“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries” (1 Cor. 14:2).
The gift of tongues is an exercise in mystery. A man speaking in tongues is a man who is speaking mysteries in his spirit. It is a mystery because the language is unknown to those present, and unknown to him.
Because he is speaking to God, we know that God understands him. This means that the language is unknown, not that it is unknowable. It is an unknown tongue, which is not the same thing as gibberish.
When the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost, it happened that many foreign speakers were present in Jerusalem because of the festival. What Paul says here about tongue-speaking Corinth was not the case in Jerusalem. They began speaking in other tongues (glossa, Acts 2:4), and when a crowd gathered, they heard them speaking in their own languages (dialektos, Acts 2:6). We get the word dialect from that word. They were speaking in known languages.
The saints in Corinth were doing the same thing, but the languages were not known to anyone on the premises—we will learn what the point of that was a bit later in the chapter.
Now the fact that no one else in the worship service knew the point of what was being said is used by Paul as an argument against speaking in tongues in a service, unless it was interpreted (v. 13), and then with two or three people at the most doing it (v. 27). And not to belabor the point, the fact that the tongues were required to be interpreted meant that they could be interpreted. This was an unknown language, not an unknowable language.
So whether it what was offered up was offered in the tongues of men or of angels, the prayers were made up of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs, with a defined syntax and grammar. It was not made up of groans too deep for words because groaning is not language. It was not made up of jumbled syllables, with the ah sound making the principle vowel.
Known and knowable by God, certainly. But could be of such a nature as to be permanently unknowable by humanoids.
The interpretation can be a miracle translation — with complete ignorance of the original’s syntax, grammar etc.
So it doesn’t mean the original woulda coulda or shoulda ever be known to us.
We might never be allowed to make out more than jumbled gibberish.
I find it significant that Paul identifies the speech-act of rendering the communication knowable as an “interpretation” rather than a “translation”. For starters, it introduces accommodations for local styles, flavors, dialects, etc., so that when a Southerner introduces “y’all” into the interpretation, we need not wonder whether or not the Spirit’s native tongue is Redneck. Secondly, it allows for lengthy messages in tongues to be shortened dramatically, or vice-versa, though obviously one might begin to wonder if a brief outburst in tongues turned into a full sermon from the interpreter. What it does not do, of course, is give anyone… Read more »
Moor –
Except that the interpretation is given — by the Spirit — not by someone familiar with the language.
“…the fact that the tongues were required to be interpreted meant that they could be interpreted.” Apparently that point does need belaboring.
Interpretation requires translation by the Spirit.
I found Dr. MacArthur’s brief history on the origin of speaking in tongues and the birth of the Pentecostal movement at the beginning of his book “Strange Fire” to be most interesting. When you consider what he says there, it sort of shoots down the whole modern speaking in tongues movement.
If God is giving translations and interpretations, in English nonetheless, let’s spread the (new) Words!
So wait, do you conservative Reformed folks think these tongues have ceased? If so, why?
Is Pentecost the opposite of Babel, and for the opposite reason (conquest instead of thwarting)?
Why was there never “writing in tongues” or its concomitant issues?
To clarify, I do not include Pastor Wilson’s denser writings as being “writing in tongues”
(:
Drew,
Get a copy of MacArthur’s book “Strange Fire” that I referenced earlier. As an alternative, go to his web site “Grace to You” and do a search for the “Strange Fire” conference that he hosted earlier this year. That will give you a detailed look at the whole phenomenon of speaking in tongues and why they no longer function as they did in the first century.
Victor Budgen’s cessationist book The Charismatics and the Word of God convinced me that the tongues in I Cor 14 were human languages known to the speaker and needing to be translated if the audience didn’t know the speaker’s language. (Budgen didn’t convince me of anything else.) Modern babbling is a human capacity the Bible says little or nothing about. But there are reports of language miracles today, e.g. in Bruce Olson’s book Bruchko and Jim Rutz’s Megashift. There were claims of writing in tongues (glossographia?), but I don’t know of reports of written language miracles.
Technically speaking, cessationists don’t need to claim this gift is gone. What we hold is that it won’t be public.
If a III Corinthians is discovered, we should test if it was written by God.
If a tongues speaker is translated, let’s see if it was from God. If so, add it to the Bible.
A cessationist believes we won’t discover more letters or words from God, even if they are occurring.
@eric — I wasn’t trying to imply that the interpretation is given by someone familiar with the language. Paul lists interpretation of tongues alongside the speaking, and so I assume that both are manifestations of the Spirit. Either way, from the rest of what you’ve typed, I can see that we’re on different sides of this issue, and it’s not one I care to play all the way out. I’ve followed these conversations on Doug’s blog over the years, watched several of the Strange Fire videos, read books on Pentecostal Theology, and lived in Christian communities that were theologically and… Read more »
Heaven it is! But if you do know of a Word from God produced today, why so shy about sharing it?
As someone who became a Christian in a Pentecostal environment and attended a Pentecostal Bible college for a year, I can speak anecdotally of the abuses I witnessed. There was great pressure to be like others and speak in tongues. What followed was a lot of gibberish that sounded the same every time the speaker “prayed”. Someone praying with me to speak in tongues even went so far as to say, “Repeat after me…” When the interpretations followed it was different, even though the original speaker prayed the same way each time. Later in a charismatic group, one of my… Read more »
I so often hear Cessationists cite “the abuses” of Pentacostalism as evidence for tongues ceasing. It does not follow that because there are abuses, tongues no longer exist.
Also, about the III Corinthians comment, Eric. I think you raise a good point. So should we not say that the Canon is theoretically open?
Drew — yes.
If God has spoken, should we hide it?
So… I have one question….
Was this blog entry directed at issues or questions within the Christ Church there in Moscow…. or is it simply an attempt at casting a stone through the window of someone else’s church….
I mean… It always lots more fun to point out that OTHER FELLOW’S faults….
Much more difficult to take action on those within our own house.
The reason I posted the bit about casting stones through someone else’s windows…… I have been involved with PLENTY of Charismatic and Pentecostal churches…. Their BIGGEST problem consistently has nothing to do with expression of Tongues…. but rather with a lack of intentional, organized leader training and development. You may see these places casting about because they aren’t formally teaching and developing Lay leaders to lead inductive bible studies, to organize service ministries, develop administration, to do effective outreach/evangelism, and such…. Encouraging THEM to focus on shutting down “Tongues” is a really bad idea… because IF they actually listen to… Read more »
John C.
Tongues is the least of Pentecostalism’s problems. There’s the whole heresy of the prosperity gospel and the proliferation of false prophets with their ridiculous pronouncements, the vast majority, if not all, are false. Something that would have called for the death penalty.
Len – I’d agree that where I live, the prosperity gospel teachings are a greater distortion of the gospel than anything else we’re talking about. The pervasiveness and dominance of the teachings, along with the fact that it is the clear polar opposite of what we find in the New Testament, is frightening for the future of the church in many places. I had a friend whose ministry-to-pastors in a certain Christian-minority country (he was a local) was threefold: 1) Help them to understand their rights and possible responses when facing persecution 2) Help them to incorporate service to the… Read more »
@eric — I hereby reject any perceived shyness about sharing a word from the Lord, and will happily share an example from my days in a Pentecostal setting. It was an Assemblies of God church, and back in the 90’s there was still a fair amount of tongue-speaking and interpretation taking place in the context of public (with one public speaker and one interpretation at a time, just as Paul admonishes). During one service, a message was spoken in tongues (church of about 1200 members, sanctuary containing around 800-1000, which I mention simply to give context for the volume needed… Read more »
For everyone asking why anyone would think tongues have ceased I simply ask, why should I believe they are extant? Because you say so won’t convince me. If tongues are, as I understand you to claim, not known human languages, and then one person makes some sounds whereupon he, or another says that in English it translates to thus and such, why should I believe either one of them? Where’s the verification? The burden of proof is on those that make the claim.
JohnM, Moor above gives us some new Bible. You want to know why you should accept it as the Word of God?
The same way we came to acknowledge any other part of the Book.
Eric,
Not any part of that answer even makes sense to me, let alone does it amount to anything like an answer to my question.
Well, if you want to get Christians chatting on a blog, this certainly is a good way to do it. I have been both in and out of charismatic circles and churches for most of my adult life. I will say this. When a person is truly ‘born-again’ they are truly ‘born-again’ and that is NOT dependent upon whether they speak in tongues or not. If a person is saved in a charismatic church or around that group of people, of course, they are likely to seek to speak in tongues. If they get saved in a ‘cessationist’ environment, they… Read more »
@eric — Boo.
I’m still at a loss as to why Eric associates any prophesy or interpretation of tongues in a public setting with “new Bible”. In the New Testament it is made very clear that prophecies and interpretation were going on without the actual prophecies or interpretations making their way into the Bible. And almost none of the New Testament content is based on this kind of prophecy or tongue interpretation. So for Eric’s logic to hold, he has to first insist on an exact correlation that’s not demonstrated anywhere in the teachings of Scripture nor by the content of Scripture itself,… Read more »
I insist that every word God says is gospel.
The Bible is the record of everything we have of what He has said. If we had a record of other things He said, how could we exclude them from the Book Of His Words?
Moor heard and recorded other stuff God said recently — and in English, mind you! (see above), but for some reason he still remains shy to submit this to others to get the ball rolling for verification and rightful addendum to the Scriptures we have.
Jonathan — Do you doubt that real prophecy is God’s words? Real tongues or their interpretation?
Or is it you can’t find any prophecy or translated tongues in the Bible? They’re there! (Not all, of course — much by His providence has been lost.)
But Moor claims more is now to be found. Shall we refuse to recognize it as as much the Word of God as Malachi or Galations?
Eric, I think that your impression of the Bible as a comprehensive record of God’s verbal words is far closer to the Muslim view of a Holy Book than the Christian one. I don’t think can find anything in the 27 books of the New Testament that support this particular claim about them either (and some specific contradictions – such as Luke making quite clear that the account he is writing is something he put together and not God’s verbal words, or Paul specifically stating things that he says are not directly from God). I suggest, again, that you read… Read more »
Some folks once said, I think accurately:
“The authority of the Holy Scripture … depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God