Speaking in Tongues- What is it?

Wow Diane! I'd sure like to inlighten her on a few things, if this was indeed what she said she missed it...
If I could had been there Id tell her 2 things # 1.... pride goeth beforeth a falleth.
# 2 I thought there was only 2 levels (saved and unsaved).
Where are our tape recorders when we need them?

 

Profile for music4Him has her denomination as a "combination between Baptist and Full Gospel." Does this mean she has a split personality?

 

So observant of you PN.
So do I ask you for your appology for your personal attack on me? Because I know a few "Full Gospel Baptist", but because I refuse to hang one denominational tag on me.... you have to find something (even if it is off topic) to attack me with? BTW, I'm glad God made me different.

 

On one hand you compliment my keen observation, on the other you accuse me of attacking you.

Baptist are conservatives while "Full Gospel" are on the far side, two extremes that are sometimes in conclict. Nothing serious though, just a little pun here and there.

 

DHK,

Whether there are false manifestations of tongues is not even an issue. It is clear that demons could speak through people in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew or whatever other language the Biblical authors heard them speak in.

If the Chinese laundry man or Jamaica missionary stories are true, what difference does it make? The Bible shows us that there are true manifestations of tongues. The false manifestations no more minimize the validity of the true experiences today than the experience of the apostles in Acts.

 

Quite true link. It shows that there are false manifestations of tongues, something that the Charismatics of today must learn to accept. It also shows that tongues transcends almost all religions. This also can be demonstrated. The question therefore must be asked: Is this movement of speaking in tongues of God? And the answer is quite obvious. It is an ecumenical movement being used of the devil to bring all religions together, eventually forming a one world church of the anti-christ. It is not of God at all.

You say that the Bible teaches that there are true manifestations of tongues. I disagree. The Bible does not teach this at all. The purpose of tongues has ceased, and one would have to greatly distort every verse in 1Cor.14 to make tongues fit for todays time. It is clearly not for today; it was a sign for the unbelieving Jews of the first century--those that had crucified our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. If those people are not in your church today, then tongues is not for today. It is a cut and dry case.
DHK

 

DHK wrote

**The Bible does not teach this at all. The purpose of tongues has ceased, and one would have to greatly distort every verse in 1Cor.14 to make tongues fit for todays time**

On the contrary, one would have to distort I Corinthians 14 to argue that tongues are not given or are not permitted. I Corinthians 14 teaches ‘forbid not to speak in tongues.’ The passage gives instructions on how to speak in tongues and interpret them in church meetings—commandments that are never ‘cancelled’ by other passages of scripture.

In previous threads, you have put forth the idea that the quote from Isaiah in I Corinthians 14, about God speaking through men who speak other languages, was a prophecy about the judgment of Israel. I have pointed out the problems with this interpretation, and also the fact that, even if one accepted your interpretation, there is still no reason to think that tongues have ceased. I have yet to see you deal with some of these points I have raised. I will summarize some of the points I made previously below.

1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.

Even if were to one interpret the Old Testament quote about tongues being for a sign to the Jews specifically regarding the destruction of Jerusalem or other first-century events—something not argued in the passage in question—it does not stand to reason that tongues have ceased.

The line of reasoning you espouse is that since tongues are for a sign, that when the sign was fulfilled, tongues must also have ceased. This does not stand to reason. It is clear from I Corinthians 14 that there are purposes for tongues other than being a sign. For example, tongues served to build up the congregation if it were accompanied by an interpretation. Therefore it is clear that tongues served a function other than as a sign.

No matter how one interprets the quote from Isaiah in the context of I Corinthians 14, there is no argument for the cessation of tongues in this passage.

‘Tongues are for a sign’ does not equal ‘tongues have ceased’.

2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.

Notice that Paul quotes the Isaiah passage about God speaking to ‘this people’ through men of other tongues. What point does he make from this quote? Does he talk about God cutting Israel off, having the temple destroyed, or scattering them among the Gentiles? No, he does not.

The Isaiah passage had a shorter-term fulfillment in the distant past. Assyria had taken Israel into captivity, speaking to them in Aramaic, probably, or some other Levantine tongues. The Babylonians had marched the Judeans over to Babylon, naked, shouting at them in Akkadian or Aramaic, or whatever tongue they used to communicate to captive nations.

We need to look at the CONTEXT and the point Paul is making to understand why Paul quotes this verse. Paul goes on to say that tongues are for a sign to them that believe not, and that prophecy is a sign for them that believe. He then describes two scenarios: one about an unbeliever or unlearned person coming into a church meeting in which all speak in tongues, and considering them all to be mad; and another scenario in which an unbeliever comes into a meeting of the church in which all prophesy and falls down on his face, declaring that God is truly among/in them.

There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul’s example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.

It makes sense to interpret the passage this way: Paul is extracting a principle about speaking in tongues from this passage in Isaiah. Unbelievers do not ‘hear’ God when they hear speaking in tongues, just like unbelieving Israel. Notice Paul says wherefore tongues are for a sign to them that believe not. He does not say they are a sign to Israel, unbelieving Jews, etc. He says ‘them that believe not.’ Obviously there are Gentiles who believe not.

A ‘sign’ can be a fulfilled prophecy. Some people do not understand why the Jews would ask Jesus to perform a sign after He did miracles. They probably wanted a predictive sign. The book of Deuteronomy said that if a prophet predicted something that did not come to pass, to stone that prophet. Hezekiah was given a predictive sign that he would live and go into the house of the Lord. The shadow on the stairs moved backwards. Isaiah predicted it, and it happened.

In I Corinthians 14, there is a predictive prophecy of unbelievers (in context Judah, or possibly Israel) not ‘hearing’ God though he spoke through men of other tongues and other lips. Unbelievers who hear tongues generally respond the same way.

Paul goes on use this as an argument for tongues only being spoken in the assembly if they are interpreted, and for the speaker in tongues keeping silent in the assembly if the tongues are not interpreted.

I Corinthians says nothing about tongues being a sign of the destruction of the temple, razing of Jerusalem, scattering of Judean Jews, Jews being cut off from the ‘olive tree’ or any such thing. Paul makes the point he wants to make from the passage he quotes from Isaiah, and we are not at liberty to make up points he does not draw out. Paul often derives principles from Old Testament texts like this. He quotes ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.’ When he quotes this, he is not saying that a church must hire an ox to be on staff—an interpretation similar to trying to read the cessation of tongues into the Isaiah quote in I Corinthians 14.

We need to understand Paul’s use of the Old Testament in the context of what Paul is saying, without reading our own ideas and interpretations into it.

Link

 

Linl:

Does Exodus teach us that God speaks to us through burning bushes?
Does it teach us that God’s authority comes through budding staves?
Does it teach us that we will be fed by manna falling from the sky, that looks like coriander seed?

Why is it that you cannot go out each morning and gather at least an omer of manna for yourself each day? Why shouldn’t that be for you as well? It’s in the Bible isn’t it? Could it be that it was just for one time period, for one generation of people, and even for one specific people at that? Is it just possible that God does things at certain times in history and doesn’t repeat them again throughout history? Does God still feed people via manna on the ground that looks like coriander seed. Well, does he??
Neither does he allow the gift of tongues to be used any longer. It has ceased. It has fulfilled its purpose. And when he wrote, “Forbid not to speak in tongues,” it was written to first century Christians,” just as the instruction to take up no more manna than you needed, was given to the Israelites and not to you. Those instructions have obviously ceased, just as the instructions and the commands concerning tongues. For tongues have ceased. Once we get that one fact into our minds things become much more clear.

The context is clear. Paul was no fool. He quoted from Isa.28:11,12. The passage is in ICor.14:21,22. There is only one viable interpretation here—a literal one that makes sense.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.

There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.
2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn’t have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.
3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased.

In 1Cor.14:21, Paul quotes from the law, and directs his quote to “this people,” “this people” being the Jews. Thus men from other nations would speak other languages than Hebrew, and still they would not believe that it would be the message of God. God’s message up until that time always came from the Hebrew Scriptures, and they always had a prophet, a rabbi, someone anointed by God through the traditional means of the Judaic system. Now to see (on the day of Pentecost, for example) fishermen from Galilee, hated publicans (Matthew), and other ordinary people preaching God’s message in languages other than Hebrew, was a sign from God that this indeed was God’s message. God had never spoken in this way before. And Isaiah had said that it would come to pass in this way. Part of the prophecy had been fulfilled already. The other nations are mentioned in Acts 2. There are about 13 of them. Tongues was a sign to the Jews. God demonstrated it in a miraculous way on the day of Pentecost to all the Jews who had come to that feast.

I didn’t say it was. Read my notes above.

“Even if one were to interpret the OT quote about tongues being a sign to the Jews” What are you talking about??? That is pretty much exactly what it says. How can you interpret it any other way! Verse 21 says that it is a sign to the nation of Israel.
Verse 22 says that it is a sign to the unbeliever.
Therefore it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Take things in their context and this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to.

Peter specifically was addressing in his sermon in Acts 2, those ones that had crucified Christ, that is, the first century Jews. If the first century Jews are all gone and dead, there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Are there first century Jews in your church? I would surely like to meet them, or not! Tongues have ceased. They have no more viable function today.

Yes, as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues for first century Christians before the Bible was completed.

Then you better read the passage again.

What happens if the sign isn’t there any more? Then what kind of sign is it? A sign that isn’t a sign?
When a bridge is out a sign is put well in front of the bridge warning motorists ”Bridge Out”. When the bridge is completed the sign is taken down for it is no longer needed. The sign was only temporary. The sign was only needed as long as the bridge was being made, as long as it was not finished. But when that which was completed was come then that which was temporary (the sign) was taken away. Tongues were a temporary sign until the Word of God was complete. The sign is gone. The Word of God is complete. The sign is gone. The Jews of the first century have seen their sign and rejected it. The sign is gone. Tongues have ceased.

The first word of verse 22 is “wherefore.” The Greek word is “hoste,” meaning “so too,” or also, therefore, as well,” It is a connective that connects verse 22 to verse 21. Thus the “unbelievers” of verse 22 are connected to the Jews of verse 21. The context demands a meaning of “unbelieving Jews. Either way, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is a sign either to the Jew or to the unbeliever, that is not the way it operates in most churches today, is it? Neither Jews nor unbelievers are present. It is used when the believers are present. That is making a mockery of the Word of God.

Your conclusion here is far too narrow, and thus does not make sense in the context that Paul quotes it. In fact Paul would not have quoted it at all if what you say is true. “The Isaiah passage had a short term fulfillment in the distant past.” Hogwash! If that were the case, then Paul would not have any need of quoting this passage at all. The very fact that it does have relevance in the first century and was being fulfilled at that very time was the reason that Paul was quoting it. It is true that many prophecies have double fulfillments, and that may be one of them—a near fulfilment and a far reaching fulfillment, but it cannot be confined to the near fulfillment. That is the same as saying that Isaiah 7:14 is applicable only to King Ahaz and no one else. “The Lord himself shall give you a sign; a virgin shall conceive…” Was this a sign only for Isaiah?? I don’t think so. It had a far reaching prophetical fulfilment as well—the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. There was a sign there to Ahaz. I am not sure exactly what it was. But we know what the greater sign was—the birth of Christ. One verse; one prophecy; two fulfillments. And thus it is with Isaiah 28:11,12. You cannot confine that prophecy back to the time of Isaiah. It is applicable to the time of Paul. They spoke with different languages other than their sacred language of Hebrew. They spoke in all the different languages that are listed in Acts chapter two.
DHK

 

Ain’t that the truth! Enter into a Charismatic church today where “all” speak in tongues (or many) and said unbeliever will indeed think that you are mad.

You have it wrong here. Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew (or again just for the unbeliever if you like). But that doesn’t mean they will be saved by it. There is no guarantee of that. In fact Christ said the exact opposite.

Matthew 12:39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

Luke 16:30-31 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

People don’t get saved because of signs. The people of Capernaum, the city in which Jesus did the most miracles was the place in which the least number of people believed on him. “And he could do no more miracles there because of their unbelief.”
Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew in two ways:
1. For the unbelieving Jew in that this was a message from God given to the Apostles, and that it needs to be obeyed. The Apostles were God’s messengers that need to be heeded and their message needed to be obeyed.
2. It was also a message to unbelieving Jews in the sense that they may have believed Christ for salvation, but still did not believe that salvation had gone to the Gentiles, such as the Jews that went with Peter to the house of Cornelius. They had to be convinced that salvation was now for the Gentiles as well. Tongues gave them that sign. It was a sign to the Jews.
Is tongues a sign to you that salvation has now gone out to the Gentile nations, or do you already know that? I hope you know the answer to that question, and don’t need a supernatural sign to tell you.

Certainly there are unbelieving Gentiles that believe not. And Jesus said that he would give them a sign, but it wasn’t tongues. He gave them the sign of Jonas—as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so would Jesus be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. This is the only sign that would be given to the Gentiles. It is called the gospel. “The Jews require a sign; the Greeks, wisdom.” Again the two verses (21 and 22) are connected together by the conjunction “wherefore.” Thus the meaning becomes evident: “unbelieving Jews.”
Had the Corinthians followed the restrictions that Paul placed upon them for speaking in tongues, there would have been no confusion in the church about speaking in tongues. They were not allowed to speak in tongues without an interpreter. If they had followed that one principle, the speaking in languages would be no different than the prophecy. Paul also told them that only two, or at the most three could speak in tongues and that in order, or one by one. That would limit everything and bring order to the service.. And again, there must be an interpreter. There had to be order to the service, but instead there was only chaos.

Yes, a sign could be a predictive prophecy. Tongues was a sign. It was the fulfillment of a predictive prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11,12.

No disagreement. Tongues was a sign to the Jews, and in particularly to the unbelieving Jews. It does not guarantee that those Jews or unbelievers would be saved, even if the tongues were interpreted.

I did not say that the passage said anything about the destruction of the Temple. What I had previously said is that the passage infers that when a nation does not obey God when he gives them a warning in the way of a sign, judgement usually follows. This is very evident from the passage in Isaiah 28:11ff. The Jews crucified our Lord of glory. They still were granted a chance to come to repentance. They remained stiffnecked and in the hardness of their hearts refused to repent. They refused the sign of tongues that was given to them. All that was left for them was God’s judgment. That came in the form of the destruction of their Temple in 70 A.D., and in the scattering of their nation. No, it doesn’t say that in the passage of 1Cor.14:21,22. I didn’t say it did. But the passage infers that judgement would be imminent. That is God’s pattern. Disobedience to God leads to judgement. Study the Book of Judges and see the cycle that the Jews went through. Disobedience to following after Jehovah always led to judgement. It never failed. God was faithful to His Word. God hasn’t changed His methods or his Word.

I agree. Why don’t you take your own advice?
DHK

 

Hey, here's a thought!! Let's set the Holy Ghost free and let Him do His work!!



Peace,

Tam

 

Yes, I agree. Let's allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. His work is described in the Scripture as this:

John 16:7-11 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Hmmmmm. No mention of tongues here.
DHK

 

John 16-13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Alas, some people "can't HANDLE the truth"!!



Peace,

Tam

 

Ironically Tam,
Those in the Charismatic movement who emphasize tongues emphasize the Holy Spirit and His ministry far more than Christ. It is the Spirit that is exalted in these circles, contrary to what this verse teaches.
DHK

 

DHK wrote,

**Does Exodus teach us that God speaks to us through burning bushes?
Does it teach us that God's authority comes through budding staves?
Does it teach us that we will be fed by manna falling from the sky, that looks like coriander seed?***

The Bible shows us that God can speak through a burning bush or make staves bud. The Bible is clear when manna from heaven ended. The Bible does not teach that the gifts ended.

Gifts of the Spirit are different. The Bible teaches that the gifts of the Spirit are given to each to profit the whole. It also teaches that in the last days, God's Spirit will be poured out on all flesh.

***Neither does he allow the gift of tongues to be used any longer. It has ceased. It has fulfilled its purpose. And when he wrote, "Forbid not to speak in tongues," it was written to first century Christians," just as the instruction to take up no more manna than you needed, was given to the Israelites and not to you.****

The doctrinal statements about the salvation in the book of Romans were written to first century Christians that lived in Rome. Does that mean that they do not apply today? If you interpret doctrinal statements on how God relates to the saints as applicable to saints today when it relates to other topics, why do you insist that doctrinal statements about gifts of the Spirit do not apply to the saints today?

How do you interpret the verses about women keeping silent in the churches? Do those commands ONLY apply to first century Christians, or only the first century Corinthian Christians? Or do you believe they apply today?

*** Those instructions have obviously ceased, just as the instructions and the commands concerning tongues. For tongues have ceased. Once we get that one fact into our minds things become much more clear. ***

You disregard direct commands of scripture based on elaborate theological argument.

***The context is clear. Paul was no fool. He quoted from Isa.28:11,12. The passage is in ICor.14:21,22. There is only one viable interpretation here-a literal one that makes sense. ***

Your interpretation is the one that does not make sense, and it ignores the points Paul is making in the passage. Show me where Paul makes a line of argument that relates the purpose of tongues specifically to Israel before or after the Isaiah quote. He uses the Isaiah quote as a part of his argument that tongues are to be interpreted and that un-interpreted tongues do not build up the assembly.


***1 Corinthians 14:21-22 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
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.

There were three major reasons for tongues:
1. The most prominent was that it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, as put so plainly here.***

Paul puts it plainly that tongues are a sign 'to them that believe not.' Read the rest of the passage. He shows that if an unbeliever goes in to a church meeting where all speak with tongues, he will respond with unbelief. The passage 'and yet for all that they will not hear Me' is fulfilled.

Paul is using this as an argument not to speak in tongues without interpretation in the church, and to argue that understandable speech in church is superior to uninterpreted tongues.

**2. It was to give revelation to those who did not have the needed revelation that they didn't have until the New Testament was complete. That function also ceased at the end of the first century when the Book of Revelation was complete, thus making the canon of Scripture complete.**

This idea is found nowhere in the scriptures. In fact, this line of argument is completely alien to the scriptures. Nowhere does Paul say that scripture would replace gifts of the Spirit in this passage, and no other author of scripture argues for this idea either.

In fact, the idea of scripture being the 'only rule' of faith an practice, which shows up in so many statements of faith, is not found in scripture. There are some Christians who profess that scripture is the only revelation available to believers. This type of thinking is at odds with what the Bible actually teaches. Jesus did not say that He would leave and leave behind a book which would lead you into all truth. He said that He would send the Spirit. The Spirit leads into all truth. One of the ways the truth has been revealed is through New Testament scripture. But the Bible is clear that there is other revelation from God. Romans 1 shows us that there is revelation of God's nature in creation. God's wrath is revealed from heaven as well. The Lord Jesus is the ultimate revelation from God to man. Read Hebrews 1. In the past, God spoke through the prophets (some of whose writings were written down), but in these last days, he has spoken by His Son. The Bible shows us that there is revelation from the gifts of the Spirit. Paul prayed for the Philipians to have the Spirit of revelation.

The idea that the Bible replaced the gifts is not supported by scripture. It actually contradicts the scripture that teaches. If we want to 'honor' the Bible, the way to do that is not by contradicting it. Sure you can 'honor' the Bible by arguing that it is unique because it is the only revelation from God available to man. But to do so would be to contradict scripture, which teaches the revelation of God's nature through creation, and revelation from the Spirit through gifts of the Spirit.

***3. It was one of the signs (signs and wonders) that were the mark of an apostle.
These are the main reasons for the gift of tongues, and all of these reasons were completed at the end of the first century such that tongues has no profit or use today. The gift has ceased. ***

Show me scripture that specifies that tongues ere the mark of an apostle. The twelve apostles spoke in tongues, but it is also likely that the 120 did as well. Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues, and apparently from I Corinthians 12 and 14, many Corinthians spoke in tongues as well. There is nothing in scripture that limits tongues to apostles or that argues is a sign of apostleship. You can argue that signs, wonders, and miracles are, but there is no reason to argue that tongues is. At least 13 of the apostles spoke in tongues, which we know from Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14.

I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. If tongues are for a sign, it does not stand to reason that tongues are ONLY for a sign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You replied:

**I didn't say it was. Read my notes above. **

If tongues are not only for a sign, then arguing that the function of tongues as a sign has ceased is not an argument that tongues have ceased.

Let me illustrate my point with a dialogue between a charismatic father and his cessationist son.

Son, "Paw, I reckon we can throw this hammer away now, seein' as we won't be using it anymore"

Paw, "What do you say that?"

Son, "'Cause we done finished hammerin' all the nails in the subfloorin'. We have no need for this here hammer Paw. If fact, this hammer does not exist anymore. It has ceased."

Paw, "Don't you go throwin' that hammer away son. Just because we have finished the flooring board doesn't mean we don't need it any more. We still have to build the rest of the house."

Tongues are not ONLY for a sign. Even if you argue that they are not needed as a sign anymore, then that is not an argument that tongues have ceased.
*** Yes, as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues for first century Christians before the Bible was completed.***

Then, do you admit that arguing that tongues were for a sign is not an argument that tongues have ceased? If so, why would you say that I Corinthians 14 argues for the cessation of tongues? Why do you refer to your interpretation of this passage as an argument for the cessation of tongues if it does not argue for the cessation of tongues?


DHK wrote,
**"Even if one were to interpret the OT quote about tongues being a sign to the Jews" What are you talking about??? That is pretty much exactly what it says. How can you interpret it any other way! Verse 21 says that it is a sign to the nation of Israel.
Verse 22 says that it is a sign to the unbeliever.
Therefore it is a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Take things in their context and this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to. **

Go back and read my previous post for another way to interpret this. The interpretation I presented also deals with the fact that Paul uses the verse to argue that if an unbeliever hears all speaking in tongues in church, he still does not believe. The verse from Isaiah serves as a sign, a fulfilled prophecy that shows how unbelievers do not hear when they hear speaking in tongues.

****Peter specifically was addressing in his sermon in Acts 2, those ones that had crucified Christ, that is, the first century Jews. If the first century Jews are all gone and dead, there is no purpose for the gift of tongues. Are there first century Jews in your church? I would surely like to meet them, or not! Tongues have ceased. They have no more viable function today. ****

Your argument makes no sense at all. You just quoted a passage from Isaiah, written about 'this people' many centuries before the 1st century AD. If you argue that 'this people' refers to Jews/Israelites in the time of Isaiah, and in the first century, then it stands to reason that 'this people' were the same people group during the time in between. And it stands to reason that the Jews are 'this people.' There are still Jews today! There are still unbelieving Jews today! If tongues are for a sign to Jews, why would tongues have ceased? Jews still exist!

[Just to clarify, I am not arguing that 'this people' in the Isaiah 28 passage is not Israel or the Jews. What I am arguing is that this is not the point Paul is making. Paul makes a point about tongues being for a sign to unbelievers, based on this verse about unbelieving Hebrews who will not hear God, even when He speaks through people of other tongues and other lips. Paul uses this as part of his argument for the fact that tongues do not profit others if they are not interpreted. This is a part of his larger argument about edifying others in church meetings. There is no evidence in the passage that he intended to use the verse to argue eschatology about Israel or to say anything about the cessation of tongues.]

I wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Tongues are for a sign' does not equal 'tongues have ceased'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK responded
**What happens if the sign isn't there any more? Then what kind of sign is it? A sign that isn't a sign?
When a bridge is out a sign is put well in front of the bridge warning motorists "Bridge Out". When the bridge is completed the sign is taken down for it is no longer needed. The sign was only temporary.**

Earlier you wrote, of tongues being for a sign:
** "as I stated that was one of the purposes of tongues"**

First, it is clear that there are other purposes for tongues in scripture. One is to edify the church, if the tongues are accompanied by interpretation. The church still needs edifying, and so there is a need for tongues.

Second, you're analogy is flawed. There is a big difference between a board with writing on it, and the types of signs we read about in the Bible.

Third, you have not presented any evidence that tongues is no longer needed as a sign. Your theory about the Bible replacing tongues is not taught in scripture and runs contrary to the philosophy scripture teaches about the role of revelation and the role of the Holy Spirit. You have not presented any evidence from scripture that tongues are no longer necessary as a sign, whether to Jews or anyone else. Your arguments alone are not evidence.

** The sign was only needed as long as the bridge was being made, as long as it was not finished. But when that which was completed was come then that which was temporary (the sign) was taken away. Tongues were a temporary sign until the Word of God was complete. The sign is gone. The Word of God is complete. The sign is gone.**

These are arguments, but they are not supported by scripture. Human opinion is no basis for rejecting the direct commands of scripture.

I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul says that tongues are for a sign to unbelievers, not that they are a sign to Jews exclusively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first word of verse 22 is "wherefore." The Greek word is "hoste," meaning "so too," or also, therefore, as well," ***

This supports my interpretation, particularly 'so too.'

And, as an aside, definitions and glosses like this are not 'plug and play.' We can't just pick the one that fits best into our interpretation of the text and assume that our translation and interpretation of the text is correct. Definitions like this show words that touch the thought map of the range of meaning of the Greek word in certain contexts.

*** Either way, if I give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is a sign either to the Jew or to the unbeliever, that is not the way it operates in most churches today, is it? Neither Jews nor unbelievers are present. It is used when the believers are present. That is making a mockery of the Word of God. ***

That is not Paul's point at all. Paul quotes a verse about unbelieving Israel not hearing God when he spoke to them through people speaking in tongues, and shows that unbelievers who hear believers speaking in tongues say, 'ye are mad'. Do you think Paul wants believers in this passage to all speak in tongues to unbelievers can think they are mad? It is clear from the passage that Paul is instructing the Corinthians to use speaking in tongues to edifying believers- by interpreting their tongues. Otherwise, they should refrain from speaking in tongues in church. Paul quotes Isaiah to support this argument.

You seem to be so fixated on this idea that Paul is quoting Isaiah to argue for all these cessationist ideas you have about the Jews, that you are missing the forest for the trees. Paul is arguing for the Corinthians to use gifts to edify the assembly, and particularly to use tongues with interpretation to edify the assembly. That is the reason for the Isaiah quote-to build up the argument in the passage.

How do you interpret the rest of the passage? How do you believe Paul's argument that unbelievers who hear all speak in tongues will say 'ye are mad' ties in with his quote from Isaiah and the point he is making about it? How does the Isaiah prophecy and the argument about an unbeliever saying 'ye are mad' fit into Paul's arguments about tongues, prophecy and mutual edification in the passage?

Clearly, the rest of the passage is not about judgment on Israel, the cessation of tongues, or these other ideas you try to interpret out of the Isaiah 28 quote.

On dual fulfillment, you acknowledge that this is possible, for example with the virgin prophecy. Surely you are aware that the Jews were marched naked and barefoot to their captors homeland, while the soldiers shouted at them. Did the soldiers shout in Hebrew? Wouldn't they have shouted in their own tongues?


I did not say there was not further fulfillment of the prophecy in question. Clearly the point or principle Paul draws out from it is true, 'and yet for all that, they will not hear me.' This seems to describe the reaction some had to tongues in Acts 2, when they scoffed and thought the saints were drunk.

**Ain't that the truth! Enter into a Charismatic church today where "all" speak in tongues (or many) and said unbeliever will indeed think that you are mad.**

I have seen churches that act like that, and I have seen the 'ye are mad' look of surprise on visitors' faces who didn't know what was going on. But not all churches that believe in tongues do this, and some believe that tongues should only be spoken out in the assembly if they are interpreted.


I wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are those that argue that if tongues are for a sign, speaking in tongues is supposed to make unbelievers (or unbelieving Jews if they take that stance) believe. This does not line up with Paul's example in that passage. Paul says that tongues are a sign for them that believe not, and then gives an example of unbelievers responding with unbelief when they hear tongues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHK wrote,
**You have it wrong here. Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew (or again just for the unbeliever if you like). But that doesn't mean they will be saved by it. There is no guarantee of that. In fact Christ said the exact opposite. **

I have it wrong? I said that 'there are those that argue'-meaning people other than myself.

There are examples of people who believed when they saw signs (e.g. Samaritans who saw Philip) and those who did not believe.

**The people of Capernaum, the city in which Jesus did the most miracles was the place in which the least number of people believed on him. "And he could do no more miracles there because of their unbelief."***

I think you are confusing Nazareth and Capernaum. Nazareth was where Jesus' miracles were limited. The people of Nazareth wondered why Jesus did not do miracles there like they heard he did in Capernaum. Capernaum would have a worse judgment that Sodom and Gomorrah, who would have repented if they had seen the signs Christ had done in Capernaum.


***Tongues are a sign for the unbelieving Jew in two ways:
1. For the unbelieving Jew in that this was a message from God given to the Apostles, and that it needs to be obeyed. The Apostles were God's messengers that need to be heeded and their message needed to be obeyed.***

In the specific case in Acts 2, you have a case for this. But the Bible does not teach that tongues is a sign of apostolic authority per se. The debated end of Mark lists tongues among 'these signs shall follow them that believe' and not the apostles per se. There were apparently plenty of Corinthian Christians speaking in tongues. We should not consider their actions to all be authoritative or inspired. In fact, some of them were probably using tongues improperly, without interpretation.

**2. It was also a message to unbelieving Jews in the sense that they may have believed Christ for salvation, but still did not believe that salvation had gone to the Gentiles, such as the Jews that went with Peter to the house of Cornelius. They had to be convinced that salvation was now for the Gentiles as well. Tongues gave them that sign. It was a sign to the Jews.
Is tongues a sign to you that salvation has now gone out to the Gentile nations, or do you already know that? I hope you know the answer to that question, and don't need a supernatural sign to tell you. **

Tongues may have served as a sign of sorts for these Jews in this particular case. But the role for tongues is much broader than what you describe. Paul shows us that in church, tongues accompanied by interpretation edifies the congregation. The Corinthians did not need convincing that Gentiles could be saved, and some of them spoke in tongues.

***Certainly there are unbelieving Gentiles that believe not. And Jesus said that he would give them a sign, but it wasn't tongues. He gave them the sign of Jonas-as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so would Jesus be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.**

Jesus said this to Jews who asked him for a sign as we can see in the book of Matthew. Why would Gentiles demand a sign? Pagans would have been unfamiliar with the passage about 'that Prophet.' This fact also argues against the idea that tongues was a special sign to the Jewish nation that served a temporary purpose. The resurrection is the special sign given to that generation. I have read that the Greek word for 'generation' can also refer to a people-group.

**This is the only sign that would be given to the Gentiles. It is called the gospel. "The Jews require a sign; the Greeks, wisdom." Again the two verses (21 and 22) are connected together by the conjunction "wherefore." Thus the meaning becomes evident: "unbelieving Jews." **

Your argument holds no water, especially since Jesus' words that you quote about the sign of the prophet Jonah was directed at Jews.

**Yes, a sign could be a predictive prophecy. Tongues was a sign. It was the fulfillment of a predictive prophecy given in Isaiah 28:11,12. **

If you accept this, then look at the passage. The passage predicts "and yet for all that, they will not hear me"-which was fulfilled when unbelievers heard tongues and said 'ye are mad.' If this is the point of the passage, then we can dismiss with all the speculation about judgment on Jews, and especially the idea of tongues ceasing which is not even hinted at in the passage.

Link

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tamborine lady:


John 16-13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.

Alas, some people "can't HANDLE the truth"!!



Peace,

Tam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ironically Tam,
Those in the Charismatic movement who emphasize tongues emphasize the Holy Spirit and His ministry far more than Christ. It is the Spirit that is exalted in these circles, contrary to what this verse teaches.
DHK

_________________________________________________
You are changing the subject again! we are talking about leading into all truth, which is what Jesus said the Holy Spirit would do. Perhaps some others would benifit from listening to the Holy Spirit more and less to the doctrine they have spoon fed themselves over the years!!

Peace,

Tam

 

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

I am not changing the topic at all. Jesus specifically said that the Holy Spirit would not speak of HIMSELF. The Holy Spirit's ministry would be to exalt Christ; yes, to guide the believer, but ultimately to glorify Christ.
In Charismatic circles it is the Holy Spirit that is glorified, and not Christ, contrary to this Scripture.
DHK

 

That is not true in all cases. Maybe in some, but the majority concentrate on Jesus, as He is the one who sent the Holy Ghost!!

Selah,

Tam

 

DHK,

The passage says "shall not speak of Himself" It does not say "Shall not speak about Himself". The message comes from the Father.

 

DHK,
What you have to understand is that you are speaking to people that have had an "experience" to them it is absolute truth, not the scriptures.