A Look at Tongues in the Word of God

Vanellus said:

Righttruth,

You said Jesus never spoke in tongues.
I say we don't know since the gospels do not record everything.
The presumption is yours not mine.

Click to expand...

Vanellus said:

No you are not correct Righttruth

"We don't know" is not the same as "we can assume". This follows from the basic definitions of the words "know" and "assume".

Click to expand...

cubanito said:

Can we now discuss what the meaning of is is? Or shall we dissect the word assume into 3 parts?
Billy

Click to expand...

Willie T said:

What is your explanation for why onlookers considered them "drunk?"

If, indeed, they were simply speaking in foreign languages, would not most of the listeners be quite comfortable with, and used to hearing, a lot of languages being spoken all over Jerusalem during this special Holy time?

I, personally would not call someone "drunk" if I heard something that sounded like a real language that I knew was already being spoken around town. And I think we can all agree, that even if we cannot understand a language, we can easily identify many languages. I know that I can tell you if a person is speaking German... or Russian... or Spanish... or French... or Italian... or Korean.

And I am not as used to hearing those different languages all over town, every day, as the people of Jerusalem would have been.

I think there is a tip-off in the way it was said that the hearers HEARD......... NOT that the speakers were SPEAKING, a certain language. I believe what the people who weren't HEARING their own languages heard was just as they said... some sort of nonsense that sounded like "drunk talk".

And this is not even taking into consideration that a crowd of 3,000 would certainly have found it almost impossible to selectively distinguish just their own language being SPOKEN while at least eleven other men were also jabbering away in yet another 15 tongues.

I wonder how far away many of the people in that huge throng were standing? After all, the streets were narrow, and not many people could have gotten within several hundred feet of the Apostles. All the voices would have to have melded into just one big noise beyond about 30 or 40 feet.

No, I think there is something big in them saying, "We each hear them in our own tongue"... NOT, "They are speaking in all the languages we use."

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

A look at Tongues in the Word of God

By

Dr. Jack Koons,


© COPYRIGHT 2008 BY THE AUTHOR

This work is copyrighted only to preserve the author's ownership of his work. Any part of this work may be used without the author's permission. All that he asks is that proper credit be given. (All quotations are from the King James Bible, unless stated otherwise)


In this thread, I will be posting the contents of the above copyrighted work in small sections. In addition to the contents of the above mentioned work, I will be ‘inserting’ additional information as opportunities present themselves. Additionally, if a question is asked that I believe merits additional comments (not already covered in the text), I will insert it as well. It is my purpose here to give the readers of this thread, understanding of the “tongues” issue.

A look at Tongues in the Word of God


Bible Studies

By

Dr. Jack Koons



The purpose of this brief study about the subject of ‘tongues’ is to answer the basic questions often asked, and to give a basic understanding of the use of tongues in the Bible.

In many churches today, there is the practice of what is known as “speaking with other or unknown tongues”. This brief study is divided into three parts:

Part One: Tongues in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles;
Part Two: Tongues in the book of 1 Corinthians
Part Three: Two Commonly Asked Questions

Let’s begin in the book of Acts.

Part One: Tongues in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles.

In the Book of The Acts of the Apostles we see the following things.

1) Acts 2 The day of Pentecost
The initial giving of the gift of “other tongues”.
2) Acts 10 Gentiles receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
3) Acts 19 Gentiles receiving the Holy Ghost.

In Chapter One we have the Apostles and some of the women in an upper room both waiting and praying as Jesus had told them to do. As they were there, Mathias was chosen to be with the eleven, to replace Judas; who had betrayed Christ.


Acts the second chapter begins with the morning of the day of Pentecost.

Acts 2: 1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

The first thing mentioned here is the “day of Pentecost”. In short the day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the seven weeks of the harvest. It is discussed in the book of Leviticus.

Leviticus 23:15 ¶ And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

After the mention of when, we have the description that those who are present (at least the Apostles) were with “with one accord in one place”. At this point we must read very carefully. The reason we must read carefully is to be sure that we look at, what it says, not what we think it says.

The reason we must read carefully is to be sure that we look at, what it says, not what we think it says. this is very important i agree.

Acts 2: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Please observe, it did not say, “there was a rushing might wind”. It says there was “a sound from heaven”. This does not say it was windy. It says, “a sound”. This is followed by, “as of a rushing mighty wind”. So what has been said? It says, there was “a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting”. There was no wind, only the sound of wind. Otherwise it would read like this, “And suddenly there came from heaven a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting”.

i agree

Why is this important? Because receiving the power of the Holy Spirit is not a physical thing to be felt, but rather an inner spiritual filling. God did however desire to mark the coming power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it was marked with the miracle of the sound, without the wind. This sound filled the house where they were sitting.

just to make sure you do not put God in a box let me say that i agree that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not a physical thing but it can be manifested that way though.

Notice, I did not say they received the Holy Spirit, I said they received the “power” of the Holy Spirit. Remember the upper room, “19 ¶ Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 20 And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord. 21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20)

this happens at the time we are being born again.

When Jesus said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost”, I believe that is exactly what happened; they received the Holy Ghost. The power was yet to come, but I am certain the disciples did not tell Jesus, “No thank you, I’ll pass on this”.

Click to expand...

i am with you so far

Jack Koons said:

Acts 2: 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Again, look at the wording used here. Note the words, “like as of fire”. This was symbolic of the power that the Holy Spirit would give to the believer. It was not literal fire. It “appeared unto them…as of fire”. There was the appearance of “cloven tongues like as of fire”, and it sat upon each of them.

this was a manifestation of the Spirit that occurred that appeared.

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Now I must admit that it is at this point that things begin to get a bit more interesting and controversial. There is no debate to those present being filled with the Holy Ghost. The debate is over the definition of the word “other”, when used to describe tongues.

The first school of thought is that this is a ‘heavenly language’ used in prayer, for the purpose of communicating with God, without the devil being able to understand or know what you are praying. I must admit, this does have a certain amount of logic behind it, however, only a certain amount. Rather than spending a lot of time discussing several reasons from other scriptures why this logic is limited and in error, let’s just continue reading in Acts two for a definition.

Acts 2: 5 ¶ And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

You may ask this question, Why were Jews, and devout men, out of every nation under heaven; dwelling at Jerusalem? That is a very good question. Pentecost was a solemn feast that the Jews were celebrating.

Acts 2: 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.

Another verse that bears witness to the above verse is in Chapter 11.
Ac 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

please don't add words that are not there. this part is not in acts 11:15 because that every man heard them speak in his own language. the bible says what it means and means what it says. acts 11:15 says that And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. but it says nothing about speaking in other languages it is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. acts 2:6 i agree that those outside heard another language spoken here but it was done through the Holy Spirit.

Back to Acts 2:6,

Now imagine this. In a house somewhere in Jerusalem, several men are gathered together praying, when suddenly there is the sound of a rushing mighty wind and those that are in the house begin to speak in ‘other’ tongues (what ever they may be)! In verse six we see that news of this event was “noised abroad”. In other words, (if I may say so) the news of this event went all over Jerusalem. So much so that “the multitude came together, and were confounded”. Why did they come together? Why were they confounded? Good questions. The end of the verse gives the answer. “because that every man heard them speak in his own language”.

Let’s take a moment to look at this in more detail. The news of these men sitting in a house praying was not very newsworthy. However, throw in the fact that they are now speaking with “other” tongues is. It is not only newsworthy, and causing a crowd to gather, but it has the crowd confounded. What is so special about these “other” tongues? “because that every man heard them speak in his own language”. Well aren’t these all Jews that speak the same language? No, they are not. That is what is so amazing about these “other” tongues. Well then, what languages do these other “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes” speak? That is what the Word of God tells us next.

we don't know how the Word spread. you are just guessing so please be careful when you assume. the most likely way everyone gathered was by the Holy Spirit drawing them in. how i don't know exactly. we also do not know if what was spoken was the heavenly language of God that came out in a way that all could understand or if the disciples actually spoke each in a different language. all we know for sure is that it happened.

Observe the following verses.

Acts 2: 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? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
There are a few things that need to be pointed out about these verses. First, if you look at the end of verse seven you will see that it says, “Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?” This event has apparently moved out of the house at this point and there is a rather large crowd observing the situation. By the above question, it is known that all the speakers of “other” tongues are Galilaeans. The problem is they are not speaking in their native tongue. In other words, there’re not speaking it the language or dialect that would pertain to Galilaeans. (If they would be speaking in a language or languages that pertain to Galilaens; there would be no amazement!) Well if they are not speaking in the language that pertains to Galilaeans, what language are they speaking in? If you look at the above passage you will see sixteen (16) different regions named. The tricky part here is that there are only eleven (11) people speaking. We know this because in verse 14 says, ¶ But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: God allows people from sixteen different regions (mainly Jews celebrating Pentecost) to hear eleven men stand up and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You may ask me how I know these men proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Look at verse 11. “…, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”. What greater works could or would have they have preached than how that Jesus died for their sins, according to the scriptures. And that He was buried. And that He rose again, according to the scriptures. We do know this. It is very clearly stated in verse 11 that the people listening understood what was being said. There were no interpreters. It clearly states that, “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God”.

again i say we also do not know if what was spoken was the heavenly language of God that came out in a way that all could understand or if the disciples actually spoke each in a different language. what i will agree to is that either way is was a miracle. acts 1:12-15 implies that there were 120 people there not just the 11 apostles. it was just the 12 apostles that stood up. peter and the 11 apostles acts 2:14.

What then do we have here in this passage of scripture, as pertaining to “other” tongues? The word “other” simply tells us that on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost gave the Apostles a special gift. This gift was to speak with or in languages that they had no prior study or knowledge. The fact of the matter is that in Acts 4 we see that the people perceived that Peter and John were “unlearned and ignorant”. Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. God did not choose the Apostles because of their ability, He chose them because of their availability.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

Please read the following:
There are two other places in the book of Acts we see the mention of tongues. The first of these is Acts chapter ten.
Acts 10: 44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
In chapter ten what we have, is the conversion of Cornelius. The verses that we are concerned with are those seen above. Observe verses forty-four and forty-five. 44 ¶ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. Note verse forty-five. 45 “And they of the circumcision”. This is referring to Jews. Do you remember Chapter 2? Acts 2: 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? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
you stated in the beginning that the reason we must read carefully is to be sure that we look at, what it says, not what we think it says. it does not say that they spoke other dialects but just that they spoke in other tongues. you previously stated that other tongues was a gift that was to speak with or in languages that they had no prior study or knowledge. i tell you that what is being referred to here is the heavenly language of God. i cannot confirm or deny that any of them did not speak in other known languages but you cannot scripturally say they did either.
You may wonder why am I associating Acts 10 with Acts 2? That is a good question. I am doing it because Peter does it in Acts 11:15. Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. What is Peter referring to by “as on us at the beginning”? He is referring to Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost! Peter is telling the Jews at Jerusalem that what happened to those present on the day of Pentecost as relating to the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit, also happened in the home of Cornelius.
again please do not assume or add words that are not there. because that every man heard them speak in his own language is not in acts 11:15 the bible says what it means and means what it says. acts 11:15 says that And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. but it says nothing about speaking in other languages it is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
There were Jews present in Acts 2, and there were Jews present in Acts 10. There are “tongues” present in Acts 2, and there are “tongues” present in Acts 10. We have the witness of Peter by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the occurrence of Acts 10 is a replication of that in Acts 2 with one exception. In Acts 2 the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost was upon Jews, and witnessed by Jews, Proselytes and strangers of Rome. The witnesses in Acts 2 were mainly Jews that were in Jerusalem for Pentecost. In Acts 10 we see the outpouring of the gift of the Holy Ghost upon Gentiles, not Jews. Those that witness this outpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit were still Jews (those of the circumcision). The significance of this is that God first offers salvation and His gifts to the Jews, and now (in Acts 10) His gifts of salvation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to the Gentiles.
the ability of speaking in known tongues that you did not know previously know was a sign, miracle, and wonder that according to scripture are used to confirm that the Word is true. remember that after that all happened that peter stood up and spoke the gospel. this was not the case in acts 10 concerning tongues.
The key point to consider at this time is knowing the two main purposes for “other tongues”.
I want you to read the following verses carefully.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
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.
There are three very important things stated in the above two verses. First, Jews require a sign. Second, tongues are for a sign. Third, tongues are a sign for unbelievers: not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.
i don't see what 1 cor 1:22 says is so important. if you read the context the jews were used to getting signs from God and the gentiles sought earthly wisdom and so that verse is not a good thing but tells us what both the jews and the gentiles are doing wrong. also jesus stated that an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.
Now what does this mean? God gave the gift of “tongues” for two particular reasons. First, God used tongues to get the gospel out to all the Jews, Proselytes, and strangers of Rome in Acts 2. Some may not believe that the previous sentence is true, but I feel obligated to ask those people the following question: Since we know that what was said by the “eleven” glorified God (we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God); if they were not preaching Christ crucified, buried, and risen again the third day: what were they preaching? That was the message God gave to Peter, wouldn’t it seem a good thing for God to use this opportunity to get His gospel throughout the whole region?
i agree with you here. the speaking in known tongues was confirmation of the Word that what the disciples said was true.
However, there is a more direct purpose for “other 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. Tongues are for a sign. Tongues are a sign to the unbelieving Jew. Observe, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. God gave the unbelieving Jew the sign of “other tongues” or what has been commonly known as “tongues” to know that what was being preached by these Apostles was of God. These Jews in Acts 2 knew these men that were preaching were Galilaeans, and they would not have the natural ability to speak in any other tongue (language). After all, these men were later described as being unlearned (or uneducated). Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. The only way such a miracle could take place, would be by the mighty hand of God. You may ask, Was anyone reached by this outpouring of the gift of “tongues” to the Apostles? Acts 2: 37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Three thousand people received Jesus as Saviour that day, I would say that the unbelieving Jews understood the sign of God that day. Again, 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.
again you are correct. the only problem is that you are assuming that the tongues being referred to in 1 cor 14:22 are known tongues and not heavenly tongues that is the confirmation of receiving of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Before I get too carried away with the purpose of “tongues” I must state that “tongues” are also found being used in Acts 19. 1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7 And all the men were about twelve.
first these men that paul ran into were not unbelievers. the baptism of the Holy Spirit is when the heavenly gift of tongues comes.
Although the above incident does not declare that there were unbelieving Jews present, this incident would be recorded by the Holy Spirit to show unbelieving Jews (even in our day) that the dispensation of “grace” or “the church” was now “of God” and the Gentiles truly have received the “gospel of Christ”.
true except it is not the gospel of Christ but the baptism of the Holy Spirit that tongues confirms.
Again, 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. In review we see two things here about tongues. First, tongues are for a sign. Secondly, we not only see what tongues are for, but whom they are for. Tongues are not for believers. They were spoken by believers, but for the benefit of getting a message to unbelievers. God would take the miracle of having an unlearned preacher, speak in language that the people listening to him would know; he was not normally able to speak.
1 cor 14:22 tells us that tongues are a sign for unbelievers (in other words tongues confirm the Word) because believers did not see tongues as a sign but as a way of life.
I would like to say one more thing concerning this matter. Please take another look at the following verses.
Acts 2: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 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?
What I am about to say may seem trivial to some, but please consider the following. There is no argument that the Apostles were filled with the Holy Ghost and that they spoke with other tongues. But I would like to point out that there is as much of a miracle in the hearing of these tongues as in the speaking of them. You may be asking why this is so? Please read the following verses.
it is not that speaking in an unknown tongue did not happen but what good would it be around people who all spoke the same language? so to use it as confirmation every time would be useless in this case unless it referred to heavenly tongues.
Acts 2: 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
If you look at the above verses you will see that there are 16 regions in which the men came to Jerusalem. Now look at verse 6 above, “that every man heard them speak in his own language”. Also observe verse 8, “And how hear we every man in our own tongue”
There were men from 16 regions, each which has their own dialect. The greatest miracle here is that 11 men were speaking, and men from 16 regions were hearing in their own language wherein they were born. You may be asking, What is the miracle? The miracle is that men from each of the 16 regions mentioned above “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?
first off there were 12 apostles that got up but there were 120 people there according to acts 1. second again the disciples could of been speaking in heavenly tongues that when heard by unbelievers could of come out in away that each and every person there heard their own language being spoken. all we know for sure is that what was happening at the time was confirmation that the gospel of Christ is true.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

I must also point out what is absent from these verses. There are NO interpreters! As we move from the book of Acts into the book of 1 Corinthians we must remember all that we have seen here.

remember that the heavenly tongues are being used as a sign to confirm that unbelievers were baptized by the Holy Spirit. this was to show that now they could do what the believers could already do. interpretation was not needed.

It is necessary at this time to show the difference between the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians.

The book of Acts was written by Luke as a second letter a man named Theophilus. The first letter Luke wrote to Theophilus was his Gospel, which was a letter of the history of Jesus from the time of His birth to His resurrection. The book of Acts was literally an extension of his Gospel. Acts is another book of history that begins at the ascension, covers the first acts of the Apostles after the resurrection including the development of the early church, and then shifts to the missionary journeys of the Apostle Paul. Again, the book of Acts is a book of history.


1 Corinthians on the other hand is not a book of history. 1 Corinthians is a rebuke to the church of Corinth for their carnal practices in the church.

1 Corinthians 3: 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?

As Paul address the subject of “tongues” in chapter 14, he is rebuking them for their wrong practice of “tongues”. This must be kept in mind as we continue our study.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

Part Two: Tongues in the book of 1 Corinthians

As we look into 1 Corinthians we will be introduced to different terminology than we have seen prior to this time. Without further delay let us view the scriptures at hand.

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

Here, in the very first verse of the “Tongues” chapter Paul gives the Corinthians a charge, Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts. There is no debate here, I am quite sure that Paul meant exactly what he said. But he then follows this charge with the weightier matter. …but rather that ye may prophesy. Paul says following charity is good. Desiring spiritual gifts is good. But, preaching is more important. Why?
prophesying is not preaching.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

In the above verses we see the term “unknown tongue”. There has been much controversy over the meaning of this term. However, I believe that it is actually quite simple. An “unknown tongue” is nothing more than a language that the listener does not understand. For example, any other language to him that is only learned in English would be an “unknown tongue”. As we look through the next several verses; keep this in mind, and the simplicity of the scriptures will amaze you.
first do not assume. the bible means what it says and says what it means. verse 2 says that speaking in an unknown tongue speaks not to men but to God. for no man understands him. now does this sound like speaking in a known tongue where other men know what is being said and that you are talking to men and not God? this view is the exact opposite of what verse 2 says.
For example, look at the following verses.

1 Corinthians 14:1 ¶ Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Let’s keep it simple. For this example let’s say that we are in an English speaking church. Let us further understand that a man who only speaks German comes into our church and wants to preach or even pray. It would seem that we would have a little problem. The problem would be that the German speaker would be speaking in an “unknown tongue” (language). Unknown to whom? Unknown to us, who only speak English. We would not understand a single word he would say. Now look at what it says in verse 2 above. 1 Corinthians 14: 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. It says, 2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men… why doesn’t he speak unto men? Because they can’t understand him. Observe, : for no man understandeth him. Why can’t they understand him? Because they only speak English, not German. Then it says, but unto God. In other words, he isn’t speaking to men (since they can’t understand German), but he is speaking unto God (just because we can’t understand German, doesn’t mean God can’t understand German). The same principle applies in verse 4, “4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…why does he edify himself? Because he understands what he is saying. This is followed by, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. The word prophesieth here is referring to proclaiming the word of God in a tongue that is known to both speaker and hearer. You may be asking, How do you know this? If the speaker is using a tongue (or language) that the hearer doesn’t know, it would be an “unknown tongue”. Again, the verse reads, 4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. Do you see the conjunction “but” after “himself”? This conjunction “but” is used in order to cause the reader to compare what the first person is doing, with what the second person is doing, because the writer is trying to say there is a difference in what they are doing. The first person is doing “this” action, but, the second person is doing “that” action. The first person, who is speaking in an “unknown tongue” is edifying himself. Why? Because only he understands what he is saying. But, the second person who is prophesying (or preaching) in a language that is known to all, edifies the church, because everyone understands all that he says.

Click to expand...

7angels said:

remember that 1 coriththians was all considered milk by paul and not meat. thus even new christians should know of these concepts being given. paul is not talking to mature christians but to carnal and baby christians.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

Let us now look at verse 5. I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
now remember paul is talking to the church when they are together and not about the individuals' fellowship with God.
Now in case you do not yet see the emphasis of this epistle from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, it is all gifts must edify the church. The purpose of all spiritual gifts is not to be for the benefit of one, but rather, for the edification for all in the church. No matter what the gift may be, God does not give it for the glory of the individual who may possess it. He allows the individual to exercise the gift, but truly the gift is given to the church for its edification. Hence, when Paul says “I would that ye all spake with tongues”, he is not saying that he would that all would speak with “unknown tongues”. Remember, an unknown tongue is simply that, unknown. Why would the Apostle Paul want all of the New Testament saints to be speaking in tongues that no one understands? He wouldn’t. What then is he trying to say? You must understand at this point that Paul spoke in several languages.
again you are assuming. according to scripture the spiritual gifts are to be used for God's glory. the spiritual gifts according to scripture are to equip the saints for spreading the gospel. the unknown tongues are according to scripture the Spirit speaking on our behalf to God. rom 8:26 says Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. this is why NT saints want to be able to speak in unknown tongues that no one but God understands.
Acts 21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

He wrote his epistles in Greek, and as a Roman citizen he most likely spoke Latin, and it was very probable that he also spoke Aramaic. I think what he was saying was that he wished that everyone could speak with several languages as did he for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. Even more than having people speak with many languages, it is better to preach in one language that all can understand, and therefore be edified. The exception to this of course would be that if there were to be there one who could interpret. This gift of the Holy Ghost would allow the possessor of it, to interpret any language at all. This means exactly what it sounds like. It would not matter what language a foreign Preacher would speak. If a MAN in the church has the gift of “interpretation”, he can by the power of the Holy Spirit interpret for any Preacher of any language.

Keep in mind, “unknown” tongues are languages that are simply unknown the people in the church.
according to verse 2, unknown tongues are referred to as the language of God and not the known languages of man.
The only place the words “unknown tongues” appear in the scriptures is here in 1 Corinthians 14.

6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? 7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

In these verses Paul I believe wants to make a very valid and simple point. The only way the hearer can “prepare himself to the battle”, is if he understands the command that is given.
paul is saying in verse 6 that if he was speaking in unknown tongues in church that what good would it do you unless you understand?
Paul says, “if I come unto you speaking with tongues”. The word ‘tongues’ here is plural. Paul says, if I come unto you speaking in more than one language, “shall I profit you”(?) Paul is asking us a question. What shall I profit you, (if I speak in more than one language), except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Paul says, except, (or unless) I speak to you something that you understand, I will not profit you. If I Paul would speak to people in many languages, the only way they would profit, is if they also spoke (and understand) all the languages I would speak in. Paul says, if I come to you speaking with four languages, and you only speak one of those languages, the only profit you will receive is when I speak in the language you understand.

He then likens this point to musical instruments which make different ‘tunes’. If you do not know the ‘tune’ that is played, you will have no understanding of what is being played for you.

For example, if you have never heard the tune for ‘charge’ (in the battle), and that tune is played, it will have no meaning to you.

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

I once heard a man say that this ‘speaking into the air’ is speaking to God. This however is not the context. The context is whether or not you are speaking words “easy to be understood”. If you do not speak words that are easy to understand, people will not know what your are trying to say to them, (there will be no understanding of what is trying to be communicated to the person being spoken to). Therefore, you are speaking “into the air”. The air is not God, it is Paul’s way of saying that whenever you speak words not easily understood, the words you are speaking are being wasted in the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

The easiest way to describe the above verse is calling to remembrance what I stated about Lebanon, PA. All around the world there are places just like Lebanon, PA. Places with not only different languages, but different dialects of the same language within a single area. Paul is teaching that there are many kinds of languages in the world, and every one of them is significant.
no what is being referred to is not just languages but culture, views, thoughts, and ect. we need to read the context.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

Once again Paul wants to drive home this simple point. If you are listening to someone talk that is not talking in a language you understand, he will be a barbarian to you, and when you talk to him, you will be a barbarian to him.
again language is one example.
The thrust of this entire text of 1 Corinthians 14 is that the people in the church must understand what is being spoken, or they will receive no profit.

Click to expand...

Jack Koons said:

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

It is my personal belief that this is a very interesting verse. Why would Paul make such a statement? There is a hint in the above verse that many of the members of the early church while being zealous of spiritual gifts, did not understand the underlying purpose of ALL spiritual gifts, “the edifying of the church”. Spiritual gifts are not toys that are handed out by the Holy Spirit for people just to have fun with, or to be used for personal glory. Spiritual gifts are given to individuals in churches for the purpose of edifying the rest of the members of each particular church. It should be our desire to seek spiritual gifts that God can use us to benefit the members of the church.
again spiritual gifts are given to church to equip the saints for carrying out the will and purpose of God and to give God glory.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

The above two verses go hand in hand with one another.

What about when Paul says the preacher should “pray that he may interpret” I think what Paul is saying is that the man might pray something like this, “Father, these people do not understand anything I am saying, if you want me to preach to them, give me the gift of interpreting from my language to theirs that they may have understanding of this your message for them.”
what is being referred to is by having the Spirit intercede for us in groans which cannot be uttered does no one any good but the person speaking. so unless the interpretation is available it will help no one but the speaker.
What is Paul saying about praying in an “unknown” tongue? If a man gets up and prays in a language that no one understands, they will have no understanding of what he has prayed for, or even if he is praying to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Neither will they know when he is done praying. How do you know when the end of a prayer is? Isn’t it normally after the word “Amen?
when the Holy Spirit is interceding for me i have never heard Him end it with amen. which is why tongues is useless for the church unless someone can interpret it you won't understand it.
If a man who only spoke Latin was to come into a church that only spoke Greek, he was to pray that he could, by the power of the Holy Spirit, interpret his message into Greek so that the Greek speaking church can be edified.

Why?
this can happen but most times to my knowledge there would be an interpreter to tell everyone what is said.
For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
this is because the Holy Spirit is speaking mysteries according to scripture.
If the man who only speaks Latin prays in the “unknown tongue” of Latin, in a Greek only speaking church, his spirit does pray to the Lord, however, since only he and the Lord understand what he is saying as he prays, “his understanding” of his prayer “is unfruitful” to the church in which he is praying in front of.

Why?
i have already shown that what is being referred to is unknown tongues or heavenly tongues. to assume everything being referred to as speaking in a known language of man is just being closed minded. i don't deny that God can have us speak to someone else and they understand what is being said even though neither speaks the same language or like in acts 2.
Because they do not understand a word he is saying as he prays.

15 ¶ What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

If there is one thing I love about the scriptures, it is their ability to define themselves.
i agree but we need to watch out we don't add things that are not said.
Look at what is said in the above verses. The context here is still ‘speaking in an unknown tongue’.

When you speak in a tongue that is unknown to others, while you may be understanding what you are speaking, and receiving a blessing, those in your presence are not. Look at Paul’s example, he says that the people who hear you praying cannot even say Amen when you have completed your prayer, (again, because they don’t understand a word you are saying.)
as i said earlier 1 cor 14 is referring to how to edify the body of Christ correctly and incorrectly when they are together.
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.
again don't assume. the bible says what it means and means what it says.
Look at the next verse.

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

When a person speaks in a tongue that is unknown in the church, the church receives no edification. Therefore Paul says that “in the church” he would “rather speak five words” that are understood, “than ten thousand words” that are not.
that is a good interpretation of what the verse says without adding anything.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

The above verse is a light rebuke to the people in Corinth. Paul is addressing them the same way he did in 1 Corinthians 3:

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?

Paul is simply telling them that their understanding of spiritual gifts should not be as children have, (being unlearned), but rather, they should have the understanding of men.
all of 1 cor is milk as far as paul is concerned. paul would not be telling them anything that can be considered meat because he has already said that they would not understand(1 cor 3:2).
21 ¶ In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is a reference to the prophet Isaiah.

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

The outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the gift of speaking in ‘tongues’ that the Jews (to this people) would understand on the Day of Pentecost, was prophesied by Isaiah. As stated in the first part of our study, tongues were for the unbelieving Jew.
i have not studied isaiah but from what he said i don't see any complaints atm with it.
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

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.

There are three very important things stated in the above two verses. First, Jews require a sign. Second, tongues are for a sign. Third, tongues are a sign for unbelievers: not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.
as i said before i don't see what 1 cor 1:22 says is so important. if you read the context the jews were used to getting signs from God and the gentiles sought earthly wisdom and so that verse is not a good thing but tells us what both the jews and the gentiles are doing wrong. also jesus stated that an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.
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 know that I said much about this verse in the first part of our study, however, there is another point that I am going to bring out at this time.


Most of the members of the Charismatic churches today, claim to believe in Jesus Christ as their Saviour. It is also part of their belief that one of the main purposes of “tongues” is that “speaking in tongues” is their “evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit”. The problem with this belief is that there is no scriptural basis for this belief. We have in the above verses direct purposes for “tongues”. Verse 22 clearly says that “tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not”. The interesting thing about this is that the members of Charismatic churches state that speaking in “tongues” gives the believing member evidence that the person speaking in “tongues” is filled with the Holy Spirit. This evidence then gives the person who “speaks in tongues” validity of belief and Holy Spirit filling, which in turn gives them acceptance among the other believers in the church.
1 cor 14:22 tells us that tongues are a sign for unbelievers (in other words tongues confirm the Word) but believers did not see tongues as a sign but as a way of life. i do not see how it is a contradiction?
This entire teaching by the Charismatics is in direct contradiction of the scriptures.

The purpose of this portion of our study however, is to address what the scriptures do teach.
i agree
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?

Paul has already addressed what happens if one person speaks in the church in an “unknown tongue”. In the above verse Paul addresses what would happen if visitors would come into a church and “all speak with tongues”. Note, the word “tongues” is plural. Now we have all the people speaking in several tongues. The indication is that visitors would say that the members of the church are mad. (It is a reference to being “crazy”, not “angry”.)
i can understand your misunderstanding here if you have never heard the heavenly tongue. this is also why tongues should not be used in church unless there is a person who interprets it.

Click to expand...

standingtall said:

Well Jack, when you put "Dr." In front of your name, you should expect honest questions...and when you try to dodge the question (as you did the first time), you should also expect skepticism.

Pardon my cynicism, but a great many Independent Fundamental Baptists touting the title of Doctor did not earn it, but were given it by their buddies in the unaccredited IFB college ranks. Jack Hyles and his cronies were/are famous for doing this.

As far as the KJV and "tongues"....it just doesn't matter, and I believe some folks spend far too much time majoring on those minors.

Click to expand...

SaintJoeNow said:

Tongues in modern churches are not the same as tongues in Acts. Tongues in today's churches are the same "tongues" expressed in pagan and satanic rituals in drug induced or hypnotic religious trance. There are many "healers" and "seers" or "prophets" in paganism.

The word of God is strict about the confusions of tongues in the church at Corinth, and those restrictions are pretty much entirely ignored amongst "tongues" practitioners today, and that is a pretty good sign that what is happening with "tongues" today in general is not from God.

Most examples of tongues can be shown to have usually fewer than 16 ......I forget the word, consonants? They use nowhere near the number of distinctly different sound pronunciations required to be a language so it is not possible for their "tongues" to be interpreted as a language to meet the requirements for tongues usage set forth in Corninthians.

Click to expand...