Author: al
Posted: 2007-04-16 16:56:53
|
Disciple – Week 27 & 28
I Corinthians
I've heard people say that if Paul thought his letters were going to be used for theology and doctrine, he would have chosen his topics and words a lot more carefully. The letters to the Corinthians certainly support that statement.
I am here concerned with the vulgar practice of speaking in tongues. First, as is my habit, let's examine the various commentaries we have at our disposal on this subject.
Clarke on 12:8
8. Divers kinds of tongues. [Greek word], Different languages, which they had never learned, and which God gave them for the immediate instruction of people of different countries who attended their ministry.
9. Interpretation of tongues. It was necessary that while one was speaking the deep things of God in a company where several were present who did not understand, though the majority did, there should be a person who could immediately interpret what was said to that part of the congregation that did not understand the language. This power to interpret was also an immediate gift of God's Spirit, and is classed here among the miracles.
Clarke on 13:1
The tongues of men] All human languages, with all the eloquence of the most accomplished orator.
And of angels] i.e. Though a man knew the language of the eternal world so well that he could hold conversation with its inhabitants, and find out the secrets of their kingdom. Or, probably, the apostle refers to a notion that was common among the Jews, that there was a language by which angels might be invoked, adjured, collected, and dispersed; and by the means of which many secrets might be found out, and curious arts and sciences known.
There is much of this kind to be found in their cabalistical books, and in the books of many called Christians. Cornelius Agrippa's occult philosophy abounds in this; and it was the main object of Dr. Dee's actions with spirits to get a complete vocabulary of this language. See what has been published of his work by Dr. Casaubon; and the remaining manuscript parts in the Sloane library, in the British museum.
In Bava Bathra, fol. 134, mention is made of a famous rabbin, Jochanan ben Zaccai, who understood the language of devils, trees, and angels.
Some think that the apostle means only the most splendid eloquence; as we sometimes apply the word angelic to signify any thing sublime, grand, beautiful, &c.& but it is more likely that he speaks here after the manner of his countrymen, who imagined that there was an angelic language which was the key to many mysteries& a language which might be acquired, and which, they say, had been learned by several.
Clarke on 14:2
Verse 2. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue] This chapter is crowded with difficulties. It is not likely that the Holy Spirit should, in the church, suddenly inspire a man with the knowledge of some foreign language, which none in the church understood but himself; and lead him to treat the mysteries of Christianity in that language, though none in the place could profit by his teaching.
Dr. Lightfoot's mode of reconciling these difficulties is the most likely I have met with. He supposes that by the unknown tongue the Hebrew is meant, and that God restored the true knowledge of this language when he gave the apostles the gift of tongues. As the Scriptures of the Old Testament were contained in this language, and it has beauties, energies, and depths in it which no verbal translation can reach, it was necessary, for the proper elucidation of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and the establishment of the Christian religion, that the full meaning of the words of this sacred language should be properly understood. And it is possible that the Hebrew Scriptures were sometimes read in the Christian congregations as they were in the Jewish synagogues; and if the person who read and understood them had not the power and faculty of explaining them to others, in vain did he read and understand them himself. And we know that it is possible for a man to understand a language, the force, phraseology, and idioms of which he is incapable of explaining even in his mother tongue. We shall see, in the course of these notes, how this view of the subject will apply to the illustration of the apostle's words throughout the chapter.
Speaketh not unto men, but unto God] None present understanding the language, God alone knowing the truth and import of what he says:-
In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.] Though his own mind (for so [Greek word] is understood here by many eminent critics) apprehends the mysteries contained in the words which he reads or utters; but if, by the spirit, we understand the Spirit of God, it only shows that it is by that Spirit that he is enabled to speak and apprehend these mysteries.
Abbot on 14:2
No man understandeth him. It would appear, from the statements in this chapter, that those upon whom were conferred the miraculous power of speaking in languages not their own, were accustomed to pervert the trust by making a parade of it, where no useful end could result, as a means of self-glorification. Why such a miraculous power should be bestowed in cases where its exercise would not seem to be needed, and why so special a mark and token of divine inspiration should be granted and continued to men who were habitually guilty of a perversion of it, which one would suppose would bring all the evidences of divine authentication into discredit are mysteries which we cannot solve.
Clarke on 14:5
Verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues] The word ???? does not so much imply a wish or desire, as a command or permission. As if he had said: I do not restrain you to prophesying or teaching though I prefer that; but I give you full permission to speak in Hebrew whenever it is proper, and when one is present who can interpret for the edification of the Church, provided yourselves have not that gift, though you understand the language. The apostle said tongue, in the singular number, 1Co 14:2, 4, because he spoke of a single man; now he says tongues, in the plural number, because he speaks of many speaking; but he has the same meaning in both places.-Lightfoot.
Greater is he that prophesieth] A useful, zealous preacher, though unskilled in learned languages, is much greater in the sight of God, and in the eye of sound common sense, than he who has the gift of those learned tongues; except he interpret: and we seldom find great scholars good preachers. This should humble the scholar, who is too apt to be proud of his attainments, and despise his less learned but more useful brother. This judgment of St. Paul is too little regarded.
Verses 14:18 – 19 in Jubilee 2000
I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.
I only take this topic up because I have been outspoken on it elsewhere, and to neglect it here where the proponents of such actions are at their most vocal would be quite shameful.
There are several defenses of my attack on the practice of speaking in tongues that might be employed, and I am uncertain which is the best. First, we can assert as Clarke has here, that what Paul was talking about simply does not in any way relate to the vulgar practice we are attacking. That seems reasonable to me for a number of reasons. First, Paul was not exactly writing in his native tongue. The language is obviously clumsy, and it does give the impression that the same word 'tongue' is being used in different ways. Perhaps that impression is undeserved. Clarke and Abbot paint a reasonable picture above that Paul simply did not want them to try and show off their fancy new language (perhaps Hebrew) when not everyone or even the majority in the church would understand them. For a modern day example, consider the Latin liturgy that has been done away with by our Roman Catholic friends.
Perhaps it is because of the Pentecostal interpretation of this scripture that I do not entirely buy what I have written above. It is plausible. It is likely. Yet I feel like I am standing on only one leg. Very well, in order that I might have a complete set of supports, consider this. We should assume that the church at Corinth was behaving in much the same way, in fact almost identical to the way in which our Pentecostal friends behave. Aside from the fact that Paul does not look on this behavior in a kindly fashion, what might we infer. First, let us examine Corinth itself. It sits right across a small gulf from Delphi. You don't suppose that it is rather probable that many of these new converts had only recently been quite taken in by the oracle there do you? That same oracle that danced around and babbled nonsense to an interpreter might well have pulled the wool over their eyes. Such a thing is not given up easily, and to me, these verses read as though Paul knows this, and he knows that the practice was fruitless and vulgar, yet in order to keep the converts and not chase them away he decided to temper their behavior rather than prohibit it. I find this explanation to be completely probable, and far more likely than any other.
Galatians
Ah, Galatians. The little tiny book that inspired Luther to write some fifteen hundred pages of commentary. As for myself, I like the book, and I especially like the concept of Justification by Faith. Let's see what we can dig up on the subject.
Luther on 2:4
... Now the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law. The false apostles preached a conditional gospel.
So do the papists. They admit that faith is the foundation of salvation. But they add the conditional clause that faith can save only when it is furnished with good works. This is wrong. The true Gospel declares that good works are the embellishment of faith, but that faith itself is the gift and work of God in our hearts. Faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer.
Human reason can think only in terms of the Law. It mumbles: "This I have done, this I have not done." But faith looks to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, given into death for the sins of the whole world. To turn one's eyes away from Jesus means to turn them to the Law.
True faith lays hold of Christ and leans on Him alone. Our opponents cannot understand this. In their blindness they cast away the precious pearl, Christ, and hang onto their stubborn works. They have no idea what faith is. How can they teach faith to others? ...
PNT on 2:16
Knowing. There were certain facts that both of them knew. One of them was that men were justified, that is, forgiven, not by the works of the law, of Moses, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; that is, by the gospel. Both had believed on Christ in order that they might be justified.
For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. This passage is found in Ps 143:2 Ro 3:20.
Clarke on 2:17
Verse 17. But if while we seek to be justified] If, while we acknowledge that we must be justified by faith in Christ, we ourselves are found sinners, enjoining the necessity of observing the rites and ceremonies of the law, which never could and never can justify, and yet, by submitting to circumcision, we lay ourselves under the necessity of fulfilling the law, which is impossible, we thus constitute ourselves sinners; is, therefore, Christ the minister of sin? Christ, who has taught us to renounce the law, and expect justification through his death?. God forbid! that we should either act so, or think so.
Clarke on 2:22
I do not contemn, despise, or render useless, the grace of God-the doctrine of Christ crucified; which I must do if I preach the necessity of observing the law.
For if righteousness] If justification and salvation come by an observance of the law, then Christ is dead in vain; his death is useless if an observance of the law can save us; but no observance of the law can save us, and therefore there was an absolute necessity for the death of Christ.
1. THE account of the prevarication of Peter in the preceding chapter teaches us a most useful lesson. Let him who assuredly standeth take heed lest he fall. No person in a state of probation is infallible; a man may fall into sin every moment; and he will, if he do not walk with God. Worldly prudence and fleshly wisdom would have concealed this account of the prevarication of Peter; but God tells truth. This the fountain of it; and from him we are to expect not only nothing but the truth, but also the whole truth. If the Gospel were not of God we had never heard of the denial and prevarication of Peter, nor of the contention between Paul and Barnabas. And these accounts are recorded, not that men may justify or excuse their own delinquencies by them, but that they may avoid them; for he must be inexcusable who, with these histories before his eyes, ever denies his Master, or acts the part of a hypocrite. Had the apostles acted in concert to impose a forgery on the world as a Divine revelation, the imposture would have now come out. The falling out of the parties would have led to a discovery of the cheat. This relation, therefore, is an additional evidence of the truth of the Gospel.
2. On, I through the law am dead to the law, &c., pious Quesnel makes the following useful reflections:
"The ceremonial law, which is no more than a type and shadow of him, destroys itself by showing us Jesus Christ, who is the truth and the substance. The moral law, by leaving us under our own inability under sin and the curse, makes us perceive the necessity of the law of the heart, and of a Saviour to give it. The law is for the old man, as to its terrible and servile part; and it was crucified and died with Christ upon the cross as well as the old man. The new man, and the new law, require a new sacrifice. What need has he of other sacrifices who has Jesus Christ? They in whom this sacrifice lives, do themselves live to God alone; but none can live to him except by faith; and this life of faith consists in dying with Christ to the things of the present world, and in expecting, as co-heirs with him, the blessings of the eternal world. And who can work all this in us but only he who lives in us? That man has arrived to a high degree of mortification, who can say Christ liveth in me, and I am crucified to the world. Such a one must have renounced not only earthly things, but his own self also."
3. Is there, or can there be, any well grounded hope of eternal life but what comes through the Gospel? In vain has the ingenuity of man tortured itself for more than 5000 years, to find out some method of mending the human heart: none has been discovered that even promised any thing likely to be effectual. The Gospel of Christ not only mends but completely cures and new makes infected nature. Who is duly apprised of the infinite excellency and importance of the Gospel? What was the world before its appearance? What would it be were this light extinguished? Blessed Lord! let neither infidelity nor false doctrine rise up to obscure this heavenly splendour!
Luther on 2:21
Did Christ die, or did He not die? Was His death worth while, or was it not? If His death was worth while, it follows that righteousness does not come by the Law. Why was Christ born anyway? Why was He crucified? Why did He suffer? Why did He love me and give Himself for me? It was all done to no purpose if righteousness is to be had by the Law.
Or do you think that God spared not His Son, but delivered Him for us all, for the fun of it? Before I would admit anything like that, I would consign the holiness of the saints and of the angels to hell.
To reject the grace of God is a common sin, of which everybody is guilty who sees any righteousness in himself or in his deeds. And the Pope is the sole author of this iniquity. Not content to spoil the Gospel of Christ, he has filled the world with his cursed traditions, e.g., his bulls and indulgences.
We will always affirm with Paul that either Christ died in vain, or else the Law cannot justify us. But Christ did not suffer and die in vain. Hence, the Law does not justify.
If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny's worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law which God disdains?
Man's own righteousness is in the last analysis a despising and rejecting of the grace of God. No combination of words can do justice to such an outrage. It is an insult to say that any man died in vain. But to say that Christ died in vain is a deadly insult. To say that Christ died in vain is to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven, earth, God Himself, of no purpose and benefit whatever.
That is enough to set any person against the righteousness of the Law and all the trimmings of men's own righteousness, the orders of monks and friars, and their superstitions.
Who would not detest his own vows, his cowls, his shaven crown, his bearded traditions, yes, the very Law of Moses, when he hears that for such things he rejected the grace of God and the death of Christ. It seems that such a horrible wickedness could not enter a man's heart, that he should reject the grace of God, and despise the death of Christ. And yet this atrocity is all too common. Let us be warned. Everyone who seeks righteousness without Christ, either by works, merits, satisfactions, actions, or by the Law, rejects the grace of God, and despises the death of Christ.
Aside from the obvious political tendencies from Luther, here we have a rather beautiful doctrine that pretty much everyone agrees upon. Sure, we quibble about the minutia of it, but only the most pedantic of the pedants really care about such minutia. I refer, of course, to the discourse about what role works play in salvation. The whole thing really boils down to a set of silly mind games that more resemble Schrödinger's cat than any true doctrine. |
|
