The Need to Speak in Tongues at Home

[Deadworm]

For more coherent discussion, I have lettered and numbered the points of my case, so readers can refer to them in their response.

A. The tongues (glossolalia) in Acts 2 are neither definitive nor normative for succeeding manifestations of this spiritual gift.
1 Most commentaries agree that Peter's words "This is that" (Acts 2:16) identify the alleged drunken babble in Acts 2 as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28.
2. The tongues at Ephesus are distinguished from prophesying (19:5-6).
3. At Ephesus and in Cornelius' house (10:44-47), the tongues are neither interpreted nor understood and are experienced as mysterious gibberish.
4. Paul does not restrict glossolalia to unknown human languages.
a. Paul uses the analogy of tongues as "indistinct notes" of a musical instrument (1 Corinthians 14:8).

b. In Greek the word "glosse" means not only "language, " but "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure." For example, the female prophet (Pythia) at Delphi utters oracles in gibberish or a "secret language" which can be called "tongues," which need interpretation, not translation (For this and other Greek examples, see TDNT 1:720).

c. Paul can identify some glossolalia as "tongues of angels (13:1). Swordsman argues that this expression is a series of hypotheticals and therefore does not correspond with actual glossolalia at Corinth. 3 points refute this claim.
(i) Paul equates Corinthian glossolalia with being "zealous for spirits" (Greek: pneumata--14:12). Political correctness has prompted the mistranslation of pneumata as "spiritual gifts." In fact, Angels are "ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14)" and are thus the referent here. Therefore, Paul believes that glossolalia can be angelic tongues.
(ii) There is Jewish precedent for Paul's believe that believers can speak in angelic tongues. Paul's revered contemporary, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, had a reputation for being able to interpret angelic tongues; and people speak in angelic tongues in the later Testament of Job.
(iii) True, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 uses extreme hypotheticals, but these hypothetical examples correspond with real possibilities: e.g. mountain-moving faith (Mark 11;23--"mountain" is symbolic); sacrificing all one's possessions for the poor (10:21).
(iv) Thus, Paul's expression "various kinds of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:10) can include both human and angelic tongues.

B. Paul champions and encourages speaking in tongues during private prayer.
1. In 14:4 Paul encourages private tongues as self-edification (Greek: oikodoeo--14:4). The use of "oikodomeo" for edifying or building up believers is always positive in Paul. This point is not undermined by Paul's preference in 14:4 for edifying the church. Thus, swordsman point that 14:4 is critical, though true, misses the mark.

2. Paul draws a distinction between speaking in tongues at home to
God and "for oneself" (Greek: heautw"--14:28) and "messages" in tongues to be interpreted in church and obeyed (14:21-22, citing Isaiah 28:;11-12). Only such "messages" in tongues are "a sign for unbelievers."

3. Paul offers himself as our role model when he boasts that he speaks in tongues "more than you all (14:18)" He must be referring to private tongues here, because there is not a shred of evidence that blurts out in tongues when he is evangelizing his pagan audience. Besides, Greek is the language of the people he evangelizes. So if he spoke in uninterpreted tongues to them, they wouldn't understand him!

4. Praying in tongues at home takes 2 forms:
a. Praise and thanksgiving addressed to God (14:15-17)
b. Tongues as a means of intercession according to God's will (Romans 8:26)
Romans 8:26 deals with praying in the Spirit, that is, with the Spirit role in compensating for our ignorance about how to pray. The expression "groans too deep for words" or, better, "wordless groans" (Greek: "stenagmoi alaletoi") conveys the Spirit's intention in praying through us and a similar expression is used to describe the Pythia's unintelligible babble at Delphi, which must then be interpreted by a prophet (see e.g. Lucan, Civil War).

C. You are grieving the Holy Spirit if you ignore Paul's prompting to diligently strive to speak in tongues.
1. Christians ignore this obligation because they misinterpret 12;28-29 to mean that tongues is a gift for a chosen few. Paul's point here is that not everyone exercises gifts of tongues, prophesy, and the other gifts listed. But in the case of tongues and prophecy, Paul wants us all to exercise these 2 gifts (14:5) and insists, "You can all prophesy one by one (14:31)."

2. Paul's instructs us" to strive for the best gifts (12:31; cp. 14:1)" and then in the next breath mentions 4 of the gifts listed in 12;8-10 (tongues, prophecy, faith, word of knowledge). When he repeats this injunction in 14:1, tongues is treated as just as "great" as prophecy, if the tongues are interpreted (14:5). Thus, it is a mistake to treat tongues as the least of the gifts because it is mentioned last in 12:8-10. It is mentioned last only because a failure to interpret tongues has made it a source of controversy in Corinth.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

For more coherent discussion, I have lettered and numbered the points of my case, so readers can refer to them in their response.

A. The tongues (glossolalia) in Acts 2 are neither definitive nor normative for succeeding manifestations of this spiritual gift.
1 Most commentaries agree that Peter's words "This is that" (Acts 2:16) identify the alleged drunken babble in Acts 2 as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28.
2. The tongues at Ephesus are distinguished from prophesying (19:5-6).
3. At Ephesus and in Cornelius' house (10:44-47), the tongues are neither interpreted nor understood and are experienced as mysterious gibberish.
4. Paul does not restrict glossolalia to unknown human languages.
a. Paul uses the analogy of tongues as "indistinct notes" of a musical instrument (1 Corinthians 14:8).

b. In Greek the word "glosse" means not only "language, " but "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure." For example, the female prophet (Pythia) at Delphi utters oracles in gibberish or a "secret language" which can be called "tongues," which need interpretation, not translation (For this and other Greek examples, see TDNT 1:720).

c. Paul can identify some glossolalia as "tongues of angels (13:1). Swordsman argues that this expression is a series of hypotheticals and therefore does not correspond with actual glossolalia at Corinth. 3 points refute this claim.
(i) Paul equates Corinthian glossolalia with being "zealous for spirits" (Greek: pneumata--14:12). Political correctness has prompted the mistranslation of pneumata as "spiritual gifts." In fact, Angels are "ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14)" and are thus the referent here. Therefore, Paul believes that glossolalia can be angelic tongues.
(ii) There is Jewish precedent for Paul's believe that believers can speak in angelic tongues. Paul's revered contemporary, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, had a reputation for being able to interpret angelic tongues; and people speak in angelic tongues in the later Testament of Job.
(iii) True, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 uses extreme hypotheticals, but these hypothetical examples correspond with real possibilities: e.g. mountain-moving faith (Mark 11;23--"mountain" is symbolic); sacrificing all one's possessions for the poor (10:21).
(iv) Thus, Paul's expression "various kinds of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:10) can include both human and angelic tongues.

B. Paul champions and encourages speaking in tongues during private prayer.
1. In 14:4 Paul encourages private tongues as self-edification (Greek: oikodoeo--14:4). The use of "oikodomeo" for edifying or building up believers is always positive in Paul. This point is not undermined by Paul's preference in 14:4 for edifying the church. Thus, swordsman point that 14:4 is critical, though true, misses the mark.

2. Paul draws a distinction between speaking in tongues at home to
God and "for oneself" (Greek: heautw"--14:28) and "messages" in tongues to be interpreted in church and obeyed (14:21-22, citing Isaiah 28:;11-12). Only such "messages" in tongues are "a sign for unbelievers."

3. Paul offers himself as our role model when he boasts that he speaks in tongues "more than you all (14:18)" He must be referring to private tongues here, because there is not a shred of evidence that blurts out in tongues when he is evangelizing his pagan audience. Besides, Greek is the language of the people he evangelizes. So if he spoke in uninterpreted tongues to them, they wouldn't understand him!

4. Praying in tongues at home takes 2 forms:
a. Praise and thanksgiving addressed to God (14:15-17)
b. Tongues as a means of intercession according to God's will (Romans 8:26)
Romans 8:26 deals with praying in the Spirit, that is, with the Spirit role in compensating for our ignorance about how to pray. The expression "groans too deep for words" or, better, "wordless groans" (Greek: "stenagmoi alaletoi") conveys the Spirit's intention in praying through us and a similar expression is used to describe the Pythia's unintelligible babble at Delphi, which must then be interpreted by a prophet (see e.g. Lucan, Civil War).

C. You are grieving the Holy Spirit if you ignore Paul's prompting to diligently strive to speak in tongues.
1. Christians ignore this obligation because they misinterpret 12;28-29 to mean that tongues is a gift for a chosen few. Paul's point here is that not everyone exercises gifts of tongues, prophesy, and the other gifts listed. But in the case of tongues and prophecy, Paul wants us all to exercise these 2 gifts (14:5) and insists, "You can all prophesy one by one (14:31)."

2. Paul's instructs us" to strive for the best gifts (12:31; cp. 14:1)" and then in the next breath mentions 4 of the gifts listed in 12;8-10 (tongues, prophecy, faith, word of knowledge). When he repeats this injunction in 14:1, tongues is treated as just as "great" as prophecy, if the tongues are interpreted (14:5). Thus, it is a mistake to treat tongues as the least of the gifts because it is mentioned last in 12:8-10. It is mentioned last only because a failure to interpret tongues has made it a source of controversy in Corinth.

I enjoyed reading this post. It is a well presented and researched piece of writing.

 

[Episaw]

For more coherent discussion, I have lettered and numbered the points of my case, so readers can refer to them in their response.

A. The tongues (glossolalia) in Acts 2 are neither definitive nor normative for succeeding manifestations of this spiritual gift.
1 Most commentaries agree that Peter's words "This is that" (Acts 2:16) identify the alleged drunken babble in Acts 2 as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28.
2. The tongues at Ephesus are distinguished from prophesying (19:5-6).
3. At Ephesus and in Cornelius' house (10:44-47), the tongues are neither interpreted nor understood and are experienced as mysterious gibberish.
4. Paul does not restrict glossolalia to unknown human languages.
a. Paul uses the analogy of tongues as "indistinct notes" of a musical instrument (1 Corinthians 14:8).

b. In Greek the word "glosse" means not only "language, " but "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure." For example, the female prophet (Pythia) at Delphi utters oracles in gibberish or a "secret language" which can be called "tongues," which need interpretation, not translation (For this and other Greek examples, see TDNT 1:720).

c. Paul can identify some glossolalia as "tongues of angels (13:1). Swordsman argues that this expression is a series of hypotheticals and therefore does not correspond with actual glossolalia at Corinth. 3 points refute this claim.
(i) Paul equates Corinthian glossolalia with being "zealous for spirits" (Greek: pneumata--14:12). Political correctness has prompted the mistranslation of pneumata as "spiritual gifts." In fact, Angels are "ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14)" and are thus the referent here. Therefore, Paul believes that glossolalia can be angelic tongues.
(ii) There is Jewish precedent for Paul's believe that believers can speak in angelic tongues. Paul's revered contemporary, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, had a reputation for being able to interpret angelic tongues; and people speak in angelic tongues in the later Testament of Job.
(iii) True, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 uses extreme hypotheticals, but these hypothetical examples correspond with real possibilities: e.g. mountain-moving faith (Mark 11;23--"mountain" is symbolic); sacrificing all one's possessions for the poor (10:21).
(iv) Thus, Paul's expression "various kinds of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:10) can include both human and angelic tongues.

B. Paul champions and encourages speaking in tongues during private prayer.
1. In 14:4 Paul encourages private tongues as self-edification (Greek: oikodoeo--14:4). The use of "oikodomeo" for edifying or building up believers is always positive in Paul. This point is not undermined by Paul's preference in 14:4 for edifying the church. Thus, swordsman point that 14:4 is critical, though true, misses the mark.

2. Paul draws a distinction between speaking in tongues at home to
God and "for oneself" (Greek: heautw"--14:28) and "messages" in tongues to be interpreted in church and obeyed (14:21-22, citing Isaiah 28:;11-12). Only such "messages" in tongues are "a sign for unbelievers."

3. Paul offers himself as our role model when he boasts that he speaks in tongues "more than you all (14:18)" He must be referring to private tongues here, because there is not a shred of evidence that blurts out in tongues when he is evangelizing his pagan audience. Besides, Greek is the language of the people he evangelizes. So if he spoke in uninterpreted tongues to them, they wouldn't understand him!

4. Praying in tongues at home takes 2 forms:
a. Praise and thanksgiving addressed to God (14:15-17)
b. Tongues as a means of intercession according to God's will (Romans 8:26)
Romans 8:26 deals with praying in the Spirit, that is, with the Spirit role in compensating for our ignorance about how to pray. The expression "groans too deep for words" or, better, "wordless groans" (Greek: "stenagmoi alaletoi") conveys the Spirit's intention in praying through us and a similar expression is used to describe the Pythia's unintelligible babble at Delphi, which must then be interpreted by a prophet (see e.g. Lucan, Civil War).

C. You are grieving the Holy Spirit if you ignore Paul's prompting to diligently strive to speak in tongues.
1. Christians ignore this obligation because they misinterpret 12;28-29 to mean that tongues is a gift for a chosen few. Paul's point here is that not everyone exercises gifts of tongues, prophesy, and the other gifts listed. But in the case of tongues and prophecy, Paul wants us all to exercise these 2 gifts (14:5) and insists, "You can all prophesy one by one (14:31)."

2. Paul's instructs us" to strive for the best gifts (12:31; cp. 14:1)" and then in the next breath mentions 4 of the gifts listed in 12;8-10 (tongues, prophecy, faith, word of knowledge). When he repeats this injunction in 14:1, tongues is treated as just as "great" as prophecy, if the tongues are interpreted (14:5). Thus, it is a mistake to treat tongues as the least of the gifts because it is mentioned last in 12:8-10. It is mentioned last only because a failure to interpret tongues has made it a source of controversy in Corinth.

Thankyou for that Deadworm. A very clear explanation and hard to refute not that I want to.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Yeah I find a lot of people like to discredit those who do speak in tongues by saying nope you aren't doing it because its not a real language others could understand. That couldn't be more wrong. God understands what I'm saying thats what matters. Sometimes we are able to interpret but the main thing is it building you up spiritually which it does. I really do wish all christians spoke in tongues so we could get rid of this division among the body of Christ.

 

[RaymondG]

Yeah I find a lot of people like to discredit those who do speak in tongues by saying nope you aren't doing it because its not a real language others could understand. That couldn't be more wrong. God understands what I'm saying thats what matters. Sometimes we are able to interpret but the main thing is it building you up spiritually which it does. I really do wish all christians spoke in tongues so we could get rid of this division among the body of Christ.

Do you understand what you are saying when you speak in tongues?

 

[RaymondG]

I have to say, this is a subject that confuses me. I believe I have done this on occasion....But not on purpose.....it was instances where I was praying and got lost in it and when I came back I didn't consciously understand what I was saying. I never thought to try to make up words on my own and continue or start a prayer like this. I don't understand how this could make you stronger or more spiritual. Spontaneous tongues that surprises even yourself, maybe......cause it's out of your control and could be God trying to say something.....

But this is an interesting topic.

 

[Episaw]

I remember when I first spoke in tongues. It was at a youth prayer meeting. We were on our knees praying and out of the blue, I started praying in tongues.

Didn't ask for it. Wasn't expecting it. It just happened. Who am I to argue with the Holy Spirit.

 

[swordsman1]

For more coherent discussion, I have lettered and numbered the points of my case, so readers can refer to them in their response.

I'm afraid your post is full of errors.....

A. The tongues (glossolalia) in Acts 2 are neither definitive nor normative for succeeding manifestations of this spiritual gift.

Acts 2 is the only description of the gift of tongues we have in scripture. It is clearly foreign human languages. The description is clear and definitive. Nowhere in scripture is the gift redefined as a heavenly or angelic language or anything else. In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed that all other instances of tongues are the same phenomenon. The principles of hermeneutics demand that we must not read our own ideas into the words of scripture. Another principle is that ambiguous passages (eg 1 Cor 13:1, 1 Cor 14:2) are interpreted in the light of clearer ones (Acts 2).

Luke uses the exact same terminology to describe the gift of tongues (glossa and laleo) as Paul does in 1 Corinthians. Luke was a close companion of Paul's and wrote Acts under the apostle's authority. If Luke knew that Paul's tongues were different from those at Pentecost he would never have used the same terminology.

1 Most commentaries agree that Peter's words "This is that" (Acts 2:16) identify the alleged drunken babble in Acts 2 as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28.

Tongues is frequently associated with prophecy. However prophecy is God giving a message to people, but in Acts 2 the tongues was not a message to the people. It was praise to God - "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”. The message for the people was given in Peter's sermon.

3. At Ephesus and in Cornelius' house (10:44-47), the tongues are neither interpreted nor understood and are experienced as mysterious gibberish.

The tongues the gentiles experienced at Cornelius' house was exactly the same as Pentecost. Peter says so in his report to the Jerusalem council in Acts 11:15,17:

“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning....So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?”​

It was because the Gentiles' manifestation of the Spirit was exactly the same as the disciples at Pentecost that the gentiles were accepted into the Church. If it was anything different the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted.

4. Paul does not restrict glossolalia to unknown human languages.

Paul doesn't say tongues is a non-human language.

a. Paul uses the analogy of tongues as "indistinct notes" of a musical instrument (1 Corinthians 14:8).

The point Paul stresses in his analogy is the failure of the sound to communicate, not on it being indistinct:

1 Cor 14:8 "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?"​

b. In Greek the word "glosse" means not only "language, " but "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure." For example, the female prophet (Pythia) at Delphi utters oracles in gibberish or a "secret language" which can be called "tongues," which need interpretation, not translation (For this and other Greek examples, see TDNT 1:720).

The word glossa in scripture or any other ancient Greek literature is never used to describe gibberish. It has been shown in research by Christopher Forbes (and others) that the Pythia never spoke in gibberish but rather in mysterious sayings.

In the the NT and LXX the word glossa is clearly associated with foreign human language. Acts 2:4-11, 1 Cor 14:21, Rev 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; Genesis 10:5, 20, 31; Deut 28:49; Neh 13:24; Esther 1:22; 3:12; 8:9; Job 15:5; Prov 17:20; Isa 3:8; Isaiah 28:11, 33:19, 66:18; Jer 5:15; Ezek 3:5,6; Dan 1:4; Zech 8:23;

c. Paul can identify some glossolalia as "tongues of angels (13:1). Swordsman argues that this expression is a series of hypotheticals and therefore does not correspond with actual glossolalia at Corinth.

That's right. Here is the full passage. It consists of 5 parallel 'IF' statements where Paul imagines 5 extreme hypothetical examples of a gift to emphasize the worthlessness of having spiritual gifts without love:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor,
and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.
​

Even if someone had the gift of tongues to such a degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

Even if someone had the gift of prophecy to such a degree that they knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie they were omniscient), but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

Even if someone had the gift of faith to such a degree that they could remove mountains, but didn't have love, it would be a worthless to them.

Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave ALL their possessions to the poor, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

Even if someone had the gift of giving to such a degree that they gave their own life, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

Paul is imagining having the highest conceivable degree of each gift, and saying even they would be worthless without love. None of these extreme hypothetical examples represent the normal operations of those gifts, including speaking with the tongues of angels.

(i) Paul equates Corinthian glossolalia with being "zealous for spirits" (Greek: pneumata--14:12). Political correctness has prompted the mistranslation of pneumata as "spiritual gifts." In fact, Angels are "ministering spirits (Hebrews 1:14)" and are thus the referent here. Therefore, Paul believes that glossolalia can be angelic tongues.

The word 'pneumatōn' (πνευμάτων) in 1 Cor 14:12 literally means 'spirituals'. ie spiritual somethings. The somethings are determined by the context. Eg It could be spiritual people, spiritual beings, spiritual words etc. But here the context of the verse is spiritual gifts. Which is what every single bible translation has translated it as. There is not a single version that has translated it as "since you are zealous for spirits", let alone "since you are zealous for angels":
1 Corinthians 14:12 - Bible Gateway

(ii) There is Jewish precedent for Paul's believe that believers can speak in angelic tongues. Paul's revered contemporary, Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai, had a reputation for being able to interpret angelic tongues; and people speak in angelic tongues in the later Testament of Job.

Both of those books are apocryphal fairy tales. It would be no more plausible for a reader of the Testament of Job to believe they can speak in the language of angels than it would for someone today to believe they can fly after watching 'Superman Returns'.

Even if some of it's readers were gullible enough to believe that someone really did speak in the language of angels, that doesn't mean Paul beleived that is what was happening in Corinth.

(iii) True, 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 uses extreme hypotheticals, but these hypothetical examples correspond with real possibilities: e.g. mountain-moving faith (Mark 11;23--"mountain" is symbolic); sacrificing all one's possessions for the poor (10:21).

Moving mountains, becoming omniscient, giving away all your possessions, giving up your own life are not the normal expected operations of those gifts. Neither is speaking in the language of angels.

(iv) Thus, Paul's expression "various kinds of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:10) can include both human and angelic tongues.

'Kinds' (genos) in 1 Cor 12:10 means different kinds within the same family. It is the same word used in 1 Cor 14:10 "There are, perhaps, a great many KINDS of languages in the world"

B. Paul champions and encourages speaking in tongues during private prayer.

Paul never mentions speaking in tongues in private. Speaking in tongues in private would be a misuse of a spiritual gift which are only for the purpose of ministering to others:

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."​

1. In 14:4 Paul encourages private tongues as self-edification (Greek: oikodoeo--14:4). The use of "oikodomeo" for edifying or building up believers is always positive in Paul. This point is not undermined by Paul's preference in 14:4 for edifying the church. Thus, swordsman point that 14:4 is critical, though true, misses the mark.

The point Paul is making in this verse is that the Corinthians were ONLY edifying themselves, when they should have been edifying the church. The 'but' immediately after indicates a deficiency. It is a rebuke, not an exhortation.

2. Paul draws a distinction between speaking in tongues at home to God and "for oneself" (Greek: heautw"--14:28)

1 Cor 14:28 "But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God."​

There is no mention of speaking tongues 'at home' in that verse. You are reading something into the verse that isn't there. The context remains 'in the church' throughout. In the church the speaker is to keep quiet and speak to himself and to God (silently) ie. just mouthing the words or at most whispering.

3. Paul offers himself as our role model when he boasts that he speaks in tongues "more than you all (14:18)" He must be referring to private tongues here, because there is not a shred of evidence that blurts out in tongues when he is evangelizing his pagan audience. Besides, Greek is the language of the people he evangelizes. So if he spoke in uninterpreted tongues to them, they wouldn't understand him!

Outside the church Paul would not speak in tongues in private as that would be a misuse of a spiritual gift. He would have spoken in tongues in the marketplaces and streets during his missionary endeavors as a confirming miraculous sign that God was with him. Just as the disciples did at Pentecost.

b. Tongues as a means of intercession according to God's will (Romans 8:26)
Romans 8:26 deals with praying in the Spirit, that is, with the Spirit role in compensating for our ignorance about how to pray. The expression "groans too deep for words" or, better, "wordless groans" (Greek: "stenagmoi alaletoi") conveys the Spirit's intention in praying through us and a similar expression is used to describe the Pythia's unintelligible babble at Delphi, which must then be interpreted by a prophet (see e.g. Lucan, Civil War).

Romans 8:26 is nothing to do with tongues. No mention is made of tongues in Romans, and it would be completely out of place in this context, which is believers suffering under the weight of a sinful world. It is the Spirit who “groans” in intercession, not believers. Tongues however were words of praise, not groans of suffering. The disciples were not 'groaning' at Pentecost. Also the groans are ‘wordless’ ie. inaudible, inexpressible (ἀλάλητος) - and cannot be translated. And Romans 8:26 applies to all believers, whereas not everyone had the gift of tongues (1 Cor 12:30, Rom 12:4-6).

C. You are grieving the Holy Spirit if you ignore Paul's prompting to diligently strive to speak in tongues.
1. Christians ignore this obligation because they misinterpret 12;28-29 to mean that tongues is a gift for a chosen few. Paul's point here is that not everyone exercises gifts of tongues, prophesy, and the other gifts listed. But in the case of tongues and prophecy, Paul wants us all to exercise these 2 gifts (14:5) and insists, "You can all prophesy one by one (14:31)."

Not everyone had the gift of tongues.

1 Cor 12:29-30 "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?"​

The expected answer to each question is "No". The context here is the body of Christ, the universal church (1 Cor 12:27). Not everyone in the body of Christ has the same gift. This point is made over and over again by Paul:

Romans 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us."​

1 Corinthians 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."​

1 Corinthians 12:17 "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?"​

2. Paul's instructs us" to strive for the best gifts (12:31; cp. 14:1)" and then in the next breath mentions 4 of the gifts listed in 12;8-10 (tongues, prophecy, faith, word of knowledge).

The admonition to desire the greater gifts was addressed to the Corinthian church as a whole, not to the individual believer. Immediately before this verse Paul lists the gifts in order of importance - "first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues." The greater gifts are those listed at the head of the list (prophecy, teaching), not tongues which is at the bottom.

When he repeats this injunction in 14:1, tongues is treated as just as "great" as prophecy, if the tongues are interpreted (14:5).

No. Read 14:5 again. It doesn't say that translated tongues equal to prophecy. It says the persons exhibiting those gifts are equal:

The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.​

 

[Deadworm]

swordsman: "Acts 2 is the only description of the gift of tongues we have in scripture. It is clearly foreign human languages. The description is clear and definitive."

On the contrary, Acts 2 never claims to define every manifestation of the gift of tongues. When Peter celebrates the fact that Cornelius' household speaks in tongues like the 120 did, he means only that speaking in tongues has erupted again, not that the nature of the tongues were the same on both occasions. The tongues in Cornelius' household are neither understood nor interpreted and the tongues at Ephesus are distinguished from prophesying, in contrast to the tongues in Acts 2 which function as prophesying in fulfillment of Joel 2:28. Peter's phrase "This is that" (2:16) connects the alleged drunken babble with the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28. I challenge you to find one academic commentary that disagrees with this point.

Paul agrees the documented Jewish tradition that people can speak in angelic tongues. His equation of tongues with "angelic tongues (13:1) and his portrayal of tongues as zeal for spirits (= angels--14:12) is just as definitive as Acts 2.

swordsman: "If Luke knew that Paul's tongues were different from those at Pentecost he would never have used the same terminology.

First, I have already established that the tongues in Acts 2 differs in essential ways from the tongues in Acts 10 and 19.
Second, you seem unaware the Luke does not share the same doctrine of the Holy Spirit as Paul. In Luke-Acts, Luke overlooks the fact that Spirit baptism is another operation of the Holy Spirit after the Spirit's work of spiritual regeneration. In Acts, unlike Paul, it is always a question of the initial work of the Holy Spirit. The fact that Paul's understanding of the gift includes angel tongues reflects this fact and indeed the fact that various NT writers use the same terms in different ways. That realization is a cornerstone of NT exegesis.

That point is ironically illustrated by your next point:

swordsman: "...in Acts 2 the tongues was not a message to the people. It was praise to God - "we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”.

Now you are contradicting yourself. The interpreted tongues in Paul are a "sign to unbelievers" that convey a message to be obeyed. This is very different from your so-called definitive tongues in Acts 2! What makes that tongues a prophetic fulfillment of Joel is the fact that "prophesying" means inspired "forthtelling" and the Pentecost tongues were understood with no need for the gift of interpretation.

swordsman: "The tongues the gentiles experienced at Cornelius' house was exactly the same as Pentecost." Peter says so in his report to the Jerusalem council in Acts 11:15,17:



Paul doesn't say tongues is a non-human language.



The point Paul stresses in his analogy is the failure of the sound to communicate, not on it being indistinct:

1 Cor 14:8 "if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?"​

T"he word glossa in scripture or any other ancient Greek literature is never used to describe gibberish. It has been shown in research by Christopher Forbes (and others) that the Pythia never spoke in gibberish but rather in mysterious sayings."

Wrong! See the Kittel article (TDNT I). What the Delphic male prophet interprets is often an oracle so mysterious that the recipient doesn't understand it. You apparently haven't read any books that list and document these oracles to see what I mean.

swordsman: "(1 Corinthians 13:1-3) consists of 5 parallel 'IF' statements where Paul imagines 5 extreme hypothetical examples..."

Wrong again! They don't have to be "normal;" they just need to correspond with actual experiences, regardless of how common. Your point about hypotheticals is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus' expects mountain-moving faith and Paul equates tongues with a "zeal for spirits," i. e. by implication, "ministering spirits or angels (Hebrews 1:14).

swordsman: "The word 'pneumatōn' (πνευμάτων) in 1 Cor 14:12 literally means 'spirituals'."

Wrong! You don't know Greek very well. The phrase in 14:12 is "zelotai pneumatwn" (= "zealots of or for spirits"). "Pneumatwn" here is the genitive plural of "pneuma," which means "spirit" and the plural means "spirits" or "angels (see Hebrews 1:14). What you don't realize is that the word for "spiritual" is "pneumatikos" (e.g .1 Corinthians 2:15; 12:2).

swordsman: "'Kinds' (genos) in 1 Cor 12:10 means different kinds within the same family."
You forget that the phrase is "a variety of kinds," which can include angelic "kinds." In Mark 16:17 "new tongues" can mean "tongues not yet spoken on earth and hence "angelic tongues."

swordsman: "Paul never mentions speaking in tongues in private. Speaking in tongues in private would be a misuse of a spiritual gift which are only for the purpose of ministering to others."

You need to read more carefully. I have already decisively refuted your claim here and you have completely ducked my detailed explanation. For example, you keep forgetting that Paul's claim that speaking in tongues "edifies" the individual 14:4) must be positive because the Greek "oikodomeo" is always positive when it is applied to building up believers! That already implies the legitimacy of private tongues. And you keep on overlooking the idiom "heautw" in 14:28, "speak (in tongues) for yourselves and to God." This command urges private glossolalia when the gift can't be interpreted in church. Paul is not abruptly changing the subject to thinking in Greek to yourself and to God! What makes you case even more absurd is that it makes a mockery of Paul's insistence that we must digilently "strive for" gifts like tongues. Such striving obviously requires private trial balloons.

swordsman: "The admonition to desire the greater gifts was addressed to the Corinthian church as a whole, not to the individual believer."

Wrong as usual! Paul says, "I want you ALL to speak in tongues" and "you can ALL prophesy one by one." Here "all" means "all" and thus refers to each individual believer.

swordsman: "Read 14:5 again. It doesn't say that translated tongues equal to prophecy. It says the persons exhibiting those gifts are equal|

Of course, but you again miss the point. Paul makes the point that the prophesier is equal in "greatness" to the interpreted tongues speaker because he wants to imply that the 2 gifts can be equally great.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Do you understand what you are saying when you speak in tongues?

Usually not but theres the gift of interpretation of tongues where i sometimes get clues and hints as to what i just said in tongues. But it doesn't happen always. The key is though I can do it at will. I don't have to wait for the holy spirit to form syllables out of my mouth but as I always say I believe the holy spirit is waiting on me 24/7 to speak and let the holy spirit form the syllables out of my mouth. Its a wonderful thing.

For someone wondering what benefit they get out of this there have been studies done on people who spoke in tongues and those who didn't and those who did speak in tongues reacted to normal day stressors better than those who didn't. Heres the link

Speaking in Tongues: Glossalalia and Stress Reduction

Also while I pray in tongues I get the benefit of less stress along with supernatural prayers being prayed for me and others and although that is debated whats not debated is those who speak in tongues are less stressed out sort of imagine like a monk who meditates 10000+ hours. Speaking in tongues has that effect. I wish I did it more but I can do it in any setting like driving, or reading a book or even when talking to someone I can do it in my mind while having a regular conversation. I think that alone proves that it is from the holy spirit.

Anyone who says that some spirit takes them over and they start speaking uncontrollably needs to be careful because God and the holy spirit never take control of you, its always with your free choice to do it then the words come out. Even when someone says the spirit took over its really them letting go of the fear of speaking in tongues and going with the flow and opening their mouth and letting the spirit speak. Its really a wonderful thing to do and I couldn't be happier doing it daily. I definitely recommend it to all christians and if unbelievers could do it I don't see why not they may find if they do it they are more willing to believe Jesus is their lord and savior and rose from the dead. But thats a stretch because if they could do it they definitely wouldn't believe in the power behind it hence i think its unlikely to see and meaningless if done by an unbeliever. As paul said anything done without faith is sin so lets speak in tongues with complete faith in its power.

 

[swordsman1]

On the contrary, Acts 2 never claims to define every manifestation of the gift of tongues.

In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed that every other instance is the same. It is bad hermeneutics to presuppose otherwise. If other instances were a different phenomenon we would have been told, especially if this supposed 2nd type of tongues is the normative version for other believers.

When Peter celebrates the fact that Cornelius' household speaks in tongues like the 120 did, he means only that speaking in tongues has erupted again, not that the nature of the tongues were the same on both occasions.

Again you are making an unwarranted assumption. If it was a different manifestation then Peter was lying when he said "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning..... If God gave them the same gift he gave us ......". If their tongues was not absolutely identical to the apostles tongues the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted into the church.

Luke already gave us a full description of the gift a few chapters earlier. If it was a different phenomenon in Acts 10, Luke would have told us. In the absence of any redefinition it must be presumed to be the same.

The tongues in Cornelius' household are neither understood nor interpreted

How do you know that? You are making another presupposition. Luke doesn't say either way. The Gentiles may have started speaking fluent Hebrew or another language Peter recognized.

Paul agrees the documented Jewish tradition that people can speak in angelic tongues. His equation of tongues with "angelic tongues (13:1) and his portrayal of tongues as zeal for spirits (= angels--14:12) is just as definitive as Acts 2.

Paul was speaking hypothetically in 1 Cor 13:1. Even if he could speak in the language of angels.....

There is not a single translation that renders 1 Cor 14:12 as "zeal for spirits". Every one renders it as "spiritual gifts", for the reason I explained in my last post.

First, I have already established that the tongues in Acts 2 differs in essential ways from the tongues in Acts 10 and 19.

No you haven't.

Luke does not share the same doctrine of the Holy Spirit as Paul. In Luke-Acts, Luke overlooks the fact that Spirit baptism is another operation of the Holy Spirit after the Spirit's work of spiritual regeneration.

You are saying that Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, got the doctrine of the Holy Spirit wrong?

The interpreted tongues in Paul are a "sign to unbelievers" that convey a message to be obeyed. This is very different from your so-called definitive tongues in Acts 2!

Where on earth did you get that idea from? It is uninterpreted tongues which are a negative sign of judgement to unbelievers:

1 Cor 14:22-23 "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers. So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?"​

and the Pentecost tongues were understood with no need for the gift of interpretation.

The reason no translation was needed at Pentecost is because Jerusalem was packed with thousands of foreigners gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. Whereas in Corinth the tongues were spoken in a small group of local Greeks.

What the Delphic male prophet interprets is often an oracle so mysterious that the recipient doesn't understand it. You apparently haven't read any books that list and document these oracles to see what I mean.

Show me one piece of ancient Greek literature that uses the word 'glossa' to describe gibberish. The Pythia's speech may have been mysterious and needed interpretation, but it was still Greek (not gibberish).

Wrong again! They don't have to be "normal;" they just need to correspond with actual experiences, regardless of how common.

Yes they do, because people such as yourself claim the normal operation of tongues today is the language of angels and cite 1 Cor 13:1 as evidence.

Wrong! You don't know Greek very well. The phrase in 14:12 is "zelotai pneumatwn" (= "zealots of or for spirits"). "Pneumatwn" here is the genitive plural of "pneuma," which means "spirit" and the plural means "spirits" or "angels (see Hebrews 1:14). What you don't realize is that the word for "spiritual" is "pneumatikos" (e.g .1 Corinthians 2:15; 12:2).

I am afraid you are completely wrong in your idea that pneumatōn in 1 Cor 14:12 should be translated as "spirits" as the follow lexicon entries explain:

BDAG Lexicon
ⓓ The Spirit of God, being one, shows the variety and richness of its life in the different kinds of spiritual gifts which are granted to certain Christians 1 Cor 12:4, 7, 11; cp. vs. 13ab.—Vss. 8–10 enumerate the individual gifts of the Spirit, using various prepositions: διὰ τοὺ πν. vs. 8a; κατὰ τὸ πν. vs. 8b; ἐν τῷ πν. vs. 9ab. τὸ πν. μὴ σβέννυτε do not quench the Spirit 1 Th 5:19 refers to the gift of prophecy, acc. to vs. 20.—The use of the pl. πνεύματα is explained in 1 Cor 14:12 by the varied nature of the Spirit’s working;​

Thayers Greek Lexicon
c. by metonymy, πενυμα is used of α. "one in whom a spirit (πνεῦμα) is manifest or embodied; hence, equivalent to actuated by a spirit, whether divine or demoniacal; one who either is truly moved by God's Spirit or falsely boasts that he is": 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 John 4:2, 3; hence, διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 1 Corinthians 12:10; μή παντί πνεύματι πιστεύετε, 1 John 4:1; δοκιμάζετε τά πνεύματα, εἰ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ibid.; πνεύματα πλανᾷ joined with διδασκαλιαι δαιμονίων, 1 Timothy 4:1. But in the truest and highest sense it is said κύριος τό πνεῦμα ἐστιν, he in whom the entire fullness of the Spirit dwells, and from whom that fullness is diffused through the body of Christian believers, 2 Corinthians 3:17. β. the plural πνεύματα denotes the various modes and gifts by which the Holy Spirit shows itself operative in those in whom it dwells (such as τό πνεῦμα τῆς προφητείας, τῆς σοφίας, etc.), 1 Corinthians 14:12.​

Which is why every single bible translation renders this word as 'spiritual gifts', not 'spirits' and certainly not 'angels':

NASB So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

NIV So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.

ESV So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.

NKJV Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church

RSV So with yourselves; since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church.​

You forget that the phrase is "a variety of kinds," which can include angelic "kinds."

It could also include the dolphin kind, or the whale kind, or the Klingon kind. But seeing it refers to the kinds of language that humans speak it would be the German kind, the French kind, the Russian kind etc.

In Mark 16:17 "new tongues" can mean "tongues not yet spoken on earth and hence "angelic tongues."

No. In this context it means new to the speaker, not new to the world.

BDAG Lexicon
② pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of (Pla., Apol. 24c; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1 ἕτερα καὶ καινὰ δαιμόνια; Just., A I, 15, 9; Orig., C. Cels. 1 58, 15) διδαχή Mk 1:27; Ac 17:19. ἐντολή (κ. νόμος: Menand., Fgm. 238, 3 Kö.; Diod S 13, 34, 6) J 13:34; 1J 2:7f (Polyaenus 2, 1, 13 οὐ καινοὺς νόμους … ἀλλὰ τ. παλαιούς); 2J 5. ὄνομα (Is 62:2; 65:15) Rv 2:17 (here w. ὸ̔ οὐδεὶς οἶδεν εἰ μὴ ὁ λαμβάνων, perh. as antidote to adversarial magic); 3:12. ᾠδή 5:9 (Ps 143:9; cp. Is 42:10; Ps 32:3; 39:4.—Philo, Vi. Cont. 80 ὕμνος κ. [opp. ἀρχαῖος]); 14:3. γλῶσσαι Mk 16:17.

Mounce Lexicon
new, recently made, Mt. 9:17; Mk. 2:22; new in species, character, or mode, Mt. 26:28, 29; Mk. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22:20; Jn. 13:34; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 2:15; 4:24; 1 Jn. 2:7; Rev. 3:12; novel, strange, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; new to the possessor, Mk. 16:17; unheard of, unusual, Mk. 1:27; Acts 17:19; met. renovated, better, of higher excellence, 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 5:9
​

For example, you keep forgetting that Paul's claim that speaking in tongues "edifies" the individual 14:4) must be positive because the Greek "oikodomeo" is always positive when it is applied to building up believers!

It is not positive in the context of spiritual gifts, because spiritual gifts are for the purpose of serving others, not self (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7).

And you keep on overlooking the idiom "heautw" in 14:28, "speak (in tongues) for yourselves and to God." This command urges private glossolalia when the gift can't be interpreted in church. Paul is not abruptly changing the subject to thinking in Greek to yourself and to God!

I've already dealt with that verse in my previous post.

What makes you case even more absurd is that it makes a mockery of Paul's insistence that we must digilently "strive for" gifts like tongues. Such striving obviously requires private trial balloons.

No, read it again. The Corinthian church as whole is to desire spiritual gifts, not individuals. And the gifts they are to desire are the greater ones such as prophecy and teaching which edify the church.

Wrong as usual! Paul says, "I want you ALL to speak in tongues".

He also said he wished that everyone was single (1 Cor 7.7). It was a wishful ideal not something he expected to happen. Paul makes it quite clear that not all believers would have the gift of tongues. See 1 Cor 12:29, Rom 12:4-6, 1 Cor 12:8-10.

The fact that he wished it, makes it abundantly clear that not everyone in Corinth could speak in tongues!

Paul makes the point that the prophesier is equal in "greatness" to the interpreted tongues speaker because he wants to imply that the 2 gifts can be equally great.

No, the speakers are equal in greatness because they are both edifying the church. Paul has already said the 2 gifts are not equal in greatness (1 Cor 12:28,30).

 

[Deadworm]

swordsman: "If their tongues was not absolutely identical [sic!] to the apostles tongues the hated Gentiles would never have been accepted into the church".

Nonsense! They were "accepted into the church" (1) because their conversion fullfils the Great CommIssion and (2) because they spontaneously erupted into glossolalia, not because witnesses understood or interpreted their glossolalia. Again, you are guilty of an unwarranted assumption.

Swordsman: "Luke already gave us a full description of the gift a few chapters earlier."

"No, Acts 2 does not offer a "full description of the gift;" it offers us a specific case of the gift's manifestation.

swordsman: "If it was a different phenomenon in Acts 10, Luke would have told us."

That is your bogus assumption--an illicit argument from silence. In fact, Luke has indirectly "told us" by distinguishing the glossolalia from the prophesying in 19:5-6. By his phrase "This is that" in 2:16, Peter identifies the Pentecost glossolalia as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28--in radical distinction from the nonprophetic glossolalia at Ephesus. I guess it's now time the reissue my challenge for you to find any academic commentary that disagrees with this point.

You respond thus to my point that the glossolalia in Cornelius' household and at Ephesus is neither understood nor interpreted: swordsman: "How do you know that? You are making another presupposition. Luke doesn't say either way. The Gentiles may have started speaking fluent Hebrew or another language Peter recognized."

It is you who are making the unwarranted assumption and you bear the burden of proof that Cornelius' household (Acts 10:44-47) and the Ephesian disciples (19:5-6) understood the glossolalia. I challenge you to provide any academic commentary on Acts that agrees with your false assumption!
Indeed, the natural interpretation of 19:5-6 is that the Ephesian disciples erupt in prophesying ( which is intelligible to them) and glossolalia (which is unitelligible).

swordsman: "Paul was speaking hypothetically in 1 Cor 13:1.
I need to focus on each hypothetical in detail to demonstrate your misunderstanding.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.."
The hypotheticals here are irrelevant to the question of whether believers can speak in both human and angelic tongues. Acts 2 shows that believers can speak in human tongues. So the natural assumption is that we can speak in angelic tongues as well. This possibility is reinforced by the fact that Jews in Paul's day believed in the possibility of interpreting angelic tongues and by his characterization of Corinthian tongues speakers as "zealots for spirits" (= angels--Hebrews 1:14).

"If I have [the gift of] prophecy..."
Paul wants us all to prophesy (14:5) and believes we can all prophesy one by one (14:31)." So his wish expresses a genuine possibility and is in no way limited by the notion that some gifts are reserved for a chosen few (12:28-29). The same can be said for his wish that every believer speak in tongues (14:5)!

"If I have faith so as to remove mountains.."
Paul moves on to the gift of faith (12:8). Jesus expects disciples to display just such mountain-moving faith (Mark 11:22; Matthew 17:20). Of course, "mountain" is a symbol of difficult challenges.

"If I give away all my possessions..."
Jesus requires the rich young ruler to do precisely that (Mark 10:21). So this hypothetical points to a real possibility, if not a normal requirement.

"...and if I hand over my body..."
In effect, Paul hands over his body to Jewish and Roman authorities during his last trip to Jerusalem, even though he realizes this means he will never visit his missionary churches again (Acts 20:25).

Though Paul does not focus on "normal" experiences of each gift in each conditional, he does focus on genuine possibilities in each conditional. The one exception is his reference to "the word of knowledge" (12:8) in 13:2: "If I understand all mysteries and all knowledge.." and his use of "all" makes this the exception. So the natural interpretation of 13:1-3 is to take "tongues of men and angels" as legitimate possibilities, even if it turned out that human tongues were far more common.

swordsman: "You are saying that Luke..got the doctrine of the Holy Spirit wrong?"

I am challenging you to find a single text in Luke-Acts on the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. You can't and therefore need to recognize that they conceive of the work of the Holy Spirit differently. All of Luke's glossolalia reports are initial receptions of the Spirit. This fact destroys your presumptuous harmonization of the concept of tongues in Acts 2 vs. Paul. Basic biblical exegesis requires you to deal with what's in the text, not with what you wish was in the text.

swordsman: "It is uninterpreted tongues which are a negative sign of judgement to unbelievers."

Wrong! Despite Isaiah 28:11-12, Paul presupposes the legitimate exercise of the gift in church and that exercise requires interpretation. The tongues is a message to unbelievers who are present in church, a message that must be obeyed.

swordsman: "...people such as yourself claim the normal operation of tongues today is the language of angels and cite 1 Cor 13:1 as evidence."

Again, you display your inability to read carefully. I never said t"glossolalia today is the language of angels." In 13:1 Paul speaks of "tongues of [both] men and angels" and Paul speaks of "various kinds of tongues," which can include both human and angelic tongues.

swordsman: "I am afraid you are completely wrong in your idea that pneumatōn in 1 Cor 14:12 should be translated as "spirits"

Your point can be summarily dispatched by 2 simple but decisive facts:
(1) As already noted, Paul consistently uses "pneumatikoi" to refer to the "spiritual" and "charismata" to refer to "gifts," but in 14:12 he uses the plural of "pneuma" (= spirit).
(2) When Paul uses "pneuma" without a genitive phrase, it always means "spirit." So when he is not discussing the human spirit, pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit and when it is used positively in the plural it must refer to angelic spirits (cf. Hebrews 1:14).

Your assumption is wrong that 1 Thessalonians 5:19 directly "refers to the gift of prophecy:" Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not despise prophesying." True, to despise prophesying creates the danger of extinguishing the Spirit. But "the Spirit" here is "the Holy Spirit," which can be extinguished by despising prophesying. Paul presupposes the image of the Holy Spirit as a flame that can fall inactive and may need to be "rekindled: "I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you through the laying on of hands; for God did not give you a Spirit of cowardice, but a Spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline (2 Timothy 2:6-7)." Here "the gift of God" is the Holy Spirit, not simply the grace of ministry. Paul's denial that God gave us "the Spirit of cowardice" is echoed by his denial in Romans 8:15: "'For you did not receive the Spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a Spirit of adoption (Romans 8:16)." In both verses, Paul is discussing what the Holy Spirit is not, not a specific gift of the Holy Spirit.
swordsman: "It (1 Corinthians 14:4) is not positive in its present context."

Let's examine the verse in question: "He who speaks in tongues edifies (Greek: "oikodomeo") himself, but...." You are violating a basic principle of biblical herameneutics: i. when word usage is consistent elsewhere in an author, the usage must be presumed in an ambiguous text. Paul always uses "edify" positively, with reference building up believers. The "but" addresses his preference for expanding the edification to the whole church, but that preference in no way undermines the personal benefits of glossolalia uttered privately.

You have no answer for Paul's contrast in 14:28 between interpreted tongues in church and speaking in tongues "for oneself" (Greek: heautw) and "to God" privately. Can you actually find an academic commentary that does not understand this as an allusion to private tongues?

Paul's contemporary, Quintillian, describes the Delphic Pythia's outbursts as " secret language which the Greeks call "tongues" (Latin: linqua secretior quas Graeci glwssas vocant--Inst. Orac. I.1.35cf. 8,15). Lucan, Pharsalia V refers to the Pythia's "wordless groans."

 

[swordsman1]

Nonsense! They were "accepted into the church" (1) because their conversion fullfils the Great CommIssion and (2) because they spontaneously erupted into glossolalia, not because witnesses understood or interpreted their glossolalia. Again, you are guilty of an unwarranted assumption.

Rubbish. Peter tells us exactly why the gentiles were accepted - because they exhibited the exact same manifestation as the apostles experienced:

Acts 11:15-18 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning....So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God’s way?
When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, “So then, even to Gentiles God has granted repentance that leads to life.”​

In fact, Luke has indirectly "told us" by distinguishing the glossolalia from the prophesying in 19:5-6.

Luke makes absolutely no comment about whether the tongues in Acts 19 was human or non-human. He has no need to. He has already provided at full description of the gift previously in Acts 2. If it was something different he would have given us a redefinition.

By his phrase "This is that" in 2:16, Peter identifies the Pentecost glossolalia as the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28--in radical distinction from the nonprophetic glossolalia at Ephesus. I guess it's now time the reissue my challenge for you to find any academic commentary that disagrees with this point.

Irrelevant. Whether you regard the tongues in Acts 2 as being prophecy or not, that does not make the tongues in other passages non-human.

It is you who are making the unwarranted assumption and you bear the burden of proof that Cornelius' household (Acts 10:44-47) and the Ephesian disciples (19:5-6) understood the glossolalia. I challenge you to provide any academic commentary on Acts that agrees with your false assumption! Indeed, the natural interpretation of 19:5-6 is that the Ephesian disciples erupt in prophesying ( which is intelligible to them) and glossolalia (which is unitelligible).

You are committing the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the person who is making an assertion. I am not asserting anything with regards to the tongues in Acts 10 & 19. Your assertion, which you have yet to justify, is that those tongues were non-human. Prove it.

Acts 2 shows that believers can speak in human tongues. So the natural assumption is that we can speak in angelic tongues as well.

No, that is not a natural assumption, that is an unwarranted one. Because they spoke in human tongues does that mean believers can speak Klingon as well?

This possibility is reinforced by the fact that Jews in Paul's day believed in the possibility of interpreting angelic tongues and by his characterization of Corinthian tongues speakers as "zealots for spirits" (= angels--Hebrews 1:14).

You are just repeating the same old assertions that have already been refuted.

"If I have [the gift of] prophecy..."
Paul wants us all to prophesy (14:5) and believes we can all prophesy one by one (14:31)." So his wish expresses a genuine possibility and is in no way limited by the notion that some gifts are reserved for a chosen few (12:28-29). The same can be said for his wish that every believer speak in tongues (14:5)!

Even though this too has been refuted you keep repeating it. Read 1 Cor 12:29-31, Rom 12:4-6 and 1 Cor 12:8-10.

"If I have faith so as to remove mountains.."
Paul moves on to the gift of faith (12:8). Jesus expects disciples to display just such mountain-moving faith (Mark 11:22; Matthew 17:20). Of course, "mountain" is a symbol of difficult challenges.

Ditto.

"If I give away all my possessions..."
Jesus requires the rich young ruler to do precisely that (Mark 10:21). So this hypothetical points to a real possibility, if not a normal requirement.

Is giving away all your possessions the normal operation of the gift of giving?

"...and if I hand over my body..."
In effect, Paul hands over his body to Jewish and Roman authorities during his last trip to Jerusalem, even though he realizes this means he will never visit his missionary churches again (Acts 20:25).

Is giving up your own life the normal operation of the gift of giving?

Though Paul does not focus on "normal" experiences of each gift in each conditional, he does focus on genuine possibilities in each conditional.

If those extreme hypothetical examples are not the normal everyday operation of those gifts, then neither is speaking the language of angels the normal everyday operation of the gift of tongues.

The tongues is a message to unbelievers who are present in church, a message that must be obeyed.

No. The tongues the unbelievers are hearing in Paul's imagined example are untranslated. Why else would they say "you are out of your mind"?

I never said t"glossolalia today is the language of angels." In 13:1 Paul speaks of "tongues of [both] men and angels" and Paul speaks of "various kinds of tongues," which can include both human and angelic tongues.

Most charismatics would say that the normal everyday gift of tongues today is the language of angels. Speaking a real foreign human tongue would be an extremely rare exception, if it occurs at all. However Paul in 1 Cor 13:1-3 says the complete opposite.

(1) As already noted, Paul consistently uses "pneumatikoi" to refer to the "spiritual" and "charismata" to refer to "gifts," but in 14:12 he uses the plural of "pneuma" (= spirit).
(2) When Paul uses "pneuma" without a genitive phrase, it always means "spirit." So when he is not discussing the human spirit, pneuma refers to the Holy Spirit and when it is used positively in the plural it must refer to angelic spirits (cf. Hebrews 1:14).

So all bible versions and lexicons have got their translations wrong have they?

Your assumption is wrong that 1 Thessalonians 5:19 directly "refers to the gift of prophecy:" Do not extinguish the Spirit. Do not despise prophesying." True, to despise prophesying creates the danger of extinguishing the Spirit. But "the Spirit" here is "the Holy Spirit," which can be extinguished by despising prophesying. Paul presupposes the image of the Holy Spirit as a flame that can fall inactive and may need to be "rekindled: "I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is in you through the laying on of hands; for God did not give you a Spirit of cowardice, but a Spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline (2 Timothy 2:6-7)." Here "the gift of God" is the Holy Spirit, not simply the grace of ministry. Paul's denial that God gave us "the Spirit of cowardice" is echoed by his denial in Romans 8:15: "'For you did not receive the Spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a Spirit of adoption (Romans 8:16)." In both verses, Paul is discussing what the Holy Spirit is not, not a specific gift of the Holy Spirit.

What are you on about? I never said a word about 1 Thes 5:19. Are you building a strawman?

Let's examine the verse in question: "He who speaks in tongues edifies (Greek: "oikodomeo") himself, but...." You are violating a basic principle of biblical herameneutics: i. when word usage is consistent elsewhere in an author, the usage must be presumed in an ambiguous text. Paul always uses "edify" positively, with reference building up believers. The "but" addresses his preference for expanding the edification to the whole church, but that preference in no way undermines the personal benefits of glossolalia uttered privately.

Wrong again. If Paul was using it positively he would be contradicting himself and other scriptures. Read 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7.

You have no answer for Paul's contrast in 14:28 between interpreted tongues in church and speaking in tongues "for oneself" (Greek: heautw) and "to God" privately.

I've already given you the answer. About three times.

Can you actually find an academic commentary that does not understand this as an allusion to private tongues?

Robert Thomas - Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA
Understanding Spiritual Gifts
The last half of verse 28 explains how the tongues speaker was to keep silent in church. The suggestion that “speak to himself and to God” deals with private activity is not plausible in a context devoted to public worship, which is the general theme of 11:2–14:40. Particularly, 14:28 itself is regulatory of activities in the church, not of those in private. The meaning of verse 28b is thus, "Let him keep silent in the church, and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only." This required the tongues speaker to meditate quietly on what his own mind could grasp of the tongues message that he might otherwise have given publicly—had an interpreter been present—thereby deriving for himself whatever edifying benefit he could. “Speaking to oneself and to God” was a proverbial expression for meditation. The guideline calls upon the would be tongues speaker, out of consideration for the rest of the congregation, to engage in such a contemplative activity rather than speak up in the absence of an interpreter and do something that had no benefit whatever for anyone else in the audience. Paul has devoted extensive discussion earlier in the chapter to the fruitlessness of tongues apart from interpretation (vv. 6–11, 14, 16–17), and in verse 28, he is explicit in ruling out tongues under such conditions.
The question of whether the de in 14:28b is adversative or explanatory is significant. In the former case it would contrast public tongues with private tongues, whereas in the latter it would introduce an explanation of how the tongues speaker is to keep silent in the church.... The other explanation of verse 28b is that laleito refers to inaudible utterances ; &dquo;Let him keep silent in church [and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only.&dquo; The greater plausibility of this view is seen by the way en ekklesiai ’ (&dquo;in the church&dquo continues its force from verse 28a. Wherever the silence is located is the same place where the speaking to oneself and to God is to transpire.... Since the context of 11:2-14:40 has public surroundings in view and makes no clear reference to private activities, de in an explanatory sense is the preferable interpretation.

Mark Taylor - Professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Corinthians
The phrase "to be silent" in church recalls Paul's previous desire to speak five intelligible words "in church" rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (14:19). Some think this presupposes that the appropriate venue for speaking in tongues apart from interpretation is privately at home, much in the same way that Paul advises to eat and drink at home (11:22) and instructs wives to ask questions of their husbands at home (14:35) rather than to speak shamefully "in church."561. Paul is not as specific, however, regarding tongues. He does not mention doing this at home but only that that speaker must be silent in church and speak to himself and to God. The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are corporate gifts distributed by the Spirit for the common good (12:7-11). Furthermore, Paul argues that edification cannot occur apart from comprehension (14:13–17). It is unlikely that Paul means, "Let Him speak to himself and to God without comprehension."

O Palmer Robertson - former professor at Knox Theological Seminary.
The Final Word
Yet one other verse must be analysed carefully with respect to the possibility of ‘private’ gifts in the church. For 1 Corinthians 14:28 states that if no ‘interpreter’ is present to provide the meaning of an utterance spoken in a tongue, then the speaker must keep silent in the church, and must ‘speak to himself and to God’. Does not this statement appear to endorse a private gift which does not function publicly in the church?
If approached in a certain way, this verse admittedly would appear to endorse the privatisation of the gift of tongues-speaking. If no interpreter is present, the tongues-speaker should ‘speak to himself and to God’.
But further consideration would not appear to lend support to this position. For the whole point of the passage is to provide orderly control of multiple gifts as they function in the church. ‘Two or at the most three’ should speak in tongues, and someone must interpret (verse 27). In a similar way, ‘two or three prophets’ should speak, and the others should discriminate (verse 29). The whole context deals with the orderly functioning of gifts within the assembly. In the context of this precise discussion, Paul makes the point that the tongues-speaker without an interpreter is to remain silent, speaking to himself and to God (verse 28). The two actions are simultaneous. As he restrains himself until an interpreter is present, he speaks within himself while communing with God.
The question is not whether the gift of tongues should function in private or in public. Instead, the question is when the gift of tongues may function in the assembly, and the answer is that tongues may function properly in the church only when an interpreter is present. From the comment in verse 31 that ‘all can prophesy’ in due time, it may be assumed that the same principle would hold for tongues. As soon as an interpreter is present, the utterance may be delivered. But in the meantime, the tongues-speaker must manifest patience in the assembly, just like the prophet. For the spirits of all prophets are subject to the orderly control of prophets.
In any case, the context presumes the public functioning of the gifts. The verbal gifts of tongues and prophecy are intended for the whole community, not merely for an individual to exercise in private. A person may justify the private exercise of ‘tongues’ from personal experience. He may testify to the fact that he derives great relief from tension through letting his vocalisations in prayer run ahead of his rational processes. His ‘prayer-language’ is to him a ‘gift’ from God that helps him cope with life today.
But in the end, experience must be judged by Scripture, and not vice versa. ​

 

[Deadworm]

swordsman: "...they exhibited the exact same manifestation as the apostles experienced (citing Acts 11:15-18):"

No, the expression "exact same" is your invention, not Luke's intention.

swordsman: "Luke makes absolutely no comment about whether the tongues in Acts 19 was human or non-human."

No he doesn't; and so, it is an open question whether those tongues were human or angelic. The important point is that the tongues in Acts 19 are not prophecy like the tongues in Acts 2. That fact in itself refutes your claim that the tongues were the same in Acts 2 and 10 and 19. Luke never says that anyone understood or interpreted the tongues in Acts 10 and 19; so you are not entitled to assume that they were. And if these tongues were neither understood nor interpreted, then neither they nor you know whether they were human or angelic.

swordsman: "If it was something different he would have given us a redefinition."

No need to. He never offered a definition in the first place, just an example. Your pontification is absurd because you haven't established whether Luke even cares whether the tongues in Acts 10 and 19 are human or angelic.

swordsman: "Whether you regard the tongues in Acts 2 as being prophecy or not, that does not make the tongues in other passages non-human. Your assertion...is that those tongues were non-human. Prove it."

With your case in tatters, you now resort to the desperate expedient of putting words in my mouth. Neither you, I, nor the tongues speakers in Acts 10 and 19 can be said to know whether they are speaking actual human or angelic tongues. What we can say is that Paul believes in the possibility that some manifestations are angelic and an expression of zeal for spirits (= angels).

swordsman: "Because they spoke in human tongues does that mean believers can speak Klingon as well?"

So you are desperate enough to bring Klingon's into this, huh?
I have demonstrated in detail that most of Paul's hypotheticals in 13:1-3 contain real possibilities; and so, the burden of proof rests with you to show that in the phrase "tongues of men and tongues of angels" only "tongues of men" presents a real possibility for Paul and the Corinthians. I have already refuted your denial of this and you have not addressed my arguments after all these posts. I have shown in detail that 1 Cor 12:29-31, Rom 12:4-6 and 1 Cor 12:8-10 are irrelevant to the point at issue.

swordsman: "Is giving away all your possessions the normal operation of the gift of giving?"

The question of what is "normal" in these conditionals is irrelevant to the question of whether angelic speech is a normal form of glossolalia. Paul makes it clear that angelic tongues are a legitimate manifestation of this gift for "zealots of spirits (angels), but he doesn't address the question of the relative frequency of human vs. angelic tongues.

swordsman: "The tongues the unbelievers are hearing in Paul's imagined example are untranslated. Why else would they say "you are out of your mind"?"

As usual, you miss the point: When Paul talks about tongues and prophecy being signs for unbelievers and believers respectively, he is discussing the legitimate function of these gifts. The interpreted tongues present a message to be obeyed.

swordsman: "Most charismatics would say that the normal everyday gift of tongues today is the language of angels..."

I am a tongues speaker, who grew up Pentecostal and have been around Pentecostals all my life; and I have never met a Pentecostal who makes that claim. Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality!

swordsman: "Speaking a real foreign human tongue would be an extremely rare exception, if it occurs at all."

First, you aren't Pentecostal; so you aren't competent to pontificate on that question. Second, for all you know, Pentecostals often speak in foreign languages, but without the presence of the right foreigner to confirm that fact.
Third, I know of a few cases of confirmation to powerful effect that the tongues were actual foreign languages. And fourth, once you experience the real thing, you would be so deeply moved that the question of whether your tongues were human or angelic would be of minor interest. I'm confident that your anti-Pentecostal case has been decisively refuted. But what really matters is what the Holy Spirit Himself thinks of your disrespect for His gift. You need to make it a matter of prayer whether you are grieving the Holy Spirit by your dismissal.



So all bible versions and lexicons have got their translations wrong have they?



What are you on about? I never said a word about 1 Thes 5:19. Are you building a strawman?



Wrong again. If Paul was using it positively he would be contradicting himself and other scriptures. Read 1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7.



I've already given you the answer. About three times.

Robert Thomas - Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary in Sun Valley, CA
Understanding Spiritual Gifts
The last half of verse 28 explains how the tongues speaker was to keep silent in church. The suggestion that “speak to himself and to God” deals with private activity is not plausible in a context devoted to public worship, which is the general theme of 11:2–14:40. Particularly, 14:28 itself is regulatory of activities in the church, not of those in private. The meaning of verse 28b is thus, "Let him keep silent in the church, and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only." This required the tongues speaker to meditate quietly on what his own mind could grasp of the tongues message that he might otherwise have given publicly—had an interpreter been present—thereby deriving for himself whatever edifying benefit he could. “Speaking to oneself and to God” was a proverbial expression for meditation. The guideline calls upon the would be tongues speaker, out of consideration for the rest of the congregation, to engage in such a contemplative activity rather than speak up in the absence of an interpreter and do something that had no benefit whatever for anyone else in the audience. Paul has devoted extensive discussion earlier in the chapter to the fruitlessness of tongues apart from interpretation (vv. 6–11, 14, 16–17), and in verse 28, he is explicit in ruling out tongues under such conditions.
The question of whether the de in 14:28b is adversative or explanatory is significant. In the former case it would contrast public tongues with private tongues, whereas in the latter it would introduce an explanation of how the tongues speaker is to keep silent in the church.... The other explanation of verse 28b is that laleito refers to inaudible utterances ; &dquo;Let him keep silent in church [and let him do this by means of speaking to himself and to God only.&dquo; The greater plausibility of this view is seen by the way en ekklesiai ’ (&dquo;in the church&dquo continues its force from verse 28a. Wherever the silence is located is the same place where the speaking to oneself and to God is to transpire.... Since the context of 11:2-14:40 has public surroundings in view and makes no clear reference to private activities, de in an explanatory sense is the preferable interpretation.

Mark Taylor - Professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
1 Corinthians
The phrase "to be silent" in church recalls Paul's previous desire to speak five intelligible words "in church" rather than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (14:19). Some think this presupposes that the appropriate venue for speaking in tongues apart from interpretation is privately at home, much in the same way that Paul advises to eat and drink at home (11:22) and instructs wives to ask questions of their husbands at home (14:35) rather than to speak shamefully "in church."561. Paul is not as specific, however, regarding tongues. He does not mention doing this at home but only that that speaker must be silent in church and speak to himself and to God. The gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues are corporate gifts distributed by the Spirit for the common good (12:7-11). Furthermore, Paul argues that edification cannot occur apart from comprehension (14:13–17). It is unlikely that Paul means, "Let Him speak to himself and to God without comprehension."

O Palmer Robertson - former professor at Knox Theological Seminary.
The Final Word
Yet one other verse must be analysed carefully with respect to the possibility of ‘private’ gifts in the church. For 1 Corinthians 14:28 states that if no ‘interpreter’ is present to provide the meaning of an utterance spoken in a tongue, then the speaker must keep silent in the church, and must ‘speak to himself and to God’. Does not this statement appear to endorse a private gift which does not function publicly in the church?
If approached in a certain way, this verse admittedly would appear to endorse the privatisation of the gift of tongues-speaking. If no interpreter is present, the tongues-speaker should ‘speak to himself and to God’.
But further consideration would not appear to lend support to this position. For the whole point of the passage is to provide orderly control of multiple gifts as they function in the church. ‘Two or at the most three’ should speak in tongues, and someone must interpret (verse 27). In a similar way, ‘two or three prophets’ should speak, and the others should discriminate (verse 29). The whole context deals with the orderly functioning of gifts within the assembly. In the context of this precise discussion, Paul makes the point that the tongues-speaker without an interpreter is to remain silent, speaking to himself and to God (verse 28). The two actions are simultaneous. As he restrains himself until an interpreter is present, he speaks within himself while communing with God.
The question is not whether the gift of tongues should function in private or in public. Instead, the question is when the gift of tongues may function in the assembly, and the answer is that tongues may function properly in the church only when an interpreter is present. From the comment in verse 31 that ‘all can prophesy’ in due time, it may be assumed that the same principle would hold for tongues. As soon as an interpreter is present, the utterance may be delivered. But in the meantime, the tongues-speaker must manifest patience in the assembly, just like the prophet. For the spirits of all prophets are subject to the orderly control of prophets.
In any case, the context presumes the public functioning of the gifts. The verbal gifts of tongues and prophecy are intended for the whole community, not merely for an individual to exercise in private. A person may justify the private exercise of ‘tongues’ from personal experience. He may testify to the fact that he derives great relief from tension through letting his vocalisations in prayer run ahead of his rational processes. His ‘prayer-language’ is to him a ‘gift’ from God that helps him cope with life today.
But in the end, experience must be judged by Scripture, and not vice versa. ​

[/QUOTE]

 

[JackRT]

Acts 2 does not refer to speaking in tongues but to hearing in tongues.

 

[Deadworm]

Acts 2 does not refer to speaking in tongues but to hearing in tongues.

Jack, you raise a point worth discussing because it seems impossible to make sense of the scene taken literally. 120 people are speaking in tongues all at once in an upper room with no microphone system. It would be hard to imagine many passersby below recognizing any message in what many of them perceive as drunken babble. Yet Luke asks us to believe that 3,000 Jews from afar are converted by hearing these 120 tongues speakers in their own languages and by distinctly hearing them "speaking about God's deeds of power," even though everyone is babbling at once!

 

[swordsman1]

No, the expression "exact same" is your invention, not Luke's intention.

The passage speaks for itself:

“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning... Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”
When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”
​

If the gentile tongues was anything different from the disciples at Pentecost they would never have been accepted as equals within the church.

No he doesn't; and so, it is an open question whether those tongues were human or angelic.

No it is not an open question. Luke has already given us a full description of tongues in Acts 2. He doesn't need to give us another 7 verse description every time he mentions the gift again. In the absence of any new definition, it is presumed to be the same thing. If I said I had a red car, I don't have to keep repeating the fact it is red every time I subsequently mention it. People know it is red from my initial description. That logic is something that even a five year old can understand.

The important point is that the tongues in Acts 19 are not prophecy like the tongues in Acts 2. That fact in itself refutes your claim that the tongues were the same in Acts 2 and 10 and 19.

You are confusing the nature of tongues with the content of tongues. The content says nothing about its nature. The content of tongues speech would no doubt be different in every single instance of tongues. That doesn't make each one a different phenomenon.

Luke never says that anyone understood or interpreted the tongues in Acts 10 and 19; so you are not entitled to assume that they were. And if these tongues were neither understood nor interpreted, then neither they nor you know whether they were human or angelic.

And Luke never said that anyone didn't understand or interpret the tongues either. So your argument is from silence.

What we can say is that Paul believes in the possibility that some manifestations are angelic

Only in his imagination, for the purpose of rhetorical effect.

I am a tongues speaker, who grew up Pentecostal and have been around Pentecostals all my life; and I have never met a Pentecostal who makes that claim. Wow, are you ever out of touch with reality!

That certainly isn't my experience. Virtually every time a tongues speakers has been asked to justify their unintelligible speech they invariably point to 1 Cor 13:1 as their proof text for it being a heavenly language. Not least on this very forum.

As usual, you miss the point: When Paul talks about tongues and prophecy being signs for unbelievers and believers respectively, he is discussing the legitimate function of these gifts. The interpreted tongues present a message to be obeyed.

You seem to be very confused about 14:21-22. Paul is equating the untranslated tongues of Corinth with the foreign tongues of the invading Assyrian army in Isaiah's prophecy. Foreign languages heard in the midst of Jews was always considered a sign of judgement against the Jews (see Deut 28:49, Jer 5:15). So when unbelieving Jews entered the Corinthian meetings they would be repelled by the untranslated foreign languages they heard.

Here are some commentaries which will help you to understand this passage better. Two of them are continuationists, so this is not just a cessationist viewpoint.

Gordon Fee
21 Paul begins redirecting their thinking by adapting a passage from Isa. 28:11-12, which he introduces as a citation from "the Law. ''The citation itself is not precise;20 it seems to have been chosen for two interrelated reasons: the occurrence of the language “other tongues” and the fact that in the OT context this “speaking in tongues” by foreigners did not effect belief in Israel indeed, it both led to and was part of their judgment.
...
22 With the strong inferential conjunction “so then,” Paul deduces two antithetical assertions from the Isaiah passage just quoted. But what he says has become a notorious crux. The problem is twofold: (1) the meaning of “sign,” including whether he intended it to be repeated for the second assertion, and if so, what it also meant there; and (2) how to square what is said here with the illustrations that follow, especially the second assertion with the second illustration. As noted above, the solution to this lies primarily in the recognition that Paul’s point in the paragraph is made in verses 23–25 and especially in the way verse 23 “fulfills” the Isaiah passage. This means that, contrary to many interpretations, this text (verse 22) needs to be understood in light of what follows, not the other way around.
The first assertion flows directly from the quotation itself: “Tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.” Although it cannot be finally proven, the flow of the argument from verse 20, including the strong “so then” of this sentence, suggests that Paul is setting up this antithesis with the Corinthians’ own point of view in mind. That is, “In contrast to what you think, this word of the Lord from Isaiah indicates that tongues are not meant as a sign for believers. They are not, as you make them, the divine evidence of being pneumatikos, nor of the presence of God in your assembly. To the contrary, in the public gathering uninterpreted tongues function as a sign for unbelievers.” The question is, What kind of sign? In light of verse 21, for which this is the inferential deduction, “sign” in this first sentence can only function in a negative way. That is, it is a “sign” that functions to the disadvantage of unbelievers, not to their advantage.
Most likely Paul is using the word in a way that is quite in keeping with his Judaic background, where “sign” functions as an expression of God’s attitude; something “signifies” to Israel either his disapproval or pleasure. In this case, it is his disapproval that is in view; but not in the sense that God intends unbelievers during this time of grace to receive his judgment. To the contrary, tongues function that way as the result of their effect on the unbeliever, as the illustration in verse 23 will clarify. Because tongues are unintelligible, unbelievers receive no revelation from God; they cannot thereby be brought to faith. Thus by their response of seeing the work of the Spirit as madness, they are destined for divine judgment just as in the OT passage Paul has quoted. This, of course, is not the divine intent for such people; hence Paul’s urgency is that the Corinthians cease thinking like children, stop the public use of tongues, since it serves to drive the unbeliever away rather than to lead him or her to faith.
With a balancing antithetical clause Paul adds that “prophecy, however,” also functions as a sign, but “not for unbelievers, but for believers.” With this sentence he once again picks up the contrast between tongues and prophecy that was last expressed in verses 1–6 (although it is alluded to in verse 19 in anticipation of this argument). This is also the clause in which all the difficulties have arisen, since in the illustration that corresponds to this assertion (verses 24–25) he does not so much as mention believers but indicates only how prophecy affects unbelievers, and in a way that would make one think that it is really a sign for them, that is, to their advantage.
The solution again lies first of all in the nature of the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians. Over against their preference for tongues, he asserts that it is prophecy, with its intelligibility and revelatory character, that functions as the sign of God’s approval, of God’s presence, in their midst. The evidence of this is to be found in the very way that it affects unbelievers. By the revelatory word of prophecy they are convicted of their sins, and falling on their faces before God they will exclaim, “God is really among you!” That exclamation as a response to prophecy is a “sign” for believers, the indication of God’s favor resting upon them.
Thus, tongues and prophecy function as “signs” in two different ways, precisely in accord with the effect each will have on unbelievers who happen into the Christian assembly.

Wayne Grudem
The "stammering lips" and "other tongues" are the lips and tongues of foreign (Assyrian) invaders, whom the Samaritans will not understand....Paul understands very well that when God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it is a form of punishment for unbelief.
...
We can paraphrase Paul's thought as follows: "When God speaks to people in a language they cannot understand, it signifies his anger and results in their turning farther away from him. Therefore (οΰν, vs. 23), if outsiders or unbelievers come in and you speak in a language they cannot understand, you will simply drive them away. This is the inevitable result of incomprehensible speech. Furthermore, in your childish way of acting (vs. 20) you will be giving a "sign" to the unbelievers which is entirely wrong, because their hardness of heart has not reached the point where they deserve that severe sign of judgment. So when you come together (vs. 26), if anyone speaks in a tongue, be sure someone interprets (vs. 27) ; otherwise, the tongue-speaker should be quiet in the church (vs. 29)."
...
In vss. 21-22 Paul argues that when tongues have been used against unbelievers they have been a very severe and perhaps final indication of God's displeasure, and they have resulted in further turning from God. On the basis of that historical example, Paul then cautions the Corinthians not to use tongues in the presence of unbelievers, lest the same thing happen (vs. 23). So Paul is saying that against even interested unbelievers, tongues would function as an indication of God's disapproval and would bring punishment. Tongues, according to vs. 23, would be a σημεΐον
...
Therefore, it is important to realize that in 1 Cor. 14.20-23 Paul is not talking about the function of tongues in general but only about the negative result of one particular abuse of tongues, namely, the abuse of speaking in public without an interpreter (and probably speaking more than one at a time [cf. vss.23, 27] ) so that it all became a scene of unedifying confusion. Concerning the proper public function of the use of tongues plus interpretation, or the proper private function of speaking in tongues, Paul is elsewhere quite positive (12.10-11, 21-22, 14.4, 5, 18, 26-28, 39).

Mark Taylor
14:21. The formula"It is written" introduces Isa 28:11 into the argument. Even though the text is from the Prophets, Paul refers to what is written "in the Law," indicating a broadened sense of the term "law" in this context. In 9:9 he specified the "law of Moses" when referring to Deuteronomy.90 Paul will refer again to what the "law says" in 14:34, but there is no citation of a specific text. This is the only place in his letters that Paul does not link the formula, "It Is written," to what precedes with a conjunction.91. This does not mean that the scriptural citation is disconnected altogether from 14:20 but implies that Paul Is not drawing support from the Old Testament for the preceding command to "become mature" but rather to establish the claim that follows in 14:22, namely, that tongues are a sign to unbelievers rather than believers, which is amplified by the illustrations in 14:23-25.492 Bracketing the Isaiah text by "It is written" and "the Lord says" heightens the authority of the citation.
...
What are we to make of Paul's rendering of the Isaianic text? Thiselton explains, "The technical issues assume due proportion only in the light of understanding how Paul superimposes the parallel situations of Corinth and Isaiah 28 onto one another with the effect that the genuine force of OT scripture speaks creatively to a new situation.". In other words, Paul "is simultaneously quoting and applying a passage." In Isaiah the people unwilling to listen to the Lord's speech in clear language would have to listen unwillingly through invaders speaking Assyrian. By taking over some of the words of Isa 28:11-12, Paul's formulation depicts God addressing the Corinthian Christians. Of particular note is the change to the first person and Paul's addition of "Says the Lord," which "makes God utter this statement through the prophet to the Corinthians.". Paul's choice of text is apparently due to the reference to God speaking in "another tongue" in order to communicate to his people. The message, however, was a message of judgment to Israel, not salvation. Having refused to hear the simple message, God spoke judgment in unintelligible languages. Paul's point is that uninterpreted tongues in public worship is inappropriate because it places many of God's own people in the situation of feeling like foreigners in a foreign land and will not bring the message of the gospel of Christ Home to unbelievers.
14:22 This brings us to Paul's central claim in the argument, which sets forth a parallel contrast between believers and unbelievers in relation to the gifts of tongues and prophecy. The inference Paul draws from Isa 28:11-12 is that tongues are a sign to unbelievers and prophecy is a sign to believers. The meaning of 14:22 hinges both on the quotation from Isa 28 and the illustrations that follow in 14:23-25. The consensus among recent commentaries and specialist studies is that unintelligible tongues leave unbelievers in a state of unbelief, and therefore judgment, while prophecy is able to bring unbelievers to faith. In other words, Paul uses the term "sign" negatively in relation to tongues; that is, tongues are a sign of judgment, shutting up the unbeliever in his unbelief. Prophecy, on the other hand, brings about conversion and in this sense is a positive sign of God's presence among believers. In a sense the "sign" relates to judgment in both cases, that is, tongues confirm unbelievers in their unbelief while prophecy "judges" the secrets of the heart and leads to conversion. "Sign" is both negative and positive in this context, depending on what the "sign" indicates. Paul invites the Corinthians to evaluate the respective effects of tongues and prophecy: what signal does each convey? Thiselton explains that Paul has just stated in 14:21 that the experience of being surrounded by the "tongues" of the Assyrians in Isaiah served as a sign of judgment for unbelief. Since tongues serve as a sign for unbelievers, Christian believers should not have such a "sign" marking their community worship. On the other hand, prophetic speech has the effect of nurturing people of faith and bringing unbelievers to faith. Unbelievers do not produce prophetic speech. Whereas prophetic speech characterizes the believing church at worship, uninterpreted tongues constitute negative signs generating barriers and alienation inappropriate for believers.​

 

[Deadworm]

All swordsmen can do is repeat his discredited arguments without careful consideration of contrary arguments. One indication of his closed-mindedness is his persistent refusal to accept my repeated challenges to consult non-cessationist academic commentaries on these 6 issues:

(1) Find even one commentary that claims that the tongues spoken in Acts 10:44-47 were either understood by the hearers or interpreted by someone with the gift of interpretation.

(2) Find even one commentary that rejects the obvious claim that the glossolalia in Acts 2 is the prophesying foretold in Joel 2:28. This issue is important because 19:5-6 distinguishes speaking in tongues from prophesying and thus refutes swordsman's claim that Peter equates the glossolalia in Acts 2 as the exact same type of manifestation as in 10:44-47. On the contrary, 11:15-16 need mean no more than the fact that glossolalia was experienced in both Acts 2 and 10:44-47, not that the glossolalia in 10:44--47 was understood by Cornelius's household. But I repeat: Swordsman, find even one commentary that claims that Cornelius' household understood their glossolalia. If no one understood it, then there is no reason to believe that it expressed human languages.

(3) Find even one commentary that rejects the implication in 14:28 that private glossolalia is permissible.
"But if there is no one to interpret, let him keep silent in church and speak for himself (Greek: "hemautw") and to God (14:28)." [Similarly, see below on 14:4]

If Paul rejected the legitimacy of private glossolalia, one would expect this sentence to end with "Let him keep silent in the church." Paul is not discussing the legitimacy of believers talking to themselves in church! So when he adds, "Let him speak for himself," he means "speak in tongues for his own benefit as opposed to the church's benefit (edification).

(4) Find even one commentary that rejects Paul's gratitude that he speaks in tongues "more than you all" (14:18) as celebration of glossolalia that he utters in private. There is not a shred of evidence that Paul speaks in understandable tongues to his missionary audiences, let alone that does so often enough to justify his presumptuous claim to speak in tongues more than anyone else. Besides, in Paul's day his missionary locales are thoroughly Hellenized, so that their language is Greek. So, swordsman, find even one academic commentary that agrees with your absurd claim that Paul routinely used glossolalia to address pagans he encounters in the street.

(5) Swordsman has always ducked my repeated challenge to explain why word usage in every other Pauline example is not definitive for his usage in 1 Corinthians 14.
e. g. "He who speaks in tongues edifies (Greek: oikodomeo) himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church (14:4).

Swordsman rightly notes the obvious, that spiritual gifts are primarily bestowed to build up the church and he stresses the need for interpretation of tongues to enable it to fulfill this ecclesial purpose. But that in no way implies that tongues cannot fulfill an important secondary purpose of edifying the speaker in private. How can we decide? By recognizing this as the deciding factor: Paul NEVER speaks of edifying people as a negative--something to be avoided. So if speaking in tongues privately edifies the speaker (i. e. builds the speaker up spiritually), then it is to be encouraged.

"Since you are zealots for spirits (Greek: "zelotai pneumatwn"), strive to excel in them for edifying the church (14:12)."

Swordsman prefers the translation "spirituals" for "pneumata" here. Indeed, on this text, he is entitled to reverse my challenges and demand that I produce a scholar who translates "pneumata" as "spirits." in the sense of the reference to angels as "ministering spirits" in Hebrews 1:14.

So here is my response. "Pneumatikos." not "pneuma", is Paul's term for "spiritual." True, Paul can use "pneuma" in the sense of "the spirit of." But the NT never uses "spirits" (without the genitive (of)) to designate a spiritual gift. It always designates "spirits" in the sense of angels or demons. So in 12:14 it means "spirits" in the sense of "angels" and thus confirms the fact that "tongues of angels" in 13:1 alludes to angelic glossolalia as a supplement to glossolalia as expressing human languages.

(6) Finally, swordsman has always ducked my challenge to explain how to "strive for" the gift of tongues (among other gifts--12:31; 14:1), without the practice of private prayer.




(

 

[Biblicist]

Do you understand what you are saying when you speak in tongues?

The question could possibly be rephrased as "Do you know what you are praying about" as against knowing the precise words and concepts that the Holy Spirit is praying to the Father on our behalf.

We can often start our times of prayer, in tongues if we so desire, by asking the Holy Spirit to offer up words of praise and thanks to the Father, which is the normal application of prayer within the congregational setting; we can then have the Holy Spirit interceding on our behalf on specific matters which might be say for the needs of a family member or a friend. Unlike that of our very finite human understanding and even comprehension, the Holy Spirit will be able to address issues within the life of the person that we are praying for that we would know nothing about, which means (and I don't know how this works) that the Holy Spirit will pray perfectly in accordance with the will of the Father where such prayer is beyond our human frailty.

 

[Biblicist]

Jack, you raise a point worth discussing because it seems impossible to make sense of the scene taken literally. 120 people are speaking in tongues all at once in an upper room with no microphone system. It would be hard to imagine many passersby below recognizing any message in what many of them perceive as drunken babble. Yet Luke asks us to believe that 3,000 Jews from afar are converted by hearing these 120 tongues speakers in their own languages and by distinctly hearing them "speaking about God's deeds of power," even though everyone is babbling at once!

With regard to where the 120 were meeting it might surprise many to realise that the Scriptures do not actually say where they were meeting. When a competent commentator makes reference to the Upper Room as being the meeting place for the 120, we should read this as the "Upper Room" where this particular location is being used more for the event of the Day of Pentecost than the actual location.

There are four possibilities;

1. One of the Temple Courts, including that of the Wailing Wall Plaza
2. A large public area somewhere within Jerusalem
3. A large private home
4. A large private home where the 120 then moved to the Temple while they were praising God

The most recent work on this question has been addressed by Craig C. Keener in volume 1 of his massive four volume work on Acts on pages 796,798-99. Even though Keener has provided some great analysis on this particular question, even he admits that we cannot be sure as to the actual location, though as with many others, I tend to think that they were meeting within one of the Temple courts.

As to the question of the 120 being empowered to speak known human languages or if the unregenerate crowd were empowered to hear, I would take the simple language of the text where Luke is pointing to the 120 being empowered; it is difficult to understand why anyone would presume that on the Day of Pentecost where the Spirit was given to the fledgling Church that the Spirit would be given to the unregenerate and not to the Children of God.