I was wondering id you still held to the diglossia interpretation of Acts 2? That's got to be one of the worst interpretations of the passage I have seen and runs contrary to the words on the page, what I have read of history, and the way the earliest Greek-reading interpreters that I am aware of interpreted the passage. I am glad that is not how you explain tongues in I Corinthians.
My interpretation of the Pentecost narrative is too long to post here, but it can be found on the following links:
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-1.176660/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-2.176661/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-3.176662/
https://christianchat.com/blogs/another-understanding-of-“tongues”-at-pentecost-part-4-final.176663/
It entails a bit of reading but gets into the details of this viewpoint.
I do believe that this is the most logical and reasonable interpretation and the one that, given the context and point in history, makes the most sense.
“Tongues” in 1 Corinthians are real, rational languages. Always known by the speaker (their native language), but not always known by the hearers. Again, there is no passage in 1 Cor that cannot be explained in light of real, rational language(s).
Paul does call the manifestations of the Spirit in I Corinthians 12 'charismata' which is related to the word for grace and is translated gift or spiritual gift.
The problem with just seeing these gifts as having a knack or something is... who just has a knack for performing miracles or prophesying.
They can be called a ‘knack’, but it kind of boils down to semantics – if a person has an extreme propensity for a particular thing, be it music, language, healing, prophesying, etc., it certainly can be called a ‘knack’, but more often, such people are said to have a God-given talent, or God given ‘gift’. Moreover, if said ‘gift‘ is used to further the glory of God, then many would call it a spiritual gift, a gift of the Holy Spirit.
I know two languages well enough to just interpret from one to the other. In I Cor. 14:13 one is told to pray that he may interpret.
I’ve kind of gone into this in previous posts - I know I’ve stated it better than this, but this is the only one I could find at the moment…
The text does not necessarily imply that the person speaking is also going to be doing the translation; it just says he should pray that he can translate what he's saying - it doesn't indicate how or by what means the translation is to be done. The assumption is that the person speaking will also be doing the translating, but it could just as well imply that if he's planning on participating at a public meeting by praying aloud, to pray that he is able to secure an adequate translation whether attempting it himself or via a translator.
Further, there is no specific time frame referenced – most people would imply that he is to pray to be able to translate instantaneously, but it could just as well imply that he should pray that (at some point) he’ll also be able to translate (whether he himself learns the local language well enough, or he has someone translate for him).
More to the point though; it’s one thing to speak another language, but another thing entirely to interpret/translate.
If my native language is English and I learn German enough to be able to speak it to get by, it does not necessarily mean I can adequately translate; I may be able to get across the gist of what I’m trying to say, but to express the nuances, particularly with things like prayer, is actually quite a difficult task.
Given then the difficulties faced in translation/interpretation, it is not at all unreasonable for a person in a multi-lingual church situation to ask God for help so that the rest of the church can be edified through their participation. Again, it should also be pointed out that the interpretation is not necessarily confined to the one speaking as referred to in v13 and in v5. Verse 28 indicates others also can interpret, and of course, there’s no specific time frame referenced. There are a number of possible ways to view that passage.
Paul then goes on to indicate, that if the person can’t translate (whether himself or through a translator), he should keep quiet and pray silently to himself.
It should be noted that “interpret” here just means translate. When one translates specifically something spoken, s/he is said to “interpret”; if it’s written, it’s typically referred to as “translating”. If a person is about to engage in a conversation with a speaker of a foreign language, they usually request an “interpreter”, not a “translator”. No other meaning should be construed from this phrase just because it is used in the Bible.
In the early Pentecostal mo ement, according to those who were there, there were people speaking in the tongues of the immigrant communities, which helped draw the crowds. A man from India identified a tomg the missionary AG Garr spoke in as his own. But AG Garr found he could not speak in the tongue of his hoosing and make it the language of the country he was in. Some of the ideas some of the early Pentecostals had about speaking in tongues and evangelism were theological assumptions.
ccassionallt, Pentecostals have spoken in the tongues of those present. There ate mane accounts of Assemblies of God missionaries doing such things. I knew another missionary who had that experience, too. I spoke with someone who heard a grandma in a village in China speaking in tongues, also.
Stories such as this abound in the tongues-speaking community. They are, unfortunately anecdotal at best. Many have achieved the status of “urban legend” (particularly the one about there always seeming to be one Jewish guy in the crowd who recognizes a particular tongue as Hebrew or Aramaic). There is, unfortunately, just no instance of actual documented xenoglossy – anywhere.
