Tongues of Angels? Probably Not

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 2

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

Tongues of Angels? Not Likely.

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels,

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains,

but have not love, I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor

and surrender my body that I may boast,but have not love, I gain nothing.

Pentecostal Claim: Languages of Angels

Pentecostals and their child movements, Charismatism, Word of Faith, and New Apostolic Reformation claim that the Holy Spirit still grants the spiritual gift of speaking in the languages of men and angels. They see glossolalia at several points in the book of Acts and extrapolate it to today without regard to other events in church history. Then they add their experience and interpret the rest of scripture in accordance with their experience.

Former Pentecostal pastor George Gardner told of how, when he was a ministry student, a Hebrew friend stood in chapel and recited Mary Had a Little Lamb in Yiddish. Another student with the gift of interpretation went into a long translation of the Holy Spirit’s message: The students were spending too much time in volleyball and other recreational activities and not enough time in their studies and ministries. That gave Gardner his first hint that Tongues, or at least Interpretations, was not always genuine. 

My wife’s uncle, by birth a Ukrainian Jew and a survivor of the Nazi concentration camps, had a similar story about visiting a Pentecostal church and reciting the 23rd Psalm in Ukrainian. The “interpretation” had nothing to do with the Psalm. 

I’ve heard stories, so nth-hand as to be rumors, about people who were understood by immigrants. Sounds like Navajo or Sounds like German. But is "sounds like" authoritative? The one story I’ve heard that sounded credible came from a Pentecostal co-worker. This man was a certified super genius. He understood the low priority that 1 Corinthians 14 assigns to the gift of tongues, so he attended a cessationist Baptist church for teaching that was better than in any of the local Pentecostal churches. 

While visiting another church, he was invited to give a message, which he gave in English. Afterwards, two ladies came to him. One explained that she heard his message in English, but the other, who had recently immigrated, spoke no English, and had heard the entire message in her native language. Due to being isolated by language, hearing the message in her own language had been a blessing that brought her to tears. Although my coworker spoke in tongues, the “tongues” in this case, was not in the mouth of the speaker, but in the ears of a listener. And it was not a spiritual gift, but a one-off miracle.

Since Pentecostals have not shown that they speak in human foreign languages, by process of elimination, they conclude, they speak in a heavenly, angelic language. But scriptural evidence for such a claim is extremely weak. 

Scripture Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

The chapter reads as very poetic, so one should expect metaphor and hyperbole. Verses 1 through 3 all pose hypothetical situations. Verse 3 describes extreme actions, and verse 2 describes attributes never held by any mere human. Considering this trio of verses as a unit should lead a reasonable person to accepting that the language of verse 1 is hyperbolic, as well. That is, the phrase that suggests glossolalia might include speaking in angelic language may be hypothetical to strengthen the following clause: 

but have not love, I am only banging brass or a clanging cymbal.

The warning in Verse 1 weighs against Pentecostals speaking in the languages of angels in two ways. First, speaking in the languages of angels is like banging brass and clanging cymbals because it conveys no information. Angelic communications with humans have, without exception, conveyed messages. Angels do perform tasks such as making war, but even the Greek word translated angel means messenger. Tongues may be exciting, but it imparts no long-term blessing. By its nature, speaking in an unintelligible, supposedly angelic language violates the test of love and the goal of members of the church edifying each other. 

Second, speaking in the languages of angels, without love, is no better than the sounds of a brass pot falling to the pavement or cymbals clanging in a Hellenist or Roman temple. The allusion to pagan religious practices links back to verses 2 and 3 of chapter 12. Pagans spoke in nonsensical tongues amid much chanting and rhythmic noise (such as from symbols) that was used to work up the worshipers into an ecstatic state of altered consciousness -- the same formula as the worked-up anticipation, long music services, shallow, repetitive lyrics, and trance-inducing songs in Pentecostal churches. 

The Pagans were not alone. To their company, we can add adherents of the heresies of Sacramentalism (Orthodox and Roman Catholic, and many Protestant denominations -- especially Pentecostals), Mariolatry (Roman Catholics), and Modalism (Oneness Pentecostals). In the 1800s, glossolalia was frequently practiced by Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Glossolalia is also practiced by shamans and certain branches of Hinduism. 

Around 2010, Justin Brierly, on the British Unbelievable? radio show and podcast, interviewed an Atheist who de-converted from Pentecostalism and still occasionally spoke in tongues just for fun. According to Pentecostals, abandoning his salvation canceled the blessings of being God’s son, forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit. So either the Holy Spirit failed to remove the gift of tongues along with the gift of salvation, and continued to manifest Himself through the ability, or the gift was a learned psychological phenomenon. 

The glossolalia of the pagans calls into question that of Christians. If the practice is a learned, altered state for pagans, it can be a learned, psychological phenomenon for Christians. If it results from demonic control for pagans, it can result from demonic control of false brethren among us. Some argue that it results from demonic control of genuine Christians, too; but I'm not convinced that it is possible for a demon to go beyond making suggestions to one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. Rumors of legitimate glossolalia have, in fact, been countered by missionary accounts of demonic blasphemy through glossolalia. Although, without recordings and authoritative interpretation, neither type of account presents credible evidence, one must admit that the accounts cancel out each other.

A Pentecostal might point to 2 Corinthians 12:4 as evidence of angelic, non-human languages. Paul said he knew a certain man, probably himself, who was caught up to heaven where he heard inexpressible words. The term, inexpressible (arreta) meant not that the words were difficult to pronounce, but rather that they were too holy to be permitted. Indeed, the term is followed by that are not permitted for a man to utter. 

The word permitted (exon) means exactly that: permitted or lawful. It is used over 30 times in the New Testament to refer to permission. So the sense is not that the words in the vision were an unpronounceable foreign language, but that they were too holy to be spoken without negative consequences. The verse does not support the existence of angelic languages.

The “name” of God provides us with three examples of forbidden holy words. Some Christians consider even the title G_d too holy to even spell out. This echoes how the pronunciation of YHWH was lost. After the return of Judah from exile, the priests decided that God’s name was too holy to speak. As a result, the pronunciation was forgotten between 400 and 200 BC because written Hebrew had no vowels. Soon after, to make the name pronounceable during readings in synagogues, they added the vowels from Adonai, Lord, to the consonants, YHWH, I AM. Transliterating YaHoWaH from Hebrew to Greek, to Latin, and finally to English, gave us Jehovah. At the same time, Bible translators replaced most occurrences of Jehovah with the LORD (in all capital letters). It was assumed that any literate person would understand the meaning.

Consideration of genre, tone, and history undercut the belief that verse 1 promotes the idea that glossolalia comprises an angelic language. 2 Corinthians 12:4 is not even relevant. One avenue remains: Does the study of angels support a literal reading of the phrase, tongues... of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

Angelology Does Not Support Tongues of Angels

Evidence that one or more angelic languages exists in physically expressible form is extremely weak. Logic weighs overwhelmingly against it. Assuming that tongues is a language of angels crosses into presumption. Translating spirit communication into audible form would involve human languages, and such translation would violate known historic precedent.

In native form, Angels, being spirits, lack physical bodies. When they have communicated with humans on earth, they have taken physical form to create soundwaves in air and have used human languages. In visions, human witnesses always heard angelic speech in their own human languages. Since human witnesses receive a gift of spiritual sight that enables the visions, it would make sense that they also receive a gift of interpretation. But that would be speculation, and it does not establish that angels have a unique language that can be expressed as “tongues.”  

A related point is that, since spirits lack organs such as tongues, resonant nasal cavities, and vocal cords, and do not live in a physical, sound-conducting atmosphere, their medium of communication would more likely be analogous to what we would consider telepathic. Telepathy would likely communicate thoughts directly without need for verbal protocols. Translating thoughts through a gift of tongues would require adding layers of grammatical, syntactical, and phonemic protocols defined by the natural human language of the speaker. 

The result of encoding angelic thoughts with human language protocols would be expression in human language. It would be easiest to use the language of the speaker. However, it would also be possible to use a human language unknown to the speaker, as happened at Pentecost. But would use of a foreign language be likely? The speech in foreign languages at Pentecost had an audience: people who understood those languages. The purpose of speech is to be understood, so if nobody is there to receive the message, use of a foreign language serves no purpose.

If tongues is used for prayer by the Holy Spirit and the audience is God the Father, human language would not be needed. Like angels, God is Spirit. This returns us to the fact that language, and even sound, would be redundant. Since the Father and the Spirit know each other’s minds, glossolalia is again redundant. Indeed, the Holy Spirit prays within each Christian (Romans 8::26-27) with wordless silence and is perfectly understood by God. So glossolalia as an additional form of prayer is redundant in three ways.

If angels have at least one language, God must have a language. Since God and angels communicate, they would probably share a single language. Being perfectly obedient to God, they would have no need to hide communication from God, so only one language is needed. The language would be labeled as belonging to the greater owner, so why would it be called the language of angels and not the language of God or of the Spirit? If angels had a separate language, why would the Holy Spirit translate His thoughts into an angelic language when speaking directly to the Father?

Why, without love, is speaking in the tongues of angels worthless? Love (agape) focuses outward. Loving speech conveys information that benefits the hearer. Unloving speech selfishly focuses on edifying ego at the expense of others’ time. God does not need to reward it; They have already rewarded themselves, who speak in tongues that do not inform, correct, or encourage others.

 

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use.

Biblogic Series: 1 Corinthians 13:1-3, Part 1

Futility of Spiritual Gifts Without Love

If I speak in the languages of men and of angels, 

but have not love, 

I am only a ringing gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I have the gift of prophecy 

and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge,

and if I have absolute faith so as to move mountains, 

but have not love, 

I am nothing.

If I give all I possess to the poor 

and exult in the surrender of my body, 

but have not love, 

I gain nothing.

(Berean Study Bible)

This passage introduces “the most excellent way” from which the Corinthians had deviated. While it seems self-explanatory, it has a surprising quantity of material to unpack. 

Chapter 12’s lists were just a warm-up for Paul’s poetry in chapter 13. Paul begins the chapter with three stanzas comprising a repeated thought in Hebrew poetic form. I strongly recommend reading the linked article about parallelism in Hebrew poetry and prose. Much meaning will pop out the next time you read the Old Testament.

Each stanza is an example of antithetical parallelism: The first line states a positive, whereas the second line counters with a negative. The repetition of the idea means Paul is emphatic about the message. He establishes that the lesson is an absolute truth. 

Paul states several things that, on their own, seem good. The opening stanza makes it clear that it is not a tangent; it directly addresses the Corinthian-Pentecostal error. As he often does, Paul states a principle before giving the reason. Since the phrases that follow give context to the opening statement, I’m going to save for last my notes on the opening statement.

Prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge

This refers to exercising spiritual gifts of prophecy, knowledge, and wisdom. Since discerning all knowledge would make one omniscient, Only God is omniscient. The situation, then, is purely hypothetical. It’s presence in no way implies that “prophesying and discerning the depths of all mysteries and knowledge” is humanly possible.

Having absolute faith so as to move mountains

This refers to persistence in belief and trust, especially, in prayer. Again, having absolute, mountain-moving faith would be an attribute of God. The situation is hypothetical and not humanly possible.

Giving all possessions [to the poor]

This act would be possible. The verb literally means to feed morsels of food, or in modern English idiom, to spoon-feed, and by extension, to personally, carefully distribute. The word translated possessions means those things under one's ownership, so it might have a meaning even broader than physical possessions. The Greek text does not include the phrase “to the poor.” Personally, carefully giving away everything under one’s ownership would be no great work if the recipients had no need of it, so the phrase may reasonably be inferred. The 1769 edition of the KJV italicized it.

Surrendering my body that I may burn / that I may glory

Some Greek tests and English translations read I may burn while others read I may glory. The focus is on bodily self-sacrifice. There is one letter difference between the Greek words meaning I may burn (kauthesomai) and I may boast (kauxesomai). (“Th” is the single Greek letter theta.)

According to the commentaries, Rome did not begin burning Christians for at least another decade after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. However, many commentary writers point out that Paul could have had in mind the three young men thrown into the furnace in Daniel or the tortures described in some apocryphal books. Another possibility could have been a current-events reference described in Vincent’s Word Studies (see previous link). About that time, a man from India had burned himself to death in Athens to achieve immortality through the merit of self-sacrifice. However, since he performed the deed on himself, it doesn’t quite fit with “giving himself over.”

The contrast between the motive for giving oneself over and the motive of love for others, stated at the end of the sentence, weighs in favor of “that I may boast” 

Fanatical people have long sought death in order to redeem themselves, and the ego can drive a man to stubbornly accept a death sentence rather than recant and admit to having been wrong. I may boast seems to have the better evidence in ancient manuscripts. It says more about human nature, and specifying what would happen to one’s body (burning) adds little besides drama to the sentence. Either way, the sense of the conditional clause is, “If I give myself over in self-sacrifice for personal benefit....”

Speaking in the languages of men and of angels

The issue of speaking in the languages of men and of angels faces two issues in this passage:

• Are the Corinthians practicing the gift correctly? (Part 1)
• Since Pentecostals make the claim, do languages of angels exist? (Part 2)

Chapters 12-14, as a whole -- as do both epistles to the Corinthians -- corrects. That a correction is made implies that an error needs correction. Chapter 12 corrects unawareness of God’s sovereignty in consignment of roles and spiritual gifts in the church. Chapter 12 also corrects disunity caused by unlovingly elevating or denigrating different gifts. Chapter 14 corrects disorder and abuse of gifts caused by using gifts in an unloving manner. When Paul inserts an entire chapter about motive in the middle of a discussion, we can have confidence that the Corinthians had the wrong motives. 

In four situations mentioned immediately after verse 1 -- two abilities and two actions -- Paul says the lack of a loving motive renders the ability or action worthless. The results, “I am nothing” or “I am a nobody” and “I am profited nothing,” mean that the gifts have neither elevated the possessor nor benefited the actor.

Mere possession of the ultimate insight and faith serves no purpose if not lovingly used for the benefit of others. As 4:7 says, What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it? The whole of chapter 12 teaches that God gives gifts for the church, not for our own sake. Mere possession does not mean you’re big stuff, it means you’re still nothing, a nobody, until you use the gift properly and with the right motives.

Similarly, mere action to sacrifice one’s possessions or to sacrifice your body brings no reward if not lovingly done for the benefit of others. Self-sacrifice for the sake of self-sacrifice or to acquire boasting rights is a meaningless loss. It is a futile discarding of a member of the body of Christ with accompanying opportunity cost. 

Now bring this awareness to verse 1. “If I speak in the languages of men and of angels, but have not love (agape), I am only a ringing gong (literally, more like a clanging brass pot) or a clanging cymbal.” Verses 4-7 define this love as outward facing, concerned with the benefit of others. A loving speaker always addresses his audience. He adjusts his vocabulary, grammar, cultural references, and message to the needs and culture of his audience. More importantly, he designs his message for their benefit. Without this loving, audience-sensitive composition and delivery of a message, the speaker makes meaningless noise. 

The clanging of brass or cymbals may excite the senses, but they convey no useful information; they do nothing beneficial for the hearers. Such is the effect of tongues practiced without love. They may produce excitement, but they give no actual benefit to the hearers because the speaker produces noise without consideration for the audience. 

Chapter 13 has begun with three implied questions.

Verse 1: If the speaker does not consider the audience and strive for their benefit, then whose benefit is he or she seeking at their expense? 

Verse 2: If the tongues-speaker is not motivated by love, then has the gift actually elevated him or her... or does the speaker remain a nobody?

Verse 3: If tongues do not serve the purpose of outward-directed, beneficial love, is the benefit loving, or is it selfish? And if the benefit is selfish, is it its own reward that excludes a heavenly reward?   

Copyright 2021 Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated us.

1 Corinthians 13:13

From a question on Quora:

What does 1 Corinthians 13:13 mean?

Three things abide

[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (1 Corinthians 13:7).

Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (verses 8–10)

But now these three things abide: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love (verse 13).

Chapter 13 compares the fruits of the Spirit such as faith, hope, and love, to verbal, revelatory gifts of the Spirit, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. From the perspective of the early 50’s AD, when the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, spiritual gifts of prophecy and knowledge would be done away with (passive voice), and the spiritual gift of speaking in unlearned foreign languages would do itself away (middle voice).

This, in fact, happened before the end of the first century. The bit-by-bit Word of God revealed through knowledge (of the existing, incomplete scriptures) and prophecy was completed with the apostle John’s writing of Revelation. Chapter 14 explains that tongues was a sign to educated Jews that Jerusalem was about to be destroyed and the Roman diaspora of the Jews was about to happen. (Chapter 14 does this by invoking prophetic Old Testament passages.) The prophecy was fulfilled in 67–70 AD.

So the Spirit stopped endowing people with the spiritual gifts or prophecy, tongues, and knowledge within less than 50 years of when the passage was written. In contrast, the fruits of the Spirit would continue.

The Corinthians had been emphasizing the wrong things. They went for the showy, the novel, the impressive, the ego-boosting gifts of the Spirit and missed the greater things, holiness and the fruits of the Spirit.

If you miss this contrast, you miss why Paul was correcting their priorities.

The greatest of these

Verses 4–6 describe characteristics of love. For example, contrast “Love… does not seek its own” against 14:4, The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. Each phrase in verses 4–6 describes a characteristic of behavior that flows from love.

Specifically, in verse 6, love “believes all things, hopes all things….” The word translated believes is the verb form of the word translated faith in verse 13. So we can see that love not only has many characteristics, but believing/faith and hoping/hope are two of those characteristics. In a hierarchy (an ontology), love is expressed or enacted through faith and hope. Hierarchically, then, love is greater than faith and hope.

Tangent

I’m surprised how some people link passing away (verse 10) to faith and hope (verse 13). Doing so, they break up the sentence that defines passing away’s context:

For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. (verses 9–10)

The partial is prophesy and knowledge. The partial, prophesy and knowledge, will be done away.

True, when prophesy is fulfilled and knowledge is based on first-hand, entire observation, faith and hope will become moot. But the topic is types of verbal revelation. Don’t miss what was to be done away: prophesy, tongues, and knowledge.

The looking-glass in verse 12 is a mirror (compare the same word in James 1:23, For anyone who hears the word but does not carry it out is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror. The mirror in which they saw themselves dimly was the Old Testament scriptures, discerned through knowledge, plus prophecy. The thing to be completed was the scriptures, at which time the partial, prophesy and knowledge, became superfluous.

The passive verb for prophesy and knowledge is not the same as the middle-voice verb for tongues. The meaning of tongues is explained in chapter 14 and in Old Testament scriptures that chapter 14 refers to: It was a sign to educated Jews of coming judgment, which was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora in the first century.

So within 50 years of Paul writing 1 Corinthians, the Holy Spirit stopped distributing spiritual gifts that revealed new truths. The fruits of the Spirit, however, will continue throughout this age. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use, but please give credit where credit is due.

When Prophecy and Knowledge Are Idled

From a question on Quora:

What does 1 Corinthians 13:9-12 mean?

You won’t catch the meaning if you leave out 13:8 and 14:20–22.

The Corinthians church abused a spiritual gift of speaking in human, foreign languages (“tongues”) that a person had never learned.

The writer, the apostle Paul, included several relevant messages in chapters 12–13. One point was that believers should always practice faith, hope, and love, but revelatory gifts such as prophecy, tongues, and knowledge would become redundant. The Holy Spirit distributed gifts for specific purposes; so when a gift’s purpose was fulfilled, the Holy Spirit would stop distributing it.

Verse 8 uses different verbs to separate the causes of tongues’ ceasing from what caused prophecy and knowledge to cease.

• Love never fails; but if there are [spiritual] gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are [spiritual gifts of] tongues, they will cease; if there is [a spiritual gift of] knowledge, it will be done away.

Prophecy and knowledge would be idled (passive form of καταργέω (katargeó) -- to render inoperative, abolish) whereas tongues would stop themselves (middle voice (something acting upon itself) form of παύω (pauó) -- to make to cease, hinder). If you miss this, then you miss how the remainder of chapter 13 and chapter 14 are organized.

Verses 9–12 deal with what would end the spiritual gifts of prophecy and knowledge. The reason for the spiritual gift of tongues ending is described in 14:20–22.

Verses 9–10, 11, and 12 explain, in three different ways, that gifts of prophecy and knowledge would become become redundant.

• Verses 9–10 describes speaking gifts as partial. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. Speaking gifts give you a little revelation here and a little there. You never get the whole thing. When the whole verbal revelation comes in a recorded, written form, then you don’t need the partial revelations anymore.
• Verse 11 describes things that are needed by the immature. When maturity comes, then we put away the things of childhood. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. The infant church needed prophecy and knowledge. All they had was the Old Testament. But a degree of maturity would come when revelatory gifts would no longer be needed.
• Verse 12 describes seeing the full knowledge that comes from seeing directly as being superior to the partial knowledge that comes from looking in a first century mirror. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. In New Testament lingo, the mirror is verbal revelation from God.* Piecemeal revelation through prophecy and knowledge gives us but occasional glimpses of ourselves, whereas the completed scriptures made full knowledge available and at all times.
• * James 1:23–24, For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.

The perfect, complete, sufficient verbal revelation came as the New Testament scriptures were completed. The church passed from infancy to adulthood. Full knowledge of God’s words would replace going to the prophet to get verbal revelation bit-by-bit. As the scriptures reached completion, the spiritual gifts that delivered the same subjects would become redundant. The gifts of knowledge and prophecy would be idled by the completion of the New Testament.

The cause of tongues ceasing is a tangent, so I’ll be brief. Chapter 14 explicitly says “tongues are for” a purpose. Verses 20–22 refer to an Old Testament prophecy: Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews. The sign meant that God would soon punish the Jews for rejecting their Messiah. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in 53 AD. In 66 AD, Israel rebelled against Rome. Rome swept over Israel and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Rome again warred against the Jewish remnant in 132–136. So as you read verses 20–22 in light of the prophecy’s significance, you find that tongues were for a particular audience:

• Not believers (14:22). 14:4 says, The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but the one who prophesies edifies the church. Anybody who thinks speaking in tongues to edify yourself is a good thing has completely missed the point. Chapter 12 says the gifts are to edify the church, and no gift is given to everybody. Chapter 13 says the gifts are for loving others, and love does not seek its own (13:5). Chapter 14 says to seek better gifts and keep things orderly. Even 14:4 contrasts (“but”) tongues and prophecy in a way that puts tongues in a negative light.
• Unbelievers; more specifically…
• Unbelieving Jews educated in Old Testament prophecy
• Unbelieving Jews that the prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction might apply to — in other words, first century Jews.

When Rome fulfilled the prophecy for which tongues was a sign, tongues became redundant. Similarly, as the scriptures were completed and circulated, the gifts of prophecy and knowledge became redundant. Logically, the Spirit would no longer distribute redundant spiritual gifts.

All Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Permission granted for non-remunerated use. Remember to give credit where credit is due.