Part 5 – General James Green
NO MAJOR BIBLE doctrine is confined to a single passage. Hermeneutics operate in a certain way. Biblical Hermeneutics by Terry S. Milton (page 186) testifies to these rules of operation of Bible interpretation:
“The obscure or doubtful passages are to be explained by what is plain and simple.
A subject may be only incidentally noticed in one place, but be treated with extensive fullness in another.”
Bernard Ramm’s “Protestant Biblical Interpretation” (3rd Revised edition, page 138) states, “The context of any verse is the entire Scripture. This is what is meant by ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’…”
Joseph Angus and Samuel G. Green, in their “The Bible Hand-Book” (revised ed., p.195), states “The…most comprehensive rule of Biblical interpretation is: Compare Scripture with Scripture.”
Many, many more scholars could be quoted, such as the “Oxford Companion To The Bible,” by B. M. Metzger and M. P. Coogon, who give almost two full pages on hermeneutics. They cite many scholars, both liberal and conservative.
Barnett and McGregor state that only clear-cut and unambiguous verses can prove a doctrine, so 1 Cor. 13:10 as a proof text, is what they call enigmatic since it does not tell what “that which is perfect” is. Of course, the anti-tongues people respond by telling us “If this verse is enigmatic, how are you (we) so sure what it means?” Answer: By showing Scriptures (by their context) like the ones we’ve thus far presented.
Since 1 Cor. 13:10 is ambiguous, it must be interpreted in harmony with other Scriptures that are not. Like for instance, the following verses: Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 14:39; 1 Cor. 14:5, and Mark 16:17. These Scriptures cannot contradict 1 Cor. 13:10
In “Principles of Biblical Interpretation,” page 166, we find this, “A doctrine that is clearly supported by the analogy of faith (parallel passages) cannot be contradicted by a contrary and obscure passage” (L. Berkhof)
Please remember that both Bible scholars, and teachers, and preachers are people subject to prejudice and bias. I have dozens of books written by such men and women who present opposite sides of all kinds of issues. One pastor stated that “Pride dies hard. Friends, upbringing, education, and denomination, place an almost intolerable strain on one’s objectivity.” Most religious historians will tell us that tongues, prophecy, and Divinely imported revelation occurred rarely in the 1700 years preceding the turn of the 1900’s. What was the reason? Whatever the reason, this gave the anti-tongues people their logical proof that they had already passed away. But these gifts did not nor will they ever pass away until…
One writer stated that “glossolalia is a fairly recent phenomenon in the Christian world.” He tells us about the first wave around 1900. In fact, many books have been written about this. Evans Roberts of Wales became a famous revivalist in the first part of that century; speaking in tongues, baptism in the Holy Ghost etc. was falling everywhere, and continued all around the world.
The 2nd wave, according to studies came around 1960—neo-Pentecostalism or the Charismatic renewal movement; “Speaking in tongues” then entered most traditional churches of Christianity.
The 3rd wave is considered the recent Celebration Church movement.
I would like to add that another great outpouring occurred around 1946 too. Those who have or are studying these movements, indicate that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. These poor souls who do not understand that tongues is a Divine language (although God has and does use a native language when He so desires for whatever reason), not a learned language. Some of the skeptics and critics tell us that a large number of native non-Christian, living religions around the world speak in glossolalia. How stupid! You do not have this Divine gift unless you ARE A CHRISTIAN!!! They cite Eskimos (Inuit), Lapps (Saami); they speak of dozens of various religious cults and occultists who speak in tongues. These tongues are not from God!