Speaking In Tongues (part 23)

Paul then makes his now rather familiar point by writing “Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?  For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:16-17).  It returns to this.  Paul wants to see the church strengthened through every activity that is said to be rooted in the gifting of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

Paul wants every member (taking up and employing his language from chapter twelve) to be able to participate equally, on equal footing, with nobody feeling like a foreigner, with nobody marginalized as second-class spiritual citizens of the kingdom of the covenant God, and certainly nobody being held up or looked to as a superior within the body of the Christ simply because they engage in one or more particular activities that have been honorifically pre-designated by that body as gifts of the Spirit. 

Time and again, Paul, as he deals with what is happening in this church body because of the glossolalia that is occurring there, refocuses his audience on the strengthening of the church (which can also be seen in his dealings with the problems at the church meal and the Lord’s Supper in chapter eleven).  It is the strengthening of the entire body that should be the motivation and the result of speaking in tongues.  If that motivation and result is not achieved, regardless of the gift under consideration (with this going beyond speaking in tongues), then it’s place in the assembly needs to be reconsidered and carefully examined.  To circle back around to the issue of honor, it can easily be said that if one is concerned with accumulation of honor through the exercise of what are considered to be the gifts of the Spirit, then the strengthening of the church is probably not going to be in sight. 

Bringing honor back into consideration at this point allows what comes next to dovetail quite nicely, as Paul writes “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:18-19).  Paul knew that speaking in tongues would gain him honor, but this he did not seek, so he did not engage in this publicly, which his hearers would probably think quite odd.  If there was no public display and no witnesses, then what would be the point?  Paul did not want to limit his impact within the church to only those gifted with the ability to interpret or understand, thus contributing to a division and a spiritual hierarchy of elevation and exclusion (based on honor accumulation).  If he spoke plainly in church, then no matter how much or how little he spoke, all could share equally in the instruction.     

Speaking In Tongues (part 22)

This benefit of the body is a component of Paul’s continued focus on the issue of speaking in tongues.  He continues: “There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning.  If I then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  It is the same for you” (1 Corinthians 14:10-12a).  There might be a tendency to get hung up on these words, with an attempt to discern if Paul is indicating that the ecstatic speech is more than just a string of incomprehensible syllables. 

This mention of “languages” may prod some to compare the ecstatic speech being practiced in the Corinthian church with the events of the second chapter of Acts, in which the disciples “were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them” (Acts 2:4).  This is often seen as a proof text for justification of the practice.  It is not likely that Paul had justification of the practice of speaking in tongues in mind.  After all, it was a historically accepted and understood religious practice, and it did no harm unless it caused divisions in the church.  So the nature of the speech was not Paul’s abiding concern. 

With the words quoted, it is Paul’s use of “foreigner” that should grab attention.  Because he is dealing with activities that take place within the assembly, someone being made to feel like a “foreigner” would be problematic.  An attendee may feel cut off from the proceedings, feeling as if there are components of what is there taking place of which they may be unworthy in some way.  Any feelings of isolation or distance from the fellowship of the assembled church would militate against unity.  Of course, this commentary by Paul runs back to the question asked in the sixth verse, which was “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or prophecy or teaching?” 

Once again, the issue is being helpful to the body.  This question is nicely bookended by the remainder of verse twelve, which read “Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church” (14:12b).  Indeed, if there is a desire to abound in manifestations of the Spirit, those manifestations should abound in such a manner that the church is strengthened.  It is this that is Paul’s abiding concern. 

Paul is not surprised by the ecstatic utterances, nor is he about to limit the manifestation of the Spirit to the same.  For Paul, the evidence of the presence of the Creator God’s Spirit, regardless of the activity in which one is engaged, is the strengthening of the church.  This can be accomplished in an unimaginable number of ways, which is what makes it absolutely impossible to create lists of the gifts of God’s Spirit.  To the end of strengthening the church in connection with speaking in tongues, Paul goes on to write “So then, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (14:13).  To that he adds: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive” (14:14). 

This is not new ground.  Speaking in tongues, as an accepted and widespread religious practice that was understood to be the result of a god taking over the mind of a worshiper, was looked at in this way.  So Paul asks: “What should I do?” (14:15a)  He answers his own question with “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.  I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind” (14:15b).  Paul is not devaluing speaking in tongues by contrasting mind and spirit, nor is he elevating activity that is mind oriented.  He is simply discussing speaking in tongues as it was then widely understood. 

Absalom (part 10)

“So the king and all the members of his royal court set out on foot” (2 Samuel 15:16a).  This is Israel’s exodus from Egypt, but applied in reverse.  It is the oppressive king that is fleeing, rather than the people.  This is the king of Israel, who represents the people, going into exile rather than leading them to and then in their promised land.  David, whether directly or indirectly, through the situation that he created by not dealing with Amnon, and by not dealing with Absalom, is delivering the people that are loyal to him into exile.  Their march is not one of exodus, in power and glory, but rather one of fear and shame.  Not all of the members of the royal household left Jerusalem however, as “the king left behind ten concubines to attend to the palace” (15:16b).  This becomes significant later on, as this allows for the fulfillment of a “prophecy” that had previously been given to David. 

Like Israel, but again in reverse, “The king and all the people set out on foot, pausing at a spot some distance away” (15:17).  This should cause a reflection upon Israel’s flight from Egypt, in that they paused at the Red Sea, and then again at the mountain of God.  It should also serve as a contrast to what it is that is happening with the two events.  Drawing attention to the fact that he knew that he was going into exile, “the king said to Ittai the Gittie, ‘Why should you come with us?  Go back and stay with the new king, for you are a foreigner and an exile from your own country… Today should I make you wander around by going with us?’” (15:19,20b) 

David asks Ittai, who already lives in a state of exile, why he wants to continue in exile.  H then uses the language of wandering, which present thoughts of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness after their faithless response to the call to enter the land of promise.  Ittai, however, refused to leave David, saying “As surely as the Lord lives and as my lord the king lives, wherever my lord the king is, whether dead or alive, there I will be as well!” (15:21)  Clearly, not all is lost for David.  This response from Ittai seems to boost David’s spirits a bit.  Perhaps he began to think that if this man would not forsake him, then perhaps the Lord God of Israel had not completely forsaken him either. 

One must take note of a startling fact.  That fact is that the first mention of the Lord God of Israel in relation to David’s situation and in the midst of Absalom’s insurrection, comes from this foreigner Ittai who is living in exile.  It seems that David had forgotten about his Lord.  To make the point, the author does not have David mentioning his Lord since the twenty-second verse of chapter twelve, as he does so in connection with the death of the child that was born to he and Bathsheba.  As one can be sure that these books of Samuel are both historical and theological treatises, this mention of Israel’s God by Ittai is quite striking.  It seems to jar something within David. 

After this reminder of the Lord, it is said that “All the land was weeping loudly as all these people were leaving.  As the king was crossing over the Kidron valley, all the people were leaving on the road that leads to the desert” (15:23).  This is understandable.  Jerusalem, after all, is the capital of the country.  Many that lived there would have served the king in official government positions.  With David fleeing and a new king on the way, it would not be unreasonable for these people to believe themselves, at the least, as out of a job, and at the worst as liable to be put to death by Absalom so that he can appoint his own people into government positions---people that he can trust to be loyal to him and to serve him well.  Along with that, “Zadok and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the Ark of the Covenant of God” (15:24a).  For some reason, they were taking the Ark of the Covenant with them, as if somehow it was only David that could legitimate its presence there in Jerusalem, rather than the other way around, with the Ark serving to legitimate the rule of the Creator God’s people by its presence near the throne.