I believe Paul was speaking literally.. Tongues just means languages, and Paul spoke several languages (1 Corinthians 14:18). Many foreign languages were used in the church at Corinth, and Paul was encouraging the use of interpreters. That's why he said; "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church" (vs 28). Paul wasn't prohibiting a miracle of the Holy Spirit, but eliminating confusion by prohibiting unknown languages (tongues). jmo
I believe the time for personal opinions ended 2,000 years ago. If you want people to take your beliefs seriously, they can't be personal opinions; they have to be founded on the truth: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1Pet. 3:15). "Always be prepared... to give the reason" is so yesterday isn't it? Today, we Christians translate that verse this way: "Always be prepared to give people your opinions about Jesus and His works and to reject them if they don't agree with you."
In 1Cor. 12, the gifts are called 'manifestations of the Holy Spirit'. It would be hard to fashion that all but one gift would be 100% spiritual (look at the nine gifts again). First, I disagree that many languages were used at the Corinthian church to the point that language interpreters' were needed. In Nigeria, there are 250 different languages but four main Nigerian languages with English as the main language, making five main languages. Everyone who isn't native to one of the five main languages usually speaks three languages: their native language, one of the main four languages, and English. In other words, basically everyone speaks English-- either proper English or what they call Pidgin (or Pigeon) English or 'broken English'. (They speak this with varying shades and differences in other nations such as Haiti, Jamaica, Guinea Coast, the French Creole, Guyana in South America, etc.) In Corinth and surrounding cities, we would have seen the same exact occurrence, because we see in the NT and as far back as the OT that the nations that were close to each other (like the Assyrians and Philistines and Israelis in the OT and Israel, Rome, Greece, and surrounding nations in the NT) were familiar with the dialects of their neighbors and often spoke the same languages as their neighbors but with varying dialects. (In fact, some have said that the reason the Holy Spirit led Paul away from Asia and toward Greece (Macedonia) was because He knew that the
English language would be most spoken in the coming future (today) and that it would be propagated (along with the Gospel), then, not from Asia but from Europe.)
Now, even if it was true that many foreign languages were used at the Corinthian church, was this the only church that operated in the gifts of the Spirit? Many languages/ethnicities could have been used at the other churches that Paul started, but doesn't mention the gift of the Spirit or the need for tongues to any of them. The truth, Dan, is often simple: the Corinthians were like the Charismatics and Pentecostals you do your best to avoid in that they took pride in their ability to function in the gifts and therefore abused them.
Just like Christians today, the Corinthians thought themselves special because of their ability to 'speak in tongues. If these tongues they spoke in were simply "tongues of men", they couldn't take so much pride in it. You see the very same thing today. People in the Bible are different from us today, but even James said, "Elijah was a man like us" who prayed and God answered (Jas. 5:17); he was not a superhuman like we think he was. The Corinthians were leaning toward what you see today with hyper-Charismatics who abuse and misuse the gifts and the Pentecostals who swear they are special because they speak in tongues (and incorrectly say that the evidence that one is baptized in the Spirit is that they will speak in tongues).
Finally, let's look at what you said: "Many foreign languages were used in the church at Corinth, and Paul was encouraging the use of interpreters. That's why he said, "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church." (1Cor. 14:28.) That's how one sees it when looking at it through natural eyes. Let's look at what Paul is really saying by adding the surrounding verses:
"If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God" (1Cor. 14:27-28).
"
If anyone speaks in a tongue,
let there be two or at the most three." Why did Paul go from one person speaking to two or three? To understand what he is saying there, you have to paraphrase it this (color-coded to facilitate understanding): "
If the Holy Spirit moves in the gift of tongues,
only two or three who operate in this gift should release it." Why would Paul 'limit the Spirit' by saying that if He flows in tongues during a service, no more than three who operate in it should 'allow Him' to flow through them? (Because He will primarily flow through those who have the gift, not those who don't have it.) Because the whole chapter is talking about order; there needs to be time for the Spirit to operate through others with other gifts (read the passage: it mentions psalms, revelations, prophetic words, etc., operating within one meeting/service). Much can be said about the first sentence, but I want to focus on the first part of the second sentence and then on the second part of the second sentence:
1. "But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church." Wait... if there is no interpreter? Isn't tongues a gift of the Spirit... that the Spirit operates? If it was for the benefit of those who didn't speak the native or common language of the church members (or really, for those who spoke the common language who need to know what the tongues-speaker was saying to the others among them), why would the Holy Spirit 'turn the gift on' to have the person with the gift "keep silent in church"? Do you see where I'm going? If the Spirit turns on the gift (I'm sure even you can confess that the real gifts can be used glibly like we see so many do today), why would He do so if there was no one to 'interpret' it for those who spoke the common language? (Because the tongues, according to you, would be for the few who didn't speak the common language; therefore, the interpretation would need to be for the bulk of people who did speak the common language.)
2. The second part of the second sentence may be even more telling depending on how you look at it: "Let him speak to himself and to God." If these tongues were "tongues of men" for the benefit of those who didn't speak the native or main language of the church members (and so the interpretation for the bulk of people who spoke the common language but didn't understand the tongues), why would Paul tell the person speaking them to "speak to himself and to God"? Well, if you recall, Paul says clearly that tongues builds up the person speaking it but not others unless someone interprets. This clearly means that since the speaker doesn't know what he is speaking but is built up, the language he is speaking is not "tongues of men" but "tongues... of angels" or 'spiritual language', building up his spirit and between him and God (this is why people call it 'a heavenly language'). Your spirit can't be built up if you speak "tongues of men", because your spirit understands only two types of language: the one(s) you know how to speak,
and the one it speaks between itself and God. Your spirit cannot be built up when you speak a language that neither you nor it understands.
Going back to the first sentence, how can one person interpret the tongues of two to three people, and to whom would he be interpreting? How does he know how to speak two or three languages besides the one he speaks? There are many questions that come out of the stance that you take; but the stance that the Bible takes has much fewer questions. There are at least two different types of tongues or languages: languages that human beings speak ("tongues of men") and languages that Heavenly beings/God and angels speak ("tongues... of angels" or 'a heavenly language'). The only other two types I'm aware of are the language of the soul (non-verbal communication; the soul is where our discriminator is-- what we like, dislike, etc., and we can communicate this to others without speaking) and demonic languages (which include the strange chanting and conjurations and demonic 'tongues' that witches sometimes use). Some ask, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around <to hear it>, does it make a sound?" Yes. In the same way, truth doesn't need witnesses; but it does us good to believe it is, even without experiencing it.
