My Question: What Are Tongues?

[Epiphany]

To Life Immortal

OK, from what I understand, people speak in different language while praising God. Is this language understandable by others? I know other language besides English. Is it like praying in your native language or is it something completely different? I hope it is OK to ask this question here; I am curious.

Peace and Long Life
~*~ Epiphany ~*~

 

[enoch son]

Tongues are used in prayer to pray in the perfect will of the Father. We do not understand what we are praying our minds are unfruitfull by our spirit grows in faith. It is wonderful.

 

[*Miau*]

I had never heard of "speaking in tongues" before I met my boyfriend, I was quite surprised and sceptical - I still am a little bit, because I've never seen it - only heard about it. It's not something we've ever talked about in the church I come from, so I'm very curiuos as well.

 

[Jim B]

Epiphany wrote:

OK, from what I understand, people speak in different language while praising God. Is this language understandable by others? I know other language besides English. Is it like praying in your native language or is it something completely different? I hope it is OK to ask this question here; I am curious

Here is an interesting (albeit lengthy) and, I think, objective definition of "Tongues" from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that I found online.

I would like to hear your comments:

The Gift of Tongues

1. Basic Character of 1 Corinthians 14:

A spiritual gift mentioned in Acts 10:44-46; Acts 11:15; Acts 19:6; Mark 16:17, and described in Acts 2:1-13 and at length in 1Co. 12 through 14, especially chapter 14. In fact, 1Co. 14 contains such a full and clear account that this passage is basic. The speaker in a tongue addressed God (1 Corinthians 14:2, 1 Corinthians 14:28) in prayer (1 Corinthians 14:14), principally in the prayer of thanksgiving (1 Corinthians 14:15-17). The words so uttered were incomprehensible to the congregation (1 Corinthians 14:2, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 1 Corinthians 14:9, etc.), and even to the speaker himself (1 Corinthians 14:14). Edification, indeed, was gained by the speaker (1 Corinthians 14:4), but this was the edification of emotional experience only (1 Corinthians 14:14). The words were spoken "in the spirit" (1 Corinthians 14:2); i.e. the ordinary faculties were suspended and the divine, specifically Christian, element in the man took control, so that a condition of ecstasy was produced. This immediate (mystical) contact with the divine enabled the utterance of "mysteries" (1 Corinthians 14:2)--things hidden from the ordinary human understanding (see MYSTERY). In order to make the utterances comprehensible to the congregation, the services of an "interpreter" were needed. Such a man was one who had received from God a special gift as extraordinary as the gifts of miracles, healings, or the tongues themselves (1 Corinthians 12:10, 1 Corinthians 12:30); i.e. the ability to interpret did not rest at all on natural knowledge, and acquisition of it might be given in answer to prayer (1 Corinthians 14:13). Those who had this gift were known, and Paul allowed the public exercise of "tongues" only when one of the interpreters was present (1 Corinthians 14:28). As the presence of an interpreter was determined before anyone spoke, and as there was to be only one interpreter for the "two or three" speakers (1 Corinthians 14:28), any interpreter must have been competent to explain any tongue. But different interpreters did not always agree (1 Corinthians 14:26), whence the limitation to one.

2. Foreign Languages Barred Out:

These characteristics of an interpreter make it clear that "speaking in a tongue" at Corinth was not normally felt to be speaking in a foreign language. In 1 Corinthians 14:10 English Versions of the Bible are misleading with "there are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world," which suggests that Paul is referring directly to the tongues. But tosauta there should be rendered "very many," "ever so many," and the verse is as purely illustrative as is 1 Corinthians 14:7. Hence, foreign languages are to be barred out. (Still, this need not mean that foreign phrases may not occasionally have been employed by the speakers, or that at times individuals may not have made elaborate use of foreign languages. But such cases were not normative at Corinth.) Consequently, if "tongues" means "languages," entirely new languages must be thought of. Such might have been of many kinds (1 Corinthians 12:28), have been regarded as a fit creation for the conveyance of new truths, and may even at times have been thought to be celestial languages--the "tongues of angels" (1 Corinthians 13:1). On the other hand, the word for "tongue" (glossa) is of fairly common use in Greek to designate obsolete or incomprehensible words, and, specifically, for the obscure phrases uttered by an oracle. This use is closely parallel to the use in Corinth and may be its source, although then it would be more natural if the "ten thousand words in a tongue" of 1 Corinthians 14:19 had read "ten thousand glossai." In no case, however, can "tongue" mean simply the physical organ, for 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 speaks of articulated words and uses the plural "tongues" for a single speaker (compare 1 Corinthians 14:5-6).

3. A State of Ecstasy:

A complete explanation of the tongues is given by the phenomena of ecstatic utterances, especially when taken in connection with the history of New Testament times. In ecstasy the soul feels itself so suffused with the divine that the man is drawn above all natural modes of perception (the understanding becomes "unfruitful"), and the religious nature alone is felt to be active. Utterances at such times naturally become altogether abnormal. If the words remain coherent, the speaker may profess to be uttering revelations, or to be the mere organ of the divine voice. Very frequently, however, what is said is quite incomprehensible, although the speaker seems to be endeavoring to convey something. In a still more extreme case the voice will be inarticulate, uttering only groans or outcries. At the termination of the experience the subject is generally unconscious of all that has transpired.

For the state, compare Philo, Quis rerum. divin., li-liii.249-66: "The best (ecstasy) of all is a divinely-infused rapture and 'mania,' to which the race of the prophets is subject. .... The wise man is a sounding instrument of God's voice, being struck and played upon invisibly by Him. .... As long as our mind still shines (is active) .... we are not possessed (by God) .... but .... when the divine light shines, the human light sets. .... The prophet .... is passive, and another (God) makes use of his vocal organs." Compare, further, the descriptions of Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsus, vii.9), who describes the Christian "prophets" of his day as preaching as if God or Christ were speaking through them, closing their words with "strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words of which no rational person can find the meaning." The Greek papyri furnish us with an abundance of magical formulas couched in unintelligible terms (e.g. Pap. Lond., 121, "Iao, eloai, marmarachada, menepho, mermai, ieor, aeio, erephie, pherephio," etc.), which are not infrequently connected with an ecstatic state (e.g. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 53-58).

Interpretation of the utterances in such a state would always be difficult and diversities of interpretation would be unavoidable. Still, with a fixed content, such as the Christian religion gave, and with the aid of gestures, etc., men who felt that they had an understanding of such conditions could undertake to explain them to the congregation. It is to be noted, however, that Paul apparently does not feel that the gift of interpretation is much to be relied on, for otherwise he would have appraised the utility of tongues more highly than he does. But the popularity of tongues in Corinth is easily understood. The speaker was felt to be taken into the closest of unions with God and hence, to be an especial object of God's favor. Indeed, the occurrence of the phenomenon in a neo-convert was irrefragable proof that the conversion was approved by God (Acts 10:44-48; Acts 11:15; Acts 19:6). So in Mark 16:17 the gift is treated as an exceptional and miraculous divine blessing (in this verse "new" is textually uncertain, and the meaning of the word, if read, is uncertain also). Moreover, for the more selfish, the gift was very showy (1 Corinthians 13:1 suggests that it was vociferous), and its possession gratified any desire for personal prominence.

4. The Account in Acts 2:

The account in Acts 2 differs from that of 1Co. 14 in making the tongues foreign languages, although the ability to use such languages is not said to have become a permanent apostolic endowment. (Nor is it said that the speech of Acts 2:14-36 was delivered in more than one language.) When the descent of the Spirit occurred, those who were assembled together were seized with ecstasy and uttered praises to God. A crowd gathered and various persons recognized words and phrases in their own tongues; nothing more than this is said. That the occasion was one where a miracle would have had unusual evidential value is evident, and those who see a pure miracle in the account have ample justification for their position. But no more than a providential control of natural forces need be postulated, for similar phenomena are abundantly evidenced in the history of religious experience. At times of intense emotional stress the memory acquires abnormal power, and persons may repeat words and even long passages in a foreign language, although they may have heard them only once. Now the situation at Jerusalem at the time of the Feast gave exactly the conditions needed, for then there were gathered pilgrims from all countries, who recited in public liturgical passages (especially the Shemoneh 'Esreh) in their own languages. These, in part, the apostles and the "brethren" simply reproduced. Incomprehensible words and phrases may well have been included also (Acts 2:13), but for the dignity of the apostles and for the importance of Pentecost Luke naturally cared to emphasize only the more unusual side and that with the greatest evidential value. It is urged, to be sure, that this interpretation contradicts the account in 1Co. 14. But it does so only on the assumption that the tongues were always uniform in their manifestation and appraisement everywhere--and the statement of this assumption is its own refutation. If the modern history of ecstatic utterances has any bearing on the Apostolic age, the speaking in foreign languages could not have been limited only to Pentecost. (That, however, it was as common as the speaking in new "languages" would be altogether unlikely.) But both varieties Luke may well have known in his own experience.

5. Religious Emotionalism:

Paul's treatment of the tongues in 1Co. 12 through 14 is a classical passage for the evaluation of religious emotionalism. Tongues are a divine gift, the exercise is not to be forbidden (1 Corinthians 14:39), and Paul himself is grateful that he has the gift in an uncommon degree (1 Corinthians 14:18). Indeed, to those who treat them simply with scorn they become a "sign" that hardening is taking place (1 Corinthians 14:21-23). Yet a love of them because they are showy is simply childish (1 Corinthians 14:20; 1 Corinthians 13:11), and the possessor of the gift is not to think that he has the only thing worth obtaining (1Co. 12). The only gift that is utterly indispensable is love (1Co. 13), and without it tongues are mere noise (1 Corinthians 13:1). The public evidential value of tongues, on which perhaps the Corinthians were inclined to lay stress, Paul rates very low (1 Corinthians 14:21-23). Indeed, when exercised in public they tend to promote only the self-glorification of the speaker (1 Corinthians 14:4), and so are forbidden when there is not an interpreter, and they are limited for public use at all times (1 Corinthians 14:27-28). But the ideal place for their exercise is in private: "Let him speak to himself, and to God" (1 Corinthians 14:28). The applicability of all this to modern conditions needs no commentary. Ultra-emotionalistic outbreaks still cause the formation of eccentric sects among us, and every evangelist knows well-meaning but slightly weak individuals who make themselves a nuisance. On the other hand, a purely intellectual and ethical religion is rather a dreary thing. A man who has never allowed his religious emotions to carry him away may well be in a high state of grace--but he has missed something, and something of very great value.

Reference: http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/Topic/Tongues, Gift Of

 

[enoch son]

I have a different opion based on the fact that word say's tongues of men and of ANGELS. I do not know any where in the world you can learn angel? As for the emotions so what! When you are with your lover are you not emotional? I'm in love with my Lord Jesus so I'm not sorry if I get emotional!

 

[Svt4Him]

http://www.christianforums.com/t78931

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Speaking with new tongues is the spirit of Christ (that has been born again into all and every believer) speaking forth with sounds that are not able to be understood. All believers can do this. All believers who have ever wept, groaned in the spirit, or praised with crying have spoken in new tongues. I have no doubt that every believer reading this had spoken with new tongues. You can do this any time you want. (You can also prophesy out of the same spirit of Christ that was born again into you.)

Then there is the Holy Spirit Enabled gift of "diversites of tongues". Few have received this. It only manifests when the Holy Spirit wants it to. You have little or no control over this other than to yield to the Holy Spirit.

 

[perfectlyok2]

2. Foreign Languages Barred Out:

These characteristics of an interpreter make it clear that "speaking in a tongue" at Corinth was not normally felt to be speaking in a foreign language. In 1 Corinthians 14:10 English Versions of the Bible are misleading with "there are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world," which suggests that Paul is referring directly to the tongues. But tosauta there should be rendered "very many," "ever so many," and the verse is as purely illustrative as is 1 Corinthians 14:7. Hence, foreign languages are to be barred out.

Jim, are you kidding me? You have no real biblical evidence that the tounges of 1 Cor. are any different than those of Acts 2. It never says anywhere that they are different. Wouldnt that be confusing if it the same word means something totally different separate passages. According to 1 Cor 14:33 "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints." The tounges were languages of men, it was defined in Acts 2 plain and simple.

 

[Jim B]

p-ok! wrote:

Jim, are you kidding me?

Whoa, p-ok, I did not say I believed it, I just said the article was an "interesting" and "objective" view of the subject of Tongues and I only offered it for the purpose of discussion.

Anyhow, if we all agreed on everything we wouldn't learn anything, now would we?

Thanks for your view on the subject. I'll get back with you.

Jim \o/

 

[enoch son]

didaskalos; I will have to part ways on your doctrine on tongues. God does not give the infilling to the disobedient. You most go a wait for it. He fills you at His good pleasure. If your stand was true then the great revival in last 100 yrs would have happean through out the body and not just in the P/C movements. I do not see other churchs moving in the gifts of the spirit. Obedience is better then sacfrice they are living proof of that ver.

 

[crystalpc]

As I understand in Acts 2 the tongues were a heavenly language, yet the miracle was that they were not speaking in earthly languages, but every man heard in his own language. The real miracle of that was on the ears, and not the tongue.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Hello dear heart. Blessings for your response! Let me addess some issues that came to mind as I pondered your post:

didaskalos; I will have to part ways on your doctrine on tongues.

That's OK. We can part on doctrine, but we are joined in the love of the spirit and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ!

God does not give the infilling to the disobedient. You most go a wait for it. He fills you at His good pleasure.

In my early years as a Christian I was Assembly of God, then Church of God, and even The Church of God of Prophecy. All these churches taught in some form or other what you are saying: "we have to tarry for the Spirit." The COGOP was the most dogmatic about it in their "29 teachings." I taught in the church for a number of years and finally had to part ways because I differed with them and could not in good conscience stand in their pulpit and teach what they as a church did not agree with. On this subject, my main objection is this.
1. The Spirit is received by faith. That means we have to believe that He has already given it just like Jesus has already died for our sins. We do not have to wait for Jesus to die for our sins... He already did it! We just have to believe. So too all we need to do to receive the Holy Spirit is to believe that He has done what He said He has done and will do what He said He will do. Read these promises:

Acts 2:33-38 KJV
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear....
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.



Notice it is a promise, that it is received by believing, and that given to all who are saved.

See what Paul said about it too:
Galatians 3:5 GW
5 Does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you through your own efforts or through believing what you heard?

You see dear saint, you receive the Holy Spirit by the hearing of faith just like being saved. It is there for you now, and is just waiting for faith to reach out and recieve.

Then there is the issue that believers have to "get holier" or more righteous to receive the Holy Spirit. The COGOP called this "sanctification" or the "second act of grace". They taught and believed that people were saved, but then they had to have another touch from God to get "good and saved" (you old time Pentacostals will know what I am talking about!). They thought that believers were not good enough receive the Holy Spirit until they underwent this "second act of grace" which had the effect of "cleaning them up."
Once day I read the scripture that said:
2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
:

If I have been made the righteousness of God in Christ, then what could I possibly do to make myself any more righteous than that? What can we add to the righteousness of God? Nothing!
The day we get saved, we become as righeous and holy as we will ever be in the eyes of God.
Any attempt to add to this is just glorying in the flesh:
1 Corinthians 1:29-31 KJV
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

You will never be more holy in the eyes of God than you are right now!

If your stand was true then the great revival in last 100 yrs would have happean through out the body and not just in the P/C movements. I do not see other churchs moving in the gifts of the spirit. Obedience is better then sacfrice they are living proof of that ver.

You are correct that they have not all received... but this was (and is) because they have not heard and believed the word to receive by faith.

If we could only receive the Holy Spirit if we were "good enough", then we would not need the Holy Spirit!

Blessings
Didy.

 

[enoch son]

I stand where I stand because man would become lazy. I've got it but don't speak in tongues. I do not see that in the word. But life in Christ is great. And the salvation of souls is number one. "All the rest will be added unto you". It only a matter of time before the Great outpouring starts. "For Jesus is in all for all" yours in the blood ken

 

[Heinrich]

I wish somebody that has the gift of speaking in other tongues of men or the gift of interpretation can post in this forum for a change since a think somebody like that would have some respect.

I met one girl once who told me she spoke in a tongue which was then interpreted, and she also prays in a tongues which is not interpreted or understood...

Now if all tongues are like Acts 2 what will be the use of the gift of interpretation? mmm?

Anyways as I said somebody with some experience in the field should maybe post

 

[PatrickM]

Now if all tongues are like Acts 2 what will be the use of the gift of interpretation? mmm?

Anyways as I said somebody with some experience in the field should maybe post

I wouldn't be surprised if some (of us ) who have posted here *do* speak, or pray in tongues. Isnt' it just like God to grant such a powerful gift, knowing how it would be misinterpreted and misused, but allowing it anyway! His ways are certainly not our (or at least my ) ways!

I think Scripture allows for both, the understandable language as in Acts 2, and the unintelligible of Romans 8. It also appears as if they are interchangeable according the the will of the Holy Spirit, with no set dogma as to when either is used.

Paul seemed to interchange the use in the *infamous* 1Cor14, i.e. vs2 ". . . for no one understands him; however in the spirit he speaks mysteries." Some may say this is different than praying in tongues, however, vs4 states "He who *speaks* in a tongue edifies himself." And vs5 Paul uses the "speaking" when he desires *all* spoke with tongues. However, not all have the gift of speaking, or prophesying in tongues as in 1Cor12:30.

Someone posted earlier the Acts 2 example was both, in that the disciples spoke with languages they had not learned, but the hearers miraculously heard in their own ears (their own tongue). This is an interesting notion. Any further comments regarding this??

 

[crystalpc]

Then there is the issue that believers have to "get holier" or more righteous to receive the Holy Spirit. The COGOP called this "sanctification" or the "second act of grace". They taught and believed that people were saved, but then they had to have another touch from God to get "good and saved" (you old time Pentacostals will know what I am talking about!). They thought that believers were not good enough receive the Holy Spirit until they underwent this "second act of grace" which had the effect of "cleaning them up."

I remember this it was also taught in the Church of God Cleveland Assembly. I can remember that we were told to tarry for the Spirit, and some would say hang on, others let go. While we tried to do both.
My testimony for years was I thank God for saving sanctifying me and filling me with the Holy Ghost. as if sanctification came sometime after salvation.
I am one person who will never say that I am unworthy not since I found out I was the very righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
It is the same as saying that my Lord is unworthy..oh me!
I was unworthy to recieve such grace, but after recieving it I became as worthy as Jesus.
Another thing that was prevalent in the church was seeking the Holy Ghost, only for the gift of tongues, many of us did not know of the ministering gifts the Holy Spirit brought, or if we did we thought we were too unworthy to have recieved more than tongues..the least of the gifts..what is the least if it is God's gift?

 

[LynneClomina]

hi, i'm new. i have been enjoying reading, and just thought i would share...

i speak in tongues, alot. but like paul, i work on my gift of prophecy more so. but i feel so blessed by praying in tongues...

i have felt strongly the urge to speak in tongues to our church, but first i discussed it with my pastor and he advised me to hold off for now, and i trust his judgement. one day i will have release to do so, i am sure.

i have had this urge to speak out in tongues and had the interpretation too, but i havent had an interpretation for the few times i have heard tongues spoken to the congregation... but in our church about half of us pray in tongues, it is very routine and not something we focus on.

I wish somebody that has the gift of speaking in other tongues of men or the gift of interpretation can post in this forum for a change since a think somebody like that would have some respect.

may i ask what you meant by "have some respect"? i am curious what you meant.

hope nobody minds me sharing on my first post.

blessings, Lynne

 

[crystalpc]

Someone posted earlier the Acts 2 example was both, in that the disciples spoke with languages they had not learned, but the hearers miraculously heard in their own ears (their own tongue). This is an interesting notion. Any further comments regarding this??

This is the way I read it, because there were several thousand people there, Jews who came from all over the known world of many dialects some thought they were drunk, obviously because they didn't hear in thier own language
they probably heard what they thought was gibberish, or they would have marveled to, others marveled because every man heard in his own language.

I also assumed that it was done decently and in order with only one man speaking at one time. If that is so, how did he speak in so many different languages at once, for everyone to hear it in his own language? If everyone was speaking at once, then there would have been confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
There were 3000 added to the church that day, bet they were the ones who heard in their own language??? What do you think?

 

[LynneClomina]

i think there is confusion, and then there is confusion... i mean to say that we can have a confused heart and spirit and that is not from God... but environmental confusion is another thing... an ant hill is a terrible confusion of activity, yet God created it, and within the confusion is His order... much like in acts 2.

at our church we occasionally have services where people will get totally drunk in the holy spirit, and people will be laughing and crying and singing in tongues with no awareness of what is going on around them, focussed only on God.. to an onlooker, it seems to be confusion, yet God is directing it, and everyone who is "drunk" is totally being ministered to in their hearts... now, the unenlightened spectator might feel confusion in their hearts, yes, but that is not caused by God, or by the scene, it is caused by fear, ignorance, etc, brought about by the enemy...

that is my convictions...

blessings to all.... Lynne

 

[crystalpc]

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

That is true.
However, in Acts the scripture we were talking about, every man heard in his own language. If all were speaking at the same time in a different language no one would be able to hear. That is why the un has earphones could you imagine if all the interpreters were speaking at the same time! No, I think it was more of a miracle of their ears.