In my last blog I talked about the legitimacy of the charismatic gifts as well as some false doctrines surrounding those gifts. Here I want to focus on the Biblical interpretation that brings about many of those false doctrines.
Generally speaking, when people believe a false doctrine about charismatic gifts, they do so on the basis of how they view the relationship between the Acts narratives and Paul’s explanations in I Corinthians. In my experience, people who say that tongues are required for salvation, for the filling of the Spirit, or for a higher level of spirituality all believe that Acts and I Corinthians refer to the same phenomenon and that Acts gets priority. Of course, my experience is a limited sample, but that is my experience.
So let’s talk about Acts and I Corinthians. And let’s begin with some either/or thinking. Acts and I Corinthians either refer to the same phenomenon or they don’t. If they do refer to the same phenomenon, they do so with different approaches and genres. Acts gives us descriptive narrative, and I Corinthians gives us explanation and command.
Narrative tells us what happened at that time. It does not necessarily tell us what should happen all the time. Explanation and command, however, are designed intentionally to tell us how things work in general and how we ought to think and live. Thus, if Acts and I Corinthians refer to the same phenomenon, then we ought to give priority to I Corinthians concerning how to think and live regarding charismatic gifts. That is not to knock Acts. It is the inspired Word of God. But it is focused on what happened; I Corinthians, however, is focused on what should happen. It is often tricky to get commands out of narrative, but it is not so tricky to get commands out of commands.
But I do not think that Acts and I Corinthians refer to the same phenomenon. The reason people think they do is that the two books use similar nomenclature – baptism in the Spirit, speaking in tongues. But the same word or phrase can have different meanings in different contexts. That is a basic principle of language, and it is often an exegetical fallacy (to borrow Carson’s term) to read the same meaning into the same word or phrase in a different context. Examples of this from the English language are legion. In Scripture, the following words have different meanings in different contexts: flesh, love, wisdom, world, judge, jealous, breath, know, drink, man. I could go on, but you get the point. What this means is that if you look only at the words themselves and not at the context, you are being irresponsible in how you handle the Bible.
To me, it is obvious that Acts and I Corinthians do not have the same contexts, and I do not think that claim is debatable.[1] I Corinthians addresses an ongoing spiritual gift that one uses to build up the body of Christ. It is a gift that not all who are baptized in the Spirit taste (I Cor 12:13; 27-31), and the use of the gift is within the context of the public worship service or assembly of believers and requires an interpreter.
Acts, however, gives no evidence of an ongoing spiritual gift to be used in public worship, and there is no mention of the need for an interpreter. Instead, Acts relates one-time events in which the Spirit comes to a particular people — Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), Gentiles (Acts 10:44-6), those who had been baptized in John’s baptism (Acts 19:2-6). In addition, in Acts tongues are the sign of the baptism in the Spirit.
The doctrinal problems ensue when people read Acts into I Corinthians. Instead, they need to let Acts be Acts and I Corinthians I Corinthians. The two books refer to different phenomena. Acts is a narrative describing a special time in which God sent a specific sign when the gospel advanced to a new people group. That sign was not a spiritual gift in the same sense as that which Paul describes. I Corinthians discusses various spiritual gifts God gives for the purpose of building up the church — wisdom, knowledge, prophecy, teaching, helping, administration. In I Corinthians, tongues is one among many such gifts, and the context is a plurality of gifts. In Acts, tongues is not one among many gifts. It is the sign of the Spirit.
Thus, if Acts and I Corinthians do refer to the same phenomenon, we need to give priority to I Corinthians because its genre is actually intended to tell us how to practice the gifts. If Acts and I Corinthians do not refer to the same phenomenon, we need to not read Acts into I Corinthians. This approach will help resolve exegetical issues, like “are all believers baptized in the Spirit?” and it will resolve false doctrines like “one must speak in tongues to be baptized in the Spirit.”
Sometimes all we need is to approach Scripture with the Spirit of God and a commonsense sophistication that we would use to approach any other piece of literature.
[1] I’m sure there will be people who will debate this nonetheless; there are people who deny the Holocaust.
