"For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." (1 cor. 1:26-29)
@Lafftur
There are so many 'wise' (
logical/wordly) voices responding to this post. I hear the same irrational, oft' repeated explanations by people who have already formed an opinion, but, apparently, have never actually studied the relevant passages. I may, at some point start a more detailed post on this subject, but this is my view, relatively briefly stated.
"Speaking in tongues" is mentioned various times as most of us know. Many seem to miss the fact that the word "tongues" does not necessarily mean a known language (as is generally assumed):
[
*StrongsGreek*]
01100 γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'of uncertain affinity;the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.
Notice how it says: "by implication", a language. The "tongues of fire" in Acts 2:3 is the same Greek word. The Bible doesn't use the word "language" for the speakers. Only "tongues". Many people
need the word tongues to mean "languages" because the idea of meaningless speech is "foolishness".
(see ref above) Did you notice, the hearers were "Jews, dwelling in Jerusalem" (Acts 2:5). They may have come from, or represented surrounding nations, but they were "
dwelling" in Jerusalem. No reason to think they could not understand the common language.
[
*StrongsGreek*]
02730 κατοικέω katoikéō, kat-oy-keh'-ofrom
2596 and
3611;to house permanently, i.e. reside (literally or figuratively):--dwell(-er), inhabitant(-ter).
Interestingly, most of the time, the "hearers" were hearing the Word of God preached in their own "languages":
[
*StrongsGreek*]
01258 διάλεκτος diálektos, dee-al'-ek-tosfrom
1256;a (mode of) discourse, i.e. "dialect":--language, tongue.
Please, go back and carefully read the passage in Acts Chapter 2. Notice how the emphasis is on 'hearing' in their own "dialect". And (for the logical thinkers here), there were 120 in the upper room. 3000 men were added to their number, that day (each hearing his own language). Imagine the chaos. No wonder some thought they were drunk. If, on the other hand, "each one was hearing his own language" (by the Holy Spirit), then the message would always be heard 'clearly' by those ready to hear it:
"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." (Rev. 2:7)
Paul talks about tongues and interpretation (1st Corinthians) but never gives an example and seems to assume everyone understood what he meant by interpretation: ("do all interpret"? 1 Cor. 12:10)
[
*StrongsGreek*]
01329 διερμηνεύω diermēneúō, dee-er-main-yoo'-ofrom
1223 and
2059;to explain thoroughly, by implication, to translate:--expound, interpret(-ation).
Again, notice "
interpret" means to "explain thoroughly", to 'expound'. It's not a word for word
translation.
The
hearers in Acts 2 were "Jews, devout men". Is it not conceivable that God 'gave' the gift of interpretation to the hearers (as well as the gift of tongues to the speakers). Think about it. God can even speak through a donkey if He wants to get our attention.
Tongues is very closely connected to prophecy, but that is a subject for another thread.
Personal experience: i had a life changing moment when the Lord 'spoke' to me while reading my Bible back in 1989. The words I heard (in my Spirit) where not the words I was reading, but they were related. I heard the 'interpretation' in my spirit.
I later received the gift of tongues after being "baptised in the Holy Spirit" (ongoing process).
A lot more could be said on this..... but I have said enough, for now.
1
