Wait, Which Is For Who?

Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.  In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.  So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.  Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?  But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. (1 Corinthians 14:20-25 NASB)

Okay, here is the first really hard passage in this chapter.  While the previous stuff may be hard to hear, this is the first one really hard to understand.  The two questions are, 1) "How are tongues a sign from God to unbelievers, not believers?" and 2) "How is prophesy a sign from God to believers, not to unbelievers?"  Good luck with these, because it appears to be written backwards to support such answers.

My first thought is that this is a corruption, that it appears much more sensible in some manuscripts.  Wrong.  All the manuscript evidence of this passage has verse 22 stated exactly the same way.  Seriously.  There are variants all around it in other verses with minor differences.  But verse 22 appears in the same words in each ancient text we have with this passage in it, even referred to it.  We have lectionaries from the early church and apostolic fathers, and when they reference this verse, it is worded exactly this way.  I learn two things from that: 1) That's how God inspired it to be written; and 2) That's how He wants me to understand it because He protected its transmission this way for 2,000 years and more.  So, it is what it is.  I have to find another way to understand it, no easy way out.

So, taken together (verses 20 through 25), sit as part of Paul's argument to the church in Corinth that gifts need to be for building up of the church through intelligibility.  Tongues isn't intelligible, so it doesn't build up the church.  Prophesy is intelligible, so it does build up the church and therefore belongs in worship.  But here Paul includes those outside the church in his argument.  This is now a bit outside the scope of 'building up the church' believers (i.e. people) by including unbelievers from outside the church.  It's now about building up the church as a 'collection of people'.

Paul supports his point that tongues is a sign for unbelievers with the illustration of everyone in worship speaking in tongues and unbelievers (and ungifted - not sure about that one) think they are insane.  So, how is considering the congregation speaking in tongues insane a sign from God?  And what is 'on the sign' for the unbelievers?


I've used Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians in the New International Commentary on the New Testament for help. Here I think I disagree with him, but only slightly.  What he says fits best is for tongues to be a sign to unbelievers that they are under God's judgment (in other words, 'not saved').  I hesitate here because I wonder if God would use a 'sign' that says, "You Lose", rather than, "Danger: You will lose if you continue".  It's very possible that Dr. Fee intended something like that, but since the example of Paul wasn't a 'suggestion' but a warning of what not to do, it's sort of hard to land on specifics here.

What I suspect is that tongues is a sign, not for believers (that they are spiritual - which, like Dr. Fee says, is what the Corinthians believed, and with which I agree), but for unbelievers that they are not a part of the congregation.  In other words, if tongues is used in personal prayer or some other non-worship venue, then witnessing it an unbeliever would still be faced with the inexplicable apart from God.  It might be a sign that someone has something they don't.  I think Paul's continued point though is that they wouldn't necessarily want it either.  In which case, perhaps Dr. Fee is more right in that it's a sign of judgement. 

Paul's point, regardless of what might be 'on the sign' for the unbeliever, is that tongues won't bring them to God, won't help them be saved, which is of primary importance.  Prophesy on the other hand does, yet it's not a sign for the unbeliever...which is unexpected.

Paul supports his point that prophesy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers with the illustration of everyone in worship prophesying, and unbelievers being convicted and falling on their faces acknowledging that God is among them.  So, how is this a sign for the believers when it sounds like it so strongly affected the unbelievers?  And, again, what's 'on the sign' for the believers?

Here I agree with Dr. Fee.  He says that the response of the unbelievers is a sign from God to the believers that affirms God is among them; in other words that they are spiritual, which is what they were after through tongues.  Of course, Paul qualifies such a conclusion with all of chapter 13, so it's not a 'sign' that they've 'arrived' or something.  Love does that.

These explanations are as difficult to understand and accept as the passage is difficult to understand.  What I think is clear though is that Paul is interested in the effect of the worship on unbelievers.  To that end, he points out that tongues doesn't help them, but prophesy does.  Therefore prophesy belongs in worship where unintelligible speech does not.  So uninterpreted tongues is fine on our own, but not in worship; including corporate prayer, especially because of 'visitors' to worship.  What needs to be in focus is building up of the church, the people. Exercising of intelligible gifts in worship does that. 

But what about me?  Where is my application?  I don't and never have spoken in tongues.  I've witnessed the 'whole church speaking in tongues' and while I didn't think they were insane, I did tell them they were 'unbiblical' (which they were).  I don't think I prophesy as a 'gift' as such.  So, where is my application?  It needs to be in Paul's point and challenge to build up the church in worship.  That worship isn't about me, it's about everyone of us there, including the unbeliever. 

So, my practice needs to be about all of us before the throne of God proclaiming His greatness, acknowledging Him as our King, and declaring His glory and presence among us.  Perhaps as we are overwhelmed by Him, unbelievers will be overwhelmed as well.  But has to be a 'we' involved, not only a me.  Here I need to be about others, not me. 

It's a challenge because being intrusive in worship can be distracting, so where do I draw the appropriate lines?  I don't want to distract from God in worship, but I want to include others in my worship.  Therein is my application.  As I learn to do that, I will learn to apply this passage to my own life.

Intelligible Edification

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.  Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. (1 Corinthians 14:4-5 NASB)

One of the things missing in the modern debate over gifts of the Holy Spirit and their use in worship is...balance.  It seems that somehow the camps became mostly divided into those who believe that all gifts are for today, and those who believe they are not.  While I concede they both have their reasons, I believe they both also have some dire problems with how they handle Scripture.

First off, for some reason, the group which holds to modern expression of all spiritual gifts seems to focus on tongues as the primary gift.  It's as if tongues the 'gateway' gift you have to have before you would be able to have any of the others.  If you don't speak in tongues, they believe you haven't received the 'second blessing'.  Frankly I can't stand such talk.  I have no patience with this view in the least.  It finds any sliver of Scripture without context to support a view diametrically opposed to Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Second, the group believing the gifts have ceased seem to use 1 Corinthians 12-14, but get radically different meaning from it that what any rational person reading it would derive.  It's truly odd.  Honestly, I haven't studied their rationale, and I admit I need to so I can better understand their particular irrationality.  My guess is that their entire view is a reaction against the ridiculousness in worship behavior from so many modern practitioners of gifts.

So while I hold to neither group, I consider myself a non-ceasationist; I believe the gifts of the Holy Spirit haven't ceased today.  Although I believe the enemy, Satan, has hijacked their expression in may modern churches.  From what I have seen, the expression of so-called gifts looks nothing like the intent of Paul in 1 Corinthians, and in fact is the polar opposite of what he taught.

Enough about me and modern stupidity, what about Paul.  In order to reach chapter 14, Paul has laid down the basic element of a unified church with a diversity of gifts by the design of God; and then has gone to great lengths to describe the supremacy of love over against all spiritual gifts.  Now he looks at the purpose and practice of gifts within the context of worship.  And on that note, he's not looking at all gifts, but only a few, verbal/audible gifts.

He point in the first half of the chapter is on intelligibility and the purpose of edifying the church.  The word edifying is drawn from building construction terms.  It is essentially a word meaning to build a house or other building.  So Paul's point is that expressions of gifts should have as their purpose the 'building' of the congregation.  His question to the church in Corinth is how can people in the congregation can be 'built upon' if they can't understand what is being said?

In the second half of the chapter Paul focuses on practice.  His description looks like nothing I've ever experienced.  But I sure want to...I think.  It's so radically different, I'm pretty sure I'd be very uncomfortable.  The description of practice is fraught with difficulties, and one particular controversial piece that truly does not seem to fit (that will be another entry all on its own).

I think that for my particular application of the overall view of chapter 14, the point has to be that my experience in worship should also be for the 'building' of the church/congregation.  I think that in our modern American culture, it's easy to make worship about me, and my experience.  I know it's easy to point out others and how they don't seem to 'get into it' or something.  But I don't believe I can use that for an excuse to be about my own experience.  If I'm not going to let them keep me from experiencing God in worship just because they're not 'into it', then the result is a bunch of independent people experiencing worship and no 'unity' is achieved or experienced. 

So what would 'unity in worship' look like?  Well, I don't know.  The whole layout is more supportive of independence than unity.  It's not easy to see each other, there's little or no acceptable or comfortable participation, and we arrange the entire room to focus on a stage, and therefore, the people on it.  We have an 'audience' experience, and participation from the audience seems disruptive.  This is why Paul's description in chapter 14:27-33 is so foreign to me.  All I've ever known is the arrangement I've just described.  So, my challenge is to somehow achieve or foster an experience of unity in worship within a context favoring independence.  I will need to think about this...

Investing in the Eternal

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.  For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.  When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.  For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.  But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13 NASB)

So, I don't have anything before my Master without love.  I love because I worship my Master; it's a normally produced fruit of worship.  And now, what now?  Where's Paul going now?  I think, if I'm not mistaken, that Paul is heading to the 'end of the story'.  This is the 'motivation' for going through all this, and continuing on with it.

One of the things about life with God that is supposed to ultimately motivate us, but today, gets shoved to the back of our minds, is heaven.  One day, followers of Jesus will join Him in heaven.  One day.  It's only been 2,000 years, and I suspect people now are getting a little ashamed at holding on to this belief or using it to motivate.  But yes, one day, Jesus will return for us.

Here Paul points out that while love never has an end, the other stuff does.  Prophesy will be put to an end, tongues stilled, and knowledge will be put to an end (like prophesy).  Think about this.  Why will love continue, but the others won't?  Paul goes on to explain...

When the complete comes, the 'parts' will be put to an end.  In other words, in heaven, when we know fully even as we are fully known, there won't be a need for 'gifts of knowledge' or 'gifts of prophesy' because everyone in heaven will already know everything.  In that day, love will characterize our eternal lives, so love will continue on into eternity.  The other verses through 12 continue to support this view.

The last verse, 13, lists three that remain.  Prophesy, tongues, and knowledge are all gone.  Faith, hope, and love remain.  They don't pass away, but consider Hebrews 11 for a moment: "Faith is the assurance of what is hoped for..."  So, faith and hope are tied together, in that what we hope for is made firm by faith.  In Romans 8:24, we're told that no one hopes for what they see, and in hope we have been saved; the salvation is not completely seen, not yet.  But what's the connection to love?

I suspect that to have faith, we must first have hope.  Without hope, faith doesn't have anything to substantiate; and faith without hope is fake faith.  By grace we have been saved, through faith.  And this 'by-grace-through-faith' transaction is not from ourselves, but a gift of God.  The connection between hope, faith, and love traces through the actions of God on our behalf.  Once we see Him face-to-face, hope will be completed because we will see.  Faith will itself be substantiated by experience of the presence of God.  What will be left will be an eternal life of love.

What I see Paul doing here is finishing off any residual argument about continuing to focus on the wrong thing.  Love first because we will love longest.  The rest will all pass away.  For Paul, since he believed Jesus' return was right around the corner, the call was to live as if it all comes down to today, because for him, it could.  What about for me?

The reality is that I'm not given any assurance of another day.  No one is.  So, it does come down to today, every day.  But I have so many of these 'today's that it's hard to keep on going since I know that it didn't happen yesterday, so the 'odds' are it won't happen today; so I slack off. 

If I flip a coin 50 times, and come up with 'heads' 80% of the time, what are the odds that the 51st flip will be heads?  If you say 80%, you should take a statistics course.  It's 50%.  It's always 50%.  A hundred flips, and number 101 is still 50%.  The reason is that a coin only has two sides, and they are equally weighted (or nearly).  In such cases all the statistics do is record the actual history of what happened.  In cases of a coin they do not predict the outcome of the next flip.  But we don't think that way.  We live, think, and behave as if it's a predictor of the next flip.  And so it goes with life lived with God.  He says it's a static potential, but we live as it the prior 'statistics' predict today.

I will continue to love (or worship) only to the degree I recognize the static potential of my continuing in this world.  I asked in the last entry, "What would I do if I was convinced that God had my back?"  Well, here's another question, "What would I do if I was convinced that I would end the day in the physical presence of God?"  The answer to that question should rule my day as co-regent with the first question. 

So here's the point for me: I need to love like I'm going home every day.  Only love will remain.  My other gifts will be gone.  My faith and hope will stand fulfilled.  But the practice of love will continue throughout eternity with me.  Perhaps the eternal quality of love is the reason that love so characterizes my Master.  Or perhaps love is eternal because love so characterizes my Master.  Either way, an investment in love every day is an investment in the eternal.  I like the ROI for that one.

Who Am I To Be Used By God?

They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? (Acts 2:7-8 NASB)

Every time I have gone over this passage, I have wondered how they knew the group was from Galilee rather than "local" or whatever.  A miracle of speaking and hearing is performed, yet in a Galilean "twang"?  It just seems interesting that the crowd could tell.  I thought maybe John was wearing a tee-shirt with "Property of Sea of Tiberius" or "Fish Galilee" or "Zebedee's Fresh Fish Company".

I have often wondered what made it obvious.  From the statement it had to be obvious, so what was it?  Because that piece of information, that detail, factored into the amazement and astonishment of the crowd.  Sure they were hearing the great wonders of God in their own dialect, but from Galileans?  Now that was crazy.  The fact that they were Galilean removed any support for another explanation, it had to be divine. 

But why was that?  Are there no schools in Galilee?  Are there no teachers, mentors, or tutors?  Are the only schools in Jerusalem?  What about immigrants?  Couldn't immigrants from other regions explain a plethora linguistic ability?  There were so few that it wouldn't?  So, I return to Nathaniel's statement from John 1:46, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"  That was one place within a larger region, and Nathaniel was from the region, a Galilean shore-town named Bethsaida, like Philip, Peter and Andrew.  So even within the "Region of Illiteracy" there were places worse than others.  It seems Jesus Himself was from one of the worst.

Regardless of what made it obvious, it was a detail that contributed to the shock of the event for the crowd.  And I move on to wonder if that too was part of the design of my Master?  In using such obviously unqualified people, wouldn't the event have to be a work of the Maker of the universe?  In choosing such a group no one else would choose, my Master makes His mark indelible; it can't be missed, and it can't be otherwise explained.

So, am I, with all my failures; physical, moral and spiritual; one who glorifies my King through my weaknesses?  Sort of.  To the extent I am redeemed from my moral failures, yes.  To the extent that the work demonstrates spiritual growth and faith, yes.  But not through moral and spiritual failure, that isn't what displays the glory of my Master.  These illiterate speakers of various languages were not pointed out because they were excluded by their God, but because they would not be expected to speak anything but Aramaic, maybe some simple Greek to conduct business, and a few phrases in Latin to stay out of trouble; the common language of the day.  No one would expect them to speak the specific language and dialect of Phrygia.

So, yes, my Master can use one such as me for His glory.  He can make His handiwork obvious in the process, and it can clearly overshadow me in every way.  But He will do so when my guilt and shame are not what make it unusual or what competes for the attention.  Or will He?  My only comfort at this point is David.  Other than him, I don't know of an obvious sinner used by my Master.  In fact David was really a moral failure only after attaining the great blessings of God as king.  Perhaps his son, Solomon would also be an example.  I really can't rely on those though.  They were examples of what not to do, and that's not really the example I want to give.  Sure they are also examples of God's redemption and use of "broken vessels", but still, there was a sense of repentance and change that made the story of their moral failures able to be told.

Will my Master use me?  He can.  I hope He will.  I hope people will hear or see something in me and say, "That's impossible!  What can it mean?"  It would be awesome and humbling for people to see me and hear me, but not be distracted by me; to be able to be ignored so my Master can shine forth.  That would be really cool.  More than likely God will not be using me in this way, it would just be cool.  Maybe I should invest in a shirt from Galilee?

Baptized, Filled, or What?

There is a division within groups of believers about specific belief regarding spiritual gifts.  One side believes that after a person is saved they then need the baptism of the Holy Spirit before they can truly live the life Jesus intended.  The other side of that view is that, at the point someone believes, they fully receive the Holy Spirit, and that IS the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I waded into this discussion while pastoring in Northern Idaho among the wackiest sets of believers anywhere (some were members of my church).  It was an interesting learning experience.  I waded into the discussion on the side believing that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs when someone is saved.  As a result of what I discovered in Scripture, I had to modify that view to somewhere in the middle.

Perhaps a semantic issue is at work here.  The term “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is rare, not even occurring in some translations.  The term I looked up was “filled with the Holy Spirit”, which occurs rather frequently in Acts.  What I found is that the normal occurrence of the term was in reference to the present condition of the person which explained why there were able to take the action they did (or at least that’s my interpretation, and I can discuss that further if someone wants to pursue the subject).

There were only two exceptions to this, one more than I expected.  The first exception was the event of Pentecost where the believers were “filled with the Holy Spirit” as an event with reference to time.  That one I expected.  But, later on, in Chapter 4, the believers pray and are again “filled with the Holy Spirit” as an event with reference to time.  That one surprised me.  That indicated to me that this event can happen to the same people more than once. 

Why I say I ended up in the middle though is because the effect of the second filling was boldness, not speaking in tongues.  It seems that tongues came either initially, or isn’t referred to at all.  Unfortunately, this didn’t please either side of the discussion, and left me with more enemies than friends.  How dare I side with Scripture rather than them, what was I thinking?  Anyway, once again I found that my Master seems less interested in sides of arguments among His kids than the kids are.

So, to once again invoke the voice of my lovely wife, “so what?”  Well, what I believe from this is that I am full of my Master’s Holy Spirit.  But I also know that I can seek Him in prayer and experience the rush again of His Spirit enabling me to speak with boldness.  When I compare my abilities, skills, and knowledge against the onslaught of evil in this world, I don’t stand up well.  I need the resource of my Master just to stand, and the empowering of His Spirit to stand boldly.

Today, I endure the knife of a doctor before I head to work.  I face the last day of the fiscal month with my team behind and my manager under fire for it.  I look forward to a long weekend, but with lots of stuff in it.  Some of this I can handle, but a lot if it is beyond me.  So, knowing I face it with the power of the Spirit of my Master means that I can face this day with boldness.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": May 27th.