The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues

[Scribe]

Paul was clear that tongues are a sign for the unbelievers. Do many Charismatic churches ever bear that teaching in mind?

I have not found a handful that can explain why he said that prophesy was for believers and then turns around and immediately gives an example of an unbeliever coming to faith by the gift of prophesy manifested in the church. When you can correctly explain that seemingly contraction you will have understood for the first time what he meant by tongues being for a sign for unbelievers.

 

[Guojing]

I have not found a handful that can explain why he said that prophesy was for believers and then turns around and immediately gives an example of an unbeliever coming to faith by the gift of prophesy manifested in the church. When you can correctly explain that seemingly contraction you will have understood for the first time what he meant by tongues being for a sign for unbelievers.

You are moving away from tongues into a another gift, which is prophecy but okay, we can discuss that.

The gift of prophecy was necessary because Scripture has not yet been completed. They only had the OT scrolls, and many of the info Paul revealed to the Body of Christ was brand new.

Now that the scripture has been completed, a good question to ask is this, "Those prophecies you hear of today, are they always correct? Do they always come true?"

 

[Scribe]

What were the reason or benefits of speaking in tongues in the 1st Century church. I am going to jot down what comes to mind as I examine each text. This is unrehearsed. This should be fun. Thanks KelbyofGod for the challenge.

1) It was a direct result of being Filled or Baptized in the Holy Ghost, or receiving power to become a witness. So a sign to the unbeliever that had happened but since they also prophesied a sign to the believer also ( I don't think that second sentence made much sense so I am going to put a question mark on the last part about signs)
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2) They were speaking about the wonderful works of God so... it is beneficial to speak about the wonderful works of God and the Spirit of God is involved in such an activity as this, and it must be pleasing to God for us to be speaking about the wonderful works of God
Acts 2:11we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
(possible that those who mocked did not hear them speaking in their own language and thought they were babbling drunks speaking incoherently)

3) Peter explains that it is a fulfilling of prophesy and God's intention that both men and women would be filled with the ministerial Spirit of prophesy
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

So another benefit is that women can speak in tongues as well as men and prophesy demonstrating to the unbelievers and patriarchal religious people who had gathered that God was removing the barrier of men and women when it comes to prophesying, preaching and ministry of the Gospel and proclaiming in the power of the Holy Ghost with power to be a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Wonderful Works of God. This was most definitely a declared benefit in this context of their time and on that day.
WOW this study is getting good and there are so many more scriptures to look at....

 

[Guojing]

What were the reason or benefits of speaking in tongues in the 1st Century church. I am going to jot down what comes to mind as I examine each text. This is unrehearsed. This should be fun. Thanks KelbyofGod for the challenge.

1) It was a direct result of being Filled or Baptized in the Holy Ghost, or receiving power to become a witness. So a sign to the unbeliever that had happened but since they also prophesied a sign to the believer also ( I don't think that second sentence made much sense so I am going to put a question mark on the last part about signs)
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

2) They were speaking about the wonderful works of God so... it is beneficial to speak about the wonderful works of God and the Spirit of God is involved in such an activity as this, and it must be pleasing to God for us to be speaking about the wonderful works of God
Acts 2:11we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
(possible that those who mocked did not hear them speaking in their own language and thought they were babbling drunks speaking incoherently)

3) Peter explains that it is a fulfilling of prophesy and God's intention that both men and women would be filled with the ministerial Spirit of prophesy
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

So another benefit is that women can speak in tongues as well as men and prophesy demonstrating to the unbelievers and patriarchal religious people who had gathered that God was removing the barrier of men and women when it comes to prophesying, preaching and ministry of the Gospel and proclaiming in the power of the Holy Ghost with power to be a witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Wonderful Works of God. This was most definitely a declared benefit in this context of their time and on that day.
WOW this study is getting good and there are so many more scriptures to look at....

Is it clear when you read the Acts 2 account is that all the cases of tongues uttered at Pentecost, were all existing foreign languages?

There is no "heavenly language" that would be mentioned in 1 Cor, found in Acts 2?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

We can address that later, but let me grant you that first.

What about the question "what is the unbeliever suppose to believe in" when he hears someone saying shabba shabba shabba?

1 cor 14 speaks on that. That kinda of tongues are mostly for the believers. But only if someone can interpret. Otherwise they should keep it personal.

 

[tourist]

We can address that later, but let me grant you that first.

What about the question "what is the unbeliever suppose to believe in" when he hears someone saying shabba shabba shabba?

The unbeliever would answer back, "Yabba dabba doo".

 

[Scribe]

More Reasons, purposes, benefits of speaking in tongues in the context of the 1st century church.

1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. 2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 5I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

1) To desire spiritual gifts is encouraged Verse 1
2) Speaking in Tongues edifies (builds up - greek) ones self Verse 2
3) Speaking in tongues speaks directly to God and speaks mysteries. (that is a benefit) Verse 2
3) Paul said he wanted all to speak in tongues (it must be a good thing) Verse 5
4) Speaking in tongues with an interpreter is equal to prophesy Verse 5

.
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: (Paul spoke more than the Corinthians, but not in church Verse 19, so it must be a benefit to Paul to speak in tongues to himself and to God (vs 28)
Paul said it was a benefit for him to pray in the spirit (tongues) even though his understanding was unfruitful and he would do keep doing it even if he did not understand what he was praying. He also added that he would sing in tongues as well.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

So Paul is describing a benefit of praying mysteries about the wonderful works of God directly to God but not understanding what he was saying that resulted in building himself up / edifying himself. In the church he describes the benefit of speaking in tongues with an interpreter as equivalent to prophesy and a gift that will edify others. His description of how it edifies is simply... edification, and exhortation, and comfort. Also he describes prophesy resulting in exposing the secrets of a mans heart and him falling down and declaring that God is in you of a truth. Those are the "edification" details given and we must fill in the gaps using common sense.
"edification, and exhortation, and comfort." are general terms. We should be able to know it when we see it.

 

[Guojing]

1 cor 14 speaks on that. That kinda of tongues are mostly for the believers. But only if someone can interpret. Otherwise they should keep it personal.

If you agree that tongues are a sign gift, what were signs for in the first place?

Do you understand what Exodus 4 says regarding signs?

 

[Nehemiah6]

What about the question "what is the unbeliever suppose to believe in" when he hears someone saying shabba shabba shabba?

Someone has been treated shabbily?

 

[Scribe]

Is it clear when you read the Acts 2 account is that all the cases of tongues uttered at Pentecost, were all existing foreign languages?

There is no "heavenly language" that would be mentioned in 1 Cor, found in Acts 2?

It is NOT at all "CLEAR" that only foreign languages were heard if we consider the following statement that was made by some of the witnesses who were there...
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
(it is very possible and not beyond reason to suggest that those who mocked did not hear them speaking in their own language and thought they were babbling drunks speaking incoherently)
Therefore I conclude that one cannot insist that the text states emphatically that there was No man or woman speaking in a language that was NOT known to those that gathered. This statement makes it is very possible that some were speaking in languages that caused these mockers to think they were speaking in NO known language but making up words and babbling like a drunkard) I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is why they made this statement but neither can you prove that this is NOT why they made this statement and I think the probability is in my favor that this is why they made that statement.

Paul said it was a benefit for him to pray in the spirit (tongues) even though his understanding was unfruitful and he would keep doing it even if he did not understand what he was praying.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Now.. adding to this the statement that Paul had made that he spake in tongues more than them all (but not in the church) and assuming that he received the gift of tongues when Ananias laid hand on him to receive the Holy Ghost, then Paul had been praying in an unknown tongue for maybe 20 years or more (I have to research the exact numbers) In all that time that he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians his understanding was still unfruitful. If he was speaking in a language of those who gathered on pentecost would he have not have discovered by then what language he was speaking and would he have not began to identify at least some of the words? And most who insist on the argument that it must be a known tongue also insist on the reason being to evangelize the nations, and so they would suggest that Paul had used this tongue to speak to people who understood and then as a sign they would believe etc etc. This interpretation suggest that someone would have identified what language Paul was speaking in all those years of him speaking in tongues at a rate that out spoke the Corinthians? You see how it is highly unlikely that Paul prayed in a known tongue if it could not be identified in all those years. And therefore his understanding remained unfruitful and would continue to do so, howbeit he was ok with that and would continue to do it thou he had no interpreter nor would he need one in this context.

 

[TheIndianGirl]

I don't know any Americans who speak in tongues, only foreigners (I know plenty of Ethiopians and Koreans who speak in tongues).

 

[Guojing]

It is NOT at all "CLEAR" that only foreign languages were heard if we consider the following statement that was made by some of the witnesses who were there...
13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
(it is very possible and not beyond reason to suggest that those who mocked did not hear them speaking in their own language and thought they were babbling drunks speaking incoherently)
Therefore I conclude that one cannot insist that the text states emphatically that there was No man or woman speaking in a language that was NOT known to those that gathered. This statement makes it is very possible that some were speaking in languages that caused these mockers to think they were speaking in NO known language but making up words and babbling like a drunkard) I cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is why they made this statement but neither can you prove that this is NOT why they made this statement and I think the probability is in my favor that this is why they made that statement.

Paul said it was a benefit for him to pray in the spirit (tongues) even though his understanding was unfruitful and he would keep doing it even if he did not understand what he was praying.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Now.. adding to this the statement that Paul had made that he spake in tongues more than them all (but not in the church) and assuming that he received the gift of tongues when Ananias laid hand on him to receive the Holy Ghost, then Paul had been praying in an unknown tongue for maybe 20 years or more (I have to research the exact numbers) In all that time that he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians his understanding was still unfruitful. If he was speaking in a language of those who gathered on pentecost would he have not have discovered by then what language he was speaking and would he have not began to identify at least some of the words? And most who insist on the argument that it must be a known tongue also insist on the reason being to evangelize the nations, and so they would suggest that Paul had used this tongue to speak to people who understood and then as a sign they would believe etc etc. This interpretation suggest that someone would have identified what language Paul was speaking in all those years of him speaking in tongues at a rate that out spoke the Corinthians? You see how it is highly unlikely that Paul prayed in a known tongue if it could not be identified in all those years. And therefore his understanding remained unfruitful and would continue to do so, howbeit he was ok with that and would continue to do it thou he had no interpreter nor would he need one in this context.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Interesting, despite the many clear passages in Acts 2, the one that I have bold, that indicated its a legitimate foreign language, you choose to take one vague verse, which is v13, to conclude your doctrine?

What happen to the "Let the clear verses interpret the vague ones?

 

[TheIndianGirl]

Paul was clear that tongues are a sign for the unbelievers. Do many Charismatic churches ever bear that teaching in mind?

Where does Paul say this?

 

[Guojing]

Where does Paul say this?

1 Cor 14:22

 

[Scribe]

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

Interesting, despite the many clear passages in Acts 2, the one that I have bold, that indicated its all a legitimate foreign language, you take one vague verse, which is v13, to conclude your doctrine?

What happen to the "Let the clear verses interpret the vague ones?

You call it vague, to me it is a fundamental detail that God (and the author Luke) intended the reader to take into consideration when placing ourselves at the scene in our minds. To understand the reaction of the people based on what they said. We know they must have said much more than this. But only these statements of all that must have been said are recorded. They are pivotal and foundational details not to be left out.

I propose that the same reason that these others mocking said these men are full of new wine is the same reason that people who see someone speak in tongues today say these men are crazy. They think they are babbling. From day one the saints who receive this gift have been persecuted as lunatic and so it will be until Jesus comes back. We are in good company. Keep praying in tongues and let the mockers mock.

So another benefit of speaking in tongues is that you will learn to face persecution and to keep a sweet spirit toward the haters.

 

[Guojing]

You call it vague, to me it is a fundamental detail that God (and the author Luke) intended the reader to take into consideration when placing ourselves at the scene in our minds. To understand the reaction of the people based on what they said. We know they must have said much more than this. But only these statements of all that must have been said are recorded. They are pivotal and foundational details not to be left out.

I propose that the same reason that these others mocking said these men are full of new wine is the same reason that people who see someone speak in tongues today say these men are crazy. They think they are babbling. From day one the saints who receive this gift have been persecuted as lunatic and so it will be until Jesus comes back. We are in good company. Keep praying in tongues and let the mockers mock.

So another benefit of speaking in tongues is that you will learn to face persecution and to keep a sweet spirit toward the haters.

I am currently in a charismatic church now so don't misunderstand, I am not hating here.

I am just curious how this doctrine became so entrenched. I think its because when we read from the 4 gospels and acts, we look at the signs and wonders that were present there, and we want to believe that those signs and wonders should be for the Body of Christ too.

So I do understand why you hold on to this so fervently.

 

[Guojing]

You call it vague, to me it is a fundamental detail that God (and the author Luke) intended the reader to take into consideration when placing ourselves at the scene in our minds. To understand the reaction of the people based on what they said. We know they must have said much more than this. But only these statements of all that must have been said are recorded. They are pivotal and foundational details not to be left out.

I propose that the same reason that these others mocking said these men are full of new wine is the same reason that people who see someone speak in tongues today say these men are crazy. They think they are babbling. From day one the saints who receive this gift have been persecuted as lunatic and so it will be until Jesus comes back. We are in good company. Keep praying in tongues and let the mockers mock.

So another benefit of speaking in tongues is that you will learn to face persecution and to keep a sweet spirit toward the haters.

What do you think about my questions toward prophecies that I have addressed to you here?

https://christianchat.com/threads/the-purpose-of-speaking-in-tongues.192497/post-4263718

 

[KelbyofGod]

But that only happens when it was an actual foreign language that the Christian has not learned before, not the shabba shabba shabba that is passed off for tongues nowadays.

If its the latter, what is the unbeliever suppose to believe in?

You ask a very reasonable question. I really want that to be acknowledged before I address the top part.

It is also reasonable to try to figure out what God means by this "speaking in tongues" the bible talks about after Christ's ascension.

If "an actual foreign language" is what is meant by "speaking in tongues"....then it should satisfy the descriptions given in the bible.
Does "an actual foreign language" fit the promise in Mark 16:17 of "they shall speak with new tongues"? Are existing languages "new"?
Does "an actual foreign language" fit the descriptions of 1 Corinthians 14:2?

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." -1 Cor. 14:2 KJV​

It seems to me that the babbly kind of tongues (IF that's what they received) does fit those descriptions. It also fits the description of "stammering lips and another tongue" that @Nehemiah6 was kind enough to supply from an OT prophecy.

But to directly answer your question of "What is the unbeliever supposed to believe once they see the shabba shabba shabba kind of tongues? (paraphrased) Answer = The unbeliever MIGHT not believe anything different than they did before. A sign is given to be observed, but it isn't always heeded. The observer SHOULD start asking some questions if they don't understand it's significance once they've observed it, but there's no guarantee of that.

As for what they should believe if they're wise enough to start asking, I'd just point to what Peter said shortly after the first instances of speaking in tongues:

​

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [39] For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." - Acts 2:38-39 KJV​

And yes, there are some details of Acts 2 that I didn't spell out here. If someone brings those up, I'm happy to look even closer.

Lastly, (this is beyond the specific topic of what we see in the bible) to give some insight about the shabba shabba shabba kind of tongues you can observe in now-a-days times... there are a few reasons you'd see a repetitive phrase like that repeated for an excessive amount of time:

1. The person might be just repeating something that sounds like actual unknown tongues (maybe because they're trying to receive it, or maybe because they're pretending).
2. They could easily be relying too much on the flesh (their own understanding) because the flesh can't make up syllables as fast as the spirit can provide them, so they just start repeating. A.K.A they need to let go and let God. Our brain can really get in the way of what God tries to do in us. "The spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet" means we can allow or disallow God's work in us.
3. and other reasons... but again, this is a bit off of the original topic.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

 

[Scribe]

I am currently in a charismatic church now so don't misunderstand, I am not hating here.

I am just curious how this doctrine became so entrenched. I think its because when we read from the 4 gospels and acts, we look at the signs and wonders that were present there, and we want to believe that those signs and wonders should be for the Body of Christ too.

So I do understand why you hold on to this so fervently.

When I was saved I was 18 years old and in jail. I had no church background or knowledge of the bible or christian views at all. I read the bible daily and when I got to the book of Acts I saw a pattern that was obvious to me and I prayed for and received the same experience (an infilling of the Holy Ghost with the gift of speaking in tongues) It did immediately empower me to be a witness (gifts of knowing what to say that came to me at the time needed and was exactly what the person had been thinking about, and other supernatural manifestations in this category of witnessing were evident and were not there before) What I was living was what I was reading and I never questioned it. Then I discovered that there were churches that did not believe that these things that happened in the book of Acts were still happening today. I was one of the lucky ones in that I never had to read the scripture through the filters of the arguments presented by cessationists to confuse me. Since I have been continuously experiencing times of refreshing from the presence of the Lord (another benefit) I have been illuminated by both the Holy Spirit and the rules of hermeneutics to interpret the scriptures on this subject with the sincere desire to know what the Holy Spirit and the authors he used intended when they wrote about it. I do not appeal to the authority of experience alone, I am testifying that through careful analysis of all of the texts on this subject it became obvious to me from the beginning of my journey that the Out pouring of the Holy Ghost including the gift of tongues for believers was a normative experience in the first church. Also the expectation and desire that it produced in me when reading about it was God's intention as well. Also I was convinced by reading the scriptures that He is faithful to give the Holy Spirit to all that ask, seek, and knock just as he did, and in the same manner in which we read about it in the book of Acts. So 1) I am motivated by the sincere belief that God has written these things so that our faith will be ignited to ask for it, and 2) it is not pleasing to God for anyone to teach that what God's intentions were when giving gifts to the Church by the filling of the individual with the Holy Ghost is no longer needed today. God is NOT saying that the church no longer needs these gifts for mutual edification. To say that "they are not for me" or "I can do without them thank your very much" is to sadly underestimate the benefit of these gifts that Jesus died and rose again and ascended in order to give. 3) Also, because I have a passion for correctly interpreting scripture, as in discovering authorial intent, and to the best of my ability apply the rules of hermeneutics to properly exegete passages I feel an obligation to point it out when those rules are not followed and erroneous statements are made as a result.

 

[KelbyofGod]

Is it clear when you read the Acts 2 account is that all the cases of tongues uttered at Pentecost, were all existing foreign languages?

There is no "heavenly language" that would be mentioned in 1 Cor, found in Acts 2?

I wasn't going to answer more posts until I got to read all the way through but I REALLY like this one.

Read carefully the first part of Acts 2. Which happened first.... speaking in other tongues by the Holy Ghost, or speaking to the crowd in various earthly languages?

Please remember that the speaking to the crowd in various earthly languages could only happen once the crowd gathered together...which happened after and because of the original outpouring.

• And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. - Acts 2:4
• Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. - Acts 2:6

The initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit was such a new and amazing event that it was noised abroad...which brought the multitude together... at which time God showed yet another gift of the spirit, diversities of tongues. <--which is the miraculous speaking of miscellaneous earthly languages.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby