Tongues as Initial Evidence

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 3, 2010

Faulty said:
Would you mind backing that up with anything?

Sure

I will have to format the greek so give me a few with that

but the other is easy enough.

Acts 10 the speakers were the Ceasarean Gentiles . . . hearers? Peter and the other believers . . . tongues cant be the "gospel" there

Acts 19 speakers? Ignorant disciples. Hearers? Paul . . . tongues cant be the Gospel there either.

Even the "content" of the tongues in acts 2 is something other than the kerygma . . . it IS "great and mighty works of God" which to me sounds a bit more like praise and ascription of glory than the systematic presentation of the Gospel. Further, Peter's sermon becomes superfluous.

Ill get my break down of the greek for you in a while

lismore · Sep 3, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
Hey Lis . . .

sorry man, couldnt be farther from the truth.

If tongues were to spread the Gospel then why:

1. Is it mostly TO GOD (the whole context of 1 Cor 14)

2. In each instance in Acts aside from Chapter 2, those hearing the tongues WERE ALREADY BELIEVERS

3. The Greek of Acts 2 makes human languages (what was spoken) impossible . . . tho what was heard was human languages

4. The testament of Job speaks of an ecstatic language (called heavenly speech) that is the dialects of ANGELS (so that Pauls statement is NOT hyperbole)

cheers

MTK

Hello

You are confusing the personal use of tongues for edification with the corporate tongues, a sign for the unbeliever.

None of the crowd in Acts 2 were believers. They were added to the church after they heard the wonders of God in their own language. If the believers had stood up and talked gibberish, no-one would have been added to the church on the day of pentecost. It was because those people heard the gospel in their own language, from people who didnt speak that language, that was the supernatural attraction!

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

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 3, 2010

lismore said:
Hello

You are confusing the personal use of tongues for edification with the corporate tongues, a sign for the unbeliever.

None of the crowd in Acts 2 were believers. They were added to the church after they heard the wonders of God in their own language. If the believers had stood up and talked gibberish, no-one would have been added to the church on the day of pentecost. It was because those people heard the gospel in their own language, from people who didnt speak that language, that was the supernatural attraction!

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

I understand the reasoning . . . I used to hold to it too . . . until i delved a little more into the greek and thought a little critically about the contentions of the texts IN CONTEXT.

For instance, all of 1 cor 14 is concerning corporate context yes? A little reference here or there for the private usage right?

Good.

BUT what does Paul say? NO ONE UNDERSTAND UNLESS AN INTERPRETER IS PRESENT . . . that means

1. Interpretation is NOT the persons native language (hence the oudeis NO ONE can understand, and that an interpretation is needed means that EVEN THEY DONT UNDERSTAND)

2. Interpretation IS ONLY HAD AS A GIFT OF THE SPIRIT . .. which means that the foreigners present CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT (NO ONE CAN) and ONLY the peculiar move of the Spirit in a GIFT of interpretation CAN.

3. Foreigners who come in and here something in their own language ARE NOT GOING TO CALL PEOPLE MAD. The uninterpreted tongue MAKES PEOPLE SEEM CRAZY (those who speak it) . . . and a foreign language service will hardly do that esp in a cultural hub like corinth.

4. Acts 2 has ioudian (judeans) surprised to hear fellow judeans SPEAK IN JUDEAN . . . huh? This is clear in the greek . . . why would I as an american be surprised to hear an american speak in english? That doesnt make sense. BUT, it does if the original thing that drew them to listen was NOT NORMAL SPEECH BUT ECSTATIC EXPRESSION . . . and then all of the sudden I HEAR IT IN MY NATIVE LANGUAGE.

IE, about 2 months ago my wife was at the altar for some ministry time . . . a sister in the Lord came near to her and began to sing in tongues over her . . . MY WIFE KNEW IT WAS TONGUES . . . but she was surprised to COMPREHEND IT IN ENGLISH . . .

If the believers had stood up and talked gibberish, no-one would have been added to the church on the day of pentecost.

what if they spoke "gibberish" (I wouldnt call it that) as a group . . . and it drew a crowd who heard a rather STRANGE SOUND (human languages couldnt really count for that) . . . and as they approach that sound that was "gibberish" is suddenly clear and EACH OF THEM are startled that they can now understand it in their own language . . . and the Arab says to the mede . . . how is it that you can hear them in Mede and I can hear them in Arabic?

FYI this is what the Greek use of pronouns and such proves. When I get a sec I will post it.

It was because those people heard the gospel in their own language, from people who didnt speak that language, that was the supernatural attraction!

but that is not what it shows. Again, the judeans surprised to hear judeans speaking in a judean dialect DOESNT FIT WITH YOUR ASSERTION.

Further, WE HAVE NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT TONGUES WERE TO BE A MEDIUM FOR THE GOSPEL.

We DO however, have a PLETHORA of information and case studies IN THE SCRIPTURE which shows that tongues is about PRAISE (CORPORATELY MIND YOU), BLESSING, PRAYER, sometimes a message from God, etc. and the two OTHER case studies show that the ones to whom the "sign" came . . . WERE BELIEVERS (Paul and Peter) . . . I dont think neither Paul not Peter need the Gospel explained to them . . . yet Peter says that what he heard in Acts 10 IS THE SAME AS WHAT HAPPENED IN ACTS 2 . . . but the content wasnt the Gospel in 10 . . .

Tenacity · Sep 3, 2010

I wanted to point out that there was probably a miracle in the hearing more than in the speaking in Acts 2.

3 times it is repeated that each individual listening heard the group speaking in their own language. It specifically does not say that one person was speaking one language while another person was speaking a different language. If this were the case then I think that the writer would have said this.

Acts 2 NIV

5...because each one heard them speaking

8...each of us hears them

11... we hear them declaring the wonders of God

Paul made it pretty clear that this gift was not primarily for the listener.
Paul made it clear that he prayed using this gift more than all of the Corinthians. Paul also made it clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not what make a man. (Faith Hope Love, with Love being the greatest)

Any man that tries to live out of natural ability or by way of the gifting which God has given him will fall out of fellowship with the Father.

In response to JimB and the story of the three men. I have seen a similar thing in the church. I have seen men that have been placed into leadership positions because they were good businessmen, who appeared to have their act together, but they did not know God.

I have also been hurt terribly by those in the church. Tongue talkers as well as non-tongue talkers. But not by those that are walking in the love of Jesus.

JimB · Sep 4, 2010

Tenacity said:
I wanted to point out that there was probably a miracle in the hearing more than in the speaking in Acts 2.

Tenacity said:
3 times it is repeated that each individual listening heard the group speaking in their own language. It specifically does not say that one person was speaking one language while another person was speaking a different language. If this were the case then I think that the writer would have said this.

Acts 2 NIV

5...because each one heard them speaking

8...each of us hears them

11... we hear them declaring the wonders of God

Paul made it pretty clear that this gift was not primarily for the listener.
Paul made it clear that he prayed using this gift more than all of the Corinthians. Paul also made it clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not what make a man. (Faith Hope Love, with Love being the greatest)

Any man that tries to live out of natural ability or by way of the gifting which God has given him will fall out of fellowship with the Father.

In response to JimB and the story of the three men. I have seen a similar thing in the church. I have seen men that have been placed into leadership positions because they were good businessmen, who appeared to have their act together, but they did not know God.

I have also been hurt terribly by those in the church. Tongue talkers as well as non-tongue talkers. But not by those that are walking in the love of Jesus.

Thanx, T. I have also heard this theory advanced in recent years. The miracle, its proponents say say, was in the hearing not the speaking. I accepted, then rejected this notion because, if it were true, the gift would then have been to the unbeliever, not the believer, and it would be the gift of hearing in tongues, not speaking in tongues. I call this approach to Bible interpretation If-It-Dont-Fit-Force-It Hermeneutics, where you first formulate or accept a theology (i.e., tongues as initial physical evidence) then you set out to find the scriptures to support it, ignore the ones that dont, and shave and reinterpret those that present a problem your views until they fit. Ithink they call this eisegesis.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I dont depend on them.

JEBrady · Sep 4, 2010

If speaking in tongues was generally understood by anyone, then the scripture wouldn't say no man understands them, and there would be no requirement for an interpretation of tongues in the assembly.

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 4, 2010

JimB said:
Thanx, T. I have also heard this theory advanced in recent years. The miracle, its proponents say say, was in the hearing not the speaking. I accepted, then rejected this notion because, if it were true, the gift would then have been to the unbeliever, not the believer, and it would be the gift of hearing in tongues, not speaking in tongues. I call this approach to Bible interpretation If-It-Dont-Fit-Force-It Hermeneutics, where you first formulate or accept a theology (i.e., tongues as initial physical evidence) then you set out to find the scriptures to support it, ignore the ones that dont, and shave and reinterpret those that present a problem your views until they fit. Ithink they call this eisegesis.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I dont depend on them.

Actually the articulation would be that it was a gift of interpretation that was given to the hearers.

if it were true, the gift would then have been to the unbeliever, not the believer,

1. I dont see any contradiction between this and anything else in Scripture . . . the gifts are given for the edification of the Body and if this does this purpose, then there is no qualm.

2. The prophet who speaks the word the lays open the heart of the unbeliever in 1 Cor 14 is a case in point of a gift being used for a non believer

3. There are two groups present in Acts 2 that present the unbelievers. First is the group who hears AND UNDERSTANDS, second is a group who hears AND DOES NOT UNDERSTAND and calls the disciples DRUNK (IOW whatever they thought that they heard made them think that it was speech from drunks). The interpretation is GIVEN TO THE SET WHO WOULD BELIEVE . . . not the mockers.

4. You are falling into your own error that you are seeking to avoid, in that, there is nothing that would contradict a gift of interpretation given to these men (belief or not) . . . esp when u see that Paul's citation in 1 Cor 14 is "I WILL SPEAK BY TONGUES AND STILL THEY WILL NOT LISTEN" where the purpose of this IS FOR AN UNBELIEVER WHO WILL STILL NOT LISTEN.

5. We have anectdotal evdience that ABOUNDS (granted in and of itself it doesnt mean anything as we use the scriptures as the canon of discernment) that proves this EXACT thing. People who speak in tongues and it is the same as their private use, indiscernable unintelligible . . . and someone else hears it in their native tongue. ALL KINDS OF STORIES. Some first hand, others passed down.

I think that the overwhelming case, esp when we look at the Greek, is that it indeed was a miracle MORE of hearing than of speaking . . . tongues were well known back then and a bunch of super zealots speaking in tongues in an ecstacy was NOT UNCOMMON . . . tho to hear your own tongue come from this IS UNCOMMON.

Further, the passages speak clearly for themselves. And if we have some sort of preconcieved notion about a pneumatological construct in the charisms that DOESNT reconcile with the passages . . . throw out the construct and start again.

be along today sometime with the greek breakdown . . .

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 4, 2010

JEBrady said:
If speaking in tongues was generally understood by anyone, then the scripture wouldn't say no man understands them, and there would be no requirement for an interpretation of tongues in the assembly.

Yup. If tongues were to be in a known human language to present the Gospel . . . no supernatural empowerment in a DIFFERENT gift would be needed . . . and the scriptures COULD NOT SAY "NO ONE understands"

well said JE

JimB · Sep 4, 2010

But does God give gifts of interpretation to nonbelievers? I am under the impression that spiritual gifts (enablements) are for Gods servants.

I do agree, though, that tongues are for unbelievers as in Acts 2 when they hear in their own tongue the wonderful works of God (v.11). Still, IMO, the miracle is in the speaking in tongues, not the hearingit is, after all, the gift of SPEAKING in tongues.

This is not to say that God cannot work His miracles however He chooses.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I dont depend on them.

lismore · Sep 4, 2010

JimB said:
I do agree, though, that tongues are for unbelievers as in Acts 2 when they hear in their own tongue the wonderful works of God (v.11). Still, IMO, the miracle is in the speaking in tongues, not the hearingit is, after all, the gift of SPEAKING in tongues.

Apparently Acts 2 never happened, didnt you read above? NO-ONE understands tongues. Those people couldnt have heard the gospel in their own languages.

I'm going to go rip a page out of my bible so I can be a pentecostal again!

:sigh:

JEBrady · Sep 4, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
Actually the articulation would be that it was a gift of interpretation that was given to the hearers

Why did the hearers testify that all those Galilieans were speaking in 15 different languages? Would they have been so amazed, asking each other what this meant if they only heard a single language- their own? Why ask anyone else anything about that? And some that heard scoffed, explaining that they were drunk on new wine. Were the scoffers experiencing a personal visitation of the power of God or were they commenting on a physical manifestation they were observing?

Also, it's interpretation of tongues. It is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit after tongues is spoken.

I just can't come up with any reasonable understanding of this manifestation except that it was speaking in tongues that was given in the various languages of the men standing there hearing.

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 4, 2010

JEBrady said:
Why did the hearers testify that all those Galilieans were speaking in 15 different languages? Would they have been so amazed, asking each other what this meant if they only heard a single language- their own? Why ask anyone else anything about that? And some that heard scoffed, explaining that they were drunk on new wine. Were the scoffers experiencing a personal visitation of the power of God or were they commenting on a physical manifestation they were observing?

Also, it's interpretation of tongues. It is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit after tongues is spoken.

I just can't come up with any reasonable understanding of this manifestation except that it was speaking in tongues that was given in the various languages of the men standing there hearing.

Agreed

JimB · Sep 4, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
Agreed

Me too.

-

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 5, 2010

Here is the case for what was spoke, the common "unintelligible speech" that we hear in tongue speak . . . and that the miracle was more in the hearing than in the speaking.

The first thing to consider is the usage of glwssaiV lalien(speaking in tongues) in historical context. It is widely known that the ecstatic usage of tongues was widely practiced during the time of New Testament (NT) Palestine in the whole Mediterranian due to the so-called mystery religions/cults.

The Pythian and Delphic oracles were known to spout unintelligible prophecies that needed an interpreter when the women were said to be under the influence of a supernatural entity (pagan gods). This provides the usage of profhthV and glwssaiV lalien in Koine history in association with non-human unintelligible speech.

The phrase speaking in tongues, while not necessarily connoting ecstaic speech, does certainly INCLUDE this dimension of usage. Most limited lexicons give very brief and simplisitc overviews of the Koine Greek . . . the best, recognised universally, is G. Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). I would suggest a view of the article on glwssa.

The historical concept of the profhthV and their speech and the contrast of the mystical concept of the pnuema verses the nouV pretty much seals the deal that the speech was not of the understanding . . . but from the place within that connected with what extends beyond the understanding. This can be defined as ecstatic.

So lets define ecstatic. A compound verb from ek (out of) and estemi (to stand) making ekstasiV, or literally out of stance . . . it has the connotation of out of NORMAL stance. Hence it has been used in reference to a vision (Acts 10:10) and amazement (Mark 5:42).

Our common conception of ecstatic, someone running around bumping into walls and frothing at the mouth is NOT what is in view . . . hence to read our current colloquial usage is folly. Truly, any gifting or move of the Spirit can be ecstatic if demonstrative enough to cause amazement . . . or even the specially edowed prophetic utterances whose source is not from "normalcy" but the supernatural working of the Spirit. This usage is in view when I say "ecstatic" . . . it is thoroughly biblical and wholesome.

To the text of Acts 2:

We have already established that there is an understanding of ecstatic NON-human language in the usage of the Konie glwssaiV lalien, although not a necessary understanding. The context will have to determine our understanding.

The first concept of import is in the word eterais (other) . . . the clear concept of the word includes something that was different than their normal tongue and something that was altogether new to them. Hence, whatever it was that they spoke . . . it was NOT something that they were familiar with . . . not something that was in their history of personal usage.

The second concept is that the speech was inspired by the pnuema (Spirit). Many studies have overlooked this vital concept. The history of the word is one of mystical and other-worldy usage. It is derrived from the pn a linguistic construct that pointed to the unknown and supernatural representing the rough breath and mystery the ancients associated with breathing and air. Hence, pnuema, connotes a supernatural unknown mysterious feeling.

The connection with pnuema and speech (laleo or cognates) cannot be overemphasized . . . the history of association from Plato and others in Ancient Greek of the mystery of speech inspired by the pnuema carries into the NT with the concept of the Holy Spirit of God. This connection wasn't unqiue to the Greeks . . . Hebrews associated the same mystery as did most ancient cultures.

This background lays the foundation for a type of speech which is obviously supernatural and patently *other* worldy. At this point it may still be known foreign languages supernaturally imparted, however.

The next touchpoint is the use of fonhV (sound). It is singular . . . not plural. That means that when the masses heard what it was that they heard . . . it was ONE loud sound . . . not many variable sounds. The sound of a group not individuals. This leads to the conclusion that what they gathered to was NOT a speech, per se, procession . . . but something much more awkward . . . obtruse.

Here is where the arguement begins to take more form, and from the Greek becomes quite clear. The text will be helpful:

Acts 2:6-8
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. Acts
7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, " Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?
NASU

NASU

The key is the singular and plural usage. "each one" ekstatoV eiV (each man singular) is the men hearing. Each individual heard them (autwn first [v. 6] plural and ekstatoV second [v. 8] SINGULAR) . . . AS A GROUP. The picture is of each man hearing them (plural) as a GROUP (singular). One hears ALL of them speaking in Parthian, while the man next to him hears THE SAME MEN (AS A GROUP) speaking in Mede AT THE SAME TIME . . . and it continues down the line.

Illustration: I am speaking in (whatever) and I have a Mexican, Russian and African all in front of me . . . the Mexican man is hearing me in Spanish, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the Russian is hearing me in Russian WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the African is hearing me in African.

TDNT sees the sealing issue the Ioudaian (Judean's) as original (meaning it is in the original autographa). As such . . . this means that you have Judeans (local Jews) suprised to hear Judean's (the disciples) speaking Judean! BIG PROBLEMS. The resolution is that they are mystified because everyone is hearing their own dialects coming from the same men at the same time . . . which is physiologically impossible.

The case then becomes more of a miracle of hearing . . . than a miracle of speaking. The miracle is that the men gather at a strange sound, something uncommon (foreign languages are hardly uncommon) and are further dismayed as they are each able miraculously to understand this formerly strange sound in their own dialects AT THE SAME TIME AS THE MAN NEXT TO THEM from the WHOLE GROUP OF DISCIPLES.

Add to this that those who gathered and heard the noise and DID NOT understand accused the disciples of being DRUNK (ever heard a drunk man speak unintelligibly? I have) and you have a pretty solid case that the tongues of Acts 2 were ecstatic unintelligible languages who the Holy Spirit imparted understanding of to the men who would be converted.

TasManOfGod · Sep 5, 2010

I see so the disciples of Jesus had a non spiritual event of babbling after the Holy Spirit fell on them while at the same time the doubters had a super spiritual happening of hearing speech in one language as if spoken in their own
Now that makes a lot of sense -not!!!!!!!

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 6, 2010

TasManOfGod said:
I see so the disciples of Jesus had a non spiritual event of babbling after the Holy Spirit fell on them while at the same time the doubters had a super spiritual happening of hearing speech in one language as if spoken in their own
Now that makes a lot of sense -not!!!!!!!

Actually the doubters said quite clearly "they're drunk" . . . not those who heard.

Acts 2:11-13
we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others were mocking and saying, " They are full of sweet wine."
NASU

FYI, the tongues are quite spiritual . . . but they are not unique. Hence they happen again and again . .. the uniqueness of Pentecost was exactly as we maintain dude . . . in those who heard. Text says what it says in spite of your railing.

Ur welcome to post something of substance next time tho

(I am quite surprised at the spirit I am seeing here on these boards lately . . . yuck)

Mathetes the kerux · Sep 6, 2010

lismore said:
Apparently Acts 2 never happened, didnt you read above? NO-ONE understands tongues. Those people couldnt have heard the gospel in their own languages.

I'm going to go rip a page out of my bible so I can be a pentecostal again!

Apparently Acts 2 never happened

Quite unfair lis . . . bad form.:o

didnt you read above? NO-ONE understands tongues.

????

1 Cor 14:1-2
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU

U can argue with Paul dude.

Those people couldnt have heard the gospel in their own languages.

Well the term for gospel (euaggelion) is quite common, used by Luke often as a summary term for the message of salvation, and yet he doesnt use it here . . . it is

Acts 2:11
the mighty deeds of God
NASU

in which NOT ONE WORD SAYS "GOSPEL"

Hmmm . . .

I'm going to go rip a page out of my bible so I can be a pentecostal again!

Wow, if I were to follow your logic then I guess I should rip out about 5 . . . 1 Cor 14, Acts 10, 11 and 19 . . .

BTW

the smart aleck-ness is NOT appreciated.

lismore · Sep 6, 2010

Mathetes the kerux said:
Quite unfair lis . . . bad form.:o
.

Sorry, I'm frustrated. Several posters here seem to be trying to pull the fastest gun in the West routine.

My experience of tongues have mainly been that they're a real language, given by God to communicate the gospel to people as it was in Acts 2.

I was at a dinner meeting with a speaker where the speaker and others spoke in tongues. There was a Romanian guy and a French guy there who heard the gospel in their own languages and got saved. I used to study French at school so I knew a bit and also that this was supernatural level of the language.

AN old lady I used to fellowship with got a muslim saved because she was given a message for him in Arabic. An old lady who had never been out of Scotland in her life!

Mathetes the kerux said:
1 Cor 14:1-2
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
NASU
.

I think there might well also be a use for tongues like prayer language and private edification, not necessarily in a corporate setting. 2 uses perhaps.

Mathetes the kerux said:
Acts 2:11
the mighty deeds of God
NASU

in which NOT ONE WORD SAYS "GOSPEL"

Hmmm . . .
.

Peter's sermon afterwards on the mighty deeds of God is a good gospel message

1 cor 14 also says:

9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air

When an unbeliever comes in and someone speaks in tongues and he hears the gospel in his own language it is a mighty suprenatural sign for him.

lismore · Sep 6, 2010

JEBrady said:
I just can't come up with any reasonable understanding of this manifestation except that it was speaking in tongues that was given in the various languages of the men standing there hearing.

Yes. And that still happens today

JimB · Sep 6, 2010

When my brother was serving a missionary term in Malawi in the mid-90’s he knelt beside a poor Malawian man who was praying praises to God in beautiful English. Not wanting to interrupt him my brother waited until he finished praying and then asked him a question. The man looked blankly at him, so my brother asked it again, blank, again, blank. Then the Malawian pastor standing close by leaned over and informed my brother, “He doesn’t speak English.”

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.

Tongues as Initial Evidence

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Maranatha

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Newbie

Legend

Senior Member

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Legend

Maranatha

Senior Member

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Legend

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Untatted Saint

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Tales of a Twice Born Man

Maranatha

Maranatha

Legend

Similar threads