A Look at Tongues in the Word of God

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

Now that Paul has spoken concerning “unknown tongues”, he is now going to give instructions concerning preaching. Not only does Paul instruct the preacher that will be preaching, he also instructs the other elders as well. While the preacher is instructed to preach, the other elders are instructed to judge what is being preached.
That’s right, judge. The elders of the church have the responsibility of knowing the Word of God well enough, to know when the man of God is preaching the Word of God, and when he is not.

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

If while during the preaching of the Word, God reveals something to the church, the person must hold his peace, that all may continue to learn.

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Note the difference between speaking in “unknown tongues” and preaching. While having people speaking in “unknown tongues” is limited to three people speaking, prophesying (preaching) may be done by all, “one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.”

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Verse 32 is stating that the prophets (or preachers) are not above the Word of God. Preachers are subject (or under) the prophets. “[t]he prophets” is a reference to the “prophets” of the “Old Testament”. In other words, preachers cannot preach anything that is contrary to the Word of God. Keep in mind that the New Testament was still being written at this time.

Why are preachers subject to the Word of God?

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God does not want us to be confused about his will, or anything else for that matter.

The following verses do get some women upset, but they must remember this is the Word of God.

34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I need to state at this time that the subject of this chapter is “unknown tongues and prophesying” (or preaching) in a known language. Many people use this verse to say that women are forbidden to speak in the church at all, but that is not what this verse is saying. These verses must be kept in context.

The above verses do teach that women are not permitted to speak in “tongues”, known or unknown. Outside of the regular teaching times in the church, the women are to learn at home, by asking their husbands their questions. The interesting point here is that this therefore is also a command for the husbands to be the spiritual leaders in the home, so that their wives can ask them their questions and learn at home.

The following verses are another rebuke from the Apostle Paul. Why? Because the Corinthians had somewhat of an attitude of being above the law (so to speak).
36 ¶ What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

This was a pretty serious rebuke. Look at the questions being asked by Paul. Paul says, [did the] word of God come out from you? Or, came it unto you only.

Paul was asking them a question like this, Do you think that God limits Himself to only talking through you, or only to you. Do you honestly think you have an inside connection with God that no one else has?

Then in verse 37 lays down the law. Basically Paul says, I you’re a prophet you will agree that what I am saying are the commandments of the Lord. (of course the opposite of this would be true as well, if you don’t think these are the commandments of the Lord, then you are not a true prophet of God.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

If any one can’t except this is truth, be ignorant.

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

The message is clear, preach the word, and don’t forbid people to speak with different tongues (as long as you follow the rules).

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

God wants everything in the church to be just as he says here, decently and in order.

Jack Koons said:

By the way, you ignored my question.

Click to expand...

Jack, it was you who ignored me first by not so skillfully trying to side-step the question I asked you:

Where did you get your doctorate and will you post your dissertation?

standingtall said:

Jack, it was you who ignored me first by not so skillfully trying to side-step the question I asked you:

Where did you get your doctorate and will you post your dissertation?

Click to expand...

standingtall,

Since you have already declared your a) bias against IFB; b) any school that is that does not meet with your humanistic ideology pertaining to accreditation; and c) my theology in general; I owe you no answers that are not directly related to subject matter at hand.

As I have stated earlier, you make no profitable contributions to any threads to which you have posted. It is my choice to allow the information, and the evidence which I post, speak for itself. If you feel you have information which can a) edify; or b) refute that which I present; by all means, help yourself.

I will say this, my dissertation was on the KJV. Rest assured, since (not if), you have not been able to refute that which I presented concerning the KJV in this Forum, you probably wouldn't fare to well challenging my dissertation.

So, back to the subject at hand. (By the way, feel free to comment, I look forward to your viewing your opinion concerning "tongues"; even though you think it is a minor issue.)

Jack

Quiz #2


1. What is an “unknown tongue”?
2. Why are “unknown tongues” unprofitable?
3. Why is “prophesying” (preaching) profitable?
4. What is the purpose of all spiritual gifts?
5. Why must our words be “easy to be understood”?
6. What happens when a preacher speaks to a church in an “unknown tongue”?
7. Did Paul ever claim to speak to churches in any “unknown tongues”?
8. What is the purpose of “tongues”?
9. Are tongues for the believer, or unbeliever?
10. If people enter a church where there are many people speaking in “unknown tongues”, what will they think; according to 1 Corinthians 14: 23?
11. What is the maximum number of men allowed to preach in an “unknown tongue”, using an interpreter?
12. What does the church do if there is no interpreter?
13. Are women allowed to speak in “tongues”?
14. Is there any mention, suggestion, or insinuation in 1 Corinthians 14 that gives evidence that “unknown tongues” are a “heavenly language”?
15. After considering the text of 1 Corinthians 14, and Acts 2, 10, and 19; is there any evidence that “tongues” as practiced by the Charismatic Movement is based on Scripture?

Jack Koons said:

I owe you no answers that are not directly related to subject matter at hand.

Click to expand...

Since you have presented yourself as "Dr." Jack Koons in the opening posts of this thread, I do believe the question of where you received your doctorate is directly related to the OP.

The Independent Baptist and Hyper-Fundamentalist camps are rife with illegitimate "Drs." and highly questionable institutions that issue those degrees. The legitimacy of such individuals and institutions is called into question not only among secular educational groups, but also among duly accredited and respected Christian educational institutions and ThDs.

That's OK though, Jack. The more you dodge the question of the institutional source of your "doctorate", the less credible your "title" looks.

Jack Koons said:

So, back to the subject at hand. (By the way, feel free to comment, I look forward to your viewing your opinion concerning "tongues"; even though you think it is a minor issue.)

Click to expand...

Romans 10:9
"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Jack, this is that one sentence I asked you for earlier on the requirements of salvation that you refused to answer. ...one....sentence....anything other than this is minor. There's even an entire ridiculous "teaching" thread in the Spirit Filled/Charismatic forum dedicated to "defining the terms of salvation". One.....sentence.....defines it.

It is so simple to become a Christian. It is you and those of your ilk who try to make it so difficult to live as one (i.e. "you must not speak in tongues", or "you must speak in tongues"...."you must listen to this kind of music" and "must not listen to this type of music"...."you must read this version of the bible" and "must not read this version of the bible")....and on and on and on with your Pharisaical baggage. And lest you think I'm only picking on IFBs, it's also Pentecostals/Charismatics that are guilty of the same bilge.

Yes, minor issues are worth discussing....but man seems to have a funny way of inflating these issues and making them prominent in their doctrine.

Now, by all means, forge on ahead with your thread novella on the minor issue of "tongues".

Hi Jack,

Your posts raise a few issues.

1. In Acts 2 do you think this is a miracle of hearing (as well as speaking). I don't know about you but if more than one person is speaking at the same time I find it all becomes unintelligible. This would account for the fact there are more languages in the hearers than people speaking.

2. Recall that all the spiritual gifts (including tongues) are described as given by God "for the common good" 1 Cor 12:7

3. "Prophecy" is not identical to "preaching". propheteia (Strong 4394) is the word used here. It is also used of the books of Isaiah and Revelation as well as prophecy in the early church (Rom 12:6; 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Pet 1:20,21; Rev 11).

There are other perfectly good words for preaching:
euangelizesthai (Strong 2097) e.g. 1 Cor 1:17
kēryxōsin (2784) e.g. Rom 10:15

and Paul does not use them for "prophecy" in 1 Cor 12-14

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

The above verse is one of the most misused verses by “Charismatics”.

The above verse is used by Charismatics to say, See, even Paul says that he spoke in tongues more that everyone at Corinth. Paul did not say he spoke in “unknown tongues” more than ye all”, what Paul said, was that he spoke more ‘languages’ than everyone at Corinth.

Click to expand...

This is eisegesis. The context dictates that Paul here is talking about tongues as how the Corinthians understood and practiced their use. To assert that Paul is suddenly talking about his foreign language ability does not fit this passage in any sensible way.

Vanellus said:

Hi Jack,

Your posts raise a few issues.

1. In Acts 2 do you think this is a miracle of hearing (as well as speaking). I don't know about you but if more than one person is speaking at the same time I find it all becomes unintelligible. This would account for the fact there are more languages in the hearers than people speaking.

Click to expand...

Yes I do. The fact that through the work of the Holy Spirit, “every man heard them speak in his own language”.

2. Recall that all the spiritual gifts (including tongues) are described as given by God "for the common good" 1 Cor 12:7

Click to expand...

Would you not agree that in the case of Acts 2, where 3000 souls were saved, and added to the church, that was ‘for the common good”? And isn’t the text quite clear in that while these ‘Galilaeans’ were speaking, the surprising element was that they were not speaking ‘Galilaen’? This then would be the proper use of “tongues”.

3. "Prophecy" is not identical to "preaching". propheteia (Strong 4394) is the word used here. It is also used of the books of Isaiah and
Revelation as well as prophecy in the early church (Rom 12:6; 1 Thess 5:20; 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; 2 Pet 1:20,21; Rev 11).

There are other perfectly good words for preaching:
euangelizesthai (Strong 2097) e.g. 1 Cor 1:17
kēryxōsin (2784) e.g. Rom 10:15

and Paul does not use them for "prophecy" in 1 Cor 12-14

Click to expand...

You are correct in saying that “prophecy” is not “identical” to preaching. However, for simplicity, I used the term. Now let us see what the actual text has to say about he that “prophesieth”. 1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that “prophecieth” does three things: 1) edify; 2) exhort; and 3) comforts. This actually sounds a bit like both preaching, and teaching the scriptures.

What do these words mean? Briefly:
Edify = Build; Exhort = An invitation to call near; Comfort= to console, in a close proximity. (to be near)

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

I want you to notice what is said above. Paul says, “desire spiritual gifts, but rather”, but rather what? “That ye may prophecy”. This chapter has a function. Paul is comparing two things. One he is telling them is NOT doing what the other will do. Therefore, desire the greater; which is to “edify, exhort, and comfort”.

The text clearly teaches that their practice of using ‘unknown tongues’ was doing none of these things. Why? Because you can’t b edified, exhorted, or comforted, by what you do not understand. It really is just that simple. That is the entire context of 1 Corinthians 14. Prophesying you can understand; while unknown tongues you cannot. Stop doing it incorrectly. 1 Corinthians as a whole, is a rebuke to a carnal church. You may not agree, but that does not change the facts. You are correct, as I stated, that “prophesying’ is not “identical” to preaching, it is broader than preaching. The point however, is that it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that was being set aside, while another gift was being misused.

This is eisegesis. The context dictates that Paul here is talking about tongues as how the Corinthians understood and practiced their use. To assert that Paul is suddenly talking about his foreign language ability does not fit this passage in any sensible way.

Click to expand...

Vanellus, you, like others, are entitled to your opinion. The context does in fact dictate that Paul is talking about tongues as how the Corinthians understood and practiced their use. The fact is, he was rebuking them for their misunderstanding, not praising them for their proper use.

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Why would Paul say, “Brethren, be not children in understanding” if they had the proper understanding?

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

This (as will be seen in a future post) was my very experience. This is why I didn’t stay in a Charismatic church years ago!

Jack

Review

I want to take a few moments to think about Acts and 1 Corinthians 14. As we take a few moments to think about what we have just seen in the Scriptures, it is now time to consider what actually was happening in that period of history. What happened on the Day of Pentecost?

God had previously breathed on His disciples in the upper room, and given them the Holy Spirit. On the Day of Pentecost however, God filled His disciples with the power of the Holy Spirit, while simultaneously giving the unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem a ‘sign’ to show that this was indeed from Him. This ‘sign’ was “tongues”. Not some ‘heavenly language’ type of event to which the Charismatic movement of today says they practice; but rather, God allows Jews from all over the region hear Galilaeans (which have no normal ability to speak these other languages), testify of the gospel of Jesus Christ. There were no interpreters. There was no need. The text is quite clear. ‘Every man heard in his own tongue’. Nowhere in the Book of Acts, is there any mention of the use of a ‘heavenly language’. In Acts 11:15, the Holy Spirit by the pen of Luke, gives witness to Peter defining the out pouring of Holy Ghost upon the Gentiles, “as on us as at the beginning”. There were no ‘heavenly languages’ at the beginning; there were no ‘heavenly languages’ later.

As we move into the Book of 1 Corinthians, we see in the first chapter “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:” (vs. 22)

And what is that sign?

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Let us be clear. Tongues are for a sign to unbelieving Jews. (Period) Prophesying (preaching) on the other hand, serves them which believe.

The text of 1 Corinthians 14 tells us clearly that there was a practice of having men, and women coming into the church, which spoke languages the people did not know. Hence, there was a problem of members of the church, being confused, and not being edified. How do I know this was the cases? Because these are the very things the Apostle Paul addresses (rebukes them for doing) in the 14th chapter of his epistle.

Please understand, these people were NOT speaking in “tongues”, the same way Charismatics practice “tongues” today. The text is quite clear that the problem was having men, and women, coming into the church, speaking in language that the members had no knowledge of. Everything that is done in the church, must be for the purpose of edification of the saints. If the saints of the church cannot understand what is being said, they cannot be edified.

Without getting into the entire history of the Charismatic Movement, it (the Charismatic Movement) emerged from the old Pentecostal Movement, which emerged from the old Holiness Movement, which emerged from Methodism. You may feel free to do a little research on the subject, I believe you will find it quite interesting.

The truth is, “speaking in tongues” is a teaching that is relatively new, only beginning about 1900 AD. I guess that means that the Holy Spirit didn’t fill anyone from the 1st century, until the 20th century, an absence of 1800 years! Wow, that seems like a pretty long time for the Holy Spirit not to give anyone the sign that they were saved. (According to the Charismatics)

Insertion by the author:

I took the following from the thread I started: Salvation Experience:

Jack Koons said:

Receiver,

The problem here is basic: your definition (or understanding) of "tongues", is in error.

The texts to which you refer are NOT referring to the so-called "tongues" of the modern day 'Charismatic Movement'. The words of Isaiah "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." (28:11), are a simple reference to the fact that God will use people who speak with a tongue (language), other than their native Hebrew, to reach His people, the Jews.

For your sake, and in the interest of others who wish to understand what "tongues" are, I will start a new thread titled "A Look at Tongues in the Word of God". This will not require much time on my part because it is a work (booklet) which I wrote, and taught several years ago. Therefore, it will be a simple matter of putting the text into small sections. I believe most of the readers in this Forum will find it to be quite clear.

This information may be freely used for the furtherance of teaching others; however, it is copyrighted material (I will include a note in the OP), and the material must therefore be treated as such.

While it does not address "baptism" vs. "filling" of the Spirit, it covers the "tongues" issue, making the complex simple.

Jack

Click to expand...

Receiver then replied with:

Receiver said:

You say "reach" but Paul and Jesus say it is a sign, and Acts 2 shows it was that and that it left them shocked but unconvinced and in confusion - why - because as Paul explains:

"he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man understands him; howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries ... he edifies himself" (1 Cor. 14:2, 4)

That's why in Acts 2, Peter stood up, they stopped speaking (to God) in tongues) and Peter spoke to the bi-lingual Jews from all the nations ... then they understood God's message of salvation and 3000 were added to the 120 that day, i.e. 3000 received the same and went back to their home countries to be a witness without any of them needing a new language to preach with, they were already bi-lingual.


It's only complicated because of the false ideas of those who either have never spoken/prayed in tongues or who have been either put off by some of the charismatic excesses or seduced by arguments that lead nowhere.

Question to see what you believe: Paul said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Cor. 14:18) - why did Paul speak in tongues so much?

Click to expand...

To which I replied with:

Jack Koons said:

Receiver,

1) Rest assured your questions will be answered.

2) Just a little piece of free advice: when making a statement in defense of a particular doctrine, never make a statement that contradicts a clear declaration made in the Word of God; especially when that declaration is made in the very text of the subject being discussed.

Jack

Click to expand...

So let’s look at this.

Receiver said:

You say "reach" but Paul and Jesus say it is a sign,

Click to expand...

I say “reach”, because God did in fact “reach” them (the unbelieving Jews) with the gospel. He got their attention with the “sign” of “tongues” (isn’t that the purpose of ‘signs’, to get our attention?)

and Acts 2 shows it was that and that it left them shocked but unconvinced and in confusion

Click to expand...

“CONFUSION”? So are you saying that God gave them “tongues”, and those “tongues” left them in confusion? I think that is what you just said. The word “confused”, or “confusion” does not appear in Acts 2. It says, “confounded”, but not “confused”. There is a difference.

In 1 Corinthians 14: 33 we read, For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Here, the Greek word for “confusion is(akatastasia). But in Acts 2: 6 we read, Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. Here, the Greek word for “confounded” is (sugcheo). As I said: two different words; with two different meanings. The latter, meaning to stir up or be in an uproar; while the former, simply means to be in the state of instability or as it was translated, confusion. (Please forgive me, I'm on my computer, not my iPhone. I normally simply work off my iPhone, which has a Greek keyboard. My computer does not. I must transfer docs from my word processor into here. Fonts and the like do not carry across.)

The problem of course with Receiver’s use of the word “confusion” in his description of Acts 2:6, is that God, the Holy Spirit was the Author of this event! And God the Holy Spirit had Paul write (by inspiration), that He (God the Holy Spirit) is not the Author of “confusion”.

- why - because as Paul explains:

"he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God: for no man understands him; howbeit in the spirit he speaks mysteries ... he edifies himself" (1 Cor. 14:2, 4)

Click to expand...

The above was all covered during our look at 1 Corinthians 14.

That's why in Acts 2, Peter stood up, they stopped speaking (to God) in tongues) and Peter spoke to the bi-lingual Jews from all the nations ... then they understood God's message of salvation and 3000 were added to the 120 that day, i.e. 3000 received the same and went back to their home countries to be a witness without any of them needing a new language to preach with, they were already bi-lingual.

Click to expand...

1) The Bible does not say, “they stopped speaking (to God) in tongues”. It says, 5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (Acts 2)
2) It also does not say anywhere in the above text, that any of these Jews were bi-lingual. Wouldn't that kind of nullify the purpose of the sign of "tongues"?

These Jews heard the message of God in their native tongue, (that was the sign of tongues). Everything you just stated, is contrary to what the history of Acts 2 teaches.

Would you not agree that in the case of Acts 2, where 3000 souls were saved, and added to the church, that was ‘for the common good”?

Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is that you are transferring the context of Acts 2 into the context of 1 Corinthians. Paul is writing to the Corinthian church so the "common good" is the common good of the Corinthian church which is an established group of believers. This is what the body illustration is all about.

He that “prophesieth” does three things: 1) edify; 2) exhort; and 3) comforts. This actually sounds a bit like both preaching, and teaching the scriptures.

Click to expand...

The same outcome can be achieved by different means. When you look at how prophecy is described with the same Greek word in the NT, it is quite distinct from teaching or preaching.

Why? Because you can’t be edified, exhorted, or comforted, by what you do not understand. It really is just that simple.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. In a meeting a tongue should not be given unless it can be interpreted so that others can understand what is said.

Tongues are for a sign to unbelieving Jews.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that indicates that tongues is a sign only for unbelieving Jews rather than unbelievers more generally. There would be Jews and Gentiles in the Corinthian church and in Corinth.

Please understand, these people were NOT speaking in “tongues”, the same way Charismatics practice “tongues” today. The text is quite clear that the problem was having men, and women, coming into the church, speaking in language that the members had no knowledge of.

Click to expand...

This is false since tongues is described as a gift of the Spirit. One doesn't have to have the Holy Spirit to learn a foreign language. It also falls foul of "tongues of men and angels". Which college teaches angelic languages?!

The truth is, “speaking in tongues” is a teaching that is relatively new, only beginning about 1900 AD.

Click to expand...

This again is quite false. See for instance "Charismatic gifts in the early church" by Ronald Kydd studying the period up to AD 200 and "The Bible in History : How the Texts Have Shaped the Times"
By David W. Kling Professor of Religious Studies University of Miami e.g. P 249 (both available on Google books)

I have a simple question for someone who speaks in tongues, and believes that "tongues" are a "heavenly angelic" language.

What is the purpose of speaking in this language?

Jack

Jack Koons said:

I have a simple question for someone who speaks in tongues, and believes that "tongues" are a "heavenly angelic" language.

What is the purpose of speaking in this language?

Jack

Click to expand...

I have a simple answer, but you won't and couldn't possibly understand it in light of your proclivities to tear down anything with even the least bit of charismatic flavor to it.

One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

Click to expand...

1 Cor 14:4 NASB

edify= build up, encourage e.g. Mt 16:18 "I will build my church"; "knowledge puffs up while love builds up." 1 Cor 8:1

Sorry for the delay, I am dealing with an en emergency situation that has top priority.

Jack

standingtall said:

I have a simple answer, but you won't and couldn't possibly understand it in light of your proclivities to tear down anything with even the least bit of charismatic flavor to it.

Click to expand...

While your probably correct; I think I asked,

Jack Koons said:

I have a simple question for someone who speaks in tongues, and believes that "tongues" are a "heavenly angelic" language.

What is the purpose of speaking in this language?

Jack

Click to expand...

And due to your "proclivities to tear down anything with even the least bit of charismatic flavor to it."

I am of course referring to:

standingtall said:

It is so simple to become a Christian. It is you and those of your ilk who try to make it so difficult to live as one (i.e. "you must not speak in tongues", or "you must speak in tongues"...."you must listen to this kind of music" and "must not listen to this type of music"...."you must read this version of the bible" and "must not read this version of the bible")....and on and on and on with your Pharisaical baggage. And lest you think I'm only picking on IFBs, it's also Pentecostals/Charismatics that are guilty of the same bilge.

Yes, minor issues are worth discussing....but man seems to have a funny way of inflating these issues and making them prominent in their doctrine.

Click to expand...

standingtall,

Just so you are aware, it is not I that wrote, or inspired the canon of Scripture, that was God. Hence, if you have a problem with the "shalls" and "shall nots" your grievances should be taken up with Him, not me. Call it "Pharisaical baggage", or whatever else you would like. (Other than the tongues, the things you mentioned; the old-time Pentecostals used to call "holy living", while (at one time) "fundamentalists" called it "having standards".

Since you (be the above quotes), have stated your bias against both Independent Fundamental Baptists and Charismatics, I'm wondering if you have a little 'camp' all to yourself.

Just for the record, salvation is easy, but it isn't the "end of the road"; rather, it is just the beginning. That was the problem with the Church of Corinth, it was an entire church of "carnal Christians", so much so that Paul had to rebuke them severely. (The purpose of 1 Corinthians.) I think if he was around today, he would simply address it to "The Ecumenical Churches".

Jack

Jack Koons said:

I have a simple question for someone who speaks in tongues, and believes that "tongues" are a "heavenly angelic" language.

What is the purpose of speaking in this language?

Jack

Click to expand...

To which I received this reply:

Vanellus said:

1 Cor 14:4 NASB

edify= build up, encourage e.g. Mt 16:18 "I will build my church"; "knowledge puffs up while love builds up." 1 Cor 8:1

Click to expand...

This is the NASB taken from: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+14&version=NASB
14 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [a]understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church. 5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.
I want you to notice the context of what is being said.
1) “14 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.”
The Holy Spirit has Paul state, while the Corinthians were to desire spiritual gifts, they were to ‘especially’ desire “that you may prophesy”. The reason is stated next.
2) “2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [a]understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.”
Part A) “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God”
In the KJV it reads, “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God”
Notice the work “unknown”. In the KJV this is in italics, because there is no Greek word supporting the English word “unknown” is the Greek. So why did they insert (or add) the word “unknown” into the text of the KJV? The answer is in the context. But first, lets us finish this part: 1) This man does not speak to men; why? (Answer is coming.) This man does speak to God. Why? Simple, God knows every language.

Please observe:
Part B) (NASB) “for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries”.
Notice the word “for”, the reason he does not talk to men, is because “no one understands”. This is why the KJV inserts the word “unknown”. This man is speaking in a language no one there understands. That is what it says, right there, plain and simple.
Notice, the word “spirit” is NOT capitalized. This is then referring to the spirit of the man, not the Holy Spirit. The man is speaking in mysteries. In his spirit, he may be, and probably is 100% genuine, but what he says is a mystery. The question is, to whom? It is a mystery to every other person present. Why? Because the language he is speaking in is unknown to them. Isn’t that simple?

Let us continue:

3) “3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.”

The person who prophesies, speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. Why is this? Because he is speaking in a language everyone understands. Yes, it really is just that simple.
Now the verse that was quoted:
4) “ 4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.”

Part A) “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”
How does this happen? Let us first remind ourselves why the rest of the people in the room are NOT edified. Do you remember? Because, he is speaking in a language they to not understand. This means, in order to have edification, you must understand the language that is being spoken. Isn’t that simple? If you don’t understand the language, you are not edified; if you do understand the language, you are edified. This means, in order for the man speaking to edify himself, he must understand what he is saying.

If he has no understanding of what he is saying, it is called gibberish. The only way any person can be edified, or built up, is if that person understands what is being said.

Just suppose:

Hal lada shanda hama booma dinmo stapa rendi veny.

That was me speaking in “tongues”. If I hear that, it makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It makes no sense to anyone else in the room either. Paul says, (more accurately, the Holy Spirit says), the other people in the room are not edified for one reason only, they do not understand what is being said. Hence, there is a direct link between understanding what is being said, and being edified. If therefore, the man who is speaking IS being edified, he MUST understand what he is speaking. How do you understand

Hal lada shanda hama booma dinmo stapa rendi veny ???

Moving on with the text.

5) “5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.”

Why does the Holy Spirit have Paul write this? Because the purpose of ALL spiritual gifts, is to edify the church.

I am fully aware that this doesn’t fit the Charismatic definition, but isn’t this just so simple. When the definition of “unknown tongues” is simple unknown to the rest of the people in the church, the context is perfectly clear. The problem of course with this definition, is that it makes the practice of “tongues” as practiced by Charismatics, unscriptural.

Jack

Part Three:
Two Commonly Asked Questions

Question 1: Are tongues a “heavenly prayer language” that the Devil can’t understand?

I must admit that this teaching has a certain flair to it. But the real question is, Can this teaching be supported in the scriptures?

The entire premise of this teaching that “tongues” is a “heavenly prayer language” that Satan can’t understand, is that if Satan was to know what you are praying, he could and would interfere with God’s plan for your life and you could not accomplish God’s plan.

The answer is, No it cannot. As a matter of fact there are things in the scripture that point in the opposite direction.

I want you to consider what happened in the first two chapters of the book of Job.

Job 1: 6 ¶ Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

There are three things I want you to realize about this portion of scripture.

First, Satan has access to Heaven, and the very Throne of God. Note verse 6: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Second, Satan speaks the language spoken in Heaven. Note verse 7: And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. The next five verses are a conversation between God and Satan. (Wouldn’t Satan have to know the “heavenly language” in order to talk to God in Heaven?)
Third, Satan can only do what God tells him he is allowed to do. Note verse 12: And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.
Satan can never do anything to any of God’s children, unless God gives him permission to do so. And if you look farther into Job 2, you will see God again speaking to Satan concerning Job, and once again you see each of the same three points seen in Job 1:6-12.

Observe:

Job 2: 1 ¶ Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. 2 And the LORD said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 3 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause. 4 And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. 5 But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. 6 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

Remember, the entire premise of this teaching that “tongues” is a “heavenly prayer language” that Satan can’t understand, is that if Satan was to know what you are praying, he could and would interfere with God’s plan for your life and you could not accomplish God’s plan.

Is God so weak that He cannot stop Satan from interfering with His plan for your life?

What ever happened to 1Jo 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Along with the above question is the matter of:

1 Corinthaians 13: 1 ¶ Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

We already know that Satan knows the language of Heaven. But do we have any knowledge of what languages ‘angels’ use?

Let us turn to the scriptures.

How about Michael the Archangel?

Jude 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

It would appear that Michael the Archangel speaks the normal ‘heavenly’ language, which Satan understands.

Daniel 8:16 And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. 17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

While Gabriel did say more to Daniel, it is apparent that Gabriel had a Hebrew tongue, (had he spoken a chapter earlier, he may have spoken in Aramaic). I believe he (Gabriel) could have handled both.

Luke 1: 18 And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. 19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.

Luke 1: 26 ¶ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

I believe Hebrew was clearly spoken in the synagogue, and there is much evidence to show that Hebrew was the language used by all Jews. The point however, that must be understood here is quite simple: angels spoke in either the “common” heavenly language (understood by Satan), or the language of the person or people they were speaking to. Doesn’t that just make sense? There is absolutely no reason to believe that angels speak in any other language than just stated.

However, Keep in mind, if the person doesn't understand what is being spoken, there is no edification.

Question 2: Is speaking in “tongues” evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

I have already stated during the second part of our study that the scripture clearly state the purpose of “tongues”.

1 Corinthians 14: 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I have already stated that Charismatics use speaking in tongues as a sign that a person has been filled with the Holy Ghost. Some Charismatics go as far as to say that if you do not speak in tongues, there is no evidence that you are saved.

In his article “Tongues - Devilish or Divine?” Irvin Baxter, Jr. says the following:

“All who receive the Holy Ghost do speak with tongues, but all who have the Holy Ghost do not have the Gift of tongues for use in the church.”

He further states,

“If tongues are not the sign that a person has received the Holy Ghost, how are we to know that we have received it? Some say that a person receives the spirit automatically when he believes.”

He also says,

“Others contend that the spirit comes when an individual is baptized. Those holding the above views insist that we must accept by faith that we have received the spirit with no outward manifestation or definite spiritual experience. Can these teachings stand the test of the scriptures?” (1)

(I added the bold above)

What Irvine R. Baxter Jr. is saying is that there are two groups of people, the first group (to which he belongs) says that you cannot have received the Holy Spirit unless you have the sign of “tongues” to prove it; while the second group, (to which I belong) says that I must take God at His Word by FAITH that when God saves me, His Holy Spirit then comes to dwell in me. Then Irvine R. Baxter Jr. says, Can these teachings stand the test of the scriptures?

Well, let’s see?

1 Corinthians 6: 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

According to the Scriptures, Paul wrote the above letter to “carnal” Christians.

1 Corinthians 1: 1 ¶ And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Nevertheless, in the 6th chapter Paul makes an important statement, 1 Corinthians 6: 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

There can be no doubt that the Holy Spirit has told Paul to insure the Corinthians that the Holy Spirit was “in” them. And then the Holy Spirit says why He lives in them!

“For ye are bought with a price”, and what was that price? The Holy Spirit had Peter write that it was the precious blood of Jesus Christ!

1 Peter 1: 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

When we accept Jesus Christ as our personal Saviour, the Holy Spirit comes into us and regenerates us.

Titus 3: 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

According to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia, the Assembly of God Church was founded on January 1, 1901.(2) Two years after the church’s founding, the pioneers of the Assemblies of God adopted 16 beliefs for the Fellowship, which remains virtually unchanged. (3)

The following excerpt concerning the Holy Spirit was taken from the official website:

“Baptism in the Holy Spirit
All believers are entitled to receive the baptism in the Holy Spirit, and therefore should expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all believers in the early Christian church. With the experience comes the provision of power for victorious Christian living and productive service. It also provides believers with specific spiritual gifts for more effective ministry. The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial physical sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression. (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8; 2:4; 8:12-17; 10:44-46; 11:14-16; 15:7-9; 1 Cor. 12:1-31)” (4)

What we have in the Assembly of God church concerning tongues, is the belief that tongues is a sign to believing church members that new converts have received the filling, or baptism of the Holy Spirit. The entire problem with this teaching is that, as taught and practiced by the Assembly of God church, it literally is the opposite of what the Word of God teaches on the subject.

The Word of God must be obeyed as taught in order to be right with God. There is a statement made in the Book of Judges, that tells how many people view things.

Jud 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Jud 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Note what every man did. He did that which was “right in his own eyes”.

The men in the Book of Judges stopped living by faith in what God said, and had started living by sight, by what was right in their eyes.

God devotes the entire chapter of Hebrews Eleven to the subject of faith. Simply taking God at His Word; that is what God wants us to do.

God tells us in His Word that when we receive Him as Saviour, the Holy Spirit regenerates us, and then lives in us forever! God says it, and wants us to simply take what He says by faith.

But these again are the words of Irvine R. Baxter Jr.:

“All who receive the Holy Ghost do speak with tongues, but all who have the Holy Ghost do not have the Gift of tongues for use in the church.”

And again,

“Others contend that the spirit comes when an individual is baptized. Those holding the above views insist that we must accept by faith that we have received the spirit with no outward manifestation or definite spiritual experience. Can these teachings stand the test of the scriptures?”

Irvine R. Baxter Jr. has just stated that if you have not spoken in “tongues”, you do not have the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, he also states (by his remarks above) that he believes it is wrong for you to have to accept by faith that the Holy Spirit has come into you.

Jesus Christ says you must accept Him by faith as your personal Saviour.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The words, “by faith” appear 36 times in the Word of God. Ac 15:9, Ac 26:18, Ro 1:17, Ro 3:22, Ro 3:28, Ro 3:30, Ro 5:1, Ro 5:2, Ro 9:32, Ro 11:20, 2Co 1:24, 2Co 5:7, Ga 3:11, Ga 3:22, Ga 3:24, Ga 3:26, Ga 5:5, Eph 3:17, Php 3:9, Heb 10:38, Heb 11:4, Heb 11:5, Heb 11:7, Heb 11:8, Heb 11:9, Heb 11:17, Heb 11:20, Heb 11:21, Heb 11:22, Heb 11:23, Heb 11:24, Heb 11:27, Heb 11:29, Heb 11:30, Heb 11:31, Jas 2:24. It would appear to me that God wants us to accept Him by faith!

The answer then as to whether or not tongues is the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit must be, NO.

Tongues was the evidence (or sign) to the “unbelieving Jews”, that the message given on the day of Pentecost, (that Jesus was indeed the Christ); was of God.

Tongues in Acts 10 and 19 were again the sign to the unbelieving Jews that the message of Christ being Saviour for the Gentile as well as the Jew, was also true, and of God.

Tongues however are not a sign to a “believer” that he has received the Holy Spirit, that he must believe, BY FAITH!

So what then are the “tongues” that one hears in most “Charismatic” churches?

While stationed at Camp Lejeune, I was a member of Bethel Assembly of God just outside of Jacksonville, NC. A fellow Marine who was in my unit invited me to go to church with him. I was on mess duty, and I would use any excuse to get out of that duty. So on Sunday morning, I had my friend Ralph come to the mess hall and invite me to church in front of my Sergeant so that it would be a legitimate invitation. I soon began to attend the church on a regular basis. I only had one problem with the church, “tongues”. However, I had a problem. I couldn’t explain to people that I would invite to church what was going on while they were speaking in tongues.

While attending the church, the pastor tried to get me to speak in tongues. I went to front of the church, knelt down on the front pew, and the pastor kneeled beside me and ‘worked’ with me to ‘help me speak in tongues’. It went something like this: he (the pastor) told me to just say “ah”. Then while I was saying a long “aaaah”, he took the inner edge of his index finger and began to touch my throat in a vibrating manner so that I was now saying, “ah ah ah ah ah”. He then began to shout and say to me that’s it, your speaking in tongues! I still remember thinking “I’m not speaking in tongues, you’re moving my throat”. I want you to realize that I really did want to understand tongues, and I really wanted to speak in tongues the way that I saw others doing it, because I really thought I was missing something, but at the same time I was really uncomfortable with tongues, because something just didn’t seem to be right about it.

Since that time, I have been asked by many people about the issue of tongues. During my time in the ministry I have found that Charismatic churches are one of the fastest growing churches in the United States. For this reason the issue of tongues cannot be ignored. But if tongues (as practiced in Charismatic churches) are not what is practiced in the book of Acts, (and we know that it is not because of our study thus far), what are they?

Footnotes: (Numbers in parenthesis)
(1) http://www.endtime.com/specialpage.asp?PageID=22
(2) Assemblies of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(3) Ibid
(4) Ibid

Vanellus said:

The problem with this statement is that you are transferring the context of Acts 2 into the context of 1 Corinthians.

Click to expand...

1) In Acts (regardless of the chapter), there are NO "unknown tongues".
2) In Acts there is NO mention of "heavenly angelic languages".
3) The reason for 'marvel in Acts 2, is the FACT that Galilaeans being heard speaking in a language they were NOT supposed to know, rather than speaking In Galilaen.

That is the context of Acts 2.

The contents of 1 Corinthians 14 is that people (apparently men and women ... That would be the reason Paul said they were not permitted to speak), were speaking in "unknown tongues" (unknown to the people in the church at Corinth), hence, they were NOT being deified.

Paul is writing to the Corinthian church so the "common good" is the common good of the Corinthian church which is an established group of believers. This is what the body illustration is all about.

Click to expand...

I agree, the problem is, how can there be a "common good" (for edification), if NOONE understands what is being said? That is Paul's question.

The same outcome can be achieved by different means. When you look at how prophecy is described with the same Greek word in the NT, it is quite distinct from teaching or preaching.

Click to expand...

Yes, it can. However, what is the context? Paul is using the conjunction "but" to compare the two: he is rebuking their using "unknown tongues", and saying they need to "rather", be prophesying. (The context is clear, people must understand what is being said in order to be deified; and people can't understand "unknown tongues".

I agree with this. In a meeting a tongue should not be given unless it can be interpreted so that others can understand what is said.


There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that indicates that tongues is a sign only for unbelieving Jews rather than unbelievers more generally. There would be Jews and Gentiles in the Corinthian church and in Corinth.

Click to expand...

1 Corinthians 1: 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

This verse clearly states Jews require a sign. However the Greeks do not, they "seek after wisdom". This is a clear distinction.

1 Corinthians 14: 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

This verse says that tongues are for unbelievers. While prophesying is for believers (the majority of the people who are normally the members of the church body).

Hence, 1) since tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and Jews require a sign ... That would mean that it is reasonable to say that "tongues are for unbelieving Jews".

This is false since tongues is described as a gift of the Spirit. One doesn't have to have the Holy Spirit to learn a foreign language. It also falls foul of "tongues of men and angels". Which college teaches angelic languages?!

I will covering this in a later post.

This again is quite false. See for instance "Charismatic gifts in the early church" by Ronald Kydd studying the period up to AD 200 and "The Bible in History : How the Texts Have Shaped the Times"
By David W. Kling Professor of Religious Studies University of Miami e.g. P 249 (both available on Google books)

Click to expand...

Just in case you were unaware, that same University teaches evolution, does that trump the Bible? That is precisely why there are Christian colleges that refuse "accreditation". What many people (even Christians), do no realize is that there are those Christians, churches, and Bible Colleges that have no desire to allow the "state", or an institution that is governed by the state; to set either the curriculum, or requirements for staff membership. One must always remember that the "state" is not qualified to determine A) who is, and is not God-called; and B) what should, or shouldn't be in a particular 'religious' belief. There is no possible way that a "state" governed" entity could possibly form a 'generic' curriculum that all religious groups would have to adapt.

This does not mean, as some suggest, that these unaccredited schools lack character; rather, it demonstrates the very fact that these individuals refuse to compromise their convictions, and bow to the 'ecumenical' authority.

Jack

The most important discussion about toungues in scripture has nothing to do with this thread; rather how to tame it. James chapter 3, many proverbs and so on are good places to look at what I mean.

JR, off topic I know, carry on...