“This book will make or break me,” I remembered thinking to myself. Perhaps I was a bit too dramatic, but the reality was that if this book was correct, it would alter my world. The book was Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur. I was a very young 21-year-old Christian who had been sitting under the preaching of a local Assemblies of God church since I became a believer. I did not know much theology at the time but was in the process of devouring books by MacArthur and Sproul. While many of those books should have challenged what I was learning on Sundays, the fact was that I was oblivious to the differences between what I was reading and what I was hearing on a typical Sunday from the pulpit. But a book arguing against “tongue-speaking” was a direct challenge I was aware of since I had heard of the phenomena quite often. It literally felt like a watershed moment. I grabbed the book and dove in. Needless to say, it did not end with me nailing a thesis nailed to a door or anything of the kind, but it did begin a shift in my thinking as a young Christian interested in theology. While I still know many beloved Christians in the denomination, that book began my exit out of the Assemblies of God church—as short as the time was.
What I have learned since then it that there is a plethora of books written on this subject. I have also learned that it is not only those in the Pentecostal tradition that hold that the gift of tongues is still operative today. Continuationists—those that believes the charismatic gifts still continue—come in all denominational shapes and sizes. While there is much to be said regarding the charismatic gifts, the gift of tongues is often a discussion that comes up. What is the gift? Is there more than one kind of gift of tongues? It was these kinds of questions that I sought to wrestle with early on in my Christian walk, and particularly what I would like to address in this article. The book of Acts and 1 Corinthians are two key places where tongues are mentioned,[1] and 1 Corinthians specifically prompts questions about the nature of this gift. Are the tongues of Acts the same as the tongues of 1 Corinthians? Does 1 Corinthians postulate two different kinds of tongue-speaking? Is there a gift of tongues that is particularly private in nature and one that allows the individual to communicate with God for personal edification? Many would suggest that 1 Corinthians 14:2 argues for the latter. For example, continuationist Sam Storms writes:
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2 is crucial for understanding tongues…first, tongues-speech is directed or addressed to God, not to men. Tongues, whether spoken or sung, are fundamentally worship and intercession![2]
According to Storms, one manifestation of the gift of tongues presented in Scripture is a private communion with God that is particularly for worship and intercession. The idea behind this is that there are actually two different manifestations of tongues presented in the Bible. The general understanding is that there is one manifestation of tongue language that was given on the Day of Pentecost that were actual human languages, while there are others that are of heavenly origin[3] and are for private use. The questions that we want to ask in this article are: (1) Is the gift of tongues in the book of Acts the same as the one in 1 Corinthians? (2) Does Paul suggest that there is a private form of tongues that can be edifying to the one speaking them? (3) Finally, how do we understand the gift of tongues in the context of 1 Corinthians 14?
Are the Tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians the Same?
Some commentators argue that the tongues in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians are not necessarily the same. In fact, Storms goes as far as to say that “only in Acts 2 are tongues explicitly said to be human languages not previously learned by the speaker.”[4] There is no question that the tongues spoken of in Acts 2 were human languages. This is not only derived from the context (Acts 2:5-11), but also from the use of the word διαλέκτῳ in verses 6 and 8. Our word “dialect” derives from this term and it is clear that this can refer to nothing other than human language.[5]
But even if Acts 2 was clearly the only case where the tongues were human language, the burden of proof would rest upon those who would attempt to argue that other occasions in Acts are anything but human language. This is not only refuted from implicit evidence in Acts itself,[6] but the majority of commentators, continuationists included, would argue that tongues in Acts were actual human language.[7] But what about the tongues in 1 Corinthians? While the book of Acts could consistently refer to human languages, is it not possible that Paul could be referring to another kind? It does not seem likely. Again, the burden of proof is on those suggesting there is a difference. Where are the passages of Scripture that demonstrate Paul had a fundamental different kind of theology of tongues in mind?
Furthermore, the case can be made that 1 Corinthians, like Acts, associates the gift of tongues with human language. In Acts, it is clear that these specific tongues were languages (Acts 2:5-11). Similarly in 1 Corinthians, Paul alludes to Isaiah 28:11 in 14:21, which is a clear description of a foreign human language.[8] If Paul was talking about something other than known human language, his citation of the prophet would have been unintelligible. Paul also uses the term φωνή (language) in 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 that leaves no doubt Paul is connecting the gift of tongues to human language. These kinds of reasons render the idea that Paul has any other kind of tongues in mind improbable.
Tongues of Angels?
One may object to our reasoning by suggesting that Paul does have other kinds of tongues in mind, particularly when he uses the phrase “tongues of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1). Was this a kind of special tongue that a believer could speak in? Both Sam Storms and New Testament scholar Gordon Fee maintain that this is a special kind of dialect that believers are given by the Spirit.[9] In response, it should be noted that Paul does not define these tongues of angels, nor does he specifically connect these to the gift of tongues. Therefore, without a specific definition, the context ought to help navigate how to interpret this passage. Paul is emphasizing things to the extreme in this verse to make a point. He describes himself in a hypothetical case as knowing all of the languages of men and even going beyond this and conceiving of the ability to speak in the celestial language of angels.[10] He then continues his hypothetical to conceive of knowing all of the mysteries of God, having the highest of faith and being burned as a martyr.
In a hyperbolic fashion, Paul is describing someone who is an impeccable Christian, yet one that has no love. The point of the hyperbole is that, even if someone was an amazing Christian with unsurpassable wisdom and knowledge, all of it would be meaningless without the most important Christian virtue, that of love. Paul’s hyperbolic example was one that transcended even Paul himself and would certainly not have been something that was a part of the common Christian experience. It is also important to note what else this passage is not saying. Paul is not saying he possessed this language of angels any more than he possessed all faith, or knowledge, or mysteries (13:2). Furthermore, it is important to point out that we have no basis to say that the tongues of angels were anything other than a real language. As Busenitz points out:
If one insists on taking the phrase “tongues…of angels” as a reference to the language of heaven, it is important to note that whenever angels spoke in the Bible, they spoke in a real language that people could understand (Gen. 19; Exod. 33; Joshua 5; Judges 13).[11]
Thus we would argue that even if one connects the “tongues of angels” with a heavenly language, the only thing we can infer from Scripture is that they were real genuine languages. However, we believe ultimately that there is no basis to connect the phrase “tongues of angels” with a heavenly language, let alone a language that was a part of the gift of tongues given to believers.
Paul and Private Tongues?
Another argument to consider is that Paul himself used tongues as a form of private prayer.[12] This argument is extracted from 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 where Paul writes:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in the church I would rather speak five words with my mind.
The idea is that Paul spoke in tongues more in private than in public. His desire in public was for those to understand his words; therefore, prophecy would have been the better means of communication. The problem with this understanding is that it assumes that because Paul was not speaking them in a corporate worship service that he was doing so in private. This is a classic false dichotomy since these are not the only two options to choose from. Simply because Paul did not speak in tongues as often in church does not therefore mean he only spoke them in private. There are certainly other places he could be referring to outside of church gatherings.
Furthermore, this understanding is contrary to the nature of spiritual gifts. In this very epistle, Paul stresses how spiritual gifts were to render benefit to persons other than the one exercising the gift (1 Cor. 12: 7, 25; 13:5-6; 14:12, 19, 26).[13] Elsewhere, both Paul and Peter instruct us that the gifts Christ gave are for the building up of the church (Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Pet. 4:10-11).
A biblical understanding of the nature and purpose of spiritual gifts does not support a private use of tongues that does not benefit others in some sense. Those who seek to see a private use must redefine the nature and purpose of the gifts given. If this is the case, then in what way did Paul use the gift of tongues outside of the church gathered? It is most probable that he used it in a missionary way, as an evangelizing tool and one to authenticate his ministry (2 Cor. 12:12).[14] The gift of tongues was an extraordinary gift and one that was utilized in the worship of the church and as a tool of evangelism. The Day of Pentecost is an example of the gift being used as a tool of evangelism (Acts 2:5-11) and Paul himself indicates that the gift of tongues is a sign for unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22). Robert Thomas gives an example of how Paul may have exercised this gift outside of the church gathering when he writes:
As the missionary apostle to the Gentiles, he frequently encountered new linguistic groups in his travels. Authenticating signs accompanied the ministry of one such as he (Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 12:12), and tongues was one of the signs. Upon hearing a foreigner speak their own language without ever studying it, the listeners would perceive the apostle’s miraculous demonstration and be ready to give attention to his divinely verified presentation of the gospel. It was for this purpose that Paul found ample room, even a dispensable place, for tongues.[15]
Therefore, we would argue that none of the arguments above substantiate any justification for the gift of tongues being used in private prayer. Nonetheless, there is another text that has been offered as support for the practice, and it is to this passage we now turn our attention.
An Exegetical Assessment of 1 Corinthians 14:2-5
In 1 Corinthians 14, we come to an issue that was hindering the Corinthian church—that of tongue speaking that was not being interpreted. Tongues that did not follow with an interpretation did not accomplish the purpose of the gift, that of edification. This is why Paul stresses the importance of prophecy. In effect, Paul is saying “your desire to exercise the gift of prophecy should be more intense than that for the other gifts of the Spirit” (14:1).[16] The rational for this was because prophecy was something that could be understood by the congregation thus bringing edification to the body, while tongues without interpretation would be unintelligible to the hearer. This is important for the context of our passage.
1 Corinthians 14:2
The reason this background is important is because it provides the context for this verse. Paul writes:
For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in his spirit (14:2)
ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ, οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια
For some, this passage is evidence of the fact that tongues in some ways can be private and convey praise to God. Gordon Fee writes:
Such a person is speaking to God, that is, they are communing with God by the Spirit…in this passage, the only one of its kind in the Pauline corpus, the tongues speaker is never perceived as addressing fellow believers but God, meaning therefore that Paul understands the phenomena basically to be prayer and praise.[17]
Others argue that because this is directly to God the language cannot be known human languages.[18] We have already demonstrated that there is no reason to think that Paul is speaking of anything other than known human languages. Not only does the context of 1 Corinthians 14 support this, but the theology of tongues in the totality of the New Testament affirms this as well. However, we must ask some questions concerning this text.
What is the reason that Paul says the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men? Paul answers this by saying οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, “for no one understands.” It may even be correct to translate this as “for no one learns.”[19] The reason that the tongue speaker is not λαλῶν… οὐκ ἀνθρώποις is because the person does not understand. He cannot understand what is being communicated. As Calvin states: “All hear a sound, but they do not understand what is said.”[20] This understanding is perfectly in line with the scriptural understanding of tongues being human language. The problem in this situation, however, is that the language being spoken is not understood by the hearer.
Another question to ask is to whom does οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει refer? Is this a general reference to anyone or does it have a specific group of people in mind? While some may see this as a general reference, the context suggest that the people who do not understand the tongue speaking is the congregation at Corinth. As Thomas points out:
The “no one” of verse 2 is, of course, limited by the surrounding discussion of chapters 11-14. It means that “no one” in the local gathering was of the particular linguistic background represented by the tongues message.[21]
Therefore, the fact that the tongue speaker was not being understood by the Corinthian congregation due to the lack of interpretation left God to be the only one who could understand what was being communicated.
Another phrase that has been debated is what Paul means by πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστήρια (he utters mysteries in the Spirit/his spirit). Not only is there a question about the theology, but there is a legitimate linguistic contention. In terms of the theological debate, some commentators assert that that the “mysteries” referred to lie outside of both the hearer and the speaker.[22] However, there is no reason to suggest that Paul is not using the term μυστήρια like he does throughout his epistles to refer to truths about God and His purpose that for a time remained hidden, but at that moment revealed through an inspired writer (Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; 13:2; 15:51; Eph. 3:3-4,9; 5:32; Col. 1:26).[23] The divine mysteries that the tongues message compromised were the same as the divine revelations and prophecies that are referred to in 14:6, the only difference being that in the case of tongues, successful communication did not transpire because of the language barrier.[24] The linguistic question is how to interpret πνεύματι. Should it be interpreted as “in the Spirit” or “in his spirit”? There is a large divide among commentators, some opting for the phrase “in his spirit” because of the connection later in v. 14.[25] However, many commentators would argue that πνεύματι would make more sense referring to the Holy Spirit due to the close connection that Spirit has with the “mysteries” of God.[26] The latter view seems the most probable.
1 Corinthians 14:3-4
Paul continues his argument by contrasting uninterpreted tongue speaking with prophecy. His conclusion is that prophecy is more beneficial for the church gathered. He writes:
On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their up building and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν. ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ: ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἐκκλησίαν οἰκοδομεῖ.
Prophecy was an essential gift in the New Testament for the church in her infancy. Clearly, Paul favored the gift of prophecy as the dominant gift in the corporate worship service. It was to be more predominant than the gift of tongues.[27] This gift of prophecy was a continuation of the Old Testament gift of prophecy in its office and function. The prophet had a supernatural gift to reveal to the hearers revelation from God. This gift included both foretelling and forth telling of God’s word.[28] Why did Paul call for prophecy to be the more prominent of the gifts in the local gathering? The reason was because it brought edification to the entire body. Garland notes:
Prophecy is not individualistic in focus but is meant to communicate to others in rational, intelligible language. It builds up the community through exhortation and consolation, and its didactic function. It convicts unbelievers and leads them to repentance and worship of the one true God.[29]
The takeaway from this text is that Paul was concerned about edification of the church. (vv. 3-4). This was not only crucial to his entire argument, but it fits nicely with the remainder of Scripture as to the nature and function of spiritual gifts—edification. While the gifts of tongues and prophecy accomplished the same goal of proclaiming the revelation of God, the limit of tongues was that it needed to be interpreted, while prophecy did not.[30] It is clear that Paul called for an interpretation when tongues were spoken (14:9, 11, 13), and that he desired spiritual gifts to be used for the purpose of edification (14:5, 12, 17). Therefore, it is most probable that Paul is viewing the tongue speaking described in verse 2 in a negative fashion.[31] The contrast is striking: the tongue speaker is not understood and edifies himself (vv. 2-3) while the one who prophecies is understood and edifies the church (vv. 3-4). The only one who would understand the tongues spoken without interpretation is the Lord Himself which provided no benefit to the church gathered. It seems reasonable to conclude from this that Paul looked down on this behavior spoken of in verse 2.
Is Self-Edification Ever Appropriate?
At this point, an objection may be raised that we are putting too much of a negative emphasis on self-edification. Surely there are times where it is appropriate to edify oneself with a spiritual gift. Of course, some self-edification is condemned—in fact, couldn’t one argue that, while Paul is condemning self-edification here in 1 Corinthians, he is not necessarily condemning all self-edification. Storms does not necessarily think that self-edification is bad. We read the Bible for edification; we listen to sermons and read books for edification.[32] In response, the assertion that personal edification is not always bad has merit. In fact, we are called to be edified by others spiritual gifts. We are called to be strengthened spiritually by the means of grace God has given us. But that is different than asking the question of whether or not the spiritual gifts we possess are to be used for self-edification.
The biblical data would assert that when it comes to our spiritual gifts, the goal is not to edify oneself, but to edify and build up the saints. The fact that members of the Corinthian church were monopolizing worship service time to edify themselves instead of their brothers and sisters is completely different then reading the Bible in our devotional time. In fact, by doing this the tongue speaker in Corinth was demonstrating his own selfishness and thus violating one of the “perfections” of love that “does not seek its own” in 1 Corinthians 13:5.[33]
Conclusion
To summarize, the overall testimony of Scripture is that the gift of tongues refers to known languages that were unknown to the one speaking them. There is only one gift of tongues presented in the Bible, with nuanced purposes. It is always intended for public use and to be a sign to unbelievers. If the gift is used in the church gathering, it is to be interpreted so that the church can receive edification. Furthermore, the Bible does not present us with a private use of tongues for self-edification. When taken in context, 1 Corinthians 14:2 is actually a negative observation of an abuse that was occurring within the Corinthian church. Finally, even if it were conceded that this passage may mean something else, it is never wise to build an entire theology on a questionable passage—especially when there is a more reasonable understanding that is consistent with the rest of the Bible’s teaching on the subject.
[1] We recognize that Mark 16:17 also makes mention of the gift of tongues, however, there are serious textual challenges that suggest vv. 9-20 were not authentic to Mark’s Gospel. Regardless of where one comes down on this textual issue, Mark 16:17 does not add anything of substance or insight to the gift that Acts and 1 Corinthians do not already establish.
[2] Sam Storms, The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 124.
[3] Guy P. Duffield & Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles: LIFE Bible College, 1987), 337.
[4] Storms, The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 122.
[5] Robert L. Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 186.
[6] An interesting insight occurs in Acts 11 when Peter is telling the story of the conversion of the Gentiles, he mentions that the Holy Spirit fell upon them “just as on us in the beginning” (Acts 11:15). Peter is saying that the same way that the Spirit came upon the apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2), they came upon the Gentiles, implying that the Gentiles in Acts 10 had the same tongue speaking experience as the one in Acts 2.
[7] Nathan Busenitz, “Are Tongues Real Foreign Languages? A Response to Four Continuationist Arguments,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 25, no. 2 (Fall 2014): 63-84.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1987), 630. See also Storms, The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 181.
[10] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 68.
[11] Nathan Busenitz, “Are Tongues Real Foreign Languages? A Response to Four Continuationist Arguments,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 25, no. 2 (Fall 2014), 63-84. Busenitz also makes another excellent point. Most charismatic commentators argue that tongues will cease in the eternal state based on 1 Cor. 13:8-10, however, as Dr. Busenitz points out, it is hard to imagine that tongues of angels refers to heavenly languages when tongues will cease when we get to heaven.
[12] Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, New International Version Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 270: “Verses 18-19 probably surprised Paul’s original readers, who even may have been criticizing him for not using glossolalia. If Paul refrains almost entirely from its public exercise, these verses surely substantiate his extensive private use of tongues as a ‘prayer language.”
[13] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 100. See also James F. Stitzinger, “Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds,” The Master's Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 143-76.
[14] John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2013), 151.
[15] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 100.
[16] Ibid., 86.
[17] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1987), 727.
[18] Storms, The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 180: “Paul asserted that whoever speaks in a tongue ‘does not speak to men but to God’ (14:2). But if tongues are always human languages, Paul is mistaken for ‘speaking to men’ is precisely what human language does! If tongues-speech is always human language, how could Paul say that no one understands?” See also Dunn, 1 Corinthians (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 317. Interestingly, Morris asserts that this text proves that these tongues must have been different from the tongues of Acts 2. Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 187; F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 318.
[19] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1085. However, it is important to point out that Thiselton also says that, although this translation is appropriate, it may be too specific for the Greek.
[20] John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, Vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Christian Classic Ethereal Library), 368.
[21] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 87. He continues: “In Corinth, no one was present to understand except God Himself, and it was useless to address Him with an inspired tongue message, for He was the source of the message in the first place.”
[22] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1987), 728. According to Fee, if we understood mysteries in the “traditional” sense, it would make no sense that these mysteries would be spoken back to God. But Fee is assuming that Paul is commending this activity instead of showing the foolishness of speaking back to God what originated with Him to begin with.
[23] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 87.
[24] Ibid., 87-88.
[25] Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 187.
[26] See Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 477-478. Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 728. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 633.
[27] Garland, 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 632.
[28] James F. Stitzinger, “Spiritual Gifts: Definitions and Kinds,” The Master's Seminary Journal 14, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 143-76. For further discussion and debate on the function and nature of this gift, see F. David Farnell, “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament,” The Master's Seminary Journal 25, no. 2 (Fall 2014): 45-62. Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988). Dr. Farnell had many other articles as well that are recommended to be consulted.
[29] Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 632.
[30] Barrett says: “It is not to be thought that speaking in tongues does not good, but the good it does it limited by failure of the congregation at large to understand what is said. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Blacks New Testament Commentary (Hendricksen Publishers, 1993), 316.
[31] Nathan Busenitz, “Are Tongues Real Foreign Languages? A Response to Four Continuationist Arguments,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 25, no. 2 (Fall 2014), 63-84.
[32] Storms, The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts (Grand Rapids: Bethany House Publishers, 2013), 126.
[33] Thomas, Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse by Verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 89. Conzelmann says that it is specifically in v. 4 that Paul is combating the very essence of Corinthian individualism. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, (Fortress Press, 1988), 235.
Sean McGowan serves as pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Tallahassee, Florida. He is author of Psalms that Curse: A Brief Primer and Infant Baptism: An Introductory Sprinkling for Parishioners. He holds degrees from Liberty University (B.S., religion and biblical studies) and Reformed Theological Seminary (M.A., theological studies).