Tongues for today?

Tongues are a sign to unbelievers 1 Cor 14:22 and the word unknown was added by the translaters and not in the original languages.

 

I already stated that I believe tongues to be a sign gift to Israel (Acts 2-Joel 2) God affirming the authority of the Apostles along with the miracles and wonders. Once confirmed along with the rejection of the Apostles and the Gospel of grace through faith in Jesus Christ by the Jewish nation these gifts, signs and wonders left the scene with the Apostles.

Since you asked, in my view, tongues as it is practiced today is not a gift at all but an act of misplaced zeal coming from out of a desire on the part of the individual to be closer to God.

1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

HankD​

 

As 2Timothy has already posted, 1 Cor. 14:22 says tongues are for "unbelievers".

 

No matter how we interpret "tongues", Paul is very clear that the use or practice of speaking in tongues was not to be done in public worship.

In this verse Paul gives clear indication that tongues are not understandable even to the person speaking/praying. Please note he says, "IF I pray ..."

1Co 14:14 (KJV) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Is he saying he is speaking in Spanish and doesn’t know Spanish? That I don’t know.

Here is what is clear and leaves no room for error. I further feel this is why Paul took time to discuss tongues. Use of tongues clearly should not be done in public worship unless someone is able to interpret. I would imagine if someone spoke in Spanish and a Spanish speaking person was present then we now have an interpreter.

1Co 14:26 (KJV) How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

However, as for a spiritual language, how can one interpret? It would have to be via the Holy Spirit. This says to me if the Holy Spirit came into one and caused them to speak in tongues, it would also come into another and cause them to interpet. Failure to do so would be inserting confusion and something of no value into a worship service? I don't believe the Holy Spirit would do that...

 

For 2 Timothy 2 and Isaiah 40, I know what 1 Corinthians 14:22 says in most translations of Scripture. The problem is that it contradicts the plain language of 1 Corinthians 14:23-25. Therefore, we have two choices: (1) to give v. 22 an out of the ordinary meaning, e.g., speaking in tongues signifies to unbelievers that Christians are mad, or (2) to conclude that there was a transposition of some of the words in an ancient copying of the manuscript. J. B. Phillips did exactly that in his translation of the New Testament. In the Phillips Translation, 1 Corinthians 14:22 reads: "That means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are unbelievers, but to those who already believe. Preaching the word of God, on the other hand, is a sign of God's power to those who do not believe rather than to believers." I can accept either conclusion, but I cannot agree that the gift of tongues is a tool for the evangelization of unbelievers.

 

'

1 Corinthians 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.

Since the unknown tongue is spoken to God, and not to man, it would stand to reason that the interpretation of that unknown tongue would be as to God and not man.

These so called interpretations in Churches today are always "Thus saith the Lord,' or 'the Lord God would have you know.' If the intrepretation of the unknown tongue is not addressed to God, but to man, then it is not the correct interpretation of that tongue.

 

Would you explain how the tongues are spiritually beneficial?

Is there an immediate benefit? A long-term one? What form does it take?

 

Tom, as I stated in Post #11, I don't have the gift of tongues so all I can offer is what I have seen and heard. I know of no public benefit arising out of speaking in tongues. On the contrary, I believe this practice is disruptive to a church service and is likely to be offputting to visitors. For those who use tongues as a private prayer language and are willing to talk about it, it is sort of a "mountaintop experience." I have observed people praying who didn't know anyone was around suddenly stop speaking English and start uttering sounds that resemble no language on earth. It doesn't appear to be entirely voluntary on their part, and it may well be groanings of the Spirit as described in Romans 8:26. Surely this is what Paul was alluding to in 1 Corinthians 13:1 - "tongues . . . of angels." Every person I have known who uses this private prayer language (5 or 6 altogether) spends a great deal of time in prayer. They are regarded by others as powerful prayer warriors. Of course I know many more people who don't speak in tongues who spend a lot of time praying and they are also powerful prayer warriors. So what is the benefit? On a temporary level, there is the spiritual "high" that goes with any mountaintop experience. There appears to also be the permanent benefit of a closer personal relationship with God through this intimate interaction with the Holy Spirit. I will never castigate those who claim this gift.

 

The unknown tongue is not the 'tongues of angels' that Paul wrote of to the Church in Corinth.

Go through the Word of God wherever angels spoke, and you will find something intereting. Angels never babbled some unknown language. Every time they spoke, people understood what they were saying without them needing an interpreter.

The babbling that people always need an interpreter for is nothing but babbling with a false interpretation.

IF you were speaking to me in French, or German and I only understood English, the interpreter would not speak in English that which I wanted to articulate to you, but would speak to me in the English tongue what you were saying.

The same with the unknown tongue... since it is to God as Paul said in 1 Corinthians the interpretation should be as man talking to God.

 

All right, so if angels talk just like people why would Paul use the conjunctive "of men and of angels"? I don't think he inserted angels into this sentence just so it would sound good when read at weddings. Words are put into sentences to communicate an idea and the idea here is that men have one kind of language and angels have another. Read 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 and you will realize Paul wrote from a perspective none of us has ever experienced.

 

Where in Scripture did angels speak and man did not hear and understand in his own voice?

 

First, please show in scripture were it EVER called or alluded to as a 'PRIVATE' prayer language or EVER said to be used in such a way. I can show you where scripture states it use IN the Church 1 Cor 14 (no privacy there), and with other people of a different language such ACTS 2 and other occurances there in (no privacy there).

I can show you where scripture states about the Holy Spirit helping us to pray...with groaning THAT CAN NOT BE UTTERED (as in passing over the lips), so there would be no verbalizing AT ALL in this instance.

Speaking in Tongues is NOT something that just happens and is not controlable:

This "to himself" is NOT meaning quietly or softly speaking in tongues but not speaking period (thus his keeping SILENT) but praying internally.


I had about 2 full pages of refute typed up on just what you gave above. But the fact is, until you set down yourself and exegete the scriptures of 1 Cor 12 through 14 in the context it was written (rebuke for misuse and abuse) you will cling to all these falsehoods and emotionalism. I say that from coming out of the Assemblies of God for 7 years, with a mother who used to speak in tongues, and wife who used to speak in tongues, and other firends who did the same. When God revealed the truth, their tongues ceased. The problem is most don't want to know the truth but will cling to their experience regardless of scripture. Listen to Paul:

There is NO SUCH THING as a spiritual gift for you 'personal' edification, but the gifts were given for the edification of the Church (1 Cor 12:7). And if one prays in a tongue they themselves do not understand, they are to pray to interpret. This means it is Gods WILL they KNOW what they are saying, and not speak (as scripture says) "into the air". IF they can not interpret with absolute certainty their tongues then it is not a gift from God since God desires they know what they are saying. Who better make sure the people claiming the gift of interpretation (or vise versa) are truely giving a 100% accurate interpretation than you (or them)?

Besides, scripture is adamant that tongues are not FOR the believer but the unbelievers, however prophesy IS for beleivers.

I'm doing it again. I will stop. Try starting in chapter 12 and do a verse by verse study IN CONTEXT with the INTENT of the author in mind, which was to rebuke them for their abuse and misuse of the spiritual gift of which Paul begins "Brethren, I don't want you to remain ignorant".

 

If you will note the passage you refer to has three parts and you CAN NOT maintain your interpretation (of Paul speaking the languages of men and an angelic language).

Paul uses himself for the example of the metaphor he set forth:

There are three "Though I" here. If the first one means that Paul honestly speaks in both an angelic and human languages then the other MUST follow. WHat do they state after this method of interpretation, well let's see:

So in the first verse Paul has:
1. The gift of prophesy (this would be the ONLY time he makes such a statement - but ok)
2. Understands ALL mysteries
3. Has ALL knowledge
4. ALL faith

That doesn't sound like the Paul who says, He does things he aught not and does not do those thing he should and many other things that contradicts the above statements as though he actaully beleived he had obtained these things (and in 3 short years no less).

Now the second one show this:
1. He has nothing of his own, but sold it all to feed the poor.
2. Gave his body to be burned (we find THIS no where in scripture)

But wait - this is NOT about having all, doing all, and speaking in all ways, thus being the perfect 'christian', but that one who has all this and has no love is of no benifit to God, himself, and mankind. IF he has not love he is not actually of God.


So in fact, Paul is not saying he actaully speaks with tongues of men and of angels but is using an metaphor to make a point.

Sorry it is so choppy, but I don't have much time - forgive me.

 

Amen, Allen!

 

Here AGAIN, you presume falsely. I want to go in reverse here.

Where does Paul state speaking in an unknown language (ecstatic as you call it) found it 'very beneficial to their spiritual life'. Paul says if you do not understand what you are saying there is NO BENIFIT. Paul will NOT speak, pray, or sing anything if he does not understand what he is saying. Do you just skip that part of scripture, like here:

or here:

It will not benifit them unless he speaks in a language they understand. Without understanding there IS NO spiritual growth, only emotionalism which does nothing for you spiritually, as he states here:

Notice he doesn't state here that they are speaking to God mysteries. And that btw, (speaking mysteries to God) is not an encouragement nor a clarification of what is being done but a codemnation of what and how they are doing it. Note the context and that he tells them NOT to speak in an unknown language when 1) you don't understand it, 2) there is no interpreter so others may understand it.

Secondly, in the original language the word 'unknown' is NOT in scripture. It was added for clarification that the those who were now speaking in the languages of the men had no previous ability to do such.

Please show where tongues in chapter 14 makes a distinction between languages of men and ecstatic. PLEASE, show me one (just one instance) a that there even IS a distinction. You can't. You have to change the scripture, modify context, and add into the verse what is not there.

What you set forth reveals you have NOT studied this AT ALL or I should say biblcally studied this in exegetical format or just verse by verse for starters. Scripture is SPECIFIC that the tongues is for unbelievers and it refered to the unbelieving Jews.

It was prophesied that the Jews in the OT (due to rejecting God) would be taken way into slavery by another people of other tongues and other lips (unknown tongue). This manifestation to the Jews would bring back to their remberance that story and the bondage for their rejection of God and His provision, and that is exactly what happened to the Jews of the NT. They were dispursed and scattered not long there after and would remember the sign given.

It is a sign not for ALL unbelievers but for the Jewish unbeliever and thus by extension the gentile unbeliever as well, being that our talking is to be much different than theirs - foriegn if you will. That might be somewhat of a stretch but the principle can be applied. But it is not the only purpose of the gift of tongues but it is one of it's primary reasons as stated by Paul.

So how do we know when tongues are not being used properly:
1. When it is done for personal edificaiton
2. It is done disorderly in church (no interpreter)
3. It is done while the person has no understanding of what they are saying
4. It is removed from it's intended purpose of edify the church body to a private thing
5. Those who do it are considered more spiritual especially in prayer

Just to name a few from 1 Cor 14. But let me leave you with this if I may and seriously consider this if nothing else:

OR as the NLB states it:

and contrast that with Paul's statement here:

Do you see the contradiction set forth by Paul.
The gifts God gives are for the edification of the church body, but these people were not using their gifts properly (misuse) for the Church as it was intended but themselves. And they were using it as a status and or a spiritual symbol (abuse). These two view are a complete contradiction to Gods intent for the gifts given.

 

Deleted by me...

 

I've seen tongues-speaking on TBN, and I can't recall a single time where Paul's scriptural guidelines were followed.

I have never heard anyone interpret. And every one of the tongues-speakers was teaching or following error in other areas of theology.

I know, just because somebody is practcing tongues the wrong way doesn't invalidate the practice. But the connection between tongues and error ought not to be blown off, it seems to me.

 

Still waiting for an explanation from the tongue talking crowd as to why something spoken to God is interpreted as having been spoken to man...