Tongues - Tongue of Angels

Lorelei,

I read Don's post. It's wrong.

Look at the facts. We have in the Spirit the One who can lad us into all truth. Jesus said we can move moutains. Christians DID have their bodies burned. So some fo the things you insist did not happen did in fact happen (including one you ddi not mention, having prophetic powers), and the rest we are told are possibiilties. One of the problems with Don's position is that it requires that we say that somethings that Paul mentioned did happen or were possible and others are not, egven though nothing in the context suggests that Paul is making sucha distinction. He lists themn all together, and makes no effort to qualify any as less likely or more likely.

See, it is not necessary for Paul's argument that Paulactually have spoken in tongues of angels, only that it be possible. That's where the juxtaposition with tongues of men is crucial. If ther is no such thing then the jusxtaposition of the two in the same condition clause, which inherently makes the wo equally likely, makes no sense.

As for the hypothetical natuire of the grammar, there are gradations of hypothetical in Greek. The strongest is what we might call a pure hypothetical, like "what if the moon were made of green cheese populated by little green mice?" Something that is clearly not true or even possible, but maintianed for the ske of a point. That is NOT what we have here. What we have here is a construction with a milder form of hypothetical, one that deals between two possible things. Simply put, a hypothetical condition need not mean an impossible condition.

But perhaps more important is the fact that the same hypothetical governs ALL the things mentioned, including the gift of prophesy and tongues of men. So if tongues of angels is excluded on the grounds of hypothetical then so must all the other things, including prphest. It would be very strange tehn for Paul to later implore poele to seek the gift of prohesy would it not?

Again, teh context of Paul's argument in this section of Corinthians deals with a belief on the part of the belvers in Corinth that they were becoming as unto angels, even, it seems speaking in their tongues. Paul does not outlaw such a practice, or say it oes nt happen or say it is impossible. He introduces a regulative principle.

IMO, some are too concerned that to allow the possibility of the existence of tongues of angels opens some kind of floodgate. In fact it does nothing of the sort. Indeed, if we are concerned about floodgates and excesses then we should be prepared to concede that they wil occur regardless of whether we condede th existence of tongues of angels or not. Tha being the case we should be open to letting the text say what it says, and allow its own regulative principle be appied to those who would engage in exceses rather than apply a regulative principle the Scriptures do not.

 

I Cor 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. KJV

Lorelei, I have a question. I guess I am what some here are calling a cessationalist. So, I am not defending speaking in tongues at all, just questioning one small point of your reasoning. Why is it necessary to say that tongues of angels doesn't exist.

1. Tongues of men (does exist) Paul had
2. Tongues of angels (???)
3. Gift of prophecy (does exist) Paul had
4. Understand all mysteries (does exist) Paul didn't have it to that degree
5. all knowledge (does exist) Paul didn't have it to that degree
6. all faith (does exist) Paul didn't have it to that degree
7. bestow all my goods (does exist) Paul didn't do it but could have.
8. give my body to be burned (does exist) Paul didn't do it but could have.

Your reasoning would still be right but I just thought that since the other seven things are "real" why not #2. BTW, why don't people who claim #2 for themselves, claim 4-8?

 

You both raise a valid point. Let me look at them a little closer. I am going to group each one of them together as Paul did.

Tongues of men do exist, tongue of angels is what he was comparing it to.

If it is going to relate commonly to all the rest of the examples we can fairly say it this way.

Tongue of man has been experienced by Paul, tongue of angels has not. (I will explain further after the other examples have been examined)

As you explained Paul did have the gift of Prophecy, yet he did not possess all knowledge and mysteries. I would challenge you to find one person who has (other than Christ of course).

Correct, he said all faith that "could move mountains". We know from Christ that it only takes a faith the size of a mustard seed to do this, yet we have seen no person who ever has, even Paul.

Correct, both of these are possible, but there is no evidence that Paul did either.

Now let's look at why we know the remainder are real. We know that some of them are real because we have either seen, heard or experienced them, such as the possessions and the surrendering of the body.

What about the rest. What about faith that moves mountains, how do we know that is a possibility? Because we read it in God's Word. Jesus told us about it.

What about the possibilty of fathoming all knowledge and mysteries. Does the Bible tell us we will ever be able to do this here on earth? Do you honestly think you will ever find anyone who does? All is an awfully inclusive word, it leaves no room for any to be excluded.

My reasoning that the tongue of angels doesn't exist is based upon the fact that I find it spoken about no where else in scripture. If you read the 14th chapter of Corinthians, you will see that Paul clearly said that tongues were to be understood. If you speak a tongue and don't understand it, then pray for interpretation. He gave no indication that he expected them to come across any tongue that was not interpretable. We know from Acts chapter 2 that the tongues spoken there were languages known by men.

Tongues are only talked about in 6 chapters of the entire New Testament, and no other verses imply a tongue of angels.

If angels do have their own tongue, no where in the Bible does it ever say that man will speak it, with or without the Spiritual gift. That possibility is confirmed in the fact that most of Paul's examples were not done by any man, other than Christ.

In all the times that angels were presented in the Bible, you never hear of them speaking in a tongue that was not understood by the party who heard them. I just don't see any other evidence of it.

Why would Paul then use an example that didn't exist in this point and not the rest? Because he was speaking specifically to tongue speakers. Chapter 14 reveals that this was his opening to explaining how to properly use this gift and why prophecying was better. What extreme example would you use, since there really is no real existing extreme?

I will admit I can't prove that angels don't have their own tongue, but I can assure you that no man can speak their language if they did. I can assure you the Bible offers no evidence that they did, for if it falls in line with Paul's other examples, it is surely something that he never did himself nor has any other man.

Whenever I come across a doctrine or practice based off of one verse, the first thing I do is try to back up that scripture with other scripture. That is my personal practice, always back up scripture with scripture. If no scripture can back it up look for an explanation within the context. Usually by this point, the verse is explained and the doctrine is discounted. When I came across this verse when I studying tongues I made every effort I could to find just one more example of a tongue of angels in the Bible. So far in my search, I have found none.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

Actually no. Paul is comapring the practice of BOTH tongues of men and tongues of angels without love to that with love. The same point (that without love one becomes as a clanging cymbal or gong) applies equally to both tongues of men and tongues of angels in the absence of love.

Paul may or may not have experienced both of these, the text does not lead to a conclusion onthat question, but it is not relevant to his point either way. But it does matter that the two tongues are treated the same way. If tongues of angels don't exist, why lump them in with tongues of men? It is the possibiluty that is important here.

Again it is not required that Paul have actually doen these things, only that it be possible. That's the point of the mild hypothetical. Certainly it is true that we have the One whom can lead us into all knowledge and understanding. So it is possible. That's all that is required.

That Paul did not do it is not an argument that he did not have that faith. And Jesus words should not be taken to say that if you have that faith you must move mountains, or that moving mountinas is the only prrof of that kind of faith. that would be like saying that tnguees are the only real eidence of salvation. Finally, given all that Paul did, will you argue that Paul did not have that measure of faith? Can you prove that? I maintina that it is possible, and the possibility is all that is required to establish the reality of the tongues of angels.

Again as long as it is possible then we can inffer reasonably (at the very least!)that tongues of angels are possible. It is not required for Paul to have done any of these things for his point to be made.

The fact hat there is only one reference, so long as it is one that implies their existence, is not an argument against tongues of angels but one for it. There is only one place in scripture that refers to the millenium, but we have no trouble with that do we?

I agree that Paul was addressing tongues speakers. But that strengthens my point. Paul is addressing a real situation, one that was really happening. it seems that people were claiming that they were speaking in tongues of angels as well as tongues of men. Paul does not say: no you are not, ther are no tongues of angels." he says effectively "whatever you speak in, whatever you do, if it is not in love, then it is of no value."

No you can't. If it is a charism, then men can speak it under the urging of the Spirit. 1Co 13:1 is the very proof of it.

 

I did not mean to imply, suggest, indicate, or remotely support the idea that men speak with the tongues of angels in any circumstance, situation, ever. Paul was usuing EXTREME examples to show that love is more important than any idea that man could come up with. Why would someone latch onto just ONE of these examples and say that this extreme thing is something that is common. Paul is saying, EVEN IF I DID, do these things, and did not have love, it would be wrong. He is not saying, EVEN IF I DID, do all of these thing, (except of course, for that one thing which I actually do.) This seems to me to be a prime example of "Wresting" the scriptures that Peter talks about in II Pet 3:!6

 

The scriptures also tells us to hate our family, yet to love our enemies. Without exploring the context, single scriptures don't prove anything.

This is merely speculation on your part. It in no way substantiates this claim. If people had claimed to speaking in tongues of angels Paul would have addressed angelic tongues in Chapter 14. He never again uses this phrase.

He doesn't say "no you are not" because they never said "yes they were". As I just said, this is speculation on your part based upon people who claim to have this ability today. People who claim this ability are easily proven wrong when examining their practice in accordance with the rules laid out in 1 Corinthians 14...basically always know the meaning and use it to edify the body of Christ, not for selfish gain. People who claim to speak angelic tongues claim they don't have to know what it means and continually use it for self edification, not the good of the body.


~Lorelei

 

No you didn't. You were just doing what we are commanded to do and that is to rightly divide the word of truth, and questioning a claim I had made. You were right to question it and did indeed prove that I can not prove that angels do not speak their own tongue. Instead of being dogmatic I should have simply stated their is no evidence that they do exist. This verse simply does not prove either point of veiw.

What we do know from scripture, is just what you said, man has never spoken them. There is no reason that they should. Tongues were given as a sign to the unbeliever. If an unbeliever couldn't understand the tongue Paul said they would think that you were mad! Making an unbeliever think you are crazy is not the purpose of tongues, it was to prove to them it was from God and they had to understand it for that to happen (as they did in Acts 2).

Tongues were to edify the body, speaking in an angelic tongue suits no purpose in accomplishing this goal. Tongues can only edify when we understand.

Thanks for keeping me straight on the facts, I have no problem admitting when I make a mistake. I am human and I do that sometimes, annoying as it may be! *hehe*

Take care and God Bless!

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

What is your point? I was pointing out that your argument that single scripture cannot be used to build a doctrine is not valid since it is already done in the case of the Milelnium. If you accept that there is amillenium you do so on no more evidence than that which I point to in supporting the existence of tongues of angels. Certainly when we are dealing with a question where there is a paucity of evidence eiher for or against we should be cautious. But the fact of paucity is not grounds for denying something outright.

It is not a specualtion without support and is in fact accepted by major exegetes. It is based on the text and what we know of he Cornithian situation. As to your claim that it does not support tongues of angels, there you are wrong. Does the fact that Paul does not use the specific phrase tongues of angels in 1Co 14 prove anything? No. It is as likely that he is simply referring to tongues generically, which would include both those of men and angels. That is consistent with the context. Besides, to use silence in 1Co 14 to ignore what IS said in 1Co 13 is improper. Apply that principle consistently and you'd be surprised what doctrines you'd have to gie up on, like the Mllenium, just for example.

This ignores the context. There is no reason to even mention tongues of angels unless it was an issue. As you read through 1Co. you see an unusual emophasis oin thngs angelic. Since Paul's letters are occasional, meanig they adress actual situations, it makes sense of the context to infer that he mentions it because they did first.

This is not true. I got the reconstructionfrom scholars, not charismatic extremists. The fact is that belief in tongues of angels ws common at the time. The rabbinic literature of the day confirms this.

Finally you have not dealt with the grammar of the text. It treats tongues of men and angels in exactly the same way, and does not allow for a pure hypothetical. What is true of one, in context, is true of the other. If one is impossible then so is the other. If one is possible then so is the other. in other words, if ther are no tongues of angels the argument of Paul is undermined.

Don,

Glad you took no offense. Certainly none was intended.

The answer is yes. He did do at least some of them. Bt the premise is stil flawed. The argument does not require that any of them be done for the cogency of Paul's argument to be maintined. The things need only be possible. Even if Paul did not or could not do any of the things mentioned the problem of a lack of love would still be true.

And we still need to deal with the syntax, which does not allow us to take the passsage as purely hypothetical.

The proof is there. They exist. But that is a separate (if related) issue from the question of whether what some are practicing is an authentic example of what is referred to in 1Co 13.

If the concern is exccesses, then follow Paul's instructions. Check the pocedures to see if they are followed, test the spirits. Those gfted to discern spirits are there for that purpose.

It is amazing that we will claim to folow the Bible but ignore the very tests and regulative principles that the Bible lays down for just these issues. Paul does not outlaw tongues. His mentioning tongues of angels makes little sense if tongue of angels don't exist, and the insertion of such an impossibility is out of place in alist of things that we know were either possible or happened.

Not blaming you particularly Don or anything. We all have our areas where we do that. I think a good case can be made that in most if not all cases the tongues being claimed as angelic are bogus, but on the grounds that Paul himself lays out. To attempt to say they don't exist a priori is to make an argument Paul did not, and one that would have been helpful to him. (The absence of that argument needs to be accounted for in any reconstruction of the situation that Paul addresses.)

Thanks for the response.

 

Again I ask for proof. If this section of scripture was addressing actual situations, who actually understood all knowledge and mysteries? Who moved mountains and who was surrendering their body to the flames. Prove to me these were actual situations.

The fact remains you have no proof. No one, not even Paul, understood ALL knowledge and mysteries. According to you, someone must have been professing to and therefore they must have been telling the truth because Paul did not tell them that they were wrong in saying so.

I would also like you to share with us which verses other than verse 1 you consider Paul to be emphasising the "angelic." I don't see this in the text myself.

Would you care to share this proof with me. I have not seen or heard of such evidence, I would be interested in reading it for myself and examinging the validity of this claim.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

I would ask that you actually read 1Corinthians. I am not trying to be snide here. But read it. The entire reason for Paul writing is in response to the Corinthian situation. See 1:11; 3:2,3; 5:1, 9(proof that there was a "covnersation" bnetween Paul and the Corinthians; 6:12, which is taken to mean that Paul is responding to a slogan of someoone he disagrees with; 7:1; 8:1,4; 11:2,17 where Paul is responding to reports both postive and negative, 12:1 which leads us into chpater 13.

Paul did not right for no reason. He had specific issues to address, real ones. The reason for writing at all was to address real situations, real issues.

As to the angelic, see 1Co 7:1-7, 29, 36-38 (cf. Mat. 22:30); 11:10; 13:1. It seems that part of the problem was that the Corinthian Christians thought themselves as experiencing a spirtualised existance not unlike that of angels. The angelic was certainly an issue.

See for example the Tetsament of Job, 48-50; F.F. Bruce (Nw Century commentary) and Craig keener (Bible background Commentary (NT)) both refer to this as well as other extant literature. Both are up front as to the relative merits of this literature. It is not ironclad proof but cannot be ignored either.

Kevin Quast (Reading the Corinthian Correpsondance) refers specifcally to the influence of angels.

These are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

 

Latreia,

None of the verses you listed prove that the Corinthians made any of the claims you have suggested. We can agree all day that the Corinthians were arguing and Paul was addressing their situation. What you can not prove is that part of their "situation" included them professing to know all things and mysteries. You can not prove that any of them were offering their bodies to be burned. And you can also not prove that any of them claimed to speak in a tongue of angels. These specific examples were addressing another issue, the motive behind using spiritual gifts.

In your defense of 13:1 you stated:

If this holds true, then people must have been proclaiming to know all things and Paul affirmed this be true simply because he didn't say, "no you do not know ALL things." Do you honestly believe that these carnal Corinthians possesed the ability to fathom all mysteries and knowledge?

Your statement "it seems that" is a proper way of stating this because it merely "appears" to be so according to "your" interpretation. It is purely speculation on your part based upon your own assumption that people have the ability to speak them. You still have no proof that anyone was suggesting such a thing.

I will have to look up some of the information you have listed. From what I have read, church history seems to be silent on the gift of tongues. It wasn't until the turn of the century in the early 1900s that tongues as we see them today came on the scene, when this new charasmatic movement began. Granted my research is limited, but it's hard to find materials discussing something that was non-existant at the time.

~Lorelei

 

Lorelei,

I am sorry that you don't see the evidence even when it is presented. I firmly established thatthe situations that Paul was addressing were actual situations which the Corinthians were experiencing.

It is obvious that, at the very minimum, the issue was a loveless exercise of charismatic gifts. The fact that tongues is the first on the list, and is discussed for some time afterward, is evidence that tongues are the main issue. The fact that angelism is prominent in other problems in Corinth makes it very likely that the mention of angels in this context is not for no reason. The evidence sugests then that angelic tongues are an issue.

But nmore to the point, scholars agree that when it comes to the all knowledge comments Paul is dealing with an incpient gnosticism which made precisely the claim to knowing all mysteries. In both cases Paul does not say that it is impossible (which is your case), but that there is a regulative principle to be observed. I reiterate that you must deal with the absence of the argument that you put forward. If Paul knew that it was impossible why did he not just say so?

See, the reason that scholars go for the reconstruction of the circumstaces surounding 1Co 12-14 is that they make sense both of what is said and what is not said.

But even ignoring that, the fact is that the grammar of the passage is such that what is true of tongues of angels is true of tongues of men. Thus we cannot say there are not tongues of angels without saying there are no tongues of men, and we don't argue that.

Not necessarily. Paul need only be making parallel arguments using other exampes to make his main point that the loveless use of charismata is bad.

Saying "it seems that" is only being honest. The reconstruction is not absolutelty certain. To speak as though it were would be improper. Similarly to label it as mere speculation, when there is no alternative offered, and supporting evidence is given, is to misrepresent things. Particulalrly off base is your line about my assumptions. Nowhere in my presentation did I say anything that relied on the prior assumption of angelic tongues. I worked strictly from the text.

I specifically offered the evidence of 12:1. 1Co 13 still falls under that "heading" verse. So Paul is addressing an actual situation regarding spiritual gifts and various issues connected to them.

That isn't entirely true. You'll find references to it in various places in church history, though it isn't easy. Certainly though you won't find anythng like the concentrartion of it until the last century or two.

Interesting in this reagard are a pair of books written by a scholar (contributor to the Bible Knowedge commentary OT volume) who switched from cessationism, and taught at Moody ( I think, I know it was one of those SBC seminaries) Jack Deere: Surprised by the Power of th Holy Spirit, and Surprised by the Voice of God. The latter has a little historical section. Granted these do not deal exclusively with the questio of tongues of angels, they do with charismatic phenomena of which this issue is but a part.

You might also try "God's empowering presence" by Gordon Fee. His commentary on 1 Corinthians in the Word commentary series is one of the best out there, though I don't necessarily agree with all he says.

I commend your actually looking stuff up. I do wish that you'd do it with a bit more objectivity though. While I am sure that you are not inending to, you are cuasing me to feel like you think I am a liar and a charlatan and your going to "catch me."

Don,

The issue was the paucity of evidence. If paucity were as important as all that then millenialism would have to be disqualified as well.

As to the "if" statement, I have already pointed out that the Greek does not support a pure hypothetical, abnd the context gives supprot to the thought that these are real situations or at least real possibilities, being disucssed.

Again the paucity of evidence is not a point that eliminates the existing evidenc from consideration. Besiuds, in comapring all scripture there is nothing that can be said to deny the possibility of angelic tongues.

The problem with your example is that it is not a true one. The fact is that we are not comparing tow scriptures that spak to the ame issue but rather scriptures whcih speak of angelic tongues and ones that say nothing of them. Not the same thng as your example at all. So no, I need not subscribe to the belief that scripture is self-contrdicting.

In the absence of other scriptures to compare with the only thiong that can determine the correctness or incorrectness is the context of 1Co 13. That is the ground that must be stood upon by both those affirming the possibility of tongues of angels and those denying it.

 

Why don't all those folks who speak with the tongues of angels speak the same language? Just curious. Why don't each one of them understand what the other one is saying? Does each one have a separate angelic language like we have Frech, Russian, German, English? Are there 10,000 angelic languages and each person has their own unique language assigned to them.? Why is it that those who speak in tongues will pick out certain verses about a very rare occurrence (if at all) and then claim it is a common occurrence? Clearly the vast majority of verses dealing with tongues is talking about languages of men but that is almost unheard of in charismatic circle (a few anecdotes,but, not common). A few verses can be interpreted (if you try) to mean an UNKNOWN TO ANYONE language, but yet, this is the kind that charismatics claim as very common. Even if there is such a thing as an angelic language, and I am not saying there is, what makes you think that is what you are speaking. I mean since you admit you don't know that language, you might be speaking the language of demons, after all you don't know what you are saying. Just curious.

 

I disagree.

~Lorelei

 

I've always thought Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 was just saying angels had nice, sweet voices, not spoilt by any strange accent or impediment. - kind of like Australian .....

Regards
Bob

 

Two possible references to tongues of angels in ICor. 13:1 according to the commentary "the Interpreters Bible" is Revelations 14:2-3 and II Cor. 12:4. These references could also be aplied to the term Mysteries in ICorinthians 14:2

 

Lorelei,

Who can argue with such reasoning?

The evidence has been presnted, and you are of course free to accept it or reject it.

Given that there is nothing more that I can say, and I dont want to get into repeating myself any more than I already have, I huess that its for me on this thread.