Speaking in Tongues

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

what does Paul mean 1st Corinthians 13 1 speaking in the tongues of angels?

When taken in context, it could mean several things and not necessarily anything to do with "speaking in tongues" as seen in the Pentecostal churches. We've (those of us who are either Orthodox or looking into Orthodoxy) already explained numerous times in this thread the different way that "tongues" can be interpreted in the Bible. The "tongues" here is probably about Christian evangelism or worship, an important component of "tongues of men and angels" in this passage, especially as contrasted with the second part of the verse which alludes to pagan worship. Speaking "in the tongues [...] of angels" is not evocative of the chicanery that goes on in Pentecostal circles; it could very likely be a metaphor for very reverent and pious worship -- such as the gift of piety, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. The entire passage of 1 Corinthians 13, when taken in context, is about how love is greater than any spiritual gift, for what it's worth. In other words, love is the most important and precious of the gifts the Holy Spirit gives us. Could also mean other things; if you're curious, I'll delve further into it.

 

[sahjimira]

I have never heard it explained that way. In context I see how that could be

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

I have never heard it explained that way. In context I see how that could be

Depending on what source you look at for an explanation (like analyses of the Greek texts), it'll say various things. The entirety of my extrapolation was from Bible Hub's commentaries on the first, some of which suggest that the languages of angels portion is highly poetic, so in a sense metaphorical. Others do suggest that it's an extremely rare form of speaking in tongues, so it's pretty divided. I happen to think that sometimes speaking in tongues (especially when mentioning angels) is a concept of the gift of piety. It's just that Orthodoxy doesn't view the concept of speaking in tongues in the same manner that Pentecostals understand it. One of the Orthodox understandings of this passage (if my study Bible is correct) is that the Corinthians were wrongly obsessed with the gift of speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues, and so Paul rebukes them by comparing their obsession with this gift to pagan worship, all as part of a way to say that love is the greatest spiritual gift. This particular view is usually how Orthodox Christians may see other churches in which "speaking in tongues" is a predominant supposed display of piety and God's love.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/13-1.htm

 

[Love Jonezing]

"How many time do I have to say that I am listening?"

You can stop saying that once you show that you are progressing and increasing in understanding. If you keep repeating yourself, keep saying the same things over and over again, and contradicting yourself, then it is reasonable to assume the person doing that is not listening.

Plus, you should not just come here for such a topic. Your eternal salvation is the most important thing in our lives. You need to be reading other books, talking to other people. And I mean getting off the internet to do this. The internet is a great jumping point, but you have t move beyond the internet and read and talk to people in person. Go attend a service at an Orthodox parish, set up a meeting with the priest or deacon. Talk to other Orthodox people you meet.

Myself and others on this board took years of studying and inquiry before we decided to become Orthodox. We read, talked to people, took classes, visited Orthodox parishes, attended Orthodox events in our community, etc.

If you are serious about this, you will need to do the same. It is just like any other endeavor in life. You start a new project, or learn a new trade, you read, study, talk to others, practice, take classes, etc.

We will not do these things for you. You need to do them for yourself.

Once again, please stop jumping to conclusions. I have established a prayer group in my community and I witness to many in my area. Please do not tell me what I am or am not doing. If you really want to know what I do ask, don't assume. Did the Orthodox church teach you to be this judgmental? How did that question make you feel? See, it feels wrong right? So please stop, you don't know who I am.

 

[garee]

Although this is from a Roman Catholic perspective on Biblical interpretation, the following text is incredibly important in delineating why fundamentalist approaches to the Bible are fallacious and ahistorical.



http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm

Who said anything about a literal translation according to the article you offered? The first century reformation is documented as a reformation. Its what Christ came to do, restore the church.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

Who said anything about a literal translation according to the article you offered? The first century reformation is documented as a reformation. Its what Christ came to do, restore the church.

I've honestly never heard of that being called a "reformation"; furthermore, linking the article about Biblical interpretation has nothing to do with your commentary on a "first century reformation" and instead has everything to do with errors made by several non-Orthodox in this thread on how the Bible should be interpreted. For what it's worth, the Protestant Reformation is sometimes referenced with a capital "R" and without "Protestant" in front of it.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

@garee -- You keep insisting on using reformation in a way that I've never heard used in anything related to Church or Christian history. It's just not something I've ever seen done in my years and years of theological research, so you're insisting upon something that must be your own invention, and you keep doubling down on your misinformed personal terminology. Why should I bow to your personal terms when they're not standard definitions? (Can you give me a logical reason for this, or are you going to keep insisting on using the term reformation - in any of its iterations - incorrectly?)

When I say reformation, I 100% of the time mean this:

http://www.britannica.com/event/Reformation

 

[garee]

Are you ignorant of the context of my original statement, or are you intentionally taking what I've said out of context? I'm explicitly talking about the Protestant Reformation, which should be patently obvious. I've never heard of what happened in the First Century referenced as a "Reformation". You also have the incorrect concept of the Church, in terms of Scripture, but the fact that you are not in one of the three older Churches makes it obvious why your understanding would be warped and lacking.

I heard your original statement. I am saying any reformation comes as it is written .The book of the law the bile is written against us as the one reforming authority of any generation. No such thing a apostolic succession .

I interpret it just like he says. He spoke more tongues then all of them. For me tongues can be unto God and unto man.

No worries. Thanks

Tongues are revelation from God to men. No new revelations. If any man adds or subtracts from the whole they put themselves in danger of judgement.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

I heard your original statement. I am saying any reformation comes as it is written .The book of the law the bile is written against us as the one reforming authority of any generation. No such thing a apostolic succession .

What are you even talking about? The Bible delineates a form of succession from Christ to his Apostles, and then from his anointed Apostles to their anointed successors. These Traditions of the Church (and therefore of God not of men, as they were imparted on the Church by the Holy Spirit) were established well before the Church (Orthodoxy) established the canons of the New Testament. The Church has maintained these established lines of succession since before the New Testament was formally pieced together, by the successors of the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Tongues are revelation from God to men. No new revelations. If any man adds or subtracts from the whole they put themselves in danger of judgement.

That's about adding to John's prophecies (his Revelations), you do realize, right? Furthermore, the book of Revelations was also almost not included in the canon proposed in the 5th century. I can see why, especially with all of the absolutely crazy end times stuff that fundamentalists come up with from their misguided and ahistorical interpretations of that particular book.

 

[Love Jonezing]

I heard your original statement. I am saying any reformation comes as it is written .The book of the law the bile is written against us as the one reforming authority of any generation. No such thing a apostolic succession .

Tongues are revelation from God to men. No new revelations. If any man adds or subtracts from the whole they put themselves in danger of judgement.

Can you please expound upon your statement,"If any man adds or subtracts from the whole they put themselves in danger of judgement"? It sounds like you are saying that I am adding to or subtracting from the scriptures. If that is true, what have I added or subtracted? These are the scriptures I pulled from, 1 Corinthians 14:2, 21 and Isaiah 28:10-11.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

Can you please expound upon you statement,"If any man adds or subtracts from the whole they put themselves in danger of judgement"? It sounds like you are saying that I am adding or subtracting to the scriptures. If that is true, what have I added or subtracted? These are the scriptures I pulled from, 1 Corinthians 14:2, 21 and Isaiah 28:10-11.

He's saying that speaking in tongues is a revelation from God, and that new revelation is closed. In a way speaking in tongues is and isn't a revelation from God; in particular, the Orthodox see it as sort of a spiritual gift of evangelism and in tongues to preach to people who hadn't yet heard the Gospel. However, the fundamentalist interpretation of the oft referenced verse from Revelations is that no one should add or subtract from the "revelation" from God (Scriptures as a whole), when if you understand the nature of John's prophecies in Revelations, NT Scriptures in general, and the interpretation of historical Christianity, you realize that the verse has nothing to do with adding or subtracting from the Bible, but everything to do with people manipulating and changing John's Revelations towards their own ends. And sadly? The people who reference that verse frequently in an anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox manner manipulate the book of Revelations to mean something it absolutely doesn't mean.

 

[garee]

great article. It's as if they (the fundamentalist) believe God took over the bodies of the authors of Scriptures and forced them to write the words they wrote against their will.

God does not force, He moves men to both will and do His good pleasure according to His will,(not the will of those he sends (apostles)by putting His word, his thoughts on their lips. He who is of one mind and always does whatsoever His soul pleases as not served by human hands/will as if he needed anything. Scripture is simply not the final authority in matters of faith (Christ ) to a Catholic. They insist even though the scriptures warn us that we do need men to teach us as if the Holy Spirit could not. But clearly as it as that in which the gates of hell could never prevail against, teaches us we abide in Him the promised teacher, comforter and guide. The authority of God’s word is never in respect to the apostles which simply means sent ones with no other meaning attached. We are to think of no man to include the apostles above that which is written. Again its never the feet that brings the good news but the words of God that brings it and aplies it to ;

If God so desired he can use an unbeliever (no faith) to accomplish his good purpose. I think we can see that by locking at ceremonial laws. Where unclean animal represent the lost, unbeliever and other animals like a lamb are used to show redemption. A vivid picture as a parable in respect to the gospel in respect to the suffering of Christ beforehand.

And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. Exodus 13:13

And the Lord opened the mouth of theass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. Numbers 22:30

God puts no difference between the ass and the apostles, as if they were unbeleivers . We do not worship the apostles for the work God performs in them through the hearing of faith. If the words of the ass actively restrained the madness of that false prophet the same will apply to any false prophecy that says thus sayeth the Lord,and the lord has not spoken.

 

[garee]

great article. It's as if they (the fundamentalist) believe God took over the bodies of the authors of Scriptures and forced them to write the words they wrote against their will.

God does not force, He moves men to both will and do His good pleasure according to His will,(not the will of those he sends (apostles)by putting His word, his thoughts on their lips. He who is of one mind and always does whatsoever His soul pleases as not served by human hands/will as if he needed anything.

Scripture is simply not the final authority in matters of faith (Christ ) to a Catholic. They make claims in respect to the flesh of the apostles/fathers. Even though we are call no man father on earth they violate that commencement at their own cost.

They insist even though the scriptures warn us that we do need men to teach us as if the Holy Spirit could not. But clearly as it as that in which the gates of hell could never prevail against, teaches us we abide in Him the promised teacher, comforter and guide. Scripture is self inverting as God's revelation to us .iI does not come after the private interpretation as a commentary of any man

The authority of God’s word is never in respect to the apostles which simply means sent ones with no other meaning attached. We are to think of no man to include the apostles above that which is written. Again its never the feet that brings the good news but the words of God that brings it and applies it to ;

If God so desired he can use an unbeliever (no faith) to accomplish his good purpose. I think we can see that by locking at ceremonial laws. Where unclean animal represent the lost, unbeliever and other animals like a lamb are used to show redemption. A vivid picture as a parable in respect to the gospel in respect to the suffering of Christ beforehand.

And every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. Exodus 13:13

And the Lord opened the mouth of theass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. Numbers 22:30

God puts no difference between the ass and the apostles, as if they were unbeleivers . We do not worship the apostles for the work God performs in them through the hearing of faith. If the words of the ass actively restrained the madness of that false prophet the same will apply to any false prophecy that says thus sayeth the Lord,and the lord has not spoken.

 

[GregConstantine]

"Scripture is simply not the final authority in matters of faith (Christ ) to a Catholic."

We're not Roman Catholic...

 

[garee]

He's saying that speaking in tongues is a revelation from God, and that new revelation is closed. In a way speaking in tongues is and isn't a revelation from God; in particular, the Orthodox see it as sort of a spiritual gift of evangelism and in tongues to preach to people who hadn't yet heard the Gospel. However, the fundamentalist interpretation of the oft referenced verse from Revelations is that no one should add or subtract from the "revelation" from God (Scriptures as a whole), when if you understand the nature of John's prophecies in Revelations, NT Scriptures in general, and the interpretation of historical Christianity, you realize that the verse has nothing to do with adding or subtracting from the Bible, but everything to do with people manipulating and changing John's Revelations towards their own ends. And sadly? The people who reference that verse frequently in an anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox manner manipulate the book of Revelations to mean something it absolutely doesn't mean.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

There's a whole lot of misunderstanding in the above post, with a lot of the out-of-context cherry picking that fundamentalists do. So, I'll ask one question. Why would anointed Apostles and their successors (who are given their authority by the laying on of hands, as seen several times in the NT), be unbelievers?

 

[garee]

The closing words in the last book Revelation, of this book (the whole Bile)is what we are not to add to. It is sealed up till the end of time. No new revelations. Changing a definition would be to add seeing it would diminish the original thought. One word can change the intended thought of God. And not a historical interpretation of the church with its many denominations and different biases which are simply private interpretation but God’s exclusive interpretation, the Bible. The verse has everything to do with adding or subtracting from the Bible. It is like the flaming sword in the guarded protecting the true way to God. His word represents that sword, as the sword of the Spirit. Adding to it simply widens the authority to include these additions as private interpretation of sinful men us.


2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

 

[Shieldmaiden4Christ]

The closing words in the last book Revelation, of this book (the whole Bile)is what we are not to add to.

Except that at the time that John compiled Revelations, the Bible was not in a book, and writings that are not now in the canon were considered Scripture, so considering the "book" here as the "bible" is utterly nonsensical. This exhortation in Revelations is particularly in regards to NOT adding to John's prophecies in Revelation.

I'd read some of the interesting commentary here:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/22-18.htm

 

[GregConstantine]

Also, the book of Revelations almost didn't make it into the canon of Scriptures. It was also the last book the be written many years after all the other new testament books were written.

 

[Love Jonezing]

He's saying that speaking in tongues is a revelation from God, and that new revelation is closed. In a way speaking in tongues is and isn't a revelation from God; in particular, the Orthodox see it as sort of a spiritual gift of evangelism and in tongues to preach to people who hadn't yet heard the Gospel. However, the fundamentalist interpretation of the oft referenced verse from Revelations is that no one should add or subtract from the "revelation" from God (Scriptures as a whole), when if you understand the nature of John's prophecies in Revelations, NT Scriptures in general, and the interpretation of historical Christianity, you realize that the verse has nothing to do with adding or subtracting from the Bible, but everything to do with people manipulating and changing John's Revelations towards their own ends. And sadly? The people who reference that verse frequently in an anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox manner manipulate the book of Revelations to mean something it absolutely doesn't mean.

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification.