This has some bits of history in it. But I don't know why any Christian would endorse these views. For example,
Possibly Paul spoke of these mysteries when he wrote that "one who speaks in a tongue…speaks mysteries" (1 Cor 14:2). If this is not an allusion to mystery terminology, it is certainly not a commendation from the apostle.
Paul always uses the term for 'mystery' in a positive sense. He uses it to refer to the mystery of Christ elsewhere. If he doesn't mean it in some deep, spiritual sense, then a few verses later, he argues that if you speak in tongues, you will be a barbarian to other people. (One theory for the origin of 'Barbarian is that they were presented as saying 'bar bar', an imitation of foreigners who spoke a gibberish-sounding foreign language and did not speak Greek.)
The darkness of some commentaries is disturbing. Look at this quote from the article
Rather than speaking immediately against their practice in the meetings, he desired to find a common ground of departure, endeavoring to bring them to his position at the end. This procedure was recognized by Chadwick.
- The entire drift of the argument of 1 Cor. xii—xiv {1 Cor 12—1 Cor 14} is such as to pour a douche of ice-cold water over the whole practice. But Paul could hardly have denied that the gift of tongues was a genuine supernatural charisma without putting a fatal barrier between himself and the Corinthian enthusiasts…. [for] the touchstone of soundness in the eyes of those claiming to be possessed by the Spirit was whether their gift was recognized to be a genuine work of God. To deny this recognition was to prove oneself to be altogether lacking in the Spirit. That Paul was fully aware of this issue appears not only from 1 Cor ii.14—15 {1 Cor 2}, but also from 1 Cor xiv.37—8 {1 Cor 14}, a masterly sentence which has the effect of brilliantly forestalling possible counter-attack at the most dangerous point, and indeed carries the war into the enemy camp. To have refused to recognize the practice as truly supernatural would have been catastrophic. Paul must fully admit that glossolalia is indeed a divine gift; but, he urges, it is the most inferior of all gifts. But Paul does more than admit it. He asserts it: eucaristo to theo, panton humon mallon glossais lalo (xiv 18 {1 Cor 14:18}). No stronger assertion of his belief in the validity of this gift of the Spirit could be made; and in the context it is a master touch which leaves the enthusiasts completely outclassed and outmaneuvered on their own ground.42
This quote reminds me of the fact that Paul said that those people who claimed that he taught 'let us do evil that good may come'...that their damnation was just. Here, this author presents Paul as being dishonest and cowardly, not standing up for truth, and allowing outright pagan activity in the church. I see Paul as bold, on page after page of scripture. Even as an unbeliever, he appears to have been quite bold. Why would he warn Corinthians about idolatry in chapter 10, but be soft on paganism in the church?
And it is really awful nonsense to think that interpretations of pagan tongues are going to build up the church.
Some Bible commentators don't really believe the Bible. They don't think that the apostles taught the truth. They don't look at the teachings of the New Testament as inspired writings from God. They look at them as some kind of historical text, maybe, if that. They don't see the text as profitable for doctrine in the historical sense, the way the text was viewed since the early church. We need to be wary of such commentaries, including blogs and websites.
Basically, if we believed this commentary, we'd have to conclude that Paul was a liar. He said to the man speaking in tongues 'for thou verily giveth thanks well, but the other is not edified.' If Paul thought that this speaking in tongues was some kind of useless gibberish, he'd be lying to say the man gave thanks well. If he thought it was a demon-inspired rant, that would not only be lying, but it would be even more immoral for him to allow such a thing.
If speaking in tongues involved a supernatural speech in a real language, then every such utterance required a direct miracle by God. This would mean, in the case of the Corinthians, that God was working a miracle at the wrong time and wrong place! He was causing that which He was directing the Apostle Paul to curtail.40
This sort of thinking is hard for some people to wrap their minds around, this stewardship of spiritual gifts. But look at Elijah. On Mt. Carmel, he called fire down from heaven. After, that, he did it over and over again. The king sent soldiers to him, he called down fire. He did this until one begged for mercy and the Lord told Elijah not to be afraid. He went to the king.
It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that we are talking about a genuine gift of tongues. The individual has some control over it. He could choose to give thanks well in tongues, but others would not be edified. So he could also choose to pray with the understanding so others could benefit instead.
This link you pointed us to, zone, shows the rational behind those who take this perverse view of the scriptures.
What about you, zone? Do you think I Corinthians 14 is a lie that Paul was writing in a cowardly manner because he did not care to write down truth in scripture, or do you take the chapter as Biblical truth written by a faithful minister of the Gospel?
