© Paul L. Hudson, Jr. 2003
-An
excerpt from his (soon to be released) book on
Let us
consider Paul’s instructions concerning tongues:
I Corinthians 14:27-28
27 If any man speak
in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by
course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no
interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself,
and to God.
Bill
Thurman, a retired professor of Classics, a scholar of Latin and Greek, serves
as an elder and teaches in a Messianic meeting in
“Contrary
to almost all English translations I think 'two or three' does not refer to
those who speak in tongues or to prophets, but to statements (logoi).”
Dr. Thurman
proceeded to explain in detail the reasoning behind his opinion. Please see endnotes for a detailed
explanation.[1] Bill Thurman’s argument is based on the fact
that verse 27 speaks of ‘one’ [seorang]
speaking in tongues. Even the verb for
‘speak’ is in the singular. Therefore,
‘two, or at the most three’ cannot refer to the number of speakers, but rather
refers to the number of things spoken by the speaker in tongues. Verse 28 specifies that one person must
interpret, and in verse 29, we see that if there is no interpreter, the speaker
in tongues must not speak in the church.
Paul’s
instructions on prophesying seem parallel to his instructions on speaking in
tongues. Paul specifies that ‘one’ speak
in tongues (v. 26), though he mentions ‘prophets’ (plural) speaking in verse
29. Maybe this is because he emphasized
the importance of prophecy over tongues.
Paul stipulates that tongues be spoke two or three (v. 27), and he
specifies that prophets speak two or three (v.31). Tongues must be interpreted (v. 28), and
prophecies must be weighed. Verse 28
tells circumstances under which the speaker in tongues must be silent, while
verse 30 specifies that a prophet should hold his peace if another sitting by
receives a revelation.
Now let us
consider the instructions to prophets.
I Corinthians
According
to Bill Thurman, unlike in verse 26, it is possible, according to Greek
grammar, that ‘two or three’ refers to the number of prophets who speak. But considering the parallel nature of Paul’s
instructions concerning tongues and prophecy, it is possible that Paul has in
mind prophets speaking two or three prophetic utterances, which are then
judged.
To
summarize, verse 27 may be saying that if anyone speak in tongues, let him
speak two or three messages in tongues, one after another, and one person
should interpret. Verse 29 may be saying
to let the prophets speak two or three prophetic messages, and to let the other
weigh the messages.
Order
for Prophecies
Let us take
a closer look at the instructions for the gift of prophecy.
I Corinthians 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets
speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be
revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first
hold his peace.
31 For ye may all
prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
Some
Pentecostals and Charismatics interpret verse 29 to
say that there can only be a maximum of two or three prophecies per church
meeting. However, this interpretation contradicts
verse 31, which says that all may prophesy one by one. The Corinthian church clearly had more than
three members, so if all prophesied, how could there be only two or three
prophecies per meeting? In verses 23-25,
Paul already presented the idea of all prophesying in a meeting of the whole
church to be a good thing.
If one
interprets ‘two or three’ here to refer to the number of prophets, as many
translators do, it is clear from the passage that Paul does not limit the
number of prophetic speakers who can speak to two or three, because he says ‘ye
may all prophesy’ in verse 31. It might
be helpful to think of “Let the prophets
speak two or three and let the other judge” as a process that can be repeated
over and over again in a certain meeting, as long as the Holy Spirit is
providing the church with prophecies.
© Paul L. Hudson, Jr. 2003
[1]The following is an
excerpt from the email, “2or3a” sent
N.B. that three dots ...
represents a lacuna, or gap. Contrary to almost all English translations I
think 'two or three' does not refer to those who speak in tongues or to
prophets, but to statements (logoi). The three lines
successively comprise Latin, partly shape-based choices of letters available in
ascii and mostly conventional orthoepic
equivalents (as in medical terminology or earlier, more correct than now
scientific nomenclature).
1st Corinthians 14,19:
... sed in ecclesia volo quinque verba sensu
meo loqui
... alla ev ekklhcia 0elw nevte logouc tw voi
mou lalhcai,
... alla en ecclesia thelo pente logus to noi mu lalesai,
but in assembly I prefer five words with the mind of me to utter,
Here's the background use of logoc = logos
'statement' that first made me ask if it would work well to supply it with the
words 'two or three' below.
Logoc = logos does not signify essentially a detached
'word' in the sense of what's in between any two empty spaces in our line. It
signifies what someone had to say or has to say. It can be long. The
writer of 'Acts' calls all of 'Luke' his npwtoc logoc = protos logos 'former
treatise'. In rhetoric it may have the sense of a sentence, in logic of a
premise.
ut et alios instruam quam decem
milia verborum in lingua.
iva kai allouc
kathxhcw, h mupiouc logouc ev glwcch.
...
hina cae allus catecheso, e myrius logus en glosse. ...
that also others I may instruct, than 10,000 statements in a tongue. ...
Again, logos = logoc appears as an object of 'utter',
or 'speak'.
1st Corinthians 14,24-31:
Si autem omnes prophetent,
Eav de navtec npofhteuwciv,
Ean de pantes prophetevosin,
But if all prophesy (function like an Israelite nabhiy'),
intret autem quis infidelis vel idiota, ...
eicel0h de tic anictoc h idiwthc,
...
iselthe de tis apistos e idiotes, ...
then may enter some 'outsider' (= unbeliever) or 'unofficial' guy, ...
Idiwthc = idiotes someone
who does not hold a public position or enjoy professional status, about
like our 'commoner'. It works about like 'Christian' = chretien
in medieval France, where those concerned about the peculiar behavior of a
retarded boy would be reassured by being told that he was just an 'ordinary
citizen' = chretien, hence our English word 'cretin'.
Cum convenitis unusquisque vestrum psalmum habet, doctrinam habet,
Otav cuvepxhc0e, ekactoc yalmov exei, didaxhv
exei,
Hotan synerchesthe, hecastos psalmon echei, didachen echei,
When you assemble, each person a psalm brings, a lesson brings,
The habet = exei = echei 'has' it to present.
apocalypsin habet, linguam habet, interpretationem habet ...
anokaluyiv exei, glwccav exei, epmhveiav
exei ...
apocalypsin echei, glossan echei, hermenian echei ...
a revelation brings, a tongue brings, a translation brings ...
In my opinion any of these things had could be termed a logoc
= logos. A logos does not refer to a detached 'word', but to a coherent
statement on one subject, maybe about like our word 'paragraph'. The pericopes in Matthew through John, for example, were
sometimes termed logoi.
In the Vulgate Greek words transliterated into Latin abound.
Sive lingua quis loquitur,
Eite glwcch tic lalei,
Eite glosse tis lalei,
If in a tongue someone (he or she) speaks,
Any indefinite pronoun leaves the way open for more than one to act as
described, but nevertheless the form of expression here features, or pictures,
only one individual. The 'two or three' therefore seems to refer to what the
one, lone individual speaks. Quis is singular. Loquitur is singular. Tic = tis
is singular. Lalei is singular.
secundum duos aut ut multum tres
et per partes,
kata duo h to nleictov tpeic, kai ava
mepoc,
kata dyo e to pleiston treis, kai ana meros,
by two or at the maximum three, and singly,
What words should be understood, or mentally supplied, with the 'two or three'?
Let him speak two at a time or at the most three, and that one by one. A plural
subject in the previous verse would have read tivec lalouci = tines lalusi. Above
Paul had already mentioned 'five utterances'. The Latin translator could have
had duos in mind as agreeing with an ellipsed logos
or sermones.
et unus interpretetur.
kai eic diepmhveuetw.
cae heis dihermeneveto.
and let one person translate [completely].
The writer proceeds with the concept of a single individual, for he specified eic = heis 'one'. An accurate
account of the statement requires us to admit that only two individuals have
been introduced to this point, the one who presents the tongue and the one who
interprets it.
Si autem non fuerit interpres, taceat in ecclesia
Eav de mh h diepmhveuthc, cigatw ev ekklhcia,
Ean de me e dihermeneutes, sigato en ecclesia,
Again, interpres is singular. Dihermeneutes
is singular. Sigato is singular. Taceat
is singular. This focusses the mind even more
strongly on the singular tic = tis, the subject of
tic lalei = tis lalei. If there is not a second 'one' < eic > unus to handle this job,
let him or her remain quiet in the assembly.
sibi autem loquatur et Deo.
eautw de laleitw kai tw 0ew.
heauto de lalito cae to theo.
and rather to oneself let him or her speak and to God.
Again the heauto is singular. The lalito
is singular.
Now, it is true enough that the subsequent statements about prophets was not
similarly expressed in the singular.
Prophetae autem duo aut tres dicant
et ceteri diiudicent.
npofhtai de duo h tpeic laleitwcav kai oi alloi diakpivetwcav.
Prophetae de dyo e tris lalitosan cae h[o]i all[o]i diacrinetosan.
and prophets two or three must (= leet them) speak
and the rest evaluate.
It would seem unlikely nonetheless that the 'two or three' would differ in
meaning from the sense that it had above, with regard to speaking in a tongue.
Its import will have been already fixed in accordance with what it meanat regarding the speaking in tongues. When a prophet
speaks, he must one at a time present at most three statements and offer an
opportunity to have it confirmed or denied by any other present.
Quod si alii
revelatum fuerit sedenti,
Eav de allw anokaluf0h
ka0hmevw,
Ean de allo apocalyphthe cathemeno,
But if to a second person information comes, i.e. who is seated,
Alii is singular. Sedenti
is singular. Allo is singular. And cathemeno is singular. This reverts to singular forms, and
therefore, with regard to any one prophet, it creates an analogy to the
tongue-speaker and interpreter above. This strongly reinforces what has
been said above about the likelihood that the two or three refers to
statements. For any one prophet who offers two or three statements, the next in
the audience to volunteer anything will have been only a second individual.
Perhaps Paul insinuated a plural of prophets, because he found prophetic
ministry more to be desired than tongues in the assembly.
prior taceat.
o npwtoc cigatw.
ho protos sigato.
the original speaker must refrain.
Prior is singular. Taceat is singular. Protos is singular. And sigato is
singular.
Potestis enim omnes per singulos prophetare,
Duvac0e gap ka0' eva navtec
npofhteueiv,
Dynasthe gar cath' hena pantes prophetevein,
Since you can all one by one prophesy,
This seems to reinforce the view that 'two or three' refers to logoi, because, if the intent had been to limit the number
of speakers, why would he observe that all persons in the assembly might have
their turn? Nevertheless, ca0' eva = kath' hena could mean "one
utterance at a time." But, even if it does, the navtec
= pantes 'all' leaves the impression that they all,
not just two or three, could participate.
ut omnes discant et omnes exhortentur.
iva navtec mav0avwciv kai navtec napakalwvtai.
hina pantes manthanosin cae pantes paracalontai.
so that all may be informed and all may be encouraged.