(1) Find even one commentary that claims that the tongues spoken in
Acts 10:44-47 were either understood by the hearers or interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation.
There are many commentators who take the view that the tongues in Acts 10 was identical to Pentecost because Peter's party noted that the gentiles were speaking in tongues and "magnifying God" in the same way as the disciples were at Pentecost. The Greek phrase for "magnifying God" (μεγαλυνόντων τὸν Θεόνin) is very similar to "declaring the mighty works of God" (μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ). Evidently someone in the party must have recognized the language to know they were magnifying God in tongues.
F F Bruce - Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester
The Book of Acts
The descent of the Spirit on those Gentiles was outwardly manifested in much the same way as it had been when the original disciples received the Spirit at Pentecost: they spoke with tongues and proclaimed the might works of God. ["Magnifying God" (μεγαλυνόντων τὸν Θεόν) in v.46 is synonymous with "declaring the mighty works of God" (λαλούντων ... τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ Θεοῦ) in 2:11.]
James Dunn - Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham,
Beginning from Jerusalem: Christianity in the Making
The particular evidence mentioned is their speaking in tongues and extolling God. The double echo of the experience and event of Pentecost is obviosuly deliberate. What happened to Cornelius and his companions was manifestly no different from what had happened to the first disciples on the day of Pentecost. How could 'the faithful from circumcision' affirm the one and deny the other? They couldn't.
Mal Couch - president of the Tyndale Theological Seminary
A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles
Acts 10:44-48 refers to foreign languages because (1) Luke uses the same words to describe the phenomenon as in Acts 2:4, 11; (2) the listeners could not have understood that Cornelius and his household were magnifying God unless they understood them; (3) in Peter's subsequent report to the Jerusalem church, he said that the Gentiles had received the "like gift" (11:17) and that "the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as upon us at the beginning" (11:15). This refers to the experience at Pentecost. This likeness of experience extends not only to the Spirit but also to the nature of tongues speaking in foreign languages.
Eckhard J. Schnabel - Professor of New Testament Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.
Acts
The fact that Cornelius and his household had received the Holy Spirit as a gift from the Lord could not be doubted since they suddenly spoke in unlearned languages, praising God. The last comment Suggests that Hebrew or Aramaic was among the languages being spoken-languages that Cornelius or Some of his friends may not have been able to speak but languages that Peter and his friends from Joppa would have understood. Luke does not say that all the assembled Gentiles spoke in tongues; it is possible some spoke in unlearned languages while others experienced invasive praise."
I.Howard Marshall - Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
The Acts of the Apostles
There could be no mistake about what had happened. Just as the first Jewish beleivers had received the Spirit and praised God in other tongues on the day of Pentecost, so now these Gentiles received the identical gift of God.
...
Peter's comment brings out the fact that the experience of the Gentile converts was the same as that of the original recipients of the Spirit at the beginning, i.e. on the day of Pentecost. It is significant that he compares the experience of the Gentiles with that of the group in the upper room, rather than with that of the first converts from Jusaism: there is nothing that might suggest a status as 'second-class citizens' for the Gentiles.
vanThanh Nguyen - Professor of New Testament Studies at Catholic Theological Union.
The description of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles is very similar to that of Pentecost (2:1-4).' The wording is strikingly the same-the "gift” of the Holy Spirit (as in 2:38), being "poured out” (2:17), "speaking in tongues and praising God" (2:4, 11). The narrator clearly wants the reader "to recall the Pentecost scene and acknowledge that Gentiles have been chosen by God to receive the same gift and the same power as Jesus' first followers received at the beginning of their mission.' Thus what happened to Cornelius and his household was no different from what happened to the first disciples on the day of Pentecost. Furthermore, Luke demonstrates that "receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is essential to being a Christian, as is belief in Jesus as the Christ and Lord of all.'
The effect of the Holy Spirit, in particular the glossolalia, was so visible and so obvious that neither Peter nor the circumcised believers could doubt or deny it. Obviously God had accepted the Gentile Cornelius and his household. This event will therefore become an irrefutable test case for Peter to convince the Jerusalem church to fully accept Gentiles and to integrate them into the Christian community.'
(2) Find even one commentary that rejects the obvious claim that the glossolalia in Acts 2 is the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28.
I checked well over a dozen major commentaries and not one of them claimed the tongues at Pentecost was prophecy (Barret, Bock, Bruce, Peterson, Stott, Keener, etc).
(3) Find even one commentary that rejects the implication in 14:28 that private glossolalia is permissible.
Robert Thomas - Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA
Understanding Spiritual Gifts
The last half of verse 28 explains how the tongues speaker was to keep silent in church. The suggestion that “speak to himself and to God” deals with private activity is not plausible in a context devoted to public worship, which is the general theme of 11:2–14:40. Particularly, 14:28 itself is regulatory of activities in the church, not of those in private. The meaning of verse 28b is thus, "Let him keep silent in the church, and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only." This required the tongues speaker to meditate quietly on what his own mind could grasp of the tongues message that he might otherwise have given publicly—had an interpreter been present—thereby deriving for himself whatever edifying benefit he could. “Speaking to oneself and to God” was a proverbial expression for meditation. The guideline calls upon the would be tongues speaker, out of consideration for the rest of the congregation, to engage in such a contemplative activity rather than speak up in the absence of an interpreter and do something that had no benefit whatever for anyone else in the audience. Paul has devoted extensive discussion earlier in the chapter to the fruitlessness of tongues apart from interpretation (vv. 6–11, 14, 16–17), and in verse 28, he is explicit in ruling out tongues under such conditions.
The question of whether the de in 14:28b is adversative or explanatory is significant. In the former case it would contrast public tongues with private tongues, whereas in the latter it would introduce an explanation of how the tongues speaker is to keep silent in the church.... The other explanation of verse 28b is that laleito refers to inaudible utterances ; &dquo;Let him keep silent in church [and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only.&dquo; The greater plausibility of this view is seen by the way en ekklesiai ’ (&dquo;in the church&dquo
continues its force from verse 28a. Wherever the silence is located is the same place where the speaking to oneself and to God is to transpire.... Since the context of 11:2-14:40 has public surroundings in view and makes no clear reference to private activities, de in an explanatory sense is the preferable interpretation.
Mark Taylor - Professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Corinthians
The phrase "to be silent" in church recalls Paul's previous desire to speak five intelligible words "in church" rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (14:19). Some think this presupposes that the appropriate venue for speaking in tongues apart from interpretation is privately at home, much in the same way that Paul advises to eat and drink at home (11:22) and instructs wives to ask questions of their husbands at home (14:35) rather than to speak shamefully "in church."561. Paul is not as specific, however, regarding tongues. He does not mention doing this at home but only that that speaker must be silent in church and speak to himself and to God. The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are corporate gifts distributed by the Spirit for the common good (12:7-11). Furthermore, Paul argues that edification cannot occur apart from comprehension (14:13–17). It is unlikely that Paul means, "Let Him speak to himself and to God without comprehension."
O Palmer Robertson - former professor at Knox Theological Seminary.
The Final Word
Yet one other verse must be analysed carefully with respect to the possibility of ‘private’ gifts in the church. For 1 Corinthians 14:28 states that if no ‘interpreter’ is present to provide the meaning of an utterance spoken in a tongue, then the speaker must keep silent in the church, and must ‘speak to himself and to God’. Does not this statement appear to endorse a private gift which does not function publicly in the church?
If approached in a certain way, this verse admittedly would appear to endorse the privatisation of the gift of tongues-speaking. If no interpreter is present, the tongues-speaker should ‘speak to himself and to God’.
But further consideration would not appear to lend support to this position. For the whole point of the passage is to provide orderly control of multiple gifts as they function in the church. ‘Two or at the most three’ should speak in tongues, and someone must interpret (verse 27). In a similar way, ‘two or three prophets’ should speak, and the others should discriminate (verse 29). The whole context deals with the orderly functioning of gifts within the assembly. In the context of this precise discussion, Paul makes the point that the tongues-speaker without an interpreter is to remain silent, speaking to himself and to God (verse 28). The two actions are simultaneous. As he restrains himself until an interpreter is present, he speaks within himself while communing with God.
The question is not whether the gift of tongues should function in private or in public. Instead, the question is when the gift of tongues may function in the assembly, and the answer is that tongues may function properly in the church only when an interpreter is present. From the comment in verse 31 that ‘all can prophesy’ in due time, it may be assumed that the same principle would hold for tongues. As soon as an interpreter is present, the utterance may be delivered. But in the meantime, the tongues-speaker must manifest patience in the assembly, just like the prophet. For the spirits of all prophets are subject to the orderly control of prophets.
In any case, the context presumes the public functioning of the gifts. The verbal gifts of tongues and prophecy are intended for the whole community, not merely for an individual to exercise in private. A person may justify the private exercise of ‘tongues’ from personal experience. He may testify to the fact that he derives great relief from tension through letting his vocalisations in prayer run ahead of his rational processes. His ‘prayer-language’ is to him a ‘gift’ from God that helps him cope with life today.
But in the end, experience must be judged by Scripture, and not vice versa.
(4) Find even one commentary that rejects Paul's gratitude that he speaks in tongues "more than you all" (14:18) as celebration of glossolalia that he utters in private.
J. I. Packer
Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God
But one thing is clear: prima facie, Paul is discussing public use of tongues throughout 1 Corinthians 13-14, and it is neither necessary nor natural to refer any of his statements to glossolalia as a private exercise. Charismatics often explain 14:4 ("he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself...") and 18 ("... I speak in tongues more than you all") in terms of private glossolalic prayer, but exegetically this is a guess that is not only unprovable but not in fact very plausible. It involves a gratuitous modeling of first-century experience on the charismatics' own ("Paul and the Corinthians must have been like us"); furthermore, it is hard to believe that in verse 4 Paul can mean that glossolalists who do not know what they are saying will yet edify themselves, when in verse 5 he denies that the listening church can be edified unless it knows what they are saying.' But if in verse 4 Paul has in view tongues speakers who understand their tongues, today's charismatics cannot regard his words as giving them any encouragement, for they confessedly do not understand their own glossolalia. And the supposition that these verses relate to private glossolalia cannot in any case be supported from Paul's flow of thought, to which private glossolalia is irrelevant. This supposition can be read into the text, as so much else can in these chapters, but not read out of it.
Robert Thomas - Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA
Understanding Spiritual Gifts
14:18—Legitimacy of tongues ..... What was this more frequent use by Paul? Certainly it was not in Christian meetings, as verse 23 will point out. Nor was it in private, for this section of 1 Corinthians (chaps, 11–14) has to do with public matters. Furthermore, it is the nature of spiritual gifts that they render benefit to persons other than the one exercising the gift [1 Cor. 12:7, 25; 13:5-6; 14:12, 19, 26]. In light of that emphasis, Paul would hardly have set himself up as an example of claimed Superiority on the basis of his own selfish use of one of the gifts. That was the very thing he was combating among the Corinthians. The private use of Something intended for others is certainly nothing to boast about. Tongues' purpose was a public one, as 14:20–25 will shortly show (especially, V. 22).
It must, then, be in connection with a public ministry of some kind that Paul found occasion to exercise his own deep endowment of tongues. As the missionary apostle to the Gentiles, he frequently encountered new linguistic groups in his travels. Authenticating signs accompanied the ministry of one such as he [Rom. 15:18-19; 2 Cor. 12:12), and tongues was one of the signs. Upon hearing a foreigner speak their own language without ever studying it, the listeners would perceive the apostle's miraculous demonstration and be ready to give attention to his divinely verified presentation of the gospel [cf. Acts 2:1-13). It was for this purpose that Paul found ample room, even an indispensable place, for tongues. He used the gift extensively in this way [1 Cor. 14:22). That, however, was far different from the Corinthian habit of exhibiting their linguistic talents among themselves as a source of selfish Satisfaction.
14:19—Greatest effectiveness in the church. As opposed to his extensive use of tongues in other kinds of public gatherings, Paul's strong preference when addressing a Christian assemblage was to speak intelligibly to his listeners.”
Mark Taylor - Professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Corinthians
The phrase "to be silent" in church recalls Paul's previous desire to speak five intelligible words "in church" rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (14:19). Some think this presupposes that the appropriate venue for speaking in tongues apart from interpretation is privately at home, much in the same way that Paul advises to eat and drink at home (11:22) and instructs wives to ask questions of their husbands at home (14:35) rather than to speak shamefully "in church."561. Paul is not as specific, however, regarding tongues. He does not mention doing this at home but only that that speaker must be silent in church and speak to himself and to God. The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are corporate gifts distributed by the Spirit for the common good (12:7-11). Furthermore, Paul argues that edification cannot occur apart from comprehension (14:13–17). It is unlikely that Paul means, "Let Him speak to himself and to God without comprehension."
O Palmer Robertson - former professor at Knox Theological Seminary.
The Final Word
With this larger picture of the public nature of spiritual gifts in mind, consider more closely 1 Corinthians 14:18-19. Paul says:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Now, at first glance it seems that Paul intends to contrast private tongues with public tongues. Is not Paul saying, ‘I thank God that [privately] I speak in tongues more than all of you, but [publicly] in the church I would rather speak intelligible words that instruct others?’ The contrast between private words spoken in a tongue and public words spoken in prophecy seems to be underscored by his usage of the phrase ‘in the church’ only in conjunction with the ‘intelligible words’ of prophecy.
But the interpreter must be very careful about introducing words or concepts that do not appear in the original text of Scripture. As a matter of fact, the word order of verse 18 in the original language makes quite plain the true contrast intended by Paul in these verses. It is not a contrast between private and public utterances. Instead, Paul is contrasting his experience in speaking in tongues, in the advancement of Christ’s kingdom in general, with the practice of those who were so eager to promote tongues in the church at Corinth. ‘More than all of you,’ he says, ‘I speak in tongues.’ Paul’s emphasis is made plain by the order of his words. ‘In relation to all of you, I speak more in tongues’ (verse 18). The comparison is between Paul and those of the Corinthian church who are so interested in promoting tongues-speaking. Perhaps to their surprise, Paul affirms that he speaks in tongues more than the whole lot of them.
Then in the next verse he introduces his contrast. ‘But with reference to the church I prefer to speak five words for understanding’ (verse 19). This, then, is Paul’s contrast. It is not a contrast between private tongues and prophecy spoken in the church. Instead, the contrast is between tongues as they relate to those who are promoting tongues among the Corinthians and tongues as they relate to the church as a whole. Paul says, ‘In relating to you, my record is plain. Recognise this fact. Don’t talk to me about speaking in tongues as though I know nothing about the matter, for I have spoken in tongues more than all of you. I know first-hand about speaking in tongues. But with reference to the church, I would prefer to speak clearly in a language that will edify. Although I do as a matter of fact speak in tongues more than all of you, my concern is for edification.’
That is the contrast in verses 18 and 19. No mention is made of private tongues in contrast with public tongues. For New Testament tongues were never meant for private consumption. Like all other gifts of the Spirit, they were intended for the whole body. With this perspective in view, it becomes clear at the outset that a vast majority of tongues-speaking activity today could not be the same as New Testament tongues. Private tongues are not New Testament tongues. If tongues are a gift for the church, they should be brought out into the open for the benefit of the church.
(5) Swordsman has always ducked my repeated challenge to explain why word usage in every other Pauline example is not definitive for his usage in 1 Corinthians 14.
e. g. "He who speaks in tongues edifies (Greek: oikodomeo) himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church (14:4).
Because spiritual gifts are for the purpose of serving others, not self:
1 Peter 4:10 Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others
1 Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
There is not a single spiritual gift that is meant to be used for private personal benefit. Prophecy, teaching, evangelism, helps, healing, giving, leadership, pastor, etc, are all for benefiting others. Tongues was no exception.
Swordsman prefers the translation "spirituals" for "pneumata" here. Indeed, on this text, he is entitled to reverse my challenges and demand that I produce a scholar who translates "pneumata" as "spirits." in the sense of the reference to angels as "ministering spirits" in Hebrews 1:14.
So here is my response. "Pneumatikos." not "pneuma", is Paul's term for "spiritual." True, Paul can use "pneuma" in the sense of "the spirit of." But the NT never uses "spirits" (without the genitive (of)) to designate a spiritual gift. It always designates "spirits" in the sense of angels or demons. So in 12:14 it means "spirits" in the sense of "angels" and thus confirms the fact that "tongues of angels" in 13:1 alludes to angelic glossolalia as a supplement to glossolalia as expressing human languages.
So all the main bible versions have got their translations wrong have they? (NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV, NKJV, NLT, etc, etc). Not a single one has translated 14:12 as "spirits". You must contact the Greek scholars on their respective translation committees and inform them of their error.
(6) Finally, swordsman has always ducked my challenge to explain how to "strive for" the gift of tongues (among other gifts--12:31; 14:1), without the practice of private prayer.
The Corinthian church as whole is to desire spiritual gifts, not individuals. And the gifts they are to desire are the 'greater' ones such as prophecy and teaching which edify the assembly.
