Speaking in Tongues: Its Origins [Ancient and Modern], Purpose, and Power

[stonesoffire]

But in 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 Paul specifically identifies "prophesying" as the mechanism for exposing the hidden "secrets of the heart."
How do you understand that reference to prophecy?

You are right. Paul did say prophecy.

I understand prophecy by experience Madhermit, and that's giving a message to a church or believer. Now mostly, it's writing.

So I can't reconcile what Paul is saying here with my understanding. I'll try to find out how this could be prophecy or if you can explain?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

hmm

my understanding of I Cor 14: 24-25 is the use of tongues with regards to unbelievers...keeping in mind the gift of tongues is both a sign...for unbelievers...AND a gift

when it comes to believers, it cannot be a sign if they already believe...that seems logical to me

therefore, it is referring to unbelievers as the verses say if an unbeliever or outsider enters, the secrets of the heart are exposed, but in the sense of tongues being used as a sign to them...this would also work as protection for those who only come to corrupt, interrupt and otherwise are not sincere of heart it seems to me..and there is plenty of evidence for that in some of what Paul writes as he expresses his opinion on those who sow discord or try to declare portions of the law still valid

if the gifts are given for the building up of the body of believers (and they are as scripture states) we can state this is not the case in what Paul is saying here

I would go with a word of knowledge and similar when it comes to the actual believers as tongues are used in more than one way

that is how I understand it and also how I have heard it expressed by others

 

[7seasrekeyed]

another thought...it seems that would also be similar to what Peter said on the day of Pentecost that so many were converted...and Stephen, speaking by the Spirit of God, so convicted the hypocrites that they took him out an stoned him to death

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I know 😊, this I do. Ore would you say because I have an different view, this is the view of the flesh?
Do you mean then we cant trust what Peter said ore wrote down? Interesting. But word of God is word of God.

well again no question mark smiley

the Bible, the word of God, contains the good, the bad and the ugly. nothing is glossed over...sins are recorded and the condition of mankind in general

I am saying is that Peter had to be corrected numerous times, he backed down from saying one thing and went with the popular crowd

I am saying Paul wrote about the gifts...not Peter. Peter had to have his faith propped up from time to time as his actions recorded in scripture seem to attest to

 

[MadHermit]

The anti-tongues trolls on this site speak as if the Holy Spirit either promotes spiritual "junk" or has fallen asleep, so that He no longer promotes God's Word.

 

[Wansvic]

REPLY TO OBJECION (1): MODERN GLOSSOLALIA IS GIBBERISH, NEVER A MODERN LANGUAGE
Modern speaking in tongues can at times express modern languages. (a) In his book "Jesus in Beijing," NYT reporter David Aikman reports a message in tongues in Hebrew in a Pentecostal church in Almonte, CA. The preacher's wife who gave the message didn't know Hebrew, but the message was understood by a visiting American Jew. It called Dennis Balcombe to be a missionary to China. Tens of thousands were converted to Christian Charismatics through his secret mission work there. (b) I traveled with Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth with a Mission. He was given a message in tongues in the language of a remote Amazon tribe his team was visiting. The result was a great witness and healing of a woman with a severe cataract problem. (c) A family in Saskatchewan received a message in tongues in Swahili, the language of the remote tribe where their daughter had been very sick, but could not be contacted. An African present in the meeting confirmed that the message in tongues was in Swahili. It confirmed that the daughter was OK and would return home soon. Such examples could be multiplied.

REPLY TO OBJECTION (2): SPEANING IN TONGUES (= GLOSSOLALIA) IS A GIFT NOT INTENDED FOR EVERY BELIEVER.
In 1 Corinthians Paul acknowledges that in actual fact not everyone speaks in tongues or prophesies (12:29-30). But he doesn't mean that God never intended us to speak in tongues or prophesy; rather, he means that if you look around, you'll notice that not every believer takes advantage of the opportunity to exercise these 2 gifts. Indeed, he encourages us to seek the best gifts (12:31: 14:1), which include prophecy and tongues because these gifts are for everyone. Thus, after teliing us to seek "the best gifts" Paul immediately references tongues and prophecy (13:1). Paul commands us to "strive for spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy (14:1)." But though prophecy is the best gift, it finds its equal in speaking in tongues, when that gift is interpreted (14:5). Thus, Paul tells us "we can all prophesy one by one (14:31)" and tells us he wants us all to prophesy and speak in tongues (14:5). Paul even thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than anyone (14:18). Private prayer in uninterpreted tongues is encouraged because it "builds up" or edifies the speaker (14:4, 28--so Hans Conzelmann in his respected Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 245(3)). This fact is not undermined by Paul's preference for prophesying and interpreted tongues in corporate worship.

Acts records 4 cases in which believers receive the Holy Spirit. In 3 of the 4 cases, speaking tongues is cited as the initial evidence for receiving the Spirit (Acts 2:4ff.; 10:44-47, and 19:5-6). In the 4th case (8:17-19), speaking in tongues is not mentioned, but Simon the magician is so impressed by the new believers' experience of receiving the Spirit that he offers Peter money to give him this power! So it is reasonable to conclude that in all 4 cases those who received the Holy Spirit displayed the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. In the rabbinic Judaism at the time the Holy Spirit was primarily conceived as the Spirit of prophecy, and so, they would expect to prophesy if they received the Spirit. Well, in Acts 2:17 speaking in tongues is considered a type of ecstatic prophesying that fulfills Joel 2:28. Now I don't agree with the standard Pentecostal claim that glossolalia is a necessary condition for Spirit baptism, but speaking in tongues does seem to be a gift that any believer can expect to exercise.

I agree with the majority of this post. However, each group of people, from which the current population originates; Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan, followed Peter's initial instruction to the Jews and scripture shows everyone spoke in tongues upon receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost. How can one come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues does not accompany the baptism of the Holy Ghost with such evidence clearly shown in the Word? One would think that in one of the three instances that tongues would have been absent from the experience.
In addition, God left all of mankind a clue. (Proverbs 25:2) Gods presence in the wilderness was clearly recognized by the flame seen above the tabernacle in which He dwelt. (Exodus 13) On the Day of Pentecost a flame appeared above each and every individual indicating God's Spirit had entered into their body/tabernacle. (Acts 2:3)

 

[Wansvic]

do you forget Peter's tendency to back down from the truth because of fear and a desire for the respect of others?

he denied Christ 3'x, was restored by Christ Himself, was given a vision that nothing was unclean any longer....meaning ACCEPT the Gentile conversions BUT still had to be reprimanded by Paul when he attempted to instruct Gentile converts to physical cutting of the flesh when what God desires is a circumcision of the HEART

that is the only organ that matters and that is something no physical instrument can accomplish

let's incorporate ALL of scripture into our understanding rather than just the parts that support what we think might be true

it is quite eye opening and that is one of the purposes of the Holy Spirit ... to open our understanding, which needs to be spiritual and not flesh. the flesh is AGAINST what the spirit reveals

I agree that ALL inspired scripture of God must be considered. Peter's shortcomings do not change the fact that he held the keys to the kingdom given to him by none other than Jesus. Peter presented the initial instructions concerning salvation after speaking in tongues upon receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost himself on the Day of Pentecost.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The anti-tongues trolls on this site speak as if the Holy Spirit either promotes spiritual "junk" or has fallen asleep, so that He no longer promotes God's Word.

Is Gods word tainted? When did the bible stop being enough?

its talk like this that gives “gifting proponents” a bad name

 

[jaybird88]

If tongues are a heavenly language - why would there ever be a need to have more than just one? Why would each individual speaker have their own?

because thats the only way to fake an angel language. everyone faking the same language would be hard to do. making random chitter chatter babel sounds is very easy to do. little kids do it all the time.

 

[garee]

The anti-tongues trolls on this site speak as if the Holy Spirit either promotes spiritual "junk" or has fallen asleep, so that He no longer promotes God's Word.

That should be easy to separate the literal as to what eyes see called spiritual junk from the unseen spiritual understanding of the law. What does the sign of tongues represent and who as to what does it confirm? Those who will not believe tongues as prophecy (no faith) or those who hear prophet witness they have heard and believed to the salvation of ones soul.


Here is the law below from the foundation of the doctrine of tongues Iaisha28 interpret it confirm what it is saying and to whom?

In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.1 Corinthians 14:21-22

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I agree that ALL inspired scripture of God must be considered. Peter's shortcomings do not change the fact that he held the keys to the kingdom given to him by none other than Jesus. Peter presented the initial instructions concerning salvation after speaking in tongues upon receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost himself on the Day of Pentecost.

great

has nothing to do with the reason I posted what I did to someone I have had many discussions concerning tongues with

 

[Kavik]

However, each group of people, from which the current population originates; Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan, followed Peter's initial instruction to the Jews and scripture shows everyone spoke in tongues upon receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

How is John 20:22 explained then?? Did the disciples not receive the Holy Spirit? No 'tongues' in this narrative.

 

[wolfwint]

The anti-tongues trolls on this site speak as if the Holy Spirit either promotes spiritual "junk" or has fallen asleep, so that He no longer promotes God's Word.

What is a troll? I mean i know from the northern Religion.

 

[wolfwint]

I agree with the majority of this post. However, each group of people, from which the current population originates; Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan, followed Peter's initial instruction to the Jews and scripture shows everyone spoke in tongues upon receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost. How can one come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues does not accompany the baptism of the Holy Ghost with such evidence clearly shown in the Word? One would think that in one of the three instances that tongues would have been absent from the experience.
In addition, God left all of mankind a clue. (Proverbs 25:2) Gods presence in the wilderness was clearly recognized by the flame seen above the tabernacle in which He dwelt. (Exodus 13) On the Day of Pentecost a flame appeared above each and every individual indicating God's Spirit had entered into their body/tabernacle. (Acts 2:3)

I agree with the majority of this post. However, each group of people, from which the current population originates; Jewish, Gentile, and Samaritan, followed Peter's initial instruction to the Jews and scripture shows everyone spoke in tongues upon receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost. How can one come to the conclusion that speaking in tongues does not accompany the baptism of the Holy Ghost with such evidence clearly shown in the Word? One would think that in one of the three instances that tongues would have been absent from the experience.
In addition, God left all of mankind a clue. (Proverbs 25:2) Gods presence in the wilderness was clearly recognized by the flame seen above the tabernacle in which He dwelt. (Exodus 13) On the Day of Pentecost a flame appeared above each and every individual indicating God's Spirit had entered into their body/tabernacle. (Acts 2:3)

Sorry, but where the samarians spoke in tongues After receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8)?

And what with the Athopian in the same Chapter? He even not received the Holy Spirit ja laying Hand in After Water baptism.

Maby laying Hand in was only Duty of the Apostels to give in this was the Holy Spirit? Even Philipp does it not.
So where are the Apostels today?

 

[garee]

Sorry, but where the samarians spoke in tongues After receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8)?

I would think all Christians are given a desire to preach the gospel as a new born again desire. Tongues, God brining prophecy as his interpretation in respect to all the nations of the world is one of the manners he did bring new prophecy when God was still adding to His word.

 

[Wansvic]

How is John 20:22 explained then?? Did the disciples not receive the Holy Spirit? No 'tongues' in this narrative.

Commentary note on John 20:22:
Jesus saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit - an earnest and first-fruits of the more grand and copious Pentecostal effusion, without which it had been vain to send them at all.

This commentary makes sense when one considers the statement made by Jesus prior to breathing the Holy Spirit upon the disciples. Jesus said that He must leave or the Holy Spirit could not be sent/poured out:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." John 16:7

 

[7seasrekeyed]

I would think all Christians are given a desire to preach the gospel as a new born again desire. Tongues, God brining prophecy as his interpretation in respect to all the nations of the world is one of the manners he did bring new prophecy when God was still adding to His word.

is this English?

needs translation

or maybe not

 

[Wansvic]

Sorry, but where the samarians spoke in tongues After receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8)?

Acts 8:18 "And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money."
The above scripture expresses that Simon saw something that convinced him that those present had received the Holy Ghost. Nothing is recorded as accompanying the baptism of the Holy Ghost other than speaking in tongues on and after the Day of Pentecost.

 

[Wansvic]

And what with the Athopian in the same Chapter? He even not received the Holy Spirit ja laying Hand in After Water baptism.

Maby laying Hand in was only Duty of the Apostels to give in this was the Holy Spirit? Even Philipp does it not.
So where are the Apostels today?

Clearly the Word expresses only portions of events on many occasions. This truth is seen in the fact that the reference to Philip and the eunuch only mentions the eunuch's belief in Jesus and that he was water baptized. Are we then to conclude that he did not repent prior to his water baptism? And there is no evidence supplied concerning whether he had or had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost prior to the event recorded. Again, one thing is certain from the scripture and that is that he believed in Jesus and was water baptized.
(Acts 8:38)

Scripture points out that the Holy Ghost can be received with or without the laying on of hands:
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Acts 10:44
"...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

 

[wolfwint]

Clearly the Word expresses only portions of events on many occasions. This truth is seen in the fact that the reference to Philip and the eunuch only mentions the eunuch's belief in Jesus and that he was water baptized. Are we then to conclude that he did not repent prior to his water baptism? And there is no evidence supplied concerning whether he had or had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost prior to the event recorded. Again, one thing is certain from the scripture and that is that he believed in Jesus and was water baptized.
(Acts 8:38)

Scripture points out that the Holy Ghost can be received with or without the laying on of hands:
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Acts 10:44
"...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

Clearly the Word expresses only portions of events on many occasions. This truth is seen in the fact that the reference to Philip and the eunuch only mentions the eunuch's belief in Jesus and that he was water baptized. Are we then to conclude that he did not repent prior to his water baptism? And there is no evidence supplied concerning whether he had or had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost prior to the event recorded. Again, one thing is certain from the scripture and that is that he believed in Jesus and was water baptized.
(Acts 8:38)

Scripture points out that the Holy Ghost can be received with or without the laying on of hands:
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." Acts 10:44
"...how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Luke 11:13

Thats right, but this was not the point.
The point was that you said all speaking in tongues upon receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
This is simply not true.
You cant give any proof for the samarians and the eunuch from Äthiopia that they spoke in tongues.
Also you forgot to mention that the scripture give proof that only when the apostles laid their hand on, people received the Holy Spirit.
So where are the apostles today?
This understanding had also the founders of the cult New Apostolic Church.