BIBLE-WORLD

This post (posting) is a personally copyrighted article (including photos) from the Multilingual Bible Institute. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and processing are not allowed, but can be used when specifying the source and URL of the material. This institute is an organization that supports the multilingual Reading the Bible movement for missionary activities and the Bible translation work of unreached minorities. In addition to the Bible Hebrew and Bible Greek classes for reading the Bible, the lectures of classical Latin are available (online and offline available). We also offer English courses through the BIBLE ENGLISH system, which is aimed at children and adults. This post (posting) is translated into four languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and is serviced all over the world, actively supporting the mission of Christian missionaries.

Inquiries about partnerships such as missionary activities: usedslr@gmail.com, YouTube: Multilingual Bible Research Institute

CHAPTER 2. Academic preceding study on “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα)

​

Scholars have been arguing over the interpretation of “γλῶσσα”. At the heart of the debate is whether the modern church "tongue (s)" is the same as the "tongue (s)" in the Corinthian church. The controversy stems from the premise that 1 Corinthians “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) was used in one sense. In the Old and New Testaments 1 Corinthians 14 is the only case that the term “tongue(s)” (γλῶσσα) is used together in singular and plural nouns with different meanings. Even the use of 1 Corinthians 12 and 13 is used only in plural nouns. Therefore, here we will concentrate on the use of 1 Corinthians 14 to examine the relationship between the “tongue (s)” of the modern church and the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) of the Corinthian church.

Was the “tongue (s)” of the Early Church era “foreign language tongues as a gift”, or was it an unknown tongue? Or both? Is the “tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” “foreign languages”, “a fascinating sound in a religious extactic state” or “repeated unknown sound”?

This judgment is at the heart of the “tongue (s)” debate. A study of the nature or language of the "tongue (s)" (γλῶσσα) is necessary to gain an appreciation of the phenomenon itself and to give an adequate assessment of the modern "tongue (s) movement.” 1

[10]

Ⅰ. Theory seeing as “unknown sound”

​

This theory is based on 1 Corinthians 14: 2, not "foreign language tongues as a gift”, but "fantasy of ecstasy" (language of angels or religious ecstatic) in a positive sense, or "repeated unknown sound"(tongue) in a negative sense. According to this theory, "tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12 does not mean "foreign languages." Because the context of I Corinthians 12–14 makes this impossible. They also argue that "1 Corinthians 14: 2 means to speak to God in mysterious language during prayer, that is, to pray in words that the world does not understand, so that others cannot understand it at all."[11] This theory states that the "tongue" (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians 14: 2, as well as the "tongues" (γλῶσσα) in Chapter 12, is "religious ecstatic (including ‘repeated unknown tongue’)." This argument seems to be misinterpreted because tyhe considered the meaning of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians as all the same thing.

Pastor Kim Dongchan, who received his Ph.D. from Oral Roberts University for the first time in Korea, considered that “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in the entire book of 1 Corinthians is “unintelligible utterance”. And he asserted that it is not "foreign languages as a gift." He said, “If translating 'tongues' (plurals) in 1 Corinthians into ‘foreign languages,’ it is nonsense judging from biblical or ecclesiastical cases. It is because Paul repeated five times in 1 Corinthians 14, over and over again explaining that “tongue (s)” has incomprehensible attributes.” [12] However, if we interpret the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) of 1 Corinthians as “unintelligible utterance”, there are too many parts that cannot be interpreted contextually. For example, in 1 Corinthians 13: 1 there is no way to explain a phrase that is obviously foreign languages, such as “all 'tongues’ of men”. Nor can we interpret portions of 1 Corinthians 14 that speak positively and sometimes negatively.

J. Oswald Sanders also views the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) of the Corinthian church in a negative sense as “an unknown sound”. In addition, he tried to compare the "tongues" of Acts 2 with the "tongue (s)" of 1 Corinthians 14 to prove that the two "tongue (s)" were completely different phenomena. The “tongues of Pentecost spoke to man (Acts 2: 6). But the “tongue (s)” of the Corinthian church was speaking only to God. (1 Corinthians 14: 2; 9). The “tongue (s)” of the Corinthian church was a sign for unbelievers (1 Corinthians 14:22). The “tongues of Pentecost was in perfect harmony (Acts 2: 1-4), but the “tongue (s) ”of the Corinthian church caused confusion.” [13] He sees the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) of the Corinthian church as the main cause of extreme confusion in the church. But according to his theory, we cannot explain not only the "tongue (s) as a gift" in Chapter 12, but also to interpret Paul's expression of "don't stop speaking in tongues" in 14:39.

Lee Sanghoon argues that “tongues” in Acts 2 and “tongue (s)” in 1 Corinthians 14 are two different things. First, Peter supported the "tongues" of Pentecost as "the fulfillment of the Old Testament" (Joel 2:28), but the "tongue (s)" of 1 Corinthians 14, on the contrary, Paul did not support but prohibit it. Secondly, he interpreted “tongue (s)” as “interpretation” rather than “translation”, so that he considered “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) throughout 1 Corinthians was “an unknown tongue.”[14] But Paul said only negatively in the case of “an unknown tongue” (repeated unknown sound). Judging from the cases of “foreign language tongues as a gift” and “languages of angels” in 1 Corinthians 12 and 13: 1, it is clear that Lee's argument is a fragmentary view, not overall view. He also expressed Greek “ἑρμηνεία” as an interpretation, but his argument is unreasonable because “ἑρμηνεία” can be seen not only as “interpretation” but also as “translation”. Lee Sanghoon also insists on the premise that “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians has only one meaning.

In the United States, academic research on “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) was actively conducted in the 1960s, leading to a re-evaluation of “tongue (s)” from an academic point of view. From a linguistic point of view, the "tongue (s)" study has attempted to determine whether "tongue (s)" is a known foreign language or not. One study found that “tongue (s)” is more active in the right brain, which is responsible for emotion, willpower, imagination, and spatial perception than the left brain, which is responsible for language and thinking. "Tongue (s)" is not a language, because the right brain is used mainly.[15] It is not a language that can be learned. "Tongue (s)" is not a language because it does not have the attributes of natural language. But that does not mean that it is not entirely language. Thus, the term "similar language" is also used, and "angel's language" and "celestial language." Yoo Myongbok argues that "some people think that 'tongue (s)' is to be learned, but it must be seen as a gift from the Holy Spirit, and it must be impressed with the Holy Spirit rather than trying to receive it through learning." [16] He sees this as "the utterance of ecstasy."

In 1 Corinthians 13: 1, there is a possibility to interpret “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) as “angelic language”. “Even if I say the words “tongue (s)” of humans and angels, but without love, it becomes a sounding copper and a ringing connoisseur.” This is a very important expression. For it seems that the apostle Paul admits that "tongue (s)" is not only "foreign languages as a gift" but also "religious ecstasy" such as an angelic language. In other words, this verse is an evidence that he thought “tongue(s)” (γλῶσσα) have a variety of meanings. It is clear that “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) as singular in 1 Corinthians 14 is different from “tongues” in Acts 2. This is because “tongues” in Acts is a clear “foreign languages as a gift”, but “tongue (s)” in 1 Corinthians does not speak to people.[17]

Examining the above theories, the "tongue (s)" (γλῶσσα) of the Corinthian church have at least over two meanings. First, there are positive aspects that are used in plural, such as “foreign languages as gifts” or “languages of angels.” Second, it is “an unknown tongue” that contains negative and positive meanings in singular. KJV explained when “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) is used as a singular by adding “an unknown” that is not in the original Greek text (1 Corinthians 14:2, 13, 14, 19, 27). However, in the case of 14:26, it is peculiar not to have "an unknown" even though it is used in singular form. This point will be discussed from point from point in Chapter 3.

​

This post (posting) is a personally copyrighted article (including photos) from the Multilingual Bible Institute. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and processing are not allowed, but can be used when specifying the source and URL of the material. This institute is an organization that supports the multilingual Reading the Bible movement for missionary activities and the Bible translation work of unreached minorities. In addition to the Bible Hebrew and Bible Greek classes for reading the Bible, the lectures of classical Latin are available (online and offline available). We also offer English courses through the BIBLE ENGLISH system, which is aimed at children and adults. This post (posting) is translated into four languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and is serviced all over the world, actively supporting the mission of Christian missionaries.

Inquiries about partnerships such as missionary activities: usedslr@gmail.com, YouTube: Multilingual Bible Research Institute

Ⅱ. Method and scope of research

​

A. Term definition of "tongue (s)" (γλῶσσα)

"Tongue(s)" are called “bangun” in Korean, which means in the meaning of plural and singular. In 1 Corinthians 14, the singular and plural forms are used together. More technically, the word Glossolalia(tongue) is a composite of two Greek words. This word is a compound word for “tongue (s)” created in the 19th century, it is a combination of the word “γλῶσσα” (tongue) and the word “λαλέω” (to speak).[5]

In the Life Bible vocabulary, it is said, “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) as a “word” is the language of each province (Ne. 13:24; Isa. 36:13; Zech. 8:23; Revelation 7: 9), that is foreign language. (Acts 2:4–11) and ② the mysterious language spoken in the state of being ecstatic by the work of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Holy Spirit that God gives to a special person (1 Corinthians 14:2, 21–22). Therefore, not all people who are converted have the "tongue (s)" phenomenon.” [6]

Stanley Mr. Bruges studied the examples of the Middle Ages and categorized “tongue (s)”: “xenolalia,” which refers to a foreign language he himself do not know; “Heteroglossolalia,” which is “people hear in their own language when someone speaks a foreign language”; “Akolalia” with no sound heard; There is also a “glossolalia” that is spoken in a language that is not generally understood.[7] His theory of “heteroglossolalia” would play a decisive role in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:21 in the main text.

Many believers today misunderstand that only the Holy Spirit is the source of the “tongue (s). Looking at the various literatures on the “tongue (s), it is surprising that the source of the “tongue (s)” is not just the Holy Spirit. There are also “tongue (s)” given by evil spirits, and psychologically, “tongue (s)” can be caused by multiple personality phenomena due to dissociation.[8] Thus, in this paper, we will infer the situation when the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 14 to confirm whether the “tongue (s)” phenomenon of the Corinthian church came from the Holy Spirit or not.

In the New Testament, the term “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) are seen about 50 times, meaning “tongue,” “foreign languages,” “languages of angels,” and “religious extasy” (an unknown tongue). The general controversy is that scholars have different views of what “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians 14 means. Therefore, this paper will focus on understanding the meaning of 1 Corinthians 14 from the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) found in the New Testament.

B. Research method

In this paper, to understand the Biblical meaning of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα), we will first examine the cases of the preceding studies and the original intentions of the Apostle Paul, who wrote 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians, especially in 1 Corinthians. Secondly, we will analyze in depth the meaning of the controversial 1 Corinthians "tongue(s)" (γλῶσσα) in relation to the "tongue(s)" (γλῶσσα) of the modern church, especially the exact Biblical meaning shown in 1 Corinthians 14.

First of all, 1 Corinthians is a valuable letter that contains the very specific and sincere Apostle Paul's Christian philosophy of how to deal with the many problems arising in the Corinthian church. Perhaps most of the problems encountered in modern churches would have occurred, and there are many ways to deal with them there. It is also hard to understand that so many problems have occurred in a church that was not so large. Paul's solutions to the problems surrounding the Corinthian church will reveal the problems and solutions of the modern church. It is important to note that, among these many issues, Paul focused on the issue of “tongue (s), with a lot of pages, which means that he perceived as serious. All of this was not apparent at the time of Paul's ministry at the Corinthian church, but it was likely to occur shortly after his leaving Corinth. For Paul does not seem to have written with certainty about the reality of the “tongue (s)” of the Corinthian Church at the time of writing 1 Corinthians.[9] In 1 Corinthians, he remained a lot of possibilities to interpret differently “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα). In addition, he seemed to be inconsistent enough in his own words to cause confusion for later interpreters. However, Paul does not mention “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in the following epistles such as 2 Corinthians, Romans, etc. Judging from this, the problem of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) seems to have been completely resolved until around 2 Corinthians’ writing.”

In this paper, first, in relation to the interpretation of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians 14, we will conduct academic precedent studies on the theory of “γλῶσσα” as ① “ecstasy utterance” (including “unknown sound”) ② theories of “foreign languages” ③ the theory that “an known tongue” and the meaning of “foreign language” are mixed.

Next, to analyze the use of 1 Corinthians, we will examine the meaning of “γλῶσσα” as the phenomenon of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in Mark and Acts. We will also analyze the use of the Revelation to determine the meaning of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians, including the analysis of “Lashon” (לָשׁוֹן) in Isaiah 28:10.

Finally, the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) written in 1 Corinthians 14 is divided into the usuage of singular and plural. The plural will clearly distinguish the meaning of “foreign languages” from the singular “speaking of ecstasy ”(an unknown tongue). In particular, since 1 Corinthians 14 expresses only “tongue” in Korean, the two meanings are alternately used to confuse interpretation. Therefore, we will clarify and address this. In this regard, the King James Version (KJV) refers to "tongues" when it refers to a foreign language, and "extatic utterence" is exactly translated as "an unknown tongue."

C. Scope of the study

For an accurate interpretation of “γλῶσσα”, we will analyze the text of the first part of 1 Corinthians 14. In particular, Chapter 14, verse 2, “ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ οὐκ ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ ἀλλὰ θεῷ · οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀκούει, πνεύματι δὲ λαλεῖ μυστ”. Among these, we will examine in detail the translation of “θεῷ”, “πνεύματι”, and “δὲ”, which seem to be misinterpreted in the Korean version. In this regard, while NA28 does not use the definite article before “θεῷ”, we will consider the fact that “TR1550MR” (Textus Receptus) uses the definite article (τω θεω) and the Greek semicolon (‘·’, in English ‘;’) in two places. We will also try the correct interpretation of 14: 4. This will determine whether Paul sees the “γλώσσῃ” as a singular in a positive or negative way. In addition, we will also analyze the grammar structure of 1 Corinthians 14:14 “ἐὰν [γὰρ] προσεύχωμαι γλώσσῃ, τὸ πνεῦμά μου προσεύχεται, ὁ δὲ νοῦς μου ἄκαρπός ἐστιν. Similarly, we will examine the comparison of versions and their use cases. This may infer the apostle Paul's attitude toward “an unknown tongue”.

In Chapters 14:21 and 22, we will demonstrate why Paul intentionally used plural expression(ἑτερογλώσσοις) instead of the singular expression “ἑτερογλώσσος”in the process of quoting the Old Testament.

The New Testament does not use “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in one sense. In particular, in 1 Corinthians, “tongue (s)” (γλσσσα) is used in at least over two meanings (foreign language” and “utterance of ecstasy), and “utterance of ecstasy (unknown sound)” also has positive and negative aspects. This paper will analyze this closely.

However, I do not think that this study can make an objective conclusion about the effectiveness of the “tongue (s)” of the Pentecostal movement. The singular “tongue” might be not only a “ecstatic utterance” but also an “unknown language of the unknown race”. It is also clear that in general, in the case of “ecstasy”, there are many believers who actually feel the positive effects. And this "tongue (s)" phenomenon of modern churches will again require complex classification and argumentation. Therefore, the scope of this study is to clarify the meaning of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians 14, and this study is expected to give a good suggestion on the spiritual phenomenon of modern church.

This post (posting) is a personally copyrighted article (including photos) from the Multilingual Bible Institute. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and processing are not allowed, but can be used when specifying the source and URL of the material. This institute is an organization that supports the multilingual Reading the Bible movement for missionary activities and the Bible translation work of unreached minorities. In addition to the Bible Hebrew and Bible Greek classes for reading the Bible, the lectures of classical Latin are available (online and offline available). We also offer English courses through the BIBLE ENGLISH system, which is aimed at children and adults. This post (posting) is translated into four languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and is serviced all over the world, actively supporting the mission of Christian missionaries.

Inquiries about partnerships such as missionary activities: usedslr@gmail.com, YouTube: Multilingual Bible Research Institute

An Interpretation of "γλῶσσα" written in the 1 Corinthians ①

- Focusing on Chapter 14 of the 1 Corinthians

CHAPTER 1. Raising a Problem

​Ⅰ. Necessity and Purpose of Research​

A. Necessity of research

The debate over “tongues” (γλῶσσα) in modern churches is easily overheating. They don't talk to each other and talk well, but once the discussion begins, they turn into intense debate. This will continue in the future. Why is it overheating? First of all, it is because the Bible, especially the concept of “tongues” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians, does not mean one thing but has many meanings and difficult to interpret. As a result, they have different understandings and uses in the same words, thus with different concepts, the discussion is so entangled that they cannot know what it is later.[1]

I attended church at a later age, became interested in Christian theology as I read the Bible, and entered seminary for some reasons. In the process of Bible study after my first baptism, I have seen many people say "an unknown tongue" when they pray in modern churches. I came to know that this is called “tongue (s)” and that there is each view of every church, believer, and pastor. As I studied theology in progress, I came to think that the “tongue (s)” of modern churches occupies an important position that they can control our Christian worldview itself. Thus, I wrote this thesis to analyze this with the conviction that it is necessary to stand on the right way of faith.

Christianity is clearly a religion of mystical God. We only speculate God by revelation, and no one can answer the spiritual world with certainty. Only God can know what the “tongue(s)” (γλῶσσα) of the modern church is. However, considering the position of “tongues” (γλῶσσα) in Christian history, it is worth studying sincerely. Particularly in the 20th century, the Pentecostalism, which emphasized the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts, emerged, creating a tremendous revival that struck the world. Protestantism in the United States was divided into liberal and fundamentalist classes, and formed new denominations, old liberalism which opened up neo-orthodox and neoliberalism, and promoted the Ecumanical movement. Even conservative Protestantism is divided into fundamentalism and neo- evangelicalism. The most influential movement in the recent Christian society of the United States is the charismatic revival movement, especially the New Pentecostalism, which emphasizes healing and tongue (s). Therefore, it is the duty of every Christian to know the fundamental nature of this and to examine it on Scripture.[2]

This Pentecostal movement has revolutionized Christian history since the 20th century. It is well known that many of Korea's largest churches, once the largest congregations in the world, were supported by the Pentecostal movement. On a scale, something that is comparable to growth of the explosive cults of the early churches and tsunami of human consciousness change due to the Reformation was actually being done around the world, especially in Korean churches. In the base of this enormous wave lies the "tongue (s)" of the modern church. Whether we admit it or not, think positively or negatively, this is why we must study and decide how to look at the "tongue (s)" of modern churches, which have a tremendous influence on all believers.

Those who advocate the Pentecostal Movement (Pentecostalism) claim that the "tongue (s)" phenomenon is called "baptism of the Holy Spirit," even claiming that "people will not be saved unless they receive tongue (s)." The opposing side argues that the "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” is not based on the Bible or the Holy Spirit. The question of how to interpret this "tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) is not just a matter of which denomination has a doctrine, but it is a matter of distinguishing whether believers are living with right faith or wrong faith. Therefore, it might be necessary to first check how the Bible interprets this.

Moon Hyosik emphasized the influence of the Pentecostal movement in modern Christianity and the necessity of the study of the Holy Spirit movement like below;

Pentecostalism finds the basis of "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” in 1 Corinthians 14. Whether this is on a biblical basis or not is very important. This is because the core of the Pentecostal movement, which has swept Christianity all over the world since the 20th century, is the "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” Therefore, it is necessary to grasp the reality of this to identify the body of the Pentecostal movement, the so-called Holy Spirit movement, which affected all Christians including Catholicism.[3]

B. Purpose of research

In the meantime, numerous opinions and books have been published on whether to affirm or deny "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” at home and abroad. In general, those who claim that “tongue (s)” experiences have a positive impact on their life of faith have found that “tongue (s) prayers” can make prayer long and passionate. However, some papers and minority opinions oppose “tongue (s)” for the following reasons: ① The New Testament's “tongue (s)” is a foreign language and people can recognize it. ② The "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” is not on biblical evidence. In the midst of these two extremes, some argue that the "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” does not have biblical grounds (or their biblical grounds are weak or difficult to discern), so it is not necessary for people to do prohibit “tongues” (γλῶσσα) because they are actually helpful to believers.

But the question of whether the "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” is from the Holy Spirit or not might be known only to God. We will identify whether the "tongue (s) phenomenon of the modern church” is a positive or negative phenomenon, or a mixture of both. We will then see if it has a biblical basis. In particular, we will interpret the “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians 14, which is the center of controversy. This interpretation can be divided into three theories; ① theories as “an unknown sound” ② theories as “foreign languages” and ③ theories that the two meanings are mixed. We will also provide a basis for how to view this phenomenon by analyzing previous studies by scholars.[4] If the “tongue (s)” of the modern church is the true “tongue (s)” of the Bible, we should look for it and ask for it, and those who have already received it should further develop, analyze the merits, and encourage other believers. If the modern church's “tongue (s)” is not based on Scripture, it must first be discerned whether it is from the Holy Spirit or not. It may also be a mixture of the Holy Spirit and other spirits. That is why the apostle John warns, "Do not believe in all spirits, but discern whether they are of God" (1 John 4: 1).

Nevertheless, the interpretation of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in the Bible is never easy but controversial. For the Bible leaves room for many different interpretations. In addition, it is difficult to distinguish between a foreign language and a kind of extatic utterence (an unknown tongue) because there are many cases in which each copy or translation is interpreted differently. Therefore, this paper first examines the historical, cultural, and socio-economic situation surrounding the Corinthian church, and examines the purpose of writing the apostle Paul's letter. Also, by comparing and examining the usage of “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in the New Testament, we will analyze key texts including “tongue (s)” (γλῶσσα) in 1 Corinthians and identify related contexts to grasp and draw conclusions about Paul's point of view.   

This post (posting) is a personally copyrighted article (including photos) from the Multilingual Bible Institute. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and processing are not allowed, but can be used when specifying the source and URL of the material. This institute is an organization that supports the multilingual Reading the Bible movement for missionary activities and the Bible translation work of unreached minorities. In addition to the Bible Hebrew and Bible Greek classes for reading the Bible, the lectures of classical Latin are available (online and offline available). We also offer English courses through the BIBLE ENGLISH system, which is aimed at children and adults. This post (posting) is translated into four languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, and is serviced all over the world, actively supporting the mission of Christian missionaries.

Inquiries about partnerships such as missionary activities: usedslr@gmail.com, YouTube: Multilingual Bible Research Institute

When we define human life from the standpoint of God's calling based on the Bible, our work itself is related to our participation in other established relationships. The dichotomous consideration of labor and leisure is a wrong idea that humans think of as reason without God. Work must be thought of in conjunction with the talents God has ordained for mankind, with the command to fill, conquer, and rule the world. Labor is both a talent, a calling, and a duty. Labor is also related to the overall purpose of our lives. Through our work, God is influencing the creation. In other words, it should be regarded as part of the economy. According to the Bible, labor was originally a system created for God's good purpose, but testimony is that humans have fallen, causing sin to distort the pattern of this work and free it from its original purpose.​

As Christians, we must understand labor as doing to please God and serve Him before God. By doing so, we participate in the good “relationship” established by God and enjoy joy and make our labor noble. This pleasure can break the dichotomy of leisure and labor and bring great joy to labor itself. We must turn the world's economic order into biblical principles. There will be a wave of love, and a river of justice will flow through the stream of history. So the apostle Paul is telling us to work to please God and serve him. Work with God is to enter the kingdom of God. Whether or not we can make our lives a glorious place has to do with the proper recognition of our work.

Ancient: Western philosophy began in Greece from 600 BC. Later AD 4-5th century was an ancient philosophy. ① Stage 1: Exploring nature in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the water of Thales and the fire of Heraclitus of Ephesus ② Stage 2: The heyday of ancient philosophy centered on Athens in the late 5th century BC. The object of interest has shifted from nature to humans, starting with Protagoras and Gorgias. It is the position of relativism that an objective solution can never be obtained. Socrates took the human soul as the subject of philosophy, and the fundamental idea is ‘virtue is knowledge’. Plato insisted on the idea of ​​Idea, and his disciple Aristotle established his own philosophical system while taking over the Master's ideas. ③ Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy: From Aristotle's death to ancient times (4th-5th century BC): There are the stoicism of the asceticism founded by Xenon of Cyprus, the pleasures of Epicurus and the skepticism of Furon. They sought relief with their own strength, and in the latter days, they gradually sought transcendental gods beyond humans and sought salvation. Pylon's philosophy and Neoplaton's philosophy are typical.

Middle Ages: Medieval philosophy is based on Christianity. In 395, the fathers who became the state religion and needed to establish the doctrine of the Catholic Church took over. Augustinus, the greatest Father, established Christian philosophy under the influence of the new Plato. The medieval philosophy is typical of the scholastic philosophy. It is a philosophy established by the teachers of the church, but it goes from the 9th century to the middle of the 15th century and is divided into the early middle and late stages. ① At the beginning of 9-13C, Anselmus said, “I believe to know” and clarified his thoughts to be based on the content of faith. ② Mid-term 13C: Thomas Aquinas was the first person in the scholastic philosophy, which established a great system by integrating Aristotle's philosophy with the orthodox view of the church. However, the conviction that faith and knowledge are consistent is somewhat shaken. ③ Late 14-15: The decline of the Scholastic philosophy, William of Ockham values ​​empirical knowledge and admits that Christ's doctrine can never be based on knowledge. This claim of complete separation of faith and knowledge meant the collapse of Scholastic philosophy. Renaissance: The claim to the separation of faith and knowledge led to the modern spirit of thinking freely, regardless of Christianity. The transitional period to escape from this medieval bondage began with the revival of Greek philosophy, Martin Luther and Calvin who insisted on the reformation, Machia Valley, who said that there is no need to choose a means to strengthen the country, and Grottius, the father of modern natural law.​

Modernity: Modern philosophy was established in 17C. The basic personality is to have confidence in the position of human beings and to admit only what they can understand for themselves. ① Rationalism and Empiricism: The rationalistic philosophy centered on the continent of Europe and the empirical philosophy prevalent in England are central, but the two are in opposition. Ⓐ The founder of rationalism, Descartes, believes in the trust of human reason, and that we can recognize truth if we reason from what is reasonably certain to what is certain. 'I think. Therefore, I believe that the existence of God and the existence of objects, starting with I exist, are deduced by reasoning with certain trust. Deduction law is based on the premise (mammal, heart)> Conclusion (horse, heart) ⓑ Empirical philosophy emphasizes the role played by experience in human perception. Bacon insisted on emphasizing experience and insisting on natural studies and emphasized the importance of induction in natural studies. The induction method is premise (lion, cub and monkey, young) <Conclusion (mammal, cub) ② Kant's philosophy of criticism (19C): Kant tries to overcome the confrontation between rationalism and empiricism. He acknowledged the empirical argument that perception cannot be established without experience, but he had too strong a metaphysical demand that he could not abandon the sympathy of rationalism. “Our perception is never to capture the image of the object itself, the world of material things. The object of our perception is that it is limited to the phenomenal world, but there is room for existence in the material world, and that it opens the way for metaphysics to be established. “By criticizing our cognitive ability itself, we think that a new way of philosophy opens, and we call our own philosophy the critique of criticism. ③ German ideology: Starting from Kant, Pihité attempted to create a unified system that considers the absolute ego beyond the dualism of the phenomenon and the material. And Schelling went beyond Pihité's absolute ego and arrived at the concept of self-identifying absolutes that exist at the base of everything, and Hegel began with Selling philosophy and thought that the absolutes were not self-identifying, but realizing self in history. .. Hegel's philosophy is to explain all thoughts by the self-development of the Absolute based on reason, and it can be called rational metaphysics.

Bruno Bauer insists that there was virtually no objectionable heresy at the time of the early church in the "Orthodoxy in Early Christianity" and heresy published in 1934. The view of the Roman church was called Orthodox, and another group that did not follow was called heresy. However, his claim has made some fatal errors. First, Bauer's claim that early Christianity was not a doctrinal understanding of the unity of the church was wrong. This is because the doctrinal understanding of Christian unity is already reflected in the writings of Roman Clement, Antioch Ignatius and Martyr Justin. Second, since it was relatively easy for communists to communicate with each other and maintain the network of the community, it was relatively easy for them to communicate easily within the Roman Empire. Third, Bauer insisted that the origin of Valentinism was Christianity different from that of the Orthodox. At the time, however, Valentinus, although a minority, recognized themselves as Orthodox Christians. Thus, heresy originates in the community of faith, not outside the church. Fourth, Bauer made the mistake of projecting the influence of the Roman Church in the future back into Christian communities of all ages where power or authority could not be found.​

It was after AD 3C that the Roman Church began to exert considerable influence on other churches of the time. Fifth, there is no historical basis for the fact that several heresies came before orthodox faith. In conclusion, Bauer's argument reflects the narrow ideology that heresy is open, relaxed, and sexually neutral, and that authenticity is narrow, assertive, patriarchal, and rigid. It stands for the underprivileged, and destroys the value of orthodoxy by considering the value of orthodox tradition as a product of the power of the ruler. Bauer's argument seems quite reasonable from a modern postmodernist point of view that denies tradition and true truth, and can be used as a faithful tool for them. Heresy is not a victim of some kind of theological oppression. Clearly, in the history of establishing orthodoxy, power and political struggle were not without it. However, at least the orthodox creed of the evangelical faith we are now trying to keep is the grace given to us by some established process and the labor and sacrifice of the Lord's true servants.

1. Western ecclesiastical heresy

Western theologians emphasized one divine essence or reality rather than the emphasis on the Trinity, which was characteristic of the Eastern Church's perception. They understood the Trinity as related in one reality. Expressed by the triangular axis of existence, knowledge, and will, the fundamentally relevant Western Church's Trinitarianism led theologians to highlight the cooperative ministries in creation and salvation. Western theologians were concerned that the Eastern Church had fallen into tritheism, and saw that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. The Western Church's model declares that the foundation of the inner life of the Divine Trinity lies in the relationship between the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Spirit in connection with both other persons. adoptionisrn: Monarchian, Byzantine Theodotus, Paul of Samosata / Jesus is a person with only humanity and no divinity. It is also called'dynamic monarchy'. / Modalism: Sabellius, Semina's Neotus, and Proxeus /Modalism Heresy appeared in the second half of the second century, claiming that God appeared by changing his shape with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are also called “Patripassianism” because they claimed that God the Father came to the earth in the flesh and that God the Father was crucified and died.

2. Eastern church heresy

The theologians of the Eastern Church emphasized the emancipation (the emergence of the Holy Spirit) from within the Divine, and viewed the Father as the source of the Divine, who gave birth to the saint in the eternal movement and released the Holy Spirit. There was a tendency to emphasize the special and individual ministries of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the divine acts of creation and salvation, focusing on the three separate members of the Trinity, and the Eastern Church was in between the work of the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ. Since the relationship was not strictly defined, there was no need to bind the work of the Holy Spirit only to the salvation of mankind through the church. / Subjugation: Origen-Logos ''Eternal Generation' was the first to explain the relationship between the father and the Son, but he insisted on subjugation with the Son under the father and the Holy Spirit under the Son. The'everlasting occurrence' he claimed was authentic, but the'subordinate theory' was heretical. / Arianism: Arius In the early 4th century, Arius, the elder of Alexandria, inherited the theory of subjugation, and the Father was alone and created the Son, and then created the world in the Son, and the Father and the Son claimed that it was "similar essence."