;)
Misunderstanding Tongues – A Contextual Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 (Part II)
Posted by Guest Author in Bible & Theology
Definitions
1. Known Languages
All instances of spoken tongues (glossa) in the New Testament are known languages. There is not one instance where a tongue (glossa) was uttered where any other meaning is attributed to the action other than a known language. There are verses that discuss whether tongues are interpreted or should be interpreted and other verses to indicate that a tongue or tongues spoken selfishly (as one speaking tongues for oneself) will only be heard by God. Even in these circumstances, the tongue or tongues is in a known language
2. Groanings
There is one instance of the term “groanings” in the New Testament, which is translated from the Greek word “stenagmos”. The verse states that the Spirit itself intercedes for the saint, and this “groaning” when compared to the context is not necessarily best understood as a sound, because the verse states that is too deep for words and it is compared in the previous verses to the concept that the whole creation groans for its creator. The term “groanings” found in Romans 8:26 is distinct and not the same as a tongue (language) spoken in the book of Acts and a tongue or tongues referred to throughout the New Testament.
3. Tongues of Angels
In the passage 1 Corinthians 13:1-2, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. (2) If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” NASB.
The Apostle Paul is making the declaration that if he spoke and did not have love then what he was attempting to do through his speech would be worthless. The terms used by Paul to emphasize his point are “tongues of men and angels” and “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains”. Those terms do not imply that these things are actually done. Moving a mountain or speaking like an Angel is impossible for any human. Paul is using this “impossibility” to help the immature Corinthian audience understand the foolishness of their actions within context of the church. Similar statements and exaggerations are used in the English language, such as “if pigs could fly”, “the cow jumped over the moon” or “I’m sick as a dog”. The Corinthian believer’s did not actually change into a noisy gong or cymbal, nor did they actually move a mountain. Paul is using the ridiculous to illuminate the benefit of doing all things in love resulting in edification.
The “act” of speaking in a tongue or tongues is demonstrated and discussed only in the book of Acts. All other references to a tongue or tongues are in the form of commentary to the act demonstrated throughout the book of Acts. It should also be noted that Prophecy, Tongues, and Miracles will cease at the time Christ returns for his church. Until that time all the gifts of the spirit are in operation in the church for its edification. (The frequency and use of tongues is clearly seen throughout the New Testament and give believers a good indication of when and how the gift of tongues were used in the formation of the early church and the use of tongues before and after Pentecost)
1 Corinthians 13:8-10 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. (9) For we know in part and we prophesy in part; (10) but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. NASB
In summary, these first five (5) verses of the first letter to the Corinthian church, the message of Paul is clear to these fledgling Christians. Desire spiritual gifts, don’t be selfish, speak clearly and edify the church. The result is love for one another.
To Be Continued …
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
At first glance, I wonder how tongues are for the edification of the church, seeing as how the Bible says tongues are for unbelievers.
Bob,
On a simplistic level, if tongues are a sign for unbelievers, it is for the purpose of making them believers, thus edifying the church.
Two points:
(1) Analysis of conclusions, and
(2) What I think the real issue is.
Part 1 is long and boring. Skip to part 2 if you want the punch line.
—————————
(1) Analysis of conclusions:
A search for the word “tongues” in the ESV yields the following references:
Mark (1)
Acts (4)
Romans (1) [does not refer to speaking in tongues]
1 Cor (9)
Revelation (1) [does not refer to speaking in tongues]
A similar search for the word “language” yields results:
Acts (6) The first 3 are in Acts 2, the last 3 do not refer to speaking in tongues.
I Cor (1) Ch 14, which seems to emphasize the problems with unknown languages, not necessarily speaking in tongues
Rev (7) Which do not have to do with speaking in tongues.
If I recall, there is only one case in the NT (Acts 2) where it explicitly says that those speaking in tongues were understood, and it has its own special circumstances.
I did an experiment with a Sunday school class: “Open your Bibles at random and start reading out loud.” After a few moments, “Now, could any of you understand what the other people were saying?” This is the same situation as on the day of Pentecost: 120 people speaking out loud, and a crowd that hears them in their own languages.
The case in Acts 10 may refer to a single act of “speaking in tongues and extolling God,” or it may refer to these two activities in parallel. (I don’t speak Greek, so if the greek says it’s the first option, then that’s two cases, not one, of understood language.)
So there are precious few references to the practice, and at most two that specifically indicate that they were known languages. As my colleagues and I like to joke in engineering: “Given two points I an draw a straight line.”
I’m not saying that your conclusion is wrong; I disagree with it, but I can’t say either that my thoughts on the matter are right. The point is that the data doesn’t appear to support the conclusion.
Further, if speaking in tongues in a public setting requires that the language be known, then
(1) Why does Paul say he’d rather prophesy, and
(2) why does there have to be an interpreter present (and why is there a “gift” of interpretation?
In terms of “speaking in tongues of men and angels” the statement that “Those terms do not imply that these things are actually done” is an argument from silence.
—————–
(2) The real issue
I think that the problem of what speaking in tongues entails is a red herring to distract people on all sides of the issue. The real issue is our responsible practice of the gifts and callings of God. As you observe (well, Paul, but you too), the issue is love. Galatians 5 outlines the differences between the works of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit: one is self indulgent, the other is based in service and compassion.
If the debate centers on the boxes in which God’s gifts must reside – and if that debate is based in lack of evidence – then we’ve lost the real focus of Christ’s calling:
(1) Preach, saying the Kingdom of heaven is at hand
(2) Heal the sick
(3) Raise the dead
(4) Cleanse those who have leprosy
(5) Cast out demons.
“You received without paying; give without pay.”
Brother A. Hodel,
Thank you for your feedback. From your quick analysis, I certainly agree with your conclusion that speaking in a tongue within the worship and fellowship of the church is simply not normative in the early churches. That is clear from what we have in the letters written to the churches. That is also the reason that the gift of speaking in a tongue was easily singled out for correction by the Apostle, because speaking in a tongue is not some kind of circus act and was certainly easy to find imposters when love was not present. It is clear that the gift was not operating out of love, but in another manner or Paul would not have spent time explaining the abuse and its correction in love.
I am fairly certain that the happenings of Acts 2 would be difficult to re-enacted within a Sunday School environment. But the story did remind me once of when I was in a men’s meeting and this guy said he spoke in tongues and would be happy to show us. Before you could blink an eye, he went into a little chant. If he was speaking in a tongue, this guy was obviously very well versed in repeating the same word over and over….finally I told him to stop, because it was obvious that he was just mimicking something that someone else had taught him earlier in life. I was familiar with the “chant”, and certainly knew it was not a language, nor did it “speak the mighty deeds of God”, unless those deeds could be modeled by one word dozens of times. Kind of like a lot of preachers that play “Just As I Am” for 30 minutes” until someone caves in and runs to the front. Sham’s like I have just described happen all the time, and are not manifestations of the Spirit of God.
The gift of tongues is given by God. So, it is important to try and understand so that when we encounter imposters or ignorance, we are free and to lovingly correct the issue and move on. We should not dismiss the gift of tongues as an aberrant and file it away.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Bob,
Excellent question…..
“At first glance, I wonder how tongues are for the edification of the church, seeing as how the Bible says tongues are for unbelievers?”
….and really the theme of what the Apostles correction to the Corinthians is all about. Since I’m sure the Apostle didn’t use a calculator, he did have some idea that prophecy (speaking clearly the Word of God) was 200,000 percent more valuable, yet in fact he is also clear that even the least of the gifts are for edification. One important thing that the Apostle Paul never did was to belittle the gift of tongues. He acknowledged his speaking by the Spirit as more prevalent than “all”. He obviously was making “a point” in this section that he used the gifting properly and that it was beneficially understood because it was interpreted in the church.
I think Jerry is right… certainly “speaking the mighty deeds of God” is in reference to the Gospel of God (Romans 1) of which all Christians are encouraged to speak (1 Thessalonians 2). For this gospel power to be clearly understood, the Spirit of God did use the gifting of a tongue(s) as His conduit in Acts, and as evidenced by Paul himself for the edification of the church.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m not trying to draw a conclusion about what was/was not normative regarding speaking in tongues in the 1st century. I have an opinion, but it’s just an opinion. There’s enough in Acts to convince the Holiness preachers of 100 years ago that speaking in tongues was not merely normative but important; the current blog post establishes that that’s not the only way to look at the situation.
There are certainly charlatans and fakes out there, but as one Assemblies of God theologian put it nearly 30 years ago: “The cure for abuse is not disuse.” As an engineer and a charismatic, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of pursuing God’s miraculous work, yet reacting with extreme skepticism whenever it presents itself.
One of my colleagues remarked that the amount written on a subject is not necessarily related to its importance, but rather to the amount of correction required. For example, Jonathan Edwards wrote an entire book “On the Religious Affectations” to establish that emotion was a legitimate part of the Christian experience. The book would have been irrelevant unless there was need for discussion. Similarly, the Corinthian church had a LOT written to it, not merely on the topic of spiritual gifts. (A town with two merchant marine/navy ports and temple prostitution as a part of its culture is going to have some problems.)
I continue to pursue these gifts, based on three elements in the I Cor passages:
1 Cor 12:31/I Cor 14:1 Eagerly desire the greater gifts/earnestly desire the spiritual gifts.
1 Cor 14:18 I speak in tongues more than you all.
1 Cor 14:39 Do not forbid speaking in tongues (the only time in scripture that the words “Do not forbid” appear).
With that as context, we could all use that old Dilbert poster of St. Dogbert, waving his scepter and crying out, “Out, out, you demons of stupidity!”
Chris,
I was waiting on your final post to see if you added any further evidence. But, now that it is up, I don’t find any biblical justification for your claim that “all instances of spoken tongues (glossa) in the New Testament are known languages.”
As a matter of fact, the only passage that makes any specific reference to known languages in the context of “tongues” is Acts 2. I have already brought up the possibility, in my comment on Geoff’s original post on this topic, that in Acts 2 there was a miracle of hearing, not only of speaking. I think that Scott’s illustration of the hypothetical SS class is relevant here. Also, in the instances of tongues mentioned in Acts 10 and 19, it is interesting to me that “tongues” are not used as a means of communicating the gospel to unbelievers, but rather are practiced by brand new believers in the hearing of older believers. There was no need for a gift of known languages in order to facilitate communication, since the conversation was already proceeding perfectly well, presumably in Greek, before anyone ever spoke in tongues. Actually, in Acts 2, Peter also addressed the entire crowd in Greek, and apparently, everyone understood perfectly well.
The following point cannot be proven. But I think it is worthwhile pointing out. In Acts 10 and 19, even though it is likely there were not a variety of speakers of different languages present (as in Acts 2), neither is there reference to any specific tongue (or language) being spoken. If say, for instance, they were speaking in Phrygian (one of the language groups mentioned in Acts 2), or any other particular language, it would seem natural that the text (in Acts 10 or 19) would specify which language they were speaking. But, instead, it just says they were generically “speaking in tongues.”
This leaves me to wonder whether the fact that what they were actually saying could be understood or not was irrelevant. The purpose of the tongues in these instances was not in order to facilitate communication, but rather as a miraculous sign.
Since I have never thought the groanings Romans 8:26 were a reference to tongues, I will leave what you have to say about that alone.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 and “tongues of angels,” I admit that the language does appear, at first glance, to be hypothetical and hyperbolic. However, if you read all of vv. 1-3 in their context, this is not quite as evident.
V. 2 says, “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge…” Although the part about “ALL mysteries” and “ALL knowledge” do appear hypothetical and hyperbolic, the part about someone having the gift of prophecy is not.
As far as “faith that could remove mountains” (v. 2) is concerned, Jesus had already taught his disciples that with faith, they COULD remove mountains (Mt. 17:20, 21:21). As I understand it, the reason why no one has yet removed a literal, physical mountain by faith, that we know of, does not have anything to do with the amount of faith, but rather with God’s sovereign will. True biblical faith is always subject to God’s sovereign will. If it is God’s will that a mountain be removed, and His children beseech Him in faith, asking that He do so, we will eventually see mountains removed. But, as long it is not God’s will, all the “faith” in the world will not make it come to pass. The point is one may have faith, so as to remove mountains without actually removing mountains.
V. 3 says, “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned…” Now, we are in front of an example from the same context that, although admittedly extreme, is by no means strictly hypothetical or hyperbolic.
Even so, I am not basing my entire argument on the possibility that unknown, untranslatable tongues are necessarily “tongues of angels.” 1 Cor. 12:10 & 28 both make reference, though, to different KINDS of tongues, not just different tongues, but different KINDS of tongues. Also Mark 16:17 (although the textual evidence is admittedly dubious for the authenticity of this passage) references speaking in NEW tongues. Perhaps this means new to the speaker. But, I believe it is possible that this might also mean new to humanity at large. It is impossible to know for sure from the context alone.
In any case, it appears you are in agreement with me that, according to biblical teaching, tongues will not cease until the return of Christ. That leaves me to wonder, if we do not have clearly authenticated cases of believers miraculously speaking previously unlearned languages, why not? I have heard of a few such cases. But, when I also hear testimonies from believers with solid life testimonies to back them up of tongues experiences that came without them being emotionally worked up or manipulated, I have to wonder if perhaps their experience is indeed legitimate.
I agree that, no doubt, there are many fraudulent practitioners and instances of tongues. But, once again, as Scott points out, “the cure for abuse is not disuse.” I have had the privilege of having deep Christian fellowship with fellow believers who claim to speak in tongues in their private devotional life. They are not generally on a crusade to promote themselves or their practice of tongues. By all appearances, from what I am able to tell, at least some of these are among the most sincere, godly, orthodox believers I know of anywhere. Am I to assume these dear brothers and sisters are so spiritually shallow as to have been duped regarding the legitimacy of their experience? Or am I to assume they know better and are “pulling the wool over my eyes”? The only other alternative I can come up with is that indeed their experience is authentic. This doesn’t mean that I have to have the same experience in order to be as spiritual as them. The Bible clearly teaches that is not the case. But, given that evidence, I find it difficult to summarily dismiss their testimony and experience as illegitimate.
Brother David R.,
Thanks for the feedback,…
I believe that you are right that the “only passage that makes any specific reference to known languages in the context of “tongues” is Acts 2.”… and I might add the initiating reference in the course of the church post resurrection.
I’m not sure I understand Scott’s point completely.
You have said,….
“The following point cannot be proven. But I think it is worthwhile pointing out. In Acts 10 and 19, even though it is likely there were not a variety of speakers of different languages present (as in Acts 2), neither is there reference to any specific tongue (or language) being spoken. If say, for instance, they were speaking in Phrygian (one of the language groups mentioned in Acts 2), or any other particular language, it would seem natural that the text (in Acts 10 or 19) would specify which language they were speaking. But, instead, it just says they were generically “speaking in tongues.”
It seems that your argument can be used either way in Acts 10 and 19, yet the primary or initiating instance of tongues was language that is either understood or could be interpreted because it is a known dialect. There is no reason to assume that Luke would need to articulate what language was spoken at that time because the Apostles were already aware of the gift and how it operated for the benefit of the church.
I agree with you that the tongues were certainly a sign, yet did have real meaning and did not reveal a confusing message to the church,… which goes to Paul’s main point in his letter to the Corinthians for interpretation. Paul knew that the gift of tongues resulted in understood language. Certainly speaking in tongues is not going to be understood by everyone, therefore it will not benefit all, but that is not evidence that the words being spoken is a not a real dialect. Paul seems to argue for dialect coming by the Holy Spirit.
As you have articulated,…I do not believe that tongues are required to cease via biblical mandate. When I was younger my family was members of an Assemblies of God fellowship. There was obvious and overt abuse in many of the worship services, which helps me to understand the warnings that Paul gives. I try not to let those experiences color my teaching on tongues….because the church is edified by the use of gifts that are given and controlled by the Holy Spirit. That is an excellent thing to know.
I would love to sit with you and discuss this in more detail sometime. Maybe we can do another BBQ run.
Blessings,
Chris