1 Corinthians 12:29 & 30
"Do all speak in tongues"
By Drew Dixon

'Yes we all speak in tongues, but no, not in a meeting'
Problems with the variable context explanation

There are significant problems when the meeting context is applied to the whole of the verses under question, rather than just the excerpts mentioned in the 1983 article. These problems simply cannot be, and should not be overlooked, as these are the only chapters in the Bible where we get any sort of 'theology' on tongues. It is important we get it right. When I pursued this whole aspect of the contextual confusion, it became evident that some oversight had never considered it. The following essay address's the only real explanation that has been  cautiously offered to me to date. The view that follows should not be taken as RCI doctrine, as they were only thoughts put forward by individual's as a 'possibility'. I am unaware whether they had previously considered the context problem and a response in detail. 

THE EXPLANATION

The explanation given to me to try and resolve these obvious and serious context conflicts, is what I would term 'variable context', and goes along the following lines:-

"Because of the nature and office of an apostle, this verse must be referring to the wider body of Christ, but because tongues are combined with interpretation, this part must mean the meeting context, as these two gifts work together and are not used outside a meeting in this combination".

According to this view then, we can change the context within a single verse, even when no apparent general context change is implied or called for. To put it simply, I would see this as clutching at straws. Not only that, it comes perilously close to the twisting the Word of God to fit a preconceived idea. 

Essentially, it allows us to read in the context as we require it.

Using this context fitting, I would challenge anyone to go through and clearly explain to me what the context /s are of the rest of the gifts and functions listed in the three verses from 1 Cor 12:28-30. 

If I wished to be pedantic and hold to this form of verse by verse (even intra-verse) context shifting, then I could point out that in 1 Cor 12:28, tongues appears on its own and is not linked to interpretation. There is no 'pairing' of the two gifts to define it in a meeting context. Based on this, I could then reason, in the same way the RCI article does, that the context of this single gift is not the meeting because tongues should never be used on their own in a meeting, as Paul forbids it. Therefore Paul must then be referring to tongues outside a meeting, private devotion if you will. According to this style of interpretation, this verse clearly states that God hath only 'set some' with this gift of tongues 'outside' the meeting i.e. in the wider body of Christ. I could then point out that this interpretation even fits with the experience of many churches..........

I could use this reasoning, but I won't, as the interpretive method used is wrong on several counts. In any case, there are many other more Scripturally sound reasons for believing the 'not all tongues' understanding.

As I see it, without the variable context explanation, the RCI are in a Scriptural corner regarding their stand on tongues. I see this explanation as a forced one of necessity, not an explanation that has been submitted to the unbiased teaching of the Scriptures. It is much more reasonable to see that Paul had one context in mind, a context that had the breadth and scope to cover all the nominated gifts / functions listed. The variable context argument should be shelved.

[<< Back ] [Contents] [Next >>]

[Main Menu]    [Article List ]   [Topic List]    [British Israel]    [Acts]