Philippians 1.29

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake

At this point, Paul now further elaborates on the opposition and salvation the Philippians will experience for standing firm in the Gospel by explaining that their faith and suffering are derivatives of God’s gracious gift on behalf of Christ.

The Gift of Faith in Christ

Theater of Philippi

In clarifying why the Philippians opposition will serve as a sign of their salvation, Paul explains this by saying their faith in Christ is a gift (”kha-re-zo-mi“)(i.e. granted) for the sake of Christ.  This gift of faith is not a gift earned (Eph. 2.8-9) or something that comes from within or that we will to be given (John 1.12-13).  This gift to believe in Christ is one that is given “freely or graciously as a favor, of God” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., 876).

God is the Originator of Faith

At this point, Paul uses carizomai in the aorist tense in pointing to God as the originator of faith, while further utilizing the passive voice in signifying that the activity of faith is actively based upon God’s sovereign will, and passively upon men (Peter O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 159)

This thought is not only observed within this letter (1.6, 28; 2.12-13), it is also paralleled throughout much of the New Testament (John 1.12-13; Acts 13.48; Rom. 9.11-13; Eph. 1.4-6, 9, 11-12; 1 Thess. 5.9; 2 Thess. 2.13; 2 Tim. 1.;  Heb. 12.1-2; 1 Pet. 1.1-2; 2.8; Jude 4).

God Permits the Non-Elect to Continue in their Unbelief towards Destruction

For those unfamiliar with the Sovereignty of God in relationship to mankind’s salvation, what I’m about to say will be hard for you to grasp at first as it was for me.  If you find this offensive and hard-to-swallow, then before you comment to this post, I simply challenge you to read the Scriptures and see what God’s word says.  Are you up for the challenge?

Either way, I’m moving on.

What is more, the “destruction” of unbelievers as coming from God – as observed in Philippians 1.28 (see A Sign of Destruction and Salvation) – is not only seen in this letter, it too is discovered elsewhere (Rom. 9.11-13; 1 Pet. 2.8; Jude 4).  God’s role in the “destruction” of unbelievers is not to be mistaken for His actively working unbelief in someone, for unbelief in God naturally exists from our birth (Psalm 51.5; Prov. 20.9; Eccl. 7.20; Rom. 3.10; Eph. 2.1-3).

How then are we to understand God’s role in someone’s eternal damnation?  Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) – Congregationalist Pastor and Theologian – best answered this question, saying:

Sinners, in laying the blame of their rejection of Christ to God from that, that all faith       must be of God, and not of themselves, argue in this manner: God is the fountain of all light and, therefore, he must be the fountain of all darkness too; he is the author of all good and, therefore, the blame of all evil must be laid to him: whereas it would certainly be more natural and rational to argue contrariwise. If the sun be the fountain of light, then certainly darkness don’t come from the sun, but that must proceed from some other cause. If all faith and receiving Christ be from God, and that be true in John 6: 44, “No man can come to me, except the Father that hath sent me draw him,” then ’tis natural to suppose that unbelief is not of God, but of ourselves. ‘Tis no argument that man can’t hate Christ of himself, because God is the bestower of all love to Christ (The “Miscellanies,” (Entry Nos. 501-832) (WJE Online Vol. 18, 407).

The destruction of the Philippians opponents is not to be attributed to God’s actively working unbelief in them.  Rather, God’s role is to be seen as one who permits them to continue in their unbelief and subsequent destruction.

The Gift of Suffering for Christ

Not only were the Philippians graciously given faith to believe in Christ, they were also given another extension of grace, namely, the privilege of suffering upon His behalf (noted in the contrast created by “alla”).

As Peter O’Brien points out, when the preposition “hu-per” is used with verbs of suffering it designates the reason for the suffering itself (Acts 5.41; 9.16; 21.13; cf. 2 Thess. 1.5) (159).  With this being said, in this particular context the suffering the Philippians are experiencing is on behalf of Christ in particular as they advance the gospel, not suffering in general (Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 170-171).

For the Philippians as well as those reading this that have experienced suffering for sharing the Gospel or are fearful of sharing the Gospel for this reason, you need not feel alone.  To suffer for the sake of Christ is a theme woven throughout the entirety of the New Testament and similarly observed throughout church history (Matthew 5.11-12; John 15.18-25; Acts 5.41; 9.16; 21.13; Rom. 5.3-5; Phil. 3.10-11; 1 Thess. 3.2-3; Hebrews 11.26; 1 Peter 4.13-14, 16.

Some Final Thoughts

It is important for us not to draw the wrong conclusions about suffering being a gift of God, as if He desires for us to be masochists.  We would do well to heed the words of Moises Silva, who said,

Suffering is not in itself a good thing but an evil characteristic of this sinful world (and certainly we must not think of evil, in the sense of sin, as proceeding from God).  Believers certainly are not admonished to thank God for experiencing personal tragedy.  But we may, indeed we must, thank him that he does not isolate us from evil experiences; we are to praise him that in his wisdom he uses them to strengthen us and thus to accomplish his saving purposes in us (Philippians, 84)

To God be the glory

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

Phil. 1.28b

This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.

Theater of Philippi

To live worthy of the gospel is to be in one mind and spirit while advancing the faith in face of opposition.  Paul now says that these actions will serve as a sign of the Philippians opponent’s destruction and their own salvation (Gordon Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 168).

“This” is best understood as referring back to how the Philippians are to live worthy of gospel, not “the faith” as proposed by Hawthorne (Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 58). For Paul’s main contention so far has been on living worthy of the gospel, not the gospel itself.

Now let’s take a look at the 2 signs the Philippians conduct, as well as ours today, provides..

The 2 Signs in Living Worthy of the Gospel

The first “sign” that the Philippians actions will reveal is the “destruction” of their adversaries.

The destruction alluded to hear by Paul is more than a psychological effect upon the Philippians opponents (Peter O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 155), it is a reference to the “eternal destruction as punishment for the wicked (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed, 103).

This meaning is further confirmed in a parallel passage where a similar word (i.e. cognate) for “sign.”  In 2 Thessalonians 1.5 and 9 we read,

“This [Referring to the Thessalonians perseverance in the midst of persecution in vs. 1.4] is evidence [Similar word for “sign”] of the righteous judgment of God…They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from glory of his might.”

The second sign serves as a contrast to the first (note the use of “but”), which is the “salvation” of the Philippians.

The salvation the Philippians shall experience is none other than the salvation “which the true religion bestows” (ibid., 801), and ends in eternal relief, deliverance, and joy.

Destruction and Salvation are Both from God

The final words in this verse, “and this from God,” refers both to the destruction of the Philippians opponents and to the Philippians salvation.

This is evident in that “this” is found in the neuter case which lends support to this understanding.  Why?  For a word in the Greek to be found in the neuter means in a general sense that it is a neutral word.  Consequently, “this” is not referring directly to the destruction or salvation of people but rather to both (O’Brien, 157) (In another post I’ll further address the relationship of God in the destruction and salvation of people).

Final Thoughts

These words would have been encouraging for the Philippians to have heard.  Not that the Philippians would have rejoiced over the eternal destruction of the very ones they were striving to save, but that the opposition and subsequent suffering they are experiencing is not in vain nor outside of the superintendence of God (Moises Silva, Philippians, 83).

In the words of P. Benoit,

“It is God who sends the persecutions they must undergo, the solid resistance with which they must confront them, and the assurance of salvation which follows” (From O’Brien, 157).

As we move forward in living worthy of the Gospel we will face opposition.  We should not lose heart in such trials for God will provide us with the grace to lovingly resist and confront them.  Not only will God enable us to handle opposition in such a way, but we will further experience the assurance of salvation that He has granted to us.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Have you ever been in a conversation about a text from the Bible that goes something like this (Adaptation to John Jackson’s work):

Billy:  I believe [X Passage from the Bible] means this.

Jesse: How did you come to that conclusion?  There is nothing in [X Passage from the Bible] that supports that?

Billy: I believe that because that’s the way I understand it.

Jesse: [X Passage from the Bible] has never been understood that way.  The authors intent, the meaning of the word(s), and the immediate and larger context lead us to conclude that [X Passage from the Bible] means…

Billy: That’s just your opinion.

If you’ve never had one of these conversations just exercise patience, it will happen.

Over the last few weeks I have been thinking about how best to respond to this statement.  What follows is my attempt in how I plan on moving forward when someone levels the deafening charge, “That’s just your opinion.”

Before I do that, let’s briefly consider the two meanings of defintion and how it is used in this context.

What Are Opinions?

Opinions are understood in one of two ways:

(1) A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty; or

(2) The formal expression of a professional judgment (i.e. Medical Opinion).

In other words, opinions can and cannot be supported with reason and facts.  What we have to determine now is how opinion is used in the example above.

How is Billy Using Opinion?

Based upon the two meanings listed above, how do you think Billy is using opinion?

It is clear to see in the example above that Billy is using opinion in the 1st meaning, not the 2nd.

Now, what we also need to consider is what Billy’s implies with his last statement, “That’s just your opinion.”

What I’m beginning to understand is that we shouldn’t take Billy’s statement in a demeaning way.  That is, I don’t think the Billy’s of the world are using the word opinion in a way to degrade someone else (i.e. “Your position is based upon insufficient reasoning”).  I’m beginning to see that the Billy’s of the world are using opinion as a means of justifying their own position irrespective of the means used in coming to their conclusion.

Writing of a similar experience in class, Professor of Fine Arts at Hofstra University Laurie Fendrich said,

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that when people living in democratic societies survey their fellow man, they automatically feel pretty much the equal of anybody.  From this we conclude that it’s pointless to listen to anybody else’s opinion.  Why should it be better than our own?  In practice, this means that when we listen to experts, or people with more knowledge than we have, we are perfectly willing to argue with them.  We consider everything from making judgments about global warming to the quality of the art in Avatar to be judgments that are best left up to us to make individually, without somebody else “telling us what to think.”

What we are about to see, we cannot use opinion as a way of justifying our own position while simultaneously diminishing the opinion of another.

Every Opinion Is Not Equal

Even when speaking about the meaning of a Biblical text, not every opinion is equal.  Yes, we do live within a country that permits free speech, which provides us the opportunity to believe whatever we want.  Although this is the case, this legal right does not mean our opinion is right.  It simply means that we are entitled to our opinion irrespective of how right or wrong it may or may not be.

We cannot use opinion in the sense of the first meaning above, as if it is the formal expression of a professional judgment.    There is a huge difference between having the right to an opinion and being able to justify an opinion with reason and fact(s).

In the words of John Jackson,

Claiming a right to an opinion…adds absolutely nothing to the argument.  It is a complete irrelevance that does nothing to resolve the disagreement

Simply because Billy implied the right to his own opinion in no way legitimazies it.  If anything this statement is a diversion from the truth or an item of significance in the discussion (i.e. A Red Herring).

Besides, two opposite opinions cannot exist at the same time in the same context.  Billy, nor myself, cannot say two different things about the samething in the same context.  It is either one or the other.  It is either raining or it is not raining.  I am wearing shoes or I am not wearing shoes.  It is one or the other and nothing in between.

How Will I Plan On Responding?

Not every opinion is equal, even when talking about the things of God.  God has chosen to reveal Himself in an objective standard rooted in history that can be studied and understood (2 Tim. 3.16-17; 2 Pet. 1.20-21; Jude 3).

Opinions on texts – or anything for that matter – are justified to the degree that they are supported with evidence.  Just because we have a right to an opinion doesn’t mean that our opinion is right.

When discussing the things of God – as revealed in the Bible both Old and New Testaments – and someone uses the once deafening charge, “That’s just your opinion,” I will use the following steps

It’s important to first really understand what they mean by opinion, so I will need to ask a clarifying question: “What do you mean by that?  Do you mean I just provided an expert interpretation?  Are you saying that my position lacks insufficient ground?  Or are you justifying your personal opinion?”

If they respond yes to the first question, then I guess the case is closed?  If they affirm the second question, then I will be forced to punch them – just kidding.  If they affirm the third question, then I would look to proceed in the following way.

What does John 14.6 mean?  Does it mean that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, or does it mean he is a way among many to heaven?  Unless the person I’m talking to is a Jehovah Witness – which is a whole other issue in and of itself – I would ask, “Would you agree with me that this text means that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?”

I’m assuming they’ll answer yes, so I would continue with my next question, “Why can this text not mean that Jesus Christ is a way among many to heaven?”  Why would I ask this question?  Simple.  My hope would be to unveil basic logic.  That is, a text means what it means and not something else (Law of Identity).  A text cannot mean one thing and the opposite thing at the same time (Law of Non-Contradiction).

The reason I would do this is because any text (i.e Scripture) from the Bible means what it was intended to mean – in context – when the author wrote it.  Texts may have ranges of meaning, but this doesn’t mean that within this range there can be contradictory understandings within itself as well as other passages from the Bible.

In the words of the Westminster Divines,

1.9 The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

This is why the continued,

1.10 The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

In the End

What’s your opinion?

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

Philippians 1.27-30

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God.  For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

By interacting with the historical and literary context, as well as commentators, we will see in Philippians 1.27-30 that Paul exhorts the Philippians to live worthy of the gospel by standing firm in one spirit and mind while advancing the faith in face of opposition that is comprised of the citizens of Philippi (1.27-28a). 

Living in such a manner will serve as a sign of their opponent’s eternal destruction and their salvation, and both of these derive from God (1.28b). 

In explaining the opposition and subsequent suffering the Philippians are enduring, Paul informs them that God, for the sake of Christ, has granted them the privilege of both believing and suffering for Him (1.29). 

Finally, Paul appeals to his own suffering they saw and hear that he continues to endure as a means of encouraging them in theirs (1.30).

Literary Context

Verse 27 marks a transition in Paul’s thought from his personal situation (1.12-26) to that of the Philippians (1.27-2.18).  This transition is most notably made in Paul’s use of the adverb monon (only, alone) which stresses the one essential thing (Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians: Word Biblical Commentary, 55).  His use of monon not only serves as a transition, but marks the beginning of a new section and controls his thoughts from here until 2.18 (Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 161).

Peter O’Brien points out that the links with the preceding section are clearly observed in the following ways:

(1) “eite elqwn kai idwn umas eite apwn” is closely related to vv. 25-26; and

(2) The gospel of Christ (tou euaggeliou tou Cristou) is a common theme in vv. 12-26 and 27-30 (Peter O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 145)

Following verse 30 of chapter 1, there is not much agreement upon its relationship with 2.1.  For instance, verse 30 appears to mark the end of one paragraph.  With this being the case, should we then consider 2.1-4 as marking the beginning of a new section?  Or does a new section begin at 2.5?  2.12?  Or 2.19? (Moises Silva, Philippians, 15).

In answering this question, we observe that 2.1 serves not as a new section, but rather as a progression in Paul’s thoughts by his use of “ei…oun” (if…therefore) (O’Brien, 164). What is more, we also discover the very theme of unity espoused by Paul in 1.27 is recapitulated in 2.1-4.

Some, such as Peter O’Brien, do not believe that this section serves as a progression of Philippians 1.27-30.  For the opposition mentioned in this pericope – section – is external in nature, whereas the dangers that confront the Philippians in 2.1-4 are internal (Ibid., 174)

Although this is the case, could not have the opposition the Philippians faced been the root cause of their internal disarray?  Personally, I believe so.  Why else would Paul have emphasized harmonious living before exhorting them to not be afraid of their opponents?  This is why I would argue that 2.1-4 serves as a progression of Paul’s thoughts in 1.27-30 (note his use of “monon”) (Frank Thielman, Philippians, 95-96).

While there is disagreement over the relationship between 1.30 and 2.1, there is much agreement that verses 1.27-30 are part of a much larger section, namely 1.27 through 2.18 (Fee, 54-55).

It is at this point that we now turn our attention to Paul’s exhortation to the Philippians to live worthy of the gospel in either his presence or absence (1.27-30).

Philippians 1.27-28a

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, ²⁸ and not frightened in anything by your opponents…

After addressing his personal situation (12-26), Paul now turns to the one essential thing he would have the Philippians do whether he is absent or present with them.  This one essential thing he would have for the Philippians to do is to “live worthy of  the Gospel of Christ.”

The Meaning of “Live”

The verb “live” (politeuesqe) is used three times in the New Testament (Acts 23.1; Philippians 1.27; 3.20) and actually falls outside of the normal range of words that Paul employs in similar contexts, namely, peripatein (Rom. 6.4; 1 Cor. 3.3; 2 Cor. 5.7; Gal. 5.16; Eph. 2.2; Phil. 3.17; 1 Thess. 2.12) (Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 56)

The meaning of politeuesqe has garnered considerable discussion.  Politeuesqe derives from polis and is found only in the middle voice in early literature (William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 686.).

Based upon its etymology, it is reasoned that politeuesqe possesses political overtones and is used in the sense of “discharging your obligations as citizens.” (Ibid., 686).  Even though some contend that Paul used this synonymously with peripatein (Peter O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 146) it can be reasoned that politeuesqe does retain its original meaning.  This is further confirmed by reading this passage in light of Paul’s use of a similar verb in 3.20 – politeuma – that is correspondingly followed by the same two verbs as here (Ibid., 147; Hawthorne, 55).

It can be reasoned that Paul is making a play on the dual citizenry of the Philippians.  In that the Philippians are not only citizens of the Roman Empire by virtue of being in Philippi, but that they are now citizens of heaven through their faith in Jesus Christ which supersedes their responsibilities to Caesar.

Living Worthy of the Gospel

To live worthy of the gospel is characterized by two positive and one negative admonition.

Positively, to live worthy of the gospel is to:

(1) Stand firm in one spirit, with one mind; and

(2) Strive side by side for the faith of the gospel (1.27).

Negatively, to live worthy of the gospel is to not be frightened in anything by your opponents (1.28).

Positively Speaking

To live worthy of the gospel is characterized by the following words “you stand firm in one spirit, one soul.”

To “stand firm” denotes a thought of “firmness or steadfastness, or unflinching courage like that possessed by soldiers who determinedly refuse to leave their posts irrespective of how severely the battle rages.” (Hawthorne, 56; Also see, 1 Cor. 16.13; Gal. 5.1; Phil 4.1; 2 Thess. 2.15).  Although Paul does not explicitly mention who the Philippians are to “stand firm” against, it can be surmised – as we’ll see below – that the Philippians were facing opposition from Philippian citizens (1.28).

It is important that this concept of standing firm is not read as an individualistic idea alone.  In this context, to stand firm denotes more than individual responsibility, but rather represents a communal and interdependent thought that is marked by a unity of spirit and soul. To stand firm in such a way is to stand together with one purpose (O’Brien, 150).  Consequently, as proposed by Frank Thielman, it is incorrect to read “in one spirit” as referring to the Holy Spirit, and not communal living in this context for the following reasons.

This statement is found in the context of Paul’s appeal to the Philippians to live in unity that is further explained in verses 2.1-4.  Moreover, this phrase is immediately paralleled with “one mind” which lends further support to the idea of Christian unanimity.

So, to stand firm in one spirit and mind exemplifies individual resoluteness and Christian harmony in the face of opposition, not a reference to the Holy Spirit.

Sometime next week I will pick-up the theme of living worthy of the Gospel in teasing out what was meant by striving side by side for the faith of the gospel (1.27).

Other Posts in This Series:

Philippians 1.27-30 Literary Context

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

By observing the historical and literary context of 1 Corinthians 14.1-19 and each paragraph, we observed that the main issue plaguing the Corinthian Church was the intelligibility of communication and the main concern was for the churches edification through intelligible speech. 

This was accomplished by observing both the historical and literary context of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which brought forth the reason to Paul’s authoring of this letter. 

In addition to these observations, Paul established the one issue and concern with 1 Corinthians 14.1-5.  With verses 6-12 Paul elaborated upon these two matters by showing how the Corinthians would not benefit from him coming to them speaking in tongues, which was then clarified by two illustrations, and concluded by an exhortation to pursue spiritual gifts that edify the church, not themselves.  Finally, within verses 13-19, an application for corporate gatherings and personal devotion was detected while Paul expounded upon the gift of tongues.  Not only was this issue and concern addressed, but the gift of prophecy and tongues were explained in part throughout. 

In closing, may we in our pursuit of love for the others pursue the spiritual gifts that build them up, not ourselves, and bring glory to God and not personal recognition.

Here is a link to every individual post in this series:

1 Corinthians 14.1-19: Historical and Literary Context

1 Corinthians 14.1-5

1 Corinthians 14.6-12

1 Corinthians 14.13-19

If you liked this, you may also be interested in The Gift of Prophecy: The Complete Series.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

1 Corinthians 14.13-19 provides for us an application of verse 12 to the public assembly and edification of the church.  In addition to this application, Paul also emphasizes the gift of tongues by establishing its characteristics.  Finally, we become aware of what Paul would have the Corinthian Church do in their corporate gatherings.

1 Corinthians 14.13

Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.

In verse 13, the adverb “dio” (“therefore,” “on the account of”) not only links the present passage to the previous one, it also functions as a conclusion and application to the principle of “building up the church” (Gordon Fee, pg. 668).  

Since one is to seek the gifts of the Spirit that edify the church (1 Cor. 14.12), then the person who speaks in tongues is to pray for the ability to interpret, so that others may understand and be edified.  Therefore, this exhortation is not for one’s personal edification, but rather for the churches.

This observation flies in the face of some contemporary understandings of the gift of tongues.  For example, Oral Roberts, in his book titled Still Doing the Impossible, related he and his wife’s personal experience in praying for the interpretation of tongue:

From that time, we prayed in tongues together, and she too learned she could interpret back to her mind God’s response.  In First Corinthians 14.13-15 Paul says we can use our will to pray in tongues and to interpret back to our understanding.  We receive God’s revelation knowledge (pg. 209).

Oral Robert’s application of this text is working from a misinformed meaning of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 14.1-19.  As I said before (cite), Paul was not overtly concerned with the gift of tongues per se, but rather with the edification of the church and not the individual. 

Besides, why would one need to pray for individual interpretation and edification since they are already personally edified by praying in tongues (1 Cor. 14.5)?  Moreover, one who speaks in tongues is to seek for their interpretation so that the church may be edified, not themselves (1 Cor. 14.5). 

Therefore, for one to take this text as personal revelation and edification is misinformed as to the meaning communicated by Paul.

1 Corinthians 14.14

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

With verse 14, Paul explains why one is asked to pray for the interpretation of their tongue-speaking. 

“For,” Paul writes, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays.”  Since one’s “spirit” prays while praying in tongues, then their “nous” (“mind”) is unfruitful. Since one’s mind is unfruitful while praying in tongues, then someone else’s mind would be unfruitful as well.  

Therefore, Paul explains what one is to do within the public assembly of the church in verses 15-17.

1 Corinthians 14.15

What am I do do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also.

Since one’s mind is unfruitful while praying in tongues, Paul explains what one is to do within the public assembly with verse 15.  

In verse 15, we learn from Paul’s experience that one is to pray and sing in the spirit as well as with their mind.  For one to pray or sing in the spirit is for one to pray or sing in tongues, and not with their “innermost deepest depths” (David Garland, pg. 639).  

Although people are to pray and sing with their spirit, the emphasis does not lie here, but rather with praying and singing with their mind.  In teasing this meaning out, Gordon Fee says that “the combination ‘but also’ (‘de kai’) indicates that the emphasis lies here.”    

With verse 15 we discovered that all are to pray and sing with their spirit as well as their mind.

1 Corinthians 14.16-17

Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say “Amen” to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying?  For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.

“Thus, as in vv. 1-5 and 6-12,” notes Gordon Fee, “intelligibility and edification are tied together.  In the assembly the latter cannot happen without the former” (pg. 674).

Consequently, one who speaks in a tongue is to do so orderly and with it being interpreted, so that their message will be intelligible and that the church will be edified (1 Cor. 14.27-28; cf. 14.5, 13).  

What is more, it can be reasoned that Paul’s contrast of praying and singing with his spirit and mind are an allusion to what he would expect for the church to do in the public assembly, as well as their private devotion.  Verse 16 provides for us what one is to do within the public assembly when it comes to intelligibility and the edification of the church. 

1 Corinthians 14.18-19

I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.  Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

The final throng of this passage, verses 18 through 19, provides a glimpse of Paul’s personal devotional life as well as his desires for the church.  On one hand, in verse 18, Paul expresses his thankfulness to God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them. 

Even though Paul’s expression may be hyperbolic, D.A. Carson affirms that this passage provides “no stronger defense of the private use of tongues” (pg. 105).  On the other hand, in verse 19, Paul contrasts the quantity of his tongue speaking with his desire to speak intelligibly within the church.  He explains his desire to speak intelligibly by expressing his wish for others to be instructed by what he says, rather than him speaking ten thousand words in a tongue that no one else can comprehend without interpretation.  “Thus, the section has come full circle,” begins Gordon Fee.

If Paul came to them as they wished, speaking in tongues, it would not benefit them.  He must speak in intelligible ways.  Now he affirms that he does speak in tongues – more than all of them; but in church, so that others might be instructed, he would rather speak just five words that could be understood than countless words in a tongue.  The obvious implication is that they should wish to do the same (pg. 676).

What we have observed within these final two verses is Paul’s quantity of tongue-speaking as well as his desire for intelligible communication within the church so that others may be instructed, and ultimately edified.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

In 1 Corinthians 14.6-12 Paul continues along his narrative prose in elaborating upon the issue of intelligibility and the edification of the church.  Verse 6 sets the stage for this section by showing the Corinthians that they would not benefit from Paul coming to them speaking in tongues.  In order to clarify this point, Paul employs two illustrations: One from instruments (vv. 7-9) and the other through foreign languages (10-12).  In concluding this section, Paul reemphasizes the importance of the edification of the church and that the Corinthians should abound for those gifts that edify her, not themselves.

1 Corinthians 14.6

Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?

In verse 6 there is an observable transition in Paul’s argument from the previous section.  This shift is noted in particular by his use of “now” in addressing his “brethren.”  In light of what was just written, Paul asks the Corinthians, “But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation …knowledge …prophecy or of teaching?”  With this statement, we clearly see that the Corinthians would not benefit by Paul speaking unintelligibly to them in tongues, but rather intelligibly to them by way of  revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pg. 661).  In order to clarify his point, Paul now provides two different illustrations in verses 7 through 12.

1 Corinthians 14.7-9

If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.

In verses 7-9, Paul provides his first of two illustrations by comparing the Corinthians tongue-speaking with each other to lifeless instruments, namely the flute and harp.  He conditionally states that if they, referring to the flute and harp, do not produce a distinct sound, how will they be understood?  He then explains this example with the use of a bugle in sounding people for battle.

If the bugle produces an indistinct sound, how can anyone prepare themselves for battle?  This illustration is then applied to one’s inability to understand another who is speaking in tongues by Paul’s following statement, “unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?”  “The analogy is clear,” remarks Gordon Fee

Tongues…is like the harpist running fingers over all the strings, making musical sounds    but not playing a pleasing melody, or like a bugler who blows the bugle without sounding    the battle cry.  In both cases sounds come from the instrument, but they make no sense; hence the do not benefit the listener, so it is with tongues (Ibid., 664).

From this first illustration we discover that one must speak intelligibly to another in order for them to understand and not in unintelligible tongues.

1 Corinthians 14.10-12

There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

Paul’s second illustration, found in verses 10-12, provides us with yet another example of the importance of speaking intelligibly with each other.

In verse 10, Paul states that there are indeed many languages in the world and none of them are without meaning.  He then provides a conditional cause-effect example by stating that if he did not know the meaning of a particular language that he and the one with whom he was dialoguing with would be like barbarians since they could not understand each other.

This illustration would have been very familiar to the Corinthians since the city was made up of a diversity of people from different nations and languages (David Garland, 1 Corinthians, 638) Just like the illustration in verses 7-9, this illustration too applies what is obvious: that without intelligibility of speech within the gathered assembly no one will be able to understand what is being said (Fee, 665).  Finally, verse 12 applies the previous two illustrations, but also ties together the two themes set forth by Paul in verses 1-5: the desire for spiritual gifts and the edification of the church.

We observe that verse 12 applies the preceding two illustrations by Paul’s use of “so.”  He explains to his recipients, “since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.”

What is more, we observe from this passage that Paul picks up the two themes that he originally established in verses 1-5.  This resumption is observed in Paul’s reference to the Corinthians zealousness for spiritual gifts from verse 1 (D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, 103).  In fact, his present encouragement can be understood as an amendment to the opening injunction of verse 1 (Garland, 638).

This present junction amends their zealousness for spiritual gifts by specifically exhorting them to “abound for the edification of the church.”  Therefore, we can conclude that for Paul, the most important gifts that one should strive for are those that edify the church, not the self (Ibid., 638; cf. 1 Peter 4.10-11)

With this final passage, we observed that Paul not only provided an application of the previous two illustrations, but he also tied together the two themes that he established in verses 1 through 5, as well as reemphasized the importance of seeking those gifts that edify the church.

Other Parts in This Series:

Historical and Literary Context

1 Corinthians 14.1-5

 

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

1 Corinthians 14.1-5 establishes the central theme of verses 1-19, the issue of intelligibility in communication and concern for the edification of the church (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pg. 653).

On one hand, Paul addresses the issue of intelligibility in communication by juxtaposing tongue-speaking with prophecy (1 Cor. 14.2-5). On the other hand, Paul’s concern for the edification of the church stems from the intelligibility of communication within the public assembly of the church (1 Cor. 14.3-5).  It is by expounding these first five verses that I will observe Paul’s issue with intelligibility as well as his concern for the edification of the church.

1 Corinthians 14.1

“Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.”

In verse 1, we observe that Paul resumes his exhortation from 1 Corinthians 12.31, by encouraging the Corinthians to “Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14.1).

It’s important to draw your attention to the continuation that Paul places upon the pursuit of love in light of the Corinthians pursuit of spiritual gifts.  This is significant for “The importance of love does not mean it should be pursued at the expense of spiritual gifts, they too are to be eagerly desired” (D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, pg. 101).

The Corinthian’s were not only exhorted to pursue spiritual gifts in general, they were particularly encouraged to seek the gift of prophecy. In verses 2 through 5, Paul provides us with an explanation as to why the Corinthian’s were to specifically seek this particular gift.

1 Corinthians 14.2

“For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.”

Paul explains his exhortation in verse 1 by his use of “for” (gar) in verse 2.  The reason that the Corinthians – as well as us today – are to seek the gift of prophecy instead of tongues, is because the “one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.”

This point is further explained by Paul (note again his use of “for”) in our lack of understanding another person’s message in tongues, for they “utter mysteries in the Spirit.”  Therefore, unless someone interprets (1 Cor. 14.5) a message spoken in tongues, this message is unintelligible to all, even the one speaking.

1 Corinthians 14.3

“On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation.”

After establishing the unintelligibility of tongue-speaking in verse 2, Paul now contrasts the unintelligibility of tongues with the intelligibility of prophecy in verse 3.

We are told that the one who prophesies does not speak to God, but to men for their edification, exhortation, and consolation.  In light of this we can infer that a prophetic message has a threefold purpose: “it must be instructive, encouraging, and comforting for the believers” (Simon Kistemaker, 1 Corinthians, pg. 478; cf. 1 Thess. 2.12).  It is for this reason that Gordon Fee says,

“these three words set forth the parameters of the divine intent of prophecy, and probably indicate that in Paul’s view the primary focus of a prophetic utterance is not the future, but the present situations of the people of God” (Fee, pg. 657).

Thus, a prophetic message is directed towards the church, whereas a message in tongues is directed towards God.

For more on the gift of prophecy, see my complete works on the gift of prophecy.

1 Corinthians 14.4

“The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophecies builds up the church.”

In verse 4 we discover that one who speaks in tongues “edifies himself,” whereas the one who prophesies edifies the church.

For one to edify themselves through speaking in tongues is best explained by George Thiessen, who said that tongue-speaking grants,

Access to the unconscious dimensions of the soul and allows repressed impulses access   to the consciousness.  It enters into an inner space dissociated from the everyday realities surrounding them and it may result in a feeling of peace and even euphoria (Taken from David Garland, 1 Corinthians, pg. 634).

Personal edification wrought through tongue-speaking is then contrasted by Paul with the church’s edification through prophecy, observed in his use of “but” (“de”).

Despite the personal benefit  derived by speaking in tongues, we can gather from this passage that Paul’s primary concern is not with one’s private devotion, but rather with the church’s public worship.  We can glean this from his emphasis on the church’s edification, not the individual’s (Fee, 657).  This point is furthered by Paul in verse 5 (Note his use of “now”).

1 Corinthians 14.5

“Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy.  The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.”

In verse 5, Paul expresses a wishful desire for everyone to speak in tongues, which is then contrasted with his greater desire for everyone to prophesy.  For the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless a message in tongues is interpreted.

At the beginning of verse 5 we read “Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues.”  We should not take Paul’s expression here as his ideal for the entire church “any more than his desire in 1 Corinthians 7.7 that all be celibate as he is be his theological stance for the complete celibacy of the church” (Carson, pg. 102).  It is by reading this passage in context that we cannot press it to mean that everyone should or will be capable of speaking in tongues.  This passage Even though Paul expresses these desires for the Corinthians, he contrasts these desires with an even greater one for them to prophesy (Observed in his use of “but”).

It’s important for us to tie this back into the beginning of this paragraph by noting Paul’s repetition of the clause used in verse 1, “especially that you may prophesy.”  This repetition in Even though tongues and prophecy both have edifying features, Paul’s verbiage “indicates that he values prophecy far above tongue” (Kistemaker, pg 481).

Not only does Paul repetition emphasize this point, he goes on to say that the one “who prophesies” is greater than the one who “speaks in tongues.”  Even though Paul sees a greater value in prophesy than he does in tongue-speaking, he still sees value in tongue-speaking within the church if the message is interpreted.  Therefore, the problem of intelligibility and the edification of the church are clarified and we realize that Paul’s problem is not with speaking in tongues, but rather with speaking in tongues in the public assembly without interpretation (Garland, pg. 435).

Some Final Thoughts

By observing this paragraph we discovered that Paul’s main issue is with the intelligibility of communication in public worship and that his main concern is for the edification of the church.  We found this to be the cases by examining Paul’s juxtaposition of tongue-speaking with prophesy and their personal and communal edifying effects.  Moreover, Paul’s main concern for the edification of the church comes to surface by observing this concept throughout the entirety of this passage.

 There are two final points that I would like for us to come away with.

First, for one to forbid another from speaking in tongues in private is mere prejudice and not Biblical theology (Fee, pg. 659). 

Second, for one to speak in tongues in a public assembly apart from interpretation is outside of the limitations established by Paul and is to be discouraged, if not forbidden (Garland, pg. 635; cf. 1 Cor. 14.2-5, 27).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post:

In the study of the Bible, it is always important to remind ourselves that individual verses of the Bible are not to be likened to pearls on a string.  In other words, unlike a pearl, a verse does not have value in and of itself if it is taken out of its context.

After a close examination of 1 Corinthians 14.1-19, it is my intent to prove that the main issue plaguing the Corinthian church was intelligible communication and that Paul’s main concern for was for their edification.  Throughout this process I will address the gift of prophecy and tongues and their characteristics and use both personally and corporately.  These tasks will be accomplished by observing the historical and literary context of 1 Corinthians 14 within chapters 12-14.

The Historical Context

1^st Corinthians was authored by the Apostle Paul and sent to the church in Corinth.  Paul’s authorship of 1^st Corinthians is validated by his personal attestation, as well as past and present scholarship (1 Cor. 1.1; also see David Garland, 1 Corinthians, pg. 19 and 24).

Corinth was a wealthy city boasting a diversity of people and religions comparable to present day New York City, Los Angeles, or Las Vegas (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pgs. 1 and 3).  The city’s wealth and bustling commerce was directly associated with its location, which

Was situated on the Isthmus and was master of two harbors, of which the one, Cenchreae leads straight into Asia, and the other, Lechaeum, to Italy; and it made for easy exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each other (Fee, pg. 1).

Since Corinth served as a gateway to both Asia and Italy and hosted many visitors from various countries, it naturally became a melting pot of people and religious expressions.

Even though this was the case, the City of Corinth was predominately comprised of Roman citizens and was home to many Greeks, Levanitines, and a large Jewish population (F.F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, pg. 19).

Paul’s personal attestation and academic scholarship validate Pauline authorship of First Corinthians who resided in the wealthy and diverse port city of Corinth.  It is this historical backdrop that we must read this letter against.

The Literary Context

Chapters 12-14 of 1^st Corinthians revolve around one issue: speaking in tongues.  If anyone were too cursory read through chapter’s 12-14 one can readily observe that Paul was addressing the Corinthian’s fixation with speaking in tongues.  Gordon Fee best captures this observation, saying:

Even the most casual reading of 1 Corinthians 12-14 makes it abundantly clear that the   problem has to do with the gift of tongues. This can be seen first of all by the sheer    weight of numbers –“speaking in tongues” is mentioned or referred to at least 19 times.  It is further demonstrated by the fact that it is the only gift that makes all seven “gift lists,” where in the course of the argument Paul lists or refers consecutively to three or more gifts (Tongues – Least of the Gifts? Some Exegetical Observations on 1 Corinthians 12-14. Pneuma 2.2, pg. 3).

This one issue resulted in several other problems, such as the Corinthians ignorance about spiritual gifts, division within the church, a lack of love towards one another, and the edification of the gathering church community (Garland, pg. 559).

Nonetheless, it is the fixation with speaking in tongues that Paul corrects in 1 Corinthians 14 by which he prepared the way for his reprimand in chapters 12 and 13.

From 1^st Corinthians 12 we can observe that the Corinthian church was being destroyed by a uniformity of speaking in tongues and that the Corinthians possessed a narrow-minded view of the Holy Spirit and the gifts that He distributes.  Therefore, since the Corinthian’s were diligent in seeking after “spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 12.31; 14.1), Paul showed them a “still more excellent way (1 Cor. 12.31),” namely, love, which is found in chapter 13.

It is in conclusion to Paul’s excursion on the excellence of love in chapter 13 that leads us to our focus of study in 1 Corinthians 14.1-19 and Paul’s reprimand of the Corinthian’s fixation with speaking in tongues, not forbiddance.