Actually if one man (the speaker) understands what is being said, it doesn't fulfil what Paul said:
A) NO man undertands. (the speaker is a "man")
B) MY understanding is unfruitful. (I don't understand any more than the others, because this isn't spoken to man)
I have to respectfully disagree. For proponents of modern tongues-speech, the only possible way in which these passages can be taken is if the speaker also does not understand what /she is saying; else wise, it negates evidencing the modern phenomenon in the Bible.
These two passages have been discussed further up in this thread (at least I think so), but let me repeat here.
1 Cor. 14:2 -
Let's paraphrase this into a more modern English, get rid of the added "unknown", use a more accurate translation of the Greek, and a more modern rendering of the archaic word 'tongue'.
“He that speaks in a language isn’t speaking to others (or, “speaks not to people"), but only to God; no one hears with understanding; however, though he’s ‘praying in the Spirit’, he’s speaking mysteries.”
The whole passage refers to real, rational language. How? Let me use an analogy - If I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are likely to be evident: one; there’s only going to be so many people at that service (i.e. there will be a finite given amount of people there) and two; the chances that anyone in East Haystack speaks anything
but English is pretty slim to nil (no offense to 'East Haystack').
If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a word I’m saying. Even though I’m speaking a real language, no one
there will understand my “tongue”. That does not mean or imply that no one else understands Lithuanian; just no one at
that particular service. In this sense, therefore; for all intents and purposes, I'm not speaking to people, I am speaking
only to God, since he understands all languages. To everyone at the service, even though I’m praying in the Spirit (as defined below), I’m still speaking “mysteries” - just another way of saying that even though I’m praying as I ought, no one understands me; I’m still speaking in ‘mysteries’ – no one has a clue what I’m saying as no one speaks my language.
“Praying in the Spirit” does
not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to
how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
There is nothing in this passage that remotely suggests modern tongues-speech nor is there anything that even remotely suggests that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying; it is the listeners who do not understand, not the speaker and the listeners – no matter how hard proponents of modern tongues-speech want the speaker to also not understand.....it just isn't there.
1 Cor. 14:14 -
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
This passage hinges on the Greek word “
akarpos” – it's a word that can be used in both an active sense, and in a passive sense.
In this particular passage, most people use it in the passive sense, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful
to me, or my understanding produces no fruit
in/for me. In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined above).
Given that in his letter to the church in Corinth, Paul calls for clarity and understanding at a public worship such that everyone there can benefit, I (as well as others) would argue for the
active sense of ‘
akarpos’: that is, my understanding is unfruitful
for others, or my understanding produces no fruit
for/in others.
In other words, the fact
I understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language. This echos back to 1 Cor 14:2 where no one understands what I'm saying (so I'm speaking only to God), thus no one is benefiting from what I'm saying (I'm the only one benefiting/being edified).
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, or I'm just pulling this out of thin air, I would ask you to consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago, and some 30 years before King James VI and I was even born.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “.......
but my understanding brings no one fruit”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage, and '
akarpos' in particular, being used with an active meaning was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so
all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; his native language that, just as in v. 2, no one else there speaks.
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, it’s the audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
When referring to something spoken, there are no Biblical references to "tongues" that do not refer to, nor that cannot be explained in light of, real, rational language(s). Usually not understood by those hearing it/listening to it, but always understood by the speaker; it's his native language.
try applying to your life.
