What is speaking in tongues?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The long ending of Mark 16 is not only generally misunderstood it is not on solid ground as not being in the earliest of manuscripts. It is no place to make doctrine and if you drink poison, you are unwise by tempting God.

Angelic languages as supposed by those in the charismatic church are at best foolhardy enterprises.

The long ending of Mark is supported by enough of the early church fathers to give the assurance that it is more likely to be authentic. Also, the structure of the original Greek text is consistent with the rest of the book. The drinking of poison does not refer to deliberately drinking it as an act of worship, and the same refers to the handling of snakes.

As far as angelic languages are concerned, Paul was not making any reference to the gift of tongues. He is comparing eloquence with love, the latter being the theme. He is not saying that people do speak with angelic languages, but is saying that if if people did and did not have love, they would be must making a useless noise. Because the reference to angelic languages is isolated to that one verse, and is not mentioned anywhere in 1 Corinthians 14, then we can safely assume that angelic languages are not included in Paul's definition of tongues. There seems to be much more support that tongues could be any world language, supported in Acts 2, and many testimonies of tongues being understood by native language speakers around the world.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Hello. May I ask, after making point after point closely paired with God's word do you throw this natural card in? For to judge this or that tongue is false, isn't supported from the text, only prophesy. But, far easier it is to err by teaching others to judge whether the performance was authentic, for by mere identification alone are we commanded to view that gift with only one response, , and would strongly advise no one teach otherwise,

", , do not forbid speaking in tongues." (1 Corinthians 14:39)

If a person genuinely seeks the Lord for the gift of tongues, and then steps out in faith to speak a language they have not learned, then they are doing what they believe they are doing according to God's Word in 1 Corinthians 14. Even if they start off making up the language, which then flows out of them fluently, if they are doing it in faith based on 1 Corinthians 14, then they are not faking it at all.

An example of faking it is when someone is induced to speak something like "ba ba sha ba" and then told they are speaking in tongues, without any reference to knowing that it is God's will for them, asking or receiving the gift by faith, according to the appropriate Scriptural steps to receiving anything from God. In other words, they don't know what they are doing, and are just copying others because "it is the thing to do". What they are doing is just verbalizing from their mouths instead of speaking from their hearts. What we see a lot on Youtube videos where people are babbling away in public, is not genuine in my view, because it goes against what Paul teaches about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, that uninterpreted tongues should remain in the private prayer room and not for public meetings. If people babble away against Paul's teaching, then they are not speaking genuine tongues, because anything that contradicts the clear teaching of God's Word cannot be genuine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's God almighty's job whether he can use what is spoken or not since this 'degree of authenticity' so many insist ruling upon, really isn't found in the text. I humbly invite any to show me otherwise. Prophesy, as you know (let the others judge) is the only thing that is. If that's true, and it is, those who maintain "fake tongues" stand in stark opposition to "forbid not to speak with tongues".

Anyone who speaks in tongues, relying on 1 Corinthians 14:2 cannot be faking it, because what he is doing is in faith in God's Word and in accordance with Paul's teaching about where and when to use the gift as set out in the rest of the chapter.

Anyone who is faking it is doing it deliberately, knowing exactly what he is doing, or he is babbling away not knowing what it is for, and just because others are doing it, which is not in faith at all because what he is doing is not on the basis of God's Word, but out of a desire to do it because others are doing it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Rabbatin jenka lewangee.

"Foolish talk"? Back atcha brother, Are you proposing what just entered my mind to jot that down could not be used by God the Father of lights?

If you wrote it on your own volition and not on the basis of faith in 1 Corinthians 14:2, then it is just verbal nonsense. Also, because you spoke it publicly without interpretation, confirms it as nonsense because it contradicts Paul's teaching about tongues.

When I have encouraged a person to step out in faith by typing a sentence in my prayer language, I have always given the interpretation as well in accordance with Paul's teaching. Also, to receive the gift of tongues through faith in God's Word requires a set of Scriptural steps:
1. assurance of God's will
2. asking for the gift
3. telling the Lord you now receive it
4. stepping out in faith to start speaking an unlearned language and persevering until fluency happens.

 

[Berserk]

Receivedgrace: "Angelic languages as supposed by those in the charismatic church are at best foolhardy enterprises."

(1) Your "foolhardy" answer wrongly assumes that Jews in Paul's day couldn't speak or interpret angelic language. For example, in the Testament of Job 48-50, Job's daughters could speak in the various dialects of angels; and Rabbi Eliezer (c. 70 AD) could reportedly understand angelic speech.

(2) The word "glossai" ("tongues") need not designate human languages. Gerhard Kittel's TDNT article on "glossai" (vol.1) gives examples of "glossai" referring to speech that seems like mysterious gibberish from a human linguistic perspective, which nevertheless needs to be interpreted.

(3) When "glossai" does designate human languages, the word for human "dialektos" is used (Acts 2:6).

(4) Only bias prompts the dismissal of the phrase "tongues of men and angels" as Pauline hyperbole. The hyperbole begins in the next verse (13:2).

Watchmnan1: "Because the reference to angelic languages is isolated to that one verse, and is not mentioned anywhere in 1 Corinthians 14, then we can safely assume that angelic languages are not included in Paul's definition of tongues )."

(5) Wrong! You don't realize that the plural of "pneuma" in 14:12 is wrongly translated "gifts," when it actually means "spirits" and hence "angels."

"Since you are zealots for spirits ("zelotai pneumaton"), strive to excel for the building up of the church."

So for Paul and the Corinthians, the ecstatic gifts are angel-inspired speech. This perspective is confirmed by the Shepherd of Hermas (Mandate 11), the only other detailed early Christian description of the operation of the prophetic gifts in corporate worship from that era.

"When the man who has the Divine Spirit comes into a meeting of righteous men who have the faith of the Divine Spirit, and intercession is made to God from the assembly of those men, then the ANGEL OF THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT rests on him... and the man, being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the congregation as God wills (11:9)."

 

[rocknanchor]

", , because you spoke it publicly without interpretation, confirms it as nonsense because it contradicts Paul's teaching about tongues.

Half-right. For if we wanted full correctness over that statement, we would have to maintain the world is all believers. But as you know, we won't make it through every city with the gospel of Christ. For,

", , tongues are for a sign, not to those believing, but to the unbelieving, , "​

 

[Berserk]

A reminder: In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul encourages private speaking in tongues with no interpreter:
"But if there is no interpreter, let him speak (in tongues) to himself (privately) and to God (1 Cor. 14:28)."
"He who speaks in tongue edifies himself (14:4)."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Half-right. For if we wanted full correctness over that statement, we would have to maintain the world is all believers. But as you know, we won't make it through every city with the gospel of Christ. For,

", , tongues are for a sign, not to those believing, but to the unbelieving, , "​

Notice that the quote doesn't prevent any believer desiring or receiving the gift of tongues, otherwise it would say: "Tongues are for a sign, not for those believing, but to the unbelieving." Therefore the gift of tongues is for the use of the believer to act as a sign to the unbelieving.

 

[prodromos]

A monk in the Eastern Orthodox Church in Greece, Elder Porphyrios, had a group of young Greek women visit him with one of their friends, a French girl, who was an atheist. He at first spoke to the French girl with two of the Greek girls in attendance, one of whom spoke French and acted as interpreter, but after a little while sent the latter out, leaving just the French girl and the Greek girl who did not speak French. After a little longer he sent the Greek girl out also, who was witness to the fact that the French girl was asking questions in French and the Elder was responding in Greek.
After speaking to the Elder alone for a while, she emerged a different person, full of joy after her discussion with the Elder, and she also gently chided her friends for telling her that the Elder only spoke Greek, since from the time the first Greek girl left who had been interpreting, the Elder had been speaking to her in perfect French!

 

[rocknanchor]

Notice that the quote doesn't prevent any believer desiring or receiving the gift of tongues, otherwise it would say: "Tongues are for a sign, not for those believing, but to the unbelieving." Therefore the gift of tongues is for the use of the believer to act as a sign to the unbelieving.

Ahh-yes (I think), that glorious fact, ONLY 'where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.' (2 Cor 3:17)

 

[rocknanchor]

An example of faking it is when someone is induced to speak something like "ba ba sha ba" and then told they are speaking in tongues, without any reference to knowing that it is God's will for them, asking or receiving the gift by faith, according to the appropriate Scriptural steps to receiving anything from God. In other words, they don't know what they are doing, and are just copying others because "it is the thing to do". What they are doing is just verbalizing from their mouths instead of speaking from their hearts. What we see a lot on Youtube videos where people are babbling away in public, is not genuine in my view, because it goes against what Paul teaches about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, that uninterpreted tongues should remain in the private prayer room and not for public meetings. If people babble away against Paul's teaching, then they are not speaking genuine tongues, because anything that contradicts the clear teaching of God's Word cannot be genuine.

'Babbling away' counter to Paul's teaching? Yes, but, suppose it is counter due to the mere perceived madness by the unlearned only? If so, doesn't insure such peradventured prayer isn't honored.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

'Babbling away' counter to Paul's teaching? Yes, but, suppose it is counter due to the mere perceived madness by the unlearned only? If so, doesn't insure such peradventured prayer isn't honored.

That would be in line with Paul telling the Corinthians that they were "giving thanks well enough" when they spoke in tongues without interpretation. I think it depends on the individual believer and the attitude of his or her heart. I had a friend who used to greet me in tongues, and I would say, "I have the interpretation for that!" and give it. I knew that this brother was a sincere, Bible believer, not given to kundalini nonsense, and so had the confidence that his tongues speaking was genuine. I think that when mixed up with the kundalini manifestations, there has to be reasonable doubt that the speaking with tongues in those incidences is false and meaningless, just the same as the Hindu version of tongues as part of their kundalini sessions is part of their pagan worship.

 

[rocknanchor]

Are you saying that no one has ever faked speaking in tongues nor ever will?

My apologies, yes. Fully at the mercy of the gift of discerning of spirits, if therein called out as such.