Benefits of Speaking, Praying, and Singing in Tongues

[UnderGrace]

How do you know it is angelic language?

Have you ever heard an angel speak this language?

That is not true. Tongues are languages. The person speaking in tongues does not know what language he is speaking, or what he is saying. This is why tongues, when spoken in public, must be interpreted.

When Paul said "I speak with tongues more than ye all" he was talking about speaking in tongues, and not about speaking languages he knew.


Speaking in tongues, whether in the first century or the 21st century, is a language of men or of angels.

 

[shrume]

How do you know it is angelic language?

How do I know tongues can be a language of angels? The Bible says so (1 Cor 13:1).

Have you ever heard an angel speak this language?

No.

-If- an angel has ever spoken with me (Heb 13:2), it has always been in English.

 

[RickyZ]

How does the bible define tongues? Any context apart from the bible is not relevant.

Against the cause of Christ
Roger

1 Corinthians 14 defines tongues as:

1. An unknown language spoken between man and God (1 Cor 14:2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.)

2. A gift that is used to edify oneself (4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves)

3. Something we all should seek (5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues)

4. Something that should be done in the proper place and time (6Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.)

5. Something you should pray to understand (13For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.)

6. A sign for unbelievers (22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers)

7. A gift we are told expressly NOT TO FORBID (39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues)

But, since you don't believe in the whole word of God, I'm pretty much wasting my time here aren't I?

 

[UnderGrace]

Well then it seems to me even if I accept the Paul was stating the language of angels can be spoken of by humans we would never have any way of knowing.

It really is just an assumption that is made.

Would you agree then that people assume it is the language of angels, since they have never really heard an angel speak?

How do I know tongues can be a language of angels? The Bible says so (1 Cor 13:1).


No.

-If- an angel has ever spoken with me (Heb 13:2), it has always been in English.

 

[shrume]

Well then it seems to me even if I accept the Paul was stating the language of angels can be spoken of by humans

Why wouldn't you accept it?

we would never have any way of knowing.

Why would it matter?

It really is just an assumption that is made.

It's a clear statement of scripture.

Would you agree then that people assume it is the language of angels, since they have never really heard an angel speak?

The Bible states that tongues is a language of men or angels. Since when a person speaks in tongues he does not understand it, it does not matter what the language is.

 

[stonesoffire]

How do you know it is angelic language?

Have you ever heard an angel speak this language?

Have you ever heard an angel speak English?

 

[stonesoffire]

Patience IS one of your virtues Shrume. Must of gone through some stuff..

I'm so glad you are here.

 

[UnderGrace]

If I did, I would know that it is a language. That is the whole point., there is no way to know if what the speaker is uttering is the language of angels.

You can admit it is an assumption, no worries, I will not think less of you.

Actually it is an assumption, it is quite undeniable.

Have you ever heard an angel speak English?

 

[UnderGrace]

I do not accept it because if it is obvious that Paul when read in context, is speaking in the superlative.

We have no way of knowing when it is an angelic language or when it is not, the fact that the person does not understand the language does not mean it is angelic.

Why wouldn't you accept it?


Why would it matter?


It's a clear statement of scripture.


The Bible states that tongues is a language of men or angels. Since when a person speaks in tongues he does not understand it, it does not matter what the language is.

 

[BenFTW]

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 King James Version (KJV)

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 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.

"Yet in the church", is an interesting notion that was made here in this text. Does this mean that the apostle spoke in tongues outside of the church? What is this? Could it possibly mean that it was done in private? Maybe... for personal edification, as noted in scripture? Its just one of those things that stick out, and you notice that tongues wasn't just relegated to a church congregation, but was used elsewhere.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

When Paul said he spoke in tongues more that the Corinthian church, he was not talking about speaking languages he knew. He was talking about speaking in tongues, the manifestation of the gift of the Holy Spirit. When a person speaks in tongues, he does not know what he is saying (1 Cor 14:2). If a person understands what he is saying, he is not speaking in tongues.

In the context of our conversation, "tongues" is the manifestation of the gift of the Holy Spirit called speaking in tongues. It is speaking a language you do not know as the utterance (the words) are given to you through the gift of the Holy Spirit that lives in you.

These are both the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic definition of tongues. There are no Biblical references to tongues that do not describe real language(s); therefore, the languages Paul knew had everything to do with his ability to speak tongues (read “languages”).

Modern T-speech is not language; angelic, heavenly, or otherwise – it is non-cognitive non- language utterance.

"the languages Paul knew had everything to do with his ability to speak tongues (read "languages")" - If Paul knew the language he was speaking when he spoke and prayed in tongues how/why was his mind "unfruitful"? (1 Cor. 14:14) Nothing said about "reading languages".

The point is that when a person speaks in tongues he does not know the language he is speaking (1 Cor 14:2).

Again, more of a modern Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of tongues.

Many use 1 Cor. 14:2 as “proof” of tongues being spiritual language(s) – but upon closer examination, it simply describes real language, though a foreign one to the “hearers”. Note that nowhere does the passage state or even remotely suggest that the speaker does not understand what he himself is saying.

Speaking in tongues is speaking real languages . . . foreign to the one speaking and foreign to others unless someone knows the language that is being spoken as on the day of Pentecost - the apostles spoke in tongues and people there understood - so there are times when someone speaks in tongues - someone may understand.
1 Cor. 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries (NASB) . . . no one understands refers to the one who speaks . . . .

To explain it further, think of it this way; if I showed up at a Bible study and began to speak in German, but no one else in the room could speak German, I might impress a few people, but no one would understand me. So if I speak in a language that no one else in the room can speak, I am in fact not speaking to men, but to God (who alone can understand all languages). Anything I say would be a mystery to those in the room. That is what Paul was trying to convey” by people speaking a foreign language at a public worship.

That is why God says one must interpret when in a public worship setting or keep silent and pray to himself.

Another way to look at it is this: if I attend a worship service in ‘East Haystack’, Alabama two things are going 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. If I start praying aloud in say Lithuanian, there’s no one at that service that’s going to understand a bloody 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. So it ends up being a “real language no one understands” (within that given context). To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” (i.e. ‘we have no clue what you’re saying’) in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’). I myself however understand every word I’m saying; I’m speaking my native language; you’re the ones who don’t understand.

I think people read into this verse something that simply is not there to fit a modern notion of what Biblical ‘tongues’ are supposed to be.

"To the people listening to me, I am speaking ‘mysteries” (i.e. ‘we have no clue what you’re saying’) in the Spirit (i.e. I’m praying earnestly from my heart and from deep within my being = praying ‘in the spirit’). I myself however understand every word I’m saying; I’m speaking my native language; you’re the ones who don’t understand." If you understand the language that you are speaking you are not speaking in tongues regardless if there is someone there who speaks that language or not. Speaking in tongues is not speaking a "mystery" to other men but it is speaking "mysteries (secrets)" to God in a language that you don't know and have never learned.

It was not possible to manifest the gift of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues before the gift was given, and the gift was not given until the day of Pentecost.

In the context of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity, yes.

However, the only gift given on Pentecost with respect to language was dispensing with the idea of ecclesiastical diglossia; that the proper language for religious instruction, prophesying, etc. was/should be/must be Hebrew; the holy/sacred language of Judaism. The apostles broke from this tradition and spoke to the people in the local vernaculars of Aramaic and Greek (both of which they knew). All Jews there would have spoken one of these languages (if not both, in some cases) as their mother tongue; Jews living in Judea would have been Aramaic speaking (though some were Greek speaking), Jews of the Western Diaspora would have been Greek speaking and Jews of the Eastern Diaspora would have retained Aramaic. The ‘list’ in Acts has nothing to do with languages or linguistic diversity; it’s a list of the lands of the Diaspora (both eastern and western, though two places are inadvertently missed). There are a few schools of thought as to the actual meaning/implications of the list in Acts which are quite interesting, but neither has to do with linguistic diversity.

The apostles were keenly aware that in order for their message to spread, it could not be done in the tradition way of using a language (Hebrew) that hardly anyone knew anymore; but to do so was sort of a cultural social/religious taboo of sorts. For lack of a better way to put it, the Holy Spirit gave them the courage to dispense with this religious/social taboo and to just teach the people in languages they were comfortable with, without fear of any reprise. Some, though, did accuse them of being drunk for doing such a thing - most however were just obviously shocked that such a thing was being done.
The 'miracle' of Pentecost, it may be argues, was the spreading of the message of Jesus in local vernaculars, rather than the expected Hebrew, for the first time in a public setting.

<snip>

And they were all filled with the holy spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? . . . . we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God. And all were amazed and perplexed . . . . They spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them the words in languages they, personally, did not know - it was evidence that they had been given the gift of holy spirit . . . plan and simple. The crowd was bewildered, amazed and perplexed because these men were Galileans - They did not know the languages they were speaking. The "miracle" of Pentecost was that God gave them languages that those present understood.

 

[stonesoffire]

You can admit it is an assumption, no worries, I will not think less of you

? I agree. If we don't know what language we are speaking, it would be an assumption to say it's angelic. But, it could be.

I doubt Shrume said anything different.

 

[UnderGrace]

Thank you, it might be or it might not, that is all we can say for sure.

? I agree. If we don't know what language we are speaking, it would be an assumption to say it's angelic. But, it could be.

I doubt Shrume said anything different.

 

[notuptome]

It's not.

That is not readily apparent.

Yes. I speak in English and I speak in tongues. I do not know what language I am speaking when I speak in tongues.

Then how do you know it is a language? Languages are identifiable so you should be able to determine which language you are speaking.

That's right.

When a person speaks in tongues he is speaking a language he does not know (1 Cor 14:2).

I do not believe that Paul is using verse two as an instruction but an admonishment. There needs to be unsaved persons present for one to speak in tongues. Verse 22 makes it evident that tongues are for those who believe not.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

1 Corinthians 14 defines tongues as:

1. An unknown language spoken between man and God (1 Cor 14:2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.)

2. A gift that is used to edify oneself (4Anyone who speaks in a tongue edifies themselves)

3. Something we all should seek (5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues)

4. Something that should be done in the proper place and time (6Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.)

5. Something you should pray to understand (13For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say.)

6. A sign for unbelievers (22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers)

7. A gift we are told expressly NOT TO FORBID (39Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues)

But, since you don't believe in the whole word of God, I'm pretty much wasting my time here aren't I?

All this just so you can demonstrate how much you love other believers.

If you demonstrate tongues in concord with scripture it would make for a good testimony. You quote verse 22 yet the way you claim to use tongues is out of this very context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Billyd]

Would someone please quote the scripture that actually shows a person(s) speaking in tongues?

 

[shrume]

Exactly. Tongues are languages. Why is that an issue for you?

]It's not.

That is not readily apparent.

I don't understand why. Tongues are languages. I believe it.

Then how do you know it is a language?

I believe the Bible.

Languages are identifiable so you should be able to determine which language you are speaking.

Where do you get that idea? It could be a language of men that is no longer known, or it could be a language of angels. Where does the Bible say we should know or determine the language we are speaking?

I do not believe that Paul is using verse two as an instruction but an admonishment.

1 Cor 14:
2) 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.

What exactly is Paul admonishing?

I believe it is a statement of fact.

There needs to be unsaved persons present for one to speak in tongues.

That's not true. Tongues with interpretation is for the edification of the church(1 Cor 14:5). When a Christian speaks in tongues privately, it edifies him (1 Cor 14:4).

Verse 22 makes it evident that tongues are for those who believe not.

Tongues can be a sign for those who believe not. It's primary purpose is to edify the believer (1 Cor 14:4), and when interpreted, it edifies the church (1 Cor 14:5).

When a person speaks in tongues, he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is speaking divine secrets to God (1 Cor 14:2), he is speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), and he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17). God wants us to do it (1 Cor 14:5; Eph 6:18; Jude 1:10).

When a person speaks in tongues and interprets in the church, the church is edified (1 Cor 14:5).

 

[shrume]

Would someone please quote the scripture that actually shows a person(s) speaking in tongues?

Acts 2:
4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 10:
46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:
6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

 

[RickyZ]

All this just so you can demonstrate how much you love other believers.

If you demonstrate tongues in concord with scripture it would make for a good testimony. You quote verse 22 yet the way you claim to use tongues is out of this very context.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You're right, I shouldn't have included that last line. My apologies.

 

[Kavik]

Some comments – again in no particular order.

1.Cor. 13:1 – The one and only place in the Bible where “tongues of angels” is mentioned – that passage has been analyzed every which way you can think of and then some – it’s pure hyperbole no matter how you slice and dice it. This is perhaps a bit more evident when looking at the Greek grammar of the phrase.

As I mentioned in a previous post – traditional Jewish belief was that angels spoke one language only, and a real one at that: Hebrew.

9 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.

Throughout this part of his letter, Paul is calling for clarity and intelligibility at a public worship; “in the church" is a direct reference to his point: In the church speak so that all may understand, whether your speaking yourself or via an interpreter. To speak in a foreign language no one at that particular meeting understands (weather one word or ten thousand), benefits only the person speaking and just adds to the general confusion. Outside of the church, do whatever you will. Corinth is Corinth – walk down the street and within an hour, you’ll hear at least ten different tongues/languages, but in church, if you’re going to speak aloud, make sure you have a means for everyone to understand.

If Paul knew the language he was speaking when he spoke and prayed in tongues how/why was his mind "unfruitful"? (1 Cor. 14:14) Nothing said about "reading languages".

If you understand the language that you are speaking you are not speaking in tongues regardless if there is someone there who speaks that language or not. Speaking in tongues is not speaking a "mystery" to other men but it is speaking "mysteries (secrets)" to God in a language that you don't know and have never learned.

“read languages” just means that where you see “tongue”, the word should be read a understood as “language”.

1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. To paraphrase from an article on this: Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Some takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul however could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners.

The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages. Paul’s concern is the edification of the group. Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.

Another way of looking at it is: my spirit prays (and I understand what I’m saying), but my understanding (the fact that I understand what I’m saying) does not produce fruit (in others – an active use of ‘akarpos’), i.e. that fact I understand what I’m saying doesn’t benefit anyone else as no one here speaks my language.

In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere in the Bible where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It is simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does as it's his native tongue (sic!).

As sort of a quick aside, something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, “language families” (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages. Why would there ever be a need for language families (or indeed, even the need for more than one language) in supposed ‘angelic/heavenly’ languages? Kinds of tongues = families of (real) languages.

That is not true. Tongues are languages. The person speaking in tongues does not know what language he is speaking, or what he is saying. This is why tongues, when spoken in public, must be interpreted.

This is a bit difficult to respond to as I’m still a bit unclear as to your definition of ‘tongues’ – “languages of men” seems to not fit the bill here as they would be real languages and immediately identifiable as such. In this respect, what you’d be describing would be more xenoglossy (a/k/a xenoglossia). There are, however, no known provable cases of this phenomenon.

With respect to languages of angels, there does not seem to be such a thing. Angels in traditional Jewish belief speak Hebrew, not some angelic/heavenly language.

Modern tongues are simply not language – I thought I posted something on this, but perhaps not – I’ll post it later.

When Paul said "I speak with tongues more than ye all" he was talking about speaking in tongues, and not about speaking languages he knew.

I have to respectfully disagree with that, I believe Paul was simply referring to the various languages he had acquired in his travels.