Does every Christian have a Spiritual Gift?

I remember a few years ago at a home group bible study, we were looking at the question of Spiritual gifts. It is usually assumed that every Christian has at least one "Spiritual gift" (however many different kinds of gifts you think there are), often bundled together with the concept of the "priesthood of all believers". A question I raised at the time, and one which is still not 100% resolved for me, is whether that assumption is really the biblical position? Does the Scripture really teach that everyone has some gift? The three key passages are 1 Corinthians 12-14,  Romans 12:3-8, and 1 Peter 4:10-11. With phrases like "distributing to each one individually as He wills" (1 Corinthians 12:11), "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us" (Romans 12:6), "As each one has received a gift" (1 Peter 4:10), it seems to imply that everyone ("each one") has one of these gifts. But strictly, this may not be necessary. Perhaps it may only mean "each one who has received a gift..." The point in each case is not so much whether each Christian has received some gift, but whether those who have gifts must have the same gift. Indeed, the point in each case is about the diversity of gifts, and that all should work together in unity.

The other question is about how we perceive such gifts. I suspect the default for some of us is as if a gift is like some kind super power (the recent preponderance of superhero movies probably doesn't help). Therefore it must somehow be spectacular or overtly exciting in some way, or at least our fascination is upon gifts that seem more like that. And yet, some of the gifts seem hardly so, thinking perhaps of the gifts of giving, or of showing mercy. More so if we think of the artisans in Moses day who were "filled.. with the Spirit of God", endowed with many skills of craftsmanship (see Exodus 31:1-11 and 35:30-34).

It also seems easier for those with gifts like teaching or preaching (or for that matter, healing or speaking in tongues), to know what they should do, but it seems that for many other Christians, those who don't seem to be gifted in such obvious ways, it can be more of a struggle to find their place in using their gift, whatever it may be.

In any case, there is still a lot to be said for each Christian having at least some gift of the Spirit. The jury is still out, and I'm still pondering :)

Should every Christian Speak in Tongues?

There are always those groups within Christianity who claim that every Christian should speak in tongues (GLOSSOLALIA is the transliteration from the Greek). It seems to have been a problem during the apostolic church, and history has a tendency to repeat itself, often (because humans continue to have the same nature, giving rise to the same problems...) The precedent of course are the instances in Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, Acts 19, and perhaps 1 Corinthians 14:5. However, there is always increased difficulty (although not complete invalidity) in proving your case from the implications of narrative accounts as in Acts (compare for example the question of precedent regarding multiple wives from Old Testament narrative accounts), as compared to more direct teaching of say the Epistles (although these are not without their complexities either, and context etc must always be taken into account). Without at this point touching on the question of "What is tongues" and when and how it should be exercised etc, we must surely say that the clearest teaching regarding the spiritual gift must come from 1 Corinthians 12 (assuming, as seems to make the most sense, that the teaching on tongues in 1 Corinthians is also relevant to the manifestations of the Spirit evidenced in Acts), where certainly not everyone is expected to have that gift...

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.   

[1 Corinthians 12:4-31; ESV]

Without doubt Paul is making a strong point that there is unity in one Spirit, through whom the spiritual gifts are given, but there is variety and not uniformity regarding who has what gift, as to "each one" the Spirit gives "individually as he wills". To "one" is given "various kinds of tongues", not to all. And the answer to the question "Do all speak with tongues" is clearly intended to be "no". And with tongues and interpretation at the end of the lists in verses 8-10 and 28-30, Paul is also intending that these are not the "higher gifts" that we should most "earnestly desire".

And so even when we come to 1 Corinthians 14:5, where Paul says "Now I want you all to speak in tongues", we must allow him at least to complete his sentence, "but even more to prophesy". Do tongues advocates equally, or rather more so (according to Paul), advocate that all should prophecy? Perhaps some do (and perhaps some others don't because it is easier for someone to appear to speak in tongues than to speak prophetically...). But I strongly doubt Paul is contradicting his emphatic point already established earlier, in chapter 12. I think it is more likely that he is simply saying in other words "I am happy for anyone to speak in tongues, and receive that gift, and don't want anyone to forbid or discourage a genuine gift of the Spirit". And further, "But if you want my opinion as to whether tongues or prophecy is better, go for prophecy" (and that may have been one of the issues from the Corinthians to which Paul was responding, 1 Corinthians 12:1, "Now concerning...", cf 1 Corinthians 7:1, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote"). Again, not that Paul really though all would become prophets (chapter 12), but if you are going to emphasise wanting something, at least aim high (and asking for more prophets is about as high as you can go, I don't think it is realistic for everyone to ask to become an apostle...).

May the Scriptures always be our guide.

D A Carson on Speaking in Tongues/Glossolalia

Given that it is mentioned in the Bible, I think the issue of tongues/glossolalia will be with us until the Lord returns. I was thinking about it again recently and re-reading some of Don Carson's old book, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (my edition is copyright 1988, by ANZEA). So what exactly is "speaking in tongues"? Is it unintelligible, meaningless words? Is it known human language? Is it the language of angels, unintelligible to humans? Is the tongues in Acts the same as the tongues in 1 Corinthians? Here is a conclusion from Carson (taken from pp86f in my edition):

[T]here is a category of linguistic phenomenon that conveys cognitive content, may be interpreted, and seems to meet the constraints of the biblical descriptions, even though it is no known human language. Of course, this will not do for the tongues of Acts 2, where the gift consisted of known human languages; but elsewhere, the alternative is not a s simple as "human languages" or "gibberish," as many noncharismatic writers affirm. Indeed, the fact that Paul can speak of different kinds of tongues (12:10, 28) may suggest that on some occasions human languages were spoken (as in Acts 2), and in other cases not--even though in the latter eventuality the tongues were viewed as bearing cognitive content.

This is a very sensible conclusion from the Scriptural data.

Circumcision and Keeping the Law

I've been working through 1 Corinthians in four different settings this year, and here is another comment related to chapter 7, having looked at it again recently. But this post is about 7:19. I think the verse has significant relevance to distinguishing between ceremonial and other aspects of the "Law" (e.g. threefold or tripartite division of the Law), and reminds me of of Romans 2:26-27. Here are the two references in full:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19; NKJV)

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? (Romans 2:26-27; NKJV)

What is significant is that Paul distinguishes between being circumcised and keeping the commandments of God, or fulfilling the requirements of the law. Someone can be said to keep God's commandments and law, without having to be circumcised. Yet, in other places, such as Galatians 5:3, circumcision seems to be identified as a part of the law. Hence Paul can sometimes speak of "the law", not including particularly Jewish markers like circumcision. Sounds a bit like distinguishing between "ceremonial" and "moral" aspects, doesn't it? There are those those who don't like dividing up or distinguishing between different aspects of the law, treating it as all or nothing, saying that is more "Biblical". But in doing so they are not actually being true to Paul's own non-simplistic references to the law (Torah)...