The tongues that are...

-
There Is No Specific Statement as to When Tongues Will Cease - the Bible does not give any specific statement with respect to the time the gift of tongues will cease to exist. This is crucial. While it does indeed say that the gift of tongues will cease it does not specifically say when this will occur. Therefore, the burden of proof is solely upon those who claim the gift no longer operates in the church. Indeed, they have to establish that the gift ceased after the apostolic era.


The Nature of the Gift Does Not Indicate It Has Ceased - not everyone sees speaking in tongues merely as a sign to unbelieving Israel. In fact, Paul also says tongues can be beneficial to believers.

Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up

Therefore, the gift was not limited as a sign to the nation Israel. It was of benefit to the local congregations.

The Perfect Is Still in the Future
Tongues will indeed “cease of themselves,” but only when the “perfect” has come. “Perfect,” most likely, refers to the perfect age when Jesus Christ returns. John wrote.


The perfect seems to be a reference to the Second Coming of Christ, not the completed canon. Thus, the idea that Paul had in his mind a completed Scripture when referring to “perfect” is highly unlikely.

In fact, many of those who reject the sign gifts as still existing realize that this argument does not carry much weight.

Paul’s Illustrations Show That All the Gifts Are Still Necessary
The illustrations that the Apostle Paul used in 1 Corinthians 13 also demonstrates the need for all the gifts until Jesus Christ returns. He explained it this way to the Corinthians.


In the first illustration, he speaks of the difference between childhood and maturity. The church, the body of Christ, will not reach maturity until Jesus Christ returns.


The practice of spiritual gifts is one of the ways in which the church is brought to this maturity. When the church has reached this point, then the gifts will be of no further use. Until that time the gifts are necessary.

He also used the illustration of a mirror.

Today we see only vague or imperfectly. It is only when we see Jesus Christ face to face that we will fully know all things. Again, there is the need for spiritual gifts until this state is attained.

It Is When Christ Returns That the Gift Will Cease
Paul’s reference to the cessation of prophecies, knowledge, and miracles is not meant to indicate the temporary nature of these gifts during the early period of the church age.

There will be no need for them only when Jesus Christ returns to the earth. Before He comes back, the gifts are absolutely necessary.

It must be mentioned that whatever the correct answer is to this question, nowhere in the New Testament do we find a statement that the gift of tongues was only temporary. To the contrary Paul told the Corinthians not to forbid people to speak in tongues. If the gift was only temporary then why don’t we find a direct statement in the Bible that says this? This omission has to be explained by those who argue that the gift of tongues has ceased.

Was this your response to my question?

The tongues that are
What I've found is that Christians don't speak in the same way as ordinary people.
It's amazing. It's as Christians have a specific way of speaking.This way is not because of different languages.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles – it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description”.

It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same – would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech.

“Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that. In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred/sacerdotal language of Judaism, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole.

1 Cor 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Or in a more modern English: “He who speaks in a language builds himself up.”

Yes, because he’s the only one who understands what he’s saying – no one else speaks his language; thus, he’s the only person benefiting.

1 Cor 15:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, -
and all the other verses where Paul would like others to ‘speak in tongues’, including himself with respect to doing it more than others….

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles – it stands to reason he would use his knowledge of foreign languages more than the average person to spread the Gospel, and thanked God for giving him the ability to do so. A frequent use of foreign languages was sort of part of his “job description”.

It also stands to reason that he wished others were able to do the same – would make his job a lot easier and the message could be better spread to all corners of the known world. Paul is not speaking about, nor is he advocating here for, modern tongues-speech.

Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with knowing foreign languages, and it's not for evangelizing.

With respect to Peter and Cornelius, we have to put this into a bit of quick historical perspective from what we know about Roman soldiers. Given that Cornelius commanded a unit known as the “Italian Regiment”, one may surmise that he was from Italy (Latin, “Italia”) and that his native language was likely Latin. He was in Caesarea with his “household”. A Roman soldier’s ‘household’ would have included not only relatives, but a retinue of fellow soldiers and slaves as well.

Let’s examine this for a moment as it plays an important role with respect to ‘tongues’.

His relatives, like Cornelius, would have presumably spoken Latin. Fellow soldiers also spoke Latin, but as Roman soldiers it’s important to note that they could have come from just about anywhere in the Empire. Likewise, and especially, his slaves.

In short, though his fellow soldiers spoke Latin, it may not at all have been their native language(s). His slaves almost certainly not – though they spoke and understood Latin, it’s very unlikely that they would have been native Latin speakers. Like the soldiers, their native language(s) could have come from anywhere in the Roman Empire.

So, in Cornelius’ household, we essentially have several people who comprised a multi-lingual group. We must also surmise that most of this company also spoke Greek in varying degrees. The passage is silent as to what language Peter and his group, and Cornelius and his group, conversed in; but, as was the practice in the day when speakers of two different languages tried to communicate with each other, the common language of choice was Greek (just as it would be English in today’s world).

Indeed, since the narrative reported no communication difficulty, I think it safe to assume that the common language in this scenario would have been Greek. Peter may have known a few words and phrases in Latin (from the Roman occupation of his homeland), but it’s very unlikely he spoke it with any degree of fluency. Also unlikely is that Cornelius spoke Aramaic with any degree of fluency.

From the narrative, we know that the incident is reported from the perspective of Peter and his group. “They (Peter and his company) heard them speaking in languages (“tongues”) and praising God”.

From this, we can deduce two types of speech here: (1) speech that Peter and his group understood, and (2) speech they did not understand.

Considering Peter and his company report in the narrative that they knew that some of what was said were praises to God, it must have been said in a language they knew (likely Greek, but possibly some recognized Latin). Some of what was said however, they did not understand because it was foreign to them. Peter and his company did not speak, nor apparently recognize, those languages.

The likely scenario was that Peter and his company entered Cornelius’s house and Peter addressed the gathered group, telling them about Jesus, his life, resurrection, etc. Cornelius and his company responded to what they heard as a reaffirmation of what they already believed. Reacting joyously, some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue; languages Peter and his company did not know or speak or turned to their companions and discussed these tremendous things with them (again in languages unknown to Peter and his companions). Considering the soldiers, and especially the slaves, could have come from anywhere in the Empire – any number of languages are possible here.

So, no modern tongues-speech here, just plain old real languages. Languages Peter and his friends apparently did not know or recognize. Cornelius and his company were among the non-Jews; thus, any native language(s) they spoke, including Latin itself, would have been considered a “tongue” (read “language”).

When a bi-lingual or multi-lingual speaker utters something suddenly/spur of the moment in an emotional outburst (not to be taken with any negative connotations), the speaker will always revert to their native language. That’s just a known fact. These people here were in the same situation and reverted to languages Peter and his company did not speak. Hence, as far as Peter and his company were concerned, they began “speaking in tongues (read “languages”)”.

With respect to “tongues”, I don’t see this narrative as being anything but a real rational language situation.

The reference to the situation being just as it was on Pentecost is a reference to the manner in which they were speaking (i.e. declaring the mighty works of God in a _bold and authoritative manner_, just as the apostles did on Pentecost – it has nothing to do with what language they were speaking, but rather the _manner_ in which they were speaking, that was the same as on Pentecost.

See my original post -

‘Tongues’ (read, *‘languages’* ) – the divine gift, is the God given ability effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers. It is not xenoglossy, nor is it modern tongues-speech.

No, that is not what the gift of tongues is.

Agree with your posts, except I see that Paul is addressing real languages that were being spoken not a divine gift.

The various languages (Corinth being a port city) and that people speaking out was hampering the fellowship and worship of God.

I've researched you.
You can never offer anything I would accept as truth.

The Holy Spirit inspired Luke, who wrote this and was witness and more versed in many languages than Paul.

Like I said, I researched you.

Don't ever quote me again.

Research his post history. He only participates in Tongues related topics.

Just Rebuke him and move on. He's getting his just reward soon enough.

Hahahaha LEARN TO SPEAK?

The Holy Spirit gives Utterance. You don't learn something you don't control and do until the Holy Spirit chooses to initiate.

You are a joke!!

Yes and no.

Yes, "tongues" as practiced today aren't real languages. This sort of thing isn't even taught in the New Testament.

No, the divine gift isn't simply, as you say, "the God given ability effortlessly learn to speak and be understood through real-language barriers."

You're out in left field and are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of God's word.

Where exactly do you find that?

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” – usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is not, however, the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering.

This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up – “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference).

It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language.

In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken.

How would you define it? It defininetely is not modern tongues-speech, nor is it xenoglossy.

OK - but the point is, what is being described in the narrative is nothing more than real, rational language; not modern tongues-speech.

I instructed you to not quote me your ignorance is astounding.

This is a discussion forum; by its very nature the expectation and assumption is that any poster may be quoted in a reply – that’s part and parcel of a discussion forum. If you do not wish to be quoted; refrain from posting on a given thread.