I don't really see any basis in the text of 1 Cor. to read the distinction
proposed here. Yes, there is an interchange between the singular and the
plural, but the concept is different. The singular is used with reference
to a specific occasion of glossolalia (let's avoid the tendentious term "pagan
gibberish"), and the plural for a plurality of occasions, by different people
and/or at different times.
The proposed distinction, if true, renders Paul's line of thought incomprehen-
sible. In 14:2-4, Paul contrasts speaking in a tongue (GLWSSHi, singular)
with
prophesying, noting that the former edifies the speaker, but the latter
edifies
the church. The next verse (v5) is the linchpin: Paul expresses a wish
that "all
of you would speak in tongues (GLOSSAIS, plural), *but even more* that you
prophesy
. . . so that the church is edified." Why would Paul suddenly shift gears and
bring up an unrelated issue? On the other hand, the shift to the plural to
refer
to a plurality of persons ("all of you") is sensible.
Verse 5 also suggested that tongues (GLOSSAIS) ought to be interpreted (EI MH
DIERMHNEUHi) in order to edify the church. This is in accord with the 12:10
gifts of the Holy Spirit, also in the plural. The concept of
interpretation is
also used in reference to a singular tongue (DIO hO LALWN GLWSSHi PROSEUCESQW
hINA DIERMHNEUHi "Therefore, let him who speaks in a tongue pray so that he
interprets").
In sum, there is no affirmative basis in the text to see two different
kinds of
phenomena of tongues expressed in 1Co12-14 at all, much less by a grammatical
distinction in singular and plural. Paul relates both the singular and plural
tongues to the same concepts (edification and interpretation), and Paul's
line of
thought becomes bizarre, if not incomprensible, if this proposed
distinction is
adopted. On the other hand, there is another reading of the text that makes
better sense of Paul: noting that the singular is used with respect to a
specific,
perhaps hypothetical, occasion of glossolalia, while the plural refers to more
general occasions.
I can only surmise that the reason why MacArthur's key to interpreting
1Co12-14
has been "oft-neglected" by translators and commentators is that the proposed
distinction is spurious.
Stephen Carlson
-- Stephen C. Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, scarlson@mindspring.com : and songs chant the words. http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/ : -- Shujing 2.35