The gift of Tongues

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Yes, the Acts of the Apostles uses the term Xenoglossia to describe Pentacost. The idea there is that the early Christians were able to speak other human languages, undoing Babel, undoing misunderstanding.

Click to expand...

The term xenoglossia is a technical term only and it is not found in the Scriptures.

Ironically in charismatic churches the opposite is happening. People begin babbling incoherently and considering it good...

Click to expand...

As Paul plainly tells us in 1Cor 14:2

So if anyone makes the claim that they (or another) understood what someone was saying to the Father (never to man) in tongues in the congregational setting, then you can rightfully challenge their claim as tongues is not intended for man to understand, but to God alone.

SteveCaruso said:

I am often approached by people who claim that they were "told by the Spirit" that their tongues were in Aramaic.

Click to expand...

As a Pentecostal who has spoken in tongues for 40 years, I can safely say that when anyone claims that when they are praying in the Spirit (tongues), that they are doing so in a particular human language, then their claims should be dismissed.

Biblicist said:

The term xenoglossia is a technical term only and it is not found in the Scriptures.


As Paul plainly tells us in 1Cor 14:2

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.​

So if anyone makes the claim that they (or another) understood what someone was saying to the Father (never to man) in tongues in the congregational setting, then you can rightfully challenge their claim as tongues is not intended for man to understand, but to God alone.

Click to expand...

St Paul plainly uses a different word "Glossolalia" which literally translates as "speaking in another tongue". I'm inclined to think that Paul was having a go at the Corinthians (a port city) who were speaking in their private native languages during the services rather than in a common language. Do not confuse Xenoglossia with Glossolalia. ;-)

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

St Paul plainly uses a different word "Glossolalia" which literally translates as "speaking in another tongue". I'm inclined to think that Paul was having a go at the Corinthians (a port city) who were speaking in their private native languages during the services rather than in a common language. Do not confuse Xenoglossia with Glossolalia. ;-)

Click to expand...

I think that if you were to reconsider the text of 1Cor 14 that the likelyhood of Paul referring to how some were maybe speaking in languages other than Latin and Greek (the primary languages of Corinth), that this would be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is an activity of the Holy Spirit, it would be difficult to imagine the Holy Spirit "enabling" those who could already speak in a certain language, the ability to do the same thing during the congregational meeting.

As Paul said in 1Cor 14:2 that no man can understand what is being said in tongues, the only option would be is if someone could speak in a language that only he understood, which is of course highly unlikely.

Biblicist said:

I think that if you were to reconsider the text of 1Cor 14 that the likelyhood of Paul referring to how some were maybe speaking in languages other than Latin and Greek (the primary languages of Corinth), that this would be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. As our ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is an activity of the Holy Spirit, it would be difficult to imagine the Holy Spirit "enabling" those who could already speak in a certain language, the ability to do the same thing during the congregational meeting.

As Paul said in 1Cor 14:2 that no man can understand what is being said in tongues, the only option would be is if someone could speak in a language that only he understood, which is of course highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

Well, no I think that he's saying "you're praying in other languages and no one can understand you, pray in your own languages at home and when you gather together pray in Greek."

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

St Paul plainly uses a different word "Glossolalia" which literally translates as "speaking in another tongue".

Click to expand...

Actually the word that Paul uses (as per 1Cor 12, 13 & 14) is γλώσσῃ or glossa (GK1185/SC1185) which is the standard word for the physical organ of the tongue.

Biblicist said:

As a Pentecostal who has spoken in tongues for 40 years, I can safely say that when anyone claims that when they are praying in the Spirit (tongues), that they are doing so in a particular human language, then their claims should be dismissed.

Click to expand...

But tongues require interpretation.

A bit further down in 1 Corithians 14 (which you quoted above) Paul discusses how there needs to be interpretation, or one should otherwise keep silent.

27 If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course {{i.e. one at a time in turn}}; and let one interpret. 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Click to expand...

This is not the custom of the Pentecostal movement.

Biblicist said:

Actually the word that Paul uses (as per 1Cor 12, 13 & 14) is γλώσσῃ or glossa (GK1185/SC1185) which is the standard word for the physical organ of the tongue.

Click to expand...

It is used interchangeably to denote a language. The same in Aramaic (לישן – leshan) and Hebrew (לשון – lashon) both meaning "tongue" or "language."

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Well, no I think that he's saying "you're praying in other languages and no one can understand you, pray in your own languages at home and when you gather together pray in Greek."

Click to expand...

Not quite, Paul never uses our English language with reference to tongues.

Paul's concern was with how most (or many) were speaking in tongues all at once. This may be fine in that the words that are being spoken are words of praise to the Father but this provides no real benefit to the assembly of the Saints as they cannot understand a word that is being said to the Father. Even if 100 people spoke in tongues (a max. of only three is permitted per meeting), and each was interpreted, even though the assembly receives a certain amount of edification (as per 1Cor 14:5); as the articulation/interpretation of each tongue is only an approximation of what was being said to the Father, then this serves no real benefit to the congregation as it will not contain any teaching, instruction or admonition.

Edit: I should have added in that tongues does provide one major benefit when used within the Congregational setting, in that it is a reminder to the congregation of the presence of the Eschatological Holy Spirit, where his presence within both the Believer and the Congregation is evidenced by how he prays through us in tongues to the Father.

SteveCaruso said:

But tongues require interpretation.

A bit further down in 1 Corithians 14 (which you quoted above) Paul discusses how there needs to be interpretation, or one should otherwise keep silent.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I seem to be missing your point.

This is not the custom of the Pentecostal movement.

Click to expand...

Sadly, this is all to true! This was Paul's concern with the Corinthians in that they were undoubtedly as careless and thoughtless as are many of todays Pentecostals and charismatics - though most of them don't realise this.

Biblicist said:

Not quite, Paul never uses our English language with reference to tongues.

Paul's concern was with how most (or many) were speaking in tongues all at once. This may be fine in that the words that are being spoken are words of praise to the Father but this provides no real benefit to the assembly of the Saints as they cannot understand a word that is being said to the Father. Even if 100 people spoke in tongues (a max. of only three is permitted per meeting), and each was interpreted, even though the assembly receives a certain amount of edification (as per 1Cor 14:5); as the articulation/interpretation of each tongue is only an approximation of what was being said to the Father, then this serves no real benefit to the congregation as it will not contain any teaching, instruction or admonition.

Click to expand...

Yes, if twenty were speaking in Syrian and thirty in Aramaic and ten others in Egyptian (which in a port city may have been rather ordinary) they would have been incomprehensible to one another. That's why two or three should speak and then interpret everything so everyone can benefit. Otherwise, as Paul says, they're uttering mysteries and talking only to God.

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Yes, if twenty were speaking in Syrian and thirty in Aramaic and ten others in Egyptian (which in a port city may have been rather ordinary) they would have been incomprehensible to one another. That's why two or three should speak and then interpret everything so everyone can benefit. Otherwise, as Paul says, they're uttering mysteries and talking only to God.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that the dilimna that you have created here would have been obvious; how could 20 speak in Syrian (Farsi?) and at the same time "utter mysteries and talking to God" when the other 19 Syrians would be able to fully understand what was being said?

SteveCaruso said:

It is used interchangeably to denote a language. The same in Aramaic (לישן – leshan) and Hebrew (לשון – lashon) both meaning "tongue" or "language."

Click to expand...

Glossa (the physical organ of the tongue) is also used in Revelations with reference to the nations.

Biblicist said:

Glossa (the physical organ of the tongue) is also used in Revelations with reference to the nations.

Click to expand...

Revelation is a vision. Paul is speaking directly to be understood plainly.

SteveCaruso said:

Revelation is a vision. Paul is speaking directly to be understood plainly.

Click to expand...

That's partially true, where John's vision was also given as a prophecy. Even so, this does not detract from how he chooses to employ the Greek language; if he chooses to employ glossa within Revelations to refer to the physical organ of the tongue, a language or to specific people groups then this is up to him.

I'm not sure what your point is, then. Glossa is referring to language in Paul's writings, here.

SteveCaruso said:

I'm not sure what your point is, then. Glossa is referring to language in Paul's writings, here.

Click to expand...

With Paul's use of tongues, where he always employs glossa (which is the same word as the physical organ of the tongue), in Rom 3:13; 4:11 and Php 2:11 it refers to how the physical organ of the tongue is being used to convey intelligible speech. In First Corinthians it is always connected with how the Holy Spirit speaks through the Believer which is always directed to the Father through inarticulate-unintelligible language/communication.

In 1 Cor 14:21 Paul employs the Greek ἑτερογλώσσοις heteroglossis (GK2280/SC2084) to refer to how the invading Assyrians were using "other tongues" to give orders to the confused Jews.

Biblicist said:

I would have thought that the dilimna that you have created here would have been obvious; how could 20 speak in Syrian (Farsi?) and at the same time "utter mysteries and talking to God" when the other 19 Syrians would be able to fully understand what was being said?

Click to expand...

Because no one other than the other Syrians would have understood them... Doesn't the notion of "interpretation" imply that?

Aelred of Rievaulx said:

Because no one other than the other Syrians would have understood them... Doesn't the notion of "interpretation" imply that?

Click to expand...

That would be the same as "because no one other than the other Greeks could understand", where someone who understood both Greek and maybe 'Ubuntu' had to translate for the 'Ubuntu' speaker who could not understand Greek.

When Paul said in 1Cor 14:2 "that no man could understand...; he did not mean that only a few could or that maybe a particular group of people who shared a common dialect could understand, when Paul said, oudeis, keine, nyet, אַף לֹא אֶחָד aucun, he meant absolutely none, which included that of the speaker whom he instructed in 14:13 to pray for an articulation-interpretation once he provided a word of praise to the Father.

All through Pauls writings regarding the nature of tongues, he never provides us within a hint or a suggestion that when the Spirit prays through us to the Father, that they will be in anything but inarticullate and unintelligible sounds that absolutely no man will be able to comprehend unless the Holy Spirit (not a Wycliffe translator) but the Holy Spirit provides a subsequent articulation-interpretation.

Biblicist said:

That would be the same as "because no one other than the other Greeks could understand", where someone who understood both Greek and maybe 'Ubuntu' had to translate for the 'Ubuntu' speaker who could not understand Greek.

When Paul said in 1Cor 14:2 "that no man could understand...; he did not mean that only a few could or that maybe a particular group of people who shared a common dialect could understand, when Paul said, oudeis, keine, nyet, אַף לֹא אֶחָד aucun, he meant absolutely none, which included that of the speaker whom he instructed in 14:13 to pray for an articulation-interpretation once he provided a word of praise to the Father.

Click to expand...

OK... So either you're right and some weird babbling practice was part of the Christian tradition and subsequently lost for millennia before being rediscovered in Azusa Street or I'm right and Paul was saying "Hey guys, keep the Mass intelligible"...