1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 14

[Kevin Young]

Well, this one should be a lot of fun. We should get some differing opinions on this one... so let's keep all the posts respectful. After you read Chapter 14, please post your comments, questions, and insights here. God bless

[1kceby]

Well, this is a tough one! A lot to take in.. What I get from it is its better to prophsey than speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues is to God and will confuse the church and unbelievers! Also states women can't speak in church! Wonder how Joyce Meyers interprets this one? Sorry Kevin, you said be nice! LOL

[sassy1506]

So I'm having a bit of trouble with this, but that's probably the fact that I have a splitting headache and can't focus my eyes . . . I'M STILL TRYING!!!!!

Anyway, now that that's over . . . The first part's clear, but I just have one thing to ask . . . Why as innocent as babies? Babies are cute, but they're little demons. They're always screaming. And why (Okay, maybe I have more to say.) is it talking like we get to choose what gifts we get? We all know we don't.

Women must not be allowed to speak?! That's just not right! Granted, I realize this was written when women were a tiny bit better than slaves, but that's still not fair!

[Ric]

I've been in a church where about everybody had a "word from the Lord", had "visions", cound speak in tongues, etc... and it all came out at the same time, along with running fits, dancing, "walking fits"(this one lady running at a snail's pace), and I can't help but wonder now who all was faking, and who all was led astray by those "words from the Lord". That church vaporized the very minute a couple in the prominent family came into big money.

I've seen first hand what disorderly worship looks like. What I think Paul's saying here is that if an unbeliever sees everyone using the spiritual gifts just for the purpose of having something to do, that person will walk on and spread the word about how wierd that bunch is. In the end, it brings discredit to the real body of Christ.

Sam, I have a 14-month old baby boy, and I can tell you that all he knows is love for his big brother, mama, and daddy. He cries when he's hungry/fussy/poopy, but that's normal... we've all pooped ourselves and cried about it. But my little men have no desire in the world but to make Mama and Daddy happy. That's what Paul's talking about when he mentions babies. As for spiritual gifts, the Bible says "Ask, and you shall receive." In James, it says "You don't have, because you don't ask." If you want to discern between good and bad spirits, just ask! And make sure you live a life worthy of the gifts you're asking God for. I prayed for the gift of healing for quite awhile, and it scared me when I first used it on a guy's knee... we had carried him in, and he walked out as if he'd never been hurt!

As for the issue with women, I believe Paul was talking about the gossips and loudmouths of the time(you probably know of a few in your church like that, eh?), whose talk and actions were disruptive to the church. If women were supposed to be on a lower level than men, then I don't think the Bible would have spoken of great women like Ruth, Esther, and the many other women of faith mentioned.

I have a question about verse 22. I've heard some ministers say that the translaters got the two backwards, that tongues are actually a sign for believers, and prophecy is a sign for unbelievers. Anyone care to chime in on that?

[1kceby]

Hi Ric, I havent heard about v. 22 I will ask my pastor at tomorrow mornings bible study.

[WanderingStar]

I have a question about verse 22. I've heard some ministers say that the translaters got the two backwards, that tongues are actually a sign for believers, and prophecy is a sign for unbelievers. Anyone care to chime in on that?

I have to echo this question. If anyone has any insight, please share-- it doesn't seem like the translators could have been so obviously wrong, but if Paul really said this, how does that follow logically from the context?

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

I feel I should make a comment on this. Most of you don't know my background, so for a bit of context, since I was a kid my parents have required me to attend a church that takes these verses very literally. By this church's doctrine, women are not in any circumstances allowed to speak about their faith if men are present. They're not allowed to pray in front of men, and they're not even really supposed to talk to men in church. I try hard to respect this inside the church or at home in order to honor my parents, but outside of those circumstances I break these rules all the time-- I believe that God has things for me to say and to do, and I want to be faithful to that, even if it means I'll "get in trouble." Even when I decided to participate in these studies here on the boards, I had to make a conscious decision to do so at the risk of my parents being very unhappy.

So I've done some serious thinking about this passage (sassy, I totally agree, it wouldn't be fair if women aren't allowed to speak at all ). The context here is within a passage about keeping the church orderly, and if that's going to be done effectively, then women do need to be respectful and submissive-- but I don't think that means they are never allowed to speak on any matter of faith. I've heard it suggested that part of what Paul was addressing here was that women were talking while others were trying to speak, asking questions in middle of teaching and interrupting and generally being disorderly. In that context, Paul's warning here would make sense. He's trying to make sure that worship runs smoothly. I'm sure there are other ways it could be understood, and I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on it.

[stacfo]

My thoughts on a couple of the issues raised above....

The first being about women silent in the church...I personally think this runs along the lines brought up back in chapter 11

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

and

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman

Everyone has a place and purpose in the church. But God has set man as an example as the head of the household, head of the church. Like above, to keep things orderly, not to descriminate. My church does allow women to speak and pray in church. We teach bible study. But, women do not take positions of leadership ie: deacons, yokefellows, etc. because this is contrary to the biblical setup of the church. This doesn't bother me in the least, because my place and purpose are different than those required for the men.

Secondly, tongues and prophesy...my translation says

2 For someone speaking in a tongue is not speaking to people but to God, because no one can understand, since he is uttering mysteries in the power of the Spirit 3 But, someone prophesying is speaking to people, edifying, encouraging, and comforting them. 4 A person speaking in a tongue does edify himself, but a person prohysying edifies the congregation.

Since the same explanation is essentially repeated and explained twice in the above passages, I fail to see how the translations would have mixed it up. Also, translations may vary in some nuances of speech, but I sincerly doubt every single translation would have mixed up the order of what was applied. And, don't know if either of the above situations would apply to non-believers?

Verse two says specifically speaking a tongue is not to the people, but to God. And verse four says this is private between the person and God, and builds up the person involved.

Verse three says prophesy is to build up the congregation, I see this as the church and is for the purpose of building up, encouraging, and comforting. Very few instances have we seen a non-believing group take a second look at prophesy. But, for those who believe, is gives us hope and comfort in what is to come.

Then comes verse 22, which I think may actually be moving on to an additional issue?

22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

This brings the unbelievers into the picture? In verse 21 right before quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 , so I looked at the whole section verses 9-13

9 “To whom would He teach knowledge,
And to whom would He interpret the message?
Those just weaned from milk?
Those just taken from the breast?
10 “For He says,
‘[i]Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there.’”
11 Indeed, He will speak to this people
Through stammering lips and a foreign tongue,
12 He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
13 So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“[j]Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.

So, here speaking in a tongue, is to communcate to unbelievers, but maybe this is where the having a translator present part comes in? I dunno. I am just wondering if it is a message from God, given to a person to communicate to unbelievers?
Then, Paul repeats that prophesy is for those who believe. So I do think it is consistent.

Maybe I'm really confused, because this is a really tough chapter. I've been wrong before.....

Stac

[pic369]

Tongues is not for congregational edification (unless accompanied with interpretation) because it is direct communication between your spirit and God. When accompanied with interpretation, it becomes equal with prophecy, which edifies the whole body because everyone can understand.