Assembly of God and Tongues

[Bob Carabbio]

My apologies to you.

Your post said....
"However the REAL evidence of the "Enduement of Power" would be (drum roll) POWER IN MINISTRY!!!!!

That to me seemed to be saying that tongues were for the ministry. It still says that to me by the way.

If that is not the case and offened you, I am sorry.

If the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (to use AG vernacular) were an Automobile, then "Tongues", are like the "Hood Ornament".

Tongues are Visible, Irritating to folks who oppose them, and "attention getting" (as in Acts 2:4). Everybody has an "Opinion about them", but everybody ignores the Automobile itself, and obsesses about the "Hood Ornament" as though it was the MOST SIGNIFICANT PART of the automobile.

Simple as that.

 

[Biblicist]

If the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (to use AG vernacular) were an Automobile, then "Tongues", are like the "Hood Ornament".

Tongues are Visible, Irritating to folks who oppose them, and "attention getting" (as in Acts 2:4). Everybody has an "Opinion about them", but everybody ignores the Automobile itself, and obsesses about the "Hood Ornament" as though it was the MOST SIGNIFICANT PART of the automobile.

Simple as that.

Bob, even though we disagree as to how we receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, I would imagine that every classic-Pentecostal and non classic-Pentecostal would give their full wholehearted agreement to your analogy.

It is hard to understand why anyone after having taken an honest look into the Scriptures, that they would not want to be able to offer praise to the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, where our new heavenly tongue is a foretaste of the future Kingdom of God which is now but not yet.

 

[swordsman1]

where our new heavenly tongue is a foretaste of the future Kingdom of God which is now but not yet.

Where in scripture does it say tongues is a heavenly language?

 

[Major1]

If the "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (to use AG vernacular) were an Automobile, then "Tongues", are like the "Hood Ornament".

Tongues are Visible, Irritating to folks who oppose them, and "attention getting" (as in Acts 2:4). Everybody has an "Opinion about them", but everybody ignores the Automobile itself, and obsesses about the "Hood Ornament" as though it was the MOST SIGNIFICANT PART of the automobile.

Simple as that.

So then, if I stood in my garage you would then be able to call me an automobile......correct????

Bob. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing. It is all about what God actually did say and whether or not we obey it or do what we want to do because someone told us it was OK to do it.

1 Corin. 13:8..........
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."

1 Corinthians 14:22......
" Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; however, is not for unbelievers but for believers."

I do not have to work to explain those passages. I do not have to look up what a Bible commentator has to say about those words. I do not have to go to an internet web site to read what it says.

I simply read what the Word of God says and I either believe it or make up an explanation that conforms to what I want it to say and what I want to do. It is actually that simple.

 

[Uber Genius]

Assembly of God believes that speaking in tongues is the evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are they right?

"8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

• Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.

• 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV]
• 1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]"

This section above comes from Fundamental Truths (Full Statement) part 8 on the AG.org website.

Amazingly they quote 1 Cor. 12:28 in support but neglect the following verses (29 and 30) which read, "
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret?"

This has been documented as a knock-down argument for the tongues as evidence view. Many have rightly articulated this same problem. One difference though, I pray in tongues at least weekly, sometimes daily. Remember that the gifts are given to build up and edify the body of believers, tongues without interpretation, is a notable exception. It is for edifying the individual. Paul claims, "He prays in tongues more than you all." So he does not think it is useless or for the immature Christian only. But it has a place and the AOG position seems difficult to justify.

 

[Major1]

"8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

• Acts 2:4 [KJV/NIV]

The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use.

• 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 [KJV/NIV]
• 1 Corinthians 12:28 [KJV/NIV]"

This section above comes from Fundamental Truths (Full Statement) part 8 on the AG.org website.

Amazingly they quote 1 Cor. 12:28 in support but neglect the following verses (29 and 30) which read, "
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues[d]? Do all interpret?"

This has been documented as a knock-down argument for the tongues as evidence view. Many have rightly articulated this same problem. One difference though, I pray in tongues at least weekly, sometimes daily. Remember that the gifts are given to build up and edify the body of believers, tongues without interpretation, is a notable exception. It is for edifying the individual. Paul claims, "He prays in tongues more than you all." So he does not think it is useless or for the immature Christian only. But it has a place and the AOG position seems difficult to justify.

The problem with your comment is that the tongues spoken in Acts were not gibberish. They were known languages which the people there heard in their own language. I am amazed at how easily we discount these words in the Scriptures by those who want to speak in an utterance or gibberish which no one ever interprets.
It is impossible to correctly do the proper exegesis of Acts 2 and come away with the opinion that the tongues then are what is seen today in the AOG.

Acts 2:6-11........
" And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

 

[Uber Genius]

"The problem with your comment is that the tongues spoken in Acts were not gibberish."

I can see that you have little to know experience with people speaking in tongues.

I had a friend (30 years ago) who felt like you. I invited them to attend church with me. A woman started praying in tongues and my friend turned and stared in amazement. Immediately following, a man stood up and interpreted. Again my friend look unusually surprised. After the service she ran (literally) to talk to the woman, and to my surprise engaged her in what I found out was greek. The woman was puzzled. She didn't understand what my friend was saying. Finally the woman pieced together that her tongue was in greek. My friend, spend several years in Greece and spoke it fluently. The woman had no idea her tongue was greek. She went off o tell her husband and friends. My friend pivoted and made a b-line for the man who had interpreted. She greeted him in greek. He too was puzzled. My friend said, "you interpreted that woman's statement perfectly." He said how do you know, she replied, "That woman spoke greek and you interpreted." "Oh, I. Had no idea what she was saying the words just form in english as I began to speak."

These are actual languages. Mine sounds African but I. Have yet to have anyone who hears it know the actual language. By the way, gibberish sounds like... Gibberish! Not a language. Maybe you have seen too many movie portrayals of actors faking it. Hope this helps.

 

[Major1]

"The problem with your comment is that the tongues spoken in Acts were not gibberish."

I can see that you have little to know experience with people speaking in tongues.

I had a friend (30 years ago) who felt like you. I invited them to attend church with me. A woman started praying in tongues and my friend turned and stared in amazement. Immediately following, a man stood up and interpreted. Again my friend look unusually surprised. After the service she ran (literally) to talk to the woman, and to my surprise engaged her in what I found out was greek. The woman was puzzled. She didn't understand what my friend was saying. Finally the woman pieced together that her tongue was in greek. My friend, spend several years in Greece and spoke it fluently. The woman had no idea her tongue was greek. She went off o tell her husband and friends. My friend pivoted and made a b-line for the man who had interpreted. She greeted him in greek. He too was puzzled. My friend said, "you interpreted that woman's statement perfectly." He said how do you know, she replied, "That woman spoke greek and you interpreted." "Oh, I. Had no idea what she was saying the words just form in english as I began to speak."

These are actual languages. Mine sounds African but I. Have yet to have anyone who hears it know the actual language. By the way, gibberish sounds like... Gibberish! Not a language. Maybe you have seen too many movie portrayals of actors faking it. Hope this helps.

I am afraid you are mistaken. I spent years in the Pentecostal church. What I post and explain is WHAT I HAVE SCEEN!

What you described actually happen once in my life and it was a man who spoke in Portuguese. That was the one and only time it happened. 99.9 % of the time it is always several people (Usually women) speaking in gibberish and no can interpret because it is not a language at all.

What I have seen is actual people faking tongues so that they can look and sound as "spiritual" as the people around them.

 

[Biblicist]

Whenever I hear cessationists, I wonder why my Christian experience is so different from theirs. In 1975 and when I was 16, I was baptized. They insisted I speak in tongues, but I was unable to. I was given my prayer language in 2000. I didn't ask for it, at least not then. I was at a 5 day retreat and alone in my room when it happened. Receiving it was a small part of what God did with me that day. Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad He gave it to me. I ministered with music for years and was known to be anointed, which I was, but I didn't have my prayer language for years. This tells me that when one is initially baptized with the Holy Spirit, tongues is not proof of it. It may be much of the time, but not in my case. I had one scripture only guy tell me online that I didn't want the glamour of tongues. I'm not sure what he meant by that, but when I received it I was at a low point in my life. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. I don't try to change anyone's mind about this; I'll leave that up to God. I just hate to think of all the people who are missing out on Spiritual gifts. I would suggest that these people seek God about it. Or is hearing from God outside of the bible something you don't believe? Anyway, have a good one. Peace.

My own situation has a parallel to your own, where admittedly my inability to be able to pray in the Spirit was not so much with years but hours. I was invited to an FGBMFI meeting where I was later prayed for by some very well meaning and enthusiastic individuals within a group setting, but maybe I was feeling a bit self-conscious as I left the meeting certainly impressed with what I observed but I was unable to speak in tongues. About four hours later I was sitting in my car waiting for someone to come out of a store and during those minutes while I was pondering over the mornings events before the Lord, I simply began to speak in tongues. From what I have observed over the years, it seems that we very inconsistent humans can at times get in the way of the Spirit where maybe we ‘try’ to hard or have unrealistic expectations.

The following chart does not relate to your own situation, but it may help to explain why some have differing experiences or understandings to our own, where the chart is not about spirituality but about spiritual cognisance, where our spiritual state and our spiritual cognisance do not always correlate with each other – again, we humans can be very, very inconsistent where our inconsistency is something that we are actually consistent with!

​

Hardcore cessationism

For those Believers and churchgoers who have been raised within a denominational system that essentially stands formally against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, then it can be easy for anyone who resides within such a cultural environment to be blinded to the Word of God, for that matter, we can all be blinded to various degrees no matter who we are.

For these people everything seems to be against them and unless they have a spiritual ear to hear and an eye to see then they will unknowingly continue down this pathway.

There are others who have been rejected by a Full Gospel congregation, where some may have refused to repent from certain serious sin to the point where they not only reject any admonition that has been sent their way by some Elders but they have also turned their back on the Word and even the Lord for a safer and less threatening environment. There are also those who have been unjustly treated by a Full Gospel congregation and due to their immaturity, instead of moving to another congregation (providing there is one nearby), they may have been unable to shake off the dust from the feet where they should have found another congregation.

Open-but-Cautious

Since the 1980’s this very hard to define category probably covers many millions within the contemporary Church, where they are neither cessationist nor experientially Continuist. With the first sub-category of the “Uneasy Cessationist”, this type of cessationist is one who may reside within a denomination or congregation that formally rejects the position that the Holy Spirit’s ministry to both the Church and through the individual Believer is the same today as it was in the Church of the first few centuries. As they reside within what we would deem to be a hostile environment, where their family and many long-time friends may belong or where they may even receive a stipend from such a church, then it can be traumatic for some to embrace the Full Gospel as they can feel that the sacrifice may be too great. Even though I can understand the trauma that they can go through, I don’t really think that it will be a great excuse to use before the Lord. This means that they are not so much vocally against the Full Gospel but due to their fears they have chosen to remain quiet.

When it comes to those who are “Theologically Continuist” but where most Pentecostals would deem them as being “experientially cessationist”, this category in itself has various levels, where many theologians who fall into this category can sound if they are more Pentecostal than are some Pentecostals. In fact I find theologians such as Alan F. Johnson who fits into this category to be a superb example of someone who is obviously theologically Continuist but as with many others within this category they are happy to accept and embrace the Word of God as it stand, but for whatever reasons they have chosen to keep to their denominations way of doing things – they really are a fascinating group to observe.

On the chart you will notice that this category moves into the Full Gospel category, as there are Pentecostals or at least individuals who attend a Pentecostal congregation who themselves may not be experientially Full Gospel.

In fact, I would recommend the supposed “cessationist” Alan Johnson’s book 1 Corinthians (2004) to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of chapters 12, 13 & 14.

Full Gospel categories -

Pentecostal:
Anyone who connects the Salvific (our initial conversion-initiation) where we are ALL baptised in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This does NOT imply that one has to speak in tongues to be saved but merely that the normative Biblical experience for someone who gives repents and gives their heart to the Lord is that they should be taught and encouraged to either immediately or quickly seek to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues).

Classic-Pentecostal:
This is the classic view of the early Pentecostal church (such as the AoG) where they believe that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to our initial conversion-initiation experience.

Charismatic:
The early Evangelical charismatic movement of the 1960’s and 70’s tended to hold to the classic-Pentecostal understanding of the BHS, whereas the Reformed and Roman Catholic charismatics saw their sacraments etc as being the benchmark for receiving the Spirit.

Neo-Charismatic:
This is a complicated category as the neo-charismatic evolved from the earlier charismatic movement where it can often by more “open-but-cautious”, where it attempts to produce a blend of traditional Evangelicalism with the things of the Spirit.

 

[Biblicist]

Where in scripture does it say tongues is a heavenly language?

Is this a serious question or are you just being silly as I know full well that you are well aware of the Biblical foundations for tongues being a heavenly language.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Where in scripture does it say tongues is a heavenly language?

Right Here:


Want to see it again???

 

[Biblicist]

So, the way to discover the continuationist case for this passage is to spend a fortune buying those books?

Having come to the Lord within a cessationist congregation and within a broader domain of cessationism, my own interests began as a newbie 17 year old Christian, which was before the Internet, Satellite TV and it was even a year before we had colour TV. In fact, it took another decade or so in 1978 that I encounterd my first Pentecostal scholar (Gordon Fee) at a national conference at our church; up until this time most Pentecostals thought that theologians were not raised so much in seminaries but grown in cemeteries.

This means that as a newbie who only had his Bible at hand, I quickly became aware that there was a huge disparity between what I was reading in the Bible with what I was seeing within the broader State wide youth scene that I was heavily involved within. It was not until about 18 months after my conversion that I began to gain a better understanding of God's Word which culminated in a FGBMFI mens breakfast where the pennies began to drop.

So if I could figure things out without the need of commentaries and serious theological input, then in my opinion this leaves everyone else who rejects the Full Gospel with absolutely no excuse, particularly as the Full Gospel has gained the theological high-ground since at least the mid 90's. Of course, it helps that the expensive commentaries and lexicons that I purchase support the Full Gospel, such as with briliant books on First Corinthians by the supposed "cessationist" Alan F. Johnson and with others.

 

[Biblicist]

I am afraid you are mistaken. I spent years in the Pentecostal church. What I post and explain is WHAT I HAVE SCEEN!

What you described actually happen once in my life and it was a man who spoke in Portuguese. That was the one and only time it happened. 99.9 % of the time it is always several people (Usually women) speaking in gibberish and no can interpret because it is not a language at all.

What I have seen is actual people faking tongues so that they can look and sound as "spiritual" as the people around them.

That must have been a really . . . really "interesting" congregation! What was their position regarding the Baptism in the Holy Spirit?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Right Here:


Want to see it again???

Yep, exactly as I thought.

 

[Biblicist]

Yep, exactly as I thought.

Are you serious, are you saying that you have not encountered the who knows how many forum threads and posts that have discussed 1Cor 13:1? For that matter, there would hardly be a commentary on First Corinthians that has not addressed this matter as well. I can only presume that those who say that they are not aware of 1Cor 13:1 are doing so merely as a feint.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are you serious, are you saying that you have not encountered the who knows how many forum threads and posts that have discussed 1Cor 13:1? For that matter, there would hardly be a commentary on First Corinthians that has not addressed this matter as well. I can only presume that those who say that they are not aware of 1Cor 13:1 are doing so merely as a feint.

Interestingly, there is a group of German churches which conduct their services entirely in English although none of them use English in any other context. That is because the German word for "angels" is very similar to "English". Therefore, based on I Corinthians 13:1 they have concluded that God's language is English (not Hebrew, Greek, or even Latin). There is nothing like false eisegesis to throw a wrench into one's theology.

 

[swordsman1]

Are you serious, are you saying that you have not encountered the who knows how many forum threads and posts that have discussed 1Cor 13:1? For that matter, there would hardly be a commentary on First Corinthians that has not addressed this matter as well. I can only presume that those who say that they are not aware of 1Cor 13:1 are doing so merely as a feint.

You still think Paul spoke in the language of angels? I've lost count of the number of times I have had to explain this verse.

Neither Paul nor anyone else spoke in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically to make the point that having even the most ultimate form of the gift is worthless without love. If you look at the context of that verse it is obvious what Paul means. This verse forms one of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the superiority of love over the spiritual gifts:

1 Cor 13:1-3
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​

Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. Paul is saying that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be to no avail. It is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figures of speech to make his point.

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? Obviously not.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he literally speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally.

There is only one type of tongues described in scripture - foreign human languages as defined in Acts 2:4-11. Nowhere is it redefined as an angelic language or anything else.

 

[Ron Coates]

My own situation has a parallel to your own, where admittedly my inability to be able to pray in the Spirit was not so much with years but hours. I was invited to an FGBMFI meeting where I was later prayed for by some very well meaning and enthusiastic individuals within a group setting, but maybe I was feeling a bit self-conscious as I left the meeting certainly impressed with what I observed but I was unable to speak in tongues. About four hours later I was sitting in my car waiting for someone to come out of a store and during those minutes while I was pondering over the mornings events before the Lord, I simply began to speak in tongues. From what I have observed over the years, it seems that we very inconsistent humans can at times get in the way of the Spirit where maybe we ‘try’ to hard or have unrealistic expectations.

The following chart does not relate to your own situation, but it may help to explain why some have differing experiences or understandings to our own, where the chart is not about spirituality but about spiritual cognisance, where our spiritual state and our spiritual cognisance do not always correlate with each other – again, we humans can be very, very inconsistent where our inconsistency is something that we are actually consistent with!
Hi. Thanks for the info. I think I'm more in the middle than the right. I'm actually really careful with what I believe. I know there's many who mean well but have faulty understanding. Then there are some whose goal is to deceive. There are our spiritual enemies. And last but not least, there's my lying heart. I see myself as a disciple of Christ and have walked out the daily cross for 16+ years. I've been asking God what He's going to teach me next. Maybe it's to learn about cessationism. I don't know much about it except for what you gave me. Thanks again. Peace.

View attachment 183382
​

Hardcore cessationism

For those Believers and churchgoers who have been raised within a denominational system that essentially stands formally against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit, then it can be easy for anyone who resides within such a cultural environment to be blinded to the Word of God, for that matter, we can all be blinded to various degrees no matter who we are.

For these people everything seems to be against them and unless they have a spiritual ear to hear and an eye to see then they will unknowingly continue down this pathway.

There are others who have been rejected by a Full Gospel congregation, where some may have refused to repent from certain serious sin to the point where they not only reject any admonition that has been sent their way by some Elders but they have also turned their back on the Word and even the Lord for a safer and less threatening environment. There are also those who have been unjustly treated by a Full Gospel congregation and due to their immaturity, instead of moving to another congregation (providing there is one nearby), they may have been unable to shake off the dust from the feet where they should have found another congregation.

Open-but-Cautious

Since the 1980’s this very hard to define category probably covers many millions within the contemporary Church, where they are neither cessationist nor experientially Continuist. With the first sub-category of the “Uneasy Cessationist”, this type of cessationist is one who may reside within a denomination or congregation that formally rejects the position that the Holy Spirit’s ministry to both the Church and through the individual Believer is the same today as it was in the Church of the first few centuries. As they reside within what we would deem to be a hostile environment, where their family and many long-time friends may belong or where they may even receive a stipend from such a church, then it can be traumatic for some to embrace the Full Gospel as they can feel that the sacrifice may be too great. Even though I can understand the trauma that they can go through, I don’t really think that it will be a great excuse to use before the Lord. This means that they are not so much vocally against the Full Gospel but due to their fears they have chosen to remain quiet.

When it comes to those who are “Theologically Continuist” but where most Pentecostals would deem them as being “experientially cessationist”, this category in itself has various levels, where many theologians who fall into this category can sound if they are more Pentecostal than are some Pentecostals. In fact I find theologians such as Alan F. Johnson who fits into this category to be a superb example of someone who is obviously theologically Continuist but as with many others within this category they are happy to accept and embrace the Word of God as it stand, but for whatever reasons they have chosen to keep to their denominations way of doing things – they really are a fascinating group to observe.

On the chart you will notice that this category moves into the Full Gospel category, as there are Pentecostals or at least individuals who attend a Pentecostal congregation who themselves may not be experientially Full Gospel.

In fact, I would recommend the supposed “cessationist” Alan Johnson’s book 1 Corinthians (2004) to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of chapters 12, 13 & 14.

Full Gospel categories -

Pentecostal:
Anyone who connects the Salvific (our initial conversion-initiation) where we are ALL baptised in the Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This does NOT imply that one has to speak in tongues to be saved but merely that the normative Biblical experience for someone who gives repents and gives their heart to the Lord is that they should be taught and encouraged to either immediately or quickly seek to be able to pray in the Spirit (tongues).

Classic-Pentecostal:
This is the classic view of the early Pentecostal church (such as the AoG) where they believe that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to our initial conversion-initiation experience.

Charismatic:
The early Evangelical charismatic movement of the 1960’s and 70’s tended to hold to the classic-Pentecostal understanding of the BHS, whereas the Reformed and Roman Catholic charismatics saw their sacraments etc as being the benchmark for receiving the Spirit.

Neo-Charismatic:
This is a complicated category as the neo-charismatic evolved from the earlier charismatic movement where it can often by more “open-but-cautious”, where it attempts to produce a blend of traditional Evangelicalism with the things of the Spirit.

 

[Biblicist]

Yep, exactly as I thought.

Let me help some of you to come up to speed with a discussion that has been strongly discussed across the entirety of Christendom from at least the 1970's . . . where have you chappies been?

The following are brief excerpts from various commentaries:


The Charismatics, John MacArthur 1978

A key question arises at this point. What did Paul mean by the “tongues of men and of angels?’’ What is the gift of languages? There is much disagreement today on these questions. I believe, however, that the Bible is exceedingly clear on what this gift was. And the best place to go is to the first mention of tongues in Acts 2.​

Acts 2:1-11 describes the great day of Pentecost, the birthday of the church. There was a sound like a mighty rushing wind. Cloven tongues like fire seemed to appear on the disciples. And they spoke in other languages. The Greek word used in this passage is glossa, the normative Greek word for “language.” Many within the Charismatic movement today claim that the gift of tongues is a “private prayer language,” ecstatic uttering in a language known only to God.​

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee 1987

That the Corinthians at least, and probably Paul, thought of tongues as the language(s) of angels seems highly likely—for two reasons: (1) There is some evidence from Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly language (or dialects) and that by means of the “Spirit” one could speak these dialects. Thus in the Testament of Job 48-50 Job’s three daughters are given “charismatic sashes” 22 when these were put on they allowed Hemera, for example, to speak “ecstatically in the angelic dialect, sending up a hymn to God with the hymnic style of the angels. And as she spoke ecstatically, she allowed ‘The Spirit’ to be inscribed on her garment.”23 Such an understanding of heavenly speech may also lie behind the language of 1 Cor. 14:2 (“speak mysteries by the Spirit”). (2) As has been argued elsewhere 24 one can make a good deal of sense of the Corinthian view of “spirituality” if they believed that they had already entered into some expression of angelic existence.​

God's Empowering Presence, Gordon D. Fee 1994

1 This opening sentence is the reason for the entire argument: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.” One may be quite sure that the Corinthians believed they were; indeed, this best accounts for the sudden shift to the first person singular (cf. 14:14-15).43/ On its own this could mean nothing more than "speak eloquently,” as some have argued and as it is popularly understood. But since it is not on its own, but follows directly out of 12:28-30 and anticipates 14:1-25, most likely this is either Paul’s or their understanding (or both) of “speaking in tongues.” “Tongues of men” would then refer to human speech,437 438 inspired of the Spirit but unknown to the speaker; “tongues of angels” would reflect an understanding that the tongues-speaker was communicating in the dialect(s) of heaven.
​

1 Corinthians, Alan F. Johnson 2004

ul’s first conditional thesis, If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels (v. 1), alludes to the manifestation of tongues inspired by the Spirit (12:10; 14:1-40). “Tongues of angels” may be the Corinthians’ term for some kinds of tongues manifestations, but that does not seem to be Paul’s view. In any case this obscure reference should not be made the focus of any theory or practice about “tongues,” as did Edward Irving in the early nineteenth century. Irving’s theory was that foreign language tongues that were unknown to the speaker were the “tongues of men,” while those utterances that could not be paralleled in any known human language were the “tongues of angels” (Knox 1950:552-53). That tongues were a highly prized Spirit manifestation among the Corinthians is clearly evidenced by the lengthy attention Paul gives to correcting their abuses in chapter 14. Yet not even this highly prized gift, if it is not manifested with Christian love, can produce authentic Christlike character.​

The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts-Ephesians. Darrell Bock p.294 (2006)

(glossais ... kai ton angeldn)—Given the references to tongues in 12:28, 30; 13:8 and the fifteen occurrences in chapter 14, this expression is probably a reference to the supernatural gift of tongues. Yet, it is not entirely clear whether Paul or the Corinthians (or both) thought that the gift of tongues was the dialects of angels (see Blomberg, 259; Garland, 611; Hays, 223, who see this as likely; cf. Fee, 630, who is “quite sure” that this was the case).​

1 Corinthians, Ciampa & Rosner 2010

13: 1 This verse has played a remarkable role in some modern discussions of the viewpoints of the Corinthians and their theological problems. Those who conclude that the Corinthians were suffering from an overrealized eschatology have found in this verse a hint that they may have thought that by speaking in tongues they were already participating in angelic experience as all believers would upon the resurrection from the dead. This thought, that some Corinthians aspired to or imagined themselves to be participating in angelic life and experience, is also considered to be related to their abstinence from sexual relationships (7:1), among other things.22 We find the texts employed in support of such interpretations to have more convincing interpretations that do not depend on overrealized eschatology as the key background issue.

Some interpreters have suggested that by speaking in human or angelic tongues Paul refers to "sublime oratory," picking up on the theme of wise and lofty speech from the first two chapters. 23
​

And to sample a few more:

• Keep in Step with the Spirit, p.207 (1985)
• 1 Corinthians, Leon Morris p.175 (1985)
• 1 Corinthians, Prior p.229 (1985)
  
• 1 Corinthians, Kistemaker p.452 (1993)
• 1 Corinthians, Barnett p.243 (2000)

Edit: I forgot to add in the obligatory commentary of Gordon Fee (1987), now rectified.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The following are brief excerpts from various commentaries: - bla, bal, bla

Which are totally meaningless, since the MESSAGE AND CONTEXT of the verse, and the following chapter is: (drum roll) It doesn't matter SPIT what you say, how you say it, or what "Miracles you perform" - if it's not done out of LOVE - then NO Brownie points for you!!!!!!

Paul NEVER SAYS the "Tongues" are "Heavenly Languages" (as opposed to terrestrial languages) and foolish attempts to use 1 Cor 13:1 to prove ANYTHING about them are just ridiculous. The KEY WORD IS: "IF".