BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
Theology

About tongues, again...

sermonindex Jul 12, 2006

I didn't want to throw this into an existing thread, where it might be lost, but I [i]did[/i] want to draw it to the attention of those who are sceptical either because they have only seen tongues which they believe are not from the Holy Spirit, or, they have not spoken in tongues, personally, and, or, they don't know anyone who does.

Some years ago, a German girl came to the UK to learn English - by training as a nurse. She had been accepted by a school of nursing, and was soon (first week) invited by a Christian to a church nearby, famous locally for being both Baptist and allowing the operation of the gifts in its Sunday services.

This girl came from a Catholic background, but had become an atheist, and had arrived in the UK as an atheist. Her acceptance of the invitation to church reflected her lonliness, rather than a desire to meet with God.

During the service, someone gave a word in tongues, of which she understood every word - God speaking to her personally - but, she was simultaneously aware the tongue was not being given in German.


I put forward this testimony as the explanation of the verse below, because I've been amazed on SI to meet for the first time, people who are genuinely sceptical about the validity of tongues, many of whom have no idea how the gift works, nor of how God gives the interpretation to someone (sometimes the person with the word in tongues), often [i]not[/i] the person who spoke in tongues. This interpretation has [i]nothing[/i] to do with 'understanding a language' and [i]everything[/i] to do with God interpreting the meaning to the interpreter (in this case, the girl I knew - who did not speak it out, under the cirucmstances) independently of any repetitous sounds in the word in tongues (which, incidentally, is [i]not[/i] a 'sign' that it was not a 'real' word in 'tongues').

Please read this verse carefully. It [u]does not say[/u] the disciples and apostles [u]spoke[/u] the languages which the hearers understood.... does it?


Acts 2 (KJV)
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not [u]all these which speak Galilaeans[/u]?

8 And how [u]hear[/u] 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, [u]we do hear them speak in our tongues[/u] the wonderful works of God.

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


It seems to me there is an assumption in the minds of people who read these verses, that the Galileans were speaking the other languages - because we [i]assume[/i] they must have been for the others to 'hear' in their mother tongues. But, I offer that this is [u]not[/u] what the scripture says.

Maybe it requires a little lateral thinking, but, I find it perfectly accptable for God to be able to open the ears of the hearers to His words to each of them individually, just as He scrambled what was coming out of people's mouths at the tower of Babel, so that people could [u]not[/u] understand [i]each other[/i].

I'm sort of surprised I haven't seen this point raised in previous threads (except, perhaps, by me), because the 'interpretation' of the verses which mention 'hear' and 'hearer', do not insist the speakers were [i]speaking[/i] in the 'langugages' which the 'hearers' could understand. This little leap of totally human logic is being added by the reader.

Is this a fair comment? Do you see what I mean?

M
MSeaman Jul 12, 2006

I see exactly what you mean. I've heard of Missionaries going to countries that they didn't know the language, but through tongues the people understood them. Is that what you mean?

P
philologos Jul 12, 2006

Is this a fair comment? Do you see what I mean?

If I understand you properly this would mean that the miracle was experienced by the unconverted hearers rather than to the apostles, and does not seem to fit the Isaiah prophecy.
“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.”
(Is 28:11 KJVS)

D
dohzman Jul 12, 2006

Good post. I believe there's a great misunderstanding about the differences between interpetation and translation. Two different things entirely.

C
Christinyou Jul 13, 2006

Hi Linn,

Quote:

"Is this a fair comment? Do you see what I mean?"

Answer: No not yet.

Either the apostles spoke in a language that the hearer understood in his own language, or the speaker spoke in their language specifically and in understanding in their own language spoken were edified in the things of God. Either way it was a miracle, and God was Glorified in the speaking. These are not unknown tongues or a personal heavenly language that edifies no one.
Maybe by ones own personal pride in the speaking, but no understanding. Like Paul, either speak with understanding or don't speak.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

What language do you think God speaks. Unknown? I don't think so. What language does the Holy Spirit speak, Unknown? I don't think so either. In What language do we hear God, one that is understood for the upbuilding of the saints and the truth of the Word of Who This Jesus is that is birthed in us, even to the things we don't understand, they are revealed also. If we can't understand why listen? If we can't speak understanding why speak?

1Co 14:18
Verse 18. I thank my God. Paul here shows that he did not undervalue or despise the power of speaking foreign languages. It was with him a subject of thanksgiving that he could speak so many; but he felt that there were more valuable endowments than this. See the next verse.
With tongues more than ye all. I am able to speak more foreign languages than all of you. How many languages Paul could speak, he has nowhere told us. It is reasonable, however, to presume that he was able to speak the language of any people to whom God in his providence, and by his Spirit, called him to preach. He had been commissioned to preach to the Gentiles, and it is probable that he was able to speak the languages of all the nations among whom he ever travelled. There is no account of his being under a necessity of employing an interpreter wherever he preached.

In this I won't put God in a box and say even if Paul spoke to a people whose language he did not know, which one might have been Asian where he was forbidden to go, I can not say that if he new no Asian languages that God could not have made it possible for the Gospel to be heard.

I see no where in any of Paul's writings that he needed an interpreter, he either spoke a language that his hearers understood or he did not go there or speak there. No matter, 5 words, 1I 2will 3praise 4the 5Lord, rather than 30 minutes of speaking words no one understands especially ones self.

I have always understood what I read, or hear, maybe not the depth of understanding that comes by study and revelation by the Holy Spirit but I can read and my hearing is still able to understand what I am hearing audibly, praise God. Why is it that unknown tongues are unable to be written and unknown languages are able to be written and them interpreted? I go to a Pentecostal church and no one is writing notes on the tongues that are spoken or even able to write what is being said then interpreted. I see no interpreted tongues in the bible especially written unknown tongues, just unknown not acquired languages by learning from birth that can be interpreted, and then understood in our acquired languages.

In Christ: Phillip

L
letsgetbusy Jul 13, 2006

I think it is fair.

We try to put God into categories and systems that I think will be confounded when we all meet in glory. I mean that some of what we thought will be true, but there will be much we overlooked or just took at face value when there was much more.

I am not one to limit God. I think it is a legitimate idea. I was not there at Pentacost. I think we assume things must happen just like they did that one day. But I don't think we pray for earthquakes to drive people to Christ, but this was God's way in Acts.

I think we don't know as much as we think about what happened in those 28 books, and I think that we tend to forget about the other 27 books besides Acts 2. I don't see many riots, or preachers being punched in public, or Christians around here being thrown in jail, or people dropping dead for lying to the Holy Ghost, etc, etc, etc.

So it is interesting we have so many experts on tongues, and so few experts in continuing stedfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and I put that on myself, too.

P
philologos Jul 13, 2006

1Co 14:181Co 14:18
Verse 18. I thank my God. Paul here shows that he did not undervalue or despise the power of speaking foreign languages. It was with him a subject of thanksgiving that he could speak so many; but he felt that there were more valuable endowments than this. See the next verse.
With tongues more than ye all. I am able to speak more foreign languages than all of you. How many languages Paul could speak, he has nowhere told us. It is reasonable, however, to presume that he was able to speak the language of any people to whom God in his providence, and by his Spirit, called him to preach.

Are you saying that you think this passage refers to Paul's linguistic skills?

sermonindex Jul 13, 2006


Hi philologos,

Sorry my time online is short these days. Thanks for the questions.

All I mean is, that the disciples spoke in tongues, and as with my German friend, the Lord gave the other nationalities the interpretations as the tongues were being given.

Many many posts on SI suggest there are believers who think of tongues as speaking in recognised human languages (only) or of some gift of understanding the words which are spoken, rather than understanding that the interpretation is an entirely separate gift, which also by-passes the human intellect, in the same way as tongues does.

I'm not saying I don't believe human languages can be given miraculously, but I've heard many a tongue which led to an interpretation in English, which could not have been a word for word translation of what was said by the tongue-speaker-out.

Also, the scripture from Isaiah is not incompatible with what I'm trying to say.

Are you saying that you think this passage refers to Paul's linguistic skills?
Personally, I don't think it does refer to his linguistic skills. I believe he is talking about a spiritual gift which has to do with communicating in and through the Spirit, from God to man, and from man to God.

I'm not sure how I would know if I was speaking in a 'tongue of angels', as that's not how it works for me. I find it deeply edifying to be able to speak in tongues, (different ones, sometimes), but have never prophesied in tongues to a church meeting. I also cannot say if I have ever [i]prophesied[/i] in tongues to myself, but I believe I prophesy [i]not in tongues[/i], both to myself and others, as the Spirit gives the word.

Bro dohzman,

Thanks for the encouragement. Good to know I communicated.

D
dohzman Jul 13, 2006

Something else that seems to escape people is that tongues doesn't nessarily need to be human language >>> 1Co 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels >>>. :-) Just to re-state your comment above with the reference and set it alone, just incase someone needs that reference. God Bless

P
philologos Jul 13, 2006

All I mean is, that the disciples spoke in tongues, and as with my German friend, the Lord gave the other nationalities the interpretations as the tongues were being given.

but this would switch the miracle to the hearers which is not the sense I have in reading Acts 2. You seem to be suggesting that the hearers heard something that didn't actually happen; that the disciples all spoke in Language A but that the hearers heard Language B,C,D,E,F,G, etc. If I am understanding you aright I don't think that is what the passage is intending to convey.

It may well have been that for some reason God allowed the German friend to 'interpret' the tongue utterance but we cannot use this as a model and I doubt very much that she would have called what she 'heard' her 'own language'.

I
IRONMAN Jul 13, 2006

bro Dohzman


dohzman wrote:
Something else that seems to escape people is that tongues doesn't nessarily need to be human language >>> 1Co 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels >>>. :-) Just to re-state your comment above with the reference and set it alone, just incase someone needs that reference. God Bless

true... :-) so true :-D

D
dohzman Jul 13, 2006

I can see the possibility of 2 scenarios, 1) all of those present spoke in tongues, there could have been many different tongues (languages) at once since they were all filled and speaking in tongues. 2) I 've observed that God for His own reasons doesn't always tie things up for us nicely, as we would like. Leaving some things for a mystery or even a miracle, this could be one of those times.

You do have me curious though, how do you see that passage in Acts2?

C
Christinyou Jul 14, 2006

Isaiah 28:9-13 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

These particular Isaiah scriptures cannot be used to make an argument for speaking in unknown tongues, only the tongues (Languages) spoken at Pentecost.

Isa 28:11
For - This verse is to be understood as a response to what the complaining and dissatisfied people had said, as expressed in the previous verses. God says that he will teach them, but it should be by another tongue - a foreign language in a distant land. Since they refused to hearken to the messages which he sent to them, and which they regarded as adapted only to children, he would teach them in a manner that should be "much more" humiliating because of their lack of understanding of their own prophets, Quote: Isaiah 28:7-8 "But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean. He would make use of the barbarous language of foreigners to bring them to the true knowledge of God.

This is the same thing that happened a Pentecost, for what did they say? Acts 2:6-8 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

The same adaptation of language but different outcomes. In Isaiah They were spoken to by foreign languages that they could not understand and hear the truth of God through them. In Acts The truth of God given to Galileans, and the Jews, (Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.) understanding in each's own language. One earthly adaptation of language and the other heavenly adaptation of language, and both to bring the Truth of God to man, one as scorn of Israel the other, the blessing of Jesus Christ and the filling of The Holy Spirit.

Isaiah:
With stammering lips - The word which is used here is derived from a verb ( לעג laag ), which means to speak unintelligibly: especially to speak in a foreign language, or to stammer; and then to mock, deride, laugh at, scorn (compare Isa 33:19; Pr 1:26; 17:5; Ps 2:4; 59:9; Job 22:19). Here it means in a foreign or barbarous tongue; and the sense is, that the lessons which God wished to teach would be conveyed to them through the language of foreigners - the Chaldeans. They should be removed to a distant land, and there, in hearing a strange speech, in living long among foreigners, they should learn the lesson which they refused to do when addressed by the prophets in their own land.

Chaldeans to teach Jews? Not good. Scorn.
Galileans to teach Jews? Especially in their own language? Wow! "No Prophet comes out of Galilee" Jhn 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Jhn 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode [still] in Galilee.

Jhn 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

Jhn 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

This is the reason the great men of Jewry of all nations were addressed by Galileans. Even as a scorn unto them.

If as someone had said before on this thread, if tongues had of been written language, instead of tongues there would not be such an uproar over the gift of languages. One for self indulgence, the other for the Gift of God by the Holy Spirit Teaching us This Christ that is in us, and we will hear Him. Acts 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.


In Christ: Phillip

P
philologos Jul 14, 2006

Isaiah:
With stammering lips - The word which is used here is derived from a verb ( לעג laag ), which means to speak unintelligibly: especially to speak in a foreign language, or to stammer; and then to mock, deride, laugh at, scorn (compare Isa 33:19; Pr 1:26; 17:5; Ps 2:4; 59:9; Job 22:19). Here it means in a foreign or barbarous tongue; and the sense is, that the lessons which God wished to teach would be conveyed to them through the language of foreigners - the Chaldeans. They should be removed to a distant land, and there, in hearing a strange speech, in living long among foreigners, they should learn the lesson which they refused to do when addressed by the prophets in their own land.

This is not the way the Spirit interpreted this passage in 1 Corinthians.
“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.”
(1Cor 14:21-22 KJVS)
I have no doubt that the prophecy had an earlier fulfillment in the experience of Babylon but Paul is not referring to the Babylonian captivity. He is referring to the way in which God had used tongues as a sign to 'unbelieving Jews'. This also explains the phenomena in
“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,”
(Acts 10:45-46 KJVS)
Here reluctant Peter and his companions are convinced as a result of Cornelius and his household speaking with tongues. What language do you think Cornelius was speaking in?

Am I right in thinking that you interpret all the Corinthian references as pertaining to Paul's linguistic ability?

sermonindex Jul 14, 2006


Hi philologos, you said:

that the disciples all spoke in Language A but that the hearers heard Language B,C,D,E,F,G, etc.
I think we both know that there are [i]many[/i] different 'tongues', and while the same person may speak in the same tongue (usually) when they speak in tongues, another person may speak in a different 'tongue'.

To refer to 'Language A' as if all the disciples would be speaking in the same 'tongue' (that is, the spiritual gift of tongues) and as if you really mean to imply this is what you think the scripture means - that 120 people were speaking exactly the same spiritual language - frankly, if I may say so respectfully, I don't believe of you.

I believe the disciples were speaking in many different tongues, and in the same way as God can speak to anyone who is not born again, He spoke to those who were present in the crowds. IF the 120 disciples were speaking in 120 'tongues', it still may not cover all the language groups which were represented there - although it may do.

If I am understanding you aright I don't think that is what the passage is intending to convey.

It may well have been that for some reason God allowed the German friend to 'interpret' the tongue utterance but we cannot use this as a model and I doubt very much that she would have called what she 'heard' her 'own language'.

'I doubt very much that she would have called what she 'heard' her 'own language' ' I think this is what I said in my leading post - that although she 'understood' what God was saying to her, what was coming through her ears was not German.

Now, I have a question for you.... When God speaks to you, do you [i]always[/i] hear Him in English? Or, does He sometimes communicate to you without what we would normally call 'words'?

I ask, because I have often prayed without words going through my head - it has been spirit to spirit - and He's had no trouble understanding.

Please don't feel you have to post the answer to the above two questions... I put them there mainly to provoke thought.

We know how small children know what their parents are thinking and are able to absorb meaning which has not been expounded in anything but the simplest terms. I do believe God imbues much more into His 'word' to our souls, than our minds can sometimes compute, contain, convey or keep a hold of, and we are left with a strong impression which has changed us, rather than a purely linguistic experience.

P
philologos Jul 14, 2006

To refer to 'Language A' as if all the disciples would be speaking in the same 'tongue' (that is, the spiritual gift of tongues) and as if you really mean to imply this is what you think the scripture means - that 120 people were speaking exactly the same spiritual language - frankly, if I may say so respectfully, I don't believe of you.
I don't believe it, but I thought that was what you were saying. However, you are still wanting the actual spoken language to be unintelligible to a hearer. I can't see why you want to hold this view. As regards the numbers of language groups. 120 tongues speakers would more than be sufficient for all the language groups referred to in Acts 2:9-11. The list actually comprises less than 20 people groups.

Now, I have a question for you.... When God speaks to you, do you always hear Him in English? Or, does He sometimes communicate to you without what we would normally call 'words'?

Of course but He never communicates through me wordlessly and then transmits the sense of that to another person. I would suspect such a process.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2006


However, you are still wanting the actual spoken language to be unintelligible to a hearer. I can't see why you want to hold this view.
Sorry.... am I missing something here? Isn't 'unintelligible' what 'tongues' [i]often[/i] are, until the interpretation is given?


but He never communicates through me wordlessly and then transmits the sense of that to another person. I would suspect such a process.
I would also suspect it. In both the case in Acts and my German friend, tongues were given which everyone could hear. The way we understand the tongue is either by the interpretation (that is, gift of interpretation), or, the testimony of the person to whom God spoke.

In many other instances, we believe the testimony of the seeker who has heard from God, (whether or not tongues were involved), as we discern they are reporting honestly of His dealing with them in the life we know they live, and compatibly with the God we know. Both these components are necessary (I'd say), and even more convincing is when the persons to whom God has spoken respond directly to Him in faith, and we see permanent changes i their lives. This goes a long way to [i]proving[/i] it was God they heard, I believe.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2006


Hi Phillip,

I'm sorry I haven't responded directly to you. I think philologos has asked for some of the clarification which will help me, as I'm a little confused about what you didn't get in my first post. I'll wait to see what you answer him, before offering any further expanation than I already have in my subsequent posts. I hope that's ok with you.

sermonindex Jul 14, 2006


Hi Phillip,

I'm sorry I haven't responded directly to you. I think philologos has asked for some of the clarification which will help me, as I'm a little confused about what you didn't get in my first post. I'll wait to see what you answer him, before offering any further expanation than I already have in my subsequent posts. I hope that's ok with you.

C
Christinyou Jul 14, 2006

Hi Ron,

Quote: You wrote:

I have no doubt that the prophecy had an earlier fulfillment in the experience of Babylon but Paul is not referring to the Babylonian captivity. He is referring to the way in which God had used tongues as a sign to 'unbelieving Jews'. This also explains the phenomena in

1Co 14:21
In the law it is written. See Isa 28:11-12, for the quotation. The Jews were there told that for their sins they would be carried into the Assyrian captivity, where they would hear strange languages. This was a judgment. Wherefore, do not force the church to listen to listen to strange tongues which serve to remind of the judgment of Israel.

When you get to :23 It explains, the Church should be speaking in understanding to those that are without, that they might be edified and brought into the fold and not say these people are mad speaking in languages not understood.

1Co 14:23
11If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are sunlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
11. Another argument: the gift of tongues without prophecy is not only unprofitable to the faithful, but also hurts very much, both the faithful as well as the unfaithful, who should be won in the public assemblies. For by this means it comes to pass that the faithful seem to others to be mad, much less can the unfaithful be instructed by it.

s. See Ac 4:13.

Why must it be so hard to allow people speaking in tongues to understand that they are speaking gibberish and no one understands, why speak these things. Every time I hear a person speak in an unknown tongue, be it a different language such as Russian, or what some say is Angle talk, The Spirit checks me and tells me watch the people speaking, what do you see. So far all I see is a pride in what they are doing. I have pride in my salvation, but it is pride in Christ Jesus for what He has done, not that I speak gibberish and then say what was meant to be said in the first place with understanding, not the prideful gift of spiritual gift that has been given that other might see my spiritual maturity, and how God has blessed me with the gift of tongues.

Ac 10:46
They heard (êkouon). Imperfect active, were hearing, kept on hearing. Speak (lalountôn). Present active participle, speaking, for they kept it up. With tongues (glôssais). Instrumental case as in Ac 2:4,11 which see. The fuller statement there makes it clear that here it was new and strange tongues (language)that Gentiles never spoke, also as in Ac 19:6; 1Co 14:4-19. This sudden manifestation of the Holy Spirit's power on uncircumcised Gentiles was probably necessary to convince Peter and the six brethren of the circumcision that God had opened the door wide to Gentiles. For Peter then said, "Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? It was proof that a Gentile Pentecost had come and Peter used it effectively in his defence in Jerusalem (Ac 11:15).

These are not special heavenly languages, that is tongues, that are a spoken prideful exercise of man to show how a spiritual give brings one into Godliness, in other word watch me and do as I do and God will give you the same gift. The Holy Spirit disperses spiritual gifts as He wills, not as man wills, that goes for speaking to other in their own language that they might understand the Gospel of Paul, which is Christ in them the Hope of Glory. The Holy Spirit would never us a gift to promote the gift receiver to build up anyone but the Gifted One Himself, Jesus Christ. He never spoke without understand to who He was speaking to.

In Christ: Phillip

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 61 posts