By Drew Dixon
'Yes we all speak in tongues, but the translators got it wrong'
1
Corinthians 12:29 - 30
Are
all apostles? are all prophets? are
all teachers? are all workers of
miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?
THE FIRST RCI UNDERSTANDING
The
1997 RCI article (see attached link) comes to the
following conclusion:-
=================
"Further
insight into the apparently provocative quotation with which this article
begins, can be found by observing the format of the quotation. The word
"are" is italicised indicating that it has been added by the
translators. Reference to the Interlinear Bible, where the Greek text is aligned
with the English translation, confirms this fact, and also reveals the word
"not" has been left out.
This
text can be stated more accurately:
"Are
not all apostles; are not all prophets; are not all teachers; have not all power
to work miracles; have not all gifts of healing; do not all speak with tongues;
do not all interpret? But desire ye eagerly the gifts…."
=================
The
1997 article, after referring to the 'original Greek'
gives the definite answer that 'yes' we do all speak in tongues and do
have all the gifts mentioned (keep in mind, there is no talk of the meeting context as will be seen in the 1983 article to be discussed
next). The 1997 article states that the text has not really been
translated as accurately as it could have been. This understanding
also seems to be implied in the 1992 article as well.
EXAMINING
THE SCRIPTURE
Whilst
this
is a
fairly easy misunderstanding to correct, it remains
a very significant error on the part of the RCI and demonstrates the readiness with which the
organisation is prepared to re-work Scripture to suit a preferred position.
The first thing that
should be noted, is that I am unaware of any RCI pastor that is qualified in the
koine Greek of the New Testament1. In
the article under discussion, the RCI scholar has
resorted and appealed to an interlinear rather than to the Greek text itself. It
should be noted that interlinears are not translations and don't describe the syntax and
grammatical structures which develop the meanings of the text. English works on
the basic subject-verb-object structure - Greek doesn't. Therefore, an
interlinear is not likely to accurately reflect the Greek structure, which
is directly responsible for determining the proper meaning.
The RCI statement that in the 1997 article, the word "are" has been added in by the translators is correct. Also, the statement that the word "not" (transliterated from Greek to English letters as mee - Strongs G3361) is to be found in the original Greek text, and yet has not been translated to English is also correct. However, the significance of these omissions and inclusions has been completely lost on the RCI writer and publishers, and has led them to misinterpret the plain meaning of the passages under review. Their handling of the Scripture passage - in accepting the translators' inclusion of "are" and then inserting the English 'equivalent' of the Greek "not" is totally without warrant, and shows a lack of understanding of the techniques employed in converting the meaning of a passage from one language into another. Greek and English sentence structures are not the same, and so one cannot simply provide 'equivalents' for individual words, one must consider the grammar and the syntax as well.
The syntactical structure
of the Greek text is
the same in both verses
:-
1
Corinthians 12:29
"Mee"
pantes apostoloi "Mee" pantes propheetai "Mee" pantes
didaskaloi "Mee" pantes dynameis...
1
Corinthians 12:30
"Mee"
pantes charismata echousin iamatoon "Mee" pantes gloossais lalousin
"Mee" pantes diarmeenuousin...
"Mee"
is the word in the original text under dispute,
and is the word that was not translated into English by the KJV scholars.
The reason
the English equivalent was
not given,
was due
to it being redundant in expressing the intent of the passage.
First, it
might help to consult the
meaning of this word from the Strong's Concordance (familiar to many
Revivalists). I would caution against basing one's
understanding purely on Strongs rendering
of one word in isolation,
but I have cross
referenced several texts, all of
which provide the same proper understanding of this word.
=======================
G3361 mee
(transliterated for the font)
A
primary particle of qualified negation
(whereas G3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) not,
(conjugationally) lest; also (as
interrogitive implying a negative answer [whereas G3756 expects
an affirmative one]); whether:—any,
but, (that), X forbear, + God forbid, + lack, lest, neither, never, no (X wise
in), none, nor, [can-] not, nothing, that not, un [-taken], without. Often used
in compounds in substantially the same relations. See also G3362, G3363, G3364,
G3372, G3373, G3375, G3378.
=======================
What
this means is
simple. 'Mee' is
used as
a grammatical indicator to identify that a negative
answer or an answer
of negation
is required. So,
'mee' is a word used as a 'non-word' for grammatical rather than
syntactical purposes.
It is equally important
to note that Strong's (along with others), states that where a
positive answer is required, a totally different word is used (Strongs 3756). It
is simply not possible to extract a positive answer from a sentence incorporating a 'mee' construct.
Based
on the above evidence
alone, we need go no further. The RCI articles are simply incorrect. For other
examples where the word 'mee' is in the underlying text and has been
translated as a question requiring a negative answer, refer to the following
Scriptures:-
Romans
9:14; Luke 22:35; Romans 11:1; Romans 3:5-6
As
per the Word Study New Testament2 definition regarding this word, they comment:-
"The
negative response may depend on an idea, concept or thought of some
subject".
This
preceding concept or thought, was Paul's detail regarding the human
body, it's diversity of parts and the need to work together, all well detailed
in chapter 12. Paul goes to great lengths in the preceding verses, from 12 to
26, to set down this analogy. In verse 27 he then brings into view the body of
Christ, before asking the rhetorical questions under discussion. It is also of
interest, that while Paul is dealing with a local assembly, in verse 28, he also
makes the appeal to the fact that "not all are apostles". It would
seem that in doing this, and tying it in with the verses he does, he is also
making an appeal for the Corinthians to remember the reality of the wider body
of Christ that
exists outside the local situation (not all are this, not all are that). Based on
Paul's detailed explanations in the preceding verses of chapter 12, he fully
expected the reader to come up with the answer "no" to his questions.
Just as not all the natural body is a hand, not all in the body of Christ will
speak in tongues and not all will be Apostles.
The
RCI working of this Scripture is a bit like saying "no is really yes".
Every Bible commentator I have ever read, had no need to try and
push the point
or go into detail about this scripture. It would seem that for them, and general
historic Christianity, the real meaning was and is obvious,
as it for Greek grammarians.
I am
aware that
a number of RCI oversight
know this interpretation is incorrect (but not
necessarily all). In admitting this, they simply offer the meeting
only argument as defence. This is discussed next. To my knowledge however, the Voice of
Revival has never carried an article retracting and explaining the correct
meaning of this Scripture. I wonder how many people still assume it is right,
and use it to prove wrong those they have discussions with?
So,
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? -------------
When
this verse is correctly translated, the answer is a definite 'no'.
NOTES
[1] I would point out that I am not formally qualified in the koine Greek of the New Testament. However my works are cross referenced with a number of sources and I have both sought out and had my worked checked by those with specific qualifications in this area.
[2] "The complete word study dictionary - New Testament", Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, World Bible Publishers
[<< Back to introduction ] [Contents] [Next - Introduction to the meeting context >>]
[Main Menu] [Article List ] [Topic List] [British Israel] [Acts]
