1 Corinthians 12:30

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Jeffrey T. Requadt jeff at requadt.com
Fri Aug 27 12:19:44 EDT 2004

[] NET – Novum Testamentum Graece Diglot (Greek / English) [] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide I’m new to this list, but I can’t find this question in the archives. Doesanyone know why in 1 Corinthians 12:31, ZHLOUTE (“desire, seek”) istranslated/interpreted as an imperative in every version I can find exceptThe Message? (I use the “Every Version” tool in Logos, which has 20-oddEnglish versions) According to Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon, this form can beeither indicative, imperative, or subjunctive. I have cautiously ruled outthe subjunctive because I can’t think of a way in context that it would makesense (unless as a rhetorical question? But there are no other words whichwould indicate this), but it seems to make more sense to me in the contextof the themes of the epistle, and especially in light of Paul’s point thatevery part is necessary to the body, and the toe shouldn’t try to be an eye,etc., that he would be using ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA (“(you)seek the greater gifts”) in an indicative sense. I.e., not “this is what youshould do” but “this is what you are doing.” Then the meaning would beironic, such as, “All of you have your own gift and purpose in the church,but you continue to seek (or are seeking) the ‘greater’ gifts. And yet Iwill show you a better way.” Maybe I’m missing some detail in the parsing,but as far as I can tell this is a 2nd person plural, present activeindicative/imperative/subjunctive. So my question comes down to, what in thetext leads translators to believe that this an imperative, not anindicative? It seems to me that this could affect one’s exegesis of thepassage. Thanks for any help. And by the way, there is no NET note on thisword, so I’m lost. Also, I’ve noticed that some discussion concerns Logos. There is adownloadable user’s guide available at www.swcaz.edu <http://www.swcaz.edu/>, but please note that it is not done by the company themselves or by theprogrammers, but by people who have had to use Logos without a manual orguide and got frustrated and wrote their own for other people like them.There is a chapter on using Logos with the original languages. I’m sure theywould appreciate feedback if you have it.Jeffrey T. Requadt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~”Freeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom!” ~ Braveheart~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2625 E. Cactus Rd.Phoenix, AZ 85032Phone: (602) 652-1230 x 4111

[] NET – Novum Testamentum Graece Diglot (Greek / English)[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Aug 27 14:32:51 EDT 2004

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide [] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Jeffrey, there’s a discussion of this from January 6-7, 1997 which youshould be able to locate in the archives; the subject-header is Re: ZHLOUTEand DIWKETE (was MEIZONA). There are related threads from early January1997 entitled 1 Cor 12:31 MEIZONA and 1 Cor 12-14. You may find that livelydiscussion of interest.At 9:19 AM -0700 8/27/04, Jeffrey T. Requadt wrote:>I’m new to this list, but I can’t find this question in the archives. Does>anyone know why in 1 Corinthians 12:31, ZHLOUTE (“desire, seek”) is>translated/interpreted as an imperative in every version I can find except>The Message? (I use the “Every Version” tool in Logos, which has 20-odd>English versions) According to Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon, this form can be>either indicative, imperative, or subjunctive. I have cautiously ruled out>the subjunctive because I can’t think of a way in context that it would make>sense (unless as a rhetorical question? But there are no other words which>would indicate this), but it seems to make more sense to me in the context>of the themes of the epistle, and especially in light of Paul’s point that>every part is necessary to the body, and the toe shouldn’t try to be an eye,>etc., that he would be using ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA (“(you)>seek the greater gifts”) in an indicative sense. I.e., not “this is what you>should do” but “this is what you are doing.” Then the meaning would be>ironic, such as, “All of you have your own gift and purpose in the church,>but you continue to seek (or are seeking) the ‘greater’ gifts. And yet I>will show you a better way.” Maybe I’m missing some detail in the parsing,>but as far as I can tell this is a 2nd person plural, present active>indicative/imperative/subjunctive. So my question comes down to, what in the>text leads translators to believe that this an imperative, not an>indicative? It seems to me that this could affect one’s exegesis of the>passage. Thanks for any help. And by the way, there is no NET note on this>word, so I’m lost.> > > >Also, I’ve noticed that some discussion concerns Logos. There is a>downloadable user’s guide available at www.swcaz.edu <http://www.swcaz.edu/>>, but please note that it is not done by the company themselves or by the>programmers, but by people who have had to use Logos without a manual or>guide and got frustrated and wrote their own for other people like them.>There is a chapter on using Logos with the original languages. I’m sure they>would appreciate feedback if you have it.> >Jeffrey T. Requadt>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>“Freeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom!” ~ Braveheart>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>2625 E. Cactus Rd.>Phoenix, AZ 85032>Phone: (602) 652-1230 x 4111> > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/— Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Maurice A. O’Sullivan mauros at iol.ie
Fri Aug 27 14:41:57 EDT 2004

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide [] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Jeffrey:You’re in good company <g>Here is whatEllingworth, P., Hatton, H., & Ellingworth, P. (1995). A handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Rev. ed. of: A translator’s handbook on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (Page 289). New York: United Bible Societies.has to say on 1 Co. 12:31a >>This sentence may be either (1) an order, “strive for spiritual gifts,” or (2) a statement, “you strive for.” Most translations and commentaries choose (1), including the NIV text; but (2), which is mentioned in an NIV footnote, would make a good connection with verse 31b: “You Corinthians are struggling to obtain spiritual gifts, but I will show you a much better way,” the way of love. <<At 17:19 27/08/2004, Jeffrey T. Requadt wrote:>I’m new to this list, but I can’t find this question in the archives. Does>anyone know why in 1 Corinthians 12:31, ZHLOUTE (“desire, seek”) is>translated/interpreted as an imperative in every version I can find except>The Message? (I use the “Every Version” tool in Logos, which has 20-odd>English versions) According to Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon, this form can be>either indicative, imperative, or subjunctive. I have cautiously ruled out>the subjunctive because I can’t think of a way in context that it would make>sense (unless as a rhetorical question? But there are no other words which>would indicate this), but it seems to make more sense to me in the context>of the themes of the epistle, and especially in light of Paul’s point that>every part is necessary to the body, and the toe shouldn’t try to be an eye,>etc., that he would be using ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA (“(you)>seek the greater gifts”) in an indicative sense. I.e., not “this is what you>should do” but “this is what you are doing.” Then the meaning would be>ironic, such as, “All of you have your own gift and purpose in the church,>but you continue to seek (or are seeking) the ‘greater’ gifts. And yet I>will show you a better way.” Maybe I’m missing some detail in the parsing,>but as far as I can tell this is a 2nd person plural, present active>indicative/imperative/subjunctive. So my question comes down to, what in the>text leads translators to believe that this an imperative, not an>indicative? It seems to me that this could affect one’s exegesis of the>passage. Thanks for any help. And by the way, there is no NET note on this>word, so I’m lost.> > > >Also, I’ve noticed that some discussion concerns Logos. There is a>downloadable user’s guide available at www.swcaz.edu <http://www.swcaz.edu/>>, but please note that it is not done by the company themselves or by the>programmers, but by people who have had to use Logos without a manual or>guide and got frustrated and wrote their own for other people like them.>There is a chapter on using Logos with the original languages. I’m sure they>would appreciate feedback if you have it.> >Jeffrey T. Requadt>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>“Freeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom!” ~ Braveheart>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>2625 E. Cactus Rd.>Phoenix, AZ 85032>Phone: (602) 652-1230 x 4111> > > >> home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/> mailing list> at lists.ibiblio.org>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/Maurice A. O’Sullivan [ Bray, Ireland ]mauros at iol.ie

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Harold R. Holmyard III hholmyard at ont.com
Fri Aug 27 15:08:32 EDT 2004

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide [] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Dear Jeffrey,I think the majority imperative view is based on a perceived misuse or inordinate desire for the gift of tongues. Paul would rather that Corinthians sought the gift of prophecy and related gifts. Whereas tongues tends not to be edifying, unless there is an interpreter, prophecy can be edifying to all. So Paul is recommending prophecy over against tongues.Yours,Harold Holmyard

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Fri Aug 27 20:34:53 EDT 2004

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide [] NET – Novum Testamentum Graece Diglot (Greek / English) On Aug 27, 2004, at 11:19 AM, Jeffrey T. Requadt wrote:> I’m new to this list, but I can’t find this question in the archives. > Does> anyone know why in 1 Corinthians 12:31, ZHLOUTE (“desire, seek”) is> translated/interpreted as an imperative in every version I can find > except> The Message? (I use the “Every Version” tool in Logos, which has 20-odd> English versions) According to Mounce’s Analytical Lexicon, this form > can be> either indicative, imperative, or subjunctive. I have cautiously ruled > out> the subjunctive because I can’t think of a way in context that it > would make> sense (unless as a rhetorical question? But there are no other words > which> would indicate this), but it seems to make more sense to me in the > context> of the themes of the epistle, and especially in light of Paul’s point > that> every part is necessary to the body, and the toe shouldn’t try to be > an eye,> etc., that he would be using ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA > (“(you)> seek the greater gifts”) in an indicative sense. I.e., not “this is > what you> should do” but “this is what you are doing.” Then the meaning would be> ironic, such as, “All of you have your own gift and purpose in the > church,> but you continue to seek (or are seeking) the ‘greater’ gifts. And yet > I> will show you a better way.” Maybe I’m missing some detail in the > parsing,> but as far as I can tell this is a 2nd person plural, present active> indicative/imperative/subjunctive. So my question comes down to, what > in the> text leads translators to believe that this an imperative, not an> indicative? It seems to me that this could affect one’s exegesis of the> passage. Thanks for any help. And by the way, there is no NET note on > this> word, so I’m lost.Jeffrey, the imperative view is, in my opinion, virtually certain. Part of the evidence for it is precisely that the Corinthians WERE NOT seeking the greater gifts, as Paul defines “greater.” There was another thread on this issue besides the one mentioned by Carl. The subject was “ZHLOUTE (I Cor 12:31).” [Note that the “I” in “I Cor” is the Roman numeral I, i.e., the capital letter I.] For some reason, some of the posts also ended up under the subject “NUN plus Aorist” (and perhaps under others). One of my posts <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail//2002-November/023334.html> was a somewhat lengthy treatment of this question, which I think at least some found helpful. If I remember correctly, Iver Larsen contacted me off-list to inform me that as a result of this post he decided to correct the translation of 1Cor 12.31 in the Swedish version he had worked on.============Steven Lo VulloMadison, WI

[] 1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide[] NET – Novum Testamentum Graece Diglot (Greek / English)

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

40 thoughts on “1 Corinthians 12:30

  1. Troy Day says:

    Do all speak in tongues?
    YES of course
    All baptized in the Holy Ghost Speak in tongues
    as initial evidence, not as one of the 9 Gifts of the Spirit

    1 Cor 12:30
    Do all have gifts of healing? – No. Not all have the gift of healing
    Do all speak in tongues? – No. Not all have the gift of tongues
    Do all interpret? – No. Not all have the gift of interpretation

    Hence the apostolic exhortation:
    ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA
    “(you)seek the greater gifts”)

  2. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Do all speak in tongues?
    YES of course
    All baptized in the Holy Ghost Speak in tongues
    as initial evidence, not as one of the 9 Gifts of the Spirit

    1 Cor 12:30
    Do all have gifts of healing? – No. Not all have the gift of healing
    Do all speak in tongues? – No. Not all have the gift of tongues
    Do all interpret? – No. Not all have the gift of interpretation

    Hence the apostolic exhortation:
    ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA
    “(you)seek the greater gifts”)

  3. Troy Day says:

    Can someone be baptized in the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues?

    Do all speak in tongues?
    YES of course
    All baptized in the Holy Ghost Speak in tongues
    as initial evidence, not as one of the 9 Gifts of the Spirit

    1 Cor 12:30
    Do all have gifts of healing? – No. Not all have the gift of healing
    Do all speak in tongues? – No. Not all have the gift of tongues
    Do all interpret? – No. Not all have the gift of interpretation

    Hence the apostolic exhortation:
    ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA
    “(you)seek the greater gifts”)

    1. This is a very old rough draft. My article has much more depth, but this gives my general view

      Do All Speak In Tongues

      Whenever one is initially filled with the Holy Spirit, all clear passages demonstrate that ALL who were filled spoke in tongues. Yet, it appears that 1 Corinthians 12:30 demonstrates that only some speak in tongues. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, so a close objective evaluation of Scriptures involved must be made to determine similarities and differences in the use of tongues.

      Do All Speak In Tongues?
      1 Corinthians 12:30

      I. 1 Corinthians 12:30 must NOT contradict the New Testament Context.

      A. Tongues are demonstrated to be the evidence of being initially filled with the Holy Spirit: (not an exhaustive list)

      1. Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance”

      2. Acts 10:46: “FOR they heard them speak with tongues”

      a. “FOR” should be translated “BECAUSE”:

      1)​The Greek word translated “for” (Gr: “gar”) is not merely a ​preposition. It is a conjunction “…which is virtually equivalent to ​’because’…” and must be “…distinguished from the preposition ​’for’… ​(J.W. Wenham, Elements of N.T. Greek, p. 200).

      2)​In fact, “Gar” is “…a conjunction, which acc. (accusative) to its composition ‘ge’ and ‘ara’, is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, ‘the thing is ​first affirmed by the particle ‘ge’, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ‘ara’ (J.H. thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the ​New Testament, p. 109). In other words, “gar” comes from two particles, one affirming the previous thought or word, and one referring back to the previous thought or word, making this conjunction a strong “because”.

      ​3)​The fact that “gar” is used in the “accusative” case reinforces the ​truth of the previous verse (Acts 10:45) and its connection with Acts ​10:46, for the accusative case shows the direction, extent, or end of ​an action. This is the case of the direct object. So then, Acts 10:46 ​demonstrates that “because (double affirmation – i.e. ​’absolutely ​because)” those who heard the speaking in tongues, they (they, by ​their hearing were directed to the end of action) understood “…that ​on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts ​10:45).

      ​4)​Further proof that this word is a very strong “because” is the ​following three-fold basic definitions of “gar” (J.H. Thayer, Greek-​English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 109, 111)

      ​a)​Its primary and original Conclusive force is seen in ​questions and answers expressed with emotion. (Notice the ​term “Conclusive force”)

      ​b)​It adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding ​statement or opinion. (Notice the term “Reason of a ​preceding statement”)

      ​c)​It serves to explain, make clear, illustrate, a preceding ​thought or word.

      ​(For further study, one may note the following words translated “FOR” in the New Testament: anti, apo, achri, dia, eis, ek, en, eneka, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper. These provide interesting insights for comparison studies.)

      3. Therefore, a better translation of Acts 10:45, 46 is presented:

      a.​v. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
      v. 46 BECAUSE they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

      4. Correct Objective Hermeneutical Conclusion:

      a. Believers who were with Apostle Peter understood clearly that Speaking in Tongues was the direct result of the preceding thought, mainly, that the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT was “poured out”.

      More in next post

    2. B. Tongues are demonstrated as NOT being a singular gift of the Spirit throughout the book of Acts. In fact, the “gift of tongues” is never mentioned. Only the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

      1.​When people were initially filled with the Holy Spirit, they ALL spoke in ​tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46: Acts 19:6). If they were all supposed to receive ​various gifts, then why did they all receive THE SAME GIFT? If one reads the ​texts carefully, one will discover that all the passages in the book of Acts are ​directly refer to receiving THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, not “A” gift of ​tongues!

      2.​The Bible says, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Corinthians 12:29, 30). The Greek makes it clear that the answer is an emphatic “NO”! No, all do not exercise the same gift; the gifts are distributed as God wills” (1 Cor. 12:11), however, in Acts, ALL received the same GIFT, the Holy Spirit, and ALL received the same evidence – speaking in tongues!

      C. Paul’s regulatory teaching about one person being allowed to speak at a time (1 Cor. 14:27) would seem to contradict every account of Spirit baptism and tongues recorded in the Bible if lifted from there specific context.

      1. In every case where the Bible records people being initially filled with the Holy Spirit, they all spoke in tongues SIMULTANEOUSLY (Acts 2:4, 6; 10:44-46: 19:6). The combined effect of the disciples speaking in tongues in Jerusalem was so loud that it drew a crowd of several thousand.

      ​2.​Time considerations support an opposite early church paradigm.

      ​Without going into detail, the fact that Acts was written after 1 Corinthians has ​great impact on this issue. If Paul’s traveling companion, Luke, understood that ​all the people in the book of Acts were out of Divine Order when they ALL ​spoke in tongues, why did his narrative not address the issue, or clarify the ​issue? Is God trying to confuse us? The only clearly logical explanation is by ​understanding the difference between Tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit ​infilling and Tongues as a specific Gift of the Holy Spirit.

      D. Paul’s regulatory teaching about the need for interpretation of tongues in the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:13, 28) would seem to contradict every case in the Bible where saints were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, for there is no mention of any interpretation of the tongues.

      Jesus said Himself that tongues would be one of the signs that would follow those who believe (Mark 16:17). This lends to the idea that more than some believers may speak in tongues, although, it is granted that this could be referring to a collective whole, suggesting that where believers are located, tongue speaking is involved.

      E. If 1 Corinthians 12:30 is taken as applying to the subject of personal prayer in tongues (1 Cor. 12:2, 4), then Paul is made to contradict himself when he says, (lit. Greek): “I want you ALL to be speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5).

      1.​Note: Paul’s statement, “I want you all to be speaking in tongues,” is not ​negated by his subsequent statement, “But rather that you may prophesy.” If I ​said, “I want you all to prosper financially, but rather that you might prosper ​spiritually,” my greater desires would not negate my subordinate desire. Paul ​preferred prophecy in the church service because this edified everyone, unless ​the other tongues were interpreted, in which case the tongues were equal with ​prophecy in edification (v. 6). But in his private prayers Paul spoke in tongues, ​and so did ALL the Corinthians, for he tells them, “I speak in tongues more than ​you ALL” (v. 18). The proof that this was in personal prayer is found in the next ​verse, which says, “YET IN THE CHURCH…”

      F. If tongues can only be a spiritual gift for the church then there would never be any reason for a Christian to speak in tongues in private prayers.

      1. Spiritual gifts are for edifying the assembly (1 Cor. 12:7). However, Paul employed tongues constantly in his private devotions (1 Cor. 14:18, 19).

      G. Speaking in Tongues are a sign that is to accompany believers.

      1. Mark 16:17: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; THEY WILL SPEAK WITH NEW TONGUES”

      H. The subject of 1 Corinthians 12 is spiritual gifts for the edification of the church. These passages are not discussing the issue of being filled with the Holy Spirit!

      1.​1 Corinthians 12:1, 4, 7: “Now concerning SPIRITUAL GIFTS…. Now there ​are diversities of GIFTS…But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every ​man TO PROFIT WITHAL”.

      a) This gift is to be used in conjunction with the gift of interpretation.

      1)​1 Corinthians 14:5, 13: “Would that ye all spake with tongues, but ​rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he ​that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may ​receive edifying…Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown ​tongue pray that he may interpret”.

      I. Tongues may be useful for personal edification in prayer.

      1. 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4: “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…He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…”

      a. Note: Speaking to God is prayer!

      II. 1 Corinthians 12:30 must be interpreted in such a manner that it does not contradict logic or exegetical principles.

      -Proper hermeneutical analysis demands consistent logic.

      ​A.​Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the fallacy of logic ​known as “Failure To Recognize Distinctions”.

      ​1.​Because x (tongues in 1 Corinthians 12) and y (tongues in other passages) are ​alike in many respects, it does not necessarily follow that x and y are alike in all ​respects. This is why Greek and Hebrew lexicographers have many definitions ​for a single word. (For now, I will not bore you with the long lexicographic ​process, but suffice it to say, knowing the process would help one to not make ​this common logic/lexicographic error) Examining “tongues” without a clear ​grasp of the range of particular usage is a very erroneous method of research. At ​the minimum, context of all passages should be ascertained for similarities and ​differences. Is it possible that the Gift of the Holy Spirit (with the manifestation ​of tongues) is different than the Gift of Tongues? Absolutely!

      More to follow

    3. ​2.​Distinctions:

      ​A.​dis•tinc•tion: “a marking off or distinguishing as different”; “a ​discrimination made between things as different”; “a distinguishing ​quality or characteristic”

      ​B.​dis•tinc•tive “serving to distinguish; characteristic; distinguishing”

      ​C.​dis•tinct: “distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate”; ​”different in nature or quality; dissimilar”

      ​D.​in•dis•tinc•tive: “without distinctive characteristics”; “incapable of or not ​making a distinction; undiscriminating.”
      ​3.​Embracing the Biblical Distinctions regarding “tongues”:

      ​Would objective Scriptural research really determine that there are NO ​characteristics, attributes, or qualities that would differentiate between the ​tongues in Acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians? No! The objective student ​will see many clear distinctions!

      ​What are the characteristics, attributes, or qualities that differentiate between the ​tongues in the book of Acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians?

      ​Some would say that Pentecostals invented the distinction between tongues as ​an immediate evidence for receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit and tongues as a ​spiritual gift. Now we will look at the distinctions, that is, characteristics, ​attributes, or qualities that one may have and the other may not have according ​to the texts:

      Acts – The GIFT of the Holy Spirit
      Accompanied by Tongues
      1 Corinthians – The Gift of Tongues
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, they did so when receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit
      1 Corinthians 12-14 says absolutely NOTHING about receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the subject is delineated for us. The subject is the MINISTRY OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS! Chapter 12 begins with “Now concerning SPIRITUAL GIFTS”, and chapter 14 begins, “Follow after charity, and desire SPIRITUAL GIFTS”.
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, they ALL SPOKE AT THE SAME TIME!
      1 Corinthians admonishes believers to SPEAK BY TWO OR BY THREE, and ONE AT A TIME (1 Corinthians 14:27)!
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, there was NO INTERPRETER!
      In 1 Corinthians, when there was no interpreter, THEY WERE TO STOP (14:28).
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, THEY BROKE THE SCRIPTURAL PATTERN FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS. How? ALL spoke in tongues!
      By contrast, 1 Corinthians informs us that God divides the gifts up, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SO IN ACTS! They all spoke in tongues (accept the one time they prophesied as well)!
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, THEY WERE NOT FOR THE COMMON GOOD! Hence, no one was edified except for individual, personal edification (1 Corinthians 14:2).
      1 Corinthians informs us that the gifts are for corporate edification (1 Corinthians 14:26), and through the means of the Gift of Interpretation, tongues would qualify for edifying others!g

    4. ​B.​Taking the word “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12:30, out of its immediate context and ​applying the same logic consistently to other words in the New Testament would ​force the blurring of legitimate distinctions.

      1. Using the example of the word “faith”.

      a. “Do all have faith?” No!

      1)​Using the same “logic” one would conclude that there is one kind of faith. However, the context of 1 Corinthians as well as the rest of the New Testament demonstrates that the word “faith” is used differently depending on context.

      2. Using the example of the word “deacon”

      a.​”Are all deacons? No!

      ​1)​Using the same “logic” from a slightly different angle, (This angle ​assumes that one could possibly do the same mistake using the ​Greek language as a primary source) one would conclude that all ​Christians cannot be “servants” for the same Greek word for ​”deacon – diakonos” is the exact same word for “servant-diakonos”.

      ​(Note: “diakonos” is translated “minister, servant, deacon” in the ​New Testament. One should not say that it is to be confined to one ​definition or usage)

      ​3.​Sound exegesis demands careful analysis of individual words using sound ​lexicographic processes to determine individual word similarities and ​distinctions.

    5. C.​Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical ​fallacy “False assumptions about technical meaning”.

      ​1.​In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word (in this case “tongues”) ​always has a certain technical meaning (terminus technicus). Unfortunately, it is ​usually a meaning derived either from a subset of selective and prejudicial use ​of evidence (which I will talk about next), or from the interpreter’s personal ​systematic theology.

      ​2.​Therefore, to use “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a “terminus technicus” ​does great harm to your position. 1 Corinthians 12:30 DOES NOT deal with ​ALL that Scripture reveals about tongues.

      ​3.​Moreover, Scripture demonstrates that “tongues” is used differently. Objective ​interpretation proves this without a shadow of doubt.

      D. Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical fallacy “Selective and prejudicial use of evidence”.

      1. An interpreter uses this fallacy when he uses only one particular verse about a particular subject that agrees with his theological position, when many other verses would be contraire.

      2. This would never stand up as “Evidence” in a law class, for they understand that ALL evidence must be presented. This is simply a feeble attempt at proving a theological pre-supposition.

      3. Using this verse in this way is like condoning “baptism for the dead” as a practice for the modern church. It is a prejudicial use of evidence.

      4. Hermeneutics demands that one not make a doctrine out of one passage (especially when it disagrees with the tenor of Scripture).

    6. E. Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical fallacy “Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field”.

      1. This fallacy is committed when an interpreter restricts a word definition too much by not looking at the full usage of a word. By restricting “tongues” to the singular use of a “gift”, this fallacy as been exercised. One sometimes unwittingly does not consider all the potential options and thus excludes all the possibilities that might include the correct one.

      a.​An Example using the word “BOARD”: A BOARD is a piece of dressed ​lumber, a plank. Many people pay room and BOARD, an expression ​possibly derived from old English where on special occasions one would ​eat upon a table called a festive BOARD. A group of people gathered ​together for business might be called a BOARD of trustees; and if they get ​on a ship or a train, they will step on BOARD and hope they do not fall ​overBOARD. The same word can function as a verb: workers may ​BOARD up a broken window, and passengers BOARD a jetliner.

      b.​The Word of God demonstrates that tongues are used in four different ​ways.

      2. Careful objective interpretation would not allow an interpreter to see “tongues” in only one way.

    7. F. This may also imply another fallacy, a word-study fallacy: “False Assumptions About Technical Meanings.”

      ​1.​Is it absolutely true that the tongues in the book of Acts is the same tongues in 1 ​Corinthians 12:30? I believe the independent evidence does not support that ​error!

      III. Promoting this passage in this manner causes the Word to contradict itself.

      ​A.​If there is no distinction between tongues at Spirit Baptism and tongues as a gift to the ​church, the we are left with the following contradictions.

      ​1.​All those who received the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Ephesus ​(Acts 2, 10, 19) violated Paul’s admonition to speak by two or at the most three, ​and one at a time (1 Corinthians 14:27), and to stop if there was no interpreter ​(v. 28).

      ​2.​Those in Acts also broke the Scriptural pattern for the distribution of spiritual ​gifts. EVERYONE spoke in tongues! 1 Corinthians 12:29, 30 seem to indicate ​that only some speak in tongues.

      ​a.​Which passages are correct? I contend that they are both correct when ​blended properly. In the book of Acts, when everyone spoke in tongues, ​they violated no Scripture because they were not receiving spiritual gifts. ​All received the same GIFT (the Holy Spirit) with the same sign ​(tongues).

      ​b.​An example of similar interpretation problem would be centered on the ​question of what happened to Judas Iscariot? Did he hang himself ​(Matthew 27:5), or did he fall down and die (Acts 1:18)? Both of those ​passages need to be blended or they contradict each other!

    8. ​3.​The Gentiles at Caesarea interrupted Peter’s sermon when they spoke in ​tongues.

      ​a.​Doing this would be very disorderly if they were operating the gift of ​tongues! However, when the Gentiles burst out in tongues, bringing ​Peter’s message to an abrupt end, Peter not only failed to rebuke them but ​even implied that the interruption was timely when he said, “Can any man ​forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the ​Holy Spirit as well as we? (Acts 10:47). These new Spirit-filled believers ​were not disrupting the order of service – it WAS God’s “order of service” ​to save their souls and fill them with the Holy Spirit!

      ​4.​The book of Acts “demonstrates” that tongues were not being used for “the ​common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).

      ​a.​Tongues, evidently, were not for “the common good”, for, as far as we ​know, no one interpreted or understood them. Hence, no one else was ​edified, except for whatever edification might result from knowing that ​some ELSE has received the Holy Spirit.

      ​b.​Were these believers “in the flesh”? Did these believers violate the ​principle of doing everything unto edification? (1 Corinthians 14:26)? No! ​Absolutely not! They were certainly edified by praying in tongues (1 Cor. ​14:4). Moreover, knowing that they had received the Promise of the Father ​edified them all. This, in fact, was the reason for the tongues (Acts 10:46)

    9. 5.​If tongues are only a SPIRITUAL GIFT, then Paul speaking in tongues ​somewhere other than church (1 Cor. 14:18, 19) also violated the “common ​good” principle (1 Cor. 12:7). Therefore, Paul was out of line when he spoke in ​tongues more than all the Corinthians. He was using his “gift of tongues” at ​”home”.

      6.​If there is no distinction between tongues as a prayer language for the believer ​and tongues a spiritual gift for the church, then Paul contradicted himself in the ​space of two chapters. In 1 Corinthians 12:30, Paul said, “Do all speak with ​tongues? [no!]” Yet two chapters later he said, “I want you all to be speaking in ​tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:5, lit. Greek).

      ​B.​One of the most important interpretation rules of hermeneutics is simply this: ​Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. My interpretation presents no problem between ​Acts and 1 Corinthians. These two books of the Bible blend harmoniously. Your ​position has more than one contradiction that cannot be resolved if one holds to your ​position!

  4. Troy Day says:

    Good observation on Acts Randal W Deese Except some would argue we dont gather any of these conclusion from the Lukian Gospel/Acts source. It is not until Paul makes the distinction in the Greek between charismata and dorea when speaking of the initial evidence and the gift of speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:30 standing alone proves nothing. Paul as a close ministry partner with Luke (only Luke is with me) systematizes what the Corinth church has forgotten or never learned from Pentecost…

    1. Troy Day says:

      Randal W Deese He meant the OT of course for it was the only Holy Writ at the time, but this is besides the point. Many would cite the Corinthian verse above as a proof, while it is the exception from the rule – the error of Corinth if you will

  5. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Can someone be baptized in the Holy Ghost without speaking in tongues?

    Do all speak in tongues?
    YES of course
    All baptized in the Holy Ghost Speak in tongues
    as initial evidence, not as one of the 9 Gifts of the Spirit

    1 Cor 12:30
    Do all have gifts of healing? – No. Not all have the gift of healing
    Do all speak in tongues? – No. Not all have the gift of tongues
    Do all interpret? – No. Not all have the gift of interpretation

    Hence the apostolic exhortation:
    ZHLOUTE DE TA CHARISMATA TA MEIZONA
    “(you)seek the greater gifts”)

    1. This is a very old rough draft. My article has much more depth, but this gives my general view

      Do All Speak In Tongues

      Whenever one is initially filled with the Holy Spirit, all clear passages demonstrate that ALL who were filled spoke in tongues. Yet, it appears that 1 Corinthians 12:30 demonstrates that only some speak in tongues. Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, so a close objective evaluation of Scriptures involved must be made to determine similarities and differences in the use of tongues.

      Do All Speak In Tongues?
      1 Corinthians 12:30

      I. 1 Corinthians 12:30 must NOT contradict the New Testament Context.

      A. Tongues are demonstrated to be the evidence of being initially filled with the Holy Spirit: (not an exhaustive list)

      1. Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance”

      2. Acts 10:46: “FOR they heard them speak with tongues”

      a. “FOR” should be translated “BECAUSE”:

      1)​The Greek word translated “for” (Gr: “gar”) is not merely a ​preposition. It is a conjunction “…which is virtually equivalent to ​‘because’…” and must be “…distinguished from the preposition ​‘for’… ​(J.W. Wenham, Elements of N.T. Greek, p. 200).

      2)​In fact, “Gar” is “…a conjunction, which acc. (accusative) to its composition ‘ge’ and ‘ara’, is properly a particle of affirmation and conclusion, denoting truly therefore, verily as the case stands, ‘the thing is ​first affirmed by the particle ‘ge’, and then is referred to what precedes by the force of the particle ‘ara’ (J.H. thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the ​New Testament, p. 109). In other words, “gar” comes from two particles, one affirming the previous thought or word, and one referring back to the previous thought or word, making this conjunction a strong “because”.

      ​3)​The fact that “gar” is used in the “accusative” case reinforces the ​truth of the previous verse (Acts 10:45) and its connection with Acts ​10:46, for the accusative case shows the direction, extent, or end of ​an action. This is the case of the direct object. So then, Acts 10:46 ​demonstrates that “because (double affirmation – i.e. ​‘absolutely ​because)” those who heard the speaking in tongues, they (they, by ​their hearing were directed to the end of action) understood “…that ​on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts ​10:45).

      ​4)​Further proof that this word is a very strong “because” is the ​following three-fold basic definitions of “gar” (J.H. Thayer, Greek-​English Lexicon of the New Testament, pp. 109, 111)

      ​a)​Its primary and original Conclusive force is seen in ​questions and answers expressed with emotion. (Notice the ​term “Conclusive force”)

      ​b)​It adduces the Cause or gives the Reason of a preceding ​statement or opinion. (Notice the term “Reason of a ​preceding statement”)

      ​c)​It serves to explain, make clear, illustrate, a preceding ​thought or word.

      ​(For further study, one may note the following words translated “FOR” in the New Testament: anti, apo, achri, dia, eis, ek, en, eneka, epi, kata, peri, pros, huper. These provide interesting insights for comparison studies.)

      3. Therefore, a better translation of Acts 10:45, 46 is presented:

      a.​v. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
      v. 46 BECAUSE they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

      4. Correct Objective Hermeneutical Conclusion:

      a. Believers who were with Apostle Peter understood clearly that Speaking in Tongues was the direct result of the preceding thought, mainly, that the GIFT of the HOLY SPIRIT was “poured out”.

      More in next post

    2. B. Tongues are demonstrated as NOT being a singular gift of the Spirit throughout the book of Acts. In fact, the “gift of tongues” is never mentioned. Only the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

      1.​When people were initially filled with the Holy Spirit, they ALL spoke in ​tongues (Acts 2:4; 10:44-46: Acts 19:6). If they were all supposed to receive ​various gifts, then why did they all receive THE SAME GIFT? If one reads the ​texts carefully, one will discover that all the passages in the book of Acts are ​directly refer to receiving THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, not “A” gift of ​tongues!

      2.​The Bible says, “Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? (1 Corinthians 12:29, 30). The Greek makes it clear that the answer is an emphatic “NO”! No, all do not exercise the same gift; the gifts are distributed as God wills” (1 Cor. 12:11), however, in Acts, ALL received the same GIFT, the Holy Spirit, and ALL received the same evidence – speaking in tongues!

      C. Paul’s regulatory teaching about one person being allowed to speak at a time (1 Cor. 14:27) would seem to contradict every account of Spirit baptism and tongues recorded in the Bible if lifted from there specific context.

      1. In every case where the Bible records people being initially filled with the Holy Spirit, they all spoke in tongues SIMULTANEOUSLY (Acts 2:4, 6; 10:44-46: 19:6). The combined effect of the disciples speaking in tongues in Jerusalem was so loud that it drew a crowd of several thousand.

      ​2.​Time considerations support an opposite early church paradigm.

      ​Without going into detail, the fact that Acts was written after 1 Corinthians has ​great impact on this issue. If Paul’s traveling companion, Luke, understood that ​all the people in the book of Acts were out of Divine Order when they ALL ​spoke in tongues, why did his narrative not address the issue, or clarify the ​issue? Is God trying to confuse us? The only clearly logical explanation is by ​understanding the difference between Tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit ​infilling and Tongues as a specific Gift of the Holy Spirit.

      D. Paul’s regulatory teaching about the need for interpretation of tongues in the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:13, 28) would seem to contradict every case in the Bible where saints were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, for there is no mention of any interpretation of the tongues.

      Jesus said Himself that tongues would be one of the signs that would follow those who believe (Mark 16:17). This lends to the idea that more than some believers may speak in tongues, although, it is granted that this could be referring to a collective whole, suggesting that where believers are located, tongue speaking is involved.

      E. If 1 Corinthians 12:30 is taken as applying to the subject of personal prayer in tongues (1 Cor. 12:2, 4), then Paul is made to contradict himself when he says, (lit. Greek): “I want you ALL to be speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14:5).

      1.​Note: Paul’s statement, “I want you all to be speaking in tongues,” is not ​negated by his subsequent statement, “But rather that you may prophesy.” If I ​said, “I want you all to prosper financially, but rather that you might prosper ​spiritually,” my greater desires would not negate my subordinate desire. Paul ​preferred prophecy in the church service because this edified everyone, unless ​the other tongues were interpreted, in which case the tongues were equal with ​prophecy in edification (v. 6). But in his private prayers Paul spoke in tongues, ​and so did ALL the Corinthians, for he tells them, “I speak in tongues more than ​you ALL” (v. 18). The proof that this was in personal prayer is found in the next ​verse, which says, “YET IN THE CHURCH…”

      F. If tongues can only be a spiritual gift for the church then there would never be any reason for a Christian to speak in tongues in private prayers.

      1. Spiritual gifts are for edifying the assembly (1 Cor. 12:7). However, Paul employed tongues constantly in his private devotions (1 Cor. 14:18, 19).

      G. Speaking in Tongues are a sign that is to accompany believers.

      1. Mark 16:17: “And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; THEY WILL SPEAK WITH NEW TONGUES”

      H. The subject of 1 Corinthians 12 is spiritual gifts for the edification of the church. These passages are not discussing the issue of being filled with the Holy Spirit!

      1.​1 Corinthians 12:1, 4, 7: “Now concerning SPIRITUAL GIFTS…. Now there ​are diversities of GIFTS…But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every ​man TO PROFIT WITHAL”.

      a) This gift is to be used in conjunction with the gift of interpretation.

      1)​1 Corinthians 14:5, 13: “Would that ye all spake with tongues, but ​rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he ​that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may ​receive edifying…Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown ​tongue pray that he may interpret”.

      I. Tongues may be useful for personal edification in prayer.

      1. 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4: “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…He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…”

      a. Note: Speaking to God is prayer!

      II. 1 Corinthians 12:30 must be interpreted in such a manner that it does not contradict logic or exegetical principles.

      -Proper hermeneutical analysis demands consistent logic.

      ​A.​Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the fallacy of logic ​known as “Failure To Recognize Distinctions”.

      ​1.​Because x (tongues in 1 Corinthians 12) and y (tongues in other passages) are ​alike in many respects, it does not necessarily follow that x and y are alike in all ​respects. This is why Greek and Hebrew lexicographers have many definitions ​for a single word. (For now, I will not bore you with the long lexicographic ​process, but suffice it to say, knowing the process would help one to not make ​this common logic/lexicographic error) Examining “tongues” without a clear ​grasp of the range of particular usage is a very erroneous method of research. At ​the minimum, context of all passages should be ascertained for similarities and ​differences. Is it possible that the Gift of the Holy Spirit (with the manifestation ​of tongues) is different than the Gift of Tongues? Absolutely!

      More to follow

    3. ​2.​Distinctions:

      ​A.​dis•tinc•tion: “a marking off or distinguishing as different”; “a ​discrimination made between things as different”; “a distinguishing ​quality or characteristic”

      ​B.​dis•tinc•tive “serving to distinguish; characteristic; distinguishing”

      ​C.​dis•tinct: “distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate”; ​“different in nature or quality; dissimilar”

      ​D.​in•dis•tinc•tive: “without distinctive characteristics”; “incapable of or not ​making a distinction; undiscriminating.”
      ​3.​Embracing the Biblical Distinctions regarding “tongues”:

      ​Would objective Scriptural research really determine that there are NO ​characteristics, attributes, or qualities that would differentiate between the ​tongues in Acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians? No! The objective student ​will see many clear distinctions!

      ​What are the characteristics, attributes, or qualities that differentiate between the ​tongues in the book of Acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians?

      ​Some would say that Pentecostals invented the distinction between tongues as ​an immediate evidence for receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit and tongues as a ​spiritual gift. Now we will look at the distinctions, that is, characteristics, ​attributes, or qualities that one may have and the other may not have according ​to the texts:

      Acts – The GIFT of the Holy Spirit
      Accompanied by Tongues
      1 Corinthians – The Gift of Tongues
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, they did so when receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit
      1 Corinthians 12-14 says absolutely NOTHING about receiving the Gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact, the subject is delineated for us. The subject is the MINISTRY OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS! Chapter 12 begins with “Now concerning SPIRITUAL GIFTS”, and chapter 14 begins, “Follow after charity, and desire SPIRITUAL GIFTS”.
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, they ALL SPOKE AT THE SAME TIME!
      1 Corinthians admonishes believers to SPEAK BY TWO OR BY THREE, and ONE AT A TIME (1 Corinthians 14:27)!
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, there was NO INTERPRETER!
      In 1 Corinthians, when there was no interpreter, THEY WERE TO STOP (14:28).
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, THEY BROKE THE SCRIPTURAL PATTERN FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS. How? ALL spoke in tongues!
      By contrast, 1 Corinthians informs us that God divides the gifts up, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE DID SO IN ACTS! They all spoke in tongues (accept the one time they prophesied as well)!
      In EVERY CASE where believers spoke in tongues in the book of Acts, THEY WERE NOT FOR THE COMMON GOOD! Hence, no one was edified except for individual, personal edification (1 Corinthians 14:2).
      1 Corinthians informs us that the gifts are for corporate edification (1 Corinthians 14:26), and through the means of the Gift of Interpretation, tongues would qualify for edifying others!g

    4. ​B.​Taking the word “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12:30, out of its immediate context and ​applying the same logic consistently to other words in the New Testament would ​force the blurring of legitimate distinctions.

      1. Using the example of the word “faith”.

      a. “Do all have faith?” No!

      1)​Using the same “logic” one would conclude that there is one kind of faith. However, the context of 1 Corinthians as well as the rest of the New Testament demonstrates that the word “faith” is used differently depending on context.

      2. Using the example of the word “deacon”

      a.​“Are all deacons? No!

      ​1)​Using the same “logic” from a slightly different angle, (This angle ​assumes that one could possibly do the same mistake using the ​Greek language as a primary source) one would conclude that all ​Christians cannot be “servants” for the same Greek word for ​“deacon – diakonos” is the exact same word for “servant-diakonos”.

      ​(Note: “diakonos” is translated “minister, servant, deacon” in the ​New Testament. One should not say that it is to be confined to one ​definition or usage)

      ​3.​Sound exegesis demands careful analysis of individual words using sound ​lexicographic processes to determine individual word similarities and ​distinctions.

    5. C.​Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical ​fallacy “False assumptions about technical meaning”.

      ​1.​In this fallacy, an interpreter falsely assumes that a word (in this case “tongues”) ​always has a certain technical meaning (terminus technicus). Unfortunately, it is ​usually a meaning derived either from a subset of selective and prejudicial use ​of evidence (which I will talk about next), or from the interpreter’s personal ​systematic theology.

      ​2.​Therefore, to use “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a “terminus technicus” ​does great harm to your position. 1 Corinthians 12:30 DOES NOT deal with ​ALL that Scripture reveals about tongues.

      ​3.​Moreover, Scripture demonstrates that “tongues” is used differently. Objective ​interpretation proves this without a shadow of doubt.

      D. Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical fallacy “Selective and prejudicial use of evidence”.

      1. An interpreter uses this fallacy when he uses only one particular verse about a particular subject that agrees with his theological position, when many other verses would be contraire.

      2. This would never stand up as “Evidence” in a law class, for they understand that ALL evidence must be presented. This is simply a feeble attempt at proving a theological pre-supposition.

      3. Using this verse in this way is like condoning “baptism for the dead” as a practice for the modern church. It is a prejudicial use of evidence.

      4. Hermeneutics demands that one not make a doctrine out of one passage (especially when it disagrees with the tenor of Scripture).

    6. E. Using 1 Corinthians 12:30 as a proof text is an argument based on the exegetical fallacy “Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field”.

      1. This fallacy is committed when an interpreter restricts a word definition too much by not looking at the full usage of a word. By restricting “tongues” to the singular use of a “gift”, this fallacy as been exercised. One sometimes unwittingly does not consider all the potential options and thus excludes all the possibilities that might include the correct one.

      a.​An Example using the word “BOARD”: A BOARD is a piece of dressed ​lumber, a plank. Many people pay room and BOARD, an expression ​possibly derived from old English where on special occasions one would ​eat upon a table called a festive BOARD. A group of people gathered ​together for business might be called a BOARD of trustees; and if they get ​on a ship or a train, they will step on BOARD and hope they do not fall ​overBOARD. The same word can function as a verb: workers may ​BOARD up a broken window, and passengers BOARD a jetliner.

      b.​The Word of God demonstrates that tongues are used in four different ​ways.

      2. Careful objective interpretation would not allow an interpreter to see “tongues” in only one way.

    7. F. This may also imply another fallacy, a word-study fallacy: “False Assumptions About Technical Meanings.”

      ​1.​Is it absolutely true that the tongues in the book of Acts is the same tongues in 1 ​Corinthians 12:30? I believe the independent evidence does not support that ​error!

      III. Promoting this passage in this manner causes the Word to contradict itself.

      ​A.​If there is no distinction between tongues at Spirit Baptism and tongues as a gift to the ​church, the we are left with the following contradictions.

      ​1.​All those who received the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Ephesus ​(Acts 2, 10, 19) violated Paul’s admonition to speak by two or at the most three, ​and one at a time (1 Corinthians 14:27), and to stop if there was no interpreter ​(v. 28).

      ​2.​Those in Acts also broke the Scriptural pattern for the distribution of spiritual ​gifts. EVERYONE spoke in tongues! 1 Corinthians 12:29, 30 seem to indicate ​that only some speak in tongues.

      ​a.​Which passages are correct? I contend that they are both correct when ​blended properly. In the book of Acts, when everyone spoke in tongues, ​they violated no Scripture because they were not receiving spiritual gifts. ​All received the same GIFT (the Holy Spirit) with the same sign ​(tongues).

      ​b.​An example of similar interpretation problem would be centered on the ​question of what happened to Judas Iscariot? Did he hang himself ​(Matthew 27:5), or did he fall down and die (Acts 1:18)? Both of those ​passages need to be blended or they contradict each other!

    8. ​3.​The Gentiles at Caesarea interrupted Peter’s sermon when they spoke in ​tongues.

      ​a.​Doing this would be very disorderly if they were operating the gift of ​tongues! However, when the Gentiles burst out in tongues, bringing ​Peter’s message to an abrupt end, Peter not only failed to rebuke them but ​even implied that the interruption was timely when he said, “Can any man ​forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the ​Holy Spirit as well as we? (Acts 10:47). These new Spirit-filled believers ​were not disrupting the order of service – it WAS God’s “order of service” ​to save their souls and fill them with the Holy Spirit!

      ​4.​The book of Acts “demonstrates” that tongues were not being used for “the ​common good” (1 Cor. 12:7).

      ​a.​Tongues, evidently, were not for “the common good”, for, as far as we ​know, no one interpreted or understood them. Hence, no one else was ​edified, except for whatever edification might result from knowing that ​some ELSE has received the Holy Spirit.

      ​b.​Were these believers “in the flesh”? Did these believers violate the ​principle of doing everything unto edification? (1 Corinthians 14:26)? No! ​Absolutely not! They were certainly edified by praying in tongues (1 Cor. ​14:4). Moreover, knowing that they had received the Promise of the Father ​edified them all. This, in fact, was the reason for the tongues (Acts 10:46)

    9. 5.​If tongues are only a SPIRITUAL GIFT, then Paul speaking in tongues ​somewhere other than church (1 Cor. 14:18, 19) also violated the “common ​good” principle (1 Cor. 12:7). Therefore, Paul was out of line when he spoke in ​tongues more than all the Corinthians. He was using his “gift of tongues” at ​“home”.

      6.​If there is no distinction between tongues as a prayer language for the believer ​and tongues a spiritual gift for the church, then Paul contradicted himself in the ​space of two chapters. In 1 Corinthians 12:30, Paul said, “Do all speak with ​tongues? [no!]” Yet two chapters later he said, “I want you all to be speaking in ​tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:5, lit. Greek).

      ​B.​One of the most important interpretation rules of hermeneutics is simply this: ​Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. My interpretation presents no problem between ​Acts and 1 Corinthians. These two books of the Bible blend harmoniously. Your ​position has more than one contradiction that cannot be resolved if one holds to your ​position!

  6. Troy Day Troy Day says:

    Good observation on Acts Randal W Deese Except some would argue we dont gather any of these conclusion from the Lukian Gospel/Acts source. It is not until Paul makes the distinction in the Greek between charismata and dorea when speaking of the initial evidence and the gift of speaking in tongues. 1 Corinthians 12:30 standing alone proves nothing. Paul as a close ministry partner with Luke (only Luke is with me) systematizes what the Corinth church has forgotten or never learned from Pentecost…

    1. Troy Day Troy Day says:

      Randal W Deese He meant the OT of course for it was the only Holy Writ at the time, but this is besides the point. Many would cite the Corinthian verse above as a proof, while it is the exception from the rule – the error of Corinth if you will

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.