Albeit he speaks in mysteries. To who? God? There are no mysteries to be speaking to God, is there?
They are mysteries spoken to God if we don't know what they are (or didn't know what they are and they are made known.)
Even the way you are interpreting it, I don't see how that supports your argument. How do you interpret the verse? DO you think it is just wrong?
Paul began the topic for that chapter with this verse....
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
See that? If anyone desires spiritual gifts, seek the gift of prophesy over all spiritual gifts.
Okay, yes the chapter argues for that. I don't see anyone here arguing that uninterpreted tongues is as edifying to the church as prophesying. Everything Paul said about speaking in tongues is still true, also.
Then he began to EXPLAIN WHY by comparing the gift of prophesy against the gift of tongues. That is his point as he reiterates it again in verse 12 because by comparing the two, he explains that tongues is not a stand alone gift because it does not come without interpretation.
Pay attention to the details, phrases like '
yet in the church' and '
keep silent in the church'. Paul said, "I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church...."
Tongues can be used 'stand alone', but in the congregation the gift of interpretation is required to edify others. It is better to edify the body than to edify oneself. But if there is no interpreter, one who speaks in tongues is allowed to do so, but he must keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]6 [/SUP]Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?[SUP]7 [/SUP]And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?[SUP]8 [/SUP]For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?[SUP]9 [/SUP]So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.[SUP]10 [/SUP]There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.[SUP]11 [/SUP]Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.[SUP]12 [/SUP]Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.[SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
What? Did you overlook all those verses from 6- 12 to know what he had meant in verse 13 that tongues is supposed to come with interpretation for what Paul is praying for when he speaks in tongues?
No. I've posted quite a bit on the topic throughout the thread, which is rather long. You are making a straw man argument. In the congregation, tongues need to be interpreted.
Paul is not giving any room for tongues to come without interpretation, now is he?
There is a whole chapter here. Paul does allow for tongues without interpretation in verse 28. Paul's 'restriction' on interpretation is 'yet in the church'. He clearly is making room for uninterpreted tongues when he says 'but let him speak to himself and to God.
So you are reading verse 2 out of context of verse 1 in why Paul was comparing the gift of prophecy against the gift of tongues as to why every believer should seek the gift of prophecy over all spiritual gits, including tongues, because God's gift of tongues comes with interpretation and when it does not, that is why Paul can tell that person to be silent because his tongue is not being manifested by the Holy Spirit as it is his own native tongue that is being spoken here.
That is a strange bit of eisegesis. Why would speaking in tongues suddenly change from a supernatural gift to a natural language if there is no interpreter? That doesn't make sense. The problem is you start from the assumption that tongues is not a 'stand alone gift' rather than learning whether it is or not.
Tongues can function as a 'stand alone gift', but in the assembly, it needs to be used with the gift of interpretation to edify the body.
Explain the conundrum here if you believe God's gift of tongues can come without interpretation.
There is no conundrum. Peter says to use the gifts as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. The Spirit enables individuals to speak in tongues, and as a matter of stewardship, they need to use it according to a certain order if they do so in the church. This order includes interpretation of tongues so that others in the church may be edified.
But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
And yet... Paul said...
1 Corinthians 14:[SUP]39 [/SUP]Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
So again, Paul concludes for believers to seek the gift of prophesy and yet when it comes to tongues, if there is no interpretation, the person is to be silent even though Paul forbids not to speak in tongues therefore tongues are supposed to come with interpretation.
In verse 28, you underlined 'let him keep silent in the church', but it also says 'and let him speak to himself and to God.' He is allowed to speak in tongues without interpretation, but he is to keep silent in the church if there is no interpreter. If he does speak in tongues without an interpreter, he edifies himself.
It is good to speak in tongues and to edify oneself, for Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues" but it is better to prophesy and edify others, bfor Paul says, "but rather that ye may prophesy."
That means God's gift of tongues are never used for a prayer language of the Holy Spirit. Period.
No, one of those verses shows that speaking in tongues can be used for prayer 'and let him speak to himself and to God.'
The reason you come to your conclusion is you eisegete something weird that doesn't make sense into the verse. In verse 28, if I understand you write, the word 'tongues'-- one occurence of it-- has two definitions for you. One is the supernatural ability to speak in a language. The other is a natural language. If there is an interpreter, well the word 'tongues' there means the supernatural ability. If not, the guy just knows Spanish or whatever. Human language doesn't work like that. That's not a normal way of writing or communicating.
The reason there is a conundrum is you are assume speaking in tongues can never be 'stand alone' and then try to read that idea into the text when it doesn't make sense.
You can't say that it is you praying &/or that the Holy Spirit is praying. It is one or the other.
I haven't actually told you that speaking in tongues is the Holy Spirit praying. Paul said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prays. So it is the human spirit that prays. But the ability to do so comes through a gift of the Holy Spirit. The words to pray do come from the Holy Spirit. But the speaker's spirit also prays.
The truth here is, God's gift of tongues is of other men's lips to speak unto the people as Paul gave the bottomline on tongues for clarity's sake so that is tongues is not you praying in tongues nor the Holy Spirit praying in tongues, BUT you praying that someone else may interpret the tongue you are speaking as manifested by the Holy Spirit.
Ummm. That doesn't really address the issue of where the words come from.
You wish to defend tongues without interpretation, but by His grace & by His help, I wish to defend the faith in Jesus Christ
False dichotomy. I Corinthians 14 shows that there can be tongues without intepretation.