the legitimate
> gift that surely some still had by this time. Like those in mystery
> religions, who worshiped and spoke to a god, Paul puts some of these
> Corinthians in the same ranks.

Appealing to the mystery religions is nothing more than an unnecessary 
and superfluous importation in light of the context.

It is abundantly clear from the context, both nearer and wider, that 
QEWi in v. 2 is not indefinite and is not a use of the singular as an 
example of a "class" of being, in this case the class being pagan gods. 
Aside from the parallel I cited from v. 28, note the nearer context. 
Shortly after explaining in the indicative that the one who speaks in 
tongues does not speak to men but QEWi, he says in verse 5, with no 
indication whatever that he is talking about some different kind of 
tongues speaking, QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GLWSSAIS ("Now I would 
like all of you to speak in tongues" NRSV). Now tell me, does Paul wish 
for all the Corinthians to speak to a pagan God in gibberish? It is 
abundantly clear that the issue in vv. 1-5 is not true tongues speaking 
vs. false tongues speaking, but the tongues speaking, which edifies the 
self, vs. prophecy, which edifies the church. The one who does the 
latter is "greater" (MEIZWN) than the one who does the former.

> I do think that much more needs to be studied on this text, and with
> an entirely different set of biblical presuppositions. Otherwise, you
> arrive at this contradictory conclusion that the legitimate gift of
> tongues was to be used to speak to God! I find that intolerable, or
> better yet, without biblical precedence.

I would be careful here, lest you be found saying that you find *the 
text* intolerable.

> So, the reference to "the god" would be a reference back to this
> same god of verse 2 in Clay's example. If you interpret 1 Corinthians
> 14 with these mystery religions in mind, you may make far more
> progress than positing some "unknown language to be used when speaking
> or praying to God."

I suppose that if we can only invent a reaction to the background of 
our choice, we can make any text say anything.

If by "the god" you mean TWi QEWi in v. 28 (you don't make this clear) 
then it is *your* conclusion that is intolerable. Why on earth would 
Paul instruct the Corinthians that, if there was a tongues interpreter, 
speaking in tongues would be OK, but if there was not, the tongues 
speaker should speak to a pagan god? Why would Paul encourage or 
concede speaking to a pagan god? Talk about meaningless gibberish.
============

Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI




More information about the B-Greek mailing list