I should mention that chapter 7 is all about the options and the choices Paul is giving the Corinthians in response to their specific questions. Paul prefers men remain unmarried, which would be the same thing as celibate. It is better to marry than to burn.
People do take this celibacy "wish" as a command and actually take a vow of celibacy. Does that make it a command because people read it that way?
Concerning the tongues of Angels.....with the occurrences of Angels speaking in scripture, and we do have at least one or more in Revelation of them speaking to each other, it is always a known and understood language. They are even given the gospel to proclaim to all languages. Hebrew has traditionally been considered the divine language. Paul also may have considered Hebrew as the language of heaven. I am not sure on that, maybe someone else might know how Paul would have viewed Hebrew. It is fascinating that Hebrew is the only example we have of an essentially dead language being resurrected to everyday use and in a relatively short period of time. I think that is more miraculous than modern tongues where no one knows what is being uttered.
Why would there be more than one language of Angels? According to scripture, we have more than one language because God wrought confusion at the of the tower of Babel. It was meant to restrain the people. Something like 70 languages?
Pentecost is often described as a reversal of Babel where people were not restrained by language and people of different languages came together in Christ. Tongues being meant as a sign or witness. There are accounts where tongues are not mentioned in relation to salvation. Where they are mentioned, it is generally when new groups of people were entering the church and tongues were serving as a witness or sign.
It is only when we get to Corinthians that we hear of prayer and of tongues used in the assembly. Do we have any examples of tongues being used privately for worship? I am genuinely asking. Paul is answering questions about their misuse and I am familiar with Corinthians. It is probably a good idea to reflect on other ways God has used language in scripture and the OT verses we have concerning tongues. Is Paul just quoting Isaiah 28 for the prophecy or is that account relevant in other ways. That account speaks of God's judgement. I think it is all relevant.
I think at the very least that Corinthians strongly implies the use of SIT for private prayer. That's not to say it suddenly becomes non-language, a private code that no one on the planet would be able to decipher. That explanation seems to me to be a convenient way to explain precisely why SIT today is NOT producing a language. I believe it is inconsistent with the text. Honest Christians disagree.
The questions I am asking myself now about tongues in private prayer are related to the anecdotal evidence of modern tongues and specifically related to TWI. These are all answered succinctly in the acknowledgement that modern tongues are not the same as biblical tongues. End of those questions.
The other questions I have revolve around the diversity of the one body and the working of the Holy Spirit . . . . Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in light of love. Tongues appear to be considered the least of all gifts, but if it is for private worship then it would seem to not be so. I don't think for a minute Paul is speaking against tongues, but he seems to be going to lengths to downplay their importance. None of the other gifts are for private use. I don't think the text bears out that everyone can manifest tongues and I think it is saying it is at God's discretion. I have more questions about the important role it plays in private worship the more I consider. I did once accept this as the case btw and I am not completely discounting it. In a perfect world I think it could work out.
My favorite bible teacher, whom I greatly respect, DA Carson, explains that tongues in scripture were meant for private prayer, and I am not dismissing the possibility....I am trying to understand how that would work. Either way, I don't think modern tongues qualify as tongues so the point to me is kind of moot. I am just examining the theology.
With Romans 8 I definitely don't see that as SIT. I could wax long and boring on that....but it is clear that the creation does not literally groan, we are not literally groaning, and likewise the Spirit groans but these surpass words. Tongues are supposed to be words and I don't believe the Spirit waits on us to speak before making intercession. That whole chapter is pointing to the finished work of Jesus Christ and God's plan of redemption. I don't believe we can insert ourselves into that. It was done for us and nothing we can do will add to it. I understand that some do believe that it is referring to SIT, but maybe there is an even greater meaning behind it? I am trying to let the text speak for itself and it is a challenge not to bring preconceived ideas to it.
Lots of questions, but so far, it has been a faith building exercise in seeking the answers.
The questions I am asking myself now about tongues in private prayer are related to the anecdotal evidence of modern tongues and specifically related to TWI. These are all answered succinctly in the acknowledgement that modern tongues are not the same as biblical tongues. End of those questions.
You and I acknowledge that, but others do not. And regardless of how we describe or define modern SIT, our concern in THIS thread is with Biblical SIT. Was Paul or was he not acknowledging and accepting the use of SIT in private prayer. I'm talking about THEN, not now. I'm talking about Corinthians, not Azuza Street.
And while I could very well be wrong, I think Paul at the very least allows for SIT in private prayer.
(oops: you really kind of addressed what I'm saying here. Sowwy).
IMO where Paul is saying it is the least of the gifts that is because in the context he is encouraging the Corinthians to grow up and focus on others rather than being selfish. In that context, tongues does absolutely nothing for others, except for:
1) If it's a miracle like Pentecost and others understand in their own language - then that would be a sign, and the actual words would build them up
2) If it's in a prayer meeting where interpreted
3) If you are praying for someone else and do so while SIT, then that is not a selfish endeavor
So any other of the gifts/manifestations all do things for others.
I know in this response I am circling back and picking up a lot of geisha's point. However, she was using that to try and reach the conclusion that it was wrong to use it in private prayer or not available any more. My only conclusion is that it does less for others than many other things you could be doing. So although I believe it's available today, my conclusion is it's a whole lot less important than other things.
I need to mention, in case there is some confusion, that I have not said it is wrong to pray in tongues in ones own private life. I have gone out of my way to say a persons prayer life is their business. How could I possibly have an issue with someone's prayer life? Am I going to need to say it again if we explore the verses related to using tongues in private prayer? Probably.
I have simply been postulating questions concerning the verses people use to promote the notion that SIT is meant for private worship. There are very few verses and we have no clear instruction, other than how to conduct ourselves in the assembly. Paul makes conflicting statements about the efficacy of tongues, which when read in light of context may say something other than what happens when we pull one or two verses from their context. This is not an uncommon question or discussion. It goes on in theological circles often.
Remember, the "ethos" of my experience with tongues speakers is TWI and more recently with some on another thread. This contributes to what I am willing to dismiss and plays a part in what I will explore, but experience doesn't make something true. We should have all learned that from our time in a cult. It is worth exploring and considering and that is simply all I am doing.
Over this past summer I wrote and edited two other commentaries. One for 1 Corinthians 13 and the other for chapter 14. I will add those to my web site when I get more time.
One more thing on this. One of the Grease Spot Cafe posters did the primary editing on my 1 Corinthians chapter 13 commentary. His name is Tom and he did a good job on the editing. That is not yet on the internet, but I will add this to my site in the near future.
I made numerous attempts, all of which were ignored, to direct the doctrinal assumption behind my assertion about modern SIT to this thread, which is properly placed in the doctrinal forum. Although I did lay out my reasoning in the other thread, I am laying it out here in greater detail for anyone who chooses to look for it. I think it's a fair question.
What are tongues in the Bible?
To begin with, I'm going to set the verses in I Corinthians 12-14 aside. Saving them for last, as it were.
The word "glossa" appears in the following verses:
Mark 7:33 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 7:35 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 16:17 [considered by many scholars to be a fraudulent insertion into the original gospel of Mark, those who accept it as canonical agree that "new tongues" is a reference to existing languages new to the speaker, not to the planet].
Two uses in Luke refer to the physical organ.
Acts 2:3 [the word appears as a physical description of the fire that appeared on the heads of the apostles. Has nothing to do with speaking or language].
Acts 2:4 [the context clearly states that the "other tongues" were known, human languages. Unless the Mark 16 verse is accepted, this is the first use in the New Testament of tongues as a language, and it is specifically in reference to the manifestation of speaking in tongues].
Acts 2:11 [this verifies that the tongues in v. 4 are real, human languages].
Acts 2:21 [a metaphorical reference to the actual tongue, where the tongue is put for the speech of the speaker. Good news made him happy and he said so].
Acts 10:46 [a reference to the manifestation. No reason to assume it's referring to anything other than a human language, whether or not those present understood the utterance. Peter is present at this incident and surmises it to be the same as what he experienced in Acts 2, which was known human languages. How did he know? Either he understood it (not likely), or the same God who gave Him profound revelation to get him to this location in the first place revealed it to him].
Acts 19:6 [Again, the manifestation, and again, no reason to believe the meaning of tongues changed for the writer, Luke, who for no reason failed to tell us about the change. It's a human language, regardless of whether anyone around understood].
Romans 3:13 [physical organ]
Romans 14:11 [likely a metaphorical reference to the physical organ, with the tongue put for the person speaking. Every knee shall bow + every tongue shall confess = God will be honored in the deeds and words of those of whom He is speaking].
Skipping I Corinthians...
Philippians 2:11 [same as Romans 14:11]
Five references in James, all dealing with the physical organ, literally or metaphorically.
I Peter 3:10 [metaphorical reference to the physical tongue].
I John 3:18 [tongue is put for the words of the speaker: not a reference to language, but speech].
Revelation 5:9 [human languages]
Revelation 7:9 [human languages]
Revelation 10:11 [human languages]
Revelation 11:9 [human languages]
Revelation 13:7 [human languages]
Revelation 14:6 [human languages]
Revelation 16:10 [physical organ]
Revelation 17:15 [human languages]
It should be noted that the in the references in Revelation, the languages stand in for the people who speak them. But the underlying reality of human language is rather rightly taken as a given.
So we see, then, that outside of I Corinthians 12-14, tongues has two meanings: the physical organ, either literally or metaphorically, or human languages. In no verse is there even a hint that tongues might be referring to something else.
Let's look at one other verse, since it has come up in conversation:
Romans 8: 26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
I'm going to ignore the argument over whether to interpret this verse under a Trinitarian framework or a Biblical Unitarian view, because it's not particularly relevant.
Is this verse speaking about SIT? I'm pretty sure it is. Not 100 percent, but SIT makes perfect sense as the subject matter to me.
What does "groanings which cannot be uttered" mean? Does it mean sounds that are not a human language? I highly doubt that was the intent of the writer (or the Author). After all, if the sounds are not a human language, then the infirmity is not just ours, but the Sspirit's as well! I believe the clearest explanation for this verse, the one most in line with what the Bible teaches, is that the infirmity is the believer's, and it is the believers who find it impossible to put their "groanings" into words. The spirit has no trouble with this, and SIT, if applied here, corrects our infirmity. In light of the clear verses identifying SIT as producing human languages, this view makes the most sense to me. This verse does not change SIT from a language to a linguistically meaningless utterance. It changes our inability to express ourselves in words to an ability to express ourselves in words through the Sspirit's intervention.
So let's move back to I Corinthians.
I Corinthians 12:10 [kinds of tongues/interpretation of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages, consistent with every other verse in the Bible in which this word does not refer literally or metaphorically to the physical organ].
I Cor. 12:28 [diversities of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 12:30 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages. It's the same manifestation and there's nothing in the text to signify a change of meaning].
I Cor. 13: 1 [tongues of men and angels: tongues of men is presented as normal, tongues of angels as a hyperbole. Tongues is still languages here. Is "tongues of angels" literal and not hyperbole? I think not, but honest Christians disagree. So be it. I still think it's a huge stretch to suggest that somewhere between Acts and Corinthians, tongues of angels became the norm. The apparent tone of the discourse Paul is in the middle of strongly suggests tongues of angels is, in fact, hyperbole. It's also being put down in comparative value to love].
I Cor. 13:8 [A reference to the manifestation, which produces human languages unless you take tongues of angels to be both literal and the norm, neither of which seems justified by the context].
I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].
I Cor. 14:4 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:5 [twice: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:6 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:9 [this appears NOT to be a reference to the manifestation, but a reference to speaking in a known language with the understanding. The tongue here is either a metaphorical reference to the physical organ or a reference to a known language itself. If the former is true, it affects neither my position nor those who disagree with me. If the latter is true, we have an explicit statement of what I've been taking as a given: tongues are languages, period. Alas, I think the former explanation makes the most sense. In context, however, I think the use of that word here indicates that tongues are simply languages, and there's nothing complicated about it].
Nine more references in I Cor. 14. In all of them, they are talking about the manifestation, the same manifestation described in Acts, which produced human languages and never, not once, indicated that something else was being produced.
There is ZERO evidence that SIT produces anything other than a human language, UNLESS one takes I Cor. 13:1 literally and ignores the rather obvious hyperbole Paul is employing. He did not claim to speak in the tongues of angels, or even that there IS such a thing. He merely says IF HE DID, it would still not be as valuable to him as love. That SIT is tongues of men is a given. It's tongues of men in every other Biblical usage that does not refer, literally or figuratively, to the physical organ.
The original writer and readers of Paul's letter would have been utterly baffled by the assertion that they were doing anything other than producing human languages. It runs counter to every other use of that word in the Word. It is, as I have called it, a retrofit designed to explain why people who SIT today are NOT producing languages. Suddenly, 2,000 years later, the Bible isn't promising human languages.
Sorry, I don't buy it. That's my doctrinal position. If you disagree with it, there is no need to argue with me on the conclusions I draw from it. We're simply not going to agree, and that's that.
Thanks for the analysis. And it does seem that your doctrinal position centers completely on the word tongue to carry the definition "languages" in I Cor. 14:2.
To summarize, there are 3 definitions for glossa:
1) the organ
2) the organ used to represent something else metaphorically
3) languages (this use could be the figure of speech metonymy - or a substitution of the tongue for what it produces)
The Corinthians uses could possibly also be either metaphoric or metonymy (just posing the question, not in my beliefs currently).
A related question: does "laleo" make a difference?
Wierwille taught that "laleo" means speaking without reference to the words that are spoken.
That definition simply does not hold water, Biblically. Any concordance will give you a list of verses in which that word or related words are used. You will find that if you tried to apply Wierwille's definition across the board, you will very quickly be baffled. It doesn't fit. In fact, Wierwille's blunder on laleo was one of the Actual Errors from the old PFAL thread.
Laleo is the word used most often in connection with SIT. The word used in I Corinthians 14:9 is NOT laleo, but dote, which means to give. If "utter by the tongue" in THAT verse equals "speak in tongues" in the surrounding verses, then the Bible clearly indicates that speaking in tongues can, in some instances, be understood by those present. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make that bold an assertion, but I hold that it is very possible. With no explicit reason to believe that IS what Paul is saying, and no explanation for why a change in the terminology showed up out of the blue, I have little choice but to stand by the explanation I gave above. Going to continue looking at the verse and those particular words to see if I learn more.
Yeah, I remember working that a while ago. I don't remember all the details but I remember the impression I had of Wierwille's "laleo" being suspect, and can confirm that trying to apply it across the board gets you quickly baffled. I don't know if "laleo" makes a difference or not, I've not yet re-evaluated that word study post-TWI.
In I Cor. 14:9, I'm not sure if the utter by tongue is referring to SIT, or if the entire phrase "unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood" is a conditional clause that stands on its own describing a separate possible act of communication.
Angels are often called messengers. If people have their own tongues or languages, angels could also have their own tongues or languages. And angels since they are often referred to as messengers could also speak the languages of men. Of course speaking in tongues for ones private prayer life could primarily be a language of men because it is people that speak it. Of course, speaking in tongues may also be a language that no people or country on earth has ever used. And to prove that speaking in tongues has to be a language of men you might have to travel to every people and place on earth. Speak in tongues to them until you find someone that understands it and can verify that it is a language of man. I still consider tongues a languages though. I do it all the time in my prayer life and consider it primarily a tongue of prayer and praise to God which God understands. That is the key thing in this and not what kind of language it is. The main thing is that it is prayer and praise to God and the all knowing God understands it.
I do not believe it can be a language no one has ever used. That is beyond the clear meaning of scripture.
Thanks for your input, Mark. I no longer believe SIT is a manifestation of anything more than human creativity and our hunger to fit in. But I do not begrudge anyone the right to disagree with me.
Chockfull will need to decide for himself whether we're going off topic here. I just wanted to clue Mark in as to where i was coming from. I have no need or want to challenge him. If he didn't join the other thread, it was for a reason.
There might be some nitpicking with words here. There is no reason to do that. Yes, we want to study the words well to help our understanding, but words by themselves will not help our understanding.
1 Cor 14:2
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
NIV
I recommend simplifying this to help ones understanding. Yes, this is a tongue and yes a tongue can be considered a language. There are multiple or infinite languages that can be spoken by inspiration of God for ones prayer life. This does not have to be a language, or tongue if you only like to use that word, that any people or nation has ever spoken or used. It could be a tongue that only God knows and no man knows and this is what the verse clearly says. Keep your options open on this. The main thing is, is that tongues as a manifestation is praise to God.
There are an infinite number of language possibilies. We could make up another language or tongue tomorrow or tonight. It might be a very simple language with only a few words, but still could be used for some communication. God though is much better with languages or tongues than you and I. He could inspire a brand new 500 or 1000 word tongue or language on the spur of the moment as we speak in tongues in prayer and praise to him. It might have some similarities to a language of men that people have actually spoken on earth with one another, but not the same language. And still only understood by God and not by man. And a language or tongue spoken in prayer and praise to God. That is the main thing. A tongue of prayer and praise to God.
Chockfull will need to decide for himself whether we're going off topic here. I just wanted to clue Mark in as to where i was coming from. I have no need or want to challenge him. If he didn't join the other thread, it was for a reason.
Let the convo flow. I don't have time to police every post to nag people to stay very narrowly on a specific topic. Plus I'm working on what interests me on the topic so hopefully that's a better effort than policing anyway. If I need to find something in the midst of static I can use Search.
I say if it's related doctrinally in your perception to the I Cor 12-14 section in any way it's fair game here, so feel free to bring it up.
There are an infinite number of language possibilies. We could make up another language or tongue tomorrow or tonight. It might be a very simple language with only a few words, but still could be used for some communication. God though is much better with languages or tongues than you and I. He could inspire a brand new 500 or 1000 word tongue or language on the spur of the moment as we speak in tongues in prayer and praise to him. It might have some similarities to a language of men that people have actually spoken on earth with one another, but not the same language. And still only understood by God and not by man. And a language or tongue spoken in prayer and praise to God. That is the main thing. A tongue of prayer and praise to God.
There's another interesting sidetrack here. You mention the ease of making up a new language. Well, computer science has hundreds of languages, and a new one is made up almost every year. Is that completely different? Or are there similarities?
Ruling out possibilities related to this field is very, very hard.
I recommend simplifying this to help ones understanding. Yes, this is a tongue and yes a tongue can be considered a language. There are multiple or infinite languages that can be spoken by inspiration of God for ones prayer life. This does not have to be a language, or tongue if you only like to use that word, that any people or nation has ever spoken or used. It could be a tongue that only God knows and no man knows and this is what the verse clearly says. Keep your options open on this. The main thing is, is that tongues as a manifestation is praise to God.
The angle on this that struck my mind reading through Raf's succinct detailing out of the scriptures with the word glossa in them was that of the three definitions, are we ABSOLUTELY SURE that glossa in I Cor. 14:2 means "languages" when used in the format "speaking in tongues" as opposed to a more figurative interpretation of metaphorically representing the physical organ itself? Could it be a "tongues like as of fire" reference? Could there be more to understanding the metonymy FOS with the tongue being stated for the language it produces? Could this metonymy be a clever play on words by God portraying that you take the action in the physical realm with the organ itself and God responds in the spiritual realm with a language?
These are just thoughts, nothing proven, nothing cemented into belief, just considering the implications and reading scripture. Probably doesn't do anything for proof for either side of the argument either, but it's an interesting consideration.
Let the convo flow. I don't have time to police every post to nag people to stay very narrowly on a specific topic. Plus I'm working on what interests me on the topic so hopefully that's a better effort than policing anyway. If I need to find something in the midst of static I can use Search.
I say if it's related doctrinally in your perception to the I Cor 12-14 section in any way it's fair game here, so feel free to bring it up.
To be clear, I was referring to Waysider's contribution and not Mark's. But if you're good with both, then so be it. Personally, while I have no problem with Waysider's contribution, I question its placement here. But again, if you're good with it, far be it from me to complain.
There's another interesting sidetrack here. You mention the ease of making up a new language. Well, computer science has hundreds of languages, and a new one is made up almost every year. Is that completely different? Or are there similarities?
Ruling out possibilities related to this field is very, very hard.
Yes, there are definitely similarities. And this is coming from someone who in the last year took two computer programming classes at two local community colleges. Both classes each involved about 16 weeks of study. One computer programming language was Java. The other was PHP. Incidentally PHP is the programming language that may have been used to build this web site. Both can be complex languages. Also I think even some animals with means of communication could be considered to have tongues or languages. They may be simplified, but nevertheless could be used for communication. I think God is a genius and can come up with a new tongue or language on the spur of the moment for prayer and praise. And it could be a new language with similarities to other languages, but brand new and never used before or at least not exactly the same as any other language used before. There are so many number of possibilies for languages. I question if any calculator has enough numbers to calculate the number of possibilities. Or at least any calculator that I have ever used. And as the above quoted verse from 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, this may be a tongue or language that only God knows and is a mystery to man.
Based on your next post Chockfull, regarding the word "language". Yes, tongues could be considered or described as a language. It could also be described as a "means of communication". With tongues via the Spirit in ones private prayer life, a means of communication with God in prayer and praise.
And reading again your above post, the Greek word for tongues is used both to describe a language and ones physical tongue. It is used in both contexts biblically.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
geisha779
I should mention that chapter 7 is all about the options and the choices Paul is giving the Corinthians in response to their specific questions. Paul prefers men remain unmarried, which would be the same thing as celibate. It is better to marry than to burn.
People do take this celibacy "wish" as a command and actually take a vow of celibacy. Does that make it a command because people read it that way?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Concerning the tongues of Angels.....with the occurrences of Angels speaking in scripture, and we do have at least one or more in Revelation of them speaking to each other, it is always a known and understood language. They are even given the gospel to proclaim to all languages. Hebrew has traditionally been considered the divine language. Paul also may have considered Hebrew as the language of heaven. I am not sure on that, maybe someone else might know how Paul would have viewed Hebrew. It is fascinating that Hebrew is the only example we have of an essentially dead language being resurrected to everyday use and in a relatively short period of time. I think that is more miraculous than modern tongues where no one knows what is being uttered.
Why would there be more than one language of Angels? According to scripture, we have more than one language because God wrought confusion at the of the tower of Babel. It was meant to restrain the people. Something like 70 languages?
Pentecost is often described as a reversal of Babel where people were not restrained by language and people of different languages came together in Christ. Tongues being meant as a sign or witness. There are accounts where tongues are not mentioned in relation to salvation. Where they are mentioned, it is generally when new groups of people were entering the church and tongues were serving as a witness or sign.
It is only when we get to Corinthians that we hear of prayer and of tongues used in the assembly. Do we have any examples of tongues being used privately for worship? I am genuinely asking. Paul is answering questions about their misuse and I am familiar with Corinthians. It is probably a good idea to reflect on other ways God has used language in scripture and the OT verses we have concerning tongues. Is Paul just quoting Isaiah 28 for the prophecy or is that account relevant in other ways. That account speaks of God's judgement. I think it is all relevant.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think at the very least that Corinthians strongly implies the use of SIT for private prayer. That's not to say it suddenly becomes non-language, a private code that no one on the planet would be able to decipher. That explanation seems to me to be a convenient way to explain precisely why SIT today is NOT producing a language. I believe it is inconsistent with the text. Honest Christians disagree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The questions I am asking myself now about tongues in private prayer are related to the anecdotal evidence of modern tongues and specifically related to TWI. These are all answered succinctly in the acknowledgement that modern tongues are not the same as biblical tongues. End of those questions.
The other questions I have revolve around the diversity of the one body and the working of the Holy Spirit . . . . Paul goes to great lengths to explain this in light of love. Tongues appear to be considered the least of all gifts, but if it is for private worship then it would seem to not be so. I don't think for a minute Paul is speaking against tongues, but he seems to be going to lengths to downplay their importance. None of the other gifts are for private use. I don't think the text bears out that everyone can manifest tongues and I think it is saying it is at God's discretion. I have more questions about the important role it plays in private worship the more I consider. I did once accept this as the case btw and I am not completely discounting it. In a perfect world I think it could work out.
My favorite bible teacher, whom I greatly respect, DA Carson, explains that tongues in scripture were meant for private prayer, and I am not dismissing the possibility....I am trying to understand how that would work. Either way, I don't think modern tongues qualify as tongues so the point to me is kind of moot. I am just examining the theology.
With Romans 8 I definitely don't see that as SIT. I could wax long and boring on that....but it is clear that the creation does not literally groan, we are not literally groaning, and likewise the Spirit groans but these surpass words. Tongues are supposed to be words and I don't believe the Spirit waits on us to speak before making intercession. That whole chapter is pointing to the finished work of Jesus Christ and God's plan of redemption. I don't believe we can insert ourselves into that. It was done for us and nothing we can do will add to it. I understand that some do believe that it is referring to SIT, but maybe there is an even greater meaning behind it? I am trying to let the text speak for itself and it is a challenge not to bring preconceived ideas to it.
Lots of questions, but so far, it has been a faith building exercise in seeking the answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You and I acknowledge that, but others do not. And regardless of how we describe or define modern SIT, our concern in THIS thread is with Biblical SIT. Was Paul or was he not acknowledging and accepting the use of SIT in private prayer. I'm talking about THEN, not now. I'm talking about Corinthians, not Azuza Street.
And while I could very well be wrong, I think Paul at the very least allows for SIT in private prayer.
(oops: you really kind of addressed what I'm saying here. Sowwy).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
IMO where Paul is saying it is the least of the gifts that is because in the context he is encouraging the Corinthians to grow up and focus on others rather than being selfish. In that context, tongues does absolutely nothing for others, except for:
1) If it's a miracle like Pentecost and others understand in their own language - then that would be a sign, and the actual words would build them up
2) If it's in a prayer meeting where interpreted
3) If you are praying for someone else and do so while SIT, then that is not a selfish endeavor
So any other of the gifts/manifestations all do things for others.
I know in this response I am circling back and picking up a lot of geisha's point. However, she was using that to try and reach the conclusion that it was wrong to use it in private prayer or not available any more. My only conclusion is that it does less for others than many other things you could be doing. So although I believe it's available today, my conclusion is it's a whole lot less important than other things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
any gift without the giver is empty
not full of it's intent
to speak in tongues
is a commitment to the hearer
doesn't matter if it is understood or not
the one speaking by the Spirit
needs to have love with it
as stated in 1 Corinthians
"the bosom" is a very interesting perspective-
of a state of being
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=the%20bosom&version1=KJV&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no
about love and heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I need to mention, in case there is some confusion, that I have not said it is wrong to pray in tongues in ones own private life. I have gone out of my way to say a persons prayer life is their business. How could I possibly have an issue with someone's prayer life? Am I going to need to say it again if we explore the verses related to using tongues in private prayer? Probably.
I have simply been postulating questions concerning the verses people use to promote the notion that SIT is meant for private worship. There are very few verses and we have no clear instruction, other than how to conduct ourselves in the assembly. Paul makes conflicting statements about the efficacy of tongues, which when read in light of context may say something other than what happens when we pull one or two verses from their context. This is not an uncommon question or discussion. It goes on in theological circles often.
Remember, the "ethos" of my experience with tongues speakers is TWI and more recently with some on another thread. This contributes to what I am willing to dismiss and plays a part in what I will explore, but experience doesn't make something true. We should have all learned that from our time in a cult. It is worth exploring and considering and that is simply all I am doing.
<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1w79aoTwFJk" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Here is a link to a commentary that I wrote on 1 Corinthians chapter 12.
1 Corinthians Chapter 12
Over this past summer I wrote and edited two other commentaries. One for 1 Corinthians 13 and the other for chapter 14. I will add those to my web site when I get more time.
One more thing on this. One of the Grease Spot Cafe posters did the primary editing on my 1 Corinthians chapter 13 commentary. His name is Tom and he did a good job on the editing. That is not yet on the internet, but I will add this to my site in the near future.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I made numerous attempts, all of which were ignored, to direct the doctrinal assumption behind my assertion about modern SIT to this thread, which is properly placed in the doctrinal forum. Although I did lay out my reasoning in the other thread, I am laying it out here in greater detail for anyone who chooses to look for it. I think it's a fair question.
What are tongues in the Bible?
To begin with, I'm going to set the verses in I Corinthians 12-14 aside. Saving them for last, as it were.
The word "glossa" appears in the following verses:
Mark 7:33 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 7:35 [refers to the physical organ]
Mark 16:17 [considered by many scholars to be a fraudulent insertion into the original gospel of Mark, those who accept it as canonical agree that "new tongues" is a reference to existing languages new to the speaker, not to the planet].
Two uses in Luke refer to the physical organ.
Acts 2:3 [the word appears as a physical description of the fire that appeared on the heads of the apostles. Has nothing to do with speaking or language].
Acts 2:4 [the context clearly states that the "other tongues" were known, human languages. Unless the Mark 16 verse is accepted, this is the first use in the New Testament of tongues as a language, and it is specifically in reference to the manifestation of speaking in tongues].
Acts 2:11 [this verifies that the tongues in v. 4 are real, human languages].
Acts 2:21 [a metaphorical reference to the actual tongue, where the tongue is put for the speech of the speaker. Good news made him happy and he said so].
Acts 10:46 [a reference to the manifestation. No reason to assume it's referring to anything other than a human language, whether or not those present understood the utterance. Peter is present at this incident and surmises it to be the same as what he experienced in Acts 2, which was known human languages. How did he know? Either he understood it (not likely), or the same God who gave Him profound revelation to get him to this location in the first place revealed it to him].
Acts 19:6 [Again, the manifestation, and again, no reason to believe the meaning of tongues changed for the writer, Luke, who for no reason failed to tell us about the change. It's a human language, regardless of whether anyone around understood].
Romans 3:13 [physical organ]
Romans 14:11 [likely a metaphorical reference to the physical organ, with the tongue put for the person speaking. Every knee shall bow + every tongue shall confess = God will be honored in the deeds and words of those of whom He is speaking].
Skipping I Corinthians...
Philippians 2:11 [same as Romans 14:11]
Five references in James, all dealing with the physical organ, literally or metaphorically.
I Peter 3:10 [metaphorical reference to the physical tongue].
I John 3:18 [tongue is put for the words of the speaker: not a reference to language, but speech].
Revelation 5:9 [human languages]
Revelation 7:9 [human languages]
Revelation 10:11 [human languages]
Revelation 11:9 [human languages]
Revelation 13:7 [human languages]
Revelation 14:6 [human languages]
Revelation 16:10 [physical organ]
Revelation 17:15 [human languages]
It should be noted that the in the references in Revelation, the languages stand in for the people who speak them. But the underlying reality of human language is rather rightly taken as a given.
So we see, then, that outside of I Corinthians 12-14, tongues has two meanings: the physical organ, either literally or metaphorically, or human languages. In no verse is there even a hint that tongues might be referring to something else.
Let's look at one other verse, since it has come up in conversation:
Romans 8: 26-27
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
I'm going to ignore the argument over whether to interpret this verse under a Trinitarian framework or a Biblical Unitarian view, because it's not particularly relevant.
Is this verse speaking about SIT? I'm pretty sure it is. Not 100 percent, but SIT makes perfect sense as the subject matter to me.
What does "groanings which cannot be uttered" mean? Does it mean sounds that are not a human language? I highly doubt that was the intent of the writer (or the Author). After all, if the sounds are not a human language, then the infirmity is not just ours, but the Sspirit's as well! I believe the clearest explanation for this verse, the one most in line with what the Bible teaches, is that the infirmity is the believer's, and it is the believers who find it impossible to put their "groanings" into words. The spirit has no trouble with this, and SIT, if applied here, corrects our infirmity. In light of the clear verses identifying SIT as producing human languages, this view makes the most sense to me. This verse does not change SIT from a language to a linguistically meaningless utterance. It changes our inability to express ourselves in words to an ability to express ourselves in words through the Sspirit's intervention.
So let's move back to I Corinthians.
I Corinthians 12:10 [kinds of tongues/interpretation of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages, consistent with every other verse in the Bible in which this word does not refer literally or metaphorically to the physical organ].
I Cor. 12:28 [diversities of tongues: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 12:30 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages. It's the same manifestation and there's nothing in the text to signify a change of meaning].
I Cor. 13: 1 [tongues of men and angels: tongues of men is presented as normal, tongues of angels as a hyperbole. Tongues is still languages here. Is "tongues of angels" literal and not hyperbole? I think not, but honest Christians disagree. So be it. I still think it's a huge stretch to suggest that somewhere between Acts and Corinthians, tongues of angels became the norm. The apparent tone of the discourse Paul is in the middle of strongly suggests tongues of angels is, in fact, hyperbole. It's also being put down in comparative value to love].
I Cor. 13:8 [A reference to the manifestation, which produces human languages unless you take tongues of angels to be both literal and the norm, neither of which seems justified by the context].
I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].
I Cor. 14:4 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:5 [twice: still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:6 [still no reason to believe this is anything other than human languages]
I Cor. 14:9 [this appears NOT to be a reference to the manifestation, but a reference to speaking in a known language with the understanding. The tongue here is either a metaphorical reference to the physical organ or a reference to a known language itself. If the former is true, it affects neither my position nor those who disagree with me. If the latter is true, we have an explicit statement of what I've been taking as a given: tongues are languages, period. Alas, I think the former explanation makes the most sense. In context, however, I think the use of that word here indicates that tongues are simply languages, and there's nothing complicated about it].
Nine more references in I Cor. 14. In all of them, they are talking about the manifestation, the same manifestation described in Acts, which produced human languages and never, not once, indicated that something else was being produced.
There is ZERO evidence that SIT produces anything other than a human language, UNLESS one takes I Cor. 13:1 literally and ignores the rather obvious hyperbole Paul is employing. He did not claim to speak in the tongues of angels, or even that there IS such a thing. He merely says IF HE DID, it would still not be as valuable to him as love. That SIT is tongues of men is a given. It's tongues of men in every other Biblical usage that does not refer, literally or figuratively, to the physical organ.
The original writer and readers of Paul's letter would have been utterly baffled by the assertion that they were doing anything other than producing human languages. It runs counter to every other use of that word in the Word. It is, as I have called it, a retrofit designed to explain why people who SIT today are NOT producing languages. Suddenly, 2,000 years later, the Bible isn't promising human languages.
Sorry, I don't buy it. That's my doctrinal position. If you disagree with it, there is no need to argue with me on the conclusions I draw from it. We're simply not going to agree, and that's that.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Thanks for the analysis. And it does seem that your doctrinal position centers completely on the word tongue to carry the definition "languages" in I Cor. 14:2.
To summarize, there are 3 definitions for glossa:
1) the organ
2) the organ used to represent something else metaphorically
3) languages (this use could be the figure of speech metonymy - or a substitution of the tongue for what it produces)
The Corinthians uses could possibly also be either metaphoric or metonymy (just posing the question, not in my beliefs currently).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A related question: does "laleo" make a difference?
Wierwille taught that "laleo" means speaking without reference to the words that are spoken.
That definition simply does not hold water, Biblically. Any concordance will give you a list of verses in which that word or related words are used. You will find that if you tried to apply Wierwille's definition across the board, you will very quickly be baffled. It doesn't fit. In fact, Wierwille's blunder on laleo was one of the Actual Errors from the old PFAL thread.
Laleo is the word used most often in connection with SIT. The word used in I Corinthians 14:9 is NOT laleo, but dote, which means to give. If "utter by the tongue" in THAT verse equals "speak in tongues" in the surrounding verses, then the Bible clearly indicates that speaking in tongues can, in some instances, be understood by those present. I don't feel strongly enough about it to make that bold an assertion, but I hold that it is very possible. With no explicit reason to believe that IS what Paul is saying, and no explanation for why a change in the terminology showed up out of the blue, I have little choice but to stand by the explanation I gave above. Going to continue looking at the verse and those particular words to see if I learn more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah, I remember working that a while ago. I don't remember all the details but I remember the impression I had of Wierwille's "laleo" being suspect, and can confirm that trying to apply it across the board gets you quickly baffled. I don't know if "laleo" makes a difference or not, I've not yet re-evaluated that word study post-TWI.
In I Cor. 14:9, I'm not sure if the utter by tongue is referring to SIT, or if the entire phrase "unless ye utter by the tongue speech easy to understood" is a conditional clause that stands on its own describing a separate possible act of communication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Angels are often called messengers. If people have their own tongues or languages, angels could also have their own tongues or languages. And angels since they are often referred to as messengers could also speak the languages of men. Of course speaking in tongues for ones private prayer life could primarily be a language of men because it is people that speak it. Of course, speaking in tongues may also be a language that no people or country on earth has ever used. And to prove that speaking in tongues has to be a language of men you might have to travel to every people and place on earth. Speak in tongues to them until you find someone that understands it and can verify that it is a language of man. I still consider tongues a languages though. I do it all the time in my prayer life and consider it primarily a tongue of prayer and praise to God which God understands. That is the key thing in this and not what kind of language it is. The main thing is that it is prayer and praise to God and the all knowing God understands it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I do not believe it can be a language no one has ever used. That is beyond the clear meaning of scripture.
Thanks for your input, Mark. I no longer believe SIT is a manifestation of anything more than human creativity and our hunger to fit in. But I do not begrudge anyone the right to disagree with me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Why? It doesn't meet any structural criteria that would qualify it as a language, understood or otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chockfull will need to decide for himself whether we're going off topic here. I just wanted to clue Mark in as to where i was coming from. I have no need or want to challenge him. If he didn't join the other thread, it was for a reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
There might be some nitpicking with words here. There is no reason to do that. Yes, we want to study the words well to help our understanding, but words by themselves will not help our understanding.
1 Cor 14:2
2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
NIV
I recommend simplifying this to help ones understanding. Yes, this is a tongue and yes a tongue can be considered a language. There are multiple or infinite languages that can be spoken by inspiration of God for ones prayer life. This does not have to be a language, or tongue if you only like to use that word, that any people or nation has ever spoken or used. It could be a tongue that only God knows and no man knows and this is what the verse clearly says. Keep your options open on this. The main thing is, is that tongues as a manifestation is praise to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
We're not in agreement, but hey, can't argue with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
There are an infinite number of language possibilies. We could make up another language or tongue tomorrow or tonight. It might be a very simple language with only a few words, but still could be used for some communication. God though is much better with languages or tongues than you and I. He could inspire a brand new 500 or 1000 word tongue or language on the spur of the moment as we speak in tongues in prayer and praise to him. It might have some similarities to a language of men that people have actually spoken on earth with one another, but not the same language. And still only understood by God and not by man. And a language or tongue spoken in prayer and praise to God. That is the main thing. A tongue of prayer and praise to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Let the convo flow. I don't have time to police every post to nag people to stay very narrowly on a specific topic. Plus I'm working on what interests me on the topic so hopefully that's a better effort than policing anyway. If I need to find something in the midst of static I can use Search.
I say if it's related doctrinally in your perception to the I Cor 12-14 section in any way it's fair game here, so feel free to bring it up.
There's another interesting sidetrack here. You mention the ease of making up a new language. Well, computer science has hundreds of languages, and a new one is made up almost every year. Is that completely different? Or are there similarities?
Ruling out possibilities related to this field is very, very hard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The angle on this that struck my mind reading through Raf's succinct detailing out of the scriptures with the word glossa in them was that of the three definitions, are we ABSOLUTELY SURE that glossa in I Cor. 14:2 means "languages" when used in the format "speaking in tongues" as opposed to a more figurative interpretation of metaphorically representing the physical organ itself? Could it be a "tongues like as of fire" reference? Could there be more to understanding the metonymy FOS with the tongue being stated for the language it produces? Could this metonymy be a clever play on words by God portraying that you take the action in the physical realm with the organ itself and God responds in the spiritual realm with a language?
These are just thoughts, nothing proven, nothing cemented into belief, just considering the implications and reading scripture. Probably doesn't do anything for proof for either side of the argument either, but it's an interesting consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To be clear, I was referring to Waysider's contribution and not Mark's. But if you're good with both, then so be it. Personally, while I have no problem with Waysider's contribution, I question its placement here. But again, if you're good with it, far be it from me to complain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yes, there are definitely similarities. And this is coming from someone who in the last year took two computer programming classes at two local community colleges. Both classes each involved about 16 weeks of study. One computer programming language was Java. The other was PHP. Incidentally PHP is the programming language that may have been used to build this web site. Both can be complex languages. Also I think even some animals with means of communication could be considered to have tongues or languages. They may be simplified, but nevertheless could be used for communication. I think God is a genius and can come up with a new tongue or language on the spur of the moment for prayer and praise. And it could be a new language with similarities to other languages, but brand new and never used before or at least not exactly the same as any other language used before. There are so many number of possibilies for languages. I question if any calculator has enough numbers to calculate the number of possibilities. Or at least any calculator that I have ever used. And as the above quoted verse from 1 Corinthians 14:2 says, this may be a tongue or language that only God knows and is a mystery to man.
Based on your next post Chockfull, regarding the word "language". Yes, tongues could be considered or described as a language. It could also be described as a "means of communication". With tongues via the Spirit in ones private prayer life, a means of communication with God in prayer and praise.
And reading again your above post, the Greek word for tongues is used both to describe a language and ones physical tongue. It is used in both contexts biblically.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.