However, for theology, they serve far less well, for at least two reasons. Firstly, the whole question of intentionality becomes a crucial one. It can seldom be demonstrated that analogies are intentional in the Biblical text itself, as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is actually more likely that they are irrelevant altogether. Secondly, it will be difficult to gain universal agreement on what, in fact, in the Biblical text does serve as an appropriate analogy.
Analogies are simply that - analogies.
However, they can scarcely be treated as the substance on which to build Christian theology. It is without surprise then, that when Graeme comes to supporting Biblical texts for finding tongues to be of no value, the restructuring of meaning worsens. And most certainly, the insistence of 70 A.D. as the cessation of tongues is without Scriptural foundation. However, in no case does Graeme, nor can he, show that the time of 70 A.D. was a part of Paul's intent. What is simultaneously so subtle and devastating about this is that it is cloaked with evangelical buzz-words and assumes an evangelical posture towards Scripture.