Tongues

[Joe Guth]

I believe that tongues are given as the Spirit wills in a known tongue to the listener, unknown to the speaker.

 

[Biblicist]

Academics are good provided they are honest and open minded. Instead most are looking for loopholes to support their personal heresies and disparage anyone that isn't impressed by their gibberish.

Obviously you have never read any academic works!

So it seems that you are trying to disparage men such as Carson, Deere, Garland, Fee, Grudem, Hacking, Hollenweger, Karkkaine, Keener, Ma, Macchia, Menzies, Ruthven, Storms, Turner, Wacker in that they are small minded individuals who will attack anyone who dares oppose them. As for referring to their combined work as being 'gibberish', I have to ask you, have you read any Christian literature at all!

That appears to be true.and of course the use of blind hateful remarks serves to verify the ignorance and unspiritual nature of those who claim to be wise.

It seems that you have very effectively summed up your above opening remark.

True only comes to those that diligently seek it. Those looking for something else will find it and cling to it. God wants you to have truth and power to overcome. At some point you must trust God. That is that his word is true and beyond your finite understanding.

Diligence, that sound like a great idea! But what type of diligence are you referring to? Do you mean with the diligence of the many great contemporary men of God who have effectively demolished the old cessationist worldview or with those who are afraid of these same men?

 

[Biblicist]

I believe that tongues are given as the Spirit wills in a known tongue to the listener, unknown to the speaker.

How do you relate this to Pauls statement in 1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

In much of chapter 14 Paul is trying to explain to the Corinthians (and to us) that as tongues cannot be understood without the Spirit providing an interpretation, then tongues must be used sparingly and always accompanied by an interpretation.

 

[D2wing]

In my last post, I made reference to how those who are still stuck in the old cessationist worldview are finding it increasingly hard to source cessationist leaning material from the more respected academics of our day. In many ways the cessationists have something in common with many on this forum (and with the rank and file members of our churches) in that many seem to be fearful of intelligence. Prior to the mid-eighties we could all rightfully dismiss most Christian academics as being a bit dry and lifeless but since the mid to late 80’s the situation has now changed.

Many Full Gospel believers may be confused by the frequent complaints from within the wof movement as to why they do not have any academics and of course this is understandable as wof precepts and Biblical theology simply do not go hand in hand; in some ways these two terms could be considered to be an oxymoron. What many people do not seem to realise is that the vast majority of the respected academics of our day are certainly supportive of Full Gospel precepts though they will soundly reject the distinctives of the wof movement. So we should continue to hear derogatory remarks from with our wof ranks for time immemorial as this part of the Full Gospel movement will never be able to develop a solid theology – whereas for the rest of this, this came to fruition about 25 years ago.

The old cessationist vs. Continuist debate has in most part been well discarded by the academics where their interests seem to be addressing aspects of classic-Pentecostal beliefs and this can be very healthy.

I wonder how many CF members would be able to provide any solid information on a passage such as 1 Cor 12:2-3 or for that matter if they could even explain how this particular passage has been addressed over the years.

In response to your question this is not mysterious. Some had been pagans, therefor needed a way to distinguish between spirits. If a man or spirit says Jesus is cursed, that spirit is not of God, not the Holy Spirit. On the other hand no one or no spirit can say Jesus is Lord, unless they speak by the power of the Holy Spirit. It looks straightforward to me. But then, never underestimate the effort someone will put in to distort Scripture. Like tongues have ceased.

 

[Joshua V]

I once saw someone speak in tongues, it was scary!

 

[D2wing]

How do you relate this to Pauls statement in 1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

In much of chapter 14 Paul is trying to explain to the Corinthians (and to us) that as tongues cannot be understood without the Spirit providing an interpretation, then tongues must be used sparingly and always accompanied by an interpretation.

True. Except when the group is worshipping in the spirit or in group prayer. If the group is in the spirit this all happens by action of the Holy Spirit is is understood by all in the spirit. Not the words but what is happening. This can cause problems for someone totally ignorant of the Spirit or unwilling to yield to it. Thus Paul's warning.
There are different aspects of when the Spirit moves in groups and in private.

 

[D2wing]

I once saw someone speak in tongues, it was scary!

I hope you do not fear me. I speak in tongues usually everyday. But nearly always in private. I do not belong to a church that accepts them but I am looking.

 

[Joe Guth]

How do you relate this to Pauls statement in 1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries."

In much of chapter 14 Paul is trying to explain to the Corinthians (and to us) that as tongues cannot be understood without the Spirit providing an interpretation, then tongues must be used sparingly and always accompanied by an interpretation.

Well, how do you explain that tongues is for the believer instead of the unbeliever... Clearly the scriptures tell us otherwise.

I will say that when Acts speaks of Corinth, no where is a private tongue mentioned as you seem to be aluding to. Acts 2 is the blueprint for NT tongues. Tongues are for the unbeliever in his own language and dialect...

Blessings ...

 

[D2wing]

Joe, I am not sure what you are talking about. Tongues are primarily a prayer language for a believer. They are used in meeting except where already mentioned. I have heard that they have been used to communicate to in their own language but to my knowledge this is pretty unusual. The use of tongues is not very detailed in Scripture as the people spoken to most likely had a working knowledge. Since the primary means of passing them on is by laying on of hands I think it is assumed that tongues and knowledge of their use would be passed on. This did not happen as the word was diluted over the years. Just guessing of course. You could say the knowledge of tongues is imbedded with the gift. I hope this helps.

 

[Biblicist]

True. Except when the group is worshipping in the spirit or in group prayer. If the group is in the spirit this all happens by action of the Holy Spirit is is understood by all in the spirit. Not the words but what is happening. This can cause problems for someone totally ignorant of the Spirit or unwilling to yield to it. Thus Paul's warning.

Even though I disagree with some aspects of what you have said, I should acknowledge that your above comments would undoubtedly reflect the views of the majority of Pentecostals.

With my earlier posts I made reference to Pauls strong admonition in 1 Cor 14 that within the congregational setting we are not to allow more than one operation of tongues at a time and that we are limited to three tongues and three interpretations. As this is something that we are required to put in affect, in that we are simply not permitted to allow more than the stipulated 3 + 3, then this denotes that we do not require any on the spot leading by the Holy Spirit, the same goes for corporate worshipping in the Spirit within the congregational setting which is something that Paul is also addressing.

There are different aspects of when the Spirit moves in groups and in private.

Here’s where I feel that we can easily mistake group expectations for the leading of the Spirit. By this, I mean that a group of people who expect to be allowed to praise the Lord in the Spirit could easily mistake this permission by the church leadership to do so as being the leading of the Spirit.

 

[D2wing]

The Holy Spirit doesn't disagree with himself. Your ideas are somewhat confusing and contradictory to me. I don't think it is a good idea to tell God how to do his business. You are interpolating meaning that is not there. I know the meaning of what Paul says, that occurs when the worshipers pause and wait on The Lord. It can be prophetic or word of knowledge or a tongue. If a tongue there should an interpretation.
If not could be for several reasons. If there is no interpretation we move on. To have full knowledge of the things of the Spirit you need to be in the Spirit. It is not good to practice quenching of the Spirit unless things get out of order. Generally this would be done privately, not in the service.
I am happy to help but I am not going to argue over tongues are real or good and someone who doesn't operate in the Spirit has no right to criticize those who do.

 

[Biblicist]

I am happy to help but I am not going to argue over tongues are real or good and someone who doesn't operate in the Spirit has no right to criticize those who do.

Are you saying that you do not feel that you have any right to speak on spiritual matters? As for your last post, it certainly appeared to be a mixture of disjointed ideas.

 

[Biblicist]

In response to your question this is not mysterious.

Since coming into Pentecost in late 1974, this text of 1 Co 12:2-3 had not only perplexed me but it seems that probably every commentator who has written on the subject felt the same way. Even way back in 1926 when Moffat wrote his translation of the NT, he went as far as to place these two verses in brackets to indicate that he did not think that they were a part of the original Greek Text. When Thiselton released his monumental 1446 page work on 1 Corinthians in 2000, he dedicated 17 pages to verses 2 & 3 where he listed the 12 more prominent attempts at providing a reasonable interpretation to this text.

Five years later he produced his Shorter Exegetical & Pastoral Commentary on 1 Corinthians where he referred to the work of Dr. Bruce Winter who had released his own research into this text about six months after Thiselton released his first book on 1 Corinthians in 2000. So now Thiselton added in a thirteenth option and it is the option that he is leaning toward, which is:

[Bold type and italics are a part of Thiselton’s text.]

• “No one speaking through the agency of the Spirit of God says, “Jesus [is] cursed,” or (more probably) “Jesus grants a curse.” This verse has attracted many attempts at an explanation. In my larger commentary I discussed twelve possibilities (First Epistle, pp. 917-27). The key to Winter’s new interpretation is twofold. First, because the Greek contains no verb but simply has “Jesus-anathema” Anathema Iesous), the translation need not be (as in the twelve suggestions) “Jesus is a curse,” or “is accursed”; it may be “Jesus grants a curse.” Second, in recent years some twenty-seven ancient curse tablets made of lead have been unearthed in or around Corinth (fourteen on the slopes of Acrocorinth in the precincts of pagan temples), and these witness to the practice of appealing to pagan deities to “curse” rivals or competitors in business, love, litigation, or sport (Winter, “Religious Curses and Christian Vindictiveness, 1 Cor. 12-14”).

Some had been pagans, therefor needed a way to distinguish between spirits. If a man or spirit says Jesus is cursed, that spirit is not of God, not the Holy Spirit. On the other hand no one or no spirit can say Jesus is Lord, unless they speak by the power of the Holy Spirit. It looks straightforward to me.

One of the more unfortunate translations of the Greek word ethnos in 1 Cor 12:2 has been with how most English translation insert the misleading English word of pagan instead of the literal “of the nations”. One of the lines that the cessationists used to try and throw at us (and some still do) was that there were individuals within the Corinthian meetings who were supposedly cursing Jesus in tongues. This fallacy is still one that crops up in Full Gospel circles from time to time but as many commentators have stated, the Corinthians would never have bothered to ask Paul about this type of situation as they would have quickly shown anyone the door who dared try and give a false interpretation that “Jesus is cursed”.

But then, never underestimate the effort someone will put in to distort Scripture. Like tongues have ceased.

Are you trying to claim that I am both distorting the Scriptures and saying that tongues have ceased!

 

[D2wing]

Good for you. I am grateful you do not need further comment from me. After all one cannot teach anything to someone that already knows all the answers. I do not know what else to tell you. Bye.

 

[Biblicist]

Well, how do you explain that tongues is for the believer instead of the unbeliever... Clearly the scriptures tell us otherwise.

• NASB 1Co 14:21 In the Law it is written, “By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, and even so they will not listen to Me,” says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

I’m not exactly sure by what you mean by “…tongues is for the believer” but in verses 21 & 22 Paul is making reference to the Assyrian army that invaded Jerusalem. As the invading soldiers spoke a language that was unknown to the Jewish inhabitants, this meant that they were confused by the instructions that the soldiers were giving them which would have frustrated the soldiers who would have undoubtedly killed many due to their impatience and annoyance with their victims seemingly ignoring their commands. As such, once the invading army was inside the city walls, most Jews would have realised that they were being punished especially to those who were about to be killed by the soldiers who were not prepared to wait for the Jews to obey their instructions.

If you want to look further into this passage, if you can obtain a book by Dr. Wayne Grudem titled The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (1988), his work is still considered to be the best on the subject of NT prophecy and for many of us he has provided the solution for this once puzzling text. As with many such books, it had its beginnings as a doctoral thesis (1977) and in 1988 it was released to the general reader. This meant that a sizable portion of the academic community was about 8-10 years in front of us and a wealth of literature has been written on his solution.

In the following verse, even though Paul refers to tongues as being a negative sign to the unbeliever, some translations (ASV, NASB, ESV) also refer to prophecy as being a sign which is a technical mistake.

• NASB 1Co 14:22 So then tongues are for a (negative) sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy (is positive) is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

So Paul is simply saying that whenever someone such as an unsaved person or a believer who does not understand the things of the Spirit encounters everyone speaking in tongues all at once, that they will simply consider that “they are out of their mind” and walk out of the meeting. As these people will walk out rejecting the Gospel, this means that this self-centred activity will end up producing judgment upon these individuals which is something that Paul wants to stop from occurring. This is why he forbids the common contemporary practice where many congregations unwisely allow corporate singing in tongues within their general meetings.

 

[D2wing]

What meetings are you referring to? How has this been a problem? To who exactly?

 

[Biblicist]

Tongues are for the unbeliever in his own language and dialect...

Sorry for the long delay (and the long post).

1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries… vs.4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself;

As Paul tells us, when we pray in the Spirit that it edifies the one who is praying/praising; this allows me to ask, why should this edification be restricted to the confines of the congregational setting? As Paul stipulates that whenever we pray in the Spirit during our congregational meetings, that each tongue must be accompanied by an interpretation (so that others are benefited), when I pray to the Lord (or simply praise him) in tongues during my personal times of prayer, then how can I not be edified at home if praying in the Spirit edifies me in the congregational setting?

I will say that when Acts speaks of Corinth, no where is a private tongue mentioned as you seem to be aluding to.

Paul is very clear about praying in the Spirit being used for personal prayer when he says in verse 19 “however in the church”:
1 Cor 14:18,19 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Considering that Paul has been discussing “the Spiritual things” across three chapters, one would have to ask, if praying in tongues outside of the congregational setting was supposedly unknown to the Corinthians, why would Paul mention that he prays both inside and outside of the church “setting more than you all” without any further explanation?

In Eph 6:18 where we have seven spiritual weapons, the last one mentioned is with that of praying in the Spirit (tongues) and Paul also talks about spiritual songs (singing in tongues) in Col 3:16. The author of Jude tells the recipients of his letter to “build yourselves up…by praying in the Holy Spirit”.

Acts 2 is the blueprint for NT tongues.

With the four occurrences of tongues in Acts (incl. Acts 8), we know from Acts 2 that the 120 spoke in known human languages but there is no record of where any of them prophesied; the Scriptures do not give us any further examples of where tongues were given in known human languages which is in line with Pauls teachings in 1 Cor 14:2.

With Acts 8, 10 & 19 all we know about these events is that when the Holy Spirit fell on these new believers the only way that the Apostles could tell this had happened was with them speaking in tongues (Acts 2, 8, 10 & 19) and in Acts 19 this is accompanied by the new believers prophesying; in Acts 10 we do not have any reference with anyone in the household of Cornelius prophesying.

With Acts 2, the way that tongues was being applied by the Holy Spirit is in line with 1 Cor 14 as they were words that the Spirit was directing to the Father and not to man which is the way that the Spirit always speaks through us in tongues. We know a little regarding the contents of these tongues in Acts 2 as they contained declarations regarding “the mighty works of God” and this is also in line with 1 Co 14 as Paul states that they are directed toward God and not man. In 1Co 14:16 Paul seems to be saying that within the congregational setting that the Holy Spirit will always be speaking in praise to God which follows along the lines of the occurrence of the Day of Pentecost with their declaring the “mighty works of God”.

It’s interesting that Paul, who knew full well that on the Day of Pentecost that the Spirit enable the 120 to speak in known human languages; yet, even though he has reminded the Corinthians (and us) that no man is ever able to understand what the Spirit says, then we could well ask, why Paul did not consider it worthwhile to even mention this disparity.

When I first read this passage as a new 17 year old believer, I had no trouble with seeing that the Day of Pentecost was a unique event so to see the Spirit speaking in known human languages was of no surprise. Even though I couldn’t make much sense of speaking in tongues in my early days, I could still understand that Paul was saying that in all probability that the normal application of speaking in tongues was with angelic languages (or something along these lines) which is what the Corinthians also understood to be the norm.

If Paul thought that when people spoke in tongues that they were in known human languages, we would have to ask why he says in 14:16 “You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified”.

.................

1. Day of Pentecost: Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

2. Holy Spirit falls upon the Samaritans: Acts 8:14-19 (tongues is not mentioned but implied)
vs.14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God,…v.17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. V.18,19 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

3. Household of Cornelius: Acts 10:44
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

4. Twelve Ephesian disciples: Acts 19:4
Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.7 There were about twelve men in all.

 

[D2wing]

Excellent post. I would add that the speaker doesn't know if he speaks,with the tongues of angels or men. Normally it is unknown but there are cases even modern ones when the tongues were in a language known to someone present. I applaud your research and add that as far as I know tongues are used in private or small closed meetings mostly.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I once saw someone speak in tongues, it was scary!

That supports Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14 where he says that when people speak in tongues in front of unbelievers or uninitiated people, they will think that the tongues speakers are mad!

I believe that the tongues you heard were probably in the flesh, because when the gift is misused by speaking in front of others without an interpretation, it violates Paul's express instructions and therefore is not supported by The Holy Spirit. Therefore, if it is not supported by The Holy Spirit, then what is spoken is mere fleshly nonsense.

I wonder how much of The Holy Spirit is involved in a lot of public tongues speaking in Pentecostal/Charismatic churches, when the speakers seem to totally ignore Paul's instructions about the gift?

The whole reason why Paul gave the instructions about tongues is that the Corinthian believers were misusing it in the same way that many Pentecostals and Charismatics are misusing it today.

The Holy Spirit is never involved in anything that is not consistent with Scriptural instructions.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe that tongues are given as the Spirit wills in a known tongue to the listener, unknown to the speaker.

That was true on the Day of Pentecost, and for a particular reason.

But your comment is not consistent with Paul's statement that when a person speaks in tongues, he speaks to God, and no person understands him. I believe Paul in that when someone speaks in tongues in the hearing of others, the listeners do not understand him. This is why there is the need for the interpretation when it is spoken publicly.

I think that we need to be more conversant about what Paul is actually saying about the operation of the gift of tongues, otherwise, if we try to practice it outside of the instructions that Paul gives, we may end up only speaking fleshly gibberish that God does not support or appreciate, and all the speaking is just a waste of time and energy.

Like Shakespeare said, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."