So...other than the fact they were teaching God's Word, you're unable to narrow it down? I appreciate the insight. I had thought they were telling stories from Dr.Suess books.
I see 'teach' used of specific types of speech in the New Testament, distinct from prophesying or evangelizing in certain contexts. They could have been praising God. In Acts 10, those in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues and magnified God.
I have a 'word of knowledge' for you: The 120 proclaimed the Word of God that day and "all scripture is profitable...for instruction in righteousness" which is the essence of evangelism.
The scripture is profitable for righteousness. But, again, not every thought that a man has while reading the scriptures is necessarily true or profitable for doctrine. We agree that this passage is profitable. I don't agee that all the things you imagine while reading the passage are all true.
You've slipped into a 'hyper-literal' interpretation method:
When I point out a scripture that doesn't fit with your viewpoint, you accuse me of being 'hyper-literal'. But your interpretation is based on assuming things that are not in the text. We don't know what wondrous deeds of God the disciples were talking about in tongues. Asserting that speaking in tongues was used to preach the Gospel in foreign languages is not supported by scripture. Why does this bit of conjecture on your part weigh more heavily in your mind than the actual words of scripture?
It seems to me that you have a conclusion you want to arrive at, and you create evidence and dismiss evidence as you like to arrive at your pre-determined conclusion.
Absolutely, unequivocally...not a single soul could "understand"? Wait a minute - there are at least two categories of people in 1Cor.14 who understand the "tongues". First of all, the "interpreters" are given the ability to understand.
How do you know how the gift interpretation works? If the interpreter is given the ability to understand what each word and component of the language means, he's being given more than interpretation. After interpreting a tongue a number of times, he'd actually know the language, unless he lost his memories. Interpreting is apparently more than a natural ability, since the speaker in tongues is told to 'pray that he might interpret.' And you can't rule out that interpretation comes like a prophecy, without the interpreter knowing the actual words of what is spoken in tongue. For example, he may not be able to break it down and way 'Eta means with'. But he gets a message that is interpreted. Actually, this is the experience of many who interpret tongues. And sometimes two people get the same interpretation and one of them gives the interpretation before the other one does.
And thus we see the first cracks in this kind of hyper-literalism. A rigid, hyper-literal conclusion which says that absolutely "no one understands"...is a false conclusion.
One whom the Spirit enables to interpret the tongue can understand what it means, however that comes to him, and the congregation can understand if the tongue is interpreted. But all of this is clarified right there in the text. I have never argued that tongues cannot be interpreted, and you can check back over my previous posts to see my references to interpretation of tongues in I Corinthians 14. What we should not do is interject other people who understand the tongue into the text when the text does not mention it. Paul says 'no man understandeth him' and makes it clear that the tongue can be interpreted so the church can be edified. But to interject the idea into the text that the people present do naturally understand is to contradict what Paul says.
The second category of people...are the foreigners in v.21 who are hearing the Gospel miraculously in their own tongue
Those people aren't in the passage. You are contradict Paul where he says 'No man understandeth him.' Besides, in verse 21, the ones you call 'foreigners' are the ones doing the speaking in tongues.
I'll suggest you do something, and I'll do the same. Ask God for His Spirit to give you wisdom when you read the passage, and then really try to understand what the passage is saying. Try to understand instead of trying to find ways to use the passage to argue for a conclusion you already hold to.
and God says "and yet for all that they will not hear me". The phrasing "for all that" indicates God has done something extraordinary and is nevertheless being refused.
Having someone speak a foreign language fits 'for all that.' The short-term fulfillment of the prophecy was that the Assyrians took Israel captive and marched them naked away from their homeland, speaking to them in a foreign language or foreign languages. The Israelites probably heard in Aramaic and Assyrian, "Get back in line. March faster. Bwahahaha." or something like that. The Israelites did not have to understand Aramaic (which was not mutually inteligible with Hebrew) or Assyrian.
Btw, why do you think those who hear speaking in tongues will say 'ye are mad' if they understand what is being said?
The critical error you're making is ignoring the fact that Paul launches into a discussion of "tongues" in 1Cor.14 as though everyone already knows the basic definitions and descriptions of "tongues".
If "tongues" were something other than the ability to preach "the mighty deeds of God" to unbelievers in all the foreign languages...as opposed to what you're understanding from 1Cor. 14 (which is that no one understands anything that is being said)...where and when was that previously explained??
"Tongue" means either the organ in the mouth or a foreign language. Paul is talking about the gift of being able to speak a language. They knew what that meant because they spoke and read Greek. They also had had experience with this since the Holy Spirit had gifted some of them with this gift and other gifts. Paul may also have taught them in person, before. Paul does refer to his in-person teachings in some epistles. We see that he ministered in Corinth for some time. They could have witnessed tongues and interpretation in the ministry of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, also.
"Tongue" does not mean 'to speak of 'the mighty deeds of God' since there are millions of things one might say in a language. Speaking of the mighty deeds of God is one type of thing one might say in a foreign language. I don't believe people talked about their grocery lists while speaking in tongues. My point is that your definition of 'tongues' is not inherent in the meaning of the Greek word.
It is also extremely unlikely the Corinthians had access to fragments of Acts 2. Luke wrote it some time after the events of the last chapter in the book. It is possible they heard an account of what happened in Acts 2, but we do not know.
The gift in I Corinthians 12 is divers tongues. Other people being present to understand is not the gift. Speaking in other languages in the gift. Having people present to understand is something God can sovereignly do, but it is not a part of the gift. In I Corinthians 14, we see speaking in tongues and the gift of interpretation. Interpretation is needed because others present do NOT understand.
You are running from your own doctrines. I can certainly understand that. But your misinterpretation of the passage forces you to conclude that when a person rejects modern-day "tongues"...it is a sign he is an "unbeliever". It is stated even more directly in v. 21...(again, applying your erroneous interp method) where God says those who refuse to accept modern-day pseudo-tongues have thus rejected God.
No, you are just applying poor logic. It reminds me of this type of reasoning:
"If a man eats 2 kilos of meth amphetamine, he will die. George Washington died. So he must have eaten 2 kilos of meth amphetamine." George Washington had a fever and either died of that or the medical treatment he received for the fever (bleeding).
The verse in question is about the unbeliever or unlearned rejecting speaking in tongues and saying 'ye are mad.'
But notice there is another category there besides unbeliever, the unlearned. There is also the one who would be ignorant, mentioned at the end of the chapter.