In reading many of these posts, and no disrespect intended, but it just astounds me how much 1 Cor. 14:2 is “reinterpreted” to fit the modern tongues experience.
There just isn’t anything in that passage that even remotely suggests the speaker does not understand what he’s saying.
“For one who speaks in a language, speaks not to men, but to God; no one understands…..”
I mean, one needs to use a bit of common sense here and infer from context. One also needs to keep in mind Paul’s focus throughout on the ‘hearers’ of these languages. The demographic situation in Corinth at that time must also be taken into consideration as it also plays a role in the understanding of these passages.
Historical context seems to be often left out of many interpretations of Biblical texts. In this case, I think that because historical context is rarely given any consideration, one of the main points of the passage is completely missed; for Paul, this appears to be clarity and understanding at a public worship so that all may benefit. This, in a geographic setting where everyday communication presented obstacles.
“No man understands.” Many understand this as a sort of stand-alone phrase, i.e. it’s not referring back to anything. However, to whom it refers back to must be inferred from context, and the only inference one can make is that “no one [at the worship service] understands [what the speaker is saying]”. The ‘no man understands’ refers back to the speaker; hence, the inclusion of the italicized ‘him’ in the KJV.
Why don’t they understand (him – the speaker)? Not because he’s speaking modern tongues-speech, but rather that his native language is one no one else there happens to speak.
Modern tongues-speakers seem to capitalize on the fact that the passage must be given a bit of context and, for them, the only context that can be inferred is that because the speaker spoke in ‘tongues-speech’, no one [including the speaker] understands.
When one takes into account the everyday situation in Corinth with respect to language and communication, and Paul’s call for clarity and understanding, that inference just isn’t there, nor does it make the least bit of sense.
As Robert Zerhusen in one of his many articles points out (I’m paraphrasing here a bit) – “Throughout 1 Cor., Paul’s interest is consistently focused on the effects upon the group (the ‘church’). This, together with the fact that Corinth was a highly multilingual city on two seaports, strongly supports the concept that, when a person is freely worshiping God, he will use his first language, his native language (i.e. the language of the heart, the language of the spirit – the one he is most familiar with), rather than a second language he may be much less familiar with (so that others may benefit as well).”
If such a person were speaking at a public worship, he would, of course, understand what he was saying – it’s his native language. The audience however (the ‘hearers’ of the language), may not understand a word he’s saying, particularly if the person was from a more remote region/country. This is what Paul is focusing on when he states that “no one understands”; no one understands the speaker. No one at that particular worship service speaks his language, thus what he is saying (and understanding every word of it – it’s his own native language) it benefits only him, the speaker.
Even if one were to add in the italicized words and focusing on the audience as Paul does, ‘unknown language’ refers simply to a language which the audience does not know; not the speaker. “No one understands ‘him’”, only serves to clarify that the audience doesn’t understand what the speaker is saying and further strengthens the point that the speaker himself understands exactly what he’s saying. I would even go so far as to say that it could be argued that, that’s why the ‘him’ was included in the KJV; to eliminate any confusion that it’s only the audience who doesn’t understand what’s being said and to reiterate that the “no man understands” refers back to the speaker (who understands what he himself is saying).
Unfortunately, many of these latter italicized additions seem to be somewhat of a fail. I think the added ‘unknown’ in reference to ‘tongues’ (i.e. languages) was actually a poor choice – ‘foreign’ in these instances would have been considerably clearer and would have eliminated any ambiguity, but again in the 1600’s the word “tongue(s)” was understood to be (a) rational language(s).
If one looks at the Greek, we kind of get a slightly different picture – literally “the one indeed speaking with a language, not to men speaks, but to God; no one indeed hears; in spirit however, he utters mysteries.”
Context must be filled in here as well. The interesting thing is that the word ‘hears’ is used in the sense of ‘understand’, or better yet, ‘hear with understanding’.
I don’t think it changes the meaning or inference though – to add the context: if someone is speaking a (foreign) language, he’s really not speaking to men (read, “other people at the worship service”), but to God (who understands all languages); no one understands (or it could be argued – no one is paying attention to him/no one is really listening to him/no one ‘hears’ him with any degree of understanding). Though he may be praying as the spirit leads/inspires him; (as far as the audience/hearers are concerned) he’s uttering ‘mysteries’ (as no one understands his language).
As previously mentioned, one also has to take into consideration the demographic situation in Corinth as well. To postulate modern ‘tongues-speech’ here just doesn’t stand to reason given the context of not only the passage itself, but also the everyday communication situation in Corinth. Modern tongues-speech just isn’t there.
Another issue is the Pentecostal/Charismatic redefinition of “praying in the spirit” – it does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.
While on the subject, there are not several different “types” of ‘tongues’ in the Bible – only one: real, rational language(s). With respect to modern ‘tongues-speech’ – though each speaker will have their own ‘version’, there is also only one underlying type as well: non-cognitive non-language utterance. The two are not at all mutually inclusive. I’m not suggesting that makes modern tongues-speech wrong in any way, it’s a type of ‘spiritual tool’, if you will, and in some instances, a powerful one and many tongues-speakers will attest. It is certainly not unique to Christianity, people have been using glossolalia for thousands of years, but with respect to Christianity, it is a relatively recent addition.
