Tongues Cease of Themselves and Greek Middle?

The real gift of tongues was never gibberish-NEVER. It always meant known languages. Known human languages. Never was it used to communicate with God. At Corinth they never spoke with this gift. The gift of tongues was probably given no more than 4 times over a 20 year time frame never on a weekly basis or just when anyone wanted in public or private. The real gift established the fact that the Holy Spirit was being poured out. Jews knew that this event could only occur after the Messiah's appearing Joel 2:27. The message in tongues concerned O.T. miracles and events. The languages spoken were of only those present;Acts 2:11. What amazed these Jews was not just how many languages these disciples seemed to know but how did they seem to know the mother tongue of whom ever they were addressing;vs.8. Peter preaches in the common tongue (aramaic) which they all understood he gives the gospel and 3000 are saved. Let me know which part of this Acts 2 scenario that you don't get and then I'll move on to Acts 8 ,10 and 19 showing what beliefs were changed there. Evetually we'll get to Corinths problem.

 

So far so good.

This is a false statement which you cannot prove. Paul states that they had the gift of tongues, but they were abusing it. He writes to correct the abuse of the gift. He compares it to the gift of prophecy and shows how prophecy is more beneficial for everyone is edified with prophecy, but not so with tongues. Obviously the gift was a genuine gift if he commanded the Corinthians who had the genuine gift, "Forbid not to speak in tongues."

Back that statement up with Scripture, and while your at it how about purgatory, the assumption of Mary, limbo and a lot of other strange doctrines that people read into the Scriptures. "No more than 4 times over a 20 year time frame?" Where is that? "Never on a weekly basis?" Where is that? I want to see the evidence.

That is what happened on the Day of Pentecost. It marked the beginning of the Church Age, this age of grace.

The miracle was that they spoke in other languages the mighty works of God. They spoke in the spefic dialects and languages of those that were present from different nations of the Roman empire. It was God that enabled them to do that for the purpose of showing to the Jews that this Apostolic message was from God. If they rejected it this one last time, they would face judgement. There was not just the prophecy in Joel 2:27-32 to consider, there was also Isa.28:11,12 to consider. The Lord told them that He would speak to them through strange languages of men of other tongues. The message of God, previous to this time had always come through the Hebrew language, the sacred language of the Jews. Now it came to them through Gentile languages. This was an abomination to them. God's message in a Gentile langauge! How abhorrent! The Jews hated everything to do with Gentiles. They were outcasts. To hear God's message in a Gentile language was unheard of. However they knew of the prophecy in Isaiah. Paul also reminds them later of the same prophecy in 1Cor.14:21. They had rejected their Messiah and crucified him. They had rejected the Kingdom. Now they had one more chance to repent, which some did. But it was not enough. Thousands of others did not. Thus in 70 A.D. judgement came upon the nation of Israel when the Roman General Titus came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and the Temple. The nation was scattered and ceased to be a nation for 1900 years, until the U.N. gave Israel a portion of its land back in 1948, and Israel was once again declared a nation. Tongues was a sign to the Jews.

Paul said: "I speak in tongues more than ye all." Why? Because he went on missionary journeys to nations such as Spain, Macedonia, and other nations which may have required him to speak in another language. God gave him the gift of languages for this purpose. It had a twofold purpose here. It was a sign to the Jews. He started his ministry in the synagogues wherever he went. And it also had the purpose of giving revelation until the Word of God was complete, just as prophecy did. "When that which is perfect (the completed Bible) is come, then that which is in part (tongues, prophecy, etc.) will be done away. It supplied the New Testament information that they didn't have at that time. It also was one of the signs of an apostle as given in Heb.2:3,4 and 2Cor.12:12.

I understand perfectly what happened. Apparently you don't.

Here is the closest you can come to the Charismatic phenomena of speaking in tongues today:

1 Samuel 21:13-14 And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad: wherefore then have ye brought him to me?

Notice that David could turn his gibberish on; and could turn it off at will. He could do it any time he wanted. He also looked like a mad man. Isn't that what Paul said:

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
DHK

 

Apparently you are not interested in understanding this gift at least not from my perspective which I do believe is correct. You tell me I read things into the scriptures and then turn around and do the very same thing (ie. Paul never states that the Corinthians had the gift of tongues nor that they were abusing it). You have a deragatory tone to your posts that I find a bit demeaning. So I will bid you farewell on this one. Unless others would like me to continue.

 

1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
--Paul said that the church at Corinth came behind in "no gift," an expression which means that they had all the gifts including tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
--Paul said "forbid not to speak with tongues," a verse which would have no meaning whatsoever if the people in the church did not have the gift.

The entire chapter is given to correcting the abuse of the gift.
They had to have an interpreter when they spoke in tongues.
They had to speak turn by turn, in order.
There could be no more than three at the most that could speak in tongues.
Women could not speak in tongues.

These were some of the restrictions or guidelines that Paul instituted because of the abuse of the gift. Why would he do that if the church didn't have the gift in the first place? It would be rather redundant wouldn't it?

Where is your Scriptural evidence that the people of the church at Corinth didn't have the gift of tongues. That is the most outlandish view that I have heard yet. You can state it, but you cannot provide any Scriptural evidence. When you state a view you must back it up with Scripture. Where is your Scriptural evidence. I tell you that you read things into the Scripture because you have no Biblical evidence to back things up.
For example where do you get the idea that tongues were spoken "no more than 4 times over a 20 year time frame." This is a ludicrous assertion that has no support from anywhere. I want to here some documentation before you make outlandish statements. Don't you think that is fair.

I do the same thing with any religion or cult. If a Catholic tells me that born again means to be baptized (and he does), I tell him to prove it from Scripture. That is the way debate goes. You make a statemenet. You back it up on a Scriptural basis. Our final authority here is the Word of God. What is your final authority?
DHK

 

I think it would be fair though to say that you are also fairly opinionated in your approach to the Word.

 

I think it would be fair though to say that you are also fairly opinionated in your approach to the Word. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps. But I try to back everything I state with the Word of God. Paul E. Little wrote two books:
Know What you Believe.
Know Why you Believe.
I believe that we ought to know why we believe what we believe, and be able to support our beleifs Scripturally.

To make a remark such as: "tongues were spoken no more than 4 times over a 20 year time frame" is totally unsupportable. I don't make such statements that are without any support.

I used to tell the Catholics that I didn't put a lot of faith in the writings of the church fathers because often their writings were unreliable. I believe it was Ireneaus that believed Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Where did he get that from? What is our authority? Is it the Word of God?
DHK

 

what i can't seem to understand is this....

If the unknown tongue is man speaking to God, as we know it is according to 1 Corinthians 6:2, why is the interpretation always given as a message from God to man? Shouldn't the interpretation be an interpretation of what was said in the unknown tongue?

I mean if you are interpreting for let say, a chinese, and he speaks first... don't you tell people what that chinese said?

The interpretation of the unknown tongue, since the tongue is to God, should begin with something like 'Father God, I love you...' or 'Thank you, Lord...' or some other statement to God, not to man.

Many in the churches today are continuing to abuse the gift of tongues and the unknown tongue. Sad.

 

Unbeleivable observation; A+ for outstanding! I've studied this topic extensively since 1986 reading dozens of books on it both pro and con. Spent literally thousands of hours on it writting and rewritting my own manuscript but your observation never occurred to me and in all honesty I'm somewhat embarrased that it didn't. There is a logical answer to it but for now I gotta go to choir practice.

 

When a Christian speake in tongues in a worship service, it will be loud and clear glossia. There must always be an 'interpretation of tongues.' This is always in the form of encouragement to Christians and in point to the fact that the Lord is mighty God who will always be with us in all of our difficulities. The interpretation will always point to the high praise of the Lord God in Heaven. This is the true gift, not nationalistic languages and some other contrived non-sense.

Stpaul, I long ago lived in Mesa and went to a Baptist Church outside the city limits. We were close to the pastor and he always invited us over after church for what he called, 'tubed steak' meaning hot dogs. We used to go quail hunting. Enough said.

Ray Berrian

 

In order to understand 1Cor. 14 you must notice the difference between the word for tongues in the singular ;"tongue" and the plural ;"tongues". The kjv translators noticed this difference and helped distinguish it by adding the word "unknown" in front of the singular "tongue" but never before this word when it is in the plural form "tongues". Macarthur does a great job in showing this difference in his book "The Charismatics". What is really interesting to note is that in every case where the plural is used in 1Cor. 14 the truth that is revealed can be harmonized with the Acts accounts of the real gift. This is how you can really get to understand the real gift of tongues. On the flip side if you take all or even any of the verses in 1Cor.14 that use the singular "tongue" and try to harmonize them with the Acts accounts you will be frustrated ,they don't harmonize. Therefore I began to work on a theory that Paul was knowingly using the correct termonology for tongues making truthful statements about it knowing that the Corinthians would veiw these verses in the light of their own understanding. For example here are 3 of Pauls statements concerning the real gift of tongues. These were the first three statements I initially worked on many years ago. They are: "I would that ye all spake with tongues...I speak with tongues more than ye all...forbid not to speak with tongues." Now I like to call these verses the big three because these are the 3 verses that the Charismatics use to literally clobber the stew out of us non charismatics. Each one presents truth about tongues. For instance the first statement can be made simply because if the Corinthians had ever been used by God to speak in tongues like in the Acts accounts there would be no heresy or counterfeit, the real is so vastly different from it's counterpart that I even find it difficult to call it a counterfeit- it is an opposite. So Paul can rightly make this statement. In the next statement Paul boasts that he speaks in tongues more than any of the Corinthians. Now here is a tough one because there is no evidence that Paul was ever used to speak in tongues and this has baffled theologians. Now perhaps he did but there are reasons to believe he did not that I won't get into here. Yet then what does he mean? Is he lying? No he is stating a truth and here it is ; the scripture gives evidence and theologians think that Paul knew a number of languages, languages that he studied and learned and constently used in his missionary travels. "HEY"! but you say, "wont the Corinthians veiw that verse in light of Paul's point of referance(14:2)?" and I would tell you "YES" rendering him as an authority not on foreign languages but rather on how to speak in this unknown tongue. Finally in the last statement Paul states a truth about the real gift of tongues-no one should ever stop it. I think if ever anyone tried to intercede in the real gifts function in Acts you might see them destroyed by a lightning bolt. The instances of tongues in Acts were watershed events. Peter shows the rareity of this event in Acts 11:15-17. This is where he has to refer back to Pentecost"at the beginning" @ TEN YEARS prior to this event in refering to "the like gift" the gift of tongues. He doesn't say "Yeah we knew those Gentiles were saved when we heard them speak in tongues you know that gift we practice all the time." It was rare, it was totally under God's control. Each one of these statements was a true statement made by Paul but would be understood in a different light by the ignorant Corinthians. These passages would render Paul as an authority and leave little room for anyone to think he wasn't for the propagation of what these Corinthians believed tongues were. Yet he had ulterior motives big ones and they would come to light. More later.