OK, so once they understand the place and significance of Spirit and his work, do we discourage them from this type of speaking in tongues or not?

To use the communion example, there are plenty of people who understand the place of communion but insist on having it every week anyway. My experience has been that churches are much more likely to humour this and hold communion each week for the purpose of not causing the weaker brother to stumble than limiting all communion services to, say, once a month.

Do we treat this issue in the same way? Why or why not?

Hard to say specifics because a pastoral solution always takes the situation into account. For me the principle is if someone insists on having a time for speaking in tongues in church, I would say no. If it is an issue that is causing them to stumble, I would counsel them but I still wouldn’t allow it because by allowing it, I am agreeing with them and supporting their false belief.

Absolutely valid questions Tamie, and that’s for people higher up the pastoral hierarchy than I am. If we find this passage might actually hold other meanings — which I am just arguing we need to look at, I’m no great theologian — then wow! There could be a lot of confused and scared people out there. What if some of them do what my High School mate did, and chuck in their faith because too much of it rested in their “tongues”? Lee’s strategy might work, it sounds good to me. I don’t want people to abandon their faith over this, or get overly stressed — but neither do I want to see the silliness I believe is associated with modern “tongues”.

Remember my tape recorder test for tongues? Who is actually willing to do that? What if you get 10 different “interpretations” every time you do it, no matter who is interpretting and who is tonguesing? ;-)

And always remember the example of “Nimby” in the Benny Hinn thread. Just because something really powerful appears to happen, doesn’t mean it actually did. Nimby was a strong guy and powerful performer — and I’m SURE people went home believing they had seen an amazing exorcism — they had the bruises to prove it! If someone runs this test, set it up in such a way that collusion is impossible.

We really should drop the word tongues because I understand the Greek word is better understood as “languages”. Tongues is too laden with today’s expectations and experiences. After all, languages is the very same word that’s used in Acts to describe the Pentecost experience which seems very different to modern “tongues”. Instead of an individual private “worship” language, we have the Apostles declaring the gospel and people from any language seem to understand. That ain’t Corinthians to me, even though it’s the same word in the Greek.

Which reminds me… why have linguists studying glossolalia concluded that it is not a language, and does not have the structures of language? Why does the bible call something a language that does not have any apparent semblance to language? Indeed, linguists have said that there are culturally derived versions of tongues. There is an English “tongues” which has certain English accents to the glossolalia, and there is a “French tongues” as well… with certain sounds not found in the English speaker’s ecstatic experience. I actually think it requires more word games and leaps of faith to believe in modern glossolalia than it does my reading of the passage, but hey, that’s me?

Also Tamie, I think the idea of a “sound mind” is thoroughly scriptural. I understand it says something about a “safe, sane” mind.

Ephesians 5:18_Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.

What is the opposite of being drunk? Being sober. So why is it that so many Charismatics think this passage reads “Do not get intoxicated by alcohol but be intoxicated by the Holy Spirit?” Being “filled with” — characterised by the Spirit — is being characterised by love, power to do good, and a sane mind. Glossolalia just seems alien to the self-control that I understand is the fruit of the spirit.

Now Enkers…

For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.

If you will allow me 3 comments on 14:2
1. My first comment is that the “mystery” is not very mysterious.

Romans 16:25_Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

Ephesians 1:9_And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,

Ephesians 3:3_that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

Ephesians 3:4_In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

Ephesians 3:6_This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 3:9_and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

Ephesians 5:32_This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

Ephesians 6:19_Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,

Colossians 1:26_the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Colossians 1:27_To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Colossians 2:2_My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,

Colossians 4:3_And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.

1 Timothy 3:16_Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

I hope this demonstrates how often Paul uses the term mystery to describe a secret now revealed. It’s not that the very gospel of salvation is intrinsically unknowable and irrational, but that it’s simply a mystery to the uninitiated and they need to know!

2. Mathematical probability of “no one understanding”.
I’d like to add to Gordon’s comments on the chaos at Corinth with another question. How many where at these gatherings? What was the average size of a house church gathering here? Because in addition to the drunkenness and other events at Corinth, we also have the mathematical probability that in a smaller gathering of maybe 20 or 30 there really could be some ethnic minority that is essentially on their own so that “no one understands”.

3. What is the “for” there fore?

For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.

It seems that the individual speaking in a language is speaking to God alone precisely because no one else understands, otherwise he might be speaking to them… which seems to be the thrust of the whole chapter.
“to God, FOR no one understands;”
Maybe if his/her language was interpreted they’d be understood and be speaking to the church?

This brings me yet one more time to verse 13.

13For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.

“pray that he may”

According to your understanding “that he may” means the miraculous enabling of something to otherwise impossible to happen. But I wonder if that’s the case. Sure Paul might get nervous now and then, but do we really believe that without miraculous intervention it would be otherwise impossible for him to declare the gospel fearlessly?

Ephesians 6:20
20for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

Likewise Paul was a bit wordy. He could talk. But are we really to believe that without miraculous intervention it would be otherwise impossible for him to declare the gospel clearly?

Colossians 4:4
4Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.

This is the absolute sense in which you are reading the words “Pray that he may”. Couldn’t it be “pray that he may have an opportunity”?

I understand that the glossolalia reading of this passage is very ingrained, but I have heard other ministers speak on this very idea. I’m not smart enough to come up with this all on my own. It’s out there. I’m just asking for a bit of a Greek geek to check it out for us.

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]Enkers, I wonder if in 1 Cor 14:2 there is an element of hyperbole when Paul says “no-one understands”.

Appealing to hyperbole can be a little like appealing to irony, it may be a way to revise the meaning of the text. The question is, of course, does the hyperbole claim stand up to scrutiny. If it is hyperbole, then Paul means “only a few people understand.” Is this supported by the context? I’m not sure that it makes sense if we follow this understanding through the entire paragraph. For example, we strike difficulties because no longer is Paul correct when he says that the speaker in a tongue “does not speak to people but to God,” for he actually speaks to a few people as well as God on this scheme. In verse 4, the tongue speaker is not only building himself up, but also those others in the congregation who speak the same language. And so on…

[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]If the situation at Corinth is one of barely controlled chaos (everyone speaking at the same time, some getting drunk at the Lord’s supper, women shouting out questions over the top of the one speaking), then “no-one understands” would be a pretty apt description of what is going on.

The problem here is that when Paul addresses the abuse of tongues at Corinth, he is not addressing the disorder but the lack of comprehension. Rather than simply saying, as he does with prophecy, that each must speak in turn, he also requires that someone interpret. This seems to indicate that there are two problems, disorder and lack of comprehension.

I really think the whole idea that tongues is a second language learnt and understood by the speaker falls to the ground when Paul observes that the mind is unfruitful when praying in a tongue (1Cor 14:14-15), and he would prefer to pray with his spirit and with his mind. The fact that the person speaking in tongues needs to have the gift of interpretation to understand what s/he is saying suggests that this is not a simple case of a poly-lingual person choosing to express themselves in a different language.

Other things point in this same direction. Some, if not all, of the other gifts listed cannot be learnt but must be given by God: prophecy, miracles, and so on. So there’s no grounds for discounting the possibility that tongues, too, are un-learnt manifestations of the Spirit. Finally, the instances of tongues speaking in Acts appear to involve such manifestations of the Spirit, for they come in response to the giving of the Spirit and are spectacularly identifiable in a way that a group of Japanese tourists bursting forth in Japanese would not be.

There is no doubt that tongues is being grossly abused by many churches. Of course it isn’t limited to tongues, it includes prophecy, “words of knowledge” and “words of wisdom,” miracles, even just teaching. The abuse, even if extensive, does not implicitly mean that the traditional understanding of the nature of the gift is incorrect.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]My first comment is that the “mystery” is not very mysterious…

I hope this demonstrates how often Paul uses the term mystery to describe a secret now revealed. It’s not that the very gospel of salvation is intrinsically unknowable and irrational, but that it’s simply a mystery to the uninitiated and they need to know!

Yet Paul is referring to something which was a mystery and has been made known, not something that continues to be a mystery. For that, see such references as 1Cor 13:2. If it is a mystery which has been made known, the context makes it clear, otherwise the reader would assume that it remains a mystery! The “made known” component of the semantics here is supplied by the context, it is not inherent to the semantic field of the term μυστήριον itself.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]2. Mathematical probability of “no one understanding”.
I’d like to add to Gordon’s comments on the chaos at Corinth with another question. How many where at these gatherings? What was the average size of a house church gathering here? Because in addition to the drunkenness and other events at Corinth, we also have the mathematical probability that in a smaller gathering of maybe 20 or 30 there really could be some ethnic minority that is essentially on their own so that “no one understands”.

This is very special pleading. So the accuracy of Paul’s argument depends on only one person from any particular language group turning up on the day? If so, as soon as two or more people speaking any particular language turned up they’d be able to ignore Paul’s advice.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]According to your understanding “that he may” means the miraculous enabling of something to otherwise impossible to happen. But I wonder if that’s the case. Sure Paul might get nervous now and then, but do we really believe that without miraculous intervention it would be otherwise impossible for him to declare the gospel fearlessly?

You’ve made a giant leap here. You equate Paul proclaiming the gospel with “speaking in a tongue,” and that equation is not made anywhere. Certainly we have no record of Paul speaking in a tongue when proclaiming the gospel. Paul may have spoken in tongues more than any of the Corinthians, but you’ve then made the leap to assume that he is doing this when he proclaims the gospel. In fact, 1Cor 14:19 suggests that for Paul, speaking in tongues was not something he did to instruct others, for that involved his mind, not only his spirit.

Furthermore, you’re playing linguistic legerdemain with my words here. I am not claiming anything about the phrase “that he may” except in one particular context. You cannot simply take information from one context and then impose it on all other uses of part of that context (Paul’s use of ἵνα) as you appear to do by taking the context from 1Cor 14 and reading it into those other passages.

As an aside, I would not be surprised if Paul did think that his preaching, apart from divine assistance, would be fruitless. Would that surprise you?

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]This is the absolute sense in which you are reading the words “Pray that he may”. Couldn’t it be “pray that he may have an opportunity”?

Except that Paul doesn’t say this, he says “pray so that he may interpret...” He could have said something like προσευχέσθω ἵνα ἔχω εὐκαιρίαν διερμηνεύειν, “… pray so that he may have an opportunity to interpret.” But he didn’t.

The same problem arises in 1Cor 14:14, you need to introduce information not found in the text to arrive at your understanding of the text.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Could it be that “my mind is unfruitful” is not actually supporting the idea of an ecstatic experience that the mind does not engage or rule or understand — but rather is it saying that my mind is unfruitful in the lives of others if I don’t speak in their language?

You might be able to read it this way if you ignore 1Cor 14:18-19 where Paul makes it quite clear that speaking in a tongue does not involve the mind, it involves the spirit, and this disjunction is not related to the audience, but to the act of speaking in a tongue. The whole discussion of mind/spirit seems to suggest that the content of the speech is not available even to the speaker, for even the speaker requires the gift of interpretation in order to understand.

[quote author="Martin (Enkidu) Shields"]
[quote author="Gordon Cheng"]If the situation at Corinth is one of barely controlled chaos (everyone speaking at the same time, some getting drunk at the Lord’s supper, women shouting out questions over the top of the one speaking), then “no-one understands” would be a pretty apt description of what is going on.

The problem here is that when Paul addresses the abuse of tongues at Corinth, he is not addressing the disorder but the lack of comprehension. Rather than simply saying, as he does with prophecy, that each must speak in turn, he also requires that someone interpret. This seems to indicate that there are two problems, disorder and lack of comprehension.

But they are related problems. The lack of comprehension (”no-one understands") is literally true if it is overlaid with the chaos of all prophesying at the same time.

Paul sorts out both problems. The tongues must be interpreted. And prophecies (tongues+interpretation, among other things) must happen one at a time.

I really think the whole idea that tongues is a second language learnt and understood by the speaker falls to the ground when Paul observes that the mind is unfruitful when praying in a tongue (1Cor 14:14-15), and he would prefer to pray with his spirit and with his mind.

“Unfruitful”, in the context of a discussion about congregational life, needn’t mean that the tongues speaker doesn’t themselves understand what they are saying. It is unfruitful in the sense that whilst the normal intention of speaking is to communicate, no such communication occurs.

The fact that the person speaking in tongues needs to have the gift of interpretation to understand what s/he is saying suggests that this is not a simple case of a poly-lingual person choosing to express themselves in a different language.

Or, that they are fluent only in their own primary language. But in order to get their meaning across to a mixed-language group, they must be able to speak their own language well, and the language of their hearers in a way that they can be understood.

So, I speak English reasonably well, and can struggle on in Swedish. If I went to the deep south of Sweden, in an area where there were no English speakers, I could probably get by with what I knew. But I certainly couldn’t give a sermon in English, and have the facility to interpret into Swedish. I just don’t have the words. Even if I could manage, my Australian-Stockholm accent would confound some hard of hearing locals, and immigrants who themselves had a poor grasp of Swedish would have no chance. I would need to pray for the gift of interpretation—a local who could speak English well enough to understand me and speak clearly in the local accent.

So there’s no grounds for discounting the possibility that tongues, too, are un-learnt manifestations of the Spirit.

True. I wouldn’t insist on the “alternative languages” theory, because there just isn’t enough evidence for it.

The abuse, even if extensive, does not implicitly mean that the traditional understanding of the nature of the gift is incorrect.

Do we actually know what the “traditional understanding” is? My own “traditional understanding” is one that I have half-heartedly picked up from charismatics who are quite sure they are right, over the last 30 years or so. Your sense of the history of the meaning of the word “tongues” may be a bit more solid.

Hi Martin,

Other things point in this same direction. Some, if not all, of the other gifts listed cannot be learnt but must be given by God: prophecy, miracles, and so on. So there’s no grounds for discounting the possibility that tongues, too, are un-learnt manifestations of the Spirit. Finally, the instances of tongues speaking in Acts appear to involve such manifestations of the Spirit, for they come in response to the giving of the Spirit and are spectacularly identifiable in a way that a group of Japanese tourists bursting forth in Japanese would not be.

I thought I addressed all that above?
How does “languages” in Acts to “languages” in the Corinthian passages. They could not be more different!

Indeed, one of the great questions I have is how biblical theology might affect our understanding of tongues as well? Why the “downshift” to a less helpful gift? One minute tongues in Acts is OBVIOUSLY miraculous as everyone can understand them!

7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”

By the time we get to Corinthians tongues is a mysterious, private, impossible to understand affair. (You are arguing it is ALWAYS impossible unless another miraculous gift interprets it.) Why work like this when we had the 2 gifts together in one at Pentecost?

Did the gift break at Corinth? ;-)

The tongues of Corinth appears to bring back the confusion of the curse of Babel. The word in the greek says language, but I keep forgetting to use it because of my prior conditioning! It’s HARD to break away from a Charismatic reading of this passage, a background culture we have pressed onto it, when the word simply says language and is the same word used in Acts.

Why the shift? What changed? Can I expect to see tongues of fire each time someone at Hillsong speaks in tongues? Why can’t I speak in tongues and have everyone understand me, the way it was in the good old days of Acts? The word is the same, but the gifts are so different. Language miraculously given so all might understand, and then language given so that none may understand, not even the speaker. I don’t get it.

As to tongues having to be miraculous because all gifts in this section are miraculous.... I don’t buy it. Hmm, let’s try that out.

I’d would LOVE the gift of administration to be “miraculous” so that the Holy Spirit did my book-keeping for our design ministry, but I’m afraid it feels very much like me doing it. I have the ability, my mind does not go into blank mode when I do it, I wish I could do it in my sleep, that would be great! But I have to stay present and think about it.

The same with “helping” people, I really wish I cared more about the housework and it just flowed out of me, but it doesn’t. Maybe I don’t have the gift of helping… but how do you define helping and administration “gifts” as miraculous? Your argument is circular,
“Because the other gifts are definitely miraculous languages has to be as well.” Nah, it’s just not true. The other gifts were not all miraculous. Can spiritual gifts, like administration or helping people or even teaching, be learned over a period of time? Is it that some gifts might be given miraculously, and others given through people growing up and learning to teach, to help, to administer, and to speak a 2nd or 3rd language?

Another question I have is when are these gifts given?
Do we still have apostles today? If not, because we know the definition of an apostle, could it be that Paul is discussing a bunch of gifts… some of which might have been fulfilling their purpose at the time IF we understood their purpose?

Why don’t I see tongues of fire every time a new tongues speaker starts speaking in tongues?

Yet Paul is referring to something which was a mystery and has been made known, not something that continues to be a mystery. For that, see such references as 1Cor 13:2. If it is a mystery which has been made known, the context makes it clear, otherwise the reader would assume that it remains a mystery! The “made known” component of the semantics here is supplied by the context, it is not inherent to the semantic field of the term itself.

OK, let’s look at it again.

For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.

Yes, I see your point, however it is not conclusive. It could be either way, I need to be able to read the greek. It could be that he is speaking about the gospel, or that he is inherently mysterious because of his language speaking.
(I find some of the tonal Asian languages the most mysterious, how about you?) It does not prove if it’s languages or “tongues” in either case.

This is very special pleading. So the accuracy of Paul’s argument depends on only one person from any particular language group turning up on the day? If so, as soon as two or more people speaking any particular language turned up they’d be able to ignore Paul’s advice.

I admit my argument was special pleading, I thought I presented it as such….  it was to illustrate the need for a closer look a the greek. I was just raising the “what if” to get people looking at it in a different light and see if we have not misrepresented an important area of church life.

The same problem arises in 1Cor 14:14, you need to introduce information not found in the text to arrive at your understanding of the text.

My mistake… I’ll try again. It was argued in this book I read ages ago (called something like “Although I speak in tongues more than you all”) that the greek word for “mind” in this context was best translated as “understanding”. In that case, it would read…. “my understanding is unfruitful”. If I understand something, but it is unfruitful, what does that mean? It must mean it is not bearing fruit in the lives of others which is what this passage really is all about.

The whole discussion of mind/spirit seems to suggest that the content of the speech is not available even to the speaker, for even the speaker requires the gift of interpretation in order to understand.

As I have repeatedly argued above, it depends on what you understand spirit and mind to mean! It REALLY does depend on what you understand these to mean! For I remember passages that seem to refer to the human spirit KNOWING things, I will have to look it up as I’ve tried various phrases and they are not working. There is absolutely no disjunction if the words represent a knowing spirit whose understanding has not borne fruit in the lives of others by being shared in an intelligible manner.

You’ve made a giant leap here. You equate Paul proclaiming the gospel with “speaking in a tongue,” and that equation is not made anywhere.

No no no. I never made that leap — and if my writing implied it I’m sorry but I can’t see where you got that.

I’m just trying to illustrate (yet again) that the phrase “that he may” does not require an abscence of human talent or involvement. Please prove that it does mean a lack of human talent?  I merely quoted those examples of Paul to try and show “that he may” in another light. I was not changing his proclamation of the gospel into tongues speaking! (Although interestingly this is what happened to the Apostles in Acts.)

Please pray that I may sleep tonight, and that I may rise and have time to eat my breakfast tomorrow, and that I may drive my kids safety to school tomorrow that I may return safely that I may also work hard at Lankshear Design and bring glory to god by keeping our studio out of financial trouble. (Somehow. ;-)

Now, maybe one of those items will require a miracle, which one I’ll leave up to you. ;-) The others are just prayer that I will do what I should and would normally do anyway, but that God’s providence will merely overide the situation “that I may” do what I should do anyway.

If someone speaks Chinese in an English church, he should pray that he may interpret it. It’s that simple. Or he should seek someone that can interpret for him. It’s also that simple. But praying that he may interpret it does not require us to believe he can’t even understand Chinese, which is the Charismatic argument.

Hey, guys.

I´m a little late in on this conversation, but I´d like to direct you to two articles by Robert Zerhusen, which presents, in my opinion an interesting perspective on the tongues issue. The articles don´t neccesarily present my position (jury is still out on this one). But I find his arguments quite compelling.

I´d suggest that both articiles by read, otherwise the 1 Cor. article might not be properlly understood because he works with already established propositions developed in piece 1.

(Copy + Paste may be neccesary)

Tongues 1 (Acts)
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415640,00.html

Tongues 2 (1Cor.)
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415642,00.html

Dave, you say that GLWSSA does not mean “tongue” but “language.”

The same word is used in Acts 2 verse 3 as a “tongue of fire” and verse 4 as a “language”.

BDAG lexicon, the standard KOINH Greek reference work, says that GLWSSA is “literally the organ of speech and taste.” Then, figuratively used as a means of verbal communication, i .e “Tongue or language”. It is then by metonymy a tribe, people or nation that speak a common language, and finally it is used as a technical term for glossalalia, which is variously interpreted as speaking ecstatic language, speaking a heavenly language, or speaking in a foreign language you haven’t learned.

So GLWSSA more or less covers the same range of meaning as the English “Tongue.”

As an aside, I am intrigued that when we are told that Judas, the treasurer carried the bag, it is a GLWSSOKOMON, which was originally a reed-bag carried by an ancestor of the modern oboe player for his little “tongues” which he inserts in his shawm or whatever they called it.

Thanks David.
Any chance of a word search on “spirit” and “mind”, what they mean in the Greek, and how the same Greek words might be used in other contexts and verses?

Is the spirit a place of feeling or thinking and meditation?
Is the mind an intellectualization of feelings of the heart (the spirit) or something more akin to verbalizing and organizing the thoughts of the spirit?

In other words, do both “think” and comprehend, but one has a more personal knowledge and one maybe a more public, organized, ready to share knowledge? This is getting really abstract and I just can’t remember what the book I read said, but it was something about “the mind” being “our understanding”.

In that case “our understanding is unfruitful” might allow for something else to be going on with speaking in a human language than requiring us to think that Paul is saying the “brain is blank”. All this uncontrolled esctatic experience stuff sounds really eastern to me.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Indeed, one of the great questions I have is how biblical theology might affect our understanding of tongues as well? Why the “downshift” to a less helpful gift? One minute tongues in Acts is OBVIOUSLY miraculous as everyone can understand them!…

By the time we get to Corinthians tongues is a mysterious, private, impossible to understand affair. (You are arguing it is ALWAYS impossible unless another miraculous gift interprets it.) Why work like this when we had the 2 gifts together in one at Pentecost?

There are more instances of speaking in tongues recorded in Acts than just Pentecost, and in those instances there is no indication at all that anyone present could understand the languages being spoken.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]The tongues of Corinth appears to bring back the confusion of the curse of Babel. The word in the greek says language, but I keep forgetting to use it because of my prior conditioning! It’s HARD to break away from a Charismatic reading of this passage, a background culture we have pressed onto it, when the word simply says language and is the same word used in Acts.

There is no doubt that Paul believes that tongues in Corinth are real languages: they convey meaning. However, that doesn’t mean that anyone present can understand them. They could have been speaking in some indigenous Australian language, or they could’ve been speaking Chinese, or they could have been speaking in tongues of angels (cf. 1Cor 13:1).

Regarding the Greek, of course the word is literally “tongues,” but this was commonly used to mean “language.” I am not trying to argue that tongues in Corinth were not real languages. The issue is whether they were languages already learnt by the speaker or languages bestowed upon them as gifts without formal training. I don’t think the text makes sense reading it the former way, particularly if 1Cor 13:1 is right and some of the languages were angelic!

It may be worth noting that in Acts 2 they are called “other tongues,” not just “tongues” as elsewhere.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]As to tongues having to be miraculous because all gifts in this section are miraculous.... I don’t buy it. Hmm, let’s try that out.

That is not what I said, so you are now erecting a straw man.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]“Because the other gifts are definitely miraculous languages has to be as well.” Nah, it’s just not true.

It is not true because you have falsely attributed words to me (even going so far as to place them in quotation marks even though they are not a quotation) and then proceeded to argue against them.

Yet, in the same way that you claim others assume tongues to be miraculous, you claim the other gifts are not, but are merely abilities learnt by the person with the gift. You introduce gifts which Paul does not mention in Corinthians to prove your point, but which of the gifts mentioned in Corinthians fits your argument? Is it perhaps significant that Paul mentions only gifts in 1Cor 12:8-11 which are not able to be acquired via “natural” means?

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]My mistake… I’ll try again. It was argued in this book I read ages ago (called something like “Although I speak in tongues more than you all”) that the greek word for “mind” in this context was best translated as “understanding”. In that case, it would read…. “my understanding is unfruitful”. If I understand something, but it is unfruitful, what does that mean? It must mean it is not bearing fruit in the lives of others which is what this passage really is all about.

The Greek word νους usually refers to the facility we have to understand and think, to make sense. When Paul says “but my mind is unfruitful” I think he is saying that his intellect is not stimulated, he does not learn or grow in his understanding. As the NET says, “my mind is unproductive.” Note also that “my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive” is contrasted with “I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind” (1Cor 14:15), so that praying in a tongue differs in that it does not involve praying with my mind. This parallelism clarifies the meaning of “my mind is unfruitful.”

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]As I have repeatedly argued above, it depends on what you understand spirit and mind to mean! It REALLY does depend on what you understand these to mean! For I remember passages that seem to refer to the human spirit KNOWING things, I will have to look it up as I’ve tried various phrases and they are not working. There is absolutely no disjunction if the words represent a knowing spirit whose understanding has not borne fruit in the lives of others by being shared in an intelligible manner.

The only such passage I can find is 1Cor 2:11. Again, however, you must be sensitive to the context here. When “spirit” and “mind” are represented as distinct components of a person the semantic range of each may well be impacted. Of course, even more vague is the verb “to know,” which has a very broad semantic range. The way in which the mind knows is very likely different from the way the spirit knows.

This distinction between the use and non-use of the speaker’s mind, contrasting tongues with other prayer as well as with prophecy throughout chapter 14, together with the emphasis on intelligibility in the assembly, point to tongues being a form of unintelligible inspired speech while prophecy is intelligible inspired speech.

Hi Samuel.

The articles you cited are interesting and well-argued, but concerning tongues in 1 Corinthians, I don’t think the author addressed the fact that Paul speaks of this tongue-speaking as a spiritual gift. [But I did skim the articles pretty PDQ.]

[quote author="Enkers"] I don’t think the text makes sense reading it the former way, particularly if 1Cor 13:1 is right and some of the languages were angelic!

I know you are wary of this explanation, and for good reason, but I’m going with “hyperbole” on that one too. The verses that follow look exaggerated: “I am a noisy gong”. “I am a clanging cymbal”. If I “understand all mysteries and all knowledge”.

All mysteries? All knowledge? Surely some exaggeration to make the point?

And what about moving mountains, and Paul imagining himself giving his body to be burned? This clearly hasn’t happened to date in Paul’s apostolic career, and yet in order to make his argument, he imagines it happening.

Nor is this the only example of inflated and (occasionally) sarcastic language in this epistle. Check 1 Cor 1:4-7, 1 Cor 4:8, 1 Cor 9:15. I know it’s risky to play the hyperbole card, but I think both the immediate context, and the fact that we know that Paul was not averse to occasional overstatement, make this a real possibility here. “Tongues of angels”, therefore, may or may not exist. That’s beside the point. Paul is using the language for rhetorical effect.

A comment, and 2 questions.

It seems that most of you assume that the speaking in tongues phenomenon occurs only in pentecostal and charismatic churches. 

How do you deal with rational thinking straight shooting evangelical to the core folk who speak in tongues? 

Are they crazy as many of you seem to assert?

There are more instances of speaking in tongues recorded in Acts than just Pentecost, and in those instances there is no indication at all that anyone present could understand the languages being spoken.

No evidence the other way either. It’s just recorded as matter of fact. Relying on this would sound like special pleading to me?

1. Angelic tongues?

I don’t think the text makes sense reading it the former way, particularly if 1Cor 13:1 is right and some of the languages were angelic!

I thought 13:1 was obviously hyperbole.

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.