Tongues Then, Now & Why

[FlyingDove]

Tongues: There purpose & why it's not the normative pattern today.

They were public verification, prophesied in advance & given at major New‑Covenant expansion moments.

Deut 14:2 God chooses Israel & for over 1400 yrs the Nation lives under Mosaic law. The book of Acts maps the transition from the old‑covenant Levitical priesthood (retired at Jesus' resurrection) to the priestly order of Melchizedek. A transition from law to grace. The law demanded works to receive blessings, grace freely supplies blessings based on faith in Jesus' finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work

In Acts 1:4 Jesus gives a promise & in Acts 1:8 He maps out a global evangelistic mission: beginning at Jerusalem (Temple Mount, Pentecost), then Judea, then Samaria & finally to the uttermost parts of the earth

TONGUES:
Tongues fulfilled two prophetic streams: Joel‑SIGNS > Spirit outpouring. Isaiah‑SIGNS > judgment sign to Israel & Covenant‑transition signs > verifying each new group entering the New Covenant.

Tongues were a SIGN, not a condition. Paul states the purpose plainly: "Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers." (1 Cor 14:22). "A sign to onlookers" - Not a sign to the speaker, NOT a sign of salvation & Not a condition for receiving the Spirit.

TONGUES EVENTS:
Acts 2 — Israel only. Purpose: launch of the New Covenant. Audience: Devout Jews from every nation. Result: Peter preaches, 3,000 saved. Meaning: God has begun the last days (Joel 2)

Acts 10 — Gentiles, Purpose: Prove Gentiles were accepted before water baptism, Audience: Jewish believers who doubted Gentile inclusion, Result: Peter commands water baptism after Spirit baptism, Meaning: God makes no distinction (Acts 11:17–18)

Acts 19 — Disciples of John, Purpose: Transition old‑covenant disciples into the gospel. Audience: 12 men who had never heard of the Spirit. Result: They receive the Spirit after hearing the gospel. Meaning: John's baptism is obsolete.

Acts 8 — Samaritans, (no tongues recorded, but Spirit given) Purpose: Unite Jews & Samaritans under apostolic authority. Audience: Apostles must witness it. Meaning: Samaritan are no longer a rival sect.

NOTICE THE PATTERN:
Jews only > Samaritans > Gentiles > John's disciples. Once all groups are included, ""the SIGN is no longer needed"".

Tongues appear only when a new covenant group is added. Not every at every baptism, not with every conversion.

Tongues were never universal in the book of Acts. Thousands were saved in Acts 2, 3k saved, Acts 4:4, 5k men saved, Acts 8:39, Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 9, Paul saved, Acts 11:21, "a great number believed, Acts 16, Lydia & Phil jailer saved, Acts 17, Thessalonians saved, Acts 18, Corinthians saved, Acts 19:18, many saved. NONE OF THESE MENTIONED INCLUE TONGUES.

This is where the "tongues = salvation" doctrine" fails. Paul asks: Do all speak with tongues? (1 Cor 12:30) Paul says: Gifts differ (1 Cor 12:4–6). The Spirit distributes as He wills (1 Cor 12:11). Not all have the same gifts (1 Cor 12:29–30)

WHY TONGUES THEN
OT Prophesy fulfilment. Tongues in Acts were a covenant‑transitional SIGN & Scripture itself explains what kind of SIGN they were.

Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 (with stammering lips and another tongue) in 1 Cor 14:21 to show that tongues were a judgment sign to unbelieving Israel. God speaking to them through foreign languages because they rejected His word.

This matches Acts 2, where the gathered crowds included:
“Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya about Cyrene, strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians…” (Acts 2:9–11)

The disciples were speaking foreign human languages, exactly as Isaiah predicted. The people gathered heard them in their own native tongue.

Once the gospel reached Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles & Old‑covenant leftovers, there were no more groups left to validate & no further Isa 28, judgment SIGN was needed. The tongues SIGN had done its job.

WHY TONGUES NOW

Paul teaches that tongues today are optional spiritual gifts of edification

They are NOT a requirement or proof or salvation, NOT tied to receiving the Spirit, NOT tied to water baptism & NOT tied to covenant transitions (those are complete)

Tongues are permissible during a church assembly only when interpreter is present. When tongues & interpretation operate together, the result is equivalent to prophecy.

1 Corinthians 14:1–2 (Tongues Prayer Gift)
Paul describes the personal prayer-tongue as a GIFT exercised between the believer & God alone. It is for personal edification, not public communication. The one praying does not understand what he is saying, his spirit prays while the meaning remains hidden. He speaks mysteries in the Spirit & his understanding is unfruitful.

During an assembly gathering, speaking in tongues requires someone with the GIFT of interpretation. Together these spiritual GIFTS turn a private Spirit‑spoken mystery into an intelligible message that edifies the whole church.

These gifts are available to any believer with the FAITH to access them.

You can find more on spiritual gifts here: Rom 12:3–8, 1 Cor chapters 12,13 & 14, Eph 4:7–16

 

[Blain]

This is absolutely spot on in every way very well said and it was very organized and well put together

 

[presidente]

Acts 19 — Disciples of John, Purpose: Transition old‑covenant disciples into the gospel. Audience: 12 men who had never heard of the Spirit. Result: They receive the Spirit after hearing the gospel. Meaning: John's baptism is obsolete.

Acts 8 — Samaritans, (no tongues recorded, but Spirit given) Purpose: Unite Jews & Samaritans under apostolic authority. Audience: Apostles must witness it. Meaning: Samaritan are no longer a rival sect.

I agree with the general gist of the conclusion. In these two examples, though, Why would either of these 'Meaning' statements be __the__ reason here. John had already said that one mightier than he would come who would baptized with the Holy Ghost, and this saying was referred to already in Acts 1.

Also, in the I Corinthians 14 passage, tongues is a sign for them that believe not... and there is an example of all in the assembly speaking in tongues and the unlearned or unbeliever who comes in thinks 'ye are mad.' Then there is an example of all prophesying, and the man falls on his face and says God is in you of a truth. So when it says tongues are a sign for them that believe not and prophecy is for them that believe, we need to keep the examples in mind. A though I had on a passage, for which I found a similar teaching in the writings of John Chrysostom is that the sense is that tongues are a sign against them that believe not.

So people hearing God speak through men of other lips and other tongues hear speaking in tongues and respond with unbelief, a kind of fulfillment of the passage and 'and yet for all that they will not hear me.' But the application here is to an unbeliever or unlearned person who walks in, not the Jewish nation.

And of course many centuries before Assyria had already taken Israelites captive after the prophecy was given and had barked orders at them in a foreign language, marching them away.

 

[presidente]

During an assembly gathering, speaking in tongues requires someone with the GIFT of interpretation. Together these spiritual GIFTS turn a private Spirit‑spoken mystery into an intelligible message that edifies the whole church.

I agree with this. I know some Pentecostals try to make tongues for prayer and tongues to be interpreted into a different 'type' of speaking in tongues. But the wording of I Corinthians 14 treats them as the same category of speaking in tongues, as if the tongues that are mysteries that can be spoken to God can also be interpreted.

 

[Blain]

I agree with this. I know some Pentecostals try to make tongues for prayer and tongues to be interpreted into a different 'type' of speaking in tongues. But the wording of I Corinthians 14 treats them as the same category of speaking in tongues, as if the tongues that are mysteries that can be spoken to God can also be interpreted.

I went to an apostalic pentecostal church a few times and they all apparently spoke in tongues yet there was no interpreter there

This and the fact that it was fake made me uneasy

 

[birdie]

A tongue is simply English or Spanish or any language common to man. The Bible focuses on two types of situations. A saved person is sharing the gospel in some way and people who are saved (or who become saved through hearing it) are editfied and receive it.

Or, a second situation, a saved person is sharing the gospel in some way and people who are hearing it are not saved and do not understand it. To them it is an unknown tongue. Not that they do not understand the language (English or Spanish or any language common to man) but they do not understand the gospel because they are not saved. To them, the person speaking is speaking in an unknown tongue because he is saved and sharing the gospel and they are unsaved and do not understand the gospel. In that case, the Bible says is better to pray that the unsaved persons understand and receive what is being said, by becoming saved. The sign that is mentioned for unbelievers pertaining to tongues is simply the sign of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection. We read about the evil generation only having the sign of the prophet Jonah, which is a picture of Jesus killed and resurrected. That is why the scripture says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Another word for the scripture is mysteries (Mark 4:34), so when a saved person speaks the gospel it is called mysteries.

There is no undeciperable mystic babbling being referenced. It is simply about a saved person will begin speaking in their regular language about the wonderful things of God once they are saved, whereas before they would not speak about such things. Did you ever hear a born again person start thanking God for this or that, or saying let's pray, or praising God for something. These are things that come from that person's new regenerated spirit, and things that they did not say before being saved.

 

[presidente]

@birdie That's almost like a loosey goosey Bahai style of interpretatoin. Your interpretation does not hold up to even a casual reading of the relevant texts.

 

[birdie]

@birdie That's almost like a loosey goosey Bahai style of interpretatoin. Your interpretation does not hold up to even a casual reading of the relevant texts.

Thanks presidente. What text specifically?

 

[Biilybob65]

Tongues: There purpose & why it's not the normative pattern today.

They were public verification, prophesied in advance & given at major New‑Covenant expansion moments.

Deut 14:2 God chooses Israel & for over 1400 yrs the Nation lives under Mosaic law. The book of Acts maps the transition from the old‑covenant Levitical priesthood (retired at Jesus' resurrection) to the priestly order of Melchizedek. A transition from law to grace. The law demanded works to receive blessings, grace freely supplies blessings based on faith in Jesus' finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work

In Acts 1:4 Jesus gives a promise & in Acts 1:8 He maps out a global evangelistic mission: beginning at Jerusalem (Temple Mount, Pentecost), then Judea, then Samaria & finally to the uttermost parts of the earth

TONGUES:
Tongues fulfilled two prophetic streams: Joel‑SIGNS > Spirit outpouring. Isaiah‑SIGNS > judgment sign to Israel & Covenant‑transition signs > verifying each new group entering the New Covenant.

Tongues were a SIGN, not a condition. Paul states the purpose plainly: "Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers." (1 Cor 14:22). "A sign to onlookers" - Not a sign to the speaker, NOT a sign of salvation & Not a condition for receiving the Spirit.

TONGUES EVENTS:
Acts 2 — Israel only. Purpose: launch of the New Covenant. Audience: Devout Jews from every nation. Result: Peter preaches, 3,000 saved. Meaning: God has begun the last days (Joel 2)

Acts 10 — Gentiles, Purpose: Prove Gentiles were accepted before water baptism, Audience: Jewish believers who doubted Gentile inclusion, Result: Peter commands water baptism after Spirit baptism, Meaning: God makes no distinction (Acts 11:17–18)

Acts 19 — Disciples of John, Purpose: Transition old‑covenant disciples into the gospel. Audience: 12 men who had never heard of the Spirit. Result: They receive the Spirit after hearing the gospel. Meaning: John's baptism is obsolete.

Acts 8 — Samaritans, (no tongues recorded, but Spirit given) Purpose: Unite Jews & Samaritans under apostolic authority. Audience: Apostles must witness it. Meaning: Samaritan are no longer a rival sect.

NOTICE THE PATTERN:
Jews only > Samaritans > Gentiles > John's disciples. Once all groups are included, ""the SIGN is no longer needed"".

Tongues appear only when a new covenant group is added. Not every at every baptism, not with every conversion.

Tongues were never universal in the book of Acts. Thousands were saved in Acts 2, 3k saved, Acts 4:4, 5k men saved, Acts 8:39, Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 9, Paul saved, Acts 11:21, "a great number believed, Acts 16, Lydia & Phil jailer saved, Acts 17, Thessalonians saved, Acts 18, Corinthians saved, Acts 19:18, many saved. NONE OF THESE MENTIONED INCLUE TONGUES.

This is where the "tongues = salvation" doctrine" fails. Paul asks: Do all speak with tongues? (1 Cor 12:30) Paul says: Gifts differ (1 Cor 12:4–6). The Spirit distributes as He wills (1 Cor 12:11). Not all have the same gifts (1 Cor 12:29–30)

WHY TONGUES THEN
OT Prophesy fulfilment. Tongues in Acts were a covenant‑transitional SIGN & Scripture itself explains what kind of SIGN they were.

Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 (with stammering lips and another tongue) in 1 Cor 14:21 to show that tongues were a judgment sign to unbelieving Israel. God speaking to them through foreign languages because they rejected His word.

This matches Acts 2, where the gathered crowds included:
“Parthians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, parts of Libya about Cyrene, strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians…” (Acts 2:9–11)

The disciples were speaking foreign human languages, exactly as Isaiah predicted. The people gathered heard them in their own native tongue.

Once the gospel reached Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles & Old‑covenant leftovers, there were no more groups left to validate & no further Isa 28, judgment SIGN was needed. The tongues SIGN had done its job.

WHY TONGUES NOW

Paul teaches that tongues today are optional spiritual gifts of edification

They are NOT a requirement or proof or salvation, NOT tied to receiving the Spirit, NOT tied to water baptism & NOT tied to covenant transitions (those are complete)

Tongues are permissible during a church assembly only when interpreter is present. When tongues & interpretation operate together, the result is equivalent to prophecy.

1 Corinthians 14:1–2 (Tongues Prayer Gift)
Paul describes the personal prayer-tongue as a GIFT exercised between the believer & God alone. It is for personal edification, not public communication. The one praying does not understand what he is saying, his spirit prays while the meaning remains hidden. He speaks mysteries in the Spirit & his understanding is unfruitful.

During an assembly gathering, speaking in tongues requires someone with the GIFT of interpretation. Together these spiritual GIFTS turn a private Spirit‑spoken mystery into an intelligible message that edifies the whole church.

These gifts are available to any believer with the FAITH to access them.

You can find more on spiritual gifts here: Rom 12:3–8, 1 Cor chapters 12,13 & 14, Eph 4:7–16

My question is According to the scriptures just how does one come by the gift of tongues? Does the scriptures say how one receives this gift? If the answer should be yes can you show the book chapter and verse please? I find this to be an interesting thread.

 

[timf]

Being able to speak in different languages would definitely be a sign in the dual port city of Corinth. Once the letters were written down and exchanged they could be translated and there would be no need for this sign. This supernatural gift might be seen as one of the "powers" that were a "taste" of the age to come.

Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

 

[FlyingDove]

My question is According to the scriptures just how does one come by the gift of tongues? Does the scriptures say how one receives this gift? If the answer should be yes can you show the book chapter and verse please? I find this to be an interesting thread.

1 Cor 12:
Concerning Spiritual Gifts

4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.

8 To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,

9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit,

10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
(NOTE: He distributes them to each one, just as he determines. <<< The Gift giver decides "what gift & who gets it")

Paul refutes the notion that all believers speak in tongues.
1 Cor 12:
29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?

30 Do all have gifts of healing? """""Do all speak in tongues?""""" Do all interpret?
(NOTE: The expected answer to each question is NO!)

Paul teaches: Desire spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
1 Cor 14:
Prophecy A Superior Gift

1 Pursue [this] love [with eagerness, make it your goal], yet earnestly desire and cultivate the spiritual gifts [to be used by believers for the benefit of the church], but especially that you may prophesy [to foretell the future, to speak a new message from God to the people].

2 For one who speaks in an unknown tongue does not speak to people but to God; for no one understands him or catches his meaning, but by the Spirit he speaks mysteries [secret truths, hidden things].

3 But [on the other hand] the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification [to promote their spiritual growth] and [speaks words of] encouragement [to uphold and advise them concerning the matters of God] and [speaks words of] consolation [to compassionately comfort them].
(NOTE: The gift of tongues = speaking to God; personal edification. Prophecy = speaking to people; edifies the entire church)

If tongues were the required sign of salvation, Paul would have said:
Seek tongues 1st, Tongues are the initial evidence, Tongues are the sign of receiving the Spirit. BUT instead said: prophecy is a superior gift to seek.

Paul also ties gift‑operation to faith.
Rom 12:6 We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. If your gift is prophesying, then prophesy in accordance with your faith

1 Cor 14:1 "earnestly desire" Rom 12:6 "in accordance with your faith".

We desire the gifts, but we operate them according to the measure of faith the Spirit has given & the Spirit alone decides which gift each believer receives (1 Cor 12:11).

 

[presidente]

A tongue is simply English or Spanish or any language common to man.

I think I know what you mean, but English and Spanish didn't really exist in the first century. They spoke languages that existed back then in Acts 2.

The Bible focuses on two types of situations. A saved person is sharing the gospel in some way and people who are saved (or who become saved through hearing it) are editfied and receive it.

In Acts 2, the disciples spoke in the languages of various people who had come to Jerusalem, Jewish diaspora and proselytes. Then Peter stood up and preached the Gospel. It does not say that he preached 'in tongue'. 'In tongues' or 'with tongues' is a translation, literally, of a Greek set of words that is used to describe speaking in languages.

Or, a second situation, a saved person is sharing the gospel in some way and people who are hearing it are not saved and do not understand it. To them it is an unknown tongue. Not that they do not understand the language

Acts 2 is specific. 'Tongues' is not a metaphor for speaking Greek or Aramaic or Greek or Aramaic speakers when they don't spiritually perceive the weight of your words in that passage. There are specific languages they spoke. The wording is consistent with the idea of it being languages. So is I Corinthians 14.

This type of loose weird allegorical reading of straightforward facts of the text is what I said was similar to a Bahai approach. They do that with different religious to try to extract some vague ideas to support their religious argument, without really accepting what a text actually says.

(English or Spanish or any language common to man) but they do not understand the gospel because they are not saved. To them, the person speaking is speaking in an unknown tongue because he is saved and sharing the gospel and they are unsaved and do not understand the gospel.

In I Corinthians 14, the people who do not understand speaking in tongues unless it is accompanied by an interpretation include believers. Interpretation comes by a gift as per I Corinthians 12, and can be given in response to prayer as per I Corinthians 14:13.

In that case, the Bible says is better to pray that the unsaved persons understand and receive what is being said, by becoming saved. The sign that is mentioned for unbelievers pertaining to tongues is simply the sign of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection. We read about the evil generation only having the sign of the prophet Jonah, which is a picture of Jesus killed and resurrected. That is why the scripture says that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. Another word for the scripture is mysteries (Mark 4:34), so when a saved person speaks the gospel it is called mysteries.

The sign in I Corinthians 14 has to do with a fulfillment of 'and yet for all that they will not hear Me.' It is not a sign that causes them to believe in that passage. Acts 2 does not specifically say that tongues is a 'sign.' And of course tend ending of Mark lists a number of signs that follow them that believe, including speaking with new tongues. But Jesus did not say it is a sign to an evil and adulterous generation either.

When the audience asked for a sign, they were likely asking for something out of Deuteronomy, a sign to test a prophet, where he predicts something that comes to pass and if it does not the prophet is not genuine. Matthew shows us that Christ gave them one (then) future event that would come to pass. There were other kinds of signs, numerous healings and certain miracles, that Jesus did among the people. In John 4, we read where Jesus said "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe," before declaring someone healed.

There is no undeciperable mystic babbling being referenced. It is simply about a saved person will begin speaking in their regular language about the wonderful things of God once they are saved, whereas before they would not speak about such things.

Maybe you could try to argue that for the ending of Mark, an unlikely interpretation after we see how things worked out in Acts 2. But your assertions here just does not fit Acts 2 or I Corinthians 12-14. I suggest you read those passages.

 

[birdie]

I think I know what you mean, but English and Spanish didn't really exist in the first century. They spoke languages that existed back then in Acts 2.



In Acts 2, the disciples spoke in the languages of various people who had come to Jerusalem, Jewish diaspora and proselytes. Then Peter stood up and preached the Gospel. It does not say that he preached 'in tongue'. 'In tongues' or 'with tongues' is a translation, literally, of a Greek set of words that is used to describe speaking in languages.



Acts 2 is specific. 'Tongues' is not a metaphor for speaking Greek or Aramaic or Greek or Aramaic speakers when they don't spiritually perceive the weight of your words in that passage. There are specific languages they spoke. The wording is consistent with the idea of it being languages. So is I Corinthians 14.

This type of loose weird allegorical reading of straightforward facts of the text is what I said was similar to a Bahai approach. They do that with different religious to try to extract some vague ideas to support their religious argument, without really accepting what a text actually says.



In I Corinthians 14, the people who do not understand speaking in tongues unless it is accompanied by an interpretation include believers. Interpretation comes by a gift as per I Corinthians 12, and can be given in response to prayer as per I Corinthians 14:13.




The sign in I Corinthians 14 has to do with a fulfillment of 'and yet for all that they will not hear Me.' It is not a sign that causes them to believe in that passage. Acts 2 does not specifically say that tongues is a 'sign.' And of course tend ending of Mark lists a number of signs that follow them that believe, including speaking with new tongues. But Jesus did not say it is a sign to an evil and adulterous generation either.

When the audience asked for a sign, they were likely asking for something out of Deuteronomy, a sign to test a prophet, where he predicts something that comes to pass and if it does not the prophet is not genuine. Matthew shows us that Christ gave them one (then) future event that would come to pass. There were other kinds of signs, numerous healings and certain miracles, that Jesus did among the people. In John 4, we read where Jesus said "Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe," before declaring someone healed.

Thanks presidente. You gave me 3 chapters to read in 1 Corinthians which is more than I can address without writing a book. I will mention 3 verses from that which may still be a lot, but narrows it down for discussion. You also mention other verses also which adds to the length. For starters, let's narrow it down to actual verses: From 1 Corinthians.

"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. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

The term 'unknown' is used not because it is babbling or words nobody has ever heard (from made up sounds), nor is it unknown because it is so ultra heavenly super secret amazing that it is only for super champions in Christ. Rather, the term 'unknown' is used from the perspective of the listener who doesn't understand the insight into the gospel that a believer is speaking. An unsaved person would not understand the gospel. It would be an unknown tongue from a spiritual perspective, not from a language perspective. Whether it was Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew or English or Spanish or Farsi doesn't matter to what is being said. The person is finding the message in their own language is an unknown message because they have not received that gospel message. They are not understanding the gospel. Nevertheless, in the spirit (since the speaking is saved) the message makes sense both to the speaker and to God. The term 'mysteries' is used because the Bible calls its contents, the gospel, "mysteries". That is why we read about true believers in Mark 4: "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:"

Next the verse switches to saying that it is better (instead of speaking the gospel that an unbeliever can't understand) to speak the gospel and to have it be understood. In the instance in question, this is called prophesying. The Bible tells us that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Further, in this instance, it is talking about sharing the gospel and having people receive it. When we read in Ezekiel 37 the command to prophesy unto the dry bones, it is speaking about the day when the gospel is preached (prophesying the word of the Lord) and those who are very dead spiritually hear the message, receive it, and come to life spiritually. This is better than having the gospel message given and it not be received.

Finally, the verse we are considering concludes that to share the gospel is good from a personal perspective and also to the Lord, even if no one else understands it. But it says that it is better to share the gospel and to have it received. That edifies the church.

Would you like to discuss a next specific verse?

 

[SomeDisciple]

The term 'unknown' is used not because it is babbling or words nobody has ever heard (from made up sounds), nor is it unknown because it is so ultra heavenly super secret amazing that it is only for super champions in Christ. Rather, the term 'unknown' is used from the perspective of the listener who doesn't understand the insight into the gospel that a believer is speaking. An unsaved person would not understand the gospel. It would be an unknown tongue from a spiritual perspective, not from a language perspective. Whether it was Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew or English or Spanish or Farsi doesn't matter to what is being said. The person is finding the message in their own language is an unknown message because they have not received that gospel message. They are not understanding the gospel. Nevertheless, in the spirit (since the speaking is saved) the message makes sense both to the speaker and to God. The term 'mysteries' is used because the Bible calls its contents, the gospel, "mysteries". That is why we read about true believers in Mark 4: "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:"

Paul's reference to IS28 in Corinthians gives context that implies conflict based on language, rather than some spiritual barrier that prevents conceptual comprehension; which is also why it says let him "pray that he may interpret".

The reason Jesus initially spoke in parables is because the Pharasees et al. could have understood his message in plain speech and would have killed him for saying what he was saying before he accomplished the goals of his ministry. In this case; the hearer not fully understanding the message is intentional on the part of the speaker. This is a proper use of parables; but NOT tongues.

There is a lot of wisdom that unbelievers will not understand and be totally oblivious to; but various claims of the Gospel message are clearly understood by non-believers; otherwise, they never would have bothered to kill Jesus to begin with.

 

[birdie]

Paul's reference to IS28 in Corinthians gives context that implies conflict based on language, rather than some spiritual barrier that prevents conceptual comprehension; which is also why it says let him "pray that he may interpret".

The reason Jesus initially spoke in parables is because the Pharasees et al. could have understood his message in plain speech and would have killed him for saying what he was saying before he accomplished the goals of his ministry. In this case; the hearer not fully understanding the message is intentional on the part of the speaker. This is a proper use of parables; but NOT tongues.

There is a lot of wisdom that unbelievers will not understand and be totally oblivious to; but various claims of the Gospel message are clearly understood by non-believers; otherwise, they never would have bothered to kill Jesus to begin with.

Thanks SomeDisciple. Here is the scripture that mentions 'interpret' : "I 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.

And again, we read: "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. " The verses continue:

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. "

To me, the word 'interpret' is a parable word in the Bible meaning to give the ability of the hearer to understand the gospel that is being spoken. Because only God gives understanding, we are to pray that he grants the hearer to hear the gospel, and also that the speaker speaks plainly in a way that can be understood by the hearer.

That is why we read that my understanding the gospel will not bear fruit unless the other person, the hearer understands. Then, we will have the fruit of a new believer in Christ.

 

[rewriter]

I notice that much of this discussion is theoretical, but I am personally aware of one practical occurrence from roughly 30 years ago. Someone I know was walking in a park with his future wife and he reported that he felt the desire to speak in tongues. He thought that only he and his partner were the only ones around, so he indulged his urge. Subsequently they were approached by a stranger who wanted to talk to them. It turned out that he spoke in an obscure language and the stranger was a native speaker of it, with English as a second language. It did not result in an immediate conversion, but it did lead to further conversations and an eventual conversion. The stranger, on one occasion when he was talking to me well after the fact, observed that the speaker, while interesting in what he had to say in the obscure language, had a terrible accent.

If people would rather stick with the theoretical, I might observe that glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is known to occur in most, if not all, religions among their mystics and the experience among Christians cannot be distinguished from the experience among non-Christians by any known scientific means.

 

[presidente]

Thanks presidente. You gave me 3 chapters to read in 1 Corinthians which is more than I can address without writing a book. I will mention 3 verses from that which may still be a lot, but narrows it down for discussion. You also mention other verses also which adds to the length. For starters, let's narrow it down to actual verses: From 1 Corinthians.

"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. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

The term 'unknown' is used not because it is babbling or words nobody has ever heard (from made up sounds), nor is it unknown because it is so ultra heavenly super secret amazing that it is only for super champions in Christ. Rather, the term 'unknown' is used from the perspective of the listener who doesn't understand the insight into the gospel that a believer is speaking. An unsaved person would not understand the gospel.

The problem here is you are plugging your own meaning into a word that already has meaning. The word translated 'tongue' here means tongue, and it also means language. Even in English 'tongue' can mean language especially in older writings or poetic writings. First century Jews and Chrsitians who read the Bible in Greek would have read the LXX. Here are a couples of examples from the LXX where we can see that 'tongues' or glwssa, means 'languages.'

Genesis 10:5
ἐκ τούτων διεχωρίσθησαν αἱ νῆσοι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐν ταῖς γλώσσαις αὐτῶν, κατὰ χώραν αὐτῶν, ἕκαστοι κατὰ φυλὴν αὐτῶν.
From these were the isles of the nations divided in their languages, every one after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:20
οὗτοί εἰσιν υἱοὶ Χὰμ κατὰ φυλὰς αὐτῶν, κατὰ γλώσσας αὐτῶν, ἐν χώραις αὐτῶν καὶ ἐν ἔθνεσιν αὐτῶν.
These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their languages, in their countries, and in their nations.

It is not saying that the nations were divided by their 'preaching of the Gospel', but rather by their languages. It deosn't say the sons of Ham were divided by their understanding of the Gospel. No. It was after their languages.

Also, 'unknown' was something the KJV translators added, something they thought would clarify the passage, maybe because they were trying to communicate that the languages weren't known to the hearers. It's an unnecessary addition, and the reason it is in italics is not because it is important but because it does not translate anything in the Greek text.

Your interpretation redefines a word to mean something that it does not. It already has a meaning.

Later in the chapter, we see that the church does not understand what is spoken in a tongue. It has to be interpreted. That doesn't mean that the saints who require an interpretation to understand are unsaved or unspiritual. It is just that no interpretation of the message in a language they did not know had been given and they could not understand.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

It would be an unknown tongue from a spiritual perspective, not from a language perspective. Whether it was Aramaic or Greek or Hebrew or English or Spanish or Farsi doesn't matter to what is being said.

If Paul wanted to say that, he could say that, instead of writing about speaking in languages. And the fact that believers who were washed, sanctified, and justified, couldn't understand the tongues without interpretation disproves your theory.

 

[presidente]

I notice that much of this discussion is theoretical, but I am personally aware of one practical occurrence from roughly 30 years ago. Someone I know was walking in a park with his future wife and he reported that he felt the desire to speak in tongues. He thought that only he and his partner were the only ones around, so he indulged his urge. Subsequently they were approached by a stranger who wanted to talk to them. It turned out that he spoke in an obscure language and the stranger was a native speaker of it, with English as a second language. It did not result in an immediate conversion, but it did lead to further conversations and an eventual conversion. The stranger, on one occasion when he was talking to me well after the fact, observed that the speaker, while interesting in what he had to say in the obscure language, had a terrible accent.

If people would rather stick with the theoretical, I might observe that glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, is known to occur in most, if not all, religions among their mystics and the experience among Christians cannot be distinguished from the experience among non-Christians by any known scientific means.

There were numerous examples of speaking in tongues recorded in the early Pentecostal movement where onlookers understood the language. The Azusa Street Revival is widely considered the birthplace of the movement, though there was speaking in tongues at some meetings before that. Seymore, the lead preacher in the revival, put out a newsletter that recorded numerous instances of individuals speaking in tongues while someone else understood, like Armenian, a first people's language in Canada. There was a similar movement going on in India and a missionary heard a young girl who she knew did not know English start speaking in tongues in English. In the 1970's, Vinson Synan, a historian who researched the Pentecostal movement, interviewed elderly people who had been children at the revival meetings. One of them pointed out that what drew the large crowds were people coming in and hearing their own languages, e.g. Japanese, being spoken 'in tongues.'

Backing up several years, Vinson Synan wrote of how Agnes Ozman spoke in tongues in Chinese. He said that they wrote it had been confirmed by someone in a Chinese laundry. I read elsewhere that within a few days she spoke Bohemian to a Bohemian (which would be Czech nowadays.)

There have also been numerous accounts by missionaries. A 1971 book 'Spoken by the Spirit' records numerous examples of speaking in tongues that other people understood.

Some of the early missionaries of the Pentecostal movement assumed when they went overseas they would preach the Gospel 'in tongues' in the local language. That didn't pan out, and it was based on guesswork or misinterpretation rather than proper exegesis anyway.

I can think of at least three people who have shared experiences of speaking in tongues and someone identifying it in their own language. There are also people who have understood speaking in tongues then confirmed the interpretation.

Generally, though, when someone speaks in tongues in church, no one understands.

When it comes to interpretation, I know of three people that have experienced someone else getting the same interpretation. The message comes. One person gets the interpretation, but before speaking it out, someone else 'beats him to the punch' and gives the same message. I asked one of my friends who experiences this if it is word for word. He says not exactly the same wording, but the same gist.

It does seem like there may be some verbage, style, accent and wording that seems to differ a bit based on who is giving the message, kind of like with prophecies.

 

[presidente]

To me, the word 'interpret' is a parable word in the Bible meaning to give the ability of the hearer to understand the gospel that is being spoken. Because only God gives understanding, we are to pray that he grants the hearer to hear the gospel, and also that the speaker speaks plainly in a way that can be understood by the hearer.

But of course it does not mean that in I Corinthians 14 because we have an interpreter interpreting the message of a speaker in a language so that the congregation can be edified (v. 28). So 'interpretation' is not referring to some mystical ability to perceive the words of the Gospel.

 

[lrs68]

In a gathering one should know that even though several around you are Speaking in Tongues it doesn't become necessary for interpretation until one does it and everyone in vicinity just quiets themselves because they feel the sudden presence of God.

When it becomes very hush someone will then Speak in Tongues and soon after another will interpret.