Speaking in Tongues - Are we all wrong?

[dreadnought]

The question is what is "the mighty works of God" ? Comparing all the examples of tongues in Acts what goes along is praising and prophesying but preaching the Gospel is never explicitly mentioned through tongues. Using the other examples of our reference something analogous to these other manifestations that would compliment them rather than add to them seems most consistent.

I think it's pretty obvious what they were talking about.

 

[swordsman1]

Acts 2:9-11
Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.

I count around 15 regions represented. Not 15 languages but 15 regions. This could easily be 100 languages and each heard in their own tongue. There was definitely more than 12 speaking but even if it was it would be hard to pick out one language among 12 people. You can think of whatever circumstance you want it still is presented as quite remarkable that not just each language is represented but each was heard by the right person.

Each one of those regions had its own language, eg Egyptians spoke Egyptian, Romans spoke Latin, Arabians spoke Arabic, etc. There is no indication in the text that hundreds of different languages were recognized. That is pure speculation, unless you have some historical evidence that shows that each region had dozens of languages that were completely foreign to others within the same region. If each of the disciples (whether 12 or 120) were spread out among the temple courts then there was easily enough space to prevent them drowning each other out.

In any case scripture is clear - it was "them" (the disciples) who were speaking in the foreign languages of the crowd, not a voice in their heads.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. "​

The plain reading of that verse cannot be interpreted in any other way. If someone said "I heard a Frenchman speaking English", no one would ever understand that to mean the Frenchman was speaking gibberish but a voice in my head miraculously translated it into English. It means what it says - the Frenchman was speaking English.

 

[DamianWarS]

I think it's pretty obvious what they were talking about.

To me "the mighty works of God" has a worship quality to it and is consistent with the other tongues examples in Acts.... But perhaps that's my bias.

 

[DamianWarS]

Each one of those regions had its own language, eg Egyptians spoke Egyptian, Romans spoke Latin, Arabians spoke Arabic, etc. There is no indication in the text that hundreds of different languages were recognized. That is pure speculation, unless you have some historical evidence that shows that each region had dozens of languages that were completely foreign to others within the same region. If each of the disciples (whether 12 or 120) were spread out among the temple courts then there was easily enough space to prevent them drowning each other out.

In any case scripture is clear - it was "them" (the disciples) who were speaking in the foreign languages of the crowd, not a voice in their heads.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. "​

The plain reading of that verse cannot be interpreted in any other way. If someone said "I heard a Frenchman speaking English" it doesn't mean the Frenchman was speaking gibberish, but a voice in my head miraculously translated it into English. It means what it says - the Frenchman was speaking English.

I live in a single country with over 500 languages represented. I have visited middle eastern countries and there is always several people groups each with their own language some similar some very different from each other. I don't know what it was like 2000 years ago and of course names and boundaries were very different, you'd have to look at demographics of the Roman empire. Perhaps 100 is too extreme but the text goes out of its way to show us how many groups were represented and implicates more languages than groups.

 

[dreadnought]

To me "the mighty works of God" has a worship quality to it and is consistent with the other tongues examples in Acts.... But perhaps that's my bias.

"The mighty works of God" is the gospel, my friend.

 

[swordsman1]

I live in a single country with over 500 languages represented. I have visited middle eastern countries and there is always several people groups each with their own language some similar some very different from each other. I don't know what it was like 2000 years ago and of course names and boundaries were very different, you'd have to look at demographics of the Roman empire. Perhaps 100 is too extreme but the text goes out of its way to show us how many groups were represented and implicates more languages than groups.

I do not see the text implying any more languages than the common lingua franca of each the 15 regions identified (latin, egyptian, arabic, etc), each of which the vast majority of their inhabitants would understand.

 

[DamianWarS]

I do not see the text implying any more languages than the common lingua franca of each the 15 regions identified (latin, egyptian, persian, arabic, etc), each of which the vast majority of their inhabitants would understand.

The text seems to be specific that each understood their own tongue and it feels like a very personal quality to it. Tongues in a specific mother tongue would be more significant to the hearer then lingua franca. I tend to believe the HS is fiercely personal.

 

[DamianWarS]

"The mighty works of God" is the gospel, my friend.

What is it that we speak when we praise God?

 

[swordsman1]

The text seems to be specific that each understood their own tongue and it feels like a very personal quality to it. Tongues in a specific mother tongue would be more significant to the hearer then lingua franca. I tend to believe the HS is fiercely personal.

The text is specific that the disciples were speaking in the foreign languages of the crowd.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

 

[dreadnought]

What is it that we speak when we praise God?

I don't understand the question.

 

[DamianWarS]

The text is specific that the disciples were speaking in the foreign languages of the crowd.

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

What the text says is "each one of them was hearing..." all senses can be influenced by the HS. Does the HS have the power to give each a personal vision at the same time? If so then why not a "vision" restricted to the sense of hearing only.

 

[swordsman1]

What the text says is "each one of them was hearing..." all senses can be influenced by the HS. Does the HS have the power to give each a personal vision at the same time? If so then why not a "vision" restricted to the sense of hearing only.

But what were they hearing? Was it is the disciples speaking in their own language, or was it a voice in their heads? The text tells us.

 

[DamianWarS]

I don't understand the question.

Can worship also exclaim the mighty works of God?

 

[DamianWarS]

But what were they hearing? Was it is the disciples speaking in their own language, or a voice in their heads. The text tells us.

Is it impossible the that this may have been a HS intervened experience on both sides? I don't know what happened and I'm not suggesting specifically that each one heard only their mother tongue but given reasonable possibilities it seems remarkable it was understood so well to each one present. There could be several different ways the HS supernaturally could allow this to happen. Perhaps as simple as the HS lead the speaker to close proximity to those who spoke those languages or more miraculous that the HS influenced the hearing.

 

[swordsman1]

Is it impossible the that this may have been a HS intervened experience on both sides? I don't know what happened and I'm not suggesting specifically that each one heard only their mother tongue but given reasonable possibilities it seems remarkable it was understood so well to each one present. There could be several different ways the HS supernaturally could allow this to happen. Perhaps as simple as the HS lead the speaker to close proximity to those who spoke those languages or more miraculous that the HS influenced the hearing.

Acts 2:6 tells us plainly what happened. It cannot be interpreted as anything other than the disciples speaking in the language of the crowd. If there was this great miracle of hearing in the ears of the unregenerate crowd Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact.

 

[DamianWarS]

Acts 2:6 tells us plainly what happened. It cannot be interpreted as anything other than the disciples speaking in the language of the crowd. If there was this great miracle of hearing in the ears of the unregenerate crowd Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact.

I don't demand that too happen I am merely bringing out that it would extraordinary for each to hear in their own tongue as the text tells us. I don't rule out HS intervention in this act but this doesn't mean I demand it means that the HS changed what they heard. Clearly the 120 spoke in tongues and somehow each unique language got to the right ears... i just find that a miracle in itself and I don't think Luke just passes it off either as he seems quite deliberate to say that each heard in their own tongue.

 

[Saint Steven]

There is no such thing as 'prophetic tongue' in scripture. It was always prayer and praise to God. Nowhere in scripture does it say God gave a message to a congregation in tongues.

Scripture doesn't say that interpreted tongues is equal to prophecy. Read 1 Cor 14:5 again. It says the person who prophecies is equal to the person who speaks in tongues which is interpreted. That is because they are both edifying the church.

That's a lot of double talk. Yes there is such a thing as prophetic tongues in scripture. If the interpretation is edifying, then the tongue is prophetic. If the speakers are equal, then the gifts are equal.

 

[Saint Steven]

Jesus was not referring to spiritual gifts in that verse, but to the Holy Spirit himself. It says it right there in the text you highlighted.

It is not blasphemy of the Spirit if today's 'tongues' is not the work of Holy Spirit, but rather a natural phenomenon of the flesh. In fact it is defending the Holy Spirit against those who are wrongly attributing to Him something which is clearly not of Him. It is they who are treading on thin ice.

More double talk.

 

[swordsman1]

That's a lot of double talk. Yes there is such a thing as prophetic tongues in scripture. If the interpretation is edifying, then the tongue is prophetic.

Just because something is edifying doesn't mean it must be prophetic. Public prayer in interpreted tongues was also edifying:

1 Cor 14:16 "Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified."​

Where in scripture does God give a message to a congregation in tongues? Tongues was always prayer and praise to God.

If the speakers are equal, then the gifts are equal.

Non sequitur.

 

[Hillsage]

What the text says is "each one of them was hearing..." all senses can be influenced by the HS. Does the HS have the power to give each a personal vision at the same time? If so then why not a "vision" restricted to the sense of hearing only.

Absolutely the Holy Spirit 'DOES' have the power. But you do not have a biblical support for your POV....only your unsubstantiated opinion. But the bible DOES say there is the gift of tongues. It talks about two sources, one from the Holy Spirit in chapter 12 along with all his other charisma gifts, FOR THOSE who are "spiritual brethren" vs 1. IOW GIFTED BELIEVERS. But not one of the gifts of the Spirit is ever mentioned as 'a gift of hearing' for an unbeliever', which is the case on Pentecost.