Benefits of Speaking, Praying, and Singing in Tongues

[garee]

How do you know it is angelic language?

Have you ever heard an angel speak this language?

They have no language of thier own self.They speak as the Holy Spirit moves them.

Angelic language equals messengers of God used to bring prophecy in order to give a faith coming from God not seen . He does not give us words without understanding. How could two walk together in understanding?

Seeking after signs as wonders rather than prophecy is a sign to those who believe not the words of prophecy. Man makes the sounds, God interprets the meaning. Peter spoke moved the the Spirit of Christ He gave the many different nations who were there simultaneously His understanding .They believed God... not words that go peep or mutter.

1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

 

[UnderGrace]

God wants us to understand so I agree He does not give us words without understanding.

They have no language of thier own self.They speak as the Holy Spirit moves them.

Angelic language equals messengers of God used to bring prophecy in order to give a faith coming from God not seen . He does not give us words without understanding. How could two walk together in understanding?

Seeking after signs as wonders rather than prophecy is a sign to those who believe not the words of prophecy. Man makes the sounds, God interprets the meaning. Peter spoke moved the the Spirit of Christ He gave the many different nations who were there simultaneously His understanding .They believed God... not words that go peep or mutter.

1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

Some comments – again in no particular order.

1.Cor. 13:1 – The one and only place in the Bible where “tongues of angels” is mentioned – that passage has been analyzed every which way you can think of and then some – it’s pure hyperbole no matter how you slice and dice it. This is perhaps a bit more evident when looking at the Greek grammar of the phrase.

As I mentioned in a previous post – traditional Jewish belief was that angels spoke one language only, and a real one at that: Hebrew.

I don't know what language an angel speaks and since scripture does not specify - I do not wish to speculate. Hyperbole is an "exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis". So the exaggeration is that "if I speak with the tongues [language] of men or the tongues [language] of angels" emphasis and exaggeration being "language of angels"?

I have become as a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal if I speak with the tongues [language] of men and the tongues [language] of angels without love. emphasis being if I do these things "but have not love" - carrying through to v2 - if I prophecy and have all knowledge and so much trust that I can move mountains - "but have not love" - I am nothing - v3 - give all to the needs of others "but have not love" - profits me nothing . . . seems to me the emphasis is on "love".

9 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Throughout this part of his letter, Paul is calling for clarity and intelligibility at a public worship; “in the church" is a direct reference to his point: In the church speak so that all may understand, whether your speaking yourself or via an interpreter. To speak in a foreign language no one at that particular meeting understands (weather one word or ten thousand), benefits only the person speaking and just adds to the general confusion. Outside of the church, do whatever you will. Corinth is Corinth – walk down the street and within an hour, you’ll hear at least ten different tongues/languages, but in church, if you’re going to speak aloud, make sure you have a means for everyone to understand.

Yes - Throughout this letter Paul is correcting the church at Corinth - They were all coming together with a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation - all at one time - total chaos. And yes, tongues is a language - a language given by the Spirit to the new creation in a believer.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue . . . . I would that you all spake with tongues but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, EXCEPT [UNLESS] he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. . . .

If Paul knew the language he was speaking when he spoke and prayed in tongues how/why was his mind "unfruitful"? (1 Cor. 14:14) Nothing said about "reading languages".

If you understand the language that you are speaking you are not speaking in tongues regardless if there is someone there who speaks that language or not. Speaking in tongues is not speaking a "mystery" to other men but it is speaking "mysteries (secrets)" to God in a language that you don't know and have never learned.

“read languages” just means that where you see “tongue”, the word should be read a understood as “language”.

1 Corinthians 14:14 is probably the main text used to argue that the language speaker did not understand his language. To paraphrase from an article on this: Paul says that if he should speak in a language (without translation), "my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful [akarpos]." Some takes akarpos as passive: "my nous or understanding" is inactive and thus akarpos--"barren," "unfruitful," producing no distinct thoughts".

Paul however could also be using akarpos in the active sense:

A decision upon its meaning centers in akarpos ("unfruitful") whether the adjective is passive in sense, meaning the speaker himself receives no benefit, or active in sense, meaning his nous (understanding) provides no benefit to others...The view that assigns akarpos a meaning of "produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process"... is not convincing, because akarpos does not mean "inactive." It is a word for results and does not apply to the process through which the results are obtained. The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners. The whole context of 1 Corinthians 14 is the effect upon the hearers of untranslated languages. Paul’s concern is the edification of the group.

"The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners." Well . . . Paul does continue to say - What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, [For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful] and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Apparently - one is done without understanding and one is done with understanding.

Therefore, 14:14 should be taken as "My spirit prays but my mind does not produce fruit [in others]." This says nothing about whether or not the speaker understood his own utterance.

Another way of looking at it is: my spirit prays (and I understand what I’m saying), but my understanding (the fact that I understand what I’m saying) does not produce fruit (in others – an active use of ‘akarpos’), i.e. that fact I understand what I’m saying doesn’t benefit anyone else as no one here speaks my language.

In fact, you’re not going to find anywhere in the Bible where it specifically indicates that the speaker either does or does not understand what he is saying. It is simply never definitively stated. It has to be inferred from context. If you adhere to T-speech, then the speaker does not understand what he’s saying. With real languages, he does as it's his native tongue (sic!).

Why didn't Paul just say then - if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but "the church's" understanding is unfruitful. . . but he did not say that - he said "MY" understanding is unfruitful so he will pray in the spirit and he will also pray with his understanding. . . . that is what is being said. You can look at it anyway you want but it's best to read it as written.

As sort of a quick aside, something to note is that when Paul describes different “kinds of tongues”, the word he uses for ‘kinds’ actually denotes ‘families’ (‘genos’), i.e. in this case, “language families” (e.g. Semitic as opposed to Italic, as opposed to Celtic, etc.) – there is no way to interpret that phrase as anything but referring to real languages. Why would there ever be a need for language families (or indeed, even the need for more than one language) in supposed ‘angelic/heavenly’ languages? Kinds of tongues = families of (real) languages.

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if i know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a bararian, and he that speaks a barbarian unto me. Even so forasmuch as you are zealous of spiritual matters seek that you may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

That is not true. Tongues are languages. The person speaking in tongues does not know what language he is speaking, or what he is saying. This is why tongues, when spoken in public, must be interpreted.

This is a bit difficult to respond to as I’m still a bit unclear as to your definition of ‘tongues’ – “languages of men” seems to not fit the bill here as they would be real languages and immediately identifiable as such. In this respect, what you’d be describing would be more xenoglossy (a/k/a xenoglossia). There are, however, no known provable cases of this phenomenon.

With respect to languages of angels, there does not seem to be such a thing. Angels in traditional Jewish belief speak Hebrew, not some angelic/heavenly language.

Modern tongues are simply not language – I thought I posted something on this, but perhaps not – I’ll post it later.

When Paul said "I speak with tongues more than ye all" he was talking about speaking in tongues, and not about speaking languages he knew.

I have to respectfully disagree with that, I believe Paul was simply referring to the various languages he had acquired in his travels.

You did post something concerning t-language or some such stuff totally having nothing to do with a believer manifesting the gift of holy spirit. Tongues are known languages to someone somewhere but not known to the person speaking - it is a language given by the Spirit through the gift of holy spirit within a believer - the same gift of holy spirit given on the day of Pentecost.

Up until the day of Pentecost Peter, John and the disciples . . . "when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews" . . . . then they waited in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father . . . they were baptized (fully immersed) in holy spirit, filled with holy spirit, anointed (completely covered) in holy spirit and filled with power from on high . . . Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. . . . these unlearned and ignorant men; fishermen, carpenters; blue collar workers - spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost - languages that they did not know nor had learned - language given to them by the Spirit via the gift of holy spirit. All that was received on the day of Pentecost is for each born again believer - the power via the gift of holy spirit to become more like Christ.

And I have to respectfully disagree with your understanding of 1 Cor. 12-14.

 

[Billyd]

Acts 2:
4) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 10:
46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

Acts 19:
6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

What exactly was said, and what exactly was heard?

 

[shrume]

God wants us to understand so I agree He does not give us words without understanding.

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

14) For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

 

[UnderGrace]

peacefulbeliever,

I am reading what you written however I am a little unclear, do you believe that tongues can be the language of angels presently in today's church?

I don't know what language an angel speaks and since scripture does not specify - I do not wish to speculate. Hyperbole is an "exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis". So the exaggeration is that "if I speak with the tongues [language] of men or the tongues [language] of angels" emphasis and exaggeration being "language of angels"?

I have become as a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal if I speak with the tongues [language] of men and the tongues [language] of angels without love. emphasis being if I do these things "but have not love" - carrying through to v2 - if I prophecy and have all knowledge and so much trust that I can move mountains - "but have not love" - I am nothing - v3 - give all to the needs of others "but have not love" - profits me nothing . . . seems to me the emphasis is on "love".

Yes - Throughout this letter Paul is correcting the church at Corinth - They were all coming together with a psalm, a doctrine, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation - all at one time - total chaos. And yes, tongues is a language - a language given by the Spirit to the new creation in a believer.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue . . . . I would that you all spake with tongues but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, EXCEPT [UNLESS] he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. . . .

"The present discussion does not center on the activity or nonactivity of the tongues speaker's mind, but rather on potential benefit derived by listeners." Well . . . Paul does continue to say - What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, [For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful] and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Apparently - one is done without understanding and one is done with understanding.

Why didn't Paul just say then - if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but "the church's" understanding is unfruitful. . . but he did not say that - he said "MY" understanding is unfruitful so he will pray in the spirit and he will also pray with his understanding. . . . that is what is being said. You can look at it anyway you want but it's best to read it as written.

There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if i know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaks a bararian, and he that speaks a barbarian unto me. Even so forasmuch as you are zealous of spiritual matters seek that you may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

You did post something concerning t-language or some such stuff totally having nothing to do with a believer manifesting the gift of holy spirit. Tongues are known languages to someone somewhere but not known to the person speaking - it is a language given by the Spirit through the gift of holy spirit within a believer - the same gift of holy spirit given on the day of Pentecost.

Up until the day of Pentecost Peter, John and the disciples . . . "when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews" . . . . then they waited in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father . . . they were baptized (fully immersed) in holy spirit, filled with holy spirit, anointed (completely covered) in holy spirit and filled with power from on high . . . Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. . . . these unlearned and ignorant men; fishermen, carpenters; blue collar workers - spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost - languages that they did not know nor had learned - language given to them by the Spirit via the gift of holy spirit. All that was received on the day of Pentecost is for each born again believer - the power via the gift of holy spirit to become more like Christ.

And I have to respectfully disagree with your understanding of 1 Cor. 12-14.

 

[shrume]

What exactly was said, and what exactly was heard?

We know that in Acts 2, the apostles were "speaking the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11).

In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family were "magnifying God" (Acts 10:46).

The Bible does not specifically say what the people in Acts 19 said, but we know from other scripture that speaking in tongues is "speaking the wonderful works of God", "magnifying God", speaking "divine secrets (mysteries (1 Cor 14:2), and more.

 

[stonesoffire]

God wants us to understand so I agree He does not give us words without understanding.

But, is this unbelief UG? Didn't we just discuss that obedience is to believe what is written?

1Co 14:14　 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays but my mind is not productive.　


1Co 14:15　 What does this mean? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing psalms with my spirit, but I will also sing psalms with my mind.　

We ask for the understanding and He gives it. Its a growing thing with experience.

But, we do believe what He says. Otherwise, ...we just aren't.

 

[UnderGrace]

You are so cute stonesoffire.

I absolutely believe what is written and it is not praying with the language of angels.
I will come back to the scriptures you have posted but I have to go now...

But, is this unbelief UG? Didn't we just discuss that obedience is to believe what is written?

1Co 14:14　 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays but my mind is not productive.　


1Co 14:15　 What does this mean? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing psalms with my spirit, but I will also sing psalms with my mind.　

We ask for the understanding and He gives it. Its a growing thing with experience.

But, we do believe what He says. Otherwise, ...we just aren't.

 

[Billyd]

We know that in Acts 2, the apostles were "speaking the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11).

In Acts 10, Cornelius and his family were "magnifying God" (Acts 10:46).

The Bible does not specifically say what the people in Acts 19 said, but we know from other scripture that speaking in tongues is "speaking the wonderful works of God", "magnifying God", speaking "divine secrets (mysteries (1 Cor 14:2), and more.

Acts 2 is the only place where we actually see speaking in tongues illustrated. We know what was said, what was heard, and how it was heard. This is how God is magnified when we speak it tongues. The message is clear to both the speaker and the listener. Apply this to the remainder of the tongues spoken in the NT, and everything is clear.

I do not believe that God, using his word, is the author of confusion.

 

[shrume]

Acts 2 is the only place where we actually see speaking in tongues illustrated.

Also in Acts 10, where Cornelius and his family were "magnifying God".

We know what was said, what was heard, and how it was heard.

In none of the records do we know what was said. Both "speaking the wonderful works of God" and "magnifying God" are quite vague and the specifics of what they said we do not know.

This is how God is magnified when we speak it tongues.

Speaking in tongues is magnifying God.

The message is clear to both the speaker and the listener.

When a person speaks in tongues he does not know what he is saying (1 Cor 14:2 and 14:14). Since the vast majority of the time people meet with others who know the same language, those who hear someone speaking in tongues will not understand what is being said either, which is why when tongues is spoken in public, it must be interpreted.

Apply this to the remainder of the tongues spoken in the NT, and everything is clear.

What is clear is that when a person speaks in tongues in public, it must be interpreted so the church can be edified.

I do not believe that God, using his word, is the author of confusion.

That's right.

 

[Kavik]

exaggeration being "language of angels"?

Correct – that’s the hyperbolic part. That whole section of the letter is filled with hyperboles.

Second part of that, yes, the emphasis definitely is on ‘love’.

Tongues is a language – Tongues are known languages to someone somewhere but not known to the person speaking

How can tongues be a known language to someone somewhere?? If that were the case (tongues are known languages….), each tongue could be easily identified as such and such a language. That is definitely not the case – anywhere.

Apparently - one is done without understanding and one is done with understanding.

Not sure I follow – whether he is singing or praying, he understands what’s coming out of his mouth. This second part about the singing may in fact strengthen the argument that “unfruitful” refers to others, in the sense of my understand is unfruitful (i.e. to others, not one’s self).

I agree – that certainly would have been the more obvious way to state it, but I might argue that, assuming the phrase was written down in idiomatic Greek, it’s quite possible, to one reading it, that meaning (i.e. ‘others’ was meant, not ‘self’) was obvious and didn’t require further clarification.

these unlearned and ignorant men; fishermen, carpenters; blue collar workers - spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost - languages that they did not know nor had learned -

There were Jews from two different places gathered there at Shavuot; one could classify them as “locals”, i.e. people from Jerusalem and the environs as well as Jews from other places in Judea (let’s call this ‘Group 1’), and Jews of the Diaspora – the Diasporan Jews could be subdivided into two groups: those from the Western Diaspora (Let’s call these guys ‘Group 2’) and those of the Eastern Diaspora (let’s say ‘Group 3’).

Jews from Group 1 would have spoken Aramaic as their mother tongue. Some of these (especially if they lived in a large city, such as Jerusalem) may have grown up with Greek as their mother tongue.

Jews from Group 2, though they were from different lands and countries, would have all spoken Greek as their mother tongue. This area of the world had been heavily Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long replaced any indigenous language(s).

So far we have a good percentage of the total population of Jews present, but only two languages: Greek and Aramaic.

Jews from Group 3 seem at first to be a bit more problematic – they lived in places where people did speak indigenous languages. They were however, first and foremost, Jews. As a minority ethnic, and more importantly, religious group in a foreign country, as with most ethnic groups even today, they wished to preserve their distinct Jewish identity. One main way ethnic groups do this is to retain their language as part of their cultural identity. Though they may have certainly learned the language(s) spoken where they lived, these were never their mother tongues. Jews in these places, from what little accounts still exist, retained Aramaic as their mother tongue. This is one of the things that gave them their identity as a Jewish people and connected them to their past. The mother tongue of Group 3 was Aramaic.

So, again, Jews from “all over the world”, actually the list further down in Acts tells us exactly where they were from – it’s a list of the lands of the Diaspora, not a list of languages. It says nothing about any linguistic diversity, but speaks volumes in indicating that the first apostolic mission was predominately to the Jewish nation as a whole, diaspora included.
We have quite a few people in Jerusalem for Shavuot, but still only two languages; Greek and Aramaic – the apostles, being Hellenized Jews, would have spoken both.

People were bewildered, amazed, perplexed. Some even accused them of being drunk – Why? It’s because in this situation, the people would have expected Hebrew to have been used as the language of teaching, instructing, prophesying. Jewish custom dictated that in situations such as this, Hebrew was the socially and religiously correct language to use, not “inferior” languages like Aramaic and Greek- what the apostles were doing was totally unexpected and rather shocking to most people; it went against Jewish custom and tradition of the time; it was something you just didn’t do (in a public setting anyways).

So where does that leave the ‘tongues’ of Acts? There’s no language miracle happening; it’s not a miracle of speaking, nor is it one of hearing. The miracle was perhaps one of strength to go out and teach/preach to the people despite being in fear of one’s life (they were, as we read, “in fear of the Jews”) and to do it using common everyday language as opposed to some culturally correct standard (Hebrew) which no longer adequately functioned for this purpose.

Admittedly, a rather radical way to look at Acts perhaps, but I believe it’s a more accurate representation of what occurred.

 

[notuptome]

I don't understand why. Tongues are languages. I believe it.

But do you practice it?

I believe the Bible.

How can you be certain if you don't know what it is?

Where do you get that idea? It could be a language of men that is no longer known, or it could be a language of angels. Where does the Bible say we should know or determine the language we are speaking?

We could engage in endless speculation but what does the bible teach? Never are we given an example of angelic tongues and the one instance where we have more than just the sign value of tongues it is at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit spoke to everyone present in their languages. Does that happen today?

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

What exactly is Paul admonishing?

I believe it is a statement of fact.

How convenient. You miss the instruction by a mile.

That's not true. Tongues with interpretation is for the edification of the church(1 Cor 14:5). When a Christian speaks in tongues privately, it edifies him (1 Cor 14:4).

There is no instruction to speak tongues privately. Not one example given in scripture the whole concept is foreign to the teachings of Christ. Jesus came to openly declare the kingdom of God not create drama and mystery.

Tongues can be a sign for those who believe not. It's primary purpose is to edify the believer (1 Cor 14:4), and when interpreted, it edifies the church (1 Cor 14:5).

When a person speaks in tongues, he is edifying himself (1 Cor 14:4), he is speaking divine secrets to God (1 Cor 14:2), he is speaking the wonderful works of God and magnifying God (Acts 2:11; 10:46), and he is giving thanks well (1 Cor 14:17). God wants us to do it (1 Cor 14:5; Eph 6:18; Jude 1:10).

When a person speaks in tongues and interprets in the church, the church is edified (1 Cor 14:5).

Are there any divine mysteries that God needs revealed to Him? If you don't know them then they are of no profit to you.

Our commission it to tell others of how Christ has saved us and that He will save them as well if they confess their sin and receive Him as Savior.

You have been enticed by mysticism and wandered from the path that leads into righteousness.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[RickyZ]

You have been enticed by mysticism and wandered from the path that leads into righteousness.

Roger

See now, that makes my 'you don't believe in the whole word of God' comment not so bad.

How 'bout we both leave out the personal taunts?

 

[stonesoffire]

Apparently - one is done without understanding and one is done with understanding.

This is intellect. We pray with our intellect. It can be prophetically, like the gift of interpretation, or it can be that we pray in the Spirit, and then pray in our natural language.

It's not easy to understand the spiritual with the natural mind. Am sorry, not trying to be rude but is truth. The natural mind is all about contact with this world by what we see, hear, smell, touch, taste. The Spiritual is of our Spirit man/woman. That is which is within us..our inner man infused with Holy Spirit. And He is all about bringing the kingdom of heaven to our soul, and our mind. What we've been given "saving" our soul, and renewing our mind.

All these things are giftings He gives us. And we need them all.

 

[shrume]

But do you practice it?

Yes, I do practice speaking in tongues. You, apparently, don't.

How can you be certain if you don't know what it is?

I know that speaking in tongues is a language of men or of angels.

We could engage in endless speculation but what does the bible teach?

The Bible teaches that God would like all Christians to speak in tongues. That when people speak in tongues they are speaking a language of men or of angels, that people do not understand what they are saying, that speaking in tongues is magnifying God, giving thanks well, and more.

Never are we given an example of angelic tongues

Please see 1 Cor 13:1.

and the one instance where we have more than just the sign value of tongues it is at Pentecost and the Holy Spirit spoke to everyone present in their languages. Does that happen today?

The apostles spoke in tongues, and the languages they spoke were understood by those present. That does not generally happen today, but occasionally it does. And the fact that it does not generally happen today is the reason God tells us that when a person speaks in tongues he must interpret.

How convenient. You miss the instruction by a mile.

Accusation is one thing. Why don't you try explaining how I missed it?

There is no instruction to speak tongues privately.

1 Cor 14:
28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Not one example given in scripture the whole concept is foreign to the teachings of Christ.

There is an example above, and the Christian new birth was not available until the day of Pentecost. It was part of God's secret (KJV mystery) (Eph 3:2ff). The details were given to the apostle Paul by revelation, and he wrote them down as scripture.

Jesus came to openly declare the kingdom of God not create drama and mystery.

Agreed!

Are there any divine mysteries that God needs revealed to Him?

No, God knows everything.

If you don't know them then they are of no profit to you.

I take the scriptures for what they say:

1 Cor 14:
2) For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries [musterion, divine secrets].
4) He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Our commission it to tell others of how Christ has saved us and that He will save them as well if they confess their sin and receive Him as Savior.

Agreed.

Rom 10:
9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You have been enticed by mysticism and wandered from the path that leads into righteousness.

Speaking in tongues is not mysticism, it is something God wants us to do. The gift of the Holy Spirit residing in us is not mysticism, it is the power of God. The other manifestations of the gift of the Holy Spirit are not mysticism, they are the power that God wants us to use to benefit the body of Christ.

The path that leads to righteousness is to learn the gospel, believe on Jesus Christ, and follow Him.

Roger, if you choose not to learn about the manifestations, that's on you. But you are ignorant in judging people who do.

 

[shrume]

I wish there was more editing time on this forum...

This sentence:

And the fact that it does not generally happen today is the reason God tells us that when a person speaks in tongues he must interpret.

should read thusly:

And the fact that it does not generally happen today is the reason God tells us that when a person speaks in tongues in public he must interpret.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

peacefulbeliever,

I am reading what you written however I am a little unclear, do you believe that tongues can be the language of angels presently in today's church?

I believe I said: I don't know what language an angel speaks and since scripture does not specify - I do not wish to speculate. I said this because Kavik said angels spoke Hebrew . . .

Some insist that 13:1 is an hyperbole. An hyperbole means "over-casting"; the exaggeration of ideas for the sake of emphasis - I honestly do not see that in this verse. The whole of chapter 13 is the characterization of love and doing things out of love whatever it is we are doing . . .

I believe what is written: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity [love], I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. . . . Paul by revelation says - if I speak with tongues of men and of angels . . . then tongues of angels can be spoken.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

exaggeration being "language of angels"?

Correct – that’s the hyperbolic part. That whole section of the letter is filled with hyperboles. Second part of that, yes, the emphasis definitely is on ‘love’.

So God used an hyperbole here to exaggerate what exactly? Could it be: it doesn't matter what language I speak as long as I speak with love? Not negating the fact that Paul did speak in the tongues or men and of angels . . . . We have to remember that this language Paul is speaking about is the language given by God to his spirit and he is speaking it forth - we must never loose sight of this fact being the context of 1 Cor. 12-14 . . . the manifestation of the Spirit and the correct use in the church - speaking in tongues, interpretation and prophecy.

Tongues is a language – Tongues are known languages to someone somewhere but not known to the person speaking

How can tongues be a known language to someone somewhere?? If that were the case (tongues are known languages….), each tongue could be easily identified as such and such a language. That is definitely not the case – anywhere.

I have to assume here that you know every language that has ever been spoken? tongues of men - wouldn't those be known languages? . . . On the day of Pentecost didn't people recognize their own language? . . . Did the apostles know those languages before they spoke?

Apparently - one is done without understanding and one is done with understanding.

Not sure I follow – whether he is singing or praying, he understands what’s coming out of his mouth. This second part about the singing may in fact strengthen the argument that “unfruitful” refers to others, in the sense of my understand is unfruitful (i.e. to others, not one’s self).
I agree – that certainly would have been the more obvious way to state it, but I might argue that, assuming the phrase was written down in idiomatic Greek, it’s quite possible, to one reading it, that meaning (i.e. ‘others’ was meant, not ‘self’) was obvious and didn’t require further clarification.

HE SAYS - For if I pray in a tongue, MY SPIRIT PRAYS, but MY UNDERSTANDING is unfruitful. . . and then goes into how he will pray in the spirit and also with understanding . . . There is nothing difficult in these verses to understand or to not take literally.

these unlearned and ignorant men; fishermen, carpenters; blue collar workers - spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost - languages that they did not know nor had learned -

There were Jews from two different places gathered there at Shavuot; one could classify them as “locals”, i.e. people from Jerusalem and the environs as well as Jews from other places in Judea (let’s call this ‘Group 1’), and Jews of the Diaspora – the Diasporan Jews could be subdivided into two groups: those from the Western Diaspora (Let’s call these guys ‘Group 2’) and those of the Eastern Diaspora (let’s say ‘Group 3’).

Jews from Group 1 would have spoken Aramaic as their mother tongue. Some of these (especially if they lived in a large city, such as Jerusalem) may have grown up with Greek as their mother tongue.

Jews from Group 2, though they were from different lands and countries, would have all spoken Greek as their mother tongue. This area of the world had been heavily Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long replaced any indigenous language(s).

So far we have a good percentage of the total population of Jews present, but only two languages: Greek and Aramaic.

Jews from Group 3 seem at first to be a bit more problematic – they lived in places where people did speak indigenous languages. They were however, first and foremost, Jews. As a minority ethnic, and more importantly, religious group in a foreign country, as with most ethnic groups even today, they wished to preserve their distinct Jewish identity. One main way ethnic groups do this is to retain their language as part of their cultural identity. Though they may have certainly learned the language(s) spoken where they lived, these were never their mother tongues. Jews in these places, from what little accounts still exist, retained Aramaic as their mother tongue. This is one of the things that gave them their identity as a Jewish people and connected them to their past. The mother tongue of Group 3 was Aramaic.

So, again, Jews from “all over the world”, actually the list further down in Acts tells us exactly where they were from – it’s a list of the lands of the Diaspora, not a list of languages. It says nothing about any linguistic diversity, but speaks volumes in indicating that the first apostolic mission was predominately to the Jewish nation as a whole, diaspora included.
We have quite a few people in Jerusalem for Shavuot, but still only two languages; Greek and Aramaic – the apostles, being Hellenized Jews, would have spoken both.

People were bewildered, amazed, perplexed. Some even accused them of being drunk – Why? It’s because in this situation, the people would have expected Hebrew to have been used as the language of teaching, instructing, prophesying. Jewish custom dictated that in situations such as this, Hebrew was the socially and religiously correct language to use, not “inferior” languages like Aramaic and Greek- what the apostles were doing was totally unexpected and rather shocking to most people; it went against Jewish custom and tradition of the time; it was something you just didn’t do (in a public setting anyways).

So where does that leave the ‘tongues’ of Acts? There’s no language miracle happening; it’s not a miracle of speaking, nor is it one of hearing. The miracle was perhaps one of strength to go out and teach/preach to the people despite being in fear of one’s life (they were, as we read, “in fear of the Jews”) and to do it using common everyday language as opposed to some culturally correct standard (Hebrew) which no longer adequately functioned for this purpose.

Admittedly, a rather radical way to look at Acts perhaps, but I believe it’s a more accurate representation of what occurred.

You can explain away this miraculous outpouring of the gift of holy spirit in any number of ways you wish . . . but this is what scripture says - they, the apostles, were filled with holy spirit and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance . . . those who heard were confounded because every man heard the apostles speak in his own language . . . are not all these which speak Galilaeans? How is it we hear every man in our own tongue wherein we were born . . . speaking the wonderful works of God . . . Peter goes on to explain - This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of holy spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear. There is no need to speculate that anything else happened except that which is written especially when it is so easy to understand as it is written.

 

[Kavik]

With respect to hyperbole used in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, there are a ton of sources on the internet that go into detail more than I ever could here – just do a search for ‘hyperbole in Paul’s epistles.’

I have to assume here that you know every language that has ever been spoken? tongues of men - wouldn't those be known languages? . . . On the day of Pentecost didn't people recognize their own language? . . . Did the apostles know those languages before they spoke?

As one Linguist puts it, “Among us (Linguists), we have heard many hundreds of languages. Furthermore, we have heard representative languages in virtually every group of related languages in the world and have studied at least one representative of related languages from every group of related languages in the ancient world. At worst we may have missed a few small groups in some of the more remote parts of the world. I would estimate that the chances are at least even that if a glossolalic utterance is in a known language, one of us would either recognize the language or recognize that it is similar to some language we are acquainted with, modern or ancient."

In almost 50 years of language study, I have become familiar with at least one language form almost every language family in the modern world as well as many in the ancient world. No I don’t know them all, but in this case, you don’t need to; to identify an unknown language, one looks for similarities to other languages – at the very least, the language family to which it belongs can and will be identified.

This same Linguist further makes this challenge: "Get two recordings, one of a glossolalic utterance and the other in a real language remote from anything I have ever heard. I'm confident that in just a few moments I could tell which is which and why I am sure of it."

As a linguist, I completely concur with his challenge - real language is unmistakable, as is glossolalia/T-speech.

Yes, people did recognize their own language – did the apostles know those languages before they spoke? Yes, since the languages were two they would have been fluent in; Greek and Aramaic.


There is no need to speculate that anything else happened except that which is written especially when it is so easy to understand as it is written.

My thoughts exactly.