Acts 2 vs 1 Cor 14

[swordsman1]

Paul uses phrases like "tongues of men AND ANGELS," and "unknown tongue." Without any notation that what was spoken was human, it would fall into those categories. Not human.

The word 'unknown' is not in the Greek, it was added by the KJV translators.

Paul was exaggerating when he said if someone could speak in the language of angels but not have love he would be nothing. We can tell that from the the next 2 verses where he also exaggerates about having the gift of prophecy to the degree of being able to fathom all mysteries and all knowledge (omniscience); having the gift of faith to the degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the degree of giving away all your possessions or even giving up your own life. He was making the point that having gifts to the highest degree conceivable would be worthless without love.

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. 2 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. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body [a]to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​

And if they were known languages, why do we need the gift of interpretation?

Because if the language is unrecognized how else will the congregation know what was spoken?

 

[Dave-W]

Because if the language is unrecognized how else will the congregation know what was spoken?

And what would be the point of a known language if no one in the congregation speaks it?

As to Acts 2 being unique, where else was tongues used outside a closed congregational setting?

 

[swordsman1]

And what would be the point of a known language if no one in the congregation speaks it?

Exactly. That is why Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. What would also be the point of a non-human language if no one in the congregation speaks it?

As to Acts 2 being unique, where else was tongues used outside a closed congregational setting?

Acts 10 & 19 were not in a congregational setting. Anyway why would being inside a congregation mean the tongues were non-human?

 

[Dave-W]

Acts 10 & 19 were not in a congregational setting.

Actually, 10 would have been a congregational setting.

19 was still a closed group. It was not at all out in the open like Acts 2.

And there is still no indication that even in those settings the tongues were KNOWN human languages.

Anyway why would being inside a congregation mean the tongues were non-human?

Why would you assume that they WERE human?

 

[Dave-W]

Because if the language is unrecognized how else will the congregation know what was spoken?

In which case, what would be the difference between a known language and an unknown one? (other that the latter fitting someone's presuppositions)

 

[swordsman1]

Why would you assume that they WERE human?

Because there is only one description of the gift of tongues - Acts 2, miraculously speaking a foreign language you have never learned. In the absence of any re-definition all other instances must be presumed to be the same.

 

[Dave-W]

all other instances must be presumed to be the same.

Even in the light of "tongues of ... angels?"

Paul was exaggerating when he said if someone could speak in the language of angels

There is some presumption.

 

[swordsman1]

Even in the light of "tongues of ... angels?"

Yes, nobody spoke in the language of angels. That was Paul exaggerating to make the point that even if someone did have the gift of tongues to such a lofty extent, it would be worthless without love. We can tell that from the next 2 verses where he also exaggerates the gifts of prophecy, faith, and giving to the highest degrees conceivable.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes, nobody spoke in the language of angels. That was Paul exaggerating to make the point that even if someone did have the gift of tongues to such a lofty extent,

You are twisting scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

You are twisting scripture.

Then it wouldn't be just me. Just about every commentator on 1 Cor 13:1-3 agrees with me. Would you like me to post about 30 of them?

 

[Almost there]

I was in a Pentecostal church for many, many years so all of this is not foreign to me.

I am convinced that Paul is talking about languages that were languages that men living somewhere on the earth spoke. That is the gift of tongues and is useful as a witness to unbelievers when speaking to them in their own language such as happened on Pentecost. Or with believers but only when there is an interpretation.

However, there is this verse in chapter 13. I have read many commentary explanations that attempt to explain it and most are honest enough to give more than one interpretation.
1Co 13:1 If with the tongues of men and of messengers [angelos] I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling;

I am not a cessationist, I don't believe that the gifts have totally disappeared, BUT I am sure that most people do not have these gifts spoken of in 14.
I do believe there are occasions when God temporary empowers a person to use one of the gifts.
I personally believe that Spurgeon had the gift of prophecy. Many people think that prophecy means speaking things only of the future but it doesn't. Prophecy is speaking things that one cannot know by any human means, such as telling a stranger something that they had done or something about them that the speaker had no way of knowing. Like when Jesus tells the Samaritan woman at the well about her life.
I'm sure John MacArthur would argue with me about Spurgeon but he would have to call Spurgeon himself a liar, not me.

For crying out loud, I could have written that post! It is both my experience and my opinion. I'm responding just to amplify what you said. Right on.

 

[Dave-W]

Then it wouldn't be just me. Just about every commentator on 1 Cor 13:1-3 agrees with me. Would you like me to post about 30 of them?

30 cessationist commentators.

No thank you.

 

[swordsman1]

30 cessationist commentators.

No thank you.

No, cessationist and continuist alike. I'll just post the continuist ones if you want?

 

[Ken Rank]

Hi everyone,
I'm Charismatic. I do not have a strong Biblical foundation. I am presently reading the book, Strange Fire by John MacArthur. From Cessationists point of view, in Acts 2, the tongues spoken in the upper room, when the Holy Spirit came, was of foreign languages and not senseless babbling. It is also understood that tongue has ceased after the Apostalic age.
Paul said in
1 Cor 14:2--For he who speaks in tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
1 Cor 14:4--He who speaks in tongue edifies himself...unless indeed he interpretes, that the church may receive edification.
It seems confusing that Acts 2, which can be interpreted because they are human languages, does not seem to get along with 1 Cor 14 which is described as "no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries".
I'm needing some understanding here in Cor.
Also, since the gift of tongues have ceased, is Paul addressing his writings to Christians in the Apostlic age only, or also to modern Christians like us, and if so, then, gifts of tongue would not have ceased.
Thank you for your help in clarifying my concerns.

Messiah said that he had not been sent but to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. If you know your history, you know that when Israel split into two kingdoms after Solomon, that the Northern Kingdom, Israel, was eventually taken into Assyria as punishment for idolatry and never returned. Instead, they were scattered from there over all of the earth and became know, historically, as the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

Since they were in all nations, you might note that the Great Commission was to go out into the nations. What we see in Acts 2 is disciples speaking in OTHER languages, not an unknown language. People from all nations were hearing the message in their own tongue... their own language and this was a sign that the call to the lost sheep had indeed begun. To use that event and try to use it to say we all have to speak in tongues is just out of context entirely. I am not saying tongues is real or not, for today or not... I am saying what happened in Acts 2 is not what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 14.

 

[Hillsage]

I agree.

Actually, there are 3. I have come across those who were demonized with a spirit of false tongues.

I have too. And it was in a 'Christian' sister, who was the literal sister of one of my best 'brothers', many years ago. I guess my post reference should have specified "two sources of GODLY/spiritual tongues."

As far as I have seen in scripture, the event of Acts 2 where the tongues was in known languages was a one-time event and has not been repeated since.

I can't say for sure on that one. It seems like I've heard a couple of testimonies concerning someone speaking in a foreign language which they did not know, but someone who heard them did know. In the one case they spoke in Italian, and in the other, which if memory serves me was shared on a Jack Hayford tape about a Charismatic speaking in an American Indian dialect and there was an 'fluent' Indian there when he did it. In both of those instances they thought they were praying in their prayer language. But if scripture be true "no man should have understandeth" them. So makes me wonder if they weren't truly manifest the 'gift of tongues' from the Holy Spirit as opposed to the tongue of their own 'holy' in-Christed 'spirit' instead.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It seems confusing that Acts 2, which can be interpreted because they are human languages, does not seem to get along with 1 Cor 14 which is described as "no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries". I'm needing some understanding here in Cor.

Acts 2 says that the ones from other countries "heard" the disciples speaking in their own language and praising God. It does not say that the disciples "spoke" in those languages.

Although many see tongues in the N.T. as distinct languages in the Acts 2 passage and unintelligible languages in Corinthians --- I don't believe that to be the case.

I believe they are all cases of a language or languages which would be unknown by those hearing the speaking unless God provided an interpretation of the words.

He provided that understanding for the "elect", as it were, in Acts 2 and the ones who were not being saved thought those speaking were drunk as would people in a church service who did not have an interpretation provided by God.

This common misunderstanding concerning the supposed two kinds of tongues has cause untold and unneeded arguments within the church.

There is no need for it to be so IMO.

....Also, since the gift of tongues have ceased, is Paul addressing his writings to Christians in the Apostlic age only, or also to modern Christians like us, and if so, then, gifts of tongue would not have ceased. Thank you for your help in clarifying my concerns.

The scriptures don't tell us that tongue "have" ceased. They tell us that they "will" cease.

 

[Dave-W]

I can't say for sure on that one. It seems like I've heard a couple of testimonies concerning someone speaking in a foreign language which they did not know, but someone who heard them did know. In the one case they spoke in Italian, and in the other, which if memory serves me was shared on a Jack Hayford tape about a Charismatic speaking in an American Indian dialect and there was an 'fluent' Indian there when he did it.

I have heard of such cases as well. I do not discount that.

I was specifically referring to incidents in scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

Acts 2 says that the ones from other countries "heard" the disciples speaking in their own language and praising God. It does not say that the disciples "spoke" in those languages.

Although many see tongues in the N.T. as distinct languages in the Acts 2 passage and unintelligible languages in Corinthians --- I don't believe that to be the case.

I believe they are all cases of a language or languages which would be unknown by those hearing the speaking unless God provided an interpretation of the words.

He provided that understanding for the "elect", as it were, in Acts 2 and the ones who were not being saved thought those speaking were drunk as would people in a church service who did not have an interpretation provided by God.

This common misunderstanding concerning the supposed two kinds of tongues has cause untold and unneeded arguments within the church.

There is no need for it to be so IMO.

There can be no doubt that the disciples spoke in foreign languages on the day of Pentecost. It says so plainly in v4 - "and they began to speak in other tongues". It then goes on to list the tongues spoken..."Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs". Virtually all commentators agree the disciples were miraculously speaking foreign languages.

There is no mention of any kind of interpretation taking place in Acts 2. If there was this great miracle of automatic translation in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact.

The Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the gift of miraculously speaking in foreign languages, "as the Spirit enabled them" (Acts 2:4). There is no mention of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd giving them the ability to interpret. Only Christians receive the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Rom 8:9), and the supernatural gift of interpretation is a manifestation of the Spirit which is only given to believers (1 Cor 12). Yet after the tongues speaking at Pentecost the crowd remained unregenerate until Peter preached the gospel to them.

 

[Hillsage]

Since they were in all nations, you might note that the Great Commission was to go out into the nations. What we see in Acts 2 is disciples speaking in OTHER languages, not an unknown language.

I've heard teaching to the 'otherwise'. The disciples weren't in some rental house when they were celebrating Pentecost. They were doing what all those other Jews had come to Jerusalem for. And that was, to go to the HOUSE of the Lord...the TEMPLE. And when the disciples first received their baptism of the Spirit they didn't speak in 'tongues of men'. They spoke in an unknown tongue from their spirit (angelic/heavenly/spiritual).

ACT 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (prayer tongues unknown to man).

Being in the HOUSE/Temple of the Lord, gathered together in whichever portico the believers were in, they raised a ruckus with their unknown tongue. A ruckus which sounded bestial or artificial. Or, as anti tonguer's today might say "jibberish or babel "
And the Greek word in verse 6 which describes this 'prayer tongue' as such is "noised".

ACT 2:6 Now when this (tongue) was noised/phone abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language

As you can see, after speaking in their spirit's prayer tongue there was the drawing of the multitude to their end of the HOUSE/TEMPLE, where the Holy Spirit then unctioned them to speak with the Holy Spirit's 'gift of tongues' which ministered to those unbelievers present.

 

[Ken Rank]

I've heard teaching to the 'otherwise'. The disciples weren't in some rental house when they were celebrating Pentecost. They were doing what all those other Jews had come to Jerusalem for. And that was, to go to the HOUSE of the Lord...the TEMPLE. And when the disciples first received their baptism of the Spirit they didn't speak in 'tongues of men'. They spoke in an unknown tongue from their spirit (angelic/heavenly/spiritual).

ACT 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance (prayer tongues unknown to man).

Being in the HOUSE/Temple of the Lord, gathered together in whichever portico the believers were in, they raised a ruckus with their unknown tongue. A ruckus which sounded bestial or artificial. Or, as anti tonguer's today might say "jibberish or babel "
And the Greek word in verse 6 which describes this 'prayer tongue' as such is "noised".

ACT 2:6 Now when this (tongue) was noised/phone abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language

As you can see, after speaking in their spirit's prayer tongue there was the drawing of the multitude to their end of the HOUSE/TEMPLE, where the Holy Spirit then unctioned them to speak with the Holy Spirit's 'gift of tongues' which ministered to those unbelievers present.

I know where they were and for clarity sake, lets drop the word "tongue" since there is such an emotional attachment to it by those who speak in tongues. Let's use instead, what the underlying word specifically is saying.. LANGUAGES. On that day they spoke in OTHER LANGUAGES and all the people from all the nations there heard them in their OWN LANGUAGE. This isn't an "unknown tongue" because Luke specifically states that they spoke in an "other" language not an "unknown" or "angelic" or "spiritual" or "godly" language.

Edit... to say that this was still a miracle... proof that God still interacts with His people when His timing for such things dictates. But to use Acts 2 as some proof text that Christians are all supposed to speak in tongues makes as much sense as using Peter's vision to say that bottom dwelling poop eating fish are now "food." I am not saying you can't eat anything you want, I am saying using that vision to justify it when he clearly told everyone that the vision was related to gentiles.... is just bad exegesis. Same thing with using Acts 2 to support everyone speaking in unknown languages.