An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 12:31a: The Mood of ζηλοῦτε
This exegetical study of “1 Corinthians 12:30 and Logos user’s guide” is based on a b-greek discussion from August 27, 2004. The initial query concerned the grammatical parsing of the Greek verb ζηλοῦτε in 1 Corinthians 12:31, specifically why most English translations render it as an imperative (“desire, seek!”) when its grammatical form (present active, 2nd person plural) could also be indicative (“you desire, you seek”). The inquirer suggested an indicative reading might lead to an ironic interpretation, aligning with Paul’s broader argument in 1 Corinthians 12 about the diverse and interdependent nature of spiritual gifts, where the Corinthians might be inappropriately “seeking the greater gifts” rather than appreciating their own. This indicative reading would then set up Paul’s introduction of “a better way” (1 Cor 12:31b) as a corrective to their current behavior.
The main exegetical issue revolves around resolving the grammatical ambiguity of ζηλοῦτε. The choice between an imperative mood, which would present Paul’s words as a direct command to eagerly pursue specific, more edifying gifts (like prophecy, as suggested in 1 Corinthians 14), and an indicative mood, which would depict Paul as observing or critiquing the Corinthians’ current practice of striving for what they perceive as “greater” gifts, fundamentally alters the rhetorical force and theological implications of the passage. This distinction is crucial for understanding the transition from Paul’s discussion of spiritual gifts in chapter 12 to his exposition on the supremacy of love in chapter 13, and whether it represents a command to prioritize certain gifts or a redirection from misguided desires.
Ζηλοῦτε δὲ τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα. Καὶ ἔτι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδὸν ὑμῖν δείκνυμι.
(Nestle 1904, 1 Corinthians 12:31)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- There are no substantive textual differences in 1 Corinthians 12:31 between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBLGNT (2010). Both texts present the same wording for this verse.
Textual criticism (NA28) confirms the stability of the text for 1 Corinthians 12:31; there are no significant textual variants affecting the form or presence of ζηλοῦτε. Lexically, KITTEL’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) entry for ζηλόω (under ζῆλος) highlights its broad semantic range, encompassing both positive zeal (e.g., for God, for good things) and negative envy (e.g., jealousy, rivalry). It can imply passionate desire, eager pursuit, or even contentious rivalry. In a theological context, it often denotes earnest striving or ardent devotion. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature) also notes that the form ζηλοῦτε (2nd person plural, present active) can function as either an indicative or an imperative in Koine Greek, a grammatical ambiguity that is at the heart of the interpretive debate for this verse. BDAG typically lists the meaning as “to be zealous for, desire eagerly.” The object τὰ χαρίσματα τὰ μείζονα refers to the “greater gifts,” which in the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 likely refers to gifts that are more publicly edifying, such as prophecy, in contrast to tongues without interpretation.
Translation Variants
The grammatical ambiguity of ζηλοῦτε in 1 Corinthians 12:31a presents two primary interpretive paths, each with distinct rhetorical and theological implications. The majority of English translations interpret ζηλοῦτε as an imperative, rendering it as a command. This approach aligns with Paul’s general didactic style, where he often exhorts believers to specific actions. For instance, the NIV (New International Version) footnote acknowledges the ambiguity but retains the imperative in the main text. This interpretation positions 1 Corinthians 12:31a as a transitional injunction: Paul has just discussed the diverse functions of the body and now directs the Corinthians to “eagerly desire the greater gifts” before introducing love as “a still more excellent way.” This implies that while all gifts are important, some are more beneficial for the corporate body (e.g., prophecy, as argued in chapter 14), and these should be actively sought. This reading suggests a continuous exhortation to spiritual growth and service, with the subsequent chapter on love providing the essential framework for such pursuit.
Conversely, an increasing number of scholars and some modern translations (e.g., *The Message*) favor an indicative reading, which understands ζηλοῦτε as a statement of fact: “You are desiring the greater gifts.” As noted in the UBS Handbook on 1 Corinthians, this interpretation creates a strong, ironic connection with the subsequent clause: “You Corinthians are struggling to obtain spiritual gifts, but I will show you a much better way, the way of love.” Rhetorically, this indicative reading functions as a gentle rebuke or a corrective observation. Paul acknowledges the Corinthians’ existing (and perhaps misguided) pursuit of “greater” gifts, possibly driven by pride or a desire for status within the community, which he has just spent chapter 12 subtly critiquing through his analogy of the body. By stating their current behavior, Paul then pivots to introduce love not merely as the *best way to pursue gifts*, but as a *superior path altogether* that transcends their competitive striving. This interpretation provides a smoother transition into the profound discourse on love in chapter 13, framing it as a contrast to their current, less mature spiritual pursuits rather than just a guide for them.
Grammatically, the present tense in an indicative mood would suggest an ongoing action, fitting the idea that the Corinthians *were currently* engaged in seeking certain gifts. The use of δὲ (“but, and”) could then signal either a continuation of a thought (if imperative) or a contrast (if indicative, setting up the “better way”). The broader context of Paul’s concerns about divisions, factions, and the misuse of spiritual gifts in the Corinthian church (1 Cor 1:10-17; 3:1-9; 14:26-33) lends credence to the idea that he might be correcting their existing attitudes and practices. The ironic indicative would thus highlight Paul’s pastoral concern, moving from a description of their flawed zeal to a transformative teaching on love.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
While the imperative reading of ζηλοῦτε is traditionally dominant and makes good sense within Paul’s hortatory style, the indicative reading offers a compelling alternative that resonates strongly with the corrective tone evident throughout 1 Corinthians. The grammatical ambiguity necessitates careful consideration of the broader literary and theological context. Given Paul’s consistent efforts to address the Corinthians’ spiritual immaturity, divisions, and potential misuse of spiritual gifts, an indicative reading that sets up a contrast with “a still more excellent way” (love) appears highly plausible and perhaps even rhetorically more potent. It allows Paul to acknowledge their current, perhaps problematic, focus on certain gifts before redirecting them to the ultimate virtue of love. However, the imperative cannot be entirely dismissed, as Paul does indeed encourage the pursuit of edifying gifts (1 Cor 14:1).
- But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts. And yet, I will show you a surpassing way. This translation favors the indicative mood, suggesting Paul is observing their existing, perhaps competitive, pursuit of “greater” gifts, which then introduces the superior path of love as a corrective to their current behavior.
- But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. This translation maintains the traditional imperative mood, presenting Paul’s words as a direct command to seek gifts that are more beneficial for the community, with the following discourse on love providing the supreme context for that pursuit.
- You pursue the more prominent gifts, but I will show you a way that far excels all others. This rendering captures the indicative sense of ongoing action while also emphasizing the contrast (δὲ) with the “surpassing way” of love, highlighting a gentle critique of their current focus.
Dan Irving and Daniel J Hesse if yall care to look at the actual Greek behind it all
Dan Irving and Daniel J Hesse if yall care to look at the actual Greek behind it all
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”)
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”)
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”)
No
Please elaborate
Troy Day I read an article on it… I’ll see if I can find it
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
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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!
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)
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!
Some has testified I felt God when I I received the prayer for the baptism of the Holy Ghost the only thing I could think of so they probably were baptized but I have never yielded what do you think?
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…
Paul says ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine…
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
Troy Day Yes, but the secondary application still includes the New
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”)
No
Please elaborate
Troy Day I read an article on it… I’ll see if I can find it
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
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
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
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.
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).
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.
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!
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)
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!
Some has testified I felt God when I I received the prayer for the baptism of the Holy Ghost the only thing I could think of so they probably were baptized but I have never yielded what do you think?
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…
Paul says ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine…
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
Troy Day Yes, but the secondary application still includes the New