He previously praised prophecy and teaching far above tongues--so it's interesting that he says that in church both "tongues" and "prophecy" must be limited. I guess they aren't what the worship service is about.
Paul wrote that he'd rather speak five words to instruct others than ten thousand in a "tongue." Interestingly, Jerome wrote about John the apostle:
The blessed John the Evangelist lived in Ephesus until extreme old age. His disciples could barely carry him to church and he could not muster the voice to speak many words. During individual gatherings he usually said nothing but, “Little children, love one another.” The disciples and brothers in attendance, annoyed because they always heard the same words, finally said, “Teacher, why do you always say this?” He replied with a line worthy of John: “Because it is the Lord’s commandment and if it alone is kept, it is sufficient.”
5 words to instruct others. At least in English; I think it's 3 in Greek.
I wonder which would do more harm to the community, speaking in tongues or prophesy? Neither, presuming both were genuine exercises of the Holy Spirit, I suppose; but having some doubts about how often the Holy Spirit visits genuine prophesy on men, I think I would rather have people speaking tongues. At least that, should it be false enthusiasm rather than genuine inspiration, can only create a spectacle. We have seen what kinds of harms false prophets can do.
ReplyDeleteIf they're false, prophesy is obviously the greater danger; if true the greater benefit. But Paul worked the "best case" and, assuming both were genuine, asserted that both needed to be limited.
ReplyDelete