[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]

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?

Not so. My point was that your previous assumption that my reference to tongue-speaking in Acts was to Acts 2 was incorrect. The fact that the text reports only the tongue-speaking in the other passages highlights what is significant to the author: not the message spoken but the act itself.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]I thought 13:1 was obviously hyperbole…

Did Paul, after all, give his body to the flames? How many in the congregation at Corinth did? But hey, let’s just rip out tongues of angels and insert that into Chapter 14 as if it’s meant to be there! (Wow, talk about special pleading!)

First, there’s a distinction which must be made between hypothetical and hyperbolic. In this passage there are elements of both, but Paul giving his body to the flames, for example, is hypothetical more than hyperbolic: there have been those who have done this.

Second, hyperbole does not function by replacing truth with fiction but by extending the truth. As such, if “tongues of men and of angels” is hyperbolic, it does not follow that either of these must not exist. Recognising the expression as hyperbole doesn’t automatically mean that you can discount the existence of angelic languages nor the fact that Paul may have spoken in one when “speaking in tongues.”

Third, this particular question is a red-herring. It has little bearing on whether the speaker of the language which was a manifestation of the Spirit had learnt the language or not.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Arguing that Chapter 14 is tongues of angels when it’s not described that way once is fairly extreme. Are we to speak to angels? Why are we given the languages of angels? How does it fit? What’s it achieve? How does it relate to the Babel story?

I know that many make the Babel connection here, but I’m not convinced that it is appropriate. In Acts the connection is made to Joel’s prophecy regarding the last days, not to Babel, and the speaking in tongues is understood as a fulfilment of Joel’s anticipation that all would prophesy. Babel introduced numerous languages, Pentecost does not remove them. If there is a link to Gen 11, then it is less significant in the text than the link to Joel.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]The larger context of these chapters to Corinth include gifts of human talent as well as gifts miraculously imparted by the Holy Spirit, and the argument that all the gifts in this section are miraculous, therefore tongues must be as well, does not hold. We need other evidence.

Well, you assume they are gifts of “human talent.” But it certainly isn’t clear that Paul means simply abilities which you’ve developed over your lifetime. Administration may be a rather menial sounding gift, and there may be people quite accomplished at administering things, but that doesn’t mean that Paul is here speaking of those people who’ve always been good at administering things. After all, the sort of work Bezaliel did was hardly supernatural, yet he was given the Holy Spirit specifically to accomplish the task set before him. Solomon’s wisdom was impressive, but wisdom itself was not exclusively the possession of those so gifted by the Spirit. The point is, these apparently normal “human talents” can, in some instances, be gifted by God and not the result of learning and “natural” development.

Indeed, given that these gifts are described by Paul as “manifestations of the Spirit,” can we really conclude that the second language a person has learnt well before becoming a Christian is a manifestation of the Spirit despite the fact that they did not have the Spirit? This is, to my mind, the crux of the issue. Were the languages Paul refers to learnt or bestowed by the Spirit. If they were learnt (particularly before the speaker became a disciple), in what way can they legitimately be described as manifestations of the Spirit?

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Rather than forming a disjunction and setting up opposing roles of the spirit and mind, I think it’s discussing the different uses of our knowledge. If I recall correctly, the argument from this book I read ages ago was that the spirit was (my words) “where we engaged in deep, personal meditation”. Thinking, but on a deeply personal level.

I have not attributed “opposing roles” to mind and spirit. If anything, I would say they are complementary, not opposing. There is, however, clearly some distinction between the two in Paul’s mind (sorry, couldn’t avoid the term, nor could I say “Paul’s spirit” ;-) ). The fact that 1Cor 2:11 describes the human spirit knowing something does not mean that all differences disappear, otherwise Paul’s argument becomes meaningless. Rather, the spirit’s knowing and the mind’s knowing are different things (which is likely simply because of the broad semantic range of “knowing").

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]

“If I pray in MY LANGUAGE from the meditations of my heart, my personal meditations are prayed but my understanding does not bear fruit. So what shall I do? I will pray with my personal meditations, but I will pray with my understanding, I will sing my deep thoughts, but I will also sing with my understanding. If you are praising God with your personal meditations, how can one who finds himself among you who does not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, because he does know what you are saying?

This is strange to our ears, but to me does far less violence to the passage than inserting “tongues of angels”.

I have a number of problems with this paraphrase (I’m sure you’re surprised by this admission). Primarily, using “understanding” for “mind” does not really make good sense in English, at least to me. “Intellect” would work as a better translation and I think better reflect the sense of νους in the original. In spite of this, the parallelism still appears, as does the distinction: on the one hand I could pray in “a language” my intellect is barren (a well attested meaning for ακαρπος). The contrast, in Paul’s argument, is to pray with his intellect. The text thus indicates that praying in “a language” is distinct from praying with your intellect. This is reinforced by verse 16 where the problem is praying in the spirit alone and verse 19 where Paul thinks it better in church to speak with his mind, i.e., not in “a language.”

Here, then, is my translation of part of the passage. It is not a paraphrase as such, but I think the meaning is clear enough, and I’ve rendered γλωσσα “a language”:

If I pray in a language, my spirit prays but my intellect is barren. [15] So what will I do? I will pray with (or “in") the spirit, but I will also pray with my intellect; I will sing with (or “in") the spirit, but I will also sing with my intellect.

Note, finally, that the location of the fruit (or fruitlessness) is not material to the determination of the nature of the gift of tongues as learnt or given. What is material is the fact that the mind is not engaged when speaking in “a language.” When I speak, or even when I think, my mind is engaged because I comprehend my speech and thoughts. Paul’s contrast indicates that when he prays in “a language” his mind, his intellect, is not engaged. Nonetheless, the person so praying does benefit (1Cor 14:4) because his spirit is involved even if his intellect is not.

[quote author="Martin (Enkidu) Shields"]Second, hyperbole does not function by replacing truth with fiction but by extending the truth. As such, if “tongues of men and of angels” is hyperbolic, it does not follow that either of these must not exist. Recognising the expression as hyperbole doesn’t automatically mean that you can discount the existence of angelic languages nor the fact that Paul may have spoken in one when “speaking in tongues.”

I acknowledge your point, but it’s a very big IF though.

Third, this particular question is a red-herring. It has little bearing on whether the speaker of the language which was a manifestation of the Spirit had learnt the language or not.

Then why bring it up? I certainly never asserted that Corinthians 14 was about angelic tongues. ;-)

I know that many make the Babel connection here, but I’m not convinced that it is appropriate. In Acts the connection is made to Joel’s prophecy regarding the last days, not to Babel, and the speaking in tongues is understood as a fulfilment of Joel’s anticipation that all would prophesy. Babel introduced numerous languages, Pentecost does not remove them. If there is a link to Gen 11, then it is less significant in the text than the link to Joel.

Agreed, and nice point. I still think we are meant to remember how remarkable an event tongues is in the whole journey of salvation from Babel through to the setting up of the Kingdom of Israel, speaking the Hebrew language, and what a pronounced shift this is in the salvation story now that an Aussie slob like me can be inthe Kingdom of God… without even learning Hebrew. It’s definitely something to keep in mind.

But I agree with your point and would take it further. Why is Joel being fulfilled? What is the role of the Apostles? What makes them special and unique? Or are there apostles today? I think this very special miraculous gifting of languages was recorded because it was so unique. Do we even really know how even the Acts event worked? Did they speak in other languages? Or did the receivers understand their Hebrew in their own languge, like a “Babel fish”. (Sorry, couldn’t resist a reference to Hitchhikers guide at this point.)

Either way, it was miraculously fulfilling scripture about prophecy… which the Apostles were specially gifted to do in a way that we are not. (I can’t write the “Epistle of Dave").
So where are we? Do we know if Joel was fulfilled in the Apostles age and the writing of scripture?
And why the downgrade so that “tongues” and “prophecy” are seperated and contrasted in Corinthians, when they appear to be the one Joel fulfilling event here in Acts?

To me it says that Corinthian tongues are a very different phenomenon to the Acts event, even though the same word is used.

Well, you assume they are gifts of “human talent.” But it certainly isn’t clear that Paul means simply abilities which you’ve developed over your lifetime. Administration may be a rather menial sounding gift, and there may be people quite accomplished at administering things, but that doesn’t mean that Paul is here speaking of those people who’ve always been good at administering things.

Now it’s getting odd. Most charismatics I know are quite happy for administration being defined as a normal human talent put to work for/by the Spirit.

Indeed, given that these gifts are described by Paul as “manifestations of the Spirit,” can we really conclude that the second language a person has learnt well before becoming a Christian is a manifestation of the Spirit despite the fact that they did not have the Spirit? This is, to my mind, the crux of the issue. Were the languages Paul refers to learnt or bestowed by the Spirit. If they were learnt (particularly before the speaker became a disciple), in what way can they legitimately be described as manifestations of the Spirit?

Because I believe your definition of a “manifestation” of the Spirit is in trouble. I think other gifts passages clearly show all sorts of “normal” talents being used in the service of Christ are considered “gifts”. Now check out this list from Romans 12.

6We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man’s gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to hisfaith. 7If it is serving, let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; 8if it is encouraging, let him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing mercy, let him do it cheerfully.

I’m sorry Martin, but I’ve ignored a VERY important verse for far too long.

Paul defines tongues as non-Hebrew languages in this very chapter!

You are tempted to pull hyperbole in to the chapter to define this non-language as a “tongues of angels” from Chapter 12 when in fact we have ignored a definitive verse from this Chapter that fits everything I’ve been saying all along.

1 Cor 14

21 In the Law it is written: “Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,” says the Lord.
22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers;

As a contact of mine said of this verse….

Now he is quoting Isaiah 28 where God is saying look if you won’t listen to my prophets who speak clearly in your own language I will send the Assyrians in judgement on you and you can listen to them. The strange tongue on view is Assyrian.

I think the point here is what are you doing speaking in foreign tongues to each other it’s a sign of God’s judgement on the unfaithful. It not for the assembly of God’s people.

That’s a very strong reminder to a Jewish Christian of the history of Israelite failure and being conquered. As 22 says, it’s a sign for the unbelievers in the sense that God has sided with the unbeliever against God’s people in the Old Testament. But this is not contradicting what Paul is saying in the thrust of the whole chapter, where the gift to apply to unbelievers is prophecy in a language that they can understand.

The main point however is that tongues is a non-Hebrew human language, as defined in Isaiah.

Paul defines it and reminds us that it is a sign of judgement.

This is where our larger biblical theology comes in so that we don’t feel guilty speaking in English, as if we have somehow failed. This is why I keep harping on about the miraculous tongues in Acts as showing Gods blessing on the church that we can speak in a variety of languages.

And what are we to do as a result of all this? Because different languages result from God’s judgement at Babel and were once a sign of God’s judgement against Israel, we are to be very careful how we address their use. This is why 24 and 25 follow hard on the heels of the Isaiah quote.

24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand[h]comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

In other words, tongues can be a hindrance and has even been a judgment on Israel, so please use prophecy clearly in the language of the unbeliever. Not once is it described as an irrational ecstatic utterance.

Also indicating the speaker understood their tongue is verse 28:

28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God

(What is the Greek for speak here? Unintelligible utterance?)

Paul seems to be contrasting his command that they not speak to others because they can’t understand the tongues speaker, yet he can successfully speak to himself. Some level of thought and understanding is present, even if it is not intellectually verbalized for the benefit of everyone here.

I fear you may have artificially drawn a contrast between the spirit as “feeling” and the mind as “intellectual” that was not intended by the passage (or verified by the rest of scripture) simply because Paul is actually describing the effect of the tongues on church life. One is more personal, one is more corporate. That’s it. There’s no redefinition of the “spirit” as irrational, especially when elsewhere in the same book Paul argues who knows the thoughts of a man but the spirit of a man?

So to my way of reading it, you have yet to demonstrate that speaking a language is “mindless”, especially when Paul clearly defines it here as non-Hebrew human languages that the person can “speak to himself” and to God.

Also indicating that “tongues” are languages is this verse…

19But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Why? What is the Greek for word?
He does not say, “ten thousand sounds in a tongue” but ten thousand words… the very same words he’d rather speak intelligibly to those present than in a language.

Lastly, what do you do about verse 10?

10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.
11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.

“In the world?”
(No angelic tongues here, we can rule that out).
None of them is without meaning?
(Even the one you speak to yourself?)
“I am a foreigner....”
“Isaiah 28....”

I’m getting a fairly clear picture here now.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]But I agree with your point and would take it further. Why is Joel being fulfilled? What is the role of the Apostles? What makes them special and unique? Or are there apostles today? I think this very special miraculous gifting of languages was recorded because it was so unique. Do we even really know how even the Acts event worked? Did they speak in other languages? Or did the receivers understand their Hebrew in their own languge, like a “Babel fish”. (Sorry, couldn’t resist a reference to Hitchhikers guide at this point.)

Some of my answers:
[list=1][*]Joel’s prophecy is being fulfilled to reflect the outpouring of the Spirit on all people, not merely a select few: sons and daughters will prophesy, etc.

[*]The apostles are unique because of their eyewitness relationship to Jesus’ death and resurrection (see Acts 1:21-22). The issue is a little more complex than this, but I think the apostles were unique.

[*]Tongue speaking in Acts is not confined to the apostles, nor is prophecy. The significant difference appears to lie in the authority of their words.

[*]Some have proposed that Pentecost was an miracle of hearing, not speaking, but this is not supported by the text. Acts 2:4 explicitly states that they began to speak in other languages.[/list:o]

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]So where are we? Do we know if Joel was fulfilled in the Apostles age and the writing of scripture?

Joel prophesies about the last days, in which we live. The primary point of his prophecy relates to the outpouring of the Spirit on all people, and he uses prophecy to illustrate the point. We live in this time, and we have the Spirit. Joel’s prophecy applies to us.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]And why the downgrade so that “tongues” and “prophecy” are seperated and contrasted in Corinthians, when they appear to be the one Joel fulfilling event here in Acts?

They are not downgraded in Corinthians. Already in Acts, for example, you see prophecy by those who are not apostles being treated with reduced authority (Paul ignores Agabus’ advice). Furthermore, tongues and prophecy are primarily differentiated in Corinthians by their intelligibility, such that interpreted tongues is depicted in terms equivalent to prophecy.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Now it’s getting odd. Most charismatics I know are quite happy for administration being defined as a normal human talent put to work for/by the Spirit.

I call it as I see it. I am not a charismatic, I have never spoken in tongues (well, except along the lines Gordon has).

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]What’s prophecy doing in there, because that’s a “manifestation of the spirit” in 1 Cor 12 but here it is listed as just a “gift” alongside all sorts of mundane stuff?

But who is to say that the mundane stuff is not gifted in the same way that prophecy is? It certainly was so in the examples from the OT I gave previously.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]See my thing is that people are God’s gift to the church, and that involves things like their training in teaching or administration, or even their potential to be trained in these things.

Yet 1Cor 12 describes the abilities given to each person as gifts, not the people themselves.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]It also involves the miraculous as described in Corinthians, but I’m not so sure what exactly each of these gifts are from the Corinthians list. Did Harry receive the gift of healing because in God’s grace doctors cured him, or is that strictly for miraculous, instantaneous cures? We just don’t know.

There is nowhere I can find that suggests that the only way anyone can be healed by God is through the intervention of a person possessing a gift of healing.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Can someone define all these please? They appear to very much overlap to me.

I haven’t the time to go into great detail, but for one, prophecy is quite unlike teaching and encouraging in that it always involves direct special revelation from God. The claim of some that preaching is the modern equivalent of prophecy is spurious, but I have addressed that elsewhere on these forums at length.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]

The fact that 1Cor 2:11 describes the human spirit knowing something does not mean that all differences disappear, otherwise Paul’s argument becomes meaningless. Rather, the spirit’s knowing and the mind’s knowing are different things (which is likely simply because of the broad semantic range of “knowing").

Please illustrate, otherwise it’s just words. If they both “know” (which I am arguing rules modern tongues suspicious) how does it support your argument?

As I’ve said before, 1Cor 14:14-15 clearly indicate that praying in a tongue involves my spirit but not my mind, yet in the congregation, Paul says it is important to pray both with your spirit and your mind, for the latter is the component which ensures that the others can give their assent to your words. Clearly, then, the “mind” relates to the intelligibility of what is said, and when praying in a tongue I am not praying with my “mind,” this implies that I cannot comprehend all that I am praying (cf. Rom 8:26). Whatever benefit, whatever edification I might have from the experience is not shared by others who will only benefit if they can actually understand what’s going on.

If my spirit “knows” what is going on, my “mind” does not, in this case. If you say that, since my spirit knows, I know, Paul’s distinction here between mind and spirit, which forms the basis of this part of his argument, is meaningless. It is quite clear that Paul recognises a clear distinction between spirit and mind in this passage and that “mind” is key to the intelligibility of the discourse.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Please note that the verse DOES NOT SAY

6If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand[e] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying and neither do you.

;-)

You are interpretting that the tongues speaker is edified in a manner alien to the very goals of this passage. Please explain.

Not so, the intent of the passage is to ensure order and intelligibility in the congregation so that all may benefit. Paul clearly indicates that uninterpreted tongues only edifies the individual and so is not appropriate in the congregation.

Notice that the verse does not say:

If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying although you clearly do.

;-)

It is worth highlighting other portions of the text which are difficult to account for using the understanding you’ve adopted. Let’s look back at 1Cor 14:4-5:
[quote author="Paul the Apostle"]The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened.

If “tongues” is just a native language, why would Paul wish everyone would speak in tongues? Doesn’t everyone speak in some language, or were there a large proportion of mute Corinthians? Or perhaps Paul felt it especially edifying to be fluent in a second language? Why does the person who speaks in a tongue build himself up, doesn’t this happen for those who do not speak in a tongue?

Read with the “traditional” understanding of tongues, however, these verses are perfectly clear. Tongues, as an unlearnt language, serves in some way to edify the speaker. Paul does not make the process clear, and to assume that the speaker must be fully cogniscent of the meaning of the words goes beyond the text. Indeed, Rom 8:26 suggests that our words are not always the most expedient means of communication with God. Paul does imply that comprehension of the language given by the Spirit is not part and parcel of the gift itself, for the tongue speaker should, in the congregation, pray that he might interpret. You’ve said that this is something akin to me praying that I might express myself clearly. Yet Paul later explicitly requires that the tongue be interpreted, and if no-one can interpret the tongue speaker must be quiet. That doesn’t seem to fit at all well to me.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]The main point however is that tongues is a non-Hebrew human language, as defined in Isaiah.

Well, if you’re going to interpret it that way, it must be Assyrian. So all tongues spoken were actually Assyrian?

The main point is actually, as in Isaiah, that they will hear gibberish. They will not be able to understand or make sense of what they hear.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Also indicating the speaker understood their tongue is verse 28:

28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God

(What is the Greek for speak here? Unintelligible utterance?)

It’s the very same verb used to describe the speaking of the Assyrians in Isaiah where the people being spoken to would’ve thought it sounded like gibberish, so I don’t see how you can be so certain about the meaning here.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]Also indicating that “tongues” are languages is this verse…

So what? I’ve never said tongues were anything other than languages. I’ve made the point repeatedly. I’ve said that it could’ve been an aboriginal language, or any language. Assuming angels do communicate with one another, I’d assume they speak a language as well.

Dave, do please avoid arguing against things I haven’t said, these posts are long enough as it is.

I´m going to totally unoriginal as I give my 2 cents here, but I want point out a few things from the two articles that I “linked” to in my previous post (and that practically no one read, not that I can blame anyone, I doubt I would have).

Robert Zerhusen, in the case of Acts, suggest that the “other tongues” were tongues, other than the Hebrew Diglosia, that is, the common everyday Greek and Aramaic spoken throughout the empire at the time. Therefore, the Apostle´s were speaking the gospel in the temple in the “common tongue” as opposed to the incomprehensible hebrew of the Temple which the “common folk” had no way of understanding (the standard language in Palestine at the time was Aramaic, not Hebrew). Therefore, the miracle is NOT that “speaking in other tongues” (although it was extremely important, because is contrasted violently with the teaching style of the Religious leaders of the time) but the fact they were prophecying, that is speaking of Jesus Christ, the fulfillment and “essence” of prophecy.

Here´s an extract

The Diglossia Concept

Chaim Rabin observes that in multilingual environments one or more linguistic patterns are common:

The first is common bilingualism (or multilingualism) caused by the personal circumstances of the individual: a man may pick up the language of his neighbors, a merchant that of his suppliers or customers, in a mixed marriage both parents and children may correctly use both languages, etc. The second pattern is that of the lingua franca: people with different home languages living within a certain area use for intercommunication one and the same language, which may be one of the home-languages of their area or a language from outside [1007].

Although most scholars are aware of these two linguistic patterns, the third, described as follows by Rabin, is not as well known:

The third pattern has in recent times come to be called “diglossia”; in it the same community uses two different languages in its inner-communinty activities, their use being regulated by social conventions. In most cases, one language is spoken in ordinary everyday life by everybody, and the other is employed in formal speech, on formal occasions, in writing, in religious activities, and the like. We refer to the more formal language as the upper language of the diglossia, to the less formal one as the lower. Diglossia situations are extremely common. They exist in many European countries as between local dialect and standard educated language. In a diglossia, too, not everyone is able to handle the upper language. In most cases. it is imparted by some process of formal education [l008].

The term “diglossia” was first used in English by Charles Ferguson: “In its original use, the term applied to cases where both the upper and lower language belong to the same historical language, e.g., literary and colloquial Arabic” (Rabin: 1007). The concept has since been extended by other linguists to situations where two different languages make up the diglossia (Fishman: 29-30).

Where a diglossia exists, different languages are used for very different purposes in the community. The upper (or H) language is reserved for special formal occasions, and the lower (or L) language is used in everyday life.

Ferguson (325-40) used nine categories to describe diglossia situations. First, as to the function of the language in the community: “One of the most important features of a diglossia is the specialization of function for H and L. In one set of situations only H is appropriate and in another only L” (328). Since both languages have very specific functions, “The importance of using the right variety in the right situation can hardly be overestimated. An outsider who learns to speak fluent, accurate L and then uses it in a formal speech is an object of ridicule” (329).

Second, there is a distinction in prestige between the “higher” and “lower” languages:

In all defining languages the speakers regard H as superior to L in a number of respects....Even where the feeling of the reality and superiority of H is not so strong, there is usually a belief that H is somehow more beautiful, more logical, better able to express important thoughts and the like. And this belief is held by speakers whose command of H is quite limited. To those Americans who would like to evaluate speech in terms or effectiveness at communication it comes as a shock to discover that many speakers of a language involved in diglossia characteristically prefer to hear a political speech or an expository lecture or a recitation of poetry in H even though it may be less intelligible to them than it would be in L. In some cases the superiority of H is connected with religion [32O-32].

Ferguson noted that diglossias usually involve strong loyalty to the H language. Proponents of the superiority of the H language use the following kinds of arguments:

H must be adopted because it connects the community with its glorious past or with the world community and because it is a unifying factor as opposed to the divisive nature of the L dialects. In addition to these two fundamentally sound arguments there are usually pleas based on the beliefs of the community in the superiority of H that it is more beautiful, more expressive, more logical, that it has divine sanction, or whatever their specific beliefs may be [338-39].

First-century Judeans, who believed that Hebrew was the “Holy Tongue,” would have used these kinds of argument in support of Hebrew as the ‘Holy Tongue.”

Third, there is a literary heritage connected to the H language: “In every one of the defining languages there is a sizable body of written literature in H which is held in high esteem by the speech community, and contemporary literary production in H by members of the community is felt to be a part of this otherwise existing literature” (330). The Torah written in Hebrew has always been highly revered by the Judeans and their Jewish successors.

Fourth, there is the method of acquiring particular languages:

L is invariably Iearned by children in what may be regarded as the “normal” way of learning one’s mother tongue. H may be heard by children from time to time, but the actual learning of H is chiefly accomplished by means of formal education, whether this be traditional Qur’anic schools, modern government schools, or private tutors. This method in acquisition is very important. The speaker is at home in L to a degree he almost never achieves in H [332].

This is precisely where the Diaspora Judean found himself in regards to his familiarity with Hebrew. He was quite at home with his mother tongue, Aramaic or Greek, and Hebrew was reserved primarily for the more educated.

Religious Diglossias
William A. Stewart says that it is normal for religions to have particular languages for religious expression: “Classical Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Sanskrit are the religious languages of Moslems. Jews, Roman Catholics, and Hindus respectively” (545). The major religious diglossias appear thus:

Religion_____H Language_____________L Language
Islam_______Quaranic Arabic__________other than Arabic
Judaism_____Hebrew________________Aramaic/Greek/etc.
Christianity__Latin__________________Germanic/French/etc.
Hinduism____Sanskrit_______________other than Sanskrit

The best known religious diglossia is probably the diglossia present in Roman Catholicism. The religious--and scholarly--language of Catholicism for centuries was Latin. Latin served as the H language of the diglossia, while German, French, etc., were the L languages. William Tyndale was killed for violating the ecclesiastical diglossia present in England.

His position for the “Tongues” in Corinthians resembles that of Dave, and argues strongly for the idea of tongues in a multi cultural setting.

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

1 Cor 14
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415642,00.html

Hi Samuel,
very, very interesting links.

I particularly feel rebuked for my simplistic reading of Acts 2! It seems that Acts 2 was a more “normal” with regards to language and extrordinary with regards to prophecy than I had appreciated.

From your Pentecost link

Other scholars, desiring to retain the language miracle idea, have suggested variations that shift the focus to a hearing miracle. Perhaps the disciples were engaging in ecstatic utterances, which the Holy Spirit converted into the native languages of the Acts 2 crowd. The problem inherent in this proposal, a problem also present in the traditional language miracle view, is the assumption that the speakers (the disciples) could not speak the native languages of the crowd without divine enablement. As we have already seen, this assumption is without historical support. The speakers and hearers shared the same native languages (Aramaic and Greek).

Then, to explain the crowd’s reaction of both repentance and ridicule, the repentance comes from the bold declaring of God’s word and the ridicule comes from those Jews that would have thought it profane to PREACH in any language other than Hebrew! It was not so much language as a barrier, but the use of non-Hebrew languages to teach… much like Catholic outrage that someone might read or teach the bible in their own language.

The Holy Spirit Kept Giving Apophtheggesthai
It is seldom observed that the Greek text of Acts 2:4 does not say the speakers were given “other tongues” to speak. Rather, it says “They began to speak in other tongues as the Holy Spirit “was giving” (eididou) “utterance” (apophtheggesthai) to them.” Eididou is the imperfect, signifying ongoing, continuing action in the past; the infinitive of the verb in question is apophtheggesthai. It refers to the kind of authoritative, weighty, important speech characteristic of a prophet or similarly inspired person. As Marshall points out, “it indicates a solemn, weighty, or oracular utterance” (357). The word occurs only three times in the New Testament: Acts 2:4,14; 26:25. In Acts 2:14 Peter stands up and speaks out to the crowd ("raised his voice and ‘declared’ [apophtheggzato] to them"). Peter is not given a new language in 2:14; instead, his speech is described as bold, authoritative, and inspired by the Spirit. In Acts 26:1-32 Paul gives his defense before Agrippa. Agrippa, while hearing Paul’s defense, says in v. 24: “Paul. you are out of vour mind! Your great learning is driving you mad.” Paul responds: “I am not out of my mind . . .but I ‘utter’ [apophtheggomai] words of sober truth.” The emphasis is on Paul’s manner of speaking.
Apophtheggomai refers, not to the content of the speech, but to “the manner of speaking.” In each instance, the person’s speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired. Acts 2:4 could be translated: “They began to speak in other languages [than Hebrew] as the Spirit kept giving bold, authoritative, inspired speech to them.” This meaning of apophtheggomai ties in well with Peter’s answer to the charge of drunkenness.

Samuel, thanks… it’s shaken me a bit to realize I could be so wrong on a passage I thought I understood, but boy it makes sense now.

Now, Enkidu.
I’ll try and sum up.
1. Biblical tongues are a human language.
My main point is that tongues as human languages just simply makes sense of all parts of the chapter. There are many languages in the world, especially those of Israelite conquerors (such as the Assyrians and the Babylonians and the Romans). How is an unknowable ecstatic utterance a “sign for unbelievers”? It isn’t. The human languages spoken by the very human instruments of God’s judgement on Israel were referred to in Isaiah, not gibberish. Human languages are obviously what is being discussed right through the passage, especially in verses like 10 and 11!

10Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.

Basically human languages was the dominant view of this passage until the Charismatic movement became so powerful. Andrew Mitchell preached on this at Christ-Church (Gladesville Anglican) and said that even Calvin understood that human languages were obviously discussed here — it just was not an issue until the explosion of the Charismatic movement at the beginning of the last century.

The interpretation for “unknowable ecstatic utterances” relies on one phrase, “mind is unfruitful”. I would say that the burden of proof falls on the charismatic movement to prove that the individual does not understand the gibberish they are speaking. There is no gibberish mentioned here — it is tongues, languages, not “sounds”. Linguists have analysed recordings of “tongues” from all over the world and there is English “tongues” that do not come up with French accents, and French tongues that do not reveal and English accent in their gibberish. It’s not a language, there’s no information there. It’s just random sounds according to the best linguistic tests of modern “tongues” — random sounds that are a mish-mash of the speaker’s home language. It is definitely not a universal “Angelic” language because first of all, that is not stated by the passage, and secondly the gibberish changes according to the cultural background of the speaker. But the bible is clear that it is a human language, not gibberish.

2. To be consistent, the charismatic movement has to demonstrate that our “Spirit” is unknowing.
Is our Spirit really a domain of sheer emotion or unknowable feeling?
It knows my thoughts, and it does all those good things that my “mind” does as well.

My mind speaks, prays, and sings.
My spirit speaks, prays, and sings.

My mind uses words.
My spirit uses words.

My mind praises God.
My spirit praises God.

As Samuel’s Tongues in Corinth link says,

21. The problem tongue was used by the tongue-speaker for worship or devotional purposes: for prayer (14:14, 15, 16,17); for singing (14:15); for blessing/praising God (14:16); and for giving thanks to God (14: 16-17).

35. The problem tongues carried cognitive information (e.g., “giving thanks:” 14:16-17; lyrics of a song: 14:15; and words: 14:19).

How on earth do you do all of those activities if you can’t understand the words coming out of your mouth? From Tongues in Corinth again.

Paul told the Corinthians that they must use their physical organ of speech (i.e., tongue) to produce intelligible speech. If they do not, they will be speaking uselessly into the air (14:9).

To insist on every occasion that the spirit is doing something different to the mind is “special pleading” on a grand scale. Indeed, if this passage was re-written to truly contrast the activities of the mind and spirit, every cognitive spirit word should be removed. I personally would write something like,

“I would gibber with my spirit by pray with my mind, I will moan with my spirit but sing with my mind” etc.

This kind of incognizant activity of the spirit and the Holy Spirit appears alien to the bible. The only example I can think of is that the Holy Spirit intercedes FOR US with groans that words cannot express… but that in no way indicates He by-passes our minds and over-rules our tongues to do so! I take it (and most ministers I have heard preach on it, including Phil Jensen) that the Spirit emphasises our situation and prayers before God — not that he bypasses our brain so that we are not even praying in the first place.

The Charismatic movement has to prove that the Spirit operates in such an incognizant manner — when in fact we have a Spirit of love, power, and a “sound, sane, sober, self-controlled” mind. (The Greek for “sound mind” reflects all these meanings.)

3. The charismatic movement has to live within the confines of the passage and interpret their tongues, and should test this so-called interpretation for clarity and continuity.

I don’t know how many times I go to a Charismatic meeting and there’s 5 minutes of everyone singing in tongues, and then 30 “words of interpretation”. This seems very inefficient to me, does speaking tongues of angels take a long time or something? ;-)

Indeed, they should test it to see if it’s really working or not! Get your top 20 tongues speakers and top 50 interpreters and test them all. Simply record the 20 tongues speakers speaking individually in tongues for exactly 2 minutes each. They can speak one after the other, onto a tape recorder or MP3, whatever you want. Then play back these 20 2 minute recordings to the 50 interpreters one at a time. Get them to interpret separately, not in consultation with each other, in private rooms.  Do it one the one day, and have the interpreters go home after their special visit to your place…. Or whatever else comes to mind to reduce the chance of inadvertent collusion.

I bet you’ll get 50 different interpretations.

Now here’s the thing. Nowhere does Paul then talk about ANOTHER tongue that is JUST for private use. Tongues are to be interpreted! There is no way around that… the same tongue that can be spoken privately at home — if some kind of spiritual “rush” is the purpose in the first place (which I have been denying) — is the same tongue that can be interpreted here.

What if you get 50 different interpretations? Simple. It means the Charismatics have got the passage wrong, they should repent, and read what is actually there in the bible.

4. In summing up, this passage is talking about how to handle a multi-lingual situation with an emphasis on clarity for all present. It does not redefine what constitutes a human being’s “spirit” contrary to the rest of the New Testament, but merely discusses an external, “for the good of the church” focus in how we are to express our meditations. Rather than indulge deeply personal spiritual mediations in our own tongue, we are to make the effort to have our understanding bear fruit at church. Either we or others should interpret what we have to say, otherwise, be silent.

Imposing a Charismatic “incognizant” view of tongues here ignores the references to human languages, foreigners, and God’s previous judgments on Israel, mauls our understanding of the human spirit, promotes an Eastern subjective non-ration experience I find hard to correlate with Christian Spirit-filled behaviour such as having a “safe, sound, sane, self-controlled mind”, and divides Christians today. Evangelicals should stop being afraid to confront this passage, because it is dividing the church and embarrassing the gospel.

I heartily recommend everyone read these excellent papers on Pentecost in Acts and Tongues in Corinthians

Dave, the links you entered were too long, is why they didn’t work.

To fix, try the bodacious tinyurl , and presto-changeo, you get this .

Ahhh, and there I was thinking tinyurl was difficult.
I’ll edit that post immediately.
Cheers Gordon.

Dave, I am unsure what to make of your last post, because it doesn’t seem to interact very much with what I have said, even though you address me. So, for example:

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]1. Biblical tongues are a human language.

Aside from the problem with grammatical number in your statement, I don’t have a problem with this. I have no reason to think they need to be restricted to human languages, but I have no problem if they are human languages. I have explicitly stated that, whatever they are, they are languages and so do impart information if understood correctly. They are not meaningless babble, they may just sound like that to the listener who cannot interpret them.

As to 1Cor 14:10-11, you need also to read 1Cor 14:8-9. Note that verse 9 begins with the same words as verse 12? Paul provides two illustrations of the principle he is seeking to establish. You can no more draw from 10-11 that tongues are exclusively human languages as you can that they are trumpet noises.

Frankly, I think this is a non-issue. The type of language is not the salient point, it is whether it has been learnt by the speaker and whether it is understood by the speaker.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]2. To be consistent, the charismatic movement has to demonstrate that our “Spirit” is unknowing.

The problem is that where Paul makes a clear distinction between mind and spirit, you do not make one. To parody my position your attempt to establish an extreme disjunction which I have not proposed, but I do maintain that unless you recognise some distinction, Paul’s argument becomes meaningless.

As I stated in my previous post, I cannot see how you can handle some of the material in 1Cor 14 and make good sense of it (go back and look at it, I am interested to hear how you explain it).

The problem is that where Paul makes a clear distinction between mind and spirit, you do not make one. To parody my position your attempt to establish an extreme disjunction which I have not proposed, but I do maintain that unless you recognise some distinction, Paul’s argument becomes meaningless.

That’s not true, I have repeatedly made the distinction that there is an emphasis in the discussion between deeply personal meditations and those meditations then being intellectually worked through to bear fruit publically. I notice with interest that you have missed this on a number of occasions. I also notice that you ignore the bible’s definition of our spirit.

1 Cor 2

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

So why you can accept certain parts of Chapter 14 applying to tongues and certain parts merely illustrating some other point… I don’t get it.

How is gibberish a sign for the unbeliever? Won’t it just prove that we are all mad?

But Paul’s context here is clear. Speaking in non-Hebrew languages is a sign of God’s judgment on behalf of the Gentile, against the Hebrew speaking Jew. Indeed, if Samuel’s Acts 2 paper is right, most Jews continued to speak either Aramaic (from their captivity in Babylon) or Greek (after the Greek’s later conquest of the region) unless attending religious ceremonies at the Temple, much like the Catholic church used to teach in Latin while the majority of Catholics spoke “common” European languages.
The Jews were really being judged… the gospel has gone out into all nations. So Paul naturally discusses the larger picture of biblical theology when explaining languages. He moves directly from Isaiah 28 onto tongues today, there is no pause or break in his thinking and indeed Isaiah seems to have some bearing on the practicalities of tongues today.

21In the Law it is written:  “Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,"[f] says the Lord.

22Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand[g] or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand[h]comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, 25and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

To paraphrase and condense the above — “We were judged and now speak Greek and Aramaic, so remember to prophecy in these languages clearly.”

The Charismatic reading hardly knows what to make of these verses, or how they relate to babbling.

I note that you did not address my 3rd point above?

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]I have repeatedly made the distinction that there is an emphasis in the discussion between deeply personal meditations and those meditations then being intellectually worked through to bear fruit publically.

On what, then, do you base your definition of “spirit”?

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]How is gibberish a sign for the unbeliever? Won’t it just prove that we are all mad?

In exactly the same way it was a sign for the people of Israel in Isaiah: it was a sign of God’s judgment on them. In Isaiah, the unfamiliar and unintelligible language of the foreigners is specifically identified as a sign of God’s judgment on those who hear these words but do not understand them.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]But Paul’s context here is clear. Speaking in non-Hebrew languages is a sign of God’s judgment on behalf of the Gentile, against the Hebrew speaking Jew. Indeed, if Samuel’s Acts 2 paper is right, most Jews continued to speak either Aramaic (from their captivity in Babylon) or Greek (after the Greek’s later conquest of the region) unless attending religious ceremonies at the Temple, much like the Catholic church used to teach in Latin while the majority of Catholics spoke “common” European languages.

Well, I disagree. The tongue speaking is a sign of judgment upon the unbelievers, just as Jesus’ spoke in parables and just as the Assyrians spoke to the Israelites in Isaiah. 1Cor 14 is distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, not between Jews and Gentiles.

[quote author="Dave Lankshear"]I note that you did not address my 3rd point above?

I believe tongues is grossly abused in charismatic and pentecostal churches, so I agree that it needs reforming.

I notice you’ve again ignored my plea for an explanation of 1Cor 14:4-5.

I just wanted to respond to one thing quickly.

Dave Lankshear wrote:
But Paul’s context here is clear. Speaking in non-Hebrew languages is a sign of God’s judgment on behalf of the Gentile, against the Hebrew speaking Jew. Indeed, if Samuels Acts 2 paper is right, most Jews continued to speak either Aramaic (from their captivity in Babylon) or Greek (after the Greeks later conquest of the region) unless attending religious ceremonies at the Temple, much like the Catholic church used to teach in Latin while the majority of Catholics spoke common European languages.

Well, I disagree. The tongue speaking is a sign of judgment upon the unbelievers, just as Jesus’ spoke in parables and just as the Assyrians spoke to the Israelites in Isaiah. 1Cor 14 is distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, not between Jews and Gentiles.

Quick comment: The Jews and the Unbelievers are one and the same. It was God’s judgment on the unbelieving Israelites that led to their being carted off to Assyria and then the Jews off to Babylon. Paul seems to be connecting the fact that the Jews then heard Christians declaring the new word of God in Aramaic and Greek is also a sign of judgment. The “this people” he quotes in Isaiah are clearly the Israelites, and then Paul wraps up that languages are a sign for unbelievers. A sign of judgement on them, that many Jews fell for (even because of?) in Acts 2.

Another quick comment: If you agree that there are problems in Charismatic churches as I described in point 3, do you also agree with the test? What would it mean if we tested all the tongues we could, and found out that none of them could be interpretted accurately or consistently? What on earth is the point of them according to 1 Cor 14 if they can’t be interpretted reliably?

Another thought: Is the very fact of the New Testament in Greek and Aramaic part of Isaiah 28?

It’s not central to our theme, but it’s an interesting thing to consider.

Back to Corithinans 14 — I still think that Paul discussed Isaiah 28 to explain WHY Christians, especially Hellenic Jewish Christians, were able to hear God’s word in Aramaic and Greek and not feel guilty that they were not doing the “High Hebrew” thang when getting down and religious!

In these verses there are “other tongues” that are the problem, but no one here, except maybe a few Jews, is that worried about anyone speaking the dominant language of Greek. I suspect Paul is both relieving a few Hellenic Jews consciences about speaking in Greek and reminding everyone how alienating it is to have someone dominate you with a foreigner’s language. “It’s OK to speak in Greek which everyone here gets, but if you are Asiatic, make sure you can have an interpreter. Please explain!”

Now it’s time for some TV, brainless time, and hopefully, miraculously, some sleep. (I’ve had a busy brain week.)

Hi Martin,
Back to your questions regarding the human spirit.

I guess the first comment to make is that there is a movement away from speaking too much about the divisibility of man, and more towards the unity of man. If there is any distinction left to make it is mainly between body and soul. That is, the discussion has moved away from the Dichotomy of man as body and soul seems to be moving towards the unity of man, but if any distinction remains to be made about the “essence” of a human being, it is a distinction of Dichotomy, not Trichotomy. Man is body and soul, not body, soul and spirit.

(Woah, I can feel a whole new thread coming on, and I don’t have the energy for it!)

About 10 years ago I was having a chat with Peter Jensen after he had preached on 1 Corinthians 14. In question time, I asked “When the emphasis of the passage is that people are mainly edified by understanding and mediating on the word of god, how is it that is the gift of tongues edifying to an individual if it does not involve understanding?” to which he replied “That’s a very interesting question — and I see your point” and moved on to other things.

So I followed this up with him as we were filing out the door, and I started to blab on in my ignorance about subtleties concerning the “mind” and “spirit” and how the spirit “knew” things. I must have overstated my case on mind and spirit distinctiveness, and Peter said…
“I agree with what you are saying about the passage, but how you get there is wrong. There is no biblical division of mankind into all these facets you are mentioning” and then said something more about humans being a unified whole.

So in English we tend to speak of a “mind, heart, and soul” and mean “thinking, feeling, and our essential eternal being”. These are not scriptural divisions of the essence of a human. There are words that might refer to the liver and bowels in the OT Hebrew that are

“particularly associated with certain human emotions”. (Bruce Milne — Know the truth)

Yet “heart” is

“the entire person understood from the point of his or her governing centre, the essential person, rather than the emotional nature as in current English usage.” (Milne.)

As to Spirit, the term appears interchangeable with soul. Arguing that our spirits are merely our emotional beings is alien to the New Testament.

“It means not only that man has a mind or consciousness, but also that his mind or consciousness is a unity. It is not a mere stream of consciousness, but the consciousness of a person. Not merely does thinking go on within me, but it is I that think.”(J. Gresham Machen — The Christian View of Man, Banner of Truth).

Also,

“We ought to reject very firmly, therefore, the view that the nature of man is divided by the Bible into body, soul, and spirit.” (Machen.)

So we have a human being with “body” and “soul/spirit/heart” with occasional references to subtle distinctions such as in our troublesome 1 Corinthians 14 passage. Spirit seems to represent the whole me (not just my feelings) as in the following passages.

Matthew 5:3_"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 26:41_"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.”

Matthew 27:50_And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

John 19:30_When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Luke 8:55_Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat.

John 4:23_Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks

John 4:24_God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

Acts 7:59_While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Romans 8:10_But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

Romans 8:16_The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children

1 Corinthians 5:5_hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Galatians 6:18_The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Now this is an interesting one… it’s not that they have “minds of stupor” or “intellects of stupor”….

Romans 11:8_as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.”

That soul and spirit seem interchangeable is seen in…

46And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

But are there places in scripture where the spirit is referred to as specifically knowing?

I have repeatedly quoted…

1 Corinthians 2:11_For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

Mark 2:8_Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things?

Just look at this verse, loaded with New Testament assumptions about the nature of people! Jesus knows his spirit what they were thinking in their hearts.
Spirits that know and hearts that think! It’s not really clearly divided up is it?

The spirit is “me”, my “soul”, my thought life, my knowledge, my feelings, the essential David Lankshear. Trying to divide off my “mind” from my spirit is artificially splitting up the human being in a way that the bible simply does not. The spirit of a man or woman not only knows our thoughts, it is us.

So it is that I conclude that my spirit prays, sings, praises, in much the same way that my mind does except that the emphasis Paul has is that our mind bear fruit in the lives of others. Paul is so communally focussed that reference to building up oneself is almost ironic.

Now I come to the verse you asked about.

1 Corinthians 14:4-5
4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

My first comment concerns the interpreter, “unless he interprets.”
Also see verse 28

28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

Because the Charismatic church has imposed their experience onto the passage they run into some difficulty here. It seems the Holy Spirit is unfair — why dish out stacks of “tongues” and not stacks of interpretation to go along with it? How is it that miraculously dispensed tongues are distributed with such abandon, but the Holy Spirit so often forgets to deal out interpretation as well? Indeed, in a large enough church, how could verse 28 EVER be a concern? How could there EVER be a situation where the Holy Spirit was dealing out tongues miraculously, but failing to edify the church by not also dealing out interpretation? The Charismatic church has to explain this phenomenon.

No, the simple, uncluttered answer is that tongues is not miraculous. It is simply a language. And the interpreter (a noun) is someone who understands both languages. It’s that simple.

As Samuel’s link says,

It should be noted that in 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13, and 27 Paul tells the language-speakers to translate their own languages ("unless he translates"--14:5; “that he may translate"--14:13; and “let two or at most three and let one [of them] translate"--14:27). In 1 Corinthians 14:28, however, Paul says that in a situation in which there is no “translator” (notice that diermeneueto is a noun), the language speaker should “keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God.” If speaking in languages and translation were miraculous (as some say) then the situation described in 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never occur. The language-speaker is instructed to “pray that he might translate” (1 Cor 14:13). If translation is a supernatural ability that the language-speaker or others with this supernatural ability could practice, then the situation of 1 Corinthians 14:28 could never arise! Either the language-speaker would translate, or one of the supernaturally gifted translators could translate. But in fact the situation of 14:28 could arise, according to Paul. How do we explain this?

Praying that we may translate is simply praying for accuracy as the tongues speaker translates their own language. It’s quite a challenge! As is preaching, and teaching the bible to my scripture class. I pray that I might teach well, and then I study like mad and think of the odd joke or 2. Sometimes my “gift of hamminess” comes to the rescue at a dull moment, but I’d be reluctant to say that was the Holy Spirit. Praying to do something well does not imply a lack of ability in that thing!

My second point is the same point I was discussing with Peter Jensen, all those years ago. Paul clearly says that the congregation are edified by understanding some communication or encouragement about our God — by intelligently receiving, understanding, and applying an intelligible message. How is the tongues speaker edified?

To then switch to Eastern mysticism just to maintain a Charismatic understanding of this passage (imposed onto it as late as the start of the 20th Century) is to change our understanding of how Paul writes about edification!

Now some further comments on the rest of the passage from Samuel’s link

Specifically, what does it mean to say that when one speaks in a tongue, he speaks to God? In the view which looks somewhat negatively upon the gift of tongues, speaking to God assumes a unidirectional meaning; thus tongues-speech is addressed to God, and prophecy to people I submit, then, that “does not speak to people but to God” (14:2) has reference to understanding instead of direction. In fact, in verse 2 the clause “but speaks mysteries by the Spirit says that very thing. The reason is that God in his omniscience knows/understands but people do not....One really does not speak, then, unless it is understood by others, which is the social dynamic in a Mediterranean society. Something has to be said about the sociological significance of tongues and the lack of understanding that results when tongue speaking is not interpreted. For one person to do something which relates only to an individual such as being personally edified and not being concerned about interpreting the tongues and thus edifying the group--is quite shameful in a kinship oriented society

Also interesting is…

We know that Corinth was a highly multilingual seaport city with a transient mixed population. If people began to freely worship God in the language with which they were most familiar (without translation in a non-Greek language), what would happen?
When a person is most freely worshiping God, he will use his first language, his native language (i.e., the language of the heart, the language with which he is most familiar), rather than a second language, a language with which he is much less familiar. There were many people at Corinth whose second language was Greek but whose heart language was some other language. When one of these people spoke out in his or her heart language (a language from a more remote area, say Lycaonian or Demotic Egyptian), the speaker would certainly know his or her own language, but unfortunately, the group or congregation would not know or understand that language.
How would Paul describe this from the perspective of the hearers of this unintelligible language? From their perspective “no one would hear” (with understanding); the language speaker would be “speaking mysteries from the heart” (cf. Paul’s description of the spirit of man in 1 Corinthians 2:11: “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit [pneuma] of the man which is in him?” (NASB).

The phrase “for no one hears” should not be taken absolutely, as Boyce W. Blackwelder notes: “‘No one’ is not to be taken in the absolute sense. The speaker would understand and give the interpretation (cf. vv 5, 6, 13-17), or someone else conversant with the particular language could do so (cf. vv 27-28; 12:30)” (65). Charles Hodge said the same thing: “The meaning is, not that no man living, but that no man present, could understand” (157). Thomas correctly defines the phrase: “It means that no one in the local gathering was of the particular linguistic background represented by the tongues message”

And there’s lots more essential reading here.

To sum up this post:

1. A Charismatic reading of this passage requires us to change our understanding of the human spirit / soul / heart
2. It requires us to change our understanding of how people are edified
3. It requires us to believe that the Holy Spirit might have trouble delivering both tongues and translation as supernatural gifts at the same time
4. It requires us to ignore the reference to Isaiah 28 and other references to many languages in the world, and demands that we redefine “languages”

The “normal languages” view of the passage merely asks that you accept that one phrase be read consistently with the broader church concerns of the passage, and that is that “my mind is unfruitful” means unfruitful in the lives of others.

So rather than trying to redefine 4 theologies that have quite clear teaching elsewhere in this chapter, letter, and the rest of scripture, I’m going to choose to understand one phrase consistently with the aims of the passage.