Speaking in tongues

The laying on of hands. Is it a ceremonial law non effect as a shadow or does it move God to perform the will of the one who hands are applied?

Here is the verse in question:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

I was on a discussion list in the early days of the Internet with a Greek scholar who had worked as a chair at a university. He pointed out that the word translated 'man' there is 'tis', meaning one, and that one person does not become two or three people when he speaks in tongues. So he took this to one person speaking 'by two, or at the most by three' to refer to something one individual was doing.

Apparently, many Bible translators who are also Greek scholars disagree and translate that verse differently. Maybe they consider his approach to be hyper-literal on the grammatical level. Be that as it may, if we are going to look at it literally like that it says 'in an unknown tongue' and not 'in unknown tongues.' Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are not 'a tongue.' They are many.

His understanding of the passage, in my own words as best I understand it, is that in Greek the word logos can be ommitted by elipses. He took this to mean something like one person speaking two or three utterances in a tongue before someone else interprets.

He also interpreted verse 29 in a similar light. While, grammatically, it could refer to two or three prophets, based on analogy to verse 26, he was inclined to see 'let the prophets speak two or three' to refer to the prophets speaking two or three things... and let the other weigh carefully what is said.

I do not see how the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic interpretation fits with the passage. Seeing the one who interprets as God is totally out of left field. In chapter 12, he presents interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Spirit a member of the body of Christ might be given. He asks 'do all interpret.' In I Corinthians 14:5, he writes about the one who speaks in tongues interpreting. In verse 13, he tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongues to pray that he may interpret. Throughout the chapter, the parts on tongues and interpretation lead up to his instructions there in verse 27-28 about speaking in tongues and one interpreting. So it does not make sense to assert that the one who interprets is a member of the congregation throughout the passage, but suddenly refers to God in verse 28.

Incidentally, this is the only really long passage in the New Testament that really goes into detail on how to conduct our meetings. There is no reference to a pastor or one long sermon. 'Every one of you' may speak within the parameters given in the passage. The speaker in tongues and interpreter is specificially allowed to speak. Prophets are allowed to speak. Ye may all prophesy. There is no instruction here to have three hymns followed by one sermon, followed by a prayer, communion, and three hymns. Yet many religious people insist that these elements must be present in that order for there to be a real church service, but actually oppose the operation of the gifts the passage clearly allows. There is also the implication in the passage that the Corinthians did not have the authority to change the God ordained way of meeting that other churches apparently followed, because he asks, what came the word of God out from you or unto you only did it come? And he also calls his instructions commandments of the Lord.

Incidentally, this is the only really long passage in the New Testament that really goes into detail on how to conduct our meetings. There is no reference to a pastor or one long sermon. 'Every one of you' may speak within the parameters given in the passage. The speaker in tongues and interpreter is specificially allowed to speak. Prophets are allowed to speak. Ye may all prophesy. There is no instruction here to have three hymns followed by one sermon, followed by a prayer, communion, and three hymns. Yet many religious people insist that these elements must be present in that order for there to be a real church service, but actually oppose the operation of the gifts the passage clearly allows. There is also the implication in the passage that the Corinthians did not have the authority to change the God ordained way of meeting that other churches apparently followed, because he asks, what came the word of God out from you or unto you only did it come? And he also calls his instructions commandments of the Lord.

According to Hebrew 6, the laying on of hands is among the basic principles of the doctrine of Christ. In the New Testament, we read of it in connection to healing, impartation of spiritual gifts, and ordination and separation to ministry.

Thanks for that post. I want to add a comment to this part. This is something I noticed about the passage that shows another aspect of how different things were back then. Here's the verse, comments below.

1 Corinthians 14:30
And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, we have some who are seated, and some by inference who are standing.
Yet those who are standing are to yield to those who are seated. If someone who is standing in a church gathering is prophesying, they are to stop prophesying if a revelation of prophecy comes to one who is seated. Why?

It would seem that the one seated is being respected above the one standing. As in a leader, or elder.

I take this to mean that the congregation was standing while the leaders were seated.
The opposite of the way we do things today. I'm not saying we should ditch the chairs and pews, just that it was different.

Here is the verse in question:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

The passage tells us who was speaking--prophets. It does not say elders. (An elder could also be a prophet, if he us so gifted.)

Looking at the logical flow of the passage, the speaking prophet yielding to one sitting by is what enables "For ye may all prophesy..."

I make that assertion based on the use of 'For' and I take 'ye' in 'ye may all prophesy' to refer to members of the congregation since earlier in the passage Paul paints a picture of all prophesying and someone coming in and declaring God is truly among you after the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

In one passage in Acts, Peter rose to speak.

But what does the shadow represent seeing we are informed God does not heal with human hands in any way shape or form .

But to connect it to a sign gift men seek after using human hands to make it possible

"'Every one of you' may speak within the parameters given in the passage. "

This is the most serious flaw in "Church Services" in this age. Nowadays there is a rigid top down hierarchy enforced where rank and file members are never allowed to speak forth.

In my experience such churches are near to dead, mechanistic reductionist, and fail to exercise the potential of the membership.

Little wonder that I can only endure 3-6 months at any modern day Church. Its little more than a cattle call and collection. Oh...and the modern so called hymns are pathetic to boot. Forced me to leave that last Church. AGoodbye.A dead Church singing dead hymns. Goodbye.

BTW...these are symptoms of the end time falling away IMO. These are indeed the end times as surely as were the days of Noah.

Are all believers who declare the word of God prophets as apostles (sent ones) as a kingdom of priest sent out with the gospel ?

Paul asks all are not apiatles, are they? All are not prophets, are they?
I Corinthians 12.

I am unaware of anywhere in the Bible that says that. Stephen said God does not dwell in temples made with human hands. I notice that a lot of your objections to spiritual gifts come from taking ideas and phrases from scripture and confusing them and using them up in a wrong way. I think you shpukd look up the verses before posting.

The Bible actually says, 'They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.' There are a number of examples in the Bible of people being healed after the laying on of hands. Timothy even had a gift in him through the laying on of Paul's hands.

The passage tells us who was speaking--prophets. It does not say elders. (An elder could also be a prophet, if he us so gifted.)

Looking at the logical flow of the passage, the speaking prophet yielding to one sitting by is what enables "For ye may all prophesy..."

I make that assertion based on the use of 'For' and I take 'ye' in 'ye may all prophesy' to refer to members of the congregation since earlier in the passage Paul paints a picture of all prophesying and someone coming in and declaring God is truly among you after the secrets of the heart are made manifest.

In one passage in Acts, Peter rose to speak.

Some People are just uncomfortable with speaking a tongue they do not know. A lot of people just dont mix with other people who speak another tongue.

Unfortunately. But they will need to get over this one day.

In Heaven we will all be praisng the Lord in every tongue God has given us.

Here is the verse in question:
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

I was on a discussion list in the early days of the Internet with a Greek scholar who had worked as a chair at a university. He pointed out that the word translated 'man' there is 'tis', meaning one, and that one person does not become two or three people when he speaks in tongues. So he took this to one person speaking 'by two, or at the most by three' to refer to something one individual was doing.

Apparently, many Bible translators who are also Greek scholars disagree and translate that verse differently. Maybe they consider his approach to be hyper-literal on the grammatical level. Be that as it may, if we are going to look at it literally like that it says 'in an unknown tongue' and not 'in unknown tongues.' Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic are not 'a tongue.' They are many.

His understanding of the passage, in my own words as best I understand it, is that in Greek the word logos can be ommitted by elipses. He took this to mean something like one person speaking two or three utterances in a tongue before someone else interprets.

He also interpreted verse 29 in a similar light. While, grammatically, it could refer to two or three prophets, based on analogy to verse 26, he was inclined to see 'let the prophets speak two or three' to refer to the prophets speaking two or three things... and let the other weigh carefully what is said.
I see verse 29 the same as 26 because all truth is established out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses. Each language, the Hebrew, the Greek and the Aramiac are the three witnesses that establish the truth of the scripture. The words coming out of the mouths of two or three prophets establish the truth of their prophecies.

I do not see how the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic interpretation fits with the passage. Seeing the one who interprets as God is totally out of left field. In chapter 12, he presents interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Spirit a member of the body of Christ might be given. He asks 'do all interpret.' In I Corinthians 14:5, he writes about the one who speaks in tongues interpreting. In verse 13, he tells the one who speaks in an unknown tongues to pray that he may interpret. Throughout the chapter, the parts on tongues and interpretation lead up to his instructions there in verse 27-28 about speaking in tongues and one interpreting. So it does not make sense to assert that the one who interprets is a member of the congregation throughout the passage, but suddenly refers to God in verse 28.

Incidentally, this is the only really long passage in the New Testament that really goes into detail on how to conduct our meetings. There is no reference to a pastor or one long sermon. 'Every one of you' may speak within the parameters given in the passage. The speaker in tongues and interpreter is specificially allowed to speak. Prophets are allowed to speak. Ye may all prophesy. There is no instruction here to have three hymns followed by one sermon, followed by a prayer, communion, and three hymns. Yet many religious people insist that these elements must be present in that order for there to be a real church service, but actually oppose the operation of the gifts the passage clearly allows. There is also the implication in the passage that the Corinthians did not have the authority to change the God ordained way of meeting that other churches apparently followed, because he asks, what came the word of God out from you or unto you only did it come? And he also calls his instructions commandments of the Lord.

You've got to be kidding... this is the guy who says Christians can take the mark of the beast during the tribulation and still get saved. Do you believe that too?

In Heaven we will all be praisng the Lord in every tongue God has given us.

I think there was a platform in the front, as we have today.
And someone might stand on the platform to read or preach.

I think it's actually our native language. When man and woman were created, and as their numbers grew, they had a singular spiritual language. Mankind lost that singular language at Babel. When Christ returns to restore creation, thereby bringing back the perfection of creation, that singular language will be restored. Tongues is our ability to tap into that future-restored language now via the Holy Spirit.