The idea that the languages spoken on the day of Pentecost by the Apostles were not human languages has been argued, because of the use of the different terms "glossa" and "dialektos".
Originally Posted by RefrusRevlis
What do you mean - ecstatic tongues? Are you saying the Apostles spoke in a non-human language but were heard in human language? If so give some support for this.
Refrus
Yep.
The Greek is pretty clear . . . each individual heard the disciples AS A GROUP speaking their own language . . . while at the same time the one next to him heard THE SAME GROUP speaking in their own language.
Like a Chinese man, a Russian, and a Greek walk into a room with a group speaking in tongues . . . the Chinese man hears the WHOLE group speaking Chinese . . . the Russian hears them in Russian . . . and the Greek in Greek . . . AT THE SAME TIME.
This was the miracle of Pentecost . . . for otherwise it was just a bunch o' guys speaking foreign languages . . . and how are strangers to know that they didn't know the language? The speaking of foreign languages in and of themselves can hardly be awe inspiring.
A study of the passage is really important:
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
The apostles did not speak with one tongue, the Greek is plural (glossai), so there was NOT one language. If they spoke with the same language this could have been stated so, yet it was not.
5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.
Is it to be assumed that because the word "sound" is heard, that this means there was only one language spoken? No. The word "sound" is more probably referring to a combination of the noise of the mighty rushing wind, which would have caught everyone's attention and the simultaneous noise of multiple languages.
So now let's examine the statements:
"for otherwise it was just a bunch o' guys speaking foreign languages . . The speaking of foreign languages in and of themselves can hardly be awe inspiring."
The argument is faulty, as already stated, they spoke in multiple tongues. The fact that EVERY single person present heard the Apostles speak in their own dialect was amazing, especially since the speakers were all from one locality Galilee. That the Jews and proselytes did not each hear ALL of the apostles speak their own language is evidenced by verses 12 and 13:
12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, Whatever could this mean?
13 Others mocking said, They are full of new wine.
Why the comment about "new wine" unless not every tongue speaker was able to be understood by every person who witnessed it? Apparently the some of the tongue speakers sounded drunk, this hints that they were not all understandable to every listener.
" and how are strangers to know that they didn't know the language?"
Whether or not the Apostles learned the languages or got them miraculously was not really the point. This was not what was confounding, what was confounding was was that out of the throng of people who randomly arrived there, EVERY SINGLE ONE heard the Apostles speak in their own language. The fact that the Apostles heads appeared to be on fire, was also probably confounding.
There is a "many to many" grammatical correspondence here. By this I mean, the Apostles spoke tongues (many) and the assembled Jews and Proselytes heard their own dialects (many). This disproves the contention that all heard their own language while all the tongue speakers spoke the same tongue.
There is nothing in the Acts account that indicates anything but multiple foreign languages miraculously bestowed by the Holy Spirit and spoken by the Apostles, in accordance with the languages spoken by the audience.
It is now useful to look at some verses in 1 Corinthians 14:
2For he whospeaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
This is obviously talking about a tongue that is not interpreted and by definition a language other than one learned and known by those present. Understands is "akouei" and means:
to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, to attend to, consider what is or has been said, to get by hearing learn, to comprehend, to understand. (taken from Strong's Enhanced Lexicon)
Note: "in the spirit he speaks mysteries": the word "spirit" is not capitalized in this verse. The Greek does not distinguish between spirit and Spirit. There is a big debate in the commentaries I have read about whether this means the person's spirit or the Holy Spirit. Henry Alford in his Greek Testament says:
"..in the spirit (in his spirit, as opposed to his understanding: his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost, but his understanding is unfruitful, see vv 14,15)..."
If it is talking about the spirit of the speaker, not the Holy Spirit. This phrase is parallel to verse 14:
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
A mystery is something unrevealed, something unaccessible without revelation. The spirit of the tongue speaker (or indeed the Spirit) is not able to communicate to others, it is unfruitful if the tongue is not interpreted.
Alford, says in commenting on this verse:
"When I pray in a tongue, my higher being, my spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires and rapt in prayer: but my intellectual part, having no matter before it on which its powers can be exercised, bears no fruit to the edification of others..."
Alford makes a distinction between the mind and the spirit, though these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, however, that the mind refers to the more logical part of the "inner man" makes sense. The important part in Alford's quote is the identification that the unfruitfulness refers to the lack of productivity of the tongue speaker's mind in relation to the edification of others.
15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
Once again, the question is, to what does the spirit refer in this passage. Is it the Holy Spirit or the person's spirit?
Some ways spirit is used:
2 Tim 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind
It is interesting that
spirit of fear and sound
mind are considered to be opposites in this passage.
Ephesians 4:23 "...and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, "
The combination of spirit and understanding is necessary; we might say "understandability" as the import of having a "productive understanding".
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
This shows that the understanding is not merely the understanding of the one speaking, but speech that is understandable to others. The edification of the church is dependent upon them hearing the words of God and understanding them.
3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
The tongue speaker edifies himself, edifies (oikodomee) is defined as: (the act of) building, building up, metaphorically edifying, edification. The act of one who promotes anothers growth in Christian wisdom, piety, happiness, holiness.
5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
Paul may seem to be criticizing the gift of tongues, but here he clears up any misunderstanding on the matter. He points out that the person who speaks in tongues is lesser than the prophet, as the prophet's message is able to be understood. As a person the prophet would be greater than the tongue speaker, unless that person could also interpret the tongues. The question is, whose tongues?It is inferred that this means interprets his own tongue, but it is not necessarily the case. If he could interpret the tongues of others, he would be one who could reveal mysteries. If he could interpret anyones tongues he would be able to edify the church and thus greater than a tongues speaker.

6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?
The content of the message is dealt with here. Unless the tongue spoken did one of the four things it was useless for edification. These four
revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying and teaching all indicate intelligibility.
There are two important facets to tongue speaking: (1) the message being spoken (the content) and the (2)intelligibility of the words spoken. If either was obscured, the edification of the church would not occur. The purpose of this response is not to deal with the first point, but the second. It is sufficient to say words not easy to be understood do not edify.
9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance.
The word tongue hear refers to the physical organ, not the unknown language. It is saying that unless my speech ( what I utter with the tongue) is able to be understood by the hearer, I will be speaking into the air (vainly). The importance of being understood is made clear here.


13 Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.
Does this mean that he should desire that he personally interpret his own tongue, or that his message is interpreted? Does it mean that he should pray to receive in addition to the gift of a tongue the ability to interpret? Does it mean when praying in a tongue, let the purpose of the prayer be that he might receive the ability to interpret?
Whatever the meaning, it is clear that interpretation of tongues was to be desired more than tongues.
16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say Amenat your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say? 17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified.
To bless with the spirit means with the spirit ONLY, i.e. without the understanding.
23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
Hearing ALL the languages at once would result in the same kind of response as seen in Acts 2:13
"Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine."
24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.
The unbeliever, who came into the worship assembly was convinced by what he heard, Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God.
Without an interpreter present, the tongue speaker was to keep silent in the church. This does not mean speak the tongue quietly, as some kind of prayer language in church. The word "silent" is sigao which means: "to keep silence, hold ones peace to be kept in silence, be concealed." The phrase "and let him speak to himself and God" means either at another time (other than the worship service when no-one is there, and where only God can hear) or it means let him "speak" - commune with God silently during the service (i.e. not speak the tongue at all) during the church service. Another option is that both are meant. The use of the Greek word laleo, which seems to indicate the first option. Whatever is meant audible expressions of the uninterpreted tongue in the worship service is not permitted.
In all this, the idea of a special speech language apart from actual real human languages is not supported, it has to be forcibly be read into the text.
Neither Acts 2 or 1 Corinthians 14 support the idea of tongues being a non-human language.
